Self-handicapping

Self-handicapping is a cognitive strategy by which people avoid effort in the hopes of keeping potential failure from hurting self-
esteem.[1] It was first theorized by Edward E. Jones and Steven Berglas,[2] according to whom self-handicaps are obstacles created,
[3]
or claimed, by the individual in anticipation of failing performance.

Self-handicapping can be seen as a method of preserving self-esteem but it can also be used for self-enhancement and to manage the
impressions of others.[4] This conservation or augmentation of self-esteem is due to changes in causal attributions or the attributions
for success and failure that self-handicapping affords. There are two methods that people use to self-handicap: behavioral and
claimed self-handicaps. People withdraw effort or create obstacles to successes so they can maintain public and private self-images of
competence.

Self-handicapping is a widespread behavior amongst humans that has been observed in a variety of cultures and geographic areas.
For instance, students frequently participate in self-handicapping behavior to avoid feeling bad about themselves if they do not
perform well in class. Self-handicapping behavior has also been observed in the business world. The effects of self-handicapping can
be both large and small and found in virtually anyenvironment wherein people are expected to perform.

Contents
Overview and relevance
Individual differences
Gender differences
Major theoretical approaches
Major empirical findings
Applications
Occurrence in sports
Controversies
See also
References
External links

Overview and relevance

The first method people use to self-handicap is when they make a task harder for themselves in fear of not successfully completing
that task, so that if they do in fact fail, they can simply place the blame on the obstacles rather than placing the blame on themselves.
This is known to researchers as behavioral handicapping, in which the individual actually creates obstacles to performance.[5]
Examples of behavioral handicaps include alcohol consumption,[6][7] the selection of unattainable goals,[8] and refusal to practice a
[9]
task or technique (especially in sports and the fine arts).

The second way that people self-handicap is by coming up with justifications for their potential failures, so that if they do not succeed
in the task, they can point to their excuses as the reasons for their failures. This is known as claimed self-handicapping, in which the
individual merely states that an obstacle to performance exists. Examples of claimed self-handicaps include declarations that one is
experiencing physical symptoms.[10]
Self-handicapping behavior allows individuals to externalize failures but internalize success, accepting credit for achievements but
allowing excuses for failings. An example of self-handicapping is the student who spends the night before an important exam
partying rather than studying. The student fears failing his exam and appearing incapable. In partying the night before the exam the
student has engaged in self-defeating behaviour and increased the likelihood of poor exam performance. However, in the event of
failure, the student can offer fatigue and a hangover, rather than lack of ability, as plausible explanations. Furthermore, should the
student receive positive feedback about his exam, his achievement is enhanced by the fact that he succeeded, despite the handicap.

Individual differences
People differ in the extent to which they self-handicap[11] and most research on individual differences has used the Self-
Handicapping Scale (SHS). The SHS was developed as a means of measuring individuals' tendency to employ excuses or create
handicaps as a means to protect one's self-esteem. Research to date shows that SHS has adequate construct validity.[11] For example,
individuals who score high on the SHS put in less effort and practice less when concerned about their ability to perform well in a
given task.[12][13] They are also more likely than those rated low self-handicappers (LSH) to mention obstacles or external factors
that may hinder their success, prior to performing.[14][15]

A number of characteristics have been related to self-handicapping (e.g. hypochondriasis)[10] and research suggests that those more
prone to self-handicapping may differ motivationally compared to those that do not rely on such defensive strategies. For example,
fear of failure, a heightened sensitivity to shame and embarrassment upon failure,[16] motivates self-handicapping
behavior.[17][18][19] Students who fear failure are more likely to adopt performance goals in the classroom or goals focused on the
[20]
demonstration of competence or avoidance of demonstrating incompetence; goals that heighten one's sensitivity to failure.

A student, for example, may approach course exams with the goal of not performing poorly as this would suggest a lack of ability. To
avoid ability attributions and the shame of failure, the student fails to adequately prepare for an exam. While this may provide
[4]
temporary relief, it renders one's ability conceptions more uncertain, resulting in further self-handicapping.

Gender differences
While research suggests that claimed self-handicaps are used by men and women alike,[11][21] several studies have reported
significant differences. While research assessing differences in reported self-handicapping have revealed no gender differences[15] or
greater self-handicapping among females,[3][18] the vast majority of research suggests that males are more inclined to behaviourally
self-handicap.[2][9][13][22] These differences are further explained by the different value men and women ascribe to the concept of
effort.[23]

Major theoretical approaches

The root of research on the act of self-handicapping can be traced back to Adler’s studies about self-esteem. In the late 1950s,
Goffman and Heider published research concerning the manipulation of outward behavior for the purpose of impression
management. It was not until 30 years later that self-handicapping behavior was attributed to internal factors. Until this point, self-
handicapping only encompassed the usage of external factors, such as alcohol and drugs. Self-handicapping is usually studied in an
experimental setting, but is sometimes studied in an observational environment.

Previous research has established that self-handicapping is motivated by uncertainty about one's ability[2] or, more generally,
anticipated threats to self-esteem.[24] Self-handicapping can be exacerbated by self-presentational concerns[1] but also occurs in
situations where such concerns are at a minimum.[2][12]

Major empirical findings

Experiments on self-handicapping have depicted the reasons why people self-handicap and the effects that it has on those people.
Self-handicapping has been observed in both laboratory and real world settings. Studying the psychological and physical effects of
self-handicapping has allowed researchers to witness the dramatic ef
fects that it has on attitude and performance.
Jones and Berglas gave people positive feedback following a problem-solving test, regardless of actual performance. Half the
participants had been given fairly easy problems, while the others were given difficult problems. Participants were then given the
choice between a "performance-enhancing drug" and a drug that would inhibit it. Those participants who received the difficult
problems were more likely to choose the impairing drug, and participants who faced easy problems were more likely to choose the
enhancing drug. It is argued that the participants presented with hard problems, believing that their success had been due to chance,
chose the impairing drug because they were looking for an external attribution (what might be called an "excuse") for expected poor
performance in the future, as opposed to aninternal attribution.[2]

More recent research finds that, generally, people are willing to use handicaps to protect their self-esteem (e.g., discounting failings)
but are more reluctant to employ them for self-enhancement. (e.g., to further credit their success). Rhodewalt, Morf, Hazlett, and
Fairfield (1991)[12] selected participants who scored high or low on the Self-Handicapping Scale (SHS) and who had high or low
self-esteem.[12] They presented participants with a handicap and then with success or failure feedback and asked participants to make
attributions for their performance.[12] The results showed that both self-protection and self-enhancement occurred, but only as a
function of levels of self-esteem and the level of tendency to self-handicap.[12] Participants who were high self-handicappers,
regardless of their level of self-esteem, used the handicap as a means of self-protection but only those participants with high self-
esteem used the handicap to self-enhance.[12]

In a further study, Rhodewalt (1991) presented the handicap to only half of the participants and gave success and failure feedback.
The results provided evidence for self-protection but not for self-enhancement.[25] Participants in the failure feedback, handicap
absent group, attributed their failures to their own lack of ability and reported lower self-esteem to the handicap-present, failure-
feedback condition.[25] Furthermore, the handicap-present failure group reported levels of self-esteem equal to that of the successful
group.[25] This evidence highlights the importance of self-handicaps in self-protection although it offers no support for the handicap
acting to self-enhance.[25]

Another experiment, by Martin Seligman and colleagues, examined whether there was a correlation between explanatory styles and
the performance of swimmers.[26] After being given false bad times on their preliminary events, the swimmers who justified their
poor performance to themselves in a pessimistic way did worse on subsequent performances. In contrast, the subsequent
performances of those swimmers who had more optimistic attributions concerning their poor swimming times were not affected.[26]
Those who had positive attributions were more likely to succeed after given false times because they were self-handicapping. They
attributed their failure to an external force rather than blaming themselves. Therefore, their self-esteem remained intact, which led to
their success in subsequent events. This experiment demonstrates the positive effects that self-handicapping can have on an
individual because when they attributed the failure to an external factor, they did not internalize the failure and let it psychologically
affect them.

Previous research has looked at the consequences of self-handicapping and have suggested that self-handicapping leads to a more
positive mood (at least in the short term)[27][28] or at least guards against a drop in positive mood after failure.[29] Thus, self-
handicapping may serve as a means of regulating one's emotions in the course of protecting one's self-esteem.[30] However, based on
past evidence that positive mood motivates self-protective attributions for success and failure[31] and increases the avoidance of
negative feedback,[32] recent research has focused on mood as an antecedent to self-handicapping; expecting positive mood to
increase self-handicapping behaviour.[33] Results have shown that people who are in positive mood are more likely to engage in self-
handicapping, even at the cost of jeopardizing future performance.

Research suggests that among those who self-handicap, self-imposed obstacles may relieve the pressure of a performance and allow
one to become more engaged in a task.[34] While this may enhance performance in some situations for some individuals,[35] in
general, research indicates that self-handicapping is negatively associated with performance, self-regulated learning, persistence and
intrinsic motivation.[18][36] Additional long-term costs of self-handicapping include worse health and well-being, more frequent
[28]
negative moods and higher use of various substances.

Zuckerman and Tsai assessed self-handicapping, well-being, and coping among college students on two occasions over several
months. Self-handicapping assessed on the first occasion predicted coping with problems by denial, blaming others and criticizing
oneself as well as depression and somatic complaints. Depression and somatic complaints also predicted subsequent self-
handicapping. Thus, the use of self-handicapping may lead to not only uncertainty as to one's ability but also ill-being, which in turn
may lead to further reliance on self-handicapping.[4]

Applications
For the self-handicapping strategy to work the individual using it needs to be unaware its implementation. If this is not the case then
the strategy won't have the protective effect on the person's self-esteem in the presence of a failure. If people believe that they are
going to fail, they create obstacles and excuses to justify their failures. There are many real world applications for this concept. For
example, if people predict they are going to perform poorly on tasks, they create obstacles, such as taking drugs and consuming
alcohol, so that they feel that they have diverted the blame from themselves if they actually do fail. In addition, another way that
people self-handicap is by creating already-made excuses just in case they fail. For example, if a student feels that he is going to
perform badly on a test, then he might make up an excuse for his potential failure, such as telling his friends that he does not feel well
the morning of the test.

Occurrence in sports
Previous research[37] has suggested that because in Physical Education (PE) students are required to overtly display their physical
abilities and incompetence could be readily observed by others, PE is an ideal setting to observe self-handicapping.[38] Because of its
prevalence in the sporting world, self-handicapping behaviour has become of interest to sports psychologists who are interested in
increasing sports performance. Recent research has examined the relationship between behavioural and claimed self-handicaps and
athletic performance[39] as well as the effects self-handicapping has on anxiety and fear of failure before Athletic Performance.
[38]

Controversies
One controversy was revealed in a study done at the University of Wyoming.[40] Previous research indicated a negative correlation
between self-handicapping behaviors and boosting one’s self-esteem; it was also shown that people who focus on the positive
attributes of themselves are less likely to self-handicap. This study, however, demonstrates that this claim is only partially accurate
because the reduction of self-handicapping is only apparent in an area unrelated to the present self-esteem risk. As a result, the
attempt to protect self-esteem becomes a detriment to future success in that area.

See also
Attributional bias Self-defeating personality disorder
Defensive pessimism Self-perception theory
Learned helplessness Self-serving bias
Outline of self Setting up to fail

References
1. Kolditz, T. A.; Arkin, R. M. (1982). "An impression management interpretation of the self-handicapping strategy".
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 43: 492–502. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.492(https://doi.org/10.103
7%2F0022-3514.43.3.492).
2. Jones, E. E.; Berglas, S. (1978). "Control of attributions about the self through self-handicapping strategies: The
appeal of alcohol and the role of underachievement".Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 4: 200–206.
doi:10.1177/014616727800400205(https://doi.org/10.1177%2F014616727800400205) .
3. Feick, D.L., & Rhodewalt, F. (1997). The Double-Edged Sword of Self-Handicapping: Discounting, Augmentation,
and the Protection and Enhancement of Self-Esteem.Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 21, No. 2.
4. Rhodewalt, F., & Vohs, K. D. (2005). Defensive strategies,motivation, and the self. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.).
Handbook of competence and motivation(pp. 548-565). New York: Guilford Press.
 5. Leary, M. R.; Shepperd, J. A. (1986). "Behavioral self-handicaps versus self-reported handicaps: A conceptual note".
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51: 1265–1268. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1265(https://doi.org/10.
1037%2F0022-3514.51.6.1265).
6. Bordini, E.J.; Tucker, J.A.; Vuchinich, R.E.; Rudd, E.J. (1986). "Alcohol consumption as a self-handicapping strategy
in women". Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 95: 346–349. doi:10.1037/0021-843x.95.4.346(https://doi.org/10.103
7%2F0021-843x.95.4.346).
7. Tucker, Jalie A.; Vuchinich, Rudy E.; Sobell, Mark B. (1981). "Alcohol Consumption as a Self-Handicapping
Strategy". Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 90 (3): 220–230. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.380.7268 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.ed
u/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.380.7268) . doi:10.1037/0021-843x.90.3.220(https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0021-843
x.90.3.220).
8. Greenberg, J (1985). "Unattainable goal choice as a self-handicapping strategy".
Journal of Applied Social
Psychology. 15: 140–152. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1985.tb02340.x(https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1559-1816.1985.tb
02340.x).
9. Harris, R.N.; Snyder, C.R. (1986). "The role of uncertain self-esteem in self-handicapping".Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 51: 451–458. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.451(https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.51.2.
451).
10. Smith, T.W.; Snyder, C.R.; Perkins, S.C. (1983). "The self-serving function of hypochondriacal complaints: Physical
symptoms as self-handicapping strategies".Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 44: 787–797.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.4.787(https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.44.4.787) .
11. Rhodewalt, F. (1990) Self-handicappers: Individual differences in the preference for anticipatory self-protective acts.
In R. Higgins, C. R. Snyder, & S. Berglas. Self-handicapping: The paradox that isn't.New York: Plenum Press.
12. Rhodewalt, F.; Fairfield, M. (1991). "Claimedself-handicaps and the self-handicapper: On the relation of reductions
in intended effort to performance". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 25: 402–417. doi:10.1016/0092-
6566(91)90030-t (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0092-6566%2891%2990030-t) .
13. Hirt, E. R.; Deppe, R. K.; Gordon, L. J. (1991). "Self-reported versus behavioral self-handicapping: Empirical
evidence for a theoretical distinction".Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 61: 981–991. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.61.6.981 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.61.6.981) .
14. Strube, M. J. (1986). "An analysis of the Self-Handicapping Scale".Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 7: 211–
224. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp0703_4(https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15324834basp0703_4) .
15. Rhodewalt, F.; Hill, S. K. (1995). "Self-handicapping in the classroom: The ef
fects of claimed self-handicaps on
responses to academic failure".Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 17: 397–416.
doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1604_1(https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15324834basp1604_1) .
16. McGregor, H. A.; Elliot, A. J. (2005). "The shame of failure: Examining the link between fear of failure and shame".
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 31: 218–231. doi:10.1177/0146167204271420(https://doi.org/10.1177%
2F0146167204271420).
17. Chen, L. H.; Chen, M.; Lin, M.; Kee, Y
.; Shui, S. (2009). "Fear of failure and self-handicapping in college physical
education". Psychological Reports. 105: 707–713. doi:10.2466/pr0.105.3.707-713(https://doi.org/10.2466%2Fpr0.10
5.3.707-713).
18. Elliot, A. J.; Church, M. A. (2003). "A motivational analysis of defensive pessimism and self-handicapping".
Journal
of Personality. 71: 369–396. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.7103005(https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-6494.7103005) .
19. Ntoumanis, N.; Taylor, I. M.; Standage, M. (2010). "Testing a model of antecedents and consequences of defensive
pessimism and self-handicapping in school physical education".Journal of Sports Sciences. 28: 1515–1525.
doi:10.1080/02640414.2010.511650(https://doi.org/10.1080%2F02640414.2010.511650) .
20. Elliot, A. J.; McGregor, H. A. (2001). "A 2 x 2achievement goal framework".Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 80: 501–519. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501(https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.80.3.501) .
21. Arkin, R. M., & Oleson, K. C. (1998). Self-handicapping. In J. M. Darley & J. Cooper (eds.),
Attribution and social
interaction: The legacy of Edward E. Jones(pp. 313-371). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
22. Rhodewalt, F.; Davison, J. (1986). "Self-handicapping and subsequent performance: Role of outcome valence and
attributional certainty".Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 7: 307–322. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp0704_5(http
s://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15324834basp0704_5) .
23. McCrea, SM; Hirt, ER; Milner, BJ (2008). "She works hard for the money: Valuing effort underlies gender differences
in behavioral self-handicapping".Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 44: 292–311.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.05.006(https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jesp.2007.05.006) .
24. Snyder, C. R., & Smith, T. W. (1982). Symptoms as self-handicapping strategies: The virtues of old wine in a new
bottle. In G. Weary & H. L. Mirels (Eds.),Integrations of clinical and social psychology(pp. 104-127). New York:
Oxford University Press.
25. Rhodewalt, F.; Morf, C; Hazlett, S.; Fairfield,M. (1991). "Self-handicapping: The role of discounting and
augmentation in the preservation of self-esteem".Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 61: 121–131.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.1.122(https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.61.1.122) .
26. Seligman, Martin E.P.; Nolen-Hoeksema, Susan; Thornton, Nort; Thornton, Karen Moe (1990). "Explanatory Style as
a Mechanism of Disappointing Athletic Performance".Psychological Science. 1 (2): 143–146. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.1990.tb00084.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-9280.1990.tb00084.x) . ISSN 0956-7976 (https://www.worldc
at.org/issn/0956-7976).
27. McCrea, S. M.; Hirt, E. R. (2001). "The Role of Ability Judgments in Self-Handicapping".
Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin. 27 (10): 1378–1389. doi:10.1177/01461672012710013(https://doi.org/10.1177%2F014616720
12710013). ISSN 0146-1672 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0146-1672).
28. Zuckerman, M.; Tsai, F. F. (2005). "Costs of self-handicapping". Journal of Personality. 73 (2): 411–442.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00314.x(https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-6494.2005.00314.x) . PMID 15745436 (htt
ps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15745436).
29. Drexler, Lis P.; Ahrens, Anthony H.; Haaga, David A. (1995). "The affective consequences of self-handicapping".
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 10: 861–870.
30. Garcia, T (1995). "The role of motivational strategies in self-regulated learning".
New Directions for Teaching and
Learning. 63: 29–42.
31. Forgas, Joseph P. (1994). "Sad and guilty? Affective influences on the explanation of conflict in close relationships".
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 66 (1): 56–68. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.56(https://doi.org/10.103
7%2F0022-3514.66.1.56). ISSN 0022-3514 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0022-3514).
32. Trope, Y., Ferguson, M., & Ragunanthan, R.(2001). Mood as a resource in processing self-relevant information. In J.
P. Forgas (Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. Alter, A. L.; Forgas, J. P. (2007). "On being happy but fearing failure: The effects of mood on self-handicapping
strategies". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 43: 947–954. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.07.009(https://doi.org/
10.1016%2Fj.jesp.2006.07.009).
34. Deppe, R. K.; Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). "Self-handicapping and intrinsic motivation: Buffering intrinsic motivation
from the threat of failure".Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 70: 868–876. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.70.4.868 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.70.4.868) .
35. Weiner, Bernard; Sierad, Jack (1975). "Misattribution for failure and enhancement of achievement strivings".
Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. 31 (3): 415–421. doi:10.1037/h0076510 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh007651
0). ISSN 0022-3514 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0022-3514).
36. Martin, A. J.; Marsh, H. W.; Debus, R. L. (2003). "Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: A model of self-
protection from a longitudinal perspective".Contemporary Educational Psychology. 28: 1–36. doi:10.1016/s0361-
476x(02)00008-5 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fs0361-476x%2802%2900008-5) .
37. Ommundsen, Y (2001). "Self-handicapping strategies in physical education classes:The influence of implicit theories
of the nature of ability and achievement goal orientations".Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2 (3): 139–156.
doi:10.1016/s1469-0292(00)00019-4(https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fs1469-0292%2800%2900019-4) .
38. Chen, L. H.; Chen, M. Y.; Lin, M. S.; Kee, Y. H.; Kuo, C. F.; Shui, S. H. (2008). "Implicit theory of athletic ability and
self-handicapping in college students".Psychological Reports. 103: 476–484. doi:10.2466/pr0.103.6.476-484(http
s://doi.org/10.2466%2Fpr0.103.6.476-484).
39. Coudevylle, G., Martin Ginis, K., & Famose, J-P. (in press). Determinants of self-handicapping strategies in sport and
their effects on athletic performance.Social Behavior and Personality. International Journal (Toronto, Ont.)
40. "Psychology & Psychiatry Journal." (2011) Social Psychology; Study Data from University of yoming
W Update
Knowledge of Social Psychology.

External links
PsychWiki: Self-Handicapping
New York Times: Some Protect the Ego by Working on their Excuses Early
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-handicapping&oldid=835243796
"

This page was last edited on 7 April 2018, at 13:47.

Text is available under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of theWikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.