Accept or change your fate: Exploring the Golem effect and underdog effect of underdog expectations

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01029

Abstract

Abstract:

In organizations, some employees are heralded as rising stars, whilst others are considered underdogs with no prospects. Scholars define individuals’ perceptions that others view them as unlikely to succeed as underdog expectation. The traditional view indicates that when individuals experience underdog expectations from others, they will reduce their subsequent performance through a sense of self-efficacy. This phenomenon, in which one’s performance is manipulated by someone else’s negative assessment, is also known as the Golem effect. Indeed, some studies have suggested that underdog expectations can enhance their desire to prove others wrong to improve performance. However, such studies have only focused on the influence of underdog expectations on employee behavior as social-situation cues but have disregarded its interaction with individuals’ traits. By integrating the preceding arguments, we proposed a comprehensive model based on trait activation theory, which examines the Golem and underdog effects. Specifically, under the moderating effect of underdog expectations, employees with fixed mindsets have a negative impact on subsequent task performance through feedback- avoiding behavior. Meanwhile, employees with growth mindsets have a positive impact on subsequent task performance by proving others wrong. The task context (task focus vs. future focus) plays a role in inhibiting and amplifying the two interactions.

This study aimed to explore the reasons why employees who are trapped in underdog expectations become a Golem manipulated by fate and how to counter strike and become an underdog in the workplace. This study constructed a three-term interaction model of nested moderated mediation model. Three studies were designed to explore the internal and intervention mechanisms of the Golem and underdog effects activated by underdog expectations. In the first study, the existence of three interactions was initially examined through a multi-source, multi-point questionnaire of 341 employees. To test the stability of the three interactions and the extensibility of the research conclusions in different groups, a second multi-source and multi-time questionnaire survey involving 650 employees and a field study based on a quasi-experiment were designed for retesting. Regression analysis, bootstrap method and Johnson?Neyman (J?N) technology were used to analyse the questionnaire data to examine the moderated mediation effects of the three-term interaction. T-tests were used to analyse data from the field study.

The analyses of the study showed the following results. (1) The interaction between underdog expectations and fixed mindsets positively affects subsequent task performance through feedback-avoiding behavior. (2) The interaction between underdog expectations and growth mindsets positively affects subsequent task performance through the desire to prove others wrong. (3) Lastly, task focus reduces the positive moderating effect of underdog expectations on fixed mindsets, and future focus strengthens the positive moderating effect of underdog expectations on growth mindsets.

Findings of our research have several theoretical and practical implications. This study revealed the causes of the Golem and underdog effects, thereby enriching and expanding the research on implicit theory. It showed that fixed and growth mindsets have different paths in processing negative information, which is helpful in integrating the research on underdog and topdog employees. It also provided a theoretical explanation and transformation idea for the emergence and popularity of the depressed culture represented by the lie down and Buddha-like mindsets.

Key words: mental traits, underdog expectations, feedback-avoiding behavior, desire to prove others wrong, task focus, future focus

MA Jun, ZHU Mengting. (2023). Accept or change your fate: Exploring the Golem effect and underdog effect of underdog expectations. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(6), 1029-1048.

Figures/Tables 32

References 50

[1]	Aguinis H., Gottfredson R. K., & Joo H. (2012). Using performance management to win the talent war. Business Horizons, 55(6), 609-616. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2012.05.007 URL
[2]	Aronson J., Fried C. B., & Good C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 113-125. doi: 10.1006/jesp.2001.1491 URL
[3]	Asgari E., Hunt R. A., Lerner D. A., Townsend D. M., Hayward M. L., & Kiefer K. (2021). Red giants or black holes? The antecedent conditions and multilevel impacts of star performers. Academy of Management Annals, 15(1), 223-265. doi: 10.5465/annals.2019.0061 URL
[4]	Becker T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274-289. doi: 10.1177/1094428105278021 URL
[5]	Binyamin G. (2020). Do leader expectations shape employee service performance? Enhancing self-expectations and internalization in employee role identity. Journal of Management & Organization, 26(4), 536-554.
[6]	Burkley E., Curtis J., & Hatvany T. (2017). The social contagion of incremental and entity trait beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 108(4), 45-49. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.063 URL
[7]	Burnette J. L., Pollack J. M., & Hoyt C. L. (2010). Individual differences in implicit theories of leadership ability and self‐efficacy: Predicting responses to stereotype threat. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(4), 46-56. doi: 10.1002/jls.v3:4 URL
[8]	Chang E., Chin H., & Ye J. (2014). Organizational work- family culture and working mothers’ affective commitment: How career expectations matter. Human Resource Management, 53(5), 683-700. doi: 10.1002/hrm.2014.53.issue-5 URL
[9]	Christian M. S., Garza A. S., & Slaughter J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89-136. doi: 10.1111/peps.2011.64.issue-1 URL
[10]	Datu J. A. D., & Buenconsejo J. U. (2021). Academic engagement and achievement predict career adaptability. Career Development Quarterly, 69(1), 34-48. doi: 10.1002/cdq.v69.1 URL
[11]	Davis J. L., Burnette J. L., Allison S. T., & Stone H. (2011). Against the odds: Academic underdogs benefit from incremental theories. Social Psychology of Education, 14(3), 331-346. doi: 10.1007/s11218-010-9147-6 URL
[12]	Dawson J. F., & Richter A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 917-926. pmid: 16834514
[13]	Dweck C. S. (Ed). (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random house.
[14]	Ehrlinger J., Mitchum A. L., & Dweck C. S. (2016). Understanding overconfidence: Theories of intelligence, preferential attention, and distorted self-assessment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63(1), 94-100. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.11.001 URL
[15]	Elliot A. J., & McGregor H. A. (2001). A 2× 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of personality and social psychology, 80(3), 501-519. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501 pmid: 11300582
[16]	Gray S. M., Bunderson J. S., van der Vegt G. S., Rink F., & Gedik Y. (2022). Leveraging knowledge diversity in hierarchically differentiated teams: The critical role of hierarchy stability. Academy of Management Journal, in press.
[17]	Hong Y.-Y., Chiu C.-Y., Dweck C. S., Lin D. M.-S., & Wan W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 588-599. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588 URL
[18]	Hoyt C. L., Burnette J. L., & Innella A. N. (2012). I can do that: The impact of implicit theories on leadership role model effectiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 257-268. doi: 10.1177/0146167211427922 pmid: 22143305
[19]	Judge T. A., & Zapata C. P. (2015). The person-situation debate revisited: Effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the Big Five personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1149-1179. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0837 URL
[20]	Jundt D. K., Shoss M. K., & Huang J. L. (2015). Individual adaptive performance in organizations: A review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1), 53-71.
[21]	Kappes A., Oettingen G., & Pak H. (2012). Mental contrasting and the self-regulation of responding to negative feedback. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(7), 845-857. doi: 10.1177/0146167212446833 pmid: 22645162
[22]	Kiili K., de Freitas S., Arnab S., & Lainema T. (2012). The design principles for flow experience in educational games. Procedia Computer Science, 15(1), 78-91. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2012.10.060 URL
[23]	Kim K., del Carmen Triana M., Chung K., & Oh N. (2016). When do employees cyberloaf? An interactionist perspective examining personality, justice, and empowerment. Human Resource Management, 55(6), 1041-1058. doi: 10.1002/hrm.2016.55.issue-6 URL
[24]	King R. B., & dela Rosa E. D. (2019). Are your emotions under your control or not? Implicit theories of emotion predict well-being via cognitive reappraisal. Personality and Individual Differences, 138(2), 177-182. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.040 URL
[25]	Liu H., Chiang J. T.-J., Fehr R., Xu M., & Wang S. (2017). How do leaders react when treated unfairly? Leader narcissism and self-interested behavior in response to unfair treatment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(11), 1590-1599. doi: 10.1037/apl0000237 pmid: 28617000
[26]	Liu Y. X., Chen C., Zhu N., Zhang J. W., & Wang S. (2020). How does one takes on the attributes of one's associates? The past, present, and future of trait activation theory. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(1), 161-177. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00161 URL
[27]	Loi T. I., Feng Z., Kuhn K. M., & Tripp T. M. (2021). When and how underdog expectations promote cheating behavior: The roles of need fulfillment and general self-efficacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 181(2), 1-21. doi: 10.1007/s10551-021-04891-4
[28]	Lu H. L., Yang Y., Wang Y. L., Zhang X., & Tan L. (2021). Does distrust motivate or discourage employees? The double- edged sword of feeling ability-distrusted by supervisors. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(12), 1376-1392. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01376 URL
[29]	Ma J., Fan Z. L., & Yang Q. (2021). Performance adaptation mechanism under the performance dynamism. System Engineering Theory and Practice, 41(7), 1828-1839. doi: 10.12011/SETP2019-2004
[30]	Ma J., Zhang H. M., & Yang T. (2015). A cross-level analysis of achievement goal orientation and performance control on team member’s creativity, Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(1), 79-92. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00079 URL
[31]	Makel M. C., Snyder K. E., Thomas C., Malone P. S., & Putallaz M. (2015). Gifted students’ implicit beliefs about intelligence and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(4), 203-212. doi: 10.1177/0016986215599057 URL
[32]	Malmberg L.-E., Pakarinen E., Vasalampi K., & Nurmi J.-E. (2015). Students' school performance, task-focus, and situation-specific motivation. Learning and Instruction, 39(1), 158-167. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.005 URL
[33]	Meyer R. D., Dalal R. S., José I. J., Hermida R., Chen T. R., Vega R. P.,... & Khare V. P. (2014). Measuring job-related situational strength and assessing its interactive effects with personality on voluntary work behavior. Journal of Management, 40(4), 1010-1041. doi: 10.1177/0149206311425613 URL
[34]	Moss S. E., Song M., Hannah S. T., Wang Z., & Sumanth J. J. (2020). The duty to improve oneself: How duty orientation mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and followers’ feedback-seeking and feedback-avoiding behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 165(4), 615-631. doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-4095-8
[35]	Moss S. E., Valenzi E. R., & Taggart W. (2003). Are you hiding from your boss? The development of a taxonomy and instrument to assess the feedback management behaviors of good and bad performers. Journal of Management, 29(4), 487-510. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00022-9 URL
[36]	Murphy M. C., & Dweck C. S. (2016). Mindsets shape consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(1), 127-136. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.005 URL
[37]	Nie Q., Zhang J., Lu Y., & Bi Y. Z. (2022). The paradoxical effects of leaders’ high performance expectations: An approach-avoidance framework perspective. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 36(1), 53-63.
[38]	Nurmohamed S. (2020). The underdog effect: When low expectations increase performance. Academy of Management Journal, 63(4), 1106-1133. doi: 10.5465/amj.2017.0181 URL
[39]	Pettit N. C., Sivanathan N., Gladstone E., & Marr J. C. (2013). Rising stars and sinking ships: Consequences of status momentum. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1579-1584. doi: 10.1177/0956797612473120 pmid: 23798464
[40]	Porath C. L., & Bateman T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 185-192.
[41]	Schmader T., Johns M., & Forbes C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115(2), 336-356. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.336 pmid: 18426293
[42]	Sevincer A. T., Kluge L., & Oettingen G. (2014). Implicit theories and motivational focus: Desired future versus present reality. Motivation and Emotion, 38(1), 36-46. doi: 10.1007/s11031-013-9359-0 URL
[43]	Shapiro J. R., & Neuberg S. L. (2007). From stereotype threat to stereotype threats: Implications of a multi-threat framework for causes, moderators, mediators, consequences, and interventions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 107-130. doi: 10.1177/1088868306294790 pmid: 18453458
[44]	Shipp A. J., Edwards J. R., & Lambert L. S. (2009). Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past, present, and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(1), 1-22. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.001 URL
[45]	Swann Jr W. B., Johnson R. E., & Bosson J. K. (2009). Identity negotiation at work. Research In Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 81-109. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2009.06.005 URL
[46]	Szpunar K. K., & McDermott K. B. (2008). Episodic future thought and its relation to remembering: Evidence from ratings of subjective experience. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 330-334. pmid: 17540581
[47]	Tett R. P., & Burnett D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied psychology, 88(3), 500-517. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500 pmid: 12814298
[48]	Williams C. A., & Lewis L. (2021). Mindsets in health professions education: A scoping review. Nurse Education Today, 100(3), 104863. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104863 URL
[49]	Williams L. J., & Anderson S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700305 URL
[50]	Zhang J. P., Qin C. Y., & Liu S. S. (2020). Does seek feedback improve performance? A meta-analytic review about feedback-seeking behavior and individual performance. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(4), 549-565. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00549

variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. gender	0.60	0.49	-
2. education background	3.00	0.66	0.01	?
3. age	1.97	0.70	?0.15^**	?0.13^*	?
4. length of service	3.25	1.21	?0.17^**	?0.14^**	0.72^***	?
5. fixed mindsets	2.73	0.92	?0.02	?0.04	0.03	?0.13^*	?
6. growth mindsets	2.83	0.75	?0.05	?0.04	0.07	0.23^***	?0.48^***	?
7. task focus	3.78	0.97	0.04	0.08	0.15^**	0.26^***	?0.38^***	0.52^***	?
8. future focus	3.88	0.92	?0.13^*	?0.10	0.25^***	0.32^***	?0.31^***	0.42^***	0.39^***	?
9. underdog expectations	2.71	0.68	?0.10^*	?0.04	0.10	?0.09	0.50^***	?0.50^***	?0.30^***	?0.13^**	?
10. feedback-avoiding behavior	2.97	0.86	0.04	0.11^*	?0.09	?0.21^***	0.49^***	?0.43^***	?0.38^***	?0.51^***	0.39^***	?
11. desire to prove others wrong	3.96	0.86	0.03	?0.03	?0.10	?0.01	?0.32^***	0.38^***	0.32^***	0.25^***	?0.26^***	?0.31^***	?
12. task performance	3.16	0.65	0.01	?0.01	0.06	0.20^***	?0.43^***	0.53^***	0.46^***	0.45^***	?0.51^***	?0.51^***	0.53^***

variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. gender	0.60	0.49	-
2. education background	3.00	0.66	0.01	?
3. age	1.97	0.70	?0.15^**	?0.13^*	?
4. length of service	3.25	1.21	?0.17^**	?0.14^**	0.72^***	?
5. fixed mindsets	2.73	0.92	?0.02	?0.04	0.03	?0.13^*	?
6. growth mindsets	2.83	0.75	?0.05	?0.04	0.07	0.23^***	?0.48^***	?
7. task focus	3.78	0.97	0.04	0.08	0.15^**	0.26^***	?0.38^***	0.52^***	?
8. future focus	3.88	0.92	?0.13^*	?0.10	0.25^***	0.32^***	?0.31^***	0.42^***	0.39^***	?
9. underdog expectations	2.71	0.68	?0.10^*	?0.04	0.10	?0.09	0.50^***	?0.50^***	?0.30^***	?0.13^**	?
10. feedback-avoiding behavior	2.97	0.86	0.04	0.11^*	?0.09	?0.21^***	0.49^***	?0.43^***	?0.38^***	?0.51^***	0.39^***	?
11. desire to prove others wrong	3.96	0.86	0.03	?0.03	?0.10	?0.01	?0.32^***	0.38^***	0.32^***	0.25^***	?0.26^***	?0.31^***	?
12. task performance	3.16	0.65	0.01	?0.01	0.06	0.20^***	?0.43^***	0.53^***	0.46^***	0.45^***	?0.51^***	?0.51^***	0.53^***

Model	χ2	df	χ²/df	TLI	CFI	SRMR	RMSEA
one-factor model (FF+TF+UE+FM+GM+FB+PW+TP)	5264.74	594	8.86	0.41	0.44	0.14	0.15
two-factor model (FF+TF+UE+FM+GM+FB+PW、TP)	5039.63	593	8.50	0.44	0.47	0.14	0.15
three-factor model (FF+TF+UE+FM+GM+FB、PW、TP)	3973.61	591	6.72	0.57	0.60	0.12	0.13
four-factor model (FF+TF+UE+FM+GM、FB、PW、TP)	3228.87	588	5.49	0.66	0.69	0.13	0.12
five-factor model (FF+TF+UE+FM、GM、FB、PW、TP)	2810.03	584	4.81	0.71	0.74	0.12	0.11
six-factor model (FF+TF+UE、FM、GM、FB、PW、TP)	2470.81	579	4.27	0.76	0.77	0.12	0.10
seven-factor model (FF+TF、UE、FM、GM、FB、PW、TP)	1907.96	573	3.33	0.83	0.84	0.09	0.08
eight-factor model (FF、TF、UE、FM、GM、FB、PW、TP)	1054.88	566	1.86	0.94	0.94	0.05	0.05
nine-factor model (Eight factors+common method deviation)	847.94	530	1.60	0.96	0.96	0.04	0.04

Model	χ2	df	χ²/df	TLI	CFI	SRMR	RMSEA
one-factor model (FF+TF+UE+FM+GM+FB+PW+TP)	5264.74	594	8.86	0.41	0.44	0.14	0.15
two-factor model (FF+TF+UE+FM+GM+FB+PW、TP)	5039.63	593	8.50	0.44	0.47	0.14	0.15
three-factor model (FF+TF+UE+FM+GM+FB、PW、TP)	3973.61	591	6.72	0.57	0.60	0.12	0.13
four-factor model (FF+TF+UE+FM+GM、FB、PW、TP)	3228.87	588	5.49	0.66	0.69	0.13	0.12
five-factor model (FF+TF+UE+FM、GM、FB、PW、TP)	2810.03	584	4.81	0.71	0.74	0.12	0.11
six-factor model (FF+TF+UE、FM、GM、FB、PW、TP)	2470.81	579	4.27	0.76	0.77	0.12	0.10
seven-factor model (FF+TF、UE、FM、GM、FB、PW、TP)	1907.96	573	3.33	0.83	0.84	0.09	0.08
eight-factor model (FF、TF、UE、FM、GM、FB、PW、TP)	1054.88	566	1.86	0.94	0.94	0.05	0.05
nine-factor model (Eight factors+common method deviation)	847.94	530	1.60	0.96	0.96	0.04	0.04

variable	feedback-avoiding behavior								task performance
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4		Model 5		Model 6
	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE
intercept term	2.74^***	0.24	2.93^***	0.04	2.61^***	0.24	2.95^***	0.04	3.76^***	0.22	4.05^***	0.12
gender	0.12	0.08			0.12	0.08			0.04	0.06
educational background	0.17^**	0.06			0.19^**	0.06			0.04	0.05
age	?0.07	0.08			?0.06	0.08			?0.06	0.06
length of service	?0.09	0.05			?0.06	0.05			0.08^*	0.04
fixed mindsets	0.34^***	0.05	0.36^***	0.05	0.27^***	0.05	0.29^***	0.05	?0.15^***	0.04	?0.17^***	0.04
feedback-avoiding behavior									?0.29^***	0.04	?0.30^***	0.04
underdog expectations	0.08	0.08	0.12	0.08	0.07	0.08	0.11	0.08
fixed mindsets × underdog expectations	0.21^***	0.05	0.14^**	0.05	0.21^***	0.06	0.17^**	0.06
task focus					?0.13^**	0.05	?0.16^***	0.05
fixed mindsets × task focus					0.01	0.05	?0.01	0.05
underdog expectations × task focus					0.31^***	0.08	0.32^***	0.08
fixed mindsets × underdog expectations× task focus					?0.14^**	0.04	?0.12^**	0.04
R²	0.34		0.28		0.40		0.35		0.31		0.30
ΔR²	0.34^***		0.28^***		0.40^***		0.35^***		0.31^***		0.30^***
F	23.93^***		43.99^***		19.51^***		25.62^***		25.47^***		73.27^***