A hypothetical explanation task was used to make success- or failure-related cognitions differentially available for 60 high self-esteem (HSE) and 60 low self-esteem (LSE) undergraduates. Ss wrote an explanation for either a hypothetical failure or success, or they wrote no explanation. Half of the Ss in each condition stated performance expectancies. The effects of these variables on subsequent performance were examined. Success explanations increased the performance of both HSE and LSE Ss, whereas failure explanations only decreased the performance of LSE Ss. A content analysis revealed that the content of failure explanations, but not success explanations, was related to self-esteem and subsequent performance. These effects were more pronounced for Ss who stated expectancies, and expectancies were more highly correlated with performance in the explanation conditions than in the no-explanation control condition. Results are discussed in terms of current self-esteem theory and the cognitive processes associated with generating causal scenarios for success and failure, expectations, and performance.