ARTICLES

Effects of Self-Esteem and

Perceived Goal Difficulty on
Goal Setting, Certainty, Task
Performance, and Attributions

Thomas Li-Ping Tang, David B. Reynolds

The research described in this article examined the interaction effects

between self-esteem and perceived goal difficulty on subjects’ self-set
goals, certainty, performance, a n d attributions. Perceived goal dqfi-
culty was manipulated by asking subjects to compete on the same task
against themselves, a difficult competitor, and a n easy competitor.
Subjects were divided into two groups characterized by high or low self-
esteem. Analysis showed that certainty, ability attribution, and task
satisfactionfor groups with low self-esteem were affected by perceived
goal difficulty especially in the difficult condition, whereas groups with
high self-esteem were not. Further, groups with low self-esteem had
lower goals, certainty, and task performance than groups with high
self-esteem. Subjects set higher goals a n d had higher performance in
the di,@ult condition than in the easy one. Implications related to
human resource development a r e discussed.

“One of the more interesting changes in the research literature in the past
five years is a much broader conception of trainee characteristics”
(Goldstein, 1993, p. 87). The importance of studying trainee characteris-
tics and such cognitive characteristics as self-efficacy and goal orientation
has been noted in the literature (Tannenbaum and Yukl, 1992).

Note: We would like to thank Mike Hein for his comments and suggesrions on earlier
drafts of this article. We are also grateful to Steven A. Reynolds for his assistance in data
collection, to K. Y. and F. C. Tang for their support, and to Lucinda Lea, Gordon
Moneymaker, and Jeff Hinds for their assistance in data analysis. Portions of this study
were presented at the thirty-sixth annual convention of the Southwestern Psychologi-
cal Association, Dallas, TX, April 1990.

HLMW RE~OURCEDEVELOPMENT vol. 4, no 2, Summer 1993

QUARTERLY, 0 Jossey-Bass Publishrrs 153
154 Tang, Reynolds

The present study examines the effects of one important trainee

characteristic: self-esteem. It focuses on the interaction effects between
self-esteem (high or low) and perceived goal difficulty (self, difficult, or
easy) on subjects’ self-set goals (Locke, Shaw, Saari, and Latham, 19811,
certainty (Locke and Latham, 1984,1990),task performance, and attribu-
tions (Tang and Tang, 1986; Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Reed, Rest, and
Rosenbaum, 1971). Reasoning that perceived goal difficulty may shape the
interpretation of a task but that performance of the task and the subject’s
evaluation of his or her performance depend both on that interpretation and
on the individual’s self-esteem (Tang and Baumeister, 1984), we manipu-
lated perceived goal difficulty by asking recreational dart throwers to
compete against themselves, a difficult competitor, and an easy competitor
on an identical dart task.

Cognitive Approach
For the past several decades, the cognitive approach to the study of behavior
in human resources has received a lot of attention (Ilgen and Klein, 1988;
Hackett, Lent, and Greenhaus, 1991). According to Hackett, Lent, and
Greenhaus (1991, p. 16), “the cognitive view of human behavior concep-
tualizes individuals as information processors whose interpretations of the
environment (including the self) have a major impact on their beliefs,
feelings, and actions and whose proactive behavior can have a substantial
effect on the environment as well.”
This cognitive approach and the study of goal setting, self-esteem, and
self-efficacy have been applied in human resources development (Campbell,
1991; Manz and Manz, 1991), motivation (Bandura, 1986), and sports
(Browne and Mahoney, 1984; Gould, Hodge, Peterson, and Giannini, 1989;
Locke and Latham, 1985). Goldstein (1993) notes the growingemphasis on
the cognitive learner and mental processes.
Locke and Latham (1984, p. 112) stated that “competition is a special
form of goal setting in which the performance of some other person serves
as the goal.” In competition, some people find it more satisfying to beat
another person than to beat an impersonal standard (Locke and Latham,
1984). These ideas are also applicable to trainees in various areas of skill-
related training or self-directed behavior change in human resource devel-
opment (Kolb and Boyatzis, 1984).

Self-Es te e m
The literature on goal setting suggests that “self-esteem [is] one of the most
promising individual difference variables” (Locke, Shaw, Saari, and Latham,
1981, p. 125) and that it “should be studied further” (Locke and Latham,
1990,p. 216). Further, researchers should examine aggregate measures of
Self-Esteem and Perceived Goal Dqficulty 155

goal-setting behaviors across repeated observations on a particular task

(Locke and Latham, 1990).
Self-esteem (SE) is “a global evaluation of the self” (Baumeister and
Tice, 1985, p. 450; Coopersmith, 1967) or a sense of worth or value
(Rosenberg, 1965). People develop attitudes and behave in ways that will
maintain their level of self-esteem (Korman, 1976). Self-esteem is also
considered to be a stable personality trait (Demo, 1985).
Baumeister and Tice (1985, p. 451) stated that the “primary control
systems” in individuals with high SE “are designed to cultivate talents and
maximize successes in order to excel,” whereas the “primary control
systems” in individuals with low SE “are designed to remedy personal
deficiencies in order to reach minimally successful or satisfactory level of
performance.” Therefore, subjects with high and low self-esteem may
respond differently to identical situations (Brockner, 1988).
In general, “high self-esteem individuals have more favorable efficacy
beliefs than do their low self-esteem counterparts” (Brockner, 1988, p. 14).
Further, “the higher the level ofperceived self-efficacy (‘I am sure I can do it’),
the higher the probability that the individual will actually engage in the task”
(Campbell, 199 1,p. 14). It can be argued that, in the field of human resource
development, trainees with high self-esteem will have higher probability of
accomplishing their goals than trainees with low self-esteem.
In a recent study, Tang and Sarsfield-Baldwin (1991) found that trainees
with high self-esteem-referred to henceforth as highSE’s-had higher certainty
in the second work period than trainees with low self-esteem-referred to hence-
forth as low SE’s. However, no significant difference was found in the first period.
These authors suggested that “it takes only one work period for subjects with
high self-esteem to build up their certainty (self-efficacystrength) on a new task
even though their actual performance is not any better than subjects with low
self-esteem” (Tang and Sarsfield-Baldwin, 1991, p. 417).
With a strong expectation and confidence to perform well on the task,
subjects may program their “forethoughts” (Bandura, 1986), which may
actually improve their motivation, effort, and execution and thereby
promote a high level ofperformance (Hackett, Lent, and Greenhaus, 1991).
Subjects’ attributions of successful performance to such internal factors as
ability and effort (Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Reed, Rest, and Rosenbaum,
1971) may further strengthen, enhance, and reinforce the global and stable
self-esteem. These suggestions led u s to predict that high SE’swill set higher
goals, express higher certainties, and have higher performance on a familiar
dart-throwing task than low SE’s.

Difficult Versus Easy

The literature on goal setting suggested that difficult goals produce higher
performance levels than easy goals (Locke and Latham, 1984,1990;Locke,
156 Tang, Reynolds

Shaw, Saari, and Latham, 1981). I t should be pointed out that Locke’s work
emphasizes a specific hard goal-that is, objective difficulty.
Our research examined subjective difficulty: An identical task was
used, and subjects’ self-set goals were measured. When subjects are asked
to compete against a difficult competitor, they may perceive a high level of
demand (Salomon, 1984),challenge, and extrinsic pressure (Tang, Tollison,
and Whiteside, 1987, 19891, and they may exert greater effort (Locke and
Latham, 1990).
To be successful, people facing a difficult situation have to set a higher
goal than people in the easy or self condition. This higher goal will lead in
turn to a higher level of task performance. Training programs can be more
effective by setting specific challenging goals (Goldstein, 1993). We pre-
dicted a significant main effect of perceived goal difficulty on self-set goals
and task performance.

Self-Esteem a n d Perceived Goal Difficulty

McFarlin, Baumeister, and Blascovich (1984) advised one-half of their
subjects to persist and the other half to quit on a puzzle-solving task. The
main dependent variable was the total length of time in seconds spent on
puzzles that were unsolvable. These authors found that high SE’s persisted
significantly longer than low SE’s did in the quit condition but that the two
groups did not differ significantly in the persist condition. Therefore, the
performance of low SE’s was affected by the suggestions of the experi-
menter, whereas the performance of high SE’s was not.
Brockner ( 1988, p. 6) has suggested that low SE’s have greater suscep-
tibility to influence by negative information and are “more behaviorally
‘plastic’ than high SE’s. These suggestions led us to predict that the
”

behavior and performance of low SE’s would be affected by the manipula-

tion of perceived task difficulty, whereas they would not for high SE’s. In
particular, when low SE’s compete against the difficult competitor, they
may perceive the situation as threatening and anxiety-provoking (Shrauger
and Rosenberg, 1970). To avoid possible failure and embarrassment, they
may play it safe by setting a low goal and expressing a low certainty (Tang,
Liu, and Vermillion, 1987).
“Capability of forethought” (Bandura, 1986,p. xi) plays an important
role in the individual’s process of self-regulation. With low expectations of
success, low SE’s try to reach minimally satisfactory levels of performance
(Baumeister and Tice, 1985) and exert very little sustained effort on the
task, which leads to a low level of performance. Low SE’s tend to blame
themselves, using internal attributions after failure. After poor task perfor-
mance, low SE’s have further doubts concerning their ability and are not
pleased with their performance, which reciprocally reconfirms their poor
self-efficacy and low self-esteem.
Self-Esteem and Perceived Goal D$iculty 157

In a situation involving an easy competitor or no competitor a t all (the

self condition), low SE’smay experience a false sense ofsecurity (Campbell,
1984). Under these conditions, their behaviors and perceptions will be the
opposite of what they are in the difficult condition.
The pattern differs for high SEs. That is, high SE’s may perceive the
difficult competitor as a challenge and respond with a high level of
involvement and significance (Bandura, 1986). Therefore, they try to
maximize success in order to excel (Baumeister and Tice, 1985). According
to Bandura (1986), self-esteem can stem from evaluations based on com-
petence (ability). One needs both ability and effort in order to accomplish
a difficult task (Locke and Latham, 1990). However, making a high-ability
attribution is more egocentric than making a high-effort attribution. Thus,
high SE’s will make higher-ability attributions than low SE’s in the difficult
condition. High SE’s who feel that they have what i t takes (ability) to
succeed are pleased with themselves.
Our major concern of this study was to identify the significant interac-
tion effects between self-esteem and perceived goal difficulty. We tested the
following hypothesis: Low SEs’ certainty, ability attribution, and task
satisfaction will be significantly affected by the perceived goal difficulty
manipulations, whereas high SE’s will not be affected by the experimental
manipulation. Further, in the difficult condition, certainty, ability attribu-
tion, and task satisfaction will be significantly lower for low SE‘s than they
are for high SE’s.

Method
Subjects. Fifty-two recreational dart throwers (thirty-eight males and
fourteen females) from two dart-throwing organizations volunteered to
participate in this study. They compete in weekly leagues, hold monthly
tournaments, and participate in national competitions on the professional
dart circuit (American Darts Organization). As Table 1shows, the average
age of the subjects was 31.47 years. They have an average income of
$32,400, an average 14.48yeax-sof education, and an average 42.75 months
of experience throwing darts.
Experimental Tusk. The object of the dart game 501 is to reduce the
score of 501 points to exactly zero. A player throws three darts at each turn.
Each dart thrown scores a value. The dart board is divided into twenty
wedges. The lowest and the highest scores labeled on the board are one and
twenty. A dart thrown at the center of the bull’s eye is worth fifty points. The
outer rings of the bull’s eye are worth twenty-five points. There are also two
rings on the board-the double ring and the triple ring. For example, if the
dart hits the triple ring in the twenty-point wedge, the player scores sixty
points-three times the value of the wedge and the highest score possible.
These values are added together at the end of each turn and subtracted from
158 Tang, Reynolds

Table 1. Major Variables

Self Difficult Easy
Variable Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Age 31.47 7.99

Income 32.40 17.06
Education 14.48 2.69
Dart experience 42.75 32.78
Self-esteem 18.79 7.49
Goal 29.52 7.27 25.77 9.20 31.33 9.10
Certainty 75.65 20.96 54.71 35.34 77.19 24.10
Performance 16.75 4.79 19.79 4.70 16.57 4.84
Ability 5.62 1.69 5.46 1.91 5.60 1.83
Task 5.21 1.45 8.13 1.28 3.31 2.12
Effort 5.87 1.69 6.94 1.70 5.73 1.66
Luck 2.63 2.03 2.83 2.03 2.46 2.04
Satisfaction 3.83 2.50 4.93 2.71 4.79 2.99
Note: N = 52. Income is expressedin thousands of dollars. Education is expressed in years. Dart
experience is expressed in months.

the player’s current score. The last dart of the game-that is, the dart that
reduces the score to zero-must land in the double ring of the board. Thus,
the player’s current score must be even.
Although the game does not require an opponent, two players can take
alternating turns while reducing their own scores. Thus, the level of
performance for any game of 501 is defined by the number of darts required
to finish the game. The fewer the darts, the better the game.
The subjects in our study played three identical dart games of 501:
against themselves (self), against a difficult competitor (difficult), and
against an easy competitor (easy).

Measurement
Self-Esteem. Rosenberg’s (1965) ten-item scale is one of the most
widely used scales of self-esteem. It has good reliability and validity data,
and it has been used by many researchers (for example, Brockner, 1988;
Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, and Dunham, 1989; Rosenberg, 1965; Tang
and Gilbert, in press; Tang, Liu, and Vermillion, 1987; Tang and Sarsfield-
Baldwin, 1991). Self-esteem is related to organization-based self-esteem
(r = .54) (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, and Dunham, 1989).
Subjects completed the self-esteem measure two weeks before the
trials. Scores on this four-point Likert scale can vary from 10 (high self-
esteem) to 40 (low self-esteem). Subjects were divided into high SE (n = 25)
and low SE (n = 27) groups based on a median split of the SE scores
(median = 17). The SE score was not significantly correlated with gender
( r = .lo>.
SeEf-Esteem and Perceived Goal Difficulty 159

As Table 1 shows, the mean and the standard deviation of the SE

measure were 18.79 and 7.49 for the whole sample, 12.68 and 2.64 for the
high SE group, and 24.44 and 5.89 for the low SE group. In a sample of 131
undergraduate students, the mean and the standard deviation for the same
self-esteem measure were 19.53 and 3.55 respectively (Tang, Liu, and
Vermillion, 1987), values that are compatible with the present results. In
our sample, the internal consistency reliability of the SE measure for the
whole group, the high SE group, and the low SE group was .95, .72, and .91
respectively. It appears that the reliability measures are satisfactory. The
experimenter was unaware of the subjects’ SE scores.
Other Measures. Before each game, subjects were asked to complete a
short questionnaire that measured their self-set goal (the number of darts
that they would throw), certainty (their expectation that they would
achieve their goal expressed as a percentage between 0 and loo), and their
perception of task difficulty (on a nine-point scale in which 1 = very easy,
5 = medium, and 9 = very difficult). Task performance was measured by
the point-per-dart index, that is, the number of points scored divided by the
number of darts thrown. We used this index because the game is considered
to be over when one of the two players has reduced the score to zero, which
means that the loser does not have an opportunity to finish the game. N o
handicap system was used in scoring. To analyze the dependent measures,
we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) controlling for actual perfor-
mance on task. After each game, subjects completed several measures that
used a nine-point scale to assess their task satisfaction,attributions (ability,
effort, task difficulty, and luck), and other items.
Procedure. The experiment was conducted at a local establishment in
which regular competitions were held. The difficult competitor, the easy
competitor (a confederate), and the subject were all familiar with the
environment. Because many other competitions and games were taking
place in the establishment when the experiment was conducted, this study
can be considered a field experiment rather than a laboratory experiment.
Further, because this study was conducted in a real setting, problems
related to the transfer of learning are not a major concern. Subjects played
the same 501 game in the self, difficult, and easy condition. The task was
identical for all subjects. The only difference was the subjects’ perception.
In the self condition, we told each subject, “In the first trial, you will be
competing against yourself. You will be playlng the 501 game alone.” The points
scored for each turn were recorded on the score board, which was posted next
to the dart board. The subject knew the results after each game. The major
purpose of this condition was to establish a baseline for the subjects in a less
threatening condition. The self condition was the first for all subjects, but, in
order to counterbalance the ordering effect, we alternated the difficult and the
easy condition at random for second and third. No ordering effect was found.
Only one subject was involved in each experimental session.
160 Tang, Reynolds

In the difficult condition, the subject was told that he or she would be
competing against a difficult competitor whom we defined as “a dart
thrower who is a professional as well as recreational player who will throw
the game in no more than eighteen darts.” The president of one of the two
dart organizations from which subjects had been recruited served as the
difficult competitor in the experiment. Both the subject and the difficult
competitor took turns throwing darts, and both were aware of the results
of the 501 game.
In the easy condition, we used the same confederate for the whole
experiment. We defined the easy competitor as “someone who is neither a
professional nor a recreational player who will not finish the game in forty-
five darts.” The subject competed against the confederate, who lost the 501
game in the experiment.
After the final condition, each subject was debriefed. During the
debriefing, the subject was asked not to reveal the nature of the study to
others.

Results
The mean and the standard deviation of variables that we studied are
presented in Table 1. The correlations among variables are presented in
Table 2.
Manipulation Check. Subjects rated the task as more difficult in the
difficult condition (M = 8.14) than they did in the easy condition
( M = 3.31) (F 2,501 = 128.44, p c ,001). The main effect of self-esteem and
the interaction effect were not significant. Thus, the manipulation of goal
difficulty was successful.
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). All dependent vari-
ables were subjected to a two-by-three (self-esteem by goal) multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA), with perceived goal difficulty as a within-
subjects variable. Our main focus was to ascertain the interaction effect
between self-esteem and goal difficulty. The results showed that the
interaction effect was significant (F 116, 1861 = 6.02, p < .001, Wilks’
lambda = .434). Further, the main effect of self-esteem (F [8, 431 = 3.59,
p = .003, Wilks’ lambda = ,6000) and the main effect of perceived goal
difficulty (F [ 16,1861 = 334.25, p c .001, Wilks’ lambda = .OOl) were both
significant.
Due to the qualitative differences of our dependent variables and
results of previous studies, we used two-by-three (self-esteem by goal)
ANOVAs to analyze our data further. To analyze significant interactions,
we used ANCOVAs, holding task performance as a covariate.
Goal Setting. A low score indicates a high level of goal. The interaction
effect on goal setting was not significant. However, high SE’s set higher
goals (M = 26.39) than did low SE’s ( M = 31.17) (F [ l ,501 = 6.29,
Self-Esteem and Perceived Goal Dij$culty 161

p = ,015). The main effect of perceived goal difficulty was significant ( F

[2,100]= 1 2 . 7 5 , <~ .OOl). In fact, dart throwersset higher goals when they
competed against a difficult competitor ( M = 25.77) than they
did when they competed against an easy competitor (M = 31.33). When
they competed against themselves, they set a moderate level of goal
(M = 29.52).
Certainty. The self-esteem by goal interaction effect was significant (F
[2, 1001 = 8.63, p < .001). Further, high SE’s had a higher level of certainty
(M = 81.89) than did low SE’s(M = 57.42) (F 11, 501 = 19.94, p < . O O l ) .
Certainty differedunder the self (M = 75.65), difficult (M = 54.711, and easy
condition (M = 77.19) ( F [2, 1001 = 27.14, p < .001).
Moreover, an analysis of covariance holding the combined actual
performance of the self, difficult, and easy conditions as a covariate showed
that the interaction effect (F [3, 1491 = 54.14, p < .001), the main effect of
self-esteem (F [ l ,491 = 57.70, p < . O O l ) , and the main effect of goal
difficulty (F [ 3 , 1491 = 63.64, p < .OOl) were all significant. These results
show that subjects’ actual performance on task had no effect on their
certainty. In a sense, a handicap system is used and controlled statistically
in an ANCOVA. Table 3 shows the observed means and, in parentheses, the
adjusted means of the interaction effects.
Let us look first at the differences between high SE’s and low SE’sacross
the three conditions. The results of simple main-effects test showed that for
low SE’s certainty differed among the three conditions (F [2, 1001 = 34.35,
p < .001); it did not for high SE’s(F [2, 1001 = 2.64, p > ,051. Thus, the
patterns for high SE’s and low SE’s were different. That is, low SE’s had
higher certainty in the easy condition than they did in the difficult condi-
tion.
Let us look now at the differences within the three conditions. In the
difficult condition, high SE’s showed a higher level of certainty than did low
SE’s (F [ I , 1001 = 72.36, p < . O O l ) . Thus, the data support our hypothesis.
Moreover, when high SE’s competed against themselves and against an
easy competitor, they had a significantly higher level of certainty than did
low S E s (F 11, 1001 = 17.00, p < .001 and F 11, 1001 = 8.55,p < .001,
respectively). It should be pointed out that the difference between high SE’s
and low SE’sunder the difficult condition was the most significant one that
we found.
Task Performance. We based our calculations of task performance on
the points-per-dart index. Thus, a high score indicates a high level of
performance. High SE’s had higher task performance (M = 19.06) than
did low SE’s ( M = 16.44) (F [ 1, 501 = 4 . 5 6 , p = . 0 3 8 ) .
Further, subjects in the difficult condition scored higher (M = 19.79)
than they did in the easy condition (M = 16.57) or in the self condition
( M = 16.75) (F [2, 1001 = 59.78, p < . O O l ) . However, the interaction effect
was not significant.
162 Tang, Reynolds

Table 2. Correlations of Major Variables

Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
1. Age -15 68' 20 58' -28' -54' 25' 54' 28' 31" 25'
2. Sex (Male = 1, Female = 0) -01 -3ab 08 10 07 01 22 01 10 -02
3. Income ($1,000) 29' 34b -49' -52' 27' 31' 2aa 43' 29'
4. Education 00 -06 -23 13 -04 11 30' 32b
5. Experience (months) -06 -46' 34b 79' 49' 27' 15
6 Self-esteem 37b -50' -20 -31b -31' -43'
7. Self goal -41' -65' -44' -32b -32b
8. Certainty 45' 57' 25' 46'
9. Performance 63' 17 27'
10. Ability 23 43'
11. Task 28'
12. Effort
13. Luck
14. Satisfaction
15. Difficult goal
16. Certainty
17. Performance
18. Ability
19. Task
20. Effort
21. Luck
22 Satisfaction
23. Easy goal
24. Certainty
25 Performance
26. Ability
27. Task
28. Effort
29. Luck
30 Satisfaction
Note: N = 52. All decimals have been omitted for correlations.
p < .05
bp<.Ol
p < ,001

Attribution. This section reviews our findings on attribution.

Ability. The self-esteem by goal interaction effect on the attribution of
ability was significant (F [2, 1001 = 5.37, p = ,006). However, the main
effects of self-esteem and goal difficulty on the attribution of ability failed
to reach significance.
The results of an ANCOVA showed that, when we controlled for task
performance, the self-esteem by goal interaction effect (F [ 3 , 1491 = 51.79,
p i .001), the main effect of self-esteem (F 11, 491 = 51.21, p c .OOl>,and
the main effect of goal difficulty ( F [ 3 , 1491 = 201.27, p i .001) were all
significant. Thus, the two main effects become significant if we hold task
performance as a covariate in an ANCOVA.
Self-Esteem and Perceived Goal Dlfficulty 163

13 14 I5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
-27' -27' -45' 36' 45' 23 -09 06 -44' -14 -42' 31" 58' 30' -27' 00 -19 -27"
06 -18 -03 -09 20 05 10 -01 13 07 10 02 14 06 12 -15 10 05
-26" -26" -38' 41' 38' 28' 12 3gb -29' -42' -38' 32' 45' 22 -10 18 -17 -26'
01 -19 -26" 07 -05 02 21 14 -01 -10 -09 13 -01 08 -04 04 -11 -17
-35b -47' -44' 28' 68' 41' 19 06 4 0 b -22 -43' 45' 71' 55' -42' 09 -36' -3gb
25" -01 20 -75' -33b -50' 15 -63' 28' 65' 52' -27' -27' -11 -15 -26^ 20 -02
64' 14 52' -57' -61' -43' 11 -25' 62' 36' 65' -48' -60' -45' 30" -25' 51' 19
-43' -3Bb -32" 63' 43' 50' -04 36' -17 -43' -35' 78' 40b 50' -24' 07 -3gb -33'
-53' -54' -57' 39' 88' 58' 06 17 -50' -29' -59' 58' 88' 61' -46' 04 -54' -Xb
-48' -53' -49' 36' 63' 82' 06 34' -24' -36' -51' 68' 50' 84' -31' -06 -62' -32'
-01 -10 -21 24' 15 21 23 20 -01 28' -20 09 18 29" 31' 16 01 -07
-19 -39' -12 45' 26 40' 05 66' -15 -43' -26' 31' 27" 36' -11 33' -31' -05
16 29a -35' -58' -40' 24' -17 53' 35' 42' -58' -47' 4 8 ' 48' -03 70' 34'
39' 01 -50' -27' -35' -21 01 11 05 -42 -50' -53' 48' 08 36' 57'
-23' -51' -30' -22 -08 38b 03 55' -41' -53' -41' 24' 17 39' 40b
43' 52' -31' 47' -43' -61' -64' 48' 35b 23 -03 40' -32' 19
60' 19 28' -47' -36' -55' 57' 87' 59' -44' 08 -57' -44'
-02 49' -33' -55' -59' 56' 49' 75' -10 17 -52' -07
18 19 06 20 -02 21 13 -13 -02 13 -38b
-07 -56' -25' 19 25' 26' -02 45' -16 02
28' 60' -31' -48' -24' 30' -24' 52' 10
40b -33' -24' -27' -03 -26" 40' -07
-38' -56' -3gb 13 -16 54' -02
50' 60' -48' -13 -61' -37'
52' -43' 15 -47' -49'
-38' 07 -56' -40b
15 49' 41'
08 13
28'

Again, we used the same format of data analysis. High SE's did not
change their ability attributions due to perceived goal difficulty (F 12, 1001
= 2.01, p = .138), whereas low SE's did (F [2, 1001 = 3.96, p = .022). In fact,
low SE's made higher attributions of ability in the easy condition than they
did in the difficult condition.
Under the difficult condition, high SE's were more likely to attribute
their performance to ability than were low SE's ( F [ l , 1001 = 26.85,
p < ,001). This finding supports our hypothesis. Under the self condition,
the difference was also significant (F 11, 1001 = 17.32,p < . O O l > . However,
under the easy condition, high SE's did not differ from low SE's on the
attribution of ability. A close examination of Table 3 reveals that the pattern
of adjusted meansin the easy condition is the reverse of the observed means.
164 Tang, Reynolds

Table 3 . Interaction Effects Between Self-Esteem (SE)

and Goal Difficulty
Goal Difficulty
Variable Self Dgficult Easy
Certainty
High SE 85.76" 75.56" 84.36"
(83.63) (72.82) (80.52)
Low SE 66. 3ObCd 35.41' 70.56*
(68.27) (37.94) (74.11)
Ability Attribution
High SE 6.08" 6.04" 5.6gad
(5.78) (5.73) (5.33)
Low SE 5.19' 4.93b 5.52'd
(5.46) (5.21) (5.84)
Task Satisfaction
High SE 3.52"' 3.44" 4.2Fd
(3.92) (3.58) (4.67)
Low SE 4.11' 6.30b 5.26hd
(3.74) (6.17) (4.90)
Note: For high SEs, n = 2 5 . For low SE's. n = 27. Means not sharing a common superscript are
significantly different from each other. Adjusted means are shown in parentheses. A low score
indicates high satisfaction.

Task Difficulty. The interaction effect was not significant. High SE's did
not differ from low SE's in the attribution of task difficulty. The main effect
of goal difficulty reached significance ( F 12, 1001 = 128.44, p < ,001).
Subjects made higher attributions of task difficulty in the difficult condition
( M = 8.13) than they did in the easy condition ( M = 3.31). In the self
condition, the attribution was moderate (M = 5.21).
Effort. The self-esteem by goal interaction effect on the attribution of
effort failed to reach significance. The main effect of self-esteem on effort
was significant (F [ 1,501 = 6.87, p = ,012). High SEs claimed that they had
exerted more effort in performing the task ( M = 6.67) than did low SE's
(M = 5.73). In the difficult condition, people rated the amount of effort
exerted high (M = 6.94). In the easy and the self conditions, subjects gave
lower ratings of effort ( M = 5.73, and 5.87, respectively). The main effect
of goal difficulty reached significance (F [ 2 , 1001 = 15.90, p < .OOl).
Luck. No significant effects were found. Thus, subjects' attribution of
luck was not affected by these factors.
Task Satisfaction. A low score represents a high level ofsatisfaction. The
self-esteem by goal interaction effect reached significance (F [2, 1001 =
3.30, p = .041), which supports our hypothesis. High SE's were more
satisfied with their performance (M = 3.75) than were low SE's (M= 5.22)
Self-Esteem and Perceived Goal Difficulty 165

(F [ l ,501 = 9 40, p = ,003). The main effect of goal difficulty was not
significant.
The results of an ANCOVA showed that, when we controlled for task
performance, the main effect of self-esteem, the main effect of goal difficulty,
and the interaction effect were all significant (F [ l , 491 = 49.61,
p < .001;F [3,149]= 173.22,p< ,001;F [3,149]=52.25,p< .OOl,respectively).
Further analyses showed that task satisfaction ratings for low SE’s
differed under the three conditions (F [2, 1001 = 5.58, p = .005), whereas
they did not for high SE‘s (F [2,100] = .93, p = .398). Specifically, low SE’s
were more pleased with themselves in the self condition than they were in
the difficult condition. In the difficult condition, high SE’s were more
pleased with their performance than were low SE’s (F [ l , 1001 = 18.32,
p < .OOl),a finding that supports our hypothesis. Under the self and the easy
conditions, the differencesbetween attributions of satisfaction for high SE’s
and low SE’s were not significant. Again, the pattern of adjusted means in
the self condition was the reverse of the observed means. It appears that low
SE’s do not like to get involved in competition.

Discussion
In the present study, rather than manipulating the objective difficulty of a
task, we chose to manipulate its subjective difficulty (Locke and Latham,
1990). In fact, we used the exact same task in all three conditions of the
experiment.
The significant interaction effects between self-esteem and perceived
goal difficulty on certainty, attribution of ability, and attribution of tasksat-
isfaction are all very stimulating. These effects remain even when the sub-
jects’ actual performance on the task is controlled as a covariate. That
subjects’ perceptions and evaluations are affected by their self-esteem and
by perceived goal difficulty supports previous findings (Tang, 1986; Tang
and Baumeister, 1984).
In particular, high SE’s have strong, stable, and positive beliefs concern-
ing their qualities. Therefore, they are not easily affected by external cues
or manipulations of goal difficulty. The patterns that we observed in
attributions of ability suggests that high self-esteem entails confidence that
“one can repeat one’s success” (Baumeister and Tice, 1985, p. 453). In
contrast, subjects with low self-esteem may feel uneasy about competition.
They may view the difficult competitor as a threat that can lead to possible
embarrassment and failure. In fact, individuals with low self-esteem feel
more pleased with their performance when they compete against them-
selves than when they compete with the difficult competitor. That is, people
with low self-esteem do not want to be involved in competition. They are
afraid of failure.
166 Tang, Reynolds

Our results strongly support Brockner’s (1988) notion that individuals

with low self-esteem are more behaviorally plastic than individuals with
high self-esteem. Our results further extend the proposition advanced by
Brockner (1988) and Bandura (1986) in that the behavioral plasticity of
individuals with low self-esteem is particularly significant in the difficult
condition.
Our data show that difficult goals produce higher levels of performance
than easy goals. This finding supports the results of research in industry
(Locke and Latham, 1990; Locke, Shaw, Saari, and Latham, 1981) and
sports (Locke and Latham, 1985). The presence of the difficult competitor
may lead dart throwers to invest a high level of mental effort (Salomon,
1984). Their self-set goals and certainty are indications of their psychologi-
cal and mental preparations before the activity begins.
High SE‘s not oniy have higher certainty than low SE’s,but they also set
higher goals and have higher performance than low SEs. Thus, high SEs,
with proper experience and skills related to the target task, try to cultivate
talents and maximize successes in order to excel (Baumeister and Tice,
1985). High SE’s may also have strong beliefs that they have what it takes
to achieve their goal (Bandura, 1986). Tang, Liu, and Vermillion (1987)
suggested that this pattern is probably caused by the fact that high SEs
emphasize their abilities, strengths, and good qualities (Baumeister and
Tice, 1985) and think that they are very good (Rosenberg, 1965).
In view of Bandura’s (1986) proposition of efficacy and the results of the
research described here, we suggest that, in order to reach peak performance
and a high level of success, people need to have a high level of global self-
esteem and to set a difficult andchallenginggoal, and they need to exert effort
in order to have a high level of performance on the task. Our results show that
high SE‘s have higher certainty and attributions of ability, set higher goals,
and have higher task performance than low SE’s. Thus, aside from ability,
self-esteem and effort are the two key ingredients for success. High SE’s are
more pleased with their performance in the difficult condition than are low
SE’s. They are happy doing what they do best.
There is also a reciprocal relationship between self-esteem and effort.
It appears that people with high self-esteem are able to focus on a long-term
goal or vision. Then, they work toward that goal. James M. Buchanan,
winner of the 1986 Nobel prize in economic sciences, stated that the secret
to his success has three main ingredients: hard work, a sense of self-
confidence, and a willingness to challenge all authority, scientific or
otherwise. It is the hard work-the effort-that leads to achievement and
success. However, the effort needs to be backed by high self-esteem. It takes
a high level of confidence in oneself to persevere and succeed. It also takes
a lot of effort and hard work to build and renew one’s self-esteem. Success
breeds success, which further enhances one’sself-esteem. One cannot have
one without the other.
Self-Esteem and Perceived Goal Dqjiculty 167

Self-esteem is a relatively stable personality trait (Demo, 1985). We

believe that self-esteem may lead to self-efficacy in a specific situation.
Successful completion of the task makes people feel more confident (high
ability attribution), which may lead to a high level of self-efficacy in the
specific condition. However, repeated success may also lead to a high and
revised level of self-esteem. Therefore, self-esteem and self-efficacy may
have a special reciprocal relationship (Bandura, 1986). Future research
should adopt a longitudinal approach to examine the possible reciprocal
relationship between performance and subsequent self-efficacy and self-
esteem.
Many people in our society want to be winners and have positive self-
esteem. Therefore, helping employees to build up their self-esteem (Pierce,
Gardner, Cummings, and Dunham, 1989; Tang and Gilbert, in press) is a n
important task for managers in human resource development.
Table 3 shows that certainty and attributions of ability and task
satisfaction are the worst for individuals with low self-esteem under the
difficult condition. In all three areas, subjects with low self-esteem have
lower scores than subjects with high self-esteem. Subjects with low self-
esteem have the highest level of task satisfaction when they compete against
themselves. Under the self condition, we found no significant difference on
task satisfaction between subjects with high and low self-esteem. It appears
that trainees with low self-esteem may feel more comfortable when they
work alone.
One possible implication for managers in human resource develop-
ment and in training and development is that the results of the present study
may be applicable to trainees in skill-related training and self-directed
behavior change. First, it is important to select the best individuals as role
models. Training programs should encourage trainees with high self-
esteem to compete against another high performer in the team to enhance
their performance and excel. In contrast, trainees with low self-esteem may
better learn from (instead of compete against) a high performer in a self-
monitored and nonthreatening environment, such as that associated with
self-directed learning (Campbell, 1991; Kolb andBoyatzis, 1984; Manz and
Manz, 1991) that cultivates their self-confidence and self-esteem. Strong
support is also needed.
Brockner (1988, p. 6) suggested that “low SE’s may be particularly
driven to increase their work performance in response to positive inequity”
and that they “may have a great desire” (p. 24) to receive positive feedback
from trainers and other people. Further, they are “more behaviorally ‘plas-
tic’ than individuals with high self-esteem (Brockner, 1988,p. 6). Follow-
”

ing this line of reasoning, training managers should focus on continuous and
constant feedback and encouragement. Whenever small success, progress,
or improvement is made, trainers should give trainees feedback-knowl-
edge of results-in order to enhance their self-esteem. The process is long-
168 Tang, Reynolds

term. Only long-term support can gradually improve trainees’ self-esteem.

Through practice and perseverance, success may follow.
Trainees should be encouraged to reflect on their own behavior and to
select a limited and well-defined goal that they would like to achieve.
Further, trainees should undertake a continuing and accurate assessment
of their own behavior related to their goal. They need to keep an objective
record of their behavior and plot all the data on a chart or graph that can
function as a visual guide that will motivate them to work toward their goal.
Trainees may decide for themselves how long the project should continue
and when their goals have been attained (Kolb and Boyatzis, 1984).
Once they have learned the process of achieving small success, they will
be able to believe that they are good and that they have what it takes to
succeed. Then, these new success experiences will be incorporated into
their experience and thinking pattern-the beginning of the new success
cycle. This research proposition needs to be tested in future studies.
In conclusion, we observe that people can motivate themselves and
guide their actions through the exercise of forethought, a remarkably
robust phenomenon. The present investigation was conducted in the
context of dart throwing, and the self-esteem variable was not manipulated.
Caution is warranted regarding the generalizability of our findings to other,
more complex settings.

References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baumeister, R. F., Q Tice, D. M. (1985). Self-esteem and responses to success and failure:
Subsequent performance and intrinsic motivation.journal ofPersonality, 53(3), 450-467.
Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work: Research, theory, and practice. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Br0wne.M. A., &I Mahoney, M. J. (1984). Sport psychology. Annual Review ofPsychology,
35, 605-625.
Buchanan, J. M. (1991, November 21-23). Better education with no morefunding. Seminar
in honor ofJames M. Buchanan. College of Business, Middle Tennessee State University.
Campbell, D. J. (1984). The effects of goal-contingent payment o n the performance of a
complex task. Personnel Psychology, 37, 23-40.
Campbell, J. P. (1991). Invited reaction: The compleat self-learner. Human Resource Devel-
opment Quarterly, 2 , 13-19.
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Demo, D. H. (1985). The measurement of self-esteem: Refining our methods. journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1490-1502.
Goldstein, 1. L. (1993). Training in organizations. Pacific Grove, CA: BrooksKole.
Gould, D., Hodge, K., Peterson, K., & Giannini, J. (1989). An exploratory examination of
strategies used by elite coaches to enhance self-efficacy in athletes. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 11, 128-140.
Hackett, G., Lent, R. W., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1991). Advances in vocational theory and
research: A twenty-year retrospective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38, 3-38.
Sey-Esteem and Perceived Goal Difficulty I69

Ilgen, D. R., & Klein, H. J. (1988). Organizational behavior. A n n u a l Review ofpsychology,

40, 327-351.
Kolb, D. A., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1984). Goal setting and self-directed behavior change. In
D. A . Kolb, 1. M. Rubin, & J. M. Mclntyre (Eds.), Organizational psychology: Readings
on human behavior in organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Korman, A. K. (1976). Hypothesis ofwork behavior revisited and an extension. Academy of
Management Review, 1(1),50-63.
Locke, E. A . , & Latham, G. P. (1984). Goal setting: A motivational technique that works.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E. A , , & Latham, G. P. (1985). The application of goal setting to sports. journal of
Sports Psychology, 7, 205-222.
Locke, E. A , , & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E. A . . Shaw, K. N., Saari. L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task
performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152.
McFarlin, D. B., Baumeister, R. F., & Blascovich, J . (1984). On knowing when to quit: Task
failure, self-esteem, advice, and nonproductive persistence. Journal of Personality, 52, 138-
135.
Manz, C. C., & Manz, K. P. (1991). Strategies for facilitating self-directed learning: A
process for enhancing human resource development. Human Resource Development Quar-
terly, 2, 3-12.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner. D. G., Cummings, L. L., 6:Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-
based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of M a n -
agement Journal, 32(3), 622-648.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Salomon, G. (1984). Television is "easy" and print is "tough": The differential investment
of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of
Educational Psychoiogy, 7 6 , 647-658.
Shrauger.J . S.,& Rosenberg, S.E. (1970). Self-esteem and the effects of success and failure
feedback o n performance. Journal of Personality, 38, 404-41 7.
Tang, T.L.P. (1986). Effects of Type A personality and task labels (work vs. Icisure) on task
perlormance. journal of Leisure Research, 18(1). 1-11.
Tang, T.L.P., & Baumeister, R. F,(1984). Effects of personal values, perceived surveillance,
and task labels on task preference: The ideology of turning play into work. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 69(1), 99-105.
Tang, T.L.P., & Gilbert, P. R. (in press). Organization-based self-esteem among mental
health workers: A replication and extension. Public Personnel Management.
Tang, T.L.P., Liu, H., & Vermillion, W. H. (1987). Eflects of self-esteem and task labels
(difficult vs. easy) on intrinsic motivation, goal setting, and task performance.journal of
General Psychology, I14(3), 149-262.
Tang, T.L.P., & Sarsfield-Baldwin, L. (1991). The effect of self-esteem, task label, and
performance feedback on goal secting, certainly. and attributions. Journal of Psychology,
125(4), 413-418.
Tang, T.L.P., &Tang, T.L.N. (1986). Effects of leadership status and performance feedback
on self and other attributions and task performance. Psychological Roports, 59, 999-1006.
Tang, T.L.P., Tollison. P. S.,& Whiteside, H. D. (1987). The effect of quality circle
initiation on motivation to attend quality circle meetings and o n task performance.
Personnel Psychology, 40, 799-814.
Tang, T.L.P., Tollison, P. S.,& Whiteside, H. D. (1989). Quality circle productivity as
related to upper-management attendance, circle initiation, and collar color. Journal of
Management, 15( 1), 101-1 13.
170 Tang, Reynolds

Tannenbaum, S. I., & Yukl. G. (1992). Training and development in work organizations.
Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 399-441.
Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, S., Rest, S., Q Rosenbaum, R. M. (1971). Perceiving
the causes of S U C C E S S and failure. Morriston, NJ: General Learning Press.

Thomas Li-Ping Tang is associate professor of management, Middle Tennessee

State University, Murfreesboro.

David B. Reynolds is director of Continuous Quality improvement, HCA Donelson

Hospital, Nashville, Tennessee. @