Moderation of Success and Failure Feedback by Validation Seeking on Affect Change: Implications for Theories of Cognitive Adaptation and Self-Worth Regulation

Moderation of Success and Failure Feedbackby Validation Seeking on Affect Change:

Implications for Theories of Cognitive Adaptationand Self-Worth Regulation2

Peter Horvath1

Acadia University

Pamela Wambolt

Dr S. Gerald Hann Psychological Services

The present study examined validation seeking as a form of cognitive adaptation andself-worth regulation. A total of 88 undergraduates completed questionnaires on validationseeking and affect, a sequence task, and randomly received positive, negative, or neutralfeedback on their performance. Validation seeking was associated with anxiety and dys-phoria. It also moderated negative feedback to increase dysphoria and positive feedback toincrease positive affect and decrease anxiety at posttest. The findings were compatible withthe proposition that validation seeking can have positive coping aspects in certain circum-stances, and can be more generally conceptualized as a form of cognitive adaptation. Thefindings extend our understanding of how components in cognitive adaptation and self-

regulation facilitate well-being.jabr_46 145..164

The present study examined validation seeking as a form of cognitive adap-tation (Taylor, 1983) and self-worth regulation (Roberts & Monroe, 1999). Self-regulation is the output of effort and the use of feedback to acquire goalsimportant to the individual (Carver & Scheier, 1998; Crocker, Brook, Niiya, &Villacorta, 2006). The comparison of behaviors and outcomes to valued goals isa determinant of emotions and mood disorders (Ahrens, 1987; Endler & Kocovski,2000; Hyland, 1987; Kocovski & Endler, 2000). A particular form of such evalu-ations in self-regulation involves the comparison of the actual and the ideal self.Discrepancies between the two are one aspect of dysfunctional self-regulation andresult in low self-esteem and mood disorders (Fairbrother & Moretti, 1998;Moretti, Rein, & Wiebe, 1998; Strauman, 1995). Dysfunctions in the regulation

1Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Peter Horvath, Department ofPsychology, Acadia University, 18 University Avenue, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada, B4P 2R6.E-mail: [email protected]

2This study was partially based on the Master’s thesis of the second author and was supported bya Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Small Institutional Grant held by thefirst author.

145

Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 2010, 14, 4, pp. 145–164.

© 2010 Copyright the AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

of self-worth have been associated with negative affect and depression (Roberts& Monroe). In contrast, evaluations of similarity between the actual and idealself results in high self-esteem. In human beings, self-esteem is a basic need initself and is pursued in its own right (Crocker, 2002; Crocker & Park, 2004).When reasons for positive self-evaluations cannot be found in reality, they can becreated by individuals in distress because of personal setbacks as forms ofcognitive adaptation (Taylor; Taylor & Armor, 1996). Surprisingly, such self-generated strategies to boost self-esteem can enhance both mental and physicalhealth (Taylor; Taylor & Brown, 1988; Taylor, Kemeny, Reed, Bower, &Gruenwald, 2000). However, the long-term adaptive function of the pursuitof self-esteem for its own sake remains controversial (Crocker & Park).

Validation seeking is a form of goal or motivational orientation to pursueself-esteem for its own sake (Dykman, 1998). Dykman postulated two goalorientations or styles relevant to the development of mood disorders. Growthseeking was conceptualized as a goal orientation used by individuals to learn,improve themselves, and develop their potential. It was associated with goodpersonal adjustment (Dykman). Validation seeking, on the other hand, wasconceptualized as a dysfunctional goal orientation to prove one’s self-worth,competence, or likability. It was seen as an extrinsic goal orientation and acompensatory response to low or unstable self-esteem (Dykman). Validationseekers are vulnerable to negative affect because in development they failed toacquire a solid sense of self-worth. As a construct, validation seeking was derivedfrom Dweck’s proposition that children approach achievement tasks either froma desire to learn from their experience or from a concern to prove their abilities(Dweck & Leggett, 1988).

Validation seeking and the pursuit of self-esteem for its own sake have beenassociated with emotional problems such as anxiety and depression (Crocker &Park, 2004; Dykman, 1998; Horvath, Bissix, Sumarah, Crouchman, & Bowdrey,2008). Validation seeking evokes anxiety, dysphoria, and low self-esteem as areaction to failure and stress (Dykman; Lindsay & Scott, 2005). It has also beenassociated with personality predispositions related to dependency and perfection-ism, which act as vulnerabilities for dysphoria and depressive symptoms(Horvath et al.; Lindsay & Scott).

Validation seekers use contingencies of worth to pursue self-esteem (Dykman,1998; Friedman, Cooper, Chladek, & Rudy, 2007). Contingencies of worth arethe criteria and rules used to evaluate the self based on the achievement of goals(Crocker, 2002). Intrinsic or extrinsic motives or goals can be used in theseevaluations (Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, & Bouvrette, 2003). Intrinsic motivesinvolve the pursuit of goals and activities that are inherently interesting to theindividual (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Extrinsic motives, on the other hand, involve thepursuit of goals and activities because they lead to some other gain. The use ofcontingencies of worth based on extrinsic goals are core components in dysfunc-

146 HORVATH AND WAMBOLT

tional regulations of self-worth (Roberts & Monroe, 1999), and have been shownto result in negative affect and poor adjustment when not realized (Crocker;Crocker, Karpinski, Quinn, & Chase, 2003; Crocker, Luhtanen. et al.; Deci &Ryan, 2000). Extrinsic goal orientations are also associated with low self-determination or control over one’s motives (Ryan & Deci). Intrinsic goal pur-suits, on the other hand, are associated with self-determination and well-being(Deci & Ryan; Ratelle, Vallerand, Chantal, & Provencher, 2004; Ryan & Deci).Self-determined individuals freely choose their goals and exercise control over thecriteria by which they evaluate the self. Validation-seeking individuals, on theother hand, have been shown to be less self-determined (Dykman) and to haveless perceived control over their negative attributes (El-Alayli & Gabriel, 2007).

We propose that validation seeking is a motivational and coping orientationrelated to strategies of self-enhancement in cognitive adaptation (Taylor, 1983;Taylor & Armor, 1996). In one form of self-enhancement, individuals sufferingpersonal setbacks compare themselves with others who are in less fortunatecircumstances to thereby bolster their self-esteem. Such strategies have beenshown to increase both mental (Taylor & Brown, 1988) and physical health(Taylor et al., 2000). Some negative aspects of cognitive adaptation do not seemto exclude their usefulness. For example, cognitive adaptation theory (Taylor;Taylor & Brown) suggests that self-enhancement is based on some distortion ofreality or “positive illusions.” Similarly, negative aspects of validation seekingmight not exclude the possibility of it being useful to the individual and to haveadaptive functions in some situations.

Several lines of evidence suggest that validation seeking can have benefits incertain circumstances. Lindsay and Scott (2005) found that satisfaction withmid-term exams in validation seeking individuals was associated with increasedself-esteem and lower depressive symptoms. The compensatory nature of valida-tion seeking also suggests that it must have some advantages, otherwise peoplewould not use it. The pursuit of self-worth is common and most individuals usecontingencies of worth to promote their self-esteem (Crocker, 2002). Self-enhancement that boosts self-esteem leads to improvements in mental andphysical health (Taylor, 1983), and has been associated with self-determinedmotivation (Ratelle et al., 2004). Some questions remain, however, concerningthe nature of validation seeking and cognitive adaptation. In the Ratelle et al.study, perceived control and optimism were included with self-enhancement in anindex of cognitive adaptation, which might have accounted for their associationwith self-determination and mental health. Validation seeking, in contrast, is amore homogeneous construct than cognitive adaptation, and generally appearsto be missing a sense of self-determination (Dykman, 1998). Validation seekingalso differs from self-enhancement in other ways. Validation seekers are focusedon the pursuit of tasks and outcomes to prove their self-worth. In contrast,self-enhancement uses self-generated cognitive strategies to boost the self.

VALIDATION SEEKING AND AFFECT CHANGE 147

Finally, Dykman found that negative feedback resulted in a loss of self-esteemin validation seeking individuals. Positive feedback, however, had no effect ontheir self-esteem. Therefore, these issues remain unresolved and require furtherclarification.

Present Study

In the present study, we examined the reactions of validation seeking indi-viduals to positive and negative feedback as aspects of cognitive adaptation(Taylor, 1983; Taylor & Armor, 1996) and self-worth regulation (Roberts &Monroe, 1999). As a construct, validation seeking has similarities to the processesof self-enhancement, one of the components of the construct of cognitive adap-tation. Validation seeking, however, appears to be a precarious form of motiva-tional orientation and coping strategy, as it is based on extrinsic goals, and,consequently, vulnerable to the uncertainties of external events. Under certaincircumstances, such as success feedback, validation seeking would be expected toincrease self-esteem and positive affect. Under negative circumstances, however,validation seeking would show a loss of self-esteem and an increase in dysphoriaand anxiety, two components of negative affect. For a more comprehensiveunderstanding of the adaptive functions of validation seeking, it is important toexplore the circumstances under which it might produce beneficial as well asdetrimental effects.

The present study examined the facilitation of positive and negative affectivereactions in validation-seeking individuals as a response to feedback. We pre-dicted that validation seeking would be generally associated with negative affect.We also predicted that validation seeking would moderate the impact of feedbackon affect change. Under negative feedback conditions, validation seeking wouldfacilitate an increase in negative affect and a decrease in positive affect. Underpositive feedback conditions, however, validation seeking would facilitate adecrease in negative affect and an increase in positive affect.

Method

Participants

A total of 88 students, recruited from undergraduate psychology courses,volunteered to participate in the study. Based on their choice, 81 participantsreceived a bonus point in their psychology course, while 7 others elected to enter adraw for an Apple Ipod. The sample consisted of 68 females (77.3%) and 20(22.7%) males. The average age of the participants was 20.37 (SD = 2.80) with arange from 18 to 40 years. Eighty-two (93.2%) of the participants reported thatthey were single, 3 (3.4%) were living in common-law relationships, 2 (2.3%) were


married, and 1 did not report (1.1%). When asked about employment, 65 (73.9%)indicated that they were students, 20 (22.7%) were employed part-time, and 3(3.4%) were employed full-time. The sample consisted of 77 (87.5%) Caucasians, 2(2.3%) African-Canadians, 1 (1.1%) Asian-Canadian, 7 (8.0%) who indicated“other,” and 1 gave no response (1.1%). The mean number of years of postsec-ondary education was 1.9 (SD = 1.12), with a range from .0 to 4.5. Overall, thesample showed some depressive symptoms on the Center for EpidemiologicalStudies-Depression scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977), likely due to academic stressessuch as midterm exams. The mean of the sample (M = 16.53, SD = 10.39) was justabove 16, the raw score cutoff for depression in community samples on the CES-D.

Procedure

A quasi-experimental design was employed. First, participants answeredsome demographic questions. Next, all the participants completed the samesequence task, but upon completion of the task received either positive, neutral,or negative feedback depending on which of the three experimental conditionsthey were assigned to. Participants also completed state measures of anxiety,dysphoria, and positive affect before the sequence task and after the sequencetask and feedback. The independent variable was the type of feedback the par-ticipants received. The dependent variables were post-anxiety, post-dysphoria,and postpositive affect. Next, four personality measures were administered thatwere not the focus of the present study, but which acted as buffers between theexperimental tasks and feedback and the validation-seeking measure, also com-pleted at this time. The study followed national and university guidelines forethical research with human participants, including obtained consent, debriefing,and confidentiality. The participants were fully debriefed about the nature of thestudy and the deception used in the procedure.

Sequence task. Participants were asked to complete a sequence task (adaptedfrom Rottler, 2003) that involved eight rows of boxes. Each of the boxes con-tained Xs that created a pattern along the row. Within each row, one box wasblank, and the participants were required to determine the pattern of the row andfill in the missing Xs. Upon completion of the task, participants were givenfeedback regarding their performance. While there were correct responses to thesequences, feedback was instead based on random selection. Participants weregiven positive, negative, or neutral feedback depending on which category theywere assigned to as opposed to their actual performance on the task. They weretold that success on the task was not based on finishing all of the items. Successwas determined by the experimenter, as only he or she knew if the contingenciesfor success or failure had been met. The sequence task took about 20 minutes tocomplete on average.


Feedback. Standard positive, neutral, or negative feedback was randomlyadministered to participants in an attempt to keep each condition similar withinthe three experimental conditions. For example, individuals who were in thepositive feedback group were told, “Your performance on this task was excellent.Most people find this task very difficult, and you performed well above averagein comparison to other people.” Feedback given to those in the neutral groupconsisted of, “You did okay on this task today; most people can do a fair numberof these tasks, and your performance was about average in comparison to otherpeople.” Finally, those in the negative feedback group were told, “Your perfor-mance on this task was very poor. Most people find this task fairly easy, and youperformed well below average in comparison to other people.”

Measures

Demographic information and depressive symptoms. To determine the profileof the sample, participants completed questions on their gender, age, years ofpostsecondary education, employment, ethnic, and relationship status. They alsocompleted questions on depressive symptoms using the CES-D (Radloff, 1977).

Validation seeking. Five items were adapted for the present study from theValidation Seeking scale of the Goal Orientation Inventory (GOI; Dykman,1998) to measure tendencies to prove one’s self-worth, competence, or likability.The GOI has been shown to be a reliable and valid measure of validation seekingorientation (Dykman). The items selected from the original scale were slightlymodified for the present study to represent the desire to engage in activities for thepurpose of proving one’s self-worth. Respondents were asked to indicate theirlevel of agreement with each statement using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The selected items included, “My mainmotive in doing this task was to prove my self-worth, competence, or likeability”;and “How well I performed in this situation is a direct measure of my self-worth”;also “My approach to this situation was one of needing to prove my self-worth”;and “I viewed my difficulty with this task as an all-or-none test of my worth as aperson.” In a separate study, we found this subset of items to be highly correlatedwith the total Validation Seeking scale (r = .91, p < .001). The Cronbach’s alphafor the validation seeking scale used in the present study was .88. Thus ouradapted scale closely reflected the original scale as a measure of the tendency toseek self-worth in various situations.

Anxiety. A portion of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger,1983) was used to measure state anxiety in the current study. The STAI is a40-item self-report measure using a 4-point Likert-type rating scale ranging from1 (not at all) to 4 (very much so). The inventory contains 20 questions to measure


state anxiety and 20 for trait anxiety. However, only the 20 questions pertainingto state anxiety were used in the present study to measure the participants’reactions to the experimental manipulation. The State-Anxiety scale evaluatesfeelings of apprehension, tension, nervousness, and worry, which increase inresponse to physical danger and psychological stress. The STAI is the mostwidely used anxiety measure in research and has relatively high correlations withother measures of anxiety (Spielberger). State anxiety was assessed in the partici-pants immediately before and following the presentation of the experimental taskand feedback. In the current study, Cronbach’s alphas were .94 for pretask stateanxiety and .95 for posttask state anxiety.

Mood. Participants were asked to complete the Multiple Affect AdjectiveChecklist-Revised (MAACL-R; Zuckerman & Lubin, 1985) before and after thesequence task and feedback. The MAACL-R is a 132-item checklist that includesadjectives to evaluate subsets of affect. These include anxiety (A), depression (D),hostility (H), positive affect (PA), and sensation seeking (SS). Two forms areavailable with this checklist. One measures state affect and the other one mea-sures trait affect. Only the form designed to gauge state affect was used in thepresent study. The directions for this form instruct participants to check only thewords that describe how they currently feel as opposed to how they generally feel.The test also yields two summary scores, which are dysphoria (A + D + H) andpositive affect/sensation seeking (PA + SS). These two summary scores were theinitial focus for the present study. With respect to the PA/SS scale, it was deter-mined that it was best to use only the PA component of this scale after review ofthe reliability for these summary scales in the present sample. These two scaleswere used to gauge changes in the participants’ levels of dysphoria and positiveaffect due to the experimental conditions.

The psychometric properties for the state portion of the MAACL-R wereestablished by Zuckerman and Lubin (1985). In the present study, Cronbach’salphas for the pretask state subscales were .89 for dysphoria (A + D + H) and .92for positive affect (PA). The posttask subscales had Cronbach’s alphas of .88 fordysphoria and .91 for positive affect.

Design and Data Analysis

As a manipulation check of the experimental conditions, the effects of feed-back on affect change scores were tested with a MANOVA. This was followed upwith univariate analyses of positive affect, dysphoria, and anxiety change scores.Finally, Tukey’s post hoc comparisons tested specific significant differences inchange scores among the three experimental conditions.

The associations among the main measures were examined with Pearsoncorrelation coefficients. The moderation of the effects of task completion and


feedback by validation seeking on affect was examined with hierarchical regres-sions following the recommendations of Baron and Kenney (1986).

Results

Summary statistics for all main measures are presented in Table 1. Mainvariables were screened for outliers by looking at the histograms of scores con-verted into standard scores. Standard scores greater than 3.29 were consideredoutliers, especially if they appeared irregular in comparison with the rest of thedistribution (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). All scores were retained because onlythree outliers were detected (two for pretask dysphoria and one for posttaskdysphoria). All 88 participants responded to measures of validation seeking andpretask anxiety. However, only 87 participants completed the pre- and posttaskdysphoria and positive affect, and posttask anxiety. Aside from these incompletemeasures, there were no other missing data.

Check of Experimental Manipulation Effects on Affect Change Scores

Change scores for anxiety, dysphoria, and positive affect were calculated bysubtracting pretest scores from posttest scores. In order to determine whetherthere were overall significant differences among the three experimental conditions(e.g., positive, neutral, and negative feedback), a MANOVA was carried out onthe three affect change scores. A significant multivariate main effect indicateddifferences in affect change among the three feedback conditions, Wilks’lambda = .83, F (6, 162) = 2.62, p < .05, h2 = .09, power = .85. Tests of univariate

Table 1

Summary Statistics for All Main Measures (N = 88)

Measure Min Max M SD a

Validation seeking 5 30 12.39 6.64 .88

Pretask positive affect 0 21 8.76 6.29 .92

Pretask anxiety 20 68 38.59 12.53 .94

Pretask dysphoria 0 22 3.69 4.80 .89

Posttask positive affect 0 20 7.60 5.95 .91

Posttask anxiety 20 74 39.32 12.78 .95

Posttask dysphoria 0 22 3.37 5.19 .88


effects indicated that these changes occurred in positive affect, F (2, 83) = 7.44,p < .01, h2 = .15, power = .93, and anxiety, F (2, 83) = 5.54, p < .01, h2 = .12,power = .84, but not in dysphoria, F (2, 83) = 1.76, p > .05, h2 = .04, power = .36.Table 2 presents the means and significant univariate differences in the threeexperimental conditions on the three affect change measures. All three changes inaffect were in the directions expected according to the feedback conditions.Tukey HSD post hoc tests were also carried out testing differences among thethree feedback conditions. Given the fact that the overall sample was somewhatdepressed on the CES-D, the examination of the means of the affect changescores and the post hoc test results indicated a trend towards an increase inpositive affect in the positive feedback group in comparison to neutral feedbackgroup and a significant increase in positive affect in the positive feedback groupin comparison to the negative feedback group. Post hoc tests also indicated asignificant decrease in anxiety from pretask to posttask in the positive feedbackgroup in comparison to the negative feedback group. Overall, these analyses ofchange scores indicated that the positive feedback increased positive affect andreduced negative affect, whereas the negative feedback decreased positive affectand increased negative affect.

Correlational Analysis

Two-tailed Pearson correlations were conducted to examine significant asso-ciations among the main variables (see Table 3). The significant intercorrelationsfound among the affect change variables were as expected. Increase in positiveaffect was associated with decrease in anxiety and dysphoria. Increase in anxietywas associated with increase in dysphoria. Validation seeking was only correlatedwith an increase in anxiety, but not the other affect changes.

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Univariate Analyses of Variance Comparing theThree Experimental Feedback Conditions on Change Scores in Positive Affect,Anxiety, and Dysphoria from Pretask to Posttask

Positive Neutral Negative

FM SD M SD M SD

Positive affect change .45 3.31 -.78 3.54 -3.64 5.02 7.44**

Anxiety change -2.79 7.20 -.19 6.63 5.00 11.98 5.54**

Dysphoria change -1.31 2.25 -.41 2.73 .92 7.09 1.76

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


Effects of Task Feedback and Validation Seeking on Posttest Affect

Following the recommendation of Baron and Kenney (1986), hierarchicalmultiple regressions were used to test the moderation of the effects of feedback byvalidation seeking on affect. These were tested by analyzing the effects of feed-back on posttest affect scores, after controlling for pretest affect scores in themultiple regressions. Separate regressions examined these effects on positiveaffect, anxiety, and dysphoria. As there were three experimental levels, thefeedback variables were first dummy coded into two (k – 1) categorical variables,each with two levels, according to the recommendations of Tabachnick andFidell (2001). Accordingly, positive or negative feedback was compared sepa-rately with the other two feedback conditions. Each hierarchical multiple regres-sion had six steps. First, the pretest affect measure was entered into the regressionequation, followed by the two dummy coded feedback variables, then validationseeking, and finally the two validation seeking by feedback interactions. Signifi-cant interaction effects were further examined by follow-up analyses to determinethe source of the interaction according to the recommendations of Aiken andWest (1991). The resultant scores on the dependent measures depicting the inter-actions were then plotted on a graph and examined.

As a preliminary check on the possible effect of feedback on validationseeking, a hierarchical regression analysis was carried out. In the first and secondsteps, the two dummy-coded positive and negative feedback variables wereentered into the regression with validation seeking as the dependent variable.Neither the positive feedback (b = .06, p > .05) nor the negative feedback (b = .12,p > .05) had any effect on validation seeking.

Next, the moderation of task feedback by validation seeking on measures ofaffect was tested as follows. The first regression analysis examined the effects ofthe predictor variables on changes in positive affect (see Table 4). In the first stepof the regression, pretest positive affect significantly predicted posttest positive

Table 3

Correlation Matrix for All the Main Measures (N = 88)

1 2 3 4

1. Validation seeking — .18

2. Positive affect change -.15 —

3. Anxiety change .25* .64*** —

4. Dysphoria change .18 .44*** .63*** —

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


affect, b = .76, p < .001. In the third step, positive feedback predicted increasedpositive affect, b = .19, p < .01. In the fourth step, negative feedback predicted adecrease in positive affect, b = -.24, p < .01. In the fifth step, the interaction ofpositive feedback and validation seeking predicted an increase in positive affect,b = .19, p < .05. The final regression step with all the predictor variables in theequation was significant, R2 = .70, F (6, 80) = 31.75, p < .001.

The plot of the significant interaction showed that those who were high onvalidation seeking and received positive feedback increased in positive affect atposttest more than those who received another type of feedback (see Figure 1).

The second regression analysis tested the effects of the predictor variables onchanges in anxiety (see Table 5). In the first step of the regression, pretest anxietysignificantly predicted posttest anxiety, b = .74, p < .001. In the second step,validation seeking predicted an increase in anxiety, b = .19, p < .01. In the thirdstep, positive feedback predicted a decrease in anxiety, b = -.17, p < .05. In the

Table 4

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Posttest Positive Affect by PositiveFeedback, Negative Feedback, Validation Seeking, and Their Interactions(N = 86)

B SE B b

Step 1

Pre-positive affect 4.54 .42 .76***

Step 2

Validation (V) -.71 .41 -.12

Step 3

Positive feedback (P) 2.39 .84 .19**

Step 4

Negative feedback (N) -3.18 .93 -.24**

Step 5

V ¥ P 2.02 .78 .19*

Step 6

V ¥ N -.69 .88 -.07

Note. R2 = .58 for Step 1 (p < .001). DR2 = .01 for Step 2 (p > .05). DR2 = .04 for Step 3(p < .01). DR2 = .05 for Step 4 (p < .01). DR2 = .02 for Step 5 (p < .05). DR2 = .00 for Step6 (p > .05). *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


fourth step, negative feedback predicted an increase in anxiety, b = .21, p < .01. Inthe fifth step, the interaction of positive feedback and validation seeking pre-dicted a decrease in anxiety, b = -.18, p < .05. The final regression step with all thepredictor variables in the equation was significant, R2 = .68, F (6, 80) = 28.11,p < .001.

The plot of the significant interaction showed that those who were high onvalidation seeking and received positive feedback decreased in anxiety at posttestmore than those who received another type of feedback (see Figure 2).

The third regression analysis tested the effects of the predictor variables onchanges in dysphoria (see Table 6). In the first step of the regression, pretestdysphoria significantly predicted posttest dysphoria, b = .62, p < .001. In thesecond step, validation seeking significantly predicted an increase in dysphoria,b = .18, p < .05. In the third step, positive feedback significantly predicted adecrease in dysphoria, b = -.17, p < .05. In the final step, the interaction ofnegative feedback and validation seeking predicted an increase in dysphoria,b = .28, p < .05. The final regression step with all the predictor variables in theequation was significant, R2 = .51, F (6, 80) = 13.93, p < .001.

The plot of the significant interaction showed that those who were high onvalidation seeking and received negative feedback increased in dysphoria atposttest more than those who received another type of feedback (see Figure 3).

Interaction of Validation with Positive Feedback on Postpositive Affect

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

High Validation Low ValidationMotivation Orientation

Po

stp

osi

tive

Aff

ect

Other Feedback Positive Feedback

Figure 1. Moderation of positive feedback by validation seeking on posttest positiveaffect.


Discussion

Considering the fact that the sample was somewhat depressed, participantsmight have been more sensitive to negative feedback than positive ones. Never-theless, the analyses of variance revealed that positive feedback tended to increasepositive affect and decreased anxiety, and the negative feedback decreased posi-tive affect and increased anxiety. The examination of the affect change means andintercorrelations also supported this conclusion. The regression analyses alsoindicated that positive feedback increased positive affect and decreased anxietyand dysphoria, and the negative feedback decreased positive affect and increasedanxiety. The overall results of the present study, therefore, indicated that the taskfeedback produced changes in affect in the expected directions.

The regression analyses indicated that validation seeking was associated withanxiety and dysphoria. Our findings also indicated that validation seeking mod-erated the effects of feedback on changes in affect from pretest to posttest. It

Table 5

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Posttest Anxiety by Positive Feed-back, Negative Feedback, Validation Seeking, and Their Interactions (N = 86)

B SE B b

Step 1

Pre-anxiety 9.46 .94 .74***

Step 2

Validation (V) 2.48 .90 .19**

Step 3

Positive feedback (P) -4.67 1.82 -.17*

Step 4

Negative feedback (N) 5.81 2.10 .21**

Step 5

V ¥ P -4.10 1.77 -.18*

Step 6

V ¥ N 3.16 2.00 .15

Note. R2 = .54 for Step 1 (p < .001). DR2 = .04 for Step 2 (p < .01). DR2 = .03 for Step 3(p < .05). DR2 = .03 for Step 4 (p < .01). DR2 = .02 for Step 5 (p < .05). DR2 = .01 for Step6 (p > .05). *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


increased positive affect and decreased anxiety as a response to positive feedback.Validation seeking also increased dysphoria as a response to negative feedback.These findings suggest that validation seeking individuals are sensitive to theoutcome of events and the valence of their emotional reactions depends oncircumstances. As expected, they react to negative feedback with negative affect.However, they can also react to positive feedback with positive affect. Conse-quently, individuals might adopt validation seeking as a motivational orientationand coping strategy because under favorable circumstances, it can produce posi-tive emotions and reduce stress. Validation seeking can be adaptive as long as theindividual meets with success.

Ahrens (1987) suggested that goals, outcomes, and their relations play crucialroles in the onset of negative affect and depression. Individuals high on validationseeking appear to be sensitive to feedback because they stake their self-worth onthe outcome of events. This sensitivity is likely to be due to their extrinsic goalorientations (Dykman, 1998; Friedman et al., 2007) and use of contingencies ofworth (Crocker & Park, 2004). Basing one’s self-esteem on extrinsic goals andcontingencies of worth make individuals highly reactive to events (Crocker,Karpinski, et al., 2003), and has been associated with negative affect (Morettiet al., 1998) and poor adjustment when not realized (Crocker, 2002; Crocker,Karpinski, et al., 2003; Crocker, Luhtanen, et al., 2003). Reliance on extrinsicgoals like others’ approval and one’s appearance is also more associated with

Interaction of Validation with Positive Feedback on Post-Anxiety

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Motivation Orientation

Po

st-A

nxi

ety

Other Feedback Positive Feedback

High ValidationLow Validation

Figure 2. Moderation of positive feedback by validation seeking on posttest anxiety.


poor adjustment than reliance on more intrinsic goals like family support, virtue,or religion (Crocker, Luhtanen, et al., 2003). Reliance on the former goals islikely to produce less reliable and consistent positive feedback to the self thanreliance on the latter. Extrinsic goal orientations might also displace the indi-vidual’s ability to make use of intrinsic goals and interests.

Intrinsic motivational orientations tend to reflect self-determination and areassociated with well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Research on self-determinationtheory has shown that goals that are chosen out of interest are more adaptive andare associated with mental health (Ratelle et al., 2004; Ryan & Deci). The indi-vidual’s control over their goal selection likely increases the occasion for positiveexperiences. Low self-determination, in contrast, likely reduces the individual’scontrol over positive experiences and therefore, their frequency. The low fre-quency of self-reinforcement has been shown to be highly predictive of depressivesymptoms (Kocovski & Endler, 2000). It is this reduced frequency and consis-tency in positive feedback to the self, which might make validation seekers more

Table 6

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Posttest Dysphoria by Positive Feed-back, Negative Feedback, Validation Seeking, and Their Interactions (N = 86)

B SE B b

Step 1

Pre-dysphoria 3.21 .44 .62***

Step 2

Validation (V) .91 .43 .18*

Step 3

Positive feedback (P) -1.88 .90 -.17*

Step 4

Negative feedback (N) 1.76 1.05 .15

Step 5

V ¥ P -1.42 .90 -.15

Step 6

V ¥ N 2.36 .99 .28*

Note. R2 = .38 for Step 1 (p < .001). DR2 = .03 for Step 2 (p < .05). DR2 = .03 for Step 3(p < .05). DR2 = .02 for Step 4 (p > .05). DR2 = .02 for Step 5 (p > .05). DR2 = .03 forStep 6 (p < .05). *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


vulnerable to negative affect. Future research will need to examine these ques-tions. For example, motivational orientations resulting in low reliability andconsistency of positive feedback might be related to associations found in pastresearch between variability in self-esteem and depression (see Butler, Hokanson,& Flynn, 1994; Kernis, Grannemann, & Mathis, 1991; Roberts & Gotlib, 1997).

A unique finding of the present study was that validation seekers alsoresponded positively to success feedback. Only a few studies have demonstratedthis positive aspect of validation seeking (Lindsay & Scott, 2005). This findingdiffers from Dykman’s (1998) overall view of validation seeking as a dysfunctionalgoal orientation. Our results, in contrast, suggest that goal orientations, includingvalidation seeking, might be adopted as forms of coping. Validation seeking, as itis extrinsically based and highly reactive to circumstances, might be adaptive whenthe individual continues to meet success. When self-enhancement strategiesare successful, they foster feelings of well-being (Ratelle et al., 2004). The sameappears to be true of validation seeking. However, there are also some differencesbetween validation seeking and self-enhancement as described in cognitive adap-tation theory. In spite of their similarities, low self-determination in validation-seeking individuals (see Dykman) might result in their having less controlover their self-evaluations. Whereas in self-enhancement, the boost tothe self is self-generated, and therefore more likely, the positive feedback that

Interaction of Validation with Negative Feedback on Post-Dysphoria

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Motivation Orientation

Po

st-D

ysp

ho

ria

Other Feedback Negative Feedback

High ValidationLow Validation

Figure 3. Moderation of negative feedback by validation seeking on posttestdysphoria.


validation seekers desire is based on external events over which they have lesscontrol. This difference in the generation of positive feedback to the self might bewhat distinguishes validation seeking from the self-enhancement strategiesdescribed by Taylor (1983; Taylor & Armor, 1996). Individuals with insecurepersonality styles, such as dependency, might similarly rely on sources of valida-tion that are not under their control and accordingly are less reliable or consistent(see Roberts & Monroe, 1999).

Based on the present results as well as past research, we propose that indi-viduals might have difficulties with the regulation of self-worth because theyuse strategies that reduce their control over the frequencies of their positiveexperiences. Control theory has outlined similar proposals by which discrepan-cies between goals and outcomes can vary in the individual and determinemood disorders (Carver & Scheier, 1998; Hyland, 1987). The differencebetween the present analysis and control theory is the degree of emphasisplaced on the influence of subjective perception. Control theory focuses moreon the central role of the subjective evaluation of feedback and its discrepancyfrom goals in the determination of mood disorders. In contrast, we are empha-sizing more how the frequency of positive feedback in social systems can actu-ally be influenced by various social and cognitive strategies and by processes ofgoal selection.

Some limitations of the present study need to be considered. This study wasbased on a limited sample size and an uneven number of men and women, andtherefore its generality cannot be taken for granted. The sequence task andfeedback were aimed more at achievement than social needs and goals. On thechange score analyses, the positive feedback appears to have had only a limitedeffect in raising positive affect in comparison to the neutral condition. Given thefact that this sample was somewhat stressed and depressed, however, thisoutcome is not unexpected and likely does not contradict the results of theregression analyses. We may conclude therefore that overall, the feedback hadenough effect to test the hypotheses. We also used an adapted version of thevalidation seeking scale to measure the tendency to be engaged in situations forthe purpose of boosting self-worth. Although it was much shorter than theoriginal scale, the items were highly correlated with the original measure. Thevalidation seeking measure was also administered after the task completionfeedback, and this could have confounded the moderation effects of validationseeking on affect. However, the task feedback appeared to have no effect on thisgoal orientation, so there is little evidence that there are confounds between thesepredictor variables. We also did not measure diagnosed mood disorders in clini-cal populations. Nevertheless, we feel that the present findings are valid anduseful in helping to understand the cognitive and motivational antecedents ofself-regulation and helped to clarify issues that had remained ambiguous orunresolved.


In summary, our findings suggest that validation seeking might have someadaptive functions in certain circumstance, and in this way appears to resembleaspects of self-regulation and cognitive adaptation. The enhanced theory ofself-regulation and cognitive adaptation outlined in this paper might help us tounderstand better the strategies individuals use to promote and protect theirself-worth. These findings have implications for how individuals might be able toenhance their mental well-being and should be further explored in futureresearch.

References

Ahrens, A. H. (1987). Theories of depression: The role of goals and the self-evaluation process. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11, 665–680.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpretinginteractions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Baron, R., & Kenney, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in socialpsychology research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Butler, A. C., Hokanson, J. E., & Flynn, H. A. (1994). A comparison of self-esteem lability and low trait self-esteem as vulnerability factors for depres-sion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 166–177.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Crocker, J. (2002). Contingencies of self-worth: Implications for self-regulationand psychological vulnerability. Self and Identity, 1, 143–149.

Crocker, J., Brook, A. T., Niiya, Y., & Villacorta, M. (2006). The pursuit ofself-esteem: Contingencies of self-worth and self-regulation. Journal of Per-sonality, 74, 1749–1771. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00427.x

Crocker, J., Karpinski, A., Quinn, D. M., & Chase, S. K. (2003). When gradesdetermine self-worth: Consequences of contingent self-worth for male andfemale engineering and psychology majors. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 85, 507–516. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.507

Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contin-gencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 894–908. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.894

Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. PsychologicalBulletin, 130, 392–414. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.392

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits:Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry,11, 227–268.


Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivationand personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

Dykman, B. (1998). Integrating cognitive and motivational factors in depression:Initial tests of a goal-orientation approach. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 74, 139–158.

El-Alayli, A., & Gabriel, S. (2007). To prove or to improve? Which motivedistorts perceptions of personality controllability?Personality and Social Psy-chology Bulletin, 33, 1572–1586. doi: 10.1177/0146167207305539

Endler, N. S., & Kocovski, N. L. (2000). Self-regulation and distress in clinicalpsychology. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbookof self-regulation (pp. 569–599). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Fairbrother, N., & Moretti, M. (1998). Sociotropy, autonomy, and self-discrepancy: Status in depressed, remitted depressed, and control partici-pants. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22, 279–296.

Friedman, R. S., Cooper, M. L., Chladek, M. R., & Rudy, D. (2007). Investi-gating the link between validation seeking and lay dispositionism. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 463–475. doi: 10.1177/0146167206296298

Horvath, P., Bissix, G., Sumarah, J., Crouchman, E., & Bowdrey, J. (2008).Motivational orientation, expectancies, and vulnerability for depression inwomen. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 35, 19–32.doi: 10.1300/J005v35n02-03

Hyland, M. (1987). Control theory interpretation of psychological mechanismsof depression: Comparison and integration of several theories. PsychologicalBulletin, 102, 109–121.

Kernis, M. H., Grannemann, B. D., & Mathis, L. C. (1991). Stability of self-esteem as a moderator of the relation between level of self-esteem and depres-sion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 80–84.

Kocovski, N. L., & Endler, N. S. (2000). Self-regulation: Social anxiety anddepression. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 5, 80–91.

Lindsay, J. E., & Scott, W. D. (2005). Dysphoria and self-esteem following anachievement event: Predictive validity of goal orientation and personalitystyle theories of vulnerability. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29, 769–785.doi: 10.1007/s10608-005-9637-6

Moretti, M., Rein, A., & Wiebe, V. (1998). Relational self-regulation: Genderdifferences in risk for dysphoria. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 30,243–252.

Radloff, L. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for researchin the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.

Ratelle, C. F., Vallerand, R. J., Chantal, Y., & Provencher, P. (2004). Cognitiveadaptation and mental health: A motivational analysis. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 34, 459–476. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.208


Roberts, J. E., & Gotlib, I. H. (1997). Temporal variability in global self-esteemand specific self-evaluation as prospective predictors of emotional distress:Specificity in predictors and outcome. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106,521–529.

Roberts, J., & Monroe, S. (1999). Vulnerable self-esteem and social processes indepression: Toward an interpersonal model of self-esteem regulation. In T.Joiner & Coyne J. (Eds.), The interactional nature of depression: Advances ininterpersonal approaches (pp. 149–187). Washington: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Rottler, A. (2003). Rottus’ Sequence Test. Retrieved July 13, 2006, from http://www.bricks-game.de/seqtest/rst_neu2.html

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitationof intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psy-chologist, 55, 68–78. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.68

Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI).Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Strauman, T. J. (1995). Psychopathology from a self-regulation perspective.Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 5, 313–321.

Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.).Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Taylor, S. E. (1983). Adjustment to threatening events: A theory of cognitiveadaptation. American Psychologist, 38, 1161–1173.

Taylor, S. E., & Armor, D. A. (1996). Positive illusions and coping with adver-sity. Journal of Personality, 64, 873–898.

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusions and well-being: A social psycho-logical perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.

Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., Reed, G. M., Bower, J. E., & Gruenwald, T. L.(2000). Psychological resources, positive illusions and health. American Psy-chologist, 55, 99–109. doi: 10.1037//003-066X.55.a1.99

Zuckerman, M., & Lubin, B. (1985). Manual for the Multiple Affect AdjectiveChecklist-Revised (MAACL-R).San Diego, CA: EdITS.


Documents

Moderation of Success and Failure Feedback by Validation Seeking on Affect Change: Implications for Theories of Cognitive Adaptation and Self-Worth Regulation