The Double-Edged Sword of Self-Handicapping: Discounting,Augmentation, and the Protection and Enhancement of Self-Esteem

A field study was conducted to test the hypothesis that discounted and augmented ability self-attributions mediate the interactive effects of claimed self-handicaps and academic success and failure on self-esteem. College students were assessed for individual differences in self-handicapping and self-esteem at the beginning of the term and then completed a checklist of claimed self-handicaps immediately preceding their first in-class exam. At the following class, graded exams were returned to the students, who then completed measures of mood, self-esteem, and performance attributions. High self-handicappers claimed more excuses prior to the test. Among failing students, claimed handicaps were associated with greater discounting of ability attributions and higher self-esteem. Among successful students, claimed handicaps were associated with augmented ability attributions and enhanced self-esteem. However, we failed to find support for sex differences in claimed self-handicapping. The implications of the present research with regard to the functional utility of self-handicapping behavior are discussed.     

Re‐examining the effects of noncontingent success on self‐handicapping behaviour

Background: Self‐handicapping refers to the practice on the part of certain individuals to handicap their performance when poor performance is likely to reveal low ability. Noncontingent success (feedback that is inflated relative to performance) is more likely to promote self‐handicapping behaviour than noncontingent failure (failure feedback based on false or misleading information). However, the reasons for the differing effects of these forms of performance feedback on self‐handicapping behaviour remain obscure. Aims: The present study sought an explanation for the differing effects of these forms of performance feedback, testing the assumption that students high in self‐handicapping behaviour would react more negatively following noncontingent success, reporting more unstable and external attributions, higher anxiety, and a greater propensity to claim handicaps than those low in self‐handicapping behaviour. No differences were expected on any of these measures for high relative to low self‐handicappers following either noncontingent failure or success. Sample: Participants were 72 undergraduate students, divided equally between high and low self‐handicapping groups. Method: High and low self‐handicappers were assigned to one of three performance feedback conditions: noncontingent failure, success and noncontingent success. High and low self‐handicappers were then given an opportunity to claim handicaps prior to completing measures of attributions and state anxiety. Subsequently, they completed 12 remote associate tasks, serving as an assessment of performance, and 16 unicursal tasks, assessing practice effort. Results: Following noncontingent success, high self‐handicappers reported greater anxiety, more unproductive attributions and claimed more handicaps than low self‐handicappers. However no differences were evident for high and low self‐handicappers following either noncontingent failure or success. High self‐handicappers also performed poorly on the remote associates tasks and reduced practice effort on the unicursal tasks.     

The role of uncertain self-esteem in self-handicapping

In this article, the hypothesis that some individuals confronted with an intellectual evaluation use a lack of preparation as a "self-handicapping" strategy (Jones & Berglas, 1978) was studied. Sex and both level and certainty of self-esteem were examined in regard to the self-handicapping strategy of lack of effort. Subjects were 54 men and 54 women, certain and uncertain, high and low self-esteem college students, who believed that the experiment was designed to update local norms for a nonverbal test of intellectual ability. After subjects' level of state anxiety was assessed, they were instructed in the benefits of practicing for the evaluation. Subsequently, subjects' state anxiety and preparatory efforts (the primary dependent variables) were measured. Subjects' practice, self-protective attributions, and related affect supported a self-handicapping interpretation for uncertain males but not for uncertain females.     

Causal uncertainty,claimed and behavioural self‐handicapping

Background: Causal uncertainty beliefs involve doubts about the causes of events, and arise as a consequence of non‐contingent evaluative feedback: feedback that leaves the individual uncertain about the causes of his or her achievement outcomes. Individuals high in causal uncertainty are frequently unable to confidently attribute their achievement outcomes, experience anxiety in achievement situations and as a consequence are likely to engage in self‐handicapping behaviour. Aims: Accordingly, we sought to establish links between trait causal uncertainty, claimed and behavioural self‐handicapping. Sample: Participants were N=72 undergraduate students divided equally between high and low causally uncertain groups. Method: We used a 2 (causal uncertainty status: high, low) × 3 (performance feedback condition: success, non‐contingent success, non‐contingent failure) between‐subjects factorial design to examine the effects of causal uncertainty on achievement behaviour. Following performance feedback, participants completed 20 single‐solution anagrams and 12 remote associate tasks serving as performance measures, and 16 unicursal tasks to assess practice effort. Participants also completed measures of claimed handicaps, state anxiety and attributions. Results: Relative to low causally uncertain participants, high causally uncertain participants claimed more handicaps prior to performance on the anagrams and remote associates, reported higher anxiety, attributed their failure to internal, stable factors, and reduced practice effort on the unicursal tasks, evident in fewer unicursal tasks solved. Conclusions: These findings confirm links between trait causal uncertainty and claimed and behavioural self‐handicapping, highlighting the need for educators to facilitate means by which students can achieve surety in the manner in which they attribute the causes of their achievement outcomes.     

Individual and organizational consequences of CEO claimed handicapping: What’s good for the CEO may not be so good for the firm

Previous research on organizational impression management has focused on verbal accounts proffered by leaders in response to organizational-threatening events. The present studies examined the effectiveness of an anticipatory verbal tactic, claimed handicapping, in which CEOs warn stakeholders of factors that may adversely affect future firm performance. We studied the effect of two types of claimed handicapping on CEO compensation and firm value. One claimed handicap consisted of factors external to the firm whereas the other claimed handicap consisted of factors internal to the firm. In two very different research venues (an experiment and archival study), we found that, under certain conditions, claimed external handicapping had diametrically opposed effects on CEO compensation and firm value. Specifically, when prior firm performance was favorable, external claimed handicaps had a positive effect on CEO pay but a negative impact on firm value. Moreover, the results of both studies highlighted the need to distinguish between external claimed handicaps and internal claimed handicaps, in that all significant effects were produced by external rather than internal claimed handicaps. Contributions to theory and research on organization impression management, self-handicapping, and executive compensation, as well as cross-disciplinary implications, are discussed.     

Enhancing the prediction of self-handicapping

Levels of test anxiety, Type A and Type B coronary-prone behavior, fear of failure, and covert self-esteem were studied as predictors of self-handicapping performance attributions for college women who were placed in either a high- (N = 49) or low- (N = 49) evaluative test or task situation. We hypothesized that test anxiety. Type A or Type B level, and their interaction would account for reliable variance in the prediction of self-handicapping. However, we also theorized that underlying high fear of failure and low covert self-esteem would explain the self-handicapping claims of test-anxious and Type A subjects. The results indicated that only high levels of test anxiety and high levels of covert self-esteem were related to women's self-handicapping attributions.     

Growth motivation as a moderator of behavioral self-handicapping in women

Behavioral self-handicapping is a strategy used to protect attributions about ability. People behaviorally self-handicap by creating an obstacle to their success so failure is attributed to the obstacle instead of to their ability. Although past research has observed behavioral self-handicapping exclusively in men, the current research revealed a moderator of behavioral self-handicapping in women: growth motivation, which reflects the desire to develop one's abilities and learn from failure. Participants (N = 100) completed a test purportedly predictive of successful careers and relationships, and some were given failure feedback about their performance. Participants could behaviorally self-handicap by choosing to complete another test in a performance-impairing environment. Although men self-handicapped more overall, women self-handicapped more after failure when they were low in growth motivation. These results highlight a novel moderator of behavioral self-handicapping in women.     

Self-esteem, self-confidence, anxiety and claimed self-handicapping: A mediational analysis

Objectives

The purpose of the present study was to examine the mediational role of self-confidence and anxiety in the relationship between self-esteem and claimed self-handicapping in an achievement context.

Design

To test this mediational role, the three-step procedure advocated by Baron and Kenny (1986) was used.

Method

After hearing and reading about specific conditions of performing that were intended to favor invoking excuses for future poor performance, 68 competitive basketball players completed measures of self-esteem, anxiety (cognitive and somatic), self-confidence, and claimed self-handicapping. Then, they warmed-up and carried out a basketball task.

Results

Self-esteem negatively predicted cognitive anxiety and positively predicted self-confidence. In turn, self-confidence negatively predicted claimed self-handicapping and mediated the relationship between self-esteem and claimed self-handicapping. Cognitive and somatic anxieties did not mediate the relationship between self-esteem and claimed self-handicapping. Together, these results suggest that individuals with low self-esteem use more claimed self-handicaps because they have lower self-confidence.

Conclusion

These findings shed light on the psychological processes that lead people with low self-esteem to use strategies of claimed self-handicaps.     

Narcissism and self-handicapping: Linking self-aggrandizement to behavior

Two experiments tested the hypothesis that narcissistic men as defined by the NPI (Narcissistic Personality Inventory; Raskin & Hall, 1979) would self-handicap more than low-NPI individuals because it makes it easy to claim potentially undeserved credit for success. In both experiments, high and low narcissistic men received either response contingent or noncontingent success feedback on a test of intelligence and then provided an opportunity to self-handicap prior to a second evaluation. In both studies, high-NPI men self-handicapped significantly more than low-NPI men regardless of the contingency of the performance feedback. Narcissistic self-handicapping appeared to be motivated by a self-aggrandizing attributional style rather than by self-presentational concerns or the desire to self-enhance. Findings are discussed with regard to the role of self-esteem instability and the motive to self-protect in both narcissism and self-handicapping.     

Self-reported versus behavioral self-handicapping: empirical evidence for a theoretical distinction.

The present study was an investigation of how Ss would respond when given 2 self-handicapping options, 1 behavioral (withdrawal of practice effort) and 1 self-reported (reporting high levels of stress). Ss anticipating a diagnostic test of intellectual ability were given different instructions regarding the effects of stress and practice on test performance. Ss were told that (a) stress only, (b) practice only, (c) both stress and practice, or (d) neither stress nor practice affected test scores. Ss were then given the opportunity to self-report a handicap on a stress inventory and to behaviorally self-handicap by failing to practice before the test. High self-handicapping men and women showed evidence of self-reported handicapping, but only high self-handicapping men behaviorally self-handicapped. However, when both self-handicaps were viable, both high self-handicapping men and women preferred the self-reported over the behavioral self-handicap.     

The impact of sex,achievement domain,and conceptual orientation on causal attributions

Sex differences in achievement domain and achievement orientation were examined to better understand women's achievement. College students (84 women, 59 men) were asked to write brief accounts of a past success and a past failure and to provide causal attributions for each. More women recalled affiliative-process events, and proportionally more men recalled mastery-impact events. The relationship of topic domain and conceptual orientation to causal attributions was apparent only for accounts of failure. Topic domain and conceptual orientation interacted with sex to further influence stability attributions. When women conceptualized failure as a process, they emphasized attributions to effort and luck, while men accounted for the process failure by ability and task. When the failure was conceptualized in terms of final impact, the sex pattern of attributions was reversed.     

别对我期望太高：运动领域中的自我设限

运动领域中存在自我设限行为。自我设限是指个体针对可能到来的失败威胁而事先设计障碍的自我保护策略,可分为行动式自我设限及自陈式自我设限。抬举他人也是一种特殊形式的自我设限。自我设限的动机有自我价值和印象管理两种理论解释。与自我设限相关的因素包括归因、自尊、目标定向、群体凝聚力、任务性质及性别等。在前人研究的基础上,从实践的角度为教练员正确处理自我设限问题提供了建议。从理论上提出身体自尊可能是运动员整体自尊和自我设限之间的中介变量     

Exploring attributions in natural settings: Gender and self-esteem effects

Two studies investigated the attributions of undergraduates for the outcomes of satisfying and dissatisfying achievement events that occurred naturally over the course of a 3-week period. In both studies, women with low performance self-esteem gave less ego-enhancing attributions than high self-esteem women, high self-esteem men, or low self-esteem men. Also, in Study 2 high self-esteem subjects attributed greater stability to causes of satisfying events than to causes of dissatisfying events, whereas low self-esteem subjects gave both types of events equivalent stability ratings. Both studies provide evidence of consistent individual differences in attributional style across occasions and situations. The gender differences were interpreted in the context of sex-role socialization factors and Anderson and Slusher's (1986) two-stage model of the attribution process.     

Gender differences in performance attributions: Students' explanations for personal success or failure

Women are often said to exhibit an externality bias in their performance attributions. To test this hypothesis, male and female college students made effort, ability, luck, and task difficulty attributions for their performance on a recent course examination. Measures of the students' affective reactions toward their performance were also obtained. Successful students, whether male or female, made internal attributions and were pleased with their performance. Stronger internal attributions were associated with more positive affective reactions for these students. Unsuccessful female students made external attributions, were displeased with their performance, and felt better when they attributed their failure to unstable factors. Unsuccessful male students were also displeased with their performance, but tended to make more internal attributions for their failure, and felt better as a result. These findings, which suggest the influence of an internality bias among men, rather than an externality bias among women, were interpreted in terms of the male sex role.     

Personal,Interpersonal, and Situational Influences on Behavioral Self-Handicapping

ABSTRACT

This study explored the combined effects of personal factors (participant sex), interpersonal factors (experimenter sex), and situational factors (performance feedback) on two forms of behavioral self-handicapping. Participants received non-contingent success or failure feedback concerning their performance on a novel ability and were given the opportunity to self-handicap before performing again. Behavioral self-handicapping took the form of (a) exerting less practice effort (practice) or (b) choosing a performance-debilitating tape (choice). Men practiced least after failure feedback and chose a debilitating tape if they were interacting with a female experimenter. Generally, across all participants in both choice and practice conditions, high performance concern and the presence of a male experimenter led to the most self-handicapping. Results are interpreted in terms of self-presentational concerns that emphasize a desire to impress or an awareness of the female or male experimenter's acceptance of self-handicappers.     

Feedback and performance expectancies in an academic setting

College students in two psychology courses estimated their confidence in passing and their anticipated score for three examinations. On the first examination the results from both courses supported the prediction that women, compared to men, would be less confident of passing, would predict lower scores, and would underestimate their obtained scores. These sex differences disappeared, as predicted, on the second and third examination for the course, in which the situation remained relatively constant over the term. However, contrary to predictions, the sex differences were maintained over all three examinations for the second course, which involved different instructors for each exam. Thus, the effects of feedback on performance expectancies seem to be vulnerable to situational changes.     

She works hard for the money: Valuing effort underlies gender differences in behavioral self-handicapping

Research in the area of self-handicapping has consistently demonstrated a robust yet puzzling gender difference in the use of and evaluation of behavioral self-handicaps; women (1) are less likely to use these forms of handicaps, particularly those involving the actual or reported reduction of effort, and (2) evaluate the use of these handicaps by others more negatively than do men. The present research examines several possible explanations for these consistent gender differences and finds that the personal value placed on effort is an important mediator of these effects.     

Stressed out over possible failure: The role of regulatory fit on claimed self-handicapping

The self-protective mechanism of self-handicapping appears to be motivated by the need to protect ability attributions in the face of concern about possible failure. Indeed, the present research finds a correlation between trait self-handicapping and chronic prevention focus. Moreover, the present research examines the role of “regulatory fit” on the use of claimed self-handicapping by exposing high and low trait self-handicappers to performance situations framed in prevention or promotion terms. Consistent with our regulatory fit hypothesis, high self-handicappers (HSHs) handicapped significantly more (by reporting higher levels of stress) when the task was framed in prevention focus rather than promotion focus terms, and did so even when the viability of the handicap was dubious. Self-handicapping in the prevention focus condition was mediated by elevated feelings of evaluative concern. The findings suggest that conditions of regulatory fit (i.e., HSHs under prevention focus) can lead to increased use of self-handicapping.     

Attributions to discrimination and self-esteem: Impact of group identification and situational ambiguity

This study examined group identification and situational ambiguity as moderators of attributions to discrimination and self-esteem following negative feedback. As predicted, high gender-identified women made more discrimination attributions than low identified women when situational prejudice cues were ambiguous, but not when prejudice cues were absent or overt. Also as predicted, women exposed to overt prejudice cues had higher self-esteem than those exposed to ambiguous cues or no prejudice cues. The relationship between discrimination attributions and self-esteem was positive among women exposed to overt prejudice but negative among those exposed to no prejudice. Across conditions, however, the more that women discounted ability as a cause of their negative feedback (i.e., blamed discrimination more than ability), the higher their self-esteem. Results qualify and extend prior research and demonstrate that personal and situational factors moderate both the tendency to make attributions to discrimination and the consequences of those attributions for self-esteem.     

The relationship of time investment and task outcome to causal attributions and self-esteem1

This study examined the relationship between performance outcome, time spent working at a task, and attributions to ability versus effort. It also explored differences in performance time as a function of self-esteem and task-performance expectancies. Subjects worked on a series of concept-attainment items and then were given either success or failure feedback regarding their performance and also information that they had worked either faster or slower than other subjects. They then evaluated their performance and that of a fictitious subject who had also purportedly done the task. Subjects attributed their own and other subjects' successes more to ability if they spent less time at the task and failure outcomes more to ability if they had spent more time at the task. Attributions to success and failure outcomes differed as a function of the interactive effect of self-esteem and task-specific expectancies. Low self-esteem subjects tended to attribute expected outcomes more to ability and unexpected outcomes more to effort, whereas high self-esteem subjects attributed successes more to ability and failure more to effort. Practice time and criteria for satisfaction were also a joint function of self-esteem and task-performance expectancy. The results suggest that task-performance expectancies must be considered when evaluating the role of self-esteem in determining people's responses in performance situations.