Aggregate-level skewness, kurtosis, and zero-order correlations for all variables (including GPA) across the entire sample.

<p>Aggregate-level skewness, kurtosis, and zero-order correlations for all variables (including GPA) across the entire sample.</p

Descriptive statistics according to condition.

<p>Descriptive statistics according to condition.</p

Preempting Performance Challenges: The Effects of Inoculation Messaging on Attacks to Task Self-Efficacy

<div><p>Although inoculation messages have been shown to be effective for inducing resistance to counter-attitudinal attacks, researchers have devoted relatively little attention toward studying the way in which inoculation theory principles might support challenges to psychological phenomena other than attitudes (e.g., self-efficacy). Prior to completing a physical (i.e., balance) task, undergraduates (<i>N</i> = 127, <i>M_age</i> = 19.20, <i>SD</i> = 2.16) were randomly assigned to receive either a control or inoculation message, and reported their confidence in their ability regarding the upcoming task. During the task, a confederate provided standardized negative feedback to all participants regarding their performance, and following the completion of the task, participants again reported their self-efficacy along with measures assessing in-task processes. Findings supported the viability of efficacy inoculation; controlling for pre-task self-efficacy, task performance, and relevant psycho-social variables (e.g., resilience, self-confidence robustness), participants in the inoculation condition reported greater confidence in their ability (i.e., task self-efficacy) than those in the control condition at post-task. Relative to those in the inoculation condition, participants in the control condition also experienced greater concentration disruption and self-presentation concerns during the task.</p></div

Descriptive data, internal consistency, and zero-order correlations for all variables across the entire sample.

<p><i>Note</i>. IC = internal consistency (for all non-single-item scales). All IC values represent alpha coefficients, excluding message credibility, which was computed from a two-item scale and so was estimated using Spearman-Brown coefficient <i>ρ</i>.</p><p>> |. 18 | = <i>p</i> <.05; > |. 23 | = <i>p</i> <.01; > |. 31 | = <i>p</i> <.001.</p><p>Descriptive data, internal consistency, and zero-order correlations for all variables across the entire sample.</p

Descriptive statistics according to condition.

<p><i>Note</i>. Self-confidence robustness and message credibility measured 1 to 9, resilience and self-efficacy 1 to 5, and perceived competence and task importance 1 to 7, where higher scores represented more favorable perceptions. Tension measured 0 to 4, and threat measured 1 to 7, where higher scores represented greater perceived tension/threat, and feedback acceptance 1 to 5, where higher scores indicated greater acceptance. Self-presentation concerns and concentration disruption measured 1 to 7, where higher scores represented greater concerns/disruption. Task performance measured in terms of number of targets hit, and task 2 intended length could range from 15 to 120 sec. Confederate impact ranged -3 to 3, where scores < 0 indicated a negative impact and scores > 0 indicated a positive impact.</p><p>Descriptive statistics according to condition.</p