Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Guillermo Vallejo

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Polynomial regression with self-handicapping and defensive pessimism as dependent variables, self-esteem as the independent variable, and gender as the covariate. Table 2 3.2. Polynomial regression analysis

Table 2 Polynomial regression with self-handicapping and defensive pessimism as dependent variables, self-esteem as the independent variable, and gender as the covariate. Table 2 3.2. Polynomial regression analysis

Related Figures (5)

Note. Self-esteem scale (1 = strongly disagree,...,5 = strongly agree). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism scales (1 = never,..., 5 = always). “ p<.01. “py <.001. Means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis and correlation matrix of the total sample.*, ** Table 1
Note. Self-esteem scale (1 = strongly disagree,...,5 = strongly agree). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism scales (1 = never,..., 5 = always). “ p<.01. “py <.001. Means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis and correlation matrix of the total sample.*, ** Table 1
Polynomial regression by gender with behavioral self-handicapping as the dependent variable and self-esteem as the independent variable. Table 3
Polynomial regression by gender with behavioral self-handicapping as the dependent variable and self-esteem as the independent variable. Table 3
Fig. 1. Relationship between behavioral self-handicapping and self-esteem by gender. The relationship between self-esteem and defensive pessimism is somewhat more complex. As shown in Table 2, this relationship has a linear negative component and a quadratic positive component. When both a negative linear effect and a positive quadratic effect occur, the re- lationship between the two variables is concave, that is, it can be low self-esteem are significantly more likely to use this tactics. This find- ing partially coincides with our initial hypothesis (based on the results of previous investigation). Although it was confirmed that lower self- esteem was related to higher claimed self-handicapping, both by women and men, this did not occur for behavioral self-handicapping in women because, in this case, the relationship between the two vari- ables seems to be of a more quadratic nature. However, differences be- tween men and women were also observed in the use of behavioral self- handicapping when self-esteem levels are low or high: when they are
Fig. 1. Relationship between behavioral self-handicapping and self-esteem by gender. The relationship between self-esteem and defensive pessimism is somewhat more complex. As shown in Table 2, this relationship has a linear negative component and a quadratic positive component. When both a negative linear effect and a positive quadratic effect occur, the re- lationship between the two variables is concave, that is, it can be low self-esteem are significantly more likely to use this tactics. This find- ing partially coincides with our initial hypothesis (based on the results of previous investigation). Although it was confirmed that lower self- esteem was related to higher claimed self-handicapping, both by women and men, this did not occur for behavioral self-handicapping in women because, in this case, the relationship between the two vari- ables seems to be of a more quadratic nature. However, differences be- tween men and women were also observed in the use of behavioral self- handicapping when self-esteem levels are low or high: when they are
Polynomial regression by gender with defensive pessimism as the dependent variable and self-esteem as the independent variable.
Polynomial regression by gender with defensive pessimism as the dependent variable and self-esteem as the independent variable.
Fig. 2. Data and predictions of defensive pessimism for values of self-esteem in women (left graph) and men (right graph). low, women use more behavioral self-handicapping than men, whereas the situation is reversed when self-esteem is high. This seems to indi- cate that low self-esteem makes students particularly vulnerable to self-handicapping, as suggested in other works (e.g., Coudevylle et al., 2011; Finez & Sherman, 2012; Pulford et al., 2005; Rodriguez et al., 2004), and this is especially true for women, as suggested in our study. accurately determine cases in which students who admit using claimed self-handicapping also use behavioral self-handicapping. Another limi- tation is the sample composition because the investigation was carried out only with students studying Educational Sciences and Health Sci- ences. The clear preponderance of female students in these degrees could interfere with the results, an especially important issue when con- sidering the abundant preliminary research associating gender with the differential use of self-protective strategies. Our data are consistent with this assumption because, when controlling for the effect of gender, we found that this variable is significantly related to such tactics. Hence, we must be cautious about generalizing the results to the entire univer- sity population.
Fig. 2. Data and predictions of defensive pessimism for values of self-esteem in women (left graph) and men (right graph). low, women use more behavioral self-handicapping than men, whereas the situation is reversed when self-esteem is high. This seems to indi- cate that low self-esteem makes students particularly vulnerable to self-handicapping, as suggested in other works (e.g., Coudevylle et al., 2011; Finez & Sherman, 2012; Pulford et al., 2005; Rodriguez et al., 2004), and this is especially true for women, as suggested in our study. accurately determine cases in which students who admit using claimed self-handicapping also use behavioral self-handicapping. Another limi- tation is the sample composition because the investigation was carried out only with students studying Educational Sciences and Health Sci- ences. The clear preponderance of female students in these degrees could interfere with the results, an especially important issue when con- sidering the abundant preliminary research associating gender with the differential use of self-protective strategies. Our data are consistent with this assumption because, when controlling for the effect of gender, we found that this variable is significantly related to such tactics. Hence, we must be cautious about generalizing the results to the entire univer- sity population.
Related topics:
PsychologyCognitive Science
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved