Table Of ContentUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville
Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative
Exchange
Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School
8-2002
Te Integrative Model of Personality Assessment
for Achievement Motivation and Fear of Failure:
Implications for the Prediction of Efort and
Performance
Mark Nathaniel Bing
University of Tennessee - Knoxville
Recommended Citation
Bing, Mark Nathaniel, "Te Integrative Model of Personality Assessment for Achievement Motivation and Fear of Failure:
Implications for the Prediction of Efort and Performance. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2002.
htps://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/2097
Tis Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more
information, please contact
To the Graduate Council:
I am submiting herewith a dissertation writen by Mark Nathaniel Bing entitled "Te Integrative Model
of Personality Assessment for Achievement Motivation and Fear of Failure: Implications for the
Prediction of Efort and Performance." I have examined the fnal electronic copy of this dissertation for
form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfllment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Psychology.
Dr. Lawrence R. James, Major Professor
We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance:
Dr. William H. Calhoun, Dr. Warren H. Jones, Dr. Kathleen A. Lawler
Accepted for the Council:
Dixie L. Tompson
Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School
(Original signatures are on fle with ofcial student records.)
To the Graduate Council:
I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Mark Nathaniel Bing entitled “The
Integrative Model of Personality Assessment for Achievement Motivation and Fear of
Failure: Implications for the Prediction of Effort and Performance.” I have examined
the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that
it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy, with a major in Psychology.
Dr. Lawrence R. James
Major Professor
We have read this dissertation
and recommend its acceptance:
Dr. William H. Calhoun
Dr. Warren H. Jones
Dr. Kathleen A. Lawler
Accepted for the Council:
Dr. Anne Mayhew
Vice Provost and
Dean of Graduate Studies
(Original signatures are on file with official student records.)
THE INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT FOR
ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION AND FEAR OF FAILURE: IMPLICATIONS FOR
THE PREDICTION OF EFFORT AND PERFORMANCE
A Dissertation
Presented for the
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Mark Nathaniel Bing
August 2002
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to H. Kristl Davison, and her steadfast support
and devotion that made the writing of this manuscript worthwhile. This dissertation is
also dedicated to my parents, John Daniel Bing and Patricia Bethke Bing, whose
devotion to excellence and exemplary behavior most certainly instilled within me the
achievement strivings that are at the heart of this work in both substance and spirit.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There are many persons who are deserving of acknowledgement and thanks
with respect to the production of this research. The insights of Lawrence R. James
have always been invaluable for my intellectual development in general, and his
conceptualizations of achievement motivation and fear-of-failure, in both their explicit
and implicit forms, were essential for the progression of this research. Discussions
with H. Kristl Davison, James M. LeBreton, James C. Whanger, Michael D. McIntyre,
and Anthony L. Hemmelgarn advanced my understanding of the psychological
constructs central to the current work, and certainly made this pursuit more enjoyable.
I would also like to acknowledge the other members of Lawrence R. James’ research
team with whom I cooperated in data gathering efforts, including James M. LeBreton,
David B. Vermillion, Debrah Z. Migetz, William R. Walton, and Jennifer R. D.
Burgess. Thanks are also owed to dissertation committee members Kathleen A.
Lawler, Warren H. Jones, and William H. Calhoun for their support, patience, and
insightful comments.
iii
ABSTRACT
While both self-report (SR) and conditional reasoning (CR) measures of
achievement motivation (AM) and fear-of-failure (FF) have been shown to be
predictive of academic and organizational outcomes (James, 1998; Spangler, 1992),
substantial criterion variance is often left unaccounted for by either measurement
system when used in isolation. The current work proposes a new, theoretical model of
AM and FF created by integrating information on explicit cognitions gathered from SR
with information on implicit cognitions gathered from CR. This “integrative model” of
assessment provides an enhanced understanding of the approach-avoidance conflicts
people experience when they are faced with challenging tasks. Predictions derived
from the model are supported in two student samples and one managerial sample.
Specifically, the explicit and implicit AM/FF cognitions combine additively or
multiplicatively in the prediction of effort and performance. It is concluded that in
order to advance our understanding and prediction of behavior, psychologists should
integrate explicit personality components with implicit components in theoretical and
practical pursuits.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………...…... 1
Past Integrative Investigations of Personality………………………..………... 2
Conditional Reasoning……………………………………….……..…………..8
Measurement of Conditional Reasoning………………………..……………. 10
Integrative Model of Achievement Motivation and Fear-of-Failure……..…...18
Empirical Predictions of the Integrative Model……………………..……….. 25
CHAPTER 2: STUDY 1A…………………………….…..………………………… 31
Method………………………………………..……………………………… 33
Results………………………………………..………………………….…… 42
Discussion………………………………………..…………….…………….. 56
CHAPTER 3: STUDY 1B……………………………………….……………..…….60
Method……………………………………………………………..………… 60
Results………………………………………………..………………….…… 62
Discussion………………………………….………………..……………….. 65
CHAPTER 4: STUDY 1C…………………………………………..………………. 68
Method……………………………………………………..………………… 68
Results………………………………………………………………..….…… 69
Discussion………………………………….……………………..………….. 72
v
CHAPTER 5: STUDY 2………………………………………….....………………. 73
Method…………………………………..…………………………………… 73
Results…………………………………………..……………………….…… 76
Discussion………………………………….…………..…………………….. 80
CHAPTER 6: STUDY 3…………………………………………...…..……………. 83
Method……………………………………………..………………………… 83
Results………………………………………………………..………….…… 87
Discussion………………………………….…………..…………………….. 93
CHAPTER 7: GENERAL DISCUSSION…………………..…………….……….... 94
LIST OF REFERENCES………………………………………..………….…..……102
APPENDICES…………………………………………………...……….………….111
Appendix a: Tables………..……………………………..………………….112
Appendix b: Figures………………..………………..……………….…….. 128
Appendix c: Cryptoquote Task……….…………..…………………….….. 149
VITA…………………………………………..…………………………………..... 156
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Integrative Model of the Affiliative Motive with
Extraversion—Introversion and Resulting Hypotheses
(adapted from Winter et al., 1998, Table 3, p. 238)………………………..… 113
2. Justification Mechanisms for Achievement Motivation and
Fear-of-Failure (adapted from James, 1998, pp. 134 & 137)……………….… 114
3. Integrative Model of Personality Assessment for Achievement Motivation
and Fear of Failure……………………………………………………………..115
4. Study 1: Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables………………………….. 116
5. Study 1: Correlations Among Study Variables………………………………. 117
6. Study 1: Effects of Latent (RMS) and Self-Reported (SR) Achievement
Motivation and Their (In)congruence on Persistence, Intensity, Effort, and
School Performance with and without Controlling for Cognitive
Ability (ACT Composite) on Step 1………………………………….………. 118
7. Study 1: Significance Tests of Simple Slopes with RMS as the Predictor
and Self-Report as the Moderator…………………………………………….. 119
8. Study 2: Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables……………………….…..120
9. Study 2: Correlations Among Study Variables…………………………..……121
vii
