self-engagement as a predictor of performance and emotional reactions to performance outcomes

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Self-engagement as a predictor of performanceand emotional reactions to performanceoutcomes

ThomasW. Britt*, Eric S. McKibben, Tiffany M. Greene-Shortridge,Adam Beeco, Ashley Bodine, Jennifer Calcaterra, Terri Evers,Jessica McNab and Amanda WestClemson University, South Carolina, USA

Three studies examined the relationship between engagement in different types oftasks, performance on those tasks, and reactions to performance outcomes. The threestudies included voting in the 2004 presidential election, test performance in anundergraduate course, and completion of personal projects during the course of thesemester. Engagement in voting predicted voting in the presidential election andmagnified positive feelings of voting for the winning candidate. Test engagementpredicted performance on the test, and magnified positive feelings of not showing adiscrepancy between expected and actual test performance. Engagement in personalprojects interacted with task complexity to predict project completion, withengagement being related to goal completion for tasks high in complexity. Projectengagement also magnified the positive effects of a high probability of completing theproject. The results provide support for task engagement as a predictor of performanceand as a facilitator of positive feelings following success.

‘Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by

failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much,

because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat’. A quote from

Theodore Roosevelt cited in Loehr and Schwartz (2004, p. 206).

We can all recall times where we were personally engaged in different activities and

performances, and how well or poorly, we did really mattered to us. Britt and his

colleagues have defined self-engagement as feeling responsible for and committed to

performance in different areas, so that performance in the area matters to the individual(Britt, 1999, 2003a; Britt, Dickinson, Greene-Shortridge, & McKibben, 2007). Therefore,

to be self-engaged in a task is to feel responsible for task performance, and this sense of

* Correspondence should be addressed to Dr Thomas W. Britt, Department of Psychology, 418 Brackett Hall, ClemsonUniversity, Clemson, SC 29334, USA (e-mail: [email protected]).

TheBritishPsychologicalSociety

237

British Journal of Social Psychology (2010), 49, 237–257

q 2010 The British Psychological Society

www.bpsjournals.co.uk

DOI:10.1348/014466609X438090


responsibility connects the outcomes of performance to the individual’s identity.

Therefore, performance on the task should be more consequential for individuals whose

self is engaged in the activity. Individuals who are personally engaged in a domain care

about how they perform, because a part of themselves has been invested in that domain

(Schlenker, Britt, Pennington, Murphy, & Doherty, 1994). Therefore, individuals who are

personally engaged in a given domain should exert extra effort to maximize theirperformance, and should also experienced enhanced emotional reactions to whether

they succeed or fail (Burton, Lydon, D’Alessandro, & Koestner, 2006).

Self-engagement in an activity is hypothesized to be determined by four primary

factors: the extent to which the guidelines for the activity are clear, the relevance of the

activity to key aspects of the individual’s identity, the amount of control individuals feel

they have over their performance on the activity, and the overall importance of the

activity in question (Britt, 2003a, b; Schlenker, et al. 1994). Prior research has shown

that each of these factors independently predicts variation in self-engagement indifferent areas (Britt, 1999, 2003a, b).

Prior work has revealed that being personally engaged in a domain is predictive of

performance in that domain. For example, Britt, Thomas, and Dawson (2006) found that

Reserve Officers Training Corps cadets who were personally engaged in a leadership

training course received higher scores on leadership by expert ratings at the end of the

course. In examining a more simple behaviour, Britt (2003a,b) found that being

personally engaged in voting during the 2000 presidential election was predictive of

reported voting in the election after it was over.In addition, there is some indirect support for the hypothesis that engagement in a

domain can serve to magnify emotional reactions to success versus failure in that domain.

Britt, Castro, and Adler (2005) conducted a longitudinal study of soldiers who were at their

home duty station. These authors assessed job engagement, perceptions of work overload,

and physical symptoms (amongother variables) at Time 1 and then 3 months later at Time 2.

The authors found that job engagement interacted with work overload at Time 1 to

predict physical symptoms at Time 2, even when controlling for physical symptoms at

Time 1. The pattern of the interaction revealed that among those high in job engagement,perceptions of work overload were related to increased symptoms at Time 2.

This relationship was not observed for soldiers scoring lower in job engagement. Britt,

et al. (2005) argued that being overloaded at work decreases the ability to achieve high

levels of success, which should be especially upsetting for those high in job engagement.

Although prior research has provided some support for the consequences of self-

engagement for performance and emotional reactions to performance outcomes, this

research has only examined limited performance domains. In addition, no research has

directly examined whether engagement magnifies the emotional consequences ofsucceeding versus failing on different tasks. Finally, prior research has not ruled out the

possibility that constructs associated with self-engagement are responsible for the

hypothesized effects.

The purpose of the present research was to fill in these gaps. We examined the ability

of self-engagement to predict performance and emotional reactions to performance

outcomes in three different areas: voting in the 2004 presidential election, performance

on a class test, and completing personal projects during the course of the semester. In

each case, we examined engagement in the particular area, performance in the area, andemotional reactions to success or failure in the area. In the first two studies (voting in the

election and performing on a class test), we examined the predictive ability of

engagement in the performance domain in comparison to that of a related construct,

238 Thomas W. Britt et al.


contingencies of self-worth (CSW). Crocker and Wolfe (2001, p. 594) have defined CSW

as ‘a domain or category of outcomes on which a person has staked his or her self-

esteem, so that person’s view of his or her value or worth depends on perceived

successes or failures or adherence to self-standards in that domain’.

The critical difference between engagement in a performance domain and CSW is

that engagement is not explicitly tied to the evaluation of self (self-esteem). Thequestions used to assess CSW specifically ask individuals to consider the extent to which

their self-esteem is affected by success versus failure in broad domains. In contrast,

questions used to assess self-engagement do not specifically ask participants to consider

how their self-esteem is affected by performance, but rather address perceptions of

responsibility for performance and how performance outcomes matter to the individual.

Although repeated poor performance in an area of high engagement may take a toll on

one’s self-esteem (or repeated excellent performance may boost self-esteem), self-

engagement is focused primarily on the performance domain itself, rather than on theself-evaluative consequences of performance. We argue that engagement in a

performance domain can magnify the emotional consequences of performance

outcomes without necessarily harming the individual’s self-esteem (see also Kernis,

2003). In fact, individuals may adaptively use both negative and positive emotional

responses to infer performance areas they really care about (see Epstein, 1973). Given

the theoretical differences between engagement and CSW, we expect engagement to

predict performance and emotional responses to performance outcomes even when

controlling for CSW.In our third study involving the pursuit of personal projects, we tested the

predictive ability of self-engagement controlling for indicators of controlled and

autonomous motivation. Ryan and Deci (2000) proposed a continuum of autonomy

for behaviour ranging from highly controlled to highly autonomous. At the controlled

end, individuals may engage in a behaviour for external rewards such as money or

praise (extrinsic motivation), or because they feel they ought to engage in the

behaviour to avoid disapproval (introjected motivation). At the autonomous end,

individuals may engage in a behaviour because they find inherent enjoyment in theactivity (intrinsic motivation), or because the behaviour is connected to aspects of

their self-concept that they hold as important (identified motivation). We would argue

that pursuing a behaviour for identified reasons should be predictive of self-

engagement in the performance domain. However, we see self-engagement as more

proximally focused on performance in the given domain, and would, therefore, argue

it should be uniquely predictive of performance and emotional responses to

performance outcomes.

In addition to better situating the construct of self-engagement as a predictor ofperformance within the broader motivation literature, the present paper also serves to

connect the role of self-engagement to prior work on reactions to positive versus

negative performance events. Prior work has shown a tendency for individuals to

exhibit a self-serving bias when reacting to performance outcomes, such that

individuals take personal responsibility for success but blame outside forces for failure

(Campbell & Sedikides, 1999; Taylor & Brown, 1988). This allows individuals to

experience more positive emotions following success and fewer negative experiences

following failure. In the present research, we address whether engagement in aperformance domain magnifies emotional reactions to performance outcomes,

showing both enhanced positive emotions following success and negative emotions

following failure.

Self-engagement and performance 239


STUDY 1: ENGAGEMENTANDVOTING IN THE 2004 PRESIDENTIALELECTION

Introduction

The first studyexamined engagement as a predictor of voting and emotional reactions to the

2004 presidential election for the USA. Prior research has identified a number of different

variables that predict whether individuals vote in different political elections, includingdemographic variables (see Britt, 2003a), understanding the procedures for voting

(Jaccard, Knox, & Brinberg, 1980), viewing voting as an important part of being a US citizen

(Katosh & Traugott, 1981), and having a sense of control over the political process

(Sabucedo & Cramer, 1981). Britt (2003a) argued that many prior predictors of voting fall

under different components of the Triangle Model of Responsibility (Schlenker, 1997;

Schlenker, etal.1994), and found support for engagement in voting prior to the election as a

predictor of voting in the election. Furthermore, engagement in voting completely

mediated the relationship between reported voting and such variables as clarity ofguidelines for voting, personal control over voting, and relevance of voting one’s identity.

In addition to predicting voting, engagement in voting prior to the election was

strongly related to being a heightened state of tension and uncertainty 2–3 days after the

election as a result of the outcome of the election being unknown (recall that Bush was

not confirmed president until much later). Britt (2003a) argued that those participants

engaged in voting cared more about the election outcome, which led to greater unease

about the uncertain nature of the election.

Of course, the presidential election of 2004 had a clear winner, George W. Bush.Therefore, in addition to replicating the results of engagement in voting predicting actually

voting in the election, we also wanted to examine whether participants who were engaged

would show increased happiness if they voted for Bush, and increased sadness if they

voted for another candidate. We also compared the ability of engagement versus CSW

in voting to predict voting behaviour and emotional outcomes to the result of the election.

Method

Participants and procedureParticipants ðN ¼ 253Þ were undergraduate students who were taking psychology

courses. Participants were first assessed 3–4 days prior to the election and completed a

pre-voting survey. The participants were 64% female and 36% male, with an average age

of 18.5 years. Fifty six percent of the sample identified themselves as republican, 18%

democrat, and the rest ‘other’. Two hundred and seventeen of these participants (86%)completed the post-voting assessment 1–3 days after the election. Therefore, only 36

participants failed to complete the second phase of the study. Participants received

either credit for fulfilling their research experience requirement or extra credit for

participating in the study. Participants were told they would only receive credit if they

participated in both phases of the study.

MeasuresThe pre-voting measure assessed engagement in voting and CSW. Engagement in voting

was assessed with a modified version of the measure used by Britt (2003a). The four-

item scale was responded to on a five-point response format ranging from ‘Strongly



Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’. Sample items include ‘I feel personally responsible for

voting on election day’ and ‘Whether I vote or not on election day matters a great deal to

me’. CSW for voting was assessed by modifying items from the CSW scale (Crocker,

Luhtanen, Cooper, & Bouvrette, 2003) to apply to voting in presidential elections.

This five-item measure was responded to on a seven-point response format anchored

by ‘Strongly Disagree’ and ‘Strongly Agree’. Sample items for the scale include ‘Myself-esteem depends on whether or not I vote in presidential elections’ and ‘My self-

esteem would suffer if I failed to vote in a presidential election’. We chose to refer to

elections in general when creating these items given the prior theoretical focus of

Crocker and Wolfe (2001) on areas where individuals stake their self-worth as opposed

to specific events.

For the post-voting survey, after the election participants were asked if they voted in

the election and to indicate the time they voted (see Britt, 2003a). Seventy nine percent

of participants indicated voting in the election. Participants were then asked fourquestions assessing their emotional reactions to the election. Two items were positive

(‘How happy are you about who won the presidential election’, ‘How excited are you

about who won the presidential election’) and two items were negative (‘How worried

are you about who won the presidential election’, ‘How upset are you about who won

the presidential election’). Participants responded to the items on a five-point scale

anchored by ‘not at all’ and ‘very much’. The negative items were reversed-scored

before creating a total scale assessing positive emotional reactions to the election.

Results

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations, as well as, Cronbach’s alphas, are presented

in Table 1. Logistic regression analyses indicated engagement in voting prior to theelection was strongly related with actually voting in the election

x2ð1;N ¼ 281Þ ¼ 58:120, p , :01. CSW for voting was also related with actually voting

in the election, x2ð1;N ¼ 281Þ ¼ 16:51, p , :01. A multiple logistic regression

including both engagement and CSW revealed that engagement in voting emerged as

a unique predictor of voting, x2ð1;N ¼ 281Þ ¼ 41:63, p , :01, sr2L ¼ :19, whereas

CSW did not account for unique variance in voting when controlling for engagement,

x2ð1;N ¼ 281Þ ¼ :018, p ¼ NS.

We next conducted a multiple regression with engagement in voting and the

candidate (Bush vs. Others) the participant voted for as main effect predictors (both

predictors were mean-cantered), followed by the interaction between engagement in

voting and candidate. The outcome measure was positive emotional reaction to the

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations for the continuous measured variables with alphas

presented on the diagonal

Mean SD N 1 2 3 4

1. Engagement 4.03 0.97 258 0.922. CSW 3.22 1.33 258 0.50* 0.843. Emotional reaction 3.73 1.40 240 0.10 0.06 0.844. Voted 0.79 0.41 240 .53** .27** .22** NA

Note: *p , :05; **p , :01.



election. The analysis only included participants who voted in the election. As seen in

Table 2, the interaction between engagement in voting and chosen candidate was

significant after controlling for the two main effects. The interaction term accounted for

an additional 1% of the variance in emotional outcomes. The interaction is depicted in

Figure 1, and reveals support for the hypothesis that engagement in voting would

magnify the relationship between who the participant voted for and emotional reactionsto the election.

Examination of the simple slopes revealed the slope of engagement when predicting

emotional reactions was significant and positive for participants that voted for Bush,tð126Þ ¼ 3:71, p , :001. However, the slope of engagement when predicting emotional

reactions was non-significant for participants that voted for other candidates, although

the trend was in the expected direction, p ¼ :171. One of the reasons for the lack of a

significant slope may have been the reduced degrees of freedom given that a minority of

the sample voted for other candidates.

Looking at the relationship differently, the difference in emotional reaction scores at

low levels of engagement was 2.46 points, with participants voting for Bush reporting

significantly more positive emotional reactions z ¼ 15:25, p , :05. At moderate levelsof engagement, the difference in emotional reactions was 2.82 points (z ¼ 33:71,

p , :05), and at high levels of engagement, the difference in emotional reaction scores

was 3.18 (z ¼ 26:55, p , :05). Therefore, as engagement increased, the difference in

emotional reactions for those who voted for Bush versus the losing candidate also

increased.

Table 2. Engagement in voting and chosen candidate as predictors of emotional reactions to the 2004

Presidential Election

Predictors Stand. b SE df t-value p-value

Positive emotional reactionsIntercept – 0.04 168 104.01 0.00Engagement in voting 0.04 0.05 168 1.47 0.14Chosen candidate 20.91 0.09 168 233.36 0.00Interaction term 20.09 0.12 168 23.19 0.00

4.48

2.02

4.82

1.63

1.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.0

Voted for bush Voted for others

Candidate

Pos

itive

em

otio

nal r

eact

ions

Low engage High engage

Figure 1. Positive emotional reactions to the 2004 presidential election as a function of engagement in

voting and chosen candidate.



We also conducted the same moderated multiple regression for CSW for voting and

chosen candidate as predictors of positive emotional reactions to the election. The

results indicated the interaction between CSW and chosen candidate in predicting

emotional reactions to the election was not significant (p ¼ :85).

Discussion

The results of the voting study provide further support for engagement as a predictor of

goal-directed behaviour. Replicating the results of Britt (2003a), individuals who reported

being engaged in voting before the 2004 presidential election were much more likely to

report voting in the election after it was over. Importantly, reported voting has beenrevealed to be as accurate as objective assessments of voting behaviour in testing theoretical

models of behaviour (Katosh & Traugott, 1981). The results also revealed that when

engagement in voting and CSW for voting were both used to predict voting behaviour,

engagement evidenced a strong predictive relationship when controlling for CSW,

whereas CSW did not predict unique variance in voting when controlling for engagement.

The results also provide support for engagement as a magnifier of emotional

reactions to task outcomes (see Britt, 1999), as the relationship between who

participants voted for and their positive emotions from the election was stronger forhighly engaged voters. However, the pattern of the interaction revealed this effect was

driven mainly by the tendency for engaged voters to experience more positive emotions

than disengaged voters when their candidate won the election, rather than engaged

voters showing more negative emotions when their candidate lost the election. It may

be the case that self-protective mechanisms (see Taylor & Brown, 1988, 1994) help curb

the negative feelings that occur following failure for engaged individuals.

The results of Study 1 illustrate, the ability of engagement to predict a relatively

simply behaviour: voting in a presidential election. The next two studies address theability of engagement to predict performance on more complex tasks, as well as

emotional outcomes to success or failure on these tasks.

STUDY 2: ENGAGEMENTAND TEST PERFORMANCE

Introduction

We wanted to examine the ability of task engagement to predict performance andemotional reactions to performance outcomes on a more complicated task that required

a fairly high level of motivation. A task students know well is performance on tests for

classes they are taking during a given semester. Surprisingly, little research has been

conducted on motivation and test performance in college classes. The main work that

has been done has shown that motivation and performance are stronger when the test

score is consequential (i.e., will be counted towards the course grade) than when it is

inconsequential (i.e., will not be counted towards the course grade; Sundre & Kitsantas,

2004; Wolf & Smith, 1995).One exception is a recent study by Burton, et al. (2006), who examined identified

and intrinsic motivation as predictors of report card grades and well-being among

elementary schoolchildren. These authors found that identified motivation was related

to higher report card grades among the children, and that report card grades were

more strongly related to well-being for children reporting higher identified motivation.



We examined performance on the second test of the semester in a large Introduction

to Psychology class. We measured test engagement, CSW for academics, performance

self-esteem, and the score participants anticipated making a few days prior to the test,

and then measured emotional responses to the test and performance self-esteem after

students received their test score. We predicted that test engagement would be related

to performance on the test, and would also magnify the relationship between emotionalresponses to the test and the discrepancy between the student’s anticipated and actual

test score.

Method

ParticipantsOne hundred and fourtyfive students (57% male, 43% female) from a large section of

Introduction to Psychology participated in the present study. Eighty five percent of the

sample was white, 12% were African–America, and 3% were other. The participants

completed a pre-test measure 2–4 days prior to their second test in Introduction to

Psychology. During the pre-test participants completed measures of test engagement,

CSW for academics, performance self-esteem, and their expected score on the

upcoming test. Participants completed a post-test on the day they received their grade

on the test. The post-test assessed their emotional reactions to the test and theirperformance self-esteem. The actual score the student received on the test was retrieved

from the instructor. The test used in the present study was the second test of the

semester for participants. We were provided with the test score for each participant by

the instructor. The average (out of 100) for the test score was 76.56, with a SD of 11.56.

MeasuresThe measure of test engagement was a modified version of that used for the voting

study.1 This measure included six items, with two items devoted to assess responsibility

for performance on the test (‘I feel personally responsible for how well I will do on the

test’ and ‘I am personally responsible for the grade I will receive on this test’), and an

additional item assessing ownership over the test performance (‘I feel a sense of

ownership over how well I will perform on the upcoming test’). Participants responded

to the items on the same five-point scale anchored by ‘Strongly Disagree’ and ‘Strongly

Agree’. The six-item academic subscale of the CSW scale was used to assess academicCSW (Crocker, et al. 2003). A sample item is ‘My self-esteem is influenced by my

academic performance’. Participants responded to the items on a seven-point scale

anchored by ‘Strongly Disagree’ and ‘Strongly Agree’. Performance self-esteem was

measured using the performance subscale of Heatherton and Polivy’s (1991) State self-

esteem scale. A sample item is ‘I feel confident about my abilities’. Participants

responded to the seven-item scale on a five-point response format anchored by ‘not at

all’ and ‘extremely’. Heatherton and Polivy (1991) developed this measure to assess

1 Although the exact same measure of engagement was not used for each study, in each of the three studies the items thatwere included assessed the two main aspects of our construct of self-engagement: felt responsibility and commitment to theperformance domain, and feeling that performance in the domain mattered to the individual. Three of the items used to assessself-engagement were constant across the three studies, whereas additional items were added to better assess the constructgiven the unique type of behaviour/performance being examined. The high alphas for all three studies reveal a highly internallyconsistent measure even though some of the items changed. All items are available upon request from the first author.



more state-like self-esteem that fluctuates in response to experiences such as performing

well or poorly on an academic test. Participants indicated their expected score in

response to the following question: ‘What score do you realistically believe you will

make on the upcoming test?’.

Regarding the post-test assessment, emotional reactions to the test score were

assessed with a modified version of the four-item scale used in the voting study.Participants responded to two items assessing positive emotions and two items

assessing negative emotions. A sample item was ‘how happy are you with the score you

received on the test?’. Participants responded to the items on a five-point response

format anchored by ‘not at all’ and ‘very much’. After reverse scoring the negative

emotions an overall score was created reflecting positive emotional responses to the

test. Finally, we created a test discrepancy measure by subtracting the grade the

participants received on the test from the grade they realistically expected to make. We

felt that this discrepancy measure would be a stronger predictor of emotional outcomesthan the actual grade received.

Results

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations along with Cronbach Alphas are presented in

Table 3. We examined whether test engagement would interact with the discrepancybetween the actual and anticipated test score (test discrepancy) to predict emotional

responses to the test and performance self-esteem following the test (both predictors

were mean-cantered). It is first worth pointing out that the mean test discrepancy was

8.87, indicating a tendency for students to overestimate what their performance on

the test would be by almost a full letter grade. Following the entry of the main effects

(mean-centered), the interaction between test engagement and test discrepancy did

not predict positive reactions to the test.

However, as seen in the first section of Table 4, when controlling for the main effectsand pre-test performance self-esteem (mean-centered), test engagement did interact

with test discrepancy (mean-centered) to predict post-test performance self-esteem.

The interaction term accounted for an additional 2% of the variance in self-esteem. This

interaction is depicted in Figure 2, and illustrates that test discrepancy was a stronger

predictor of post-test performance self-esteem when engagement was high (dashed line)

than when engagement was low (solid line).

However, even more apparent in these data was that those high in test engagement

experienced higher performance self-esteem than those low in test engagement whenthey experienced a lower discrepancy between their actual and anticipated test score,

but did not show a corresponding drop in performance self-esteem under high

discrepancy conditions.

The tests of simple slopes were consistent with this analysis (see Preacher, Curran, &

Bauer, 2006). Examination of the simple slopes revealed the slope of engagement at low

ðB ¼ 0:37Þ and moderate ðB ¼ 0:19Þ levels of test score discrepancy levels significantly

predicted post-test performance self-esteem, z ¼ 2:74, p , :05, and z ¼ 2:11, p , :05,

respectively. At high levels of discrepancy, engagement was not a significant predictor,z ¼ :1, p . :05. Thus, engagement predicts post-test self-esteem at low and moderate

levels of score discrepancy, but not at high levels. Looking at the relationship differently,

the slope of test score discrepancy at low ðB ¼ 20:02Þ, moderate ðB ¼ 20:03Þ, and high

ðB ¼ 20:04Þ levels of engagement significantly predicted post-test self-esteem,



Table

3.Descriptive

statistics

andintercorrelationsofmeasuredvariableswithAlphas

onthediagonal

Mean

SDN

12

34

56

78

1.Pre-testself-esteem

3.73

0.75

145

.85

2.Po

st-testself-esteem

3.72

0.73

125

.64**

.83

3.Engagement

4.25

0.51

145

.10

.15

.84

4.CSW

5.3

0.86

145

2.14

2.06

.34**

.71

5.Anticipated

test

score

85.58

6.00

133

.39**

.42**

.29**

.23**

NA

6.Actualtest

score

77.07

11.65

124

.24**

.58**

.20*

.13

.55**

NA

7.Test

score

discrepancy

8.81

9.33

120

2.08

2.42**

2.07

2.02

.00

2.80**

NA

8.Emotionalreactions

2.77

1.11

125

.23**

.67**

.05

2.09

.33**

.73**

2.64**

.91

Note.*p

,:05;**p,

:01.



z ¼ 23:09, p , :05, z ¼ 26:09, p , :05, and z ¼ 25:88, p , :05, respectively. Thus,

score discrepancy predicts post-test self-esteem at all three levels of test engagement.

CSW for academics did not interact with test discrepancy to predict positive

emotional reactions to the test. However, as seen in the second section of Table 2, CSWdid interact with test discrepancy to marginally predict post-test performance self-

esteem after controlling for pre-test self-esteem. The pattern of the interaction was the

same as that for test engagement. Given this result, we conducted a multiple regression

where we examined the ability of both the test engagement £ discrepancy and CSW for

academics £ discrepancy interactions to predict post-test self-esteem after controlling

for pre-test performance self-esteem and the lower-order main effects. The results

revealed that neither interaction was significant when controlling for the other,

suggesting that both test engagement and CSW for academics interacted with test-discrepancy to predict the same variance in post-test performance self-esteem.

Table 4. Test engagement, CSW for academics, and test discrepancy as predictors of post-test

performance self-esteem

Predictors Stand. b SE df t-value p-value

Part A: Test engagement in voting, test discrepancy, and post-test performance self-esteemPost-test performance self-esteemIntercept – 0.24 104 5.93 .00Pre-test self-esteem 0.61 0.06 104 9.74 .00Test engagement 0.14 0.09 104 2.18 .03Test discrepancy 20.38 0.01 104 26.11 .00Engagement £ discrepancy 20.13 0.01 104 22.08 .04

Part B: CSW for academics, test discrepancy, and post-test performance self-esteemPost-test performance self-esteemIntercept – 0.24 104 5.58 .00Pre-test self-esteem 0.63 0.06 104 9.89 .00CSW academics 20.03 0.06 104 2 .42 .67Test discrepancy 20.38 0.01 104 25.90 .00CSW £ discrepancy 20.13 0.01 104 21.96 .05

4.2

4.0

3.8

Pos

t tes

t per

form

ance

sel

f-es

teem

3.6

3.4

–10 –5 0

Discrepancy

5 10

Low engagement (–1 SD)High engagement (+1 SD)

Figure 2. Post-test performance self-esteem as a function of test engagement and test discrepancy.



Discussion

The results of the present study provide further support for task engagement as

predictor of performance and emotional responses to performance outcomes. Thosereporting higher test engagement prior to the test performed better on the test than

those lower on test engagement. In addition, the magnitude of the discrepancy between

the student’s expected and actual test score was a stronger predictor of post-test

performance self-esteem for students high in test engagement, even after controlling for

pre-test performance self-esteem. The interaction also revealed that test engagement

allowed participants to experience a boost in self-esteem when they showed a low

discrepancy between their actual and anticipated test score, but did not result in a

decrease in self-esteem when the discrepancy was high. Again, these findings suggestthat self-protective mechanisms may shield engaged individuals from the emotional

consequences associated with poor performance.

CSW for academics did not predict test performance. However, CSW did interact

with the test discrepancy in a manner similar to test engagement to predict post-test

performance self-esteem. This finding indicates that engagement and CSW are both

capable of predicting changes in self-esteem as a result of performance outcomes.

STUDY 3: ENGAGEMENTAND COMPLETION OF PERSONALPROJECTS

Introduction

In our third study, we wanted to examine the consequences of task engagement in a

traditional area of motivation: goal setting. A large amount of research has been

conducted on the determinants of effective goal pursuit, including the importance ofclear and difficult goals (Locke & Latham, 1990), forming a clear plan for initiating goal-

directed activity (Gollwitzer, 1999), and pursuing goals for autonomous as opposed to

controlled reasons (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998). In the present study, we were particularly

interested in examining whether engagement in goal pursuits predicted the attainment of

goals described as ‘personal projects’, which have been defined as goals and concerns

that people plan for and care about (Little, 1989). In addition, we examined engagement

as a predictor of emotional reactions to project attainment. Finally, we wanted to show

that engagement in personal projects was a significant predictor of these measurescontrolling for whether individuals were pursuing the goals for autonomous (out of

intrinsic interest or because the project has been internalized as important) or controlled

reasons (out of a sense of obligation or for extrinsic resources, see Sheldon & Elliot, 1998).

Theoretically, individuals should report higher project engagement when they are

pursuing the project for autonomous reasons, but the two constructs are not identical.

Method

Participants and procedureParticipants were 90 students (33% male, 67% female) who participated for extra credit

in Introduction to Psychology and mid-level psychology courses. Phase 1 was completed

during the first third of the semester, where 102 participants were brought into the

laboratory and responded to questions about two personal projects. Phase 2 was



completed during the last 2 weeks of the semester, where participants were brought

back into the laboratory ðN ¼ 90Þ and asked questions about whether they had

completed their personal projects and their emotional reactions to project completion.

Therefore, 88% of the sample returned for the second phase of the experiment. In order

to match responses to Phase 1 and 2, participants provided a code on both surveys

comprized of the middle three digits of their social security number, followed by the firstthree letters of the city where they were born. Participants were only included in the

analyses if they participated in both phases of the research project. Analyses were

conducted at the level of the personal project (see Sheldon & Elliot, 1998), which

resulted in 180 usable data points.

Phase 1 measureIndividuals were instructed to think about two personal projects they intended oncompleting by the end of the semester. A personal project was defined as ‘goals and

concerns that people think about, plan for, carry out, and sometimes (though not

always) complete or succeed at’. A sheet was devoted to each personal project. At the

top of the sheet participants gave a complete description of their project. Participants

then responded to a number of questions describing the personal project. Engagement

in the project was assessed by using a modified version of the engagement measures

used in Studies 1 and 2. An eight-item scale assessed feelings of responsibility for the

project (e.g., ‘I feel personally responsible for completing this project’), absorption inthe project (e.g., ‘I will become completely absorbed in the project’) and whether

completing the project mattered to the individual (e.g., ‘Whether I complete this project

matters a great deal to me’). The items were responded to on the same five-point scale

ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’. We also assessed project

complexity with a two-item scale responded to on the same format: ‘This personal

project requires a number of different actions to complete’ and ‘This personal project

involves many different steps to be completed’.

We assessed intrinsic, identified, introjected, and extrinsic motivation with the sameitems used by Sheldon and Elliot (1998). Participants were instructed to think about

each personal project and indicate how much they were pursuing the project for each

of the four reasons. The intrinsic reason was ‘doing this project because of the fun and

enjoyment which the goal provides you. While there may be many good reasons for the

goal, the primary ‘reason’ is simply your interest in the experience itself’. The identified

reason was ‘doing this project because you really believe it’s an important goal to have.

Although this goal may have once been taught to you by others, now you endorse it

freely and value it wholeheartedly’. The introjected reason was ‘doing this projectbecause you would feel ashamed, guilty, or anxious if you didn’t. Rather than doing the

project just because someone else thinks you ought to, you feel that you ought to do the

project to complete it’. The extrinsic reason was ‘doing this project because somebody

else wants you to or thinks you ought to, or because you’ll get something from

somebody if you do it. That is, you probably wouldn’t do this project if you didn’t get

some kind of reward, praise, or approval for it’.

Phase 2 measuresParticipants were first reminded of each project they had indicated pursuing during the

semester. They were then asked if they had completed the personal project, and if they



had not, the probability the project would be completed by the end of the semester

(0–100%). They then responded to a four-item scale regarding positive emotions

regarding how they had done on their project (e.g., ‘How happy are you about how

you have done on your project?’ and ‘How proud are you of how you have done on

your personal project?’).

Results

First, because we assessed the outcomes (probablility of completion and emotional

reactions) at the goal level instead of the individual level, we used multi-level modelling.

We first calculated an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC1) to determine how

correlated the error terms were. The ICC1 for projection completion was 0.06 and was.01 for emotional reactions. Thus, only 6 and 1% of the variance in probability of project

completion and emotional reactions, respectively is accounted for by persons.

Nevertheless, we used multi-level modelling to analyse the data.

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations along with Cronbach Alphas are

presented in Table 5. Participants indicated on average a 36% probability of completing

their projects. Therefore, completed projects were provided a score of 100% probability

of being completed, and we used the probability of the project being completed as the

primary measure of performance. The overall probability of a project being completedby the end of the semester was 67% ðSD ¼ 38:09Þ. Surprisingly, as seen in Table 5,

neither engagement in the project nor any of the motivational reasons were related to

the measure of performance. One possibility for this finding might be that many

personal projects are relatively simple, and could, therefore, be completed without a

high level of motivation. Therefore, we examined whether project engagement would

interact with rated project complexity to predict probability of completion (both

predictors were mean-cantered). As seen in the first section of Table 6, the interaction

term was significant when controlling for the main effects. The interaction term resultedin a pseudo partial effect size of .02. Calculating effect sizes as determined by multi-level

models has been a contentious issue in the literature. One method often employed is to

calculate the reduction in variance estimates of the models (Roberts & Monaco, 2006).

This can be done at each level of the model and provides a pseudo effect size indicating

the proportion of variance explained by the predictor.

The interaction is depicted in Figure 3, and indicates that when the projects

were simple (solid line), engagement was not related to probability of completion,

but when projects were complex (dashed line), being personally engaged in the projectwas related to a greater probability of project completion. The slope of engagement

ðB ¼ 20:70Þ at high levels of complexity significantly predicted the probability of

completion, z ¼ 2:49, p , :05. The slope of engagement ðB ¼ 23:12Þ at low levels of

complexity failed to significantly predict probability of completion, z ¼ 20:4, p . :05.

Thus, engagement significantly predicts probability of completion at high levels of

complexity, but not at moderate or low levels. None of the motivational reasons

interacted with project complexity to predict completion.

We next examined the interaction of project engagement and probability of theproject being completed as a predictor of positive emotions participants experienced

regarding how well they had done on their project. As seen in the second section of

Table 3, engagement interacted with probability of completion after controlling for the

main effects. The interaction resulted in a pseudo partial effect size of .003.



Table

5.Descriptive

statistics

andintercorrelationsofallmeasuredvariableswithalphas

onthediagonalwhen

available

Mean

SDN

12

34

56

78

1.Extrinsicmotivation

3.83

2.41

202

NA

2.Introjected

motivation

4.72

2.62

202

.32**

NA

3.Identified

motivation

6.71

2.12

202

2.11

.25**

NA

4.Intrinsicmotivation

4.88

2.57

202

2.29**

2.16*

.21**

NA

5.Engagement

4.13

0.52

204

.09

.12

.19**

2.10

.84

6.Complexity

4.13

0.93

204

.21**

2.03

2.01

2.08

.25**

NA

7.Emotionalreactions

3.04

0.89

180

.02

2.06

.01

.004

.12

.05

.82

8.Project

completion

67.11

38.09

180

.05

.05

.02

2.01

.09

2.04

.67**

NA

Note.*p

,:05;**p,

:01.



This interaction is depicted in Figure 4, and shows that the relationship between

probability of attainment and positive emotions was slightly stronger for participants

who reported a high level of engagement (dashed line) in their personal project. As was

the case in the other two studied, there was a tendency for engagement to enhance

positive emotions at higher levels of performance than to harm positive emotions at lowlevels of performance.

Examination of the simple slopes revealed that the slope of the relationship between

probability of completion and emotional reactions ðB ¼ 0:013Þ at low levels of

engagement was significant, z ¼ 7:75, p , :05. The slope of the relationship between

probability of completion and emotional reactions ðB ¼ 0:019Þ at high levels of

engagement was also significant, z ¼ 9:59, p , :05. Thus, probability of completion

predicts emotional reactions at both low and high levels of engagement. Looking at the

relationship differently, the slope of the relationship between engagement andemotional reactions ðB ¼ 0:29Þ at high probability of completion was significant,

z ¼ 2:11, p , :05. The slope of the relationship between engagement and emotional

reactions ðB ¼ 20:09Þ at low levels of probability of completion was not significant,

z ¼ 20:67, p , :05. Thus, engagement especially enhanced positive emotional

Table 6. Project engagement and complexity as predictors of probability of project completion and

reactions.

Predictors Unstand. b SE df t-value p-value

Part A: Project engagement and complexity as predictors of probability of completionProbability of project completionIntercept 65.61 2.99 93.88 21.92 0.00Project engagement 8.79 8.79 175.49 1.52 0.13Project complexity 22.30 3.25 175.71 2 .71 0.48Interaction term 12.81 5.93 174.97 2.16 0.03

Part B: Project engagement and probability of project completion as predictors of positive emotional reactionsPositive emotional reactionsIntercept 3.03 0.05 83.83 61.77 0.00Project engagement 0.10 0.10 172.89 .99 0.32Probability of completion 0.02 0.001 174.99 12.14 0.00Interaction term 0.005 0.002 175.18 2.13 0.03

–0.4

50Low complexity (–1 SD)High complexity (+1 SD)

55

60

Pro

babi

lity

of c

ompl

etio

n

65

70

75

–0.2 0.0

Engagement

0.2 0.4

Figure 3. Probability of project completion as function of project engagement and project complexity.



reactions at high levels of probability of completion, but did not enhance negative

reactions at low levels.None of the motivational reasons interacted with probability of project to

completion to predict positive emotions ðp . :16Þ.

Discussion

The results indicated that engagement was a prospective predictor of probability of

personal project completion for those projects that were rated high in complexity. This

makes theoretical sense, as motivationally relevant variables are typically seen as more

potent predictors of performance when individuals face obstacles to goal attainment

(e.g., Lydon & Zanna, 1990; Mischel, Cantor, & Feldman, 1996). Engagement in a task

should generate the effort to persevere and ultimately reach goal attainment (Brown &

Leigh, 1996).The results also provide further support for engagement as a magnifier of emotional

reactions to performance outcomes. Engagement in personal projects interacted with a

measure of performance on those projects to predict emotional reactions, with

emotional reactions to relative success versus failure being magnified for those higher in

engagement. In addition, and in conceptual replication of the results of the first two

studies, engagement in a personal project was especially likely to enhance positive

feelings of having a higher probability of completing the personal project. The results

also revealed that motivational reasons for pursuing the project did not predictperformance or reactions to performance outcomes, again highlighting an ability of

engagement to predict novel outcomes in additional domain.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The results of the present research provide strong support for personal engagement inperformance domains ranging in complexity predicting performance in those domains

and emotional reactions to performance outcomes. Self-engagement predicted voting in

a presidential election, performance on a college test, and probability of attaining

complex personal goals being pursued over the course of a semester. In addition,

2.5

3.0

Em

otio

nal r

eact

ions

3.5

–20–40

Low engagement (–1 SD)High engagement (–1 SD)

0

Probability of completion

20 40

Figure 4. Positive reactions to project attainment as a function of project engagement and probability

of project attainment.



self-engagement interacted with the outcome in the performance domain to predict

emotional responses to outcomes. In the case of voting, being engaged in voting

potentiated the relationship between voting for the winning versus losing candidate and

positive emotions following the election. For performance on a college test, test

engagement magnified the relationship between the anticipated versus actual score

received and performance self-esteem following receipt of the test score. Finally, beingengaged in a personal project magnified the relationship between the probability of

project completion and positive emotional reactions to the amount of completion.

In addition, for the most part self-engagement predicted performance in a domain

and emotional responses to performance outcomes controlling for conceptually related

variables such as CSW (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001) and identified motivation for

performance (Sheldon & Kasser, 1998). The one exception to this pattern was that both

CSW for academics and test engagement interacted with the discrepancy between an

anticipated and actual test grade to predict changes in performance self-esteem. In thiscase, both CSW for academics and test engagement magnified the relationship between

the degree of discrepancy and post-test self-esteem. Theoretically, it makes sense that

CSW would predict changes in a measure of state self-esteem, as the former construct is

defined as evaluating oneself depending on performance in a domain.

Across the three studies, engagement was more likely to enhance the positive

emotions of success in a domain than it was to enhance the negative emotions following

failure. Although this finding was not hypothesized, it can be understood by considering

the extensive literature on how individuals use self-serving biases to blunt theundesirable consequences of negative feedback (see Campbell & Sedikides, 1999; Taylor

& Brown, 1988, 1994). When individuals are personally engaged in a domain and fail,

the heightened negative implications of the failure may be especially likely to kick in

self-protective mechanisms such as seeking external reasons for the performance failure

(Schlenker, Pontari, & Christopher, 2001). Although these mechanisms may be effective

in blunting the enhanced negative emotions for engaged individuals, we would argue

that it is also possible for engaged individuals to eventually benefit from negative

emotions associated with failure in a domain. One important area for future research isto identify characteristics of individuals who fully accept the emotional consequences of

failure and ultimately benefit from such feedback.

Limitations, strengths, and future directionsA limitation of the present research was the relatively small effect sizes for the

interactions with engagement and performance outcomes as predictors of emotionaloutcomes. One reason for these relatively small effect sizes is that so much of the

variance in emotional outcomes is a function of the positive versus negative nature of

the feedback itself. In addition, it is worth noting that detecting interactions between

continuous variables in field settings is notoriously difficult (see Cohen, Cohen, West, &

Aiken, 2003), and the effects sizes that are detected tend to be small (Chaplin, 1991;

Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004).

A second limitation of the study was not using a consistent measure of self-

engagement across all three studies. Although some of the items were consistent acrossmeasures, we used some different items depending on the study. Still, all items tapped

the two major components of the self-engagement construct (personal responsibility for

performance and performance mattering to the individual), and the alpha for each of the

three studies was high.



A strength of the present research was the use of longitudinal designs in each of the

three studies. These designs show that engagement predicts future performance and

emotional reactions. In addition, although in two of the studies performance was

assessed via self-report, in the test study, we examined a more objective measure of

performance by examining the discrepancy between the anticipated versus actual grade

the student received on his or her test.In summary, the results of the present research lend support to the

conceptualization of self-engagement as a motivator of performance and emotional

reactions to performance outcomes (Britt, 2003a,b; Britt, et al. 2007). Engagement

in the domain was positively related to performance and to especially positive

emotional reactions to success. Given the results regarding self-engagement versus

CSW, future research is recommended to better address when these conceptually

similar variables will be predictive of the same versus different outcomes. In

addition, future research is needed to better understand the processes by whichindividuals may use emotional responses to performance to gauge one’s level of

engagement, and how engagement in multiple life domains contributes to positive

and negative outcomes.

References

Britt, T. W. (1999). Engaging the self in the field: Testing the triangle model of responsibility.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 696–706.

Britt, T. W. (2003a). Motivational and emotional consequences of self engagement: Dynamics in

the 2000 presidential election. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 339–358.

Britt, T. W. (2003b). Aspects of identity predict engagement in work under adverse conditions. Self

and Identity, 2, 31–45.

Britt, T. W., Castro, C. A., & Adler, A. B. (2005). Self engagement, stressors, and health:

A longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1475–1486.

Britt, T. W., Dickinson, J. M., Greene, T. M., & McKibben, E. S. (2007). Self-engagement at work. In

C. L. Cooper & D. Nelson (Eds.), Positive organizational behavior (pp. 143–158). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Britt, T. W., Thomas, J. T., & Dawson, C. R. (2006). Self engagement magnifies the relationship

between qualitative overload and performance in a training setting. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 36, 2100–2114.

Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to

job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 358–368.

Burton, K. B., Lydon, J. E., D’Alessandro, D. U., & Koestner, R. (2006). The differential effects of

intrinsic and identified motivation on well-being and performance: Prospective, experimental,

and implicit approaches to self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 91, 750–762.

Campbell, W. K., & Sedikides, C. (1999). Self-threat magnified the self-serving bias: A meta-analytic

integration. Review of General Psychology, 3, 23–43.

Chaplin, W. F. (1991). The next generation in moderation research in personality psychology.

Journal of Personality, 59, 143–178.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation

analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contingencies of self-worth in

college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

85, 894–908.

Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108, 593–623.



Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited: Or a theory of a theory. American Psychologist, 28,

404–416.

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in

counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115–134.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American

Psychologist, 54, 493–503.

Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-

esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 895–910.

Jaccard, J., Knox, R., & Brinberg, D. (1980). Designing political campaigns to elect a candidate:

Toward a social psychological theory of voting behavior. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 10, 367–383.

Katosh, J. P., & Traugott, M. W. (1981). The consequences of validated and self-reported voting

measures. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 519–535.

Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry,

14, 1–26.

Little, B. (1989). Personal projects analysis: Trivial pursuits, magnificent obsessions, and the search

for coherence. In D. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and

emerging directions (pp. 15–31). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Loehr, J., & Schwartz, T. (2004). The power of full engagement: Managing energy, not time, is the

key to high performance and personal renewal. New York, NY: Free press.

Lydon, J. E., & Zanna, M. P. (1990). Commitment in the face of adversity: A value-affirmation

approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1040–1047.

Mischel, W., Cantor, N., & Feldman, S. (1996). Principles of self-regulation: The nature of

willpower and self-control. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology:

Handbook of basic principles (pp. 329–360). New York: Guilford Publications.

Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction

effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of

Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.

Roberts, J. K., & Monaco, J. P. (2006). Effect size measures for the two-level linear multilevel

model. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, San Francisco, CA.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

Sabucedo, J. M., & Cramer, D. (1981). Sociological and psychological predictors of voting in Great

Britain. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 647–654.

Schlenker, B. R. (1997). Personal responsibility: Applications of the triangle model.

In L. L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 19,

pp. 241–301). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle model

of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101, 632–652.

Schlenker, B. R., Pontari, B. R., & Christopher, A. N. (2001). Excuses and character: Personal and

social implications of excuses. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 15–32.

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous

and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 24, 546–557.

Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1998). Pursuing personal goals: Skills enable progress, but not all

progress is beneficial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1319–1331.

Sundre, D. L., & Kitsantas, A. (2004). An exploration of the psychology of the examinee: Can self-

regulation and test-taking motivation predict consequential and non-consequential test

performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 6–26.



Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on

mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1994). Positive illusions and well-being revisited: Separating fact from

fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 21–27.

Wolf, L. F., & Smith, J. K. (1995). The consequence of consequence: Motivation, anxiety, and test

performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 8, 227–242.

Received 4 September 2008; revised version received 3 March 2009


self-engagement as a predictor of performance and emotional reactions to performance outcomes

Documents