Test, Home, Table of Contents, Order
Track # 16
Children and Evaluative and Social Threats
Transcript of the Compact Discs

Question 16 found on this page
Click here to LISTEN to the Audio for this Track

Interference With Effective Performance
---Now let's examine how the perception or the misperception of inadequate coping resources leads to anxieties. The key factor in maintaining stability in a presumably risky activity seems to be whether the client has confidence that he or she can proceed without incurring an unacceptable risk. The person who seriously questions his ability to perform adequately or safely begins to experience inhibitions and anxiety. The danger signals are triggered, and inhibitory pressures build up to discourage further movement into what one client termed the "danger zone." Anxiety in this instance is an unpleasant signal to stop forward progress. If your client stops or retreats, as you know, his or her anxiety decreases. If he advances, it increases. If he makes a conscious decision to proceed, he may be able to override the inhibiting anxiety.
---The role of an inhibiting system may be viewed as a safety or precautionary mechanism, which is brought into play when there is a clear and present physical or interpersonal danger. The role of the inhibition is to curb or slow down action that can jeopardize safety. As long as your client is confident of being able to negotiate the task, the mechanism remains inoperative. As soon as his or her confidence wanes, the inhibiting mechanism is activated.
---Thus, there is a tug-of-war between advance... stop... go slow... and pull back. If your client proceeds skillfully and maintains his or her balance, he or she may remain cool. However, as soon as your client sees an unexpected trouble spot and is not certain whether or how he can handle it, he is likely to experience physical as well as psychological restraint. Which brings us to the function of dysfunctional behavior.

The "Function" of Dysfunctional Behaviors
---The triggering of a self-protection mechanism is determined by your client's estimation of the amount of damage that will result if he performs inadequately. For example, the child, Bobby, tries to make good grades to prevent his parents pending separation. There is an interesting relationship between estimated magnitude of damage and the expectation of poor performance: that is, the more drastic the consequences of poor performance, the more poorly an individual expects to perform. Thus, the more the parents argue the lower the child's school performance.
---The child's reaction to a threat may be best understood in terms of a global perception of self-confidence. This construct refers to a constellation of attitudes involving Bobby's positive estimation of his instrumental capabilities and his belief in the ability to exercise them. Low self-confidence implies that the child has a low rating of his instrumental capacity and a negative expectation of success.
---The issue of self-confidence raises several questions: (1) What factors lower (or raise) self-confidence? (2) How does lowered self-confidence translate to impeded performance? What psychological and physical mechanisms lead to poor performance? (3) What function is served by lowered self-confidence and the resulting deterioration of performance?
---Of the factors affecting self-confidence in the presence of the degree of threat, I have already suggested the severity and probability of possible failure have a negative correlation with self-confidence. Thus, the prospect of a divorce will reduce confidence more than will the prospect of the parents staying together and still arguing.
---On the other hand, the presence of a support system that the child can grasp as his anxiety increases may increase self-confidence. This safety feature provides a back-up system should the child go into freeze mode. But how does evaluation anxiety fit into this picture?
---The Evaluation Anxieties
---The Essence of Evaluation Anxieties
---Before The Fall
---A client entering a socially threatening situation is like someone walking a tightrope. He feels vulnerable to a serious mishap if his performance is not adequate. For safety's sake, he must conform to a rigid set of rules regarding appropriate actions and movements. In the case of our example, Bobby's grades. The greater Bobby's confidence in his skill, the less likely he is to make a potentially fatal misstep, perform poorly on a test and receive a low grade. If his anxiety takes over, his performance may be sabotaged by freezing. Thus, this situation is a test of Bobby's ability and maturity. Smooth performance reaffirms his image of himself and maintains his favored status in his parent's eyes. Failure would shatter this image, and from his point of view causes further arguments and ends in possible divorce.

Common Features of Evaluative Threats
---There are certain commonalities among the various situations in which an individual may experience "evaluation anxiety." According to Greenberg these evaluation threat situations can be grouped as follows: (1) social situations-initiating or maintaining a person-to-person relationship; participating in a social gathering (for example, a party); (2) a school or vocational situation - performance evaluated by teacher, as in the case of Bobby, supervisor, or peer group; taking a test or examination, confrontation with a supervisor over a conflict of interest, athletic competition; (3) transactions in the "outside world" while shopping or traveling, with salespersons, waiters or waitresses, taxi drivers, strangers.
---A complex web of factors in these situations may aggravate or create fears and anxiety. These factors involve the question of evaluation and vulnerability and include the following:
(1) the relative status of the individual and the evaluator in the area of power and social desirability; (2) the individual's skill in presenting an attractive or effective "front"; (3) his confidence in his ability to perform adequately in a given threat situation; (4) his appraisal of the degree of threat, of the severity of potential damage and the probability of its occurring; (5) the threshold of certain automatic "defenses" (verbal inhibition, blockage of recall, suppression of spontaneity) that can undermine individual performance; (6) the rigidity and attainability of the "rules" relevant to acceptable performance, behavior, and appearance; (7) the anticipated punitiveness of the evaluator for nonadherence to rules or substandard performance, and so on.

Vulnerability
---The individual who is anxious on entering into an evaluative situation had a network of implicit questions: For example, let's look at your reaction or anxiety concerning this home study course. You may have had the following thoughts:
---1. "To what degree is this a test of my competence or acceptability? How much do I have to prove myself to me or others?"
---2. "What is my status relative to that of my evaluators?" If the individual feels parity with or superior to the evaluator, then the rules are less narrow and more flexible and the prospective "punishment" for failure is less important.
---3. "How important is it to establish a position of strength about relative power status (as in dealing with service personnel) or a position of acceptability in dealing with social evaluators (as in blind dates or speaking before an audience)?"
---4. "What is the attitude of the evaluator? Is he accepting and empathetic or rejecting and aloof? Are his judgments likely to be objective or harsh and punitive?"
---5. "To what degree can I count on my skills (such as verbal fluency) to carry me through?"
---6. "What is the likelihood of my being under-minded by distracting anxiety and inhibitions?"

QUESTION 16: The question of self confidence raises what question? Back to the top