Witkowski T, Stiensmeier-Pelster J
Department of Psychology, Universität Hildesheim, Germany.
Br J Soc Psychol. 1998 Mar;37 ( Pt 1):59-71. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1998.tb01157.x.
We report two laboratory experiments which compare two competing explanations of performance deficits following failure: one based on Seligman's learned helplessness theory (LHT), and the other, on self-esteem protection theory (SEPT). In both studies, participants (Study 1: N = 40 pupils from secondary schools in Walbrzych, Poland; Study 2: N = 45 students from the University of Bielefeld, Germany) were confronted with either success or failure in a first phase of the experiment. Then, in the second phase of the experiment the participants had to work on a set of mathematical problems (Study 1) or a set of tasks taken from Raven's Progressive Matrices (Study 2) either privately or in public. In both studies failure in the first phase causes performance deficits in the second phase only if the participants had to solve the test tasks in public. These results were interpreted in line with SEPT and as incompatible with LHT.
我们报告了两项实验室实验，这两项实验比较了对失败后表现缺陷的两种相互竞争的解释：一种基于塞利格曼的习得性无助理论（LHT），另一种基于自尊保护理论（SEPT）。在这两项研究中，参与者（研究1：来自波兰瓦尔布热格中学的40名学生；研究2：来自德国比勒费尔德大学的45名学生）在实验的第一阶段面临成功或失败。然后，在实验的第二阶段，参与者必须私下或公开地处理一组数学问题（研究1）或一组取自瑞文标准推理测验的任务（研究2）。在这两项研究中，只有当参与者必须公开解决测试任务时，第一阶段的失败才会导致第二阶段的表现缺陷。这些结果符合SEPT的解释，与LHT不相容。
