Making sense of misfortune: deservingness, self-esteem, and patterns of self-defeat

Abstract

Drawing on theorizing and research suggesting that people are motivated to view their world as an orderly and predictable place in which people get what they deserve, the authors proposed that (a) random and uncontrollable bad outcomes will lower self-esteem and (b) this, in turn, will lead to the adoption of self-defeating beliefs and behaviors. Four experiments demonstrated that participants who experienced or recalled bad (vs. good) breaks devalued their self-esteem (Studies 1a and 1b), and that decrements in self-esteem (whether arrived at through misfortune or failure experience) increase beliefs about deserving bad outcomes (Studies 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b). Five studies (Studies 3-7) extended these findings by showing that this, in turn, can engender a wide array of self-defeating beliefs and behaviors, including claimed self-handicapping ahead of an ability test (Study 3), the preference for others to view the self less favorably (Studies 4-5), chronic self-handicapping and thoughts of physical self-harm (Study 6), and choosing to receive negative feedback during an ability test (Study 7). The current findings highlight the important role that concerns about deservingness play in the link between lower self-esteem and patterns of self-defeating beliefs and behaviors. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Figure 1

Conceptual framework for the studies. Solid lines show the variables that were measured or manipulated for each study. The specific self-defeating beliefs or behaviors measured in Studies 3a–7 are noted on the right-hand side of the figure.

Figure 2

Feedback screen for the “failure” condition shown to participants at the end of the non-verbal reasoning (NVR) test in Study 2. Participants in the “success” condition received a NVR score of 120.

Figure 3

The effect of success versus failure feedback on the perceived fairness/reasonableness of a random break as a function of the valence of the experienced random break. Error bars show standard errors of the means.

Figure 4

Effect of recalling bad versus good breaks on self-handicapping ahead of an intelligence test as a function of whether participants learned that mitigating circumstances affect test performance or not. Error bars show standard errors of the means.

Figure 5

Effect of recalling bad versus good breaks on beliefs about deserving to fail the upcoming intelligence test as a function of whether participants learned that mitigating circumstances affect test performance or not. Error bars show standard errors of the means.

Figure 6

Mediational model predicting the preference for others to evaluate oneself favorably from beliefs about deserving bad outcomes and self-esteem (Study 5). Values show unstandardized path coefficients. * p < .05.

Figure 7

Mediational models predicting thoughts of self-harm and chronic self-handicapping (Study 6) and choosing to self-punish during an intelligence test (Study 7) from beliefs about deserving bad outcomes and self-esteem. Values show unstandardized path coefficients. * p < .05.