Linguistic Evidence for the Failure Mindset as a Predictor of Life Span Longevity
When people think that their efforts will fail to achieve positive outcomes, they sometimes give up their efforts after control, which can have negative health consequences.
Problematic orientations of this type, such as pessimism, helplessness, or fatalism, seem likely to be associated with a cognitive mindset marked by higher levels of accessibility for failure words or concepts. Thus, the purpose of the present research was to determine whether there are individual differences in the frequency with which people think about failure, which in turn are likely to impact health across large spans of time.
Following self-regulatory theories of health and the learned helplessness tradition, two archival studies (total n = 197) scored texts (books or speeches) for their use of failure words, a category within the Harvard IV dictionary of the General Inquirer.
People who used failure words more frequently exhibited shorter subsequent life spans, and this relationship remained significant when controlling for birth year. Furthermore, study 2 implicated behavioral factors. For example, the failure/longevity relationship was numerically stronger among people whose causes of death appeared to be preventable rather than non-preventable.
These results significantly extend our knowledge of the personality/longevity relationship while highlighting the value of individual differences in word usage as predictors of health and mortality.
KeywordsWord usage Accessibility Failure Health Longevity Learned helplessness
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Authors’ Statement of Conflict of Interest and Adherence to Ethical Standards
Ian B. Penzel, Michelle R. Persich, Ryan L. Boyd, and Michael D. Robinson declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures, including the informed consent process, were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.
- 2.Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman; 1997.Google Scholar
- 4.Maier SF, Seligman M.E. Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1976; 105: 3–46.Google Scholar
- 24.Heckhausen H. Fear of failure as a self-reinforcing motive system. In: Sarason I, Spielberger C, ed. Stress and anxiety. Washington, DC: Hemisphere; 1975: 117–128.Google Scholar
- 25.McClelland DC. Human motivation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1987.Google Scholar
- 26.Ogilvie DM, Stone PJ, Kelly EF. Computer aided content analysis. In: Smith RB, Manning PK, ed. A handbook of social science methods. Cambridge, MA: Balinger; 1982: 219–246.Google Scholar
- 27.Higgins ET. Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In: Higgins ET, Kruglanski AW, ed. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York: Guilford Press; 1996: 133–168.Google Scholar
- 29.Bargh JA, Chartrand TL. The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In: Reis HT, Judd CM, ed. Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2000: 253–285.Google Scholar
- 35.Stone PJ. Thematic text analysis: New agendas for analyzing text content. In: Roberts CW, ed. Text analysis for the social sciences: Methods for drawing statistical inferences from texts and transcripts. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1997: 35–54.Google Scholar
- 36.Stone PJ, Dunphy DC, Smith MS, Ogilvie DM. The general inquirer: A computer approach to content analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1966.Google Scholar
- 37.Kelly EF, Stone PJ. Computer recognition of English word senses. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland; 1975.Google Scholar
- 38.Zuell C, Weber RP, Mohler PP. Computer-assisted text analysis for the social sciences: The General Inquirer III. Mannheim, Germany: Center for Surveys, Methods, and Analysis (ZUMA); 1989.Google Scholar
- 40.Pennebaker JW, Chung CK, Ireland M, Gonzales AL Booth RJ. The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007. Austin, TX: www.LIWC.net; 2007.Google Scholar
- 41.Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1991.Google Scholar
- 42.Hayflick L. How and why we age. New York, NY: Ballantine Books; 1996.Google Scholar
- 43.Winter DG. Measuring the motives of political actors at a distance. In: Post JM, ed. The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders: With Profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton (pp. 153–177). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press; 2005: 153–177.Google Scholar
- 49.Robinson MD, Wilkowski BM. Personality processes and processes as personality: A cognitive perspective. In: Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, ed. APA handbook of personality and social psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2015: 129–145.Google Scholar
- 51.Cervone D. Bottom-up explanation in personality psychology: The case of cross-situational coherence. In: Cervone D, Shoda Y, ed. The coherence of personality: Social-cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization. New York: Guilford Press; 1999: 303–341.Google Scholar
- 52.Eysenck H. Dimensions of personality. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers; 1998.Google Scholar
- 54.Kruglanski A, Shah J, Fishbach A, Friedman R, Chun W, Sleeth-Keppler D. A theory of goal systems. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 34. San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press; 2002: 331–378.Google Scholar