Representational Models Associated With

Fear of Failure in Adolescents and Young

Adults

David E. Conroy
The Pennsylvania State University

ABSTRACT As a descriptive trait, fear of failure (FF) has been

associated with serious problems in achievement and health. Psychody-
namic theories emphasizing interpersonal processes and early object
relations are often used to explain the etiology of FF despite little
comprehensive research on such theories in the FF domain. The present
study employed the Structural Analysis of Social Behavior to study
associations between FF and representational models of self and others
among 211 high school and college-aged students and athletes. FF was
strongly associated with hostile representational models of self while
failing (large effect size). This hostility paralleled the manner in which
high FF participants reported being treated by their parents and most
significant instructors (all moderate effect sizes). Overall, results
supported the complementary nature of these theoretical perspectives
and provided further evidence for interpersonal theories of FF.

Fear of failure (FF) is an intuitively familiar personality construct to

performers across achievement domains. FF has been associated
with problems in achievement, mental health, and physical health

David E. Conroy, Department of Kinesiology, The Pennsylvania State University.

Thanks to Steve Portenga, Sumiyo Shiina, and Traci Sommer for their assistance
with data collection/entry. Special thanks to Lorna Smith Benjamin, Keith Henschen,
Hal Lawson, Ted Packard, and Barry Shultz for their feedback on an earlier draft of
this article.
Correspondence concerning this article may be sent to David E. Conroy, 267 Rec
Hall, Department of Kinesiology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
PA 16802. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to David-Conroy@psu.edu.
Journal of Personality 71:5, October 2003.
Blackwell Publishing 2003
758 Conroy

(for a review, see Conroy, 2001a). The descriptive contribution of

FF as a salient personality characteristic in achievement settings has
been established. Nevertheless, the contribution of existing FF
models may be limited to the extent that these descriptive models of
individual differences do not directly link FF to proposed etiological
influences. For example, although many aspects of FF are explicitly
interpersonal and early socialization experiences were one of the
earliest theoretical antecedents of FF in young adults (McClelland,
Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953), research documenting the link
between FF and representational models of key figures (a key unit of
personality from interpersonal and psychodynamic perspectives) has
been strikingly absent from the literature. Bridging this gap will help
to link trait and psychodynamic understandings of FF and may
ultimately lead to advances in the assessment, prevention, and
treatment of FF. Thus, the purpose of this article is to establish the
link between FF and individuals’ representational models of
themselves and important others.

Fear of Failure
From an individual difference perspective, fear of failure has been
conceptualized variously as a need, a motive, and an affective
tendency. Initially, Murray (1938) defined infavoidance as a need to
avoid failure among college-aged males. Classic achievement
motivation researchers (Elliot, 1997) continued this approach by
defining FF as a motive (to avoid failure; cf. McClelland et al.,
1953). These researchers also were the first to incorporate affectively
based conceptualizations in their theories (i.e., by defining the
motive to avoid failure as a tendency to experience shame and
embarrassment upon failing [Atkinson, 1966]) and operationally
(i.e., by using test anxiety instruments to measure FF [Atkinson &
Litwin, 1960]). More recent models of dispositional FF emphasize a
hierarchical, multidimensional conceptualization of FF (Birney,
Burdick, & Teevan, 1969; Conroy, Poczwardowski, & Henschen,
2001; Schmalt, 1982). Specifically, theorists have argued that failure
by itself is relatively meaningless and that it is the consequences of
failure that are actually feared (Birney, et al., 1969, p. 201).
Based on the cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion
(Lazarus, 1991), Conroy (2001b; Conroy, Willow, & Metzler,
2002; Conroy, Metzler, & Hofer, 2003) developed a hierarchical,
Fear of Failure 759

multidimensional model of aversive consequences of failing asso-

ciated with dispositional FF that has accumulated substantial
empirical support. Specific aversive consequences of failing in this
model included experiencing shame and embarrassment, devaluing
one’s self-estimate, having an uncertain future, having important
others lose interest, and upsetting important others. The strength of
performers’ beliefs in each of these aversive consequences of failing
can be used as an index of how likely performers are to make FF-
related appraisals (viz., that failure is associated with aversive
consequences) in a given situation.
Although FF scores have shown themselves to be related but
empirically distinct from more general trait anxiety constructs such
as trait anxiety and sport competitive anxiety (Conroy, 2001b,
Conroy et al., 2002), FF and test anxiety (TA) scores have exhibited
large correlations in previous research (Elliot & McGregor, 1999).
Indeed, TA measures were regularly used as proxy measures of FF
in early research (e.g., Atkinson & Litwin, 1960), and these
constructs share substantial conceptual space. Both FF and TA
involve future-oriented apprehension about social evaluation, the
threat of appearing incompetent, and the resulting consequences
(Conroy, 2001a; Hagtvet, 1983; Hill, 1972; Zeidner, 1998). The
primary difference between these constructs lies not in their
substantive features but in the specificity of the context under
consideration: TA is typically mentioned in reference to cognitive
tasks in school settings, whereas FF may be implicated in references
either to cognitive, perceptual, or motor tasks in a variety of settings
(e.g., school, sport; Elliot & McGregor, 1999). Given that these
constructs are so conceptually similar and that the concern in this
study lies in fundamental personality dispositions as opposed to the
effects of context on personality, research on FF and TA, when it is
interpreted as an index of FF, will mutually inform the theory from
which hypotheses will be made for this project.
Whereas specific fears of failing are assumed to emerge from
context-specific social learning, a broad array of factors are thought
to influence the development of general FF and TA. These factors
include socialization and early childhood experiences, features of
the instructional environment, learning experiences, biological
constitution, and contextual and subjective factors, such as the
structure of the performance environment and the performers’
perceptions of that environment and its effects on their goals
760 Conroy

(Zeidner, 1998). All of these factors are likely to play a role in FF

development; however, it would be very difficult to investigate them
all simultaneously. Early childhood experiences were one of the first
theoretical influences on FF (McClelland et al., 1953), interpersonal
behaviors are common to many of the aforementioned influences on
FF, and interpersonal behaviors provide the roots of psychody-
namic approaches to understanding FF. Thus, the present
investigation will focus on young adults’ perceptions of their early
interpersonal experiences with an acknowledgement that this
approach provides only a partial understanding of the FF
personality.

An Interpersonal Theory of Personality

Interpersonal behaviors are held to influence many aspects of
personality development (Leary, 1957; Sullivan, 1953). Attachment
theorists suggest that the formation of representational models of
oneself and others is a principal mediator of interpersonal influences
on personality development (Bowlby, 1969/1982). Infants with
available and responsive caregivers exhibit very different responses
to separation-related distress than do infants with unavailable or
unresponsive caregivers (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters & Wall, 1978).
These differences are attributed to the internalization of different
beliefs and expectations concerning the availability and responsive-
ness of their caregivers, commonly referred to as representational or
internal working models of others. Representational models of
others, in turn, are held to influence infants’ beliefs and expectations
about themselves (i.e., representational models of self; Bowlby,
1988, p. 130). Research has linked representational models to adult
attachment styles (Pincus, Dickinson, Schut, Castonguay, & Bedics,
1999) and personality traits such as the Big Five (Pincus & Ruiz,
1997).
With an internalization mechanism of personality development in
mind, the content of representational models (of self and others)
should be systematically related to personality traits with inter-
personal components. From this perspective, representational
models of self and other form a fundamental, interpersonal unit of
personality. As such, these models provide a means for integrating
psychodynamic and trait approaches to studying personality in
general, and FF in particular.
Fear of Failure 761

Modeling Representational Models Using Structural Analysis of

Social Behavior
One tool available for studying representational models is the
Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB; Benjamin, 1974,
1996). The SASB uses three circumplex surfaces to describe the
different foci that communications can have. The first surface is
reserved for communications from one person focusing on another
person (i.e., a transitive focus); the second surface involves inter-
personal communications focused on the self that are typically
responses to another person’s communications (i.e., an intransitive
focus). The third surface describes intrapsychic communications, or
introject, and can be used to summarize representational models of
self.
Two orthogonal axes span each of these three surfaces. The
horizontal axis represents the affiliative quality of the communica-
tion (ranging from loving to attacking) and the vertical axis
represents the interdependent quality of the communication (ranging
from controlling/submitting to autonomy-granting/taking). These
dimensions have consistently been noted in interpersonal theories
(Bakan, 1966; Benjamin, 1996; Carson, 1969; Kiesler, 1996; Leary,
1957; Wiggins, 1982). As seen in Figure 1, eight types of
communication (clusters) arranged in a circular formation around
these axes can be distinguished (bold labels refer to transitive ‘‘focus
on other’’ communications, underlined labels refer to intransitive
‘‘focus on self’’ communications, and italicized labels refer to
introject).
These three aspects of interpersonal experience (focus, affiliation,
and interdependence) can effectively summarize interpersonal
aspects of an individual’s representational models (Benjamin &
Friedrich, 1991; Hartley, 1991; Heck & Pincus, 2001; Pincus &
Ansell, in press; Pincus & Ruiz, 1997). From this perspective, up to
four representational models may be relevant for describing a
relationship such as that between a child and her father. These
models can describe her beliefs about affiliation and interdependence
in (a) how he treated her (focus on other surface), (b) how she
responded to him (focus on self surface), (c) how she treated him
(focus on other surface), and (d) how he responded to her (focus on
self surface). The child’s model of herself in a particular state also
could be profiled on the introject surface, using SASB cluster scores
762 Conroy

EMANCIPATE
SEPARATE
SELF-EMANCIPATE

IGNORE AFFIRM
WALL-OFF DISCLOSE
SELF-NEGLECT SELF-AFFIRM

ATTACK ACTIVE LOVE

RECOIL REACTIVE LOVE
SELF-ATTACK ACTIVE SELF-LOVE

BLAME PROTECT
SULK TRUST
SELF-BLAME SELF-PROTECT

CONTROL
SUBMIT
SELF-CONTROL
Figure 1
The Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB) simplified model.
Note. From Interpersonal diagnosis and treatment of personality disorders (2nd ed., p. 55) by
L.S. Benjamin, 1996, New York: The Guilford Press. Copyright 1996 by The Guilford Press.
Reprinted by permission.

(i.e., scores that combine affiliation and interdependence in different

combinations).
A unique strength of the SASB approach for describing
representational models of others and self is that hypotheses can
be extended using theoretically-derived predictive principles. One
principle, complementarity, was initially proposed by Leary (1957)
and later modified for the SASB model by Benjamin (1974, 1996).
This principle asserts interpersonal behaviors pull, in a probabilistic
sense, for subsequent communications that are equivalent in
affiliation and control but differ in their interpersonal focus (i.e.,
focus on other vs. focus on self). For example, following parental
blame, a child is most likely to sulk. A second principle, introjection,
was initially proposed by Sullivan (1953) and incorporated into the
SASB model by Benjamin (1974, 1996) as a specific form of
internalization. This principle asserts that individuals are most likely
to treat themselves as they have been treated by important others.
Fear of Failure 763

For example, children who grow up with blaming parents will be

likely to develop a self-blaming introject. These two predictive
principles will be employed in conjunction with the literature to
develop hypotheses about the nature of representational models
associated with FF.

Predicting Representational Models Associated With Fear of

Failure
Empirical evidence points to an interpersonal pathway for FF
development that should be reflected in the representational models
of high FF individuals. Children who fear failure tend to grow up in
environments where love, approval, and affection appear to be
relatively rare either because of parental absence (Greenfeld &
Teevan, 1986) or family conflict (Singh, 1992). These conditions of
affectional deprivation appear to be exacerbated by parents’
behavior toward high FF children. For example, high FF high
school students have described parents as critical and restrictive in
their behavior (Krohne, 1992; Teevan & McGhee, 1972). Addition-
ally, parents of high FF children have described themselves as
demanding high levels of performance from their children at a young
age (Schmalt, 1982; Teevan & McGhee, 1972). Mothers of high FF
children have been both observed and described by their children as
responding neutrally and withholding reinforcements following their
children’s successes and expressing irritation or punishing their
children for failures (Hermans, ter Laak, & Maes, 1972; Teevan,
1983; Teevan & McGhee, 1972).
Through verbal and nonverbal communications with figures who
provide affectional bonds for children (Bowlby, 1979, 1969/1982;
Harlow, 1958), children can learn that failure leads to punishment or
withdrawal of affection and approval (needed qualities which are
already in short supply for these individuals). This process of
punishment or love withdrawal following failure can lead to the
development of shame which is a component of classic and more
contemporary models of FF (Atkinson, 1966; Conroy, 2001b;
Lewis, 1992; Thrash & Elliot, 1999). To minimize the potential for
losing hard-won and highly valued affection and approval, children
who learned to associate competence with affection may under-
standably place a high priority on not failing and become anxious
about the possibility of failing. Furthermore, because the con-
764 Conroy

sequences of failing (i.e., having love withdrawn) are so severe for

affection-starved children, the possibility of failing can be immensely
threatening for them. Thus, it appears that FF primarily may be a
defensive adaptation made by children who learn that the affection
they crave is either unlikely to follow or likely to be withdrawn
following an unsuccessful performance. Based on previous findings,
the psychodynamic theory of FF development articulated above,
and the SASB predictive principles, specific hypotheses can be made
about the representational models of young adults who fear failure.

Representational models of others. Representational models of

parents and significant instructors are especially likely to be
associated with FF. Parents are implicated because of their
significance as primary caregivers and attachment objects (Ains-
worth et al., 1978; Bowlby, 1969/1982) and their documented link to
broader personality development (Barber, 2002; Bornstein, 2002;
Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; Pincus & Ruiz, 1997; Pincus et al., 1999).
Instructors also may be implicated in the development of FF
because of their salience as performance models and because they
typically provide immediate, valued, competence-related feedback in
achievement settings. Although the same general pattern of
relationships between FF and representational models of coaches
and parents is expected, the overall effect size (i.e., R2) is expected to
be larger for parents than for significant instructors because of the
former’s primacy as attachment objects.
Based on the aforementioned findings of Krohne (1992) and
Teevan and McGhee (1972), individuals who fear failure are
expected to describe representational models of others who are
more controlling and blaming than individuals who do not fear
failure. High FF has been associated with overt and subtle
punishments (e.g., love withdrawal) following failure (Teevan,
1983; Teevan & McGhee, 1972; Thrash & Elliot, 1999). Conse-
quently, FF was hypothesized to exhibit a positive relationship with
descriptions of others as blaming, attacking, and ignoring; the
effects for blame were expected to be largest. Based on the
proposition that FF develops through love withdrawal, FF scores
also were hypothesized to be negatively related to descriptions of
others as affirming, actively loving, and protecting.
Applying the principle of complementarity to these research
findings suggests that individuals who fear failure would describe
Fear of Failure 765

themselves as submitting and sulking in response to others more

than individuals who do not fear failure. Sarason, Davidson,
Lighthall, Waite, and Ruebush (1960) theorized that highly trait
anxious children are more likely to submit to their parents out of a
fear of being punished for pursuing their own interests; however, the
prediction of increased sulking in response to others is uniquely
drawn from the complementarity principle. Additionally, the
complementarity principle led to the prediction that high FF
participants would describe themselves responding to others in a
more recoiling and walling-off manner and in a less disclosing,
reactively loving, or trusting manner.

Representational models of self. Although no research has directly

examined state-specific representational models of self associated
with FF, these constructs should be related, given that the latter was
theorized as a competence-related adaptation to a deficient self-
concept. The SASB principle of introjection predicts that individuals
will treat themselves as they have been treated by important others
(Benjamin, 1996). Thus, hypotheses about representational models
of self parallel hypotheses about representational models of others.
Specifically, FF was hypothesized to be positively related to ratings
of self-control, self-blame, self-attack, and self-neglect during failure
and negatively related to ratings of self-affirmation, self-love, and
self-protection. The overall effect size for FF and representational
models of self is expected to be larger than the overall effect size for
FF and representational models of others because dispositional FF
is conceptualized as a competence-related adaptation to a deficient
self-concept and self-concept is theorized as the intervening variable
that links representational models of others with FF.

Purpose. To summarize, individuals who grow up to fear failure

tend to grow up in more hostile home environments where they
learn that self-worth is contingent on achievement. Individuals are
believed to treat themselves similarly to how they perceive their
social environment (i.e., the behaviors of others toward them);
this process of internalization is the theoretical mechanism that
links social behavior to the problematic self-concept associated with
FF. The purpose of this study was to describe more specifically how
FF is related to representational models (of others and of oneself),
and to estimate the magnitude of those effects in young adults.
766 Conroy

Seven separate multiple regression models were tested to evaluate

the relationships between FF and each representational model
(viz., three models for mothers/fathers/instructors acting toward
participants, three models for participants reacting to mothers/
fathers/instructors, one model of participants acting toward
themselves while failing). The collective association between
representational models of others and self with FF was estimated
in an additional regression model. Results of this study will clarify
the relationship between trait and psychodynamic conceptualiza-
tions of FF.

METHODS
Participants
Two hundred eleven high-school students (n 5 137), high school athletes
(n 5 32), college students (n 5 23), and college athletes (n 5 19) partici-
pated in this study. The mean age of female participants (n 5 94) was 16.6
years (SD 5 2.7); the mean age of male participants (n 5 117) was 17.2
years (SD 5 2.8). The median social class for female and male
participants was middle class (n 5 97) and the sample was predominantly
European American (85%) with a small percentage of Asian American/
Pacific Islander (5%), Hispanic (3%), and African American (2%)
participants (other races and missing data made up the rest of the
sample). Both female and male participants tended to be raised by both
parents (81%). The next most frequent living arrangements involved the
mother raising the child alone because of divorce (10%), splitting time
between divorced parents (3%), or living with the father because of
divorce (1%). Other family/living arrangements accounted for the
remaining responses. Ten female and 10 male participants who were
not raised by both parents had a sociological parent present to assume
the second parenting role on a daily basis.

Instrumentation
Three questionnaires were used to collect data from participants: a
demographic questionnaire, a measure of FF, and a multipart
questionnaire that quantified interpersonal and intrapsychic communica-
tion patterns. The demographic questionnaire comprised 15 questions
about their age, sex, race, level in school or sport (i.e., high school,
college, or other), socioeconomic status, family structure, and previous
history with achievement complaints.
Fear of Failure 767

Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory. The 25-item Performance

Failure Appraisal Inventory (PFAI; Conroy, 2001b; Conroy et al., 2002,
2003) assessed fear of failure. This measure provided five scores for
participants’ beliefs in aversive consequences of failure (viz., experiencing
shame and embarrassment, devaluing one’s self-estimate, having an
uncertain future, important others losing interest, upsetting important
others). Sample items included: ‘‘When I am failing, I worry about what
others think about me’’; ‘‘When I am failing, I am afraid that I might not
have enough talent’’; ‘‘When I am failing, it upsets my ‘plan’ for the
future’’; ‘‘When I am not succeeding, people are less interested in me’’;
and ‘‘When I am failing, important others are disappointed.’’ Scores for
these five appraisals were combined to yield a score for a higher-order,
general FF factor that was used in the present analyses. This hierarchical
model of FF scores has demonstrated strong factorial validity and strict
factorial invariance across samples and over time. Scores have demon-
strated: (a) acceptable internal consistency (i.e., alpha for the higher-
order FF score was .82); (b) positive relationships with trait anxiety
(moderate-large effect size [ES]), performance worries (large ES),
cognitive disruptions (moderate ES), performance-avoidance goal
orientations (moderate ES); (c) negative relationships with
state hope (moderate ES), trait optimism (moderate-large ES); and (d)
nonsignificant relationships with task/mastery goal orientations, perfor-
mance-approach goal orientations, perceived competence, and fear of
success (Conroy, 2001b; Conroy et al., 2002). PFAI scores also have
correctly classified 76.5% of participants based on their perceptions of
underachievement (Conroy, 2001b). Additionally, general FF scores
from the PFAI exhibit high reliability (r 5 .87) over a 21-day interval in
young adult samples (Conroy et al., 2003). The response scale for this
measure ranged from do not believe at all ( 2) to believe 100% of the
time (12).

SASB Intrex Questionnaire

The SASB Intrex questionnaire exists in short, medium, and long forms
and can be used to assess representational models of interpersonal and
intrapsychic communication.1 The medium form of the SASB Intrex
questionnaires (Benjamin, 1974, 2000) was selected for the present study
to balance the superior psychometric properties of the long form with the
efficiency of the short form. Each item on the Intrex was rated on a 100-

1. The Intrex questionnaires are available to qualified users through the

Department of Psychology at the University of Utah (see http://www.psych.
utah.edu/benjamin/sasb).
768 Conroy

point scale (presented in 10-point increments) anchored by never/not at

all (0) and always/perfectly (100).
The 16-item Intrex medium form A (introject) questionnaires were
used to collect ratings of (a) participants’ introject during a perceived
failure in a season/year-end, culminating performance (e.g., the biggest
exam of the year for students, or a season-ending championship for
athletes). Introject while failing represents self-concept in a highly specific
state that would be likely to activate the cognitive schema associated with
FF. Each of these ratings yielded separate SASB-based scores for the
introject clusters shown in Figure 1. Scores represented the relative
frequency of each type of communication (with higher scores represent-
ing a greater relative frequency of a given type/cluster of communica-
tion).
Intrex questionnaire Forms D and E also were used to collect
participants’ ratings of (a) their relationship with their mother between
the ages of 5 and 10 years old, (b) their relationship with their father
between the ages of 5 and 10 years old, and (c) their relationship with
their most significant instructor (i.e., coach or teacher depending on the
performance domain) following a performance failure. Participants’
ratings of each relationship involved 32 Intrex items (a total of 96
ratings). Each set of relationship ratings yielded cluster scores for the
transitive and intransitive aspects of the communications shown in Figure
1. Benjamin (2000) summarized the large volume of Intrex score validity
evidence based on factor analyses of responses, dimensional ratings of
stimuli, and between-group contrasts involving psychiatric and normal
populations.
In their research linking Five-Factor Model personality traits to
representational models of parents, Pincus and Ruiz (1997) used resultant
vectors to summarize affiliation and autonomy trends in SASB profiles
that operationally define representational models. Such macroscopic
SASB analyses can be very appropriate for certain research questions or
when single items are used to estimate cluster scores. The SASB model
also affords an opportunity to describe representational models in much
greater detail by modeling cluster scores instead of affiliation and
autonomy vectors that summarize the dimensions underlying the cluster
scores. This manuscript attempts to capitalize more fully on the detail of
the SASB model for describing representational models by utilizing
SASB cluster scores to link those models to FF.

Procedures
Participants were recruited from high school and college classrooms and
sports teams. Permission to collect data in the high schools was received
Fear of Failure 769

from the superintendent’s office in two school districts, and individual

school principals identified teachers and coaches who might be willing to
involve their groups in this project. For college students and athletes,
course instructors and coaches were contacted to request permission to
recruit participants from their groups. For minor participants (age 12–17
years), letters were sent home to parents describing the nature of the
research and requesting parental permission for students to participate in
the research. Individuals who returned permission forms were then given
a brief description of the study and asked to provide informed assent to
participate.
The study was described to participants as an inquiry into different
attitudes about failure and how those attitudes might be related to
relationships they had with important people in their lives. Participants
were asked to complete the questionnaires in the following order:
demographic questionnaire, PFAI, and Intrex series (introject during
failure, relationship with mother [age 5-10], relationship with father [age
5–10], relationship with most significant coach or teacher after failing,
wished-for introject, and feared introject). Participants were thanked for
their willingness to participate in the study. Following data entry, the
data file was checked in its entirety against the raw data to ensure
accuracy.

Data Analysis
Hierarchical multiple regression (MR) was used to test hypotheses about
the association between FF and representational models. Each model
regressed FF on eight SASB cluster scores for a given representational
model in two steps—the first step containing cluster scores for
hypothesized effects and the second step containing the remaining cluster
score(s) for that model.
As expected when modeling data from a circumplex model (Guttman,
1954), considerable collinearity was present in SASB cluster scores; this
collinearity must be considered in MR analyses (Cohen & Cohen, 1983,
p. 115). Both structure and standardized regression coefficients should be
interpreted to minimize the likelihood of misinterpreting or incompletely
interpreting MR results (Courville & Thompson, 2001; Thompson &
Borrello, 1985). Structure coefficients represent correlations between
predictor variables and predicted scores of an outcome variable generated
using the full set of predictors in a MR analysis. Standardized regression
coefficients describe the unique contribution of each predictor to the
outcome variable after controlling for the variance accounted for by the
other predictor variables. When interpreting model results, both model-
level statistics (e.g., R2) and predictor-level coefficients were considered;
770 Conroy

however, structure coefficients were given greater weight because they can
reasonably be generalized across samples, whereas standardized beta
coefficients may not be generalizable.

RESULTS
Descriptive statistics for representational models of others are
presented in Table 1. Means and standard deviations for representa-
tional models of self while failing were as follows: self-emancipate
(M 5 41.36, SD 5 23.80), self-affirm (M 5 58.66, SD 5 26.05), active
self-love (M 5 61.07, SD 5 25.87), self-protect (M 5 74.34, SD 5
20.24), self-control (M 5 61.85, SD 5 21.66), self-blame (M 5 38.00,
SD 5 25.46), self-attack (M 5 19.93, SD 5 20.10), and self-neglect
(M 5 30.48, SD 5 23.45). The mean PFAI score was 0.25
(SD 5 0.75).

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for SASB Intrex Profiles of Representational
Models of Others

Mother Father Significant Instructor

M SD M SD M SD

Other Focusing on Participant

Emancipate 45.87 25.86 48.03 26.65 49.94 27.62
Affirm 71.61 24.04 68.53 28.15 71.77 24.88
Active Love 77.43 23.74 69.94 28.73 65.53 28.78
Protect 82.23 21.66 74.22 29.20 72.49 24.91
Control 59.47 23.18 58.48 26.03 60.41 27.50
Blame 18.20 22.47 22.20 25.36 18.35 23.22
Attack 7.31 16.30 12.94 24.27 10.98 20.27
Ignore 8.05 15.82 16.57 26.35 12.22 18.83
Participant Reacting to Other
Separate 44.93 26.10 43.53 27.98 45.51 28.01
Disclose 65.47 25.00 60.72 27.67 66.49 26.11
Reactive Love 75.55 23.79 71.53 27.88 67.38 27.87
Trust 77.40 22.69 72.12 26.10 75.04 23.76
Submit 45.21 25.17 44.15 27.22 41.52 27.51
Sulk 37.99 24.79 35.43 26.40 27.71 25.11
Recoil 12.51 20.44 16.29 24.59 13.57 21.86
Wall-Off 21.70 22.75 24.52 27.59 22.41 25.44
Fear of Failure 771

One-way analysis of variance was used to test for significant score

differences on general FF and Intrex profiles between the four
groups in the present sample (i.e., high school and college students
and athletes). Five (of 49) variables indicated a group difference
(po.05); however, Scheffé post hoc tests revealed significant
differences on only one of these variables. Specifically, college
athletes reported that their most significant instructors were more
ignoring of them than either high school students or athletes did
(po.05). No other significant differences between groups emerged
for any other variables. Based on the widespread lack of group
differences in representational models or FF, the four groups were
combined for all remaining analyses.

Representational Models of Others Associated With FF

Parents focusing on children. Participants’ descriptions of how their
mothers treated them (ages 5–10) significantly predicted their
current FF scores, F (8, 200) 5 3.47, po.01, R2 5 .12. Participants’
descriptions of how their fathers treated them (ages 5–10) also
significantly predicted their current FF scores, F (8, 188) 5 2.53,
p 5 .01, R2 5 .10. Table 2 presents the structure (S) and standardized
regression coefficients (b) for the predictor variables in these
regression models. As hypothesized, high FF participants described
both parents as being less affirming, actively loving, and protecting,
and more blaming and ignoring. High FF participants also
described their mothers as being more attacking; however, paternal
attack was not significantly associated with FF.

Children responding to parents. Participants’ descriptions of their

responses to their mothers were significantly related to FF, F (8,
200) 5 2.44, po.01, R2 5 .16, but representational models of
responses to their fathers did not predict FF scores, F (8,
188) 5 1.48, p4.05, R2 5 .06. Table 3 presents the structure (S)
and standardized regression coefficients (b) for the predictor
variables in these regression models. As hypothesized, high FF
participants described more sulking, more submission, less dis-
closure, less reactive love, and less trust, in response to their
mothers. Additionally, high FF participants reported responding to
their mothers by separating. Participants’ responses to their fathers
772 Conroy

Table 2
Representational Models of Treatment by Important Relationships
Predicting FF

Mother Father Significant Instructor

step S Beta S Beta S Beta

Emancipate 2 .12 0.02 .11 0.02 .24nn 0.09

Affirm 1 .77nn 0.15 .66nn 0.19 .69nn 0.24n
Active Love 1 .64nn 0.04 .62nn 0.15 .13 0.11
Protect 1 .78nn 0.29nn .47nn 0.16 .28nn 0.05
Control 1 .14 0.07 .07 0.05 .02 0.00
Blame 1 .55nn 0.13 .41nn 0.16 .73nn 0.16
Attack 1 .32nn 0.01 .00 0.34nn .38nn 0.08
Ignore 1 .25nn 0.22 .50nn 0.20 .58nn 0.07
nn
p o.01; n
p o.05.

Table 3
Representational Models of Responses to Important Others
Predicting FF

Mother Father Significant Instructor

step S Beta S Beta S Beta

Separate 2 .34nn 0.00 .07 0.03 .30nn 0.06

Disclose 1 .49nn 0.13 .75nn 0.14 .57nn 0.28n
Reactive Love 1 .37nn 0.08 .69nn 0.20 .23nn 0.13
Trust 1 .30nn 0.05 .33nn 0.11 .30nn 0.05
Submit 1 .45nn 0.14n .43nn 0.12 .07 0.16
Sulk 1 .47nn 0.06 .31nn 0.01 .24nn 0.06
Recoil 1 .43nn 0.06 .37nn 0.10 .75nn 0.14
Wall-off 1 .86nn 0.32nn .46nn 0.04 .65nn 0.05
nn
po.01; n
po.05.

were not significantly associated with FF, so item-level coefficients

were not interpreted for this model.

Significant instructors focusing on children. FF scores were only

marginally associated with how participants perceived being treated
by their most significant instructors after failing (F [8, 187] 5 1.95,
Fear of Failure 773

p 5 .06, R2 5 .08) but were significantly associated with participants’

responses to their most significant instructors (F [8, 187] 5 2.72,
po.01, R2 5 .10). Table 2 shows, as hypothesized, that participants
who feared failure described their instructors as being more blaming,
less protecting, and less affirming when they failed. High FF
participants also described their significant instructors as being more
emancipating, ignoring, and attacking after failing. As seen in Table
3, participants who feared failure described responding to their most
significant instructors with more submission, less disclosure, less
trust, and less reactive love. Additionally, high FF participants
reported responding to their most significant instructors with
increased recoil, walling-off, and separation.

Representational Models of Self Associated With FF

Cluster scores for introject during failure significantly predicted FF
scores, F (8, 202) 5 17.32, po.01, R2 5 .41. Consistent with
expectations, high FF participants reported being more self-
blaming (S 5 .76, po.01; b 5 0.24, po.01), less self-affirming
(S 5 .70, po.01; b 5 0.25, po.01), less actively self-loving
(S 5 .67, po.01; b 5 0.02, p4.05), and less self-protect-
ing (S 5 .50, po.01; b 5 0.11, p4.05) while failing than did
low FF participants. Additionally, high FF participants described
themselves as being more self-attacking (S 5 .72, po.01; b 5 0.20,
po.05), more self-neglecting (S 5 .43, po.01; b 5 0.12, p4.05), and
less self-emancipating (S 5 .20, po.01; b 5 0.12, p4.05) while
failing than did low FF participants. Only self-control failed to
exhibit significant coefficients (S 5 .10, p4.05; b 5 0.01, p4.05).

Combined Associations Between Representational Models and

Fear of Failure
Collectively, cluster scores for representational models of mothers,
fathers, and significant instructors, and introject during failure
accounted for 53% of the variance in participants’ FF scores, F (32,
153) 5 5.36, po.01 (adjusted R2 5 .43). When representational
models of how participants responded to parents and significant
instructors were added to that model, 67% of the variance in FF
scores could be accounted for, F (56, 127) 5 4.55, po.01 (adjusted
R2 5 43). It is likely that the true size of the relationship between
representational models and FF in the population lies between the
774 Conroy

adjusted and unadjusted R2values because, although a large number

of predictor variables are included in the model, the predictors are
tapping a limited number of dimensions underlying the variables.

DISCUSSION
A primary purpose of this study was to examine the link between
trait and psychodynamic models of FF. The magnitude of
significant relationships that emerged between FF and representa-
tional models of self and others clearly supported the complemen-
tary nature of these theoretical perspectives and provided further
evidence for interpersonal theories of FF. Results also suggested
that representational models of self, or introject, provided a more
direct link between psychodynamic and trait approaches than did
representational models of others.
Given the theoretical roots of FF in a deficient self-concept
(Birney et al., 1969; Rothblum, 1990), the strong relationship
between FF and introject while failing was not surprising. Introject
is often conceptualized and used as an index of self-concept based on
the premise that individuals treat themselves in a manner that is
similar to how they view themselves (Alpher, 1996; Benjamin, 1996;
Henry, 1994, 2001; Henry, Schacht, & Strupp, 1990; Klein,
Wonderlich, & Crosby, 2001; Sullivan, 1953). These findings were
consistent with the internalization-based theory of FF development
advanced in the introduction of this paper.
Overall, the magnitude of the relationships between FF and
representational models of others was similar to the findings of the
Pincus and Ruiz (1997) study of the Big Five personality traits. This
consistency suggested that the trait and psychodynamic approaches
tap common and unique variance in personality. The pattern of
effect sizes among representational models of others was revealing, if
not surprising. In order of magnitude, the representational models
that best predicted FF were of mothers, fathers, and instructors.
Given the increased developmental significance of parents compared
to instructors, it was not surprising that representational models of
instructors were relatively weaker predictors of FF. This pattern of
effect sizes was one of the greatest differences between the
regressions of FF on representational models of others.
The specific components (i.e., SASB cluster scores) of representa-
tional models of mothers, fathers, and significant instructors
Fear of Failure 775

exhibited very similar patterns of relationships with FF. It should be

noted that models of instructors exhibited some unique character-
istics compared to models of parents, due to the role constraints of
an instructor. For example, although active love from parents was
negatively associated with FF, this variable was unrelated to FF in
models of instructors. This divergence was reasonable because it
would be highly inappropriate for instructors to exhibit active love
toward their students, whereas it would not be inappropriate in
parent–child relations. Otherwise, the general pattern of relation-
ships with FF for the three representational models of others was
largely consistent with the hypotheses.
As expected, high FF participants generally described more
hostile and less affiliative representational models of others (i.e.,
mothers, fathers, and instructors). The perceived hostility of others
was consistent with previous research (Krohne, 1992; Hermans
et al., 1972; Teevan & McGhee, 1972; Teevan, 1983). Others have
identified the increased hostility of others as blame (Krohne),
general punishment following failure (Teevan, 1983; Teevan &
McGhee), and more negatively valenced affective expression
following failure (Hermans et al.). The present results indicated
that others are perceived as consistently hostile and as exhibiting
behaviors that vary greatly in interdependence, that is, from blame
to attack to ignore. This finding was consistent with the articulated
theory of FF development because any hostile interpersonal
behaviors, regardless of interdependence, will exacerbate the
problem of affection-deprived individuals.
High FF individuals also described their parents as being
generally less affiliative toward them. It has previously been
established that parents of high FF individuals are perceived as
being less likely to offer reinforcements or rewards following success
compared to the parents of low FF individuals (Hermans et al.,
1972; Teevan & McGhee, 1972). The present finding that less
affiliative models of parents were associated with FF also was
consistent with the finding that love withdrawal may be a partial
mediator of FF development (Thrash & Elliot, 1999).
Participants’ descriptions of how they responded to mothers and
instructors significantly predicted FF scores whereas descriptions of
how they responded to fathers did not predict FF scores. High FF
participants reported increased sulking and decreased disclosure,
reactive love, and trust to their mothers and instructors. All of these
776 Conroy

findings were consistent with the complementarity-based extension

of previous research findings concerning others’ behaviors (Krohne,
1992; Hermans et al., 1972; Teevan & McGhee, 1972; Teevan, 1983).
High FF individuals’ responses to their mothers also were
characterized by increased submission (as predicted by Sarason
et al., 1960, with regard to trait anxiety in general) and separation.
High FF individuals appeared to be somewhat ambivalent or
conflicted about differentiating from their mothers. In contrast, FF
was positively associated with recoiling, walling-off, and separating
behaviors in response to instructors. These findings indicated that
high FF participants strive to differentiate themselves from
instructors in a sometimes hostile manner.
A few unexpected results emerged in the present research. Perhaps
the greatest surprise was the failure of parental or instructor control
to predict FF scores. This finding directly contradicted earlier
findings that parental restriction (Krohne, 1992) and early demands
for mastery (Teevan & McGhee, 1972) were associated with FF.
Divergence from Krohne’s results may have been due to measure-
ment and validity concerns in that study. Specifically, Krohne’s
measure of restriction was a subset of items from a broader scale of
restriction and inconsistency; evidence of the validity of scores from
this adapted measure is unavailable. A review of the sample item
content provided by Krohne also suggested that parental restriction
scores may represent parental denial of child requests rather than a
more conventional form of interpersonal dominance (as was
hypothesized based on previous research and subsequently mea-
sured in the present study) or intrusive parenting (Barber, 2002).
This finding indicated that early demands for mastery should not be
equated with control. Pure dominance of parents and instructors
over children was not directly associated with FF, but it is possible
that hybrid forms of dominance or context-specific dominance may
be associated with FF.
Interestingly, FF was positively related to perceptions of
instructors (but not parents) as being emancipating. At first glance,
this finding may indicate that early demands for mastery (Teevan &
McGee, 1972) have been misinterpreted and are actually character-
ized more by emancipation than by control. Alternately, perceptions
of instructors’ emancipation may promote FF because the
instructors are departing from their socially prescribed role of
directing performances. High FF individuals may interpret this
Fear of Failure 777

increased freedom as a sign of a less predictable and facilitating

environment, possibly increasing the subjective likelihood of failure
for the performer. Increased subjective assessments of the likelihood
of failure could activate cognitive networks or schemas associated
with FF (cf. Atkinson, 1964).
Representational models of how participants responded to their
parents and instructors largely conformed to hypothesized relation-
ships with FF. The only exceptions were the findings that FF was
unrelated to submission to instructors and positively related to
separation from instructors. The failure of the submission hypoth-
esis may have been expected post hoc, based on the complementary
failure of parental control to predict FF. Nevertheless, this finding
was not consistent with the theory of childhood anxiety develop-
ment advanced by Sarason et al. (1960) that was generalized to
generate the present hypothesis. Sarason et al. suggested that
children were more submissive to parents out of a fear of being
punished. In the present study, reports of submission to parents
successfully predicted FF, but submission to instructors did not
predict FF, so this behavior appeared to be one specific parent
behavior whose effects in parent–child relationships cannot be
generalized to instructor–student relationships. It appeared that
high FF individuals were not as ambivalent about differentiating
from their instructors, whereas they were somewhat ambivalent
about differentiating from their mothers. Participants’ increased
separation in response to instructors also may be understood as the
complementary response to the previously described emancipation
perceived from instructors.
Predictions of the characteristics of introject while failing for high
FF participants were derived using the SASB predictive principle of
introjection (Benjamin, 1974, 1996) and were largely supported in
the present research. For example, high FF participants reported
being more hostile (i.e., self-blaming, self-attacking, and self-
neglecting) and less affiliative (i.e., self-affirming, self-loving, and
self-protecting) toward themselves. These results indicated that
previous results about interpersonal behavior (Krohne, 1992;
Teevan, 1983; Teevan & McGhee, 1972; Thrash & Elliot, 1999)
can be extended to predict state-specific self-concept using the SASB
principle of introjection. The only noteworthy exceptions to the
predictions in this study were that FF was unrelated to self-control
while failing and negatively related to self-emancipation while
778 Conroy

failing. As noted before, the former finding was not surprising, given
that FF was not associated with control in representational models
of others. If interpersonal control was not salient for high FF
individuals, the prediction of internalized self-control was invalid.
Although the structure coefficient for self-emancipation while failing
was significantly associated with FF, this effect should be interpreted
with caution because its small relative size suggested that it may be
trivial.
Overall, the SASB predictive principles of introjection and
complementarity were quite successful in extending predictions
from the sparse literature on FF. The validity of these predictive
principles has been demonstrated more directly in recent research
(Gurtman, 2001), and the present results demonstrated how these
basic principles of (inter-)personality can be applied to maximize the
utility of available information in the literature.
An important limitation of this study was that it did not establish
the degree to which the present results are specific to FF, as opposed
to more general characteristics such as trait anxiety (Sarason, 1960),
neuroticism (Sarason, 1960), perfectionism (Blatt, 1995; Hewitt &
Flett, 1991), or an avoidance temperament (Elliot & Thrash, 2002).2
It is almost certain that there would be substantial overlap between
the representational models associated with FF and those other
constructs, based on their conceptual similarity ( just as there is
overlap between trait measures of these constructs). Future research
teasing apart the unique variance in representational models
associated with FF, after controlling for variance shared by other
constructs, would be informative.
Also, it would be valuable to establish how the specificity of the
representational model being assessed influenced relationships with
FF and other traits. One might expect that differences would emerge
in the observed magnitude of effects rather than in the pattern of
effects when representational models rated for different contexts
were compared with related outcomes. For example, general
representational models of self (i.e., how individuals typically treat
themselves) may yield highly similar effect sizes for FF and trait
anxiety, whereas state-specific representational models of self (e.g.,
how individuals treat themselves while failing) would be expected to
exhibit greater predictive power for like state-specific outcomes (e.g.,

2. Thanks to the anonymous reviewer who raised this point.

Fear of Failure 779

FF) than for more general outcomes (e.g., trait anxiety). Establish-
ing the shared and unique aspects of FF (and related personality
characteristics) in relation to both general and specific representa-
tional models (Pierce & Lydon, 2001) should be a priority for future
research, particularly given the specificity of the adaptation
described in the present theory.
Results from the present study also raised several questions. The
similar patterns of effects for interpersonal and introject variables
begs the question of whether individuals are actually internalizing
hostile patterns from others (Benjamin, 1996; Sullivan, 1953) or
whether the results simply represent a bias in person perception
(Funder, 2001). Longitudinal studies of development may clarify
this issue in the coming years. If it turns out that individuals are
copying hostile patterns from others, the next logical question may
involve why individuals would adopt such a counterintuitive
regulatory strategy. Answers to this question will provide valuable
insight for future work in prevention and treatment.
To summarize, in addition to linking trait and psychodynamic
perspectives on FF, this research offered several unique contribu-
tions to the literature. It was the first study to assess the relationship
between FF and participants’ representational models of mothers,
fathers, instructors, and self, simultaneously. Thus, it provided the
most complete estimate (to date) of the magnitude of the
interpersonal variance associated with FF. The present study also
employed a broader universe of interpersonal behaviors to define
representational models than previous research on FF. Not only was
this universe of behavior broad, it also was elegantly organized by
the SASB model around two dimensions of behavior that pervade
interpersonal theories (i.e., affiliation and control). This research
uniquely drew upon theoretically derived SASB predictive principles
to generate hypotheses. These predictive principles suggested
important, novel hypotheses concerning specific aspects of self-
concept or reactive interpersonal behavior that had not been
examined previously (e.g., how individuals perceived themselves
responding to others, how individuals treated themselves). Finally,
the present research was the first to document the similar patterns of
relationships between FF and representational models of self and
others. The present findings were extremely consistent with the
theory that FF develops through a process of internalization (as
theorized herein) and invite further research.
780 Conroy

REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation and at home.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Alpher, V. S. (1996). Identity and introject in dissociative disorders. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 1238–1244.
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van
Nostrand.
Atkinson, J. W. (1966). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. In
J. W. Atkinson & N. T. Feather (Eds.), A theory of achievement motivation (pp.
11–30). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Atkinson, J. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1960). Achievement motive and test anxiety
conceived as motive to approach success and motive to avoid failure. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 52–63.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in
Western man. Boston: Beacon Press.
Barber, B. K. (2002). Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects
children and adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa-
tion.
Benjamin, L. S. (1974). Structural analysis of social behavior (SASB).
Psychological Review, 81, 392–425.
Benjamin, L. S. (1996). Interpersonal diagnosis and treatment of personality
disorders. New York: Guilford Press.
Benjamin, L. S. (2000). SASB Intrex questionnaires & software [computer
software]. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah.
Benjamin, L. S., & Friedrich, F. J. (1991). Contributions of Structural Analysis of
Social Behavior (SASB) to the bridge between cognitive science and a science
of object relations. In M. J. Horowitz (Ed.), Person schemas and maladaptive
interpersonal patterns (pp. 379–412). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Birney, R. C., Burdick, H., & Teevan, R. C. (1969). Fear of failure. New York:
Van Nostrand.
Blatt, S. J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfectionism: Implications for the
treatment of depression. American Psychologist, 50, 1003–1020.
Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London:
Routledge.
Bornstein, M. H. (2002). Handbook of parenting. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss volume 1: Attachment (2nd ed.). New
York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. London: Basic Books.
Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine.
Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research,
and clinical applications. New York: Guilford.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for
the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conroy, D. E. (2001a). Fear of failure: An exemplar for social development
research in sport. Quest, 53, 165–183.
Fear of Failure 781

Conroy, D. E. (2001b). Progress in the development of a multidimensional

measure of fear of failure: The Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory.
Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 14, 431–452.
Conroy, D. E., Metzler, J. N., & Hofer, S. M. (2003). Factorial invariance and
latent mean stability of performance failure appraisals. Structural Equation
Modeling, 10, 401–422.
Conroy, D. E., Poczwardowski, A., & Henschen, K. P. (2001). Evaluative criteria
and perceived consequences of failure and success for elite athletes and
performing artists. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 300–322.
Conroy, D. E., Willow, J. P., & Metzler, J. N. (2002). Multidimensional fear of
failure measurement: The Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 76–90.
Courville, T., & Thompson, B. (2001). Use of structure coefficients in published
multiple regression articles: b is not enough. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 61, 229–248.
Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the ‘‘classic’’ and ‘‘contemporary’’ approaches to
achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in
motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 243–279). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model
of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 76, 628–644.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in
personality: Approach and avoidance temperament and goals. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 804–818.
Funder, D. C. (2001). Three trends in current research on person perception:
Positivity, realism, and sophistication. In J. A. Hall & F. J. Bernieri (Eds.),
Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 319–331). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Greenfeld, N., & Teevan, R. C. (1986). Fear of failure in families without fathers.
Psychological Reports, 59, 571–574.
Gurtman, M. B. (2001). Interpersonal complementarity: Integrating interpersonal
measurement with interpersonal models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48,
97–110.
Guttman, L. (1954). A new approach to factor analysis: The radex. In P. R.
Lazarsfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking in the social sciences (pp. 258–348).
Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Hagtvet, K. A. (1983). A construct validation study of test anxiety: A
discriminant validation of fear of failure, worry, and emotionality. In H.
van der Ploeg, R. Schwarzer, & C. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in test anxiety
research (Vol. 2, pp. 15–34). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Harlow, H. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13, 673–685.
Hartley, D. (1991). Assessing interpersonal behavior patterns using Structural
Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB). In M. J. Horowitz (Ed.), Person schemas
and maladaptive interpersonal patterns (pp. 212–260). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
782 Conroy

Heck, S. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2001). Agency and communion in the structure of
parental representations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76, 180–184.
Henry, W. P. (1994). Differentiating normal and abnormal personality: An
interpersonal approach based on the Structural Analysis of Social Behavior. In
S. Strack & M. Lorr (Ed.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality
(pp. 316–340). New York: Springer.
Henry, W. P. (2001). Defining the self in an interpersonal context. In C. J. Muran
(Ed.), Self-relations in the psychotherapy process (pp. 267–289). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Henry, W. P., Schacht, T. E., & Strupp, H. H. (1990). Patient and therapist
introject, interpersonal process, and differential psychotherapy outcome.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 768–774.
Hermans, H. J. M., ter Laak, J. J. F., & Maes, P. C. J. M. (1972). Achievement
motivation and fear of failure in family and school. Developmental Psychology,
6, 520–528.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts:
Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456–470.
Hill, K. T. (1972). Anxiety in the evaluative context. In W. W. Hartup (Ed.), The
young child (Vol. 2, pp. 225–263). Washington, DC: National Association for
the Education of Young Children.
Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research: Personality,
psychopathology, and psychotherapy. New York: Wiley.
Klein, M. H., Wonderlich, S. A., & Crosby, R. (2001). Self-concept correlates of
the personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 15, 150–156.
Krohne, H. W. (1992). Developmental conditions of anxiety and coping: A two-
process model of child-rearing effects. In K. A. Hagtvet & T. B. Johnsen
(Eds.), Advances in test anxiety research (Vol. 7, pp. 143–155). Amsterdam:
Swets & Zeitlinger.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Leary, T. F. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald.
Lewis, M. (1992). Shame: The exposed self. New York: Free Press.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The
achievement motive. New York: Irvington.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and experimental
study of fifty men of college age. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pierce, T., & Lydon, J. E. (2001). Global and specific relational models in the
experience of social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
80, 613–631.
Pincus, A. L., & Ansell, E. B. (2003). Interpersonal foundations for an integrative
theory of personality. In T. Millon & R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of
psychology: Vol. 5: Personality and social psychology (pp. 209–229).
New York: Wiley.
Pincus, A. L., Dickinson, K. A., Schut, A. J., Castonguay, L. G., & Bedics, J.
(1999). Integrating interpersonal assessment and adult attachment using
SASB. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15, 206–220.
Fear of Failure 783

Pincus, A. L., & Ruiz, M. A. (1997). Parental representations and dimensions of

personality: Empirical relations and assessment implications. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 68, 436–454.
Rothblum, E. D. (1990). Fear of failure: The psychodynamic, need achievement,
fear of success, and procrastination models. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook
of social and evaluation anxiety (pp. 497–537). New York: Plenum.
Sarason, I. G. (1960). Empirical findings and theoretical problems in the use of
anxiety scales. Psychological Bulletin, 57, 403–415.
Sarason, S. B., Davidson, K. S., Lighthall, F. F., Waite, R. R., & Ruebush, B. K.
(1960). Anxiety in elementary school children. New York: Wiley.
Schmalt, H. D. (1982). Two concepts of fear of failure motivation. In
R. Schwarzer, H. M. van der Ploeg, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in
test anxiety research (Vol. 1, pp. 45–52). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets &
Zeitlinger.
Singh, S. (1992). Hostile press measure of fear of failure and its relation to child-
rearing attitudes and behavior problems. Journal of Social Psychology, 132,
397–399.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Teevan, R. C. (1983). Childhood development of fear of failure motivation: A
replication. Psychological Reports, 53, 506.
Teevan, R. C., & McGhee, G. (1972). Childhood development of fear of failure
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 345–348.
Thompson, B., & Borrello, G. M. (1985). The importance of structure coefficients
in regression research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45,
203–209.
Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999, August). Intergenerational transmission of the
fear of failure motive. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Boston, MA.
Wiggins, J. S. (1982). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior in clinical
psychology. In P. C. Kendall & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of research
methods in clinical psychology (pp. 183–221). New York: Wiley.
Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York: Plenum.
784