Competence and Self-Worth

Buy this book »

Some theorists have proposed that human beings have a basic need for competence—a need to believe that they can deal effectively with their environment (Boggiano & Pittman, 1992; Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Reeve, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; R. White, 1959). To achieve this sense of competence, children spend a great deal of time engaged in exploring and attempting to gain mastery over various aspects of their world. This need for competence may have evolutionary significance: It pushes growing children to develop ways of dealing more effectively with a variety of circumstances and thus increases their chances of survival (R. White, 1959).

One motivation theorist has proposed that one of people’s highest priorities is protecting their general belief that they are good, capable individuals—something he calls self-worth (Covington, 1992). Occasionally, people seem more concerned about maintaining consistent self-perceptions, even if those self-perceptions are negative (Cassidy, Ziv, Mehta, & Feeney, 2003; Hay, Ashman, van Kraayenoord, & Stewart, 1999). By and large, however, positive self-perceptions do appear to be a high priority.

Other people’s judgments and approval play a key role in the development of a sense of competence and self-worth, especially in children’s early years (Harter, 1999). Another important factor is regular success in daily activities, especially those that are new and challenging (N. E. Perry, Turner, & Meyer, 2006; Reeve et al., 2004). Learners who take on and master challenges experience considerable pleasure, satisfaction, and pride in their accomplishments (Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 1989; Shernoff, Knauth, & Makris, 2000; A. G. Thompson & Thompson, 1989; J. C. Turner, 1995).

But consistent success isn’t always possible, of course. In the face of very difficult tasks, an alternative way to maintain self-worth is to avoid failure, because failure gives the impression of low ability (Covington, 1992; Covington & Müeller, 2001; Urdan & Midgley, 2001). Failure avoidance manifests itself in a variety of ways: Learners might refuse to engage in a task, might minimize the task’s importance, or might set exceedingly low expectations for performance (Covington, 1992; Harter, 1990; A. J. Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001).

When learners cannot avoid tasks at which they expect to do poorly, they have several strategies at their disposal. They may make excuses that seemingly justify their poor performance (Covington, 1992; Urdan & Midgley, 2001). They may also do things that actually undermine their chances of success—a phenomenon known as self-handicapping. Self-handicapping takes a variety of forms, including the following:

• Reducing effort: Putting forth an obviously insufficient amount of effort to succeed
• Setting unattainably high goals: Working toward goals that even the most capable individuals couldn’t achieve
• Taking on too much: Assuming so many responsibilities that no one could possibly accomplish them all
• Procrastinating: Putting off a task until success is virtually impossible
• Cheating: Presenting others’ work as one’s own
• Using alcohol or drugs: Taking substances that will inevitably reduce performance (E. M. Anderman, Griesinger, & Westerfield, 1998; Covington, 1992; D. Y. Ford, 1996; E. E. Jones & Berglas, 1978; Riggs, 1992; Urdan, Ryan, Anderman, & Gheen, 2002)

It might seem paradoxical that learners who want to be successful would actually try to undermine their own success. But if they believe they are unlikely to succeed no matter what they do—especially if failure will reflect poorly on their intelligence and ability—such behaviors increase their chances of justifying the failure and thereby protecting their self-worth (Covington, 1992; Riggs, 1992; Urdan et al., 2002). For example, in the following interview, a student named Christine explains how a lack of effort helps her take poor classroom performance in stride: