Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

595

The
British
Psychological
Society

British Journal of Educational Psychology (2007), 77, 595611

q 2007 The British Psychological Society

www.bpsjournals.co.uk

Predicting academic self-handicapping in different

age groups: The role of personal achievement
goals and social goals
Angeliki Leondari1* and Eleftheria Gonida2
1
2

Department of Pre-school Education, University of Thessaly, Greece

School of Psychology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Background. Academic self-handicapping refers to the use of impediments to
successful performance on academic tasks. Previous studies have shown that it is
related to personal achievement goals. A performance goal orientation is a positive
predictor of self-handicapping, whereas a task goal orientation is unrelated to selfhandicapping.
Aims. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between academic selfhandicapping, goal orientations (task, performance-approach, performance-avoidance),
social goals, future consequences and achievement in mathematics. An additional aim
was to investigate grade-level and gender differences in relation to academic selfhandicapping.
Sample. Participants were 702 upper elementary, junior and senior high school
students with approximately equal numbers of girls and boys.
Results. There were no grade-level or gender differences as regards the use of selfhandicapping. The correlations among the variables revealed that, when the whole
sample was considered, self-handicapping was positively related to performance goal
orientations and pleasing significant others and negatively to achievement in
mathematics. The results of hierarchical regression analysis showed that, in upper
elementary and junior high schools, the association between achievement in
mathematics and self-handicapping was mediated by performance-avoidance goals. In
senior high school, only task goal orientation was a negative predictor of selfhandicapping.

In describing the motivated student, researchers talk about approach behaviours, such
as effort, persistence and engagement, and avoidant behaviours, such as purposefully
withdrawing effort, resisting seeking help in the classroom, avoiding risk-taking and
giving up when faced with failure. The use of handicapping is a form of avoidant

* Correspondence should be addressed to Angeliki Leondari, Irinis 89, Agia Paraskevi, 15342 Athens, Greece
(e-mail: leontari@uth.gr).
DOI:10.1348/000709906X128396

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

596 Angeliki Leondari and Eleftheria Gonida

behaviour. Self-handicapping has been defined in a variety of ways by researchers, but

most agree that it involves creating obstacles to successful performance on tasks that the
individual considers important (Covington, 1992; Rhodewalt, 1994). The obstacles may
interfere with performance but allow the person to discount responsibility for failure
and augment credit for success (Kelley, 1971). The purpose of self-handicapping is to
deflect the attributions of others away from low ability causes and towards
circumstantial or situational causes of failure; that is, to blur the link between ability
and poor performance (Harris & Snyder, 1986; Urdan, Midgley, & Anderman, 1998).
In the face of failure, it is difficult to question the individuals ability because of the
presence of the performance-inhibiting cause, the handicap. In the event of success,
attributions to the individuals abilities are augmented because the good performance
occurred despite the presence of the handicap. A by-product of augmentation is that
the individuals positive self-image is enhanced (Rhodewalt, Morf, Hazlett, &
Fairfield, 1991).
Self-handicapping can take a variety of forms. Arkin and Baumgardner (1985) make a
distinction between acquired impediments, which are likely to lower the individuals
chances of success, and claimed impediments, in which individuals claim a
handicapping condition. Leary and Shepperd (1986) suggest the term behavioural
self-handicapping to describe acquired self-handicaps and self-reported handicapping
to connote claimed self-handicaps. Behavioural self-handicaps include lack of sleep,
drug and alcohol consumption (Berglas & Jones, 1978; Higgins & Harris, 1988), the
choice of performance-debilitating circumstances (Sheppard & Arkin, 1989), the
strategic reduction in effort (Baumeister, Hamilton, & Tice, 1985; Pyszczynski &
Greenberg, 1983) and engaging in little or no practice for forthcoming tasks (Baumeister
et al., 1985; Harris & Snyder, 1986). Self-reported handicaps include reporting social
anxiety, test anxiety and the presence of physical and psychological symptoms,
including health problems (Smith, Snyder, & Handelsman, 1982; Snyder & Smith, 1986).
These forms of self-handicapping differ from one another in terms of cost. Self-reported
handicaps are less costly than behavioural self-handicaps in that they do not necessarily
reduce the likelihood of successful performance. For example, alcohol consumption
before performing will serve as an excuse for poor performance but will also decrease
ones chances of successful performance; in contrast, simply reporting high anxiety may
serve as an excuse for poor performance without lowering ones chances of success
(Hirt, Deppe, & Gordon, 1991).
There has been some debate in the literature about whether self-handicapping is
primarily a self-presentation strategy or a self-protection strategy. Several researchers
propose that self-handicapping is motivated by self-presentational concerns, particularly
if there is uncertainty about ones ability (DeGree & Snyder, 1985; Greenberg, 1985;
Kolditz & Arkin, 1982; Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1983). Others (Berglas & Jones, 1978;
Higgins & Harris, 1988; Rhodewalt & Davison, 1986) have argued that the major
motivation behind self-handicapping is to protect ones self-esteem from the potentially
damaging effects of failure. The existing evidence shows that handicapping serves as
both a means of protecting ones self-esteem (Thompson, Davison, & Barber, 1995;
McCrea & Hirt, 2001) as well as a presentation strategy aimed at manipulating others.
Most researchers, however, emphasize that self-handicapping is primarily a selfpresentational strategy designed to manipulate others perceptions rather than ones
own (Covington, 1992; Urdan et al., 1998).
There is an extended literature on the antecedents, process and consequences of
self-handicapping (Arkin & Oleson, 1998; Rhodewalt & Tragakis, 2002). The impetus for

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Predicting academic self-handicapping in different age groups 597

self-handicapping is some threat to self-esteem (Snyder & Smith, 1982), including

uncertainty about ones ability (Berglas & Jones, 1978). Rhodewalt and Tragakis
proposed that the precursors of self-handicapping are based on a learning history that
encourages the development of a fixed-entity theory of competence (Dweck, 1999;
Rhodewalt, 1994) as well as an uncertain concept of self-worth (Berglas & Jones, 1978).
The combination of these two belief systems results in habitual self-handicapping
(Zuckerman & Tsai, 2005). The costs of self-handicapping include low academic
achievement, mental and behavioural withdrawal from school work, a pessimistic
perception of academic performance and perhaps depressed levels of self-esteem (Elliot
& Church, 2003; Martin, Marsh, Williamson, & Debus, 2003; Urdan & Midgley, 2001).
There is also evidence that the negative effects of self-handicapping may generalize to
adjustment and well-being (Zuckerman & Tsai, 2005). The negative relation between
self-handicapping and academic achievement found in many studies seems to be
reciprocal. The results of several studies (Midgley & Urdan, 1995, 2001) show that
students with lower grades use self-handicapping strategies more than do students with
higher grades. In turn, low achievement leads to increased use of self-handicapping
strategies, thus undermining further academic performance.
Although there have been many studies of the use of a variety of handicapping
strategies by people of different ages, only recently have researchers focused on the use
of academic self-handicapping by students at elementary and high school level (Midgley,
Arunkumar, & Urdan, 1996; Midgley & Urdan, 1995; Urdan et al., 1998). Moreover, the
associations between self-handicapping and achievement goals have also been of
particular interest among researchers in their attempts to understand self-handicapping
better (Elliot & Church, 2003; Midgley & Urdan, 2001; Rhodewalt, 1994). These
associations are examined in the present study and the review of the relevant literature
follows.
Academic self-handicapping and personal achievement goals
Achievement goal theory proposes that students adopt a certain orientation to learning
and achievement that is instrumental in motivating learning behaviours. The orientation
adopted will, in turn, influence the ways in which a student approaches and responds to
academic demands. Research on students achievement goals conducted over the past
decades has largely focused on two types: task goals and performance goals. Task goals
are defined as a desire to improve ones competence, to master a skill and to understand
learning material. Performance goals represent a desire to demonstrate high ability
relative to others and to attain favourable judgments of ones abilities. Recent research
has resulted in the identification of two performance orientations. Students whose
orientation is to demonstrate ability are seen to have a performance-approach and those
who aim to hide the demonstration of lack of ability are seen to have a performanceavoidance goal orientation (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996;
Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997).
Goal theory research has shown that the pursuit of mastery goals is associated with
positive outcomes such as intrinsic motivation, the use of deep cognitive and selfregulatory strategies, persistence in the face of failure, positive feelings about school and
school work and self-efficacy (Elliot, 1997; Urdan, 1997). On the other hand, research
has shown a consistent negative pattern of associations between attitudinal and
behavioural measures with performance-avoidance goals but a positive or null pattern of
associations with performance-approach goals (Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, &
Trach, 2002).

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

598 Angeliki Leondari and Eleftheria Gonida

Previous studies examining self-handicapping (Midgley et al., 1996; Midgley &

Urdan, 1995, 2001; Urdan, 2004; Urdan et al., 1998) revealed that a performance goal
orientation and a performance goal structure in the classroom are positive predictors of
self-handicapping, whereas a task goal orientation and perceived task goal structures are
weakly related or unrelated to self-handicapping. Researchers incorporating the
distinction of approach and avoidance dimensions of performance goals into their
studies have found that handicapping is positively associated with performanceavoidance goals (Midgley & Urdan, 2001), while it is either unrelated or only weakly
related to performance-approach goals (Midgley & Urdan, 2001; Urdan, 2004).
The competence-related goals clearly have a major influence on student engagement
and achievement, but recent research has also indicated that students social
relationships and social motives may also be important reasons for engaging in, or
failing to engage in, academic work (Miller, Greene, Montalvo, Ravindra, & Nicholls,
1996; Wentzel, 1991). Although several researchers have suggested that a more
thorough understanding of motivation and achievement may be gained by expanding
goal theory to include social goals (Ford, 1992; Ford & Nicholls, 1991; Maehr, 1984;
Turner et al., 1995; Wentzel, 1991), achievement goal theorists have typically ignored
social goals in their studies of motivation (Blumenfeld, 1992). A number of researchers
who have included social goals in their work have often examined them with other
types of goals including, for example, adult approval goals and ability goals in the same
construct (e.g. Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Nicholls, Cobb, Wood, Yackel, &
Patashnick, 1990). In this study, social goals are defined as trying to achieve academically
in order to please parents and teachers and to gain their approval.
In addition, research has indicated that the consideration of future consequences
might also be another important category of goals in understanding students motivation
for academic work (Miller et al., 1996). The consideration of future consequences refers
to the extent to which individuals consider potential distant outcomes of their current
activities and the extent to which they are influenced by these outcomes (Strathman,
Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards, 1994). Although valuing the future has been shown to
influence educational attainment and cognitive engagement (Husman & Lens, 1999),
goal theory does not discuss the motivational effects of future time perspectives.
Research on achievement goals implicitly assumes that performance-oriented or taskoriented students are focused on the present. Future consequences related to the
academic work of upper elementary and high school students might include long-term
financial rewards, obtaining admission to college and gaining a scholarship or reaching
future career objectives.

The present study

The main aim of the study was to examine the interrelationships between academic selfhandicapping, personal achievement goals, social goals, future consequences and
achievement in mathematics. Based on previous research (Molden & Dweck, 2000;
Rhodewalt, 1994; Urdan & Midgley, 2001), we hypothesized that an orientation to
demonstrating ability (a personal performance-approach goal orientation) or an
orientation to hiding the demonstration of lack of ability (a personal avoidance-goal
orientation) would be positively associated with self-handicapping. Since selfhandicapping is essentially an avoidance strategy, we expected performance-avoidance
goals to predict handicapping more strongly than would performance-approach goals.
On the other hand, we assumed that personal task goals should minimize the need for

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Predicting academic self-handicapping in different age groups 599

handicapping because handicapping undermines learning and development, the

defining characteristics of task goals.
The study focuses on students goals in relation to mathematics. We limited our
investigation to this academic domain because evidence suggests that childrens
motivation-related beliefs and perceptions tend to be differentiated according to
achievement domains quite early (Gottfried, 1990; Marsh, Craven, & Debus, 1991), and
that domain-specific measures of motivation tend to be more predictive of learning
outcomes than general measures (Assor & Connell, 1992; Meece & Miller, 2001).
We expected that the goal of seeking acceptance from parents and teachers or trying
to please them would increase the use of self-handicapping. Since the goal of the person
seeking social approval is to demonstrate commitment to others, anticipated failure
would make students think that their relationship with significant others will be
damaged. This concern about failure might be alleviated by using a self-handicap.
In relation to future consequences, because self-handicappers actually place obstacles
in the path to success, we hypothesized that self-handicapping would be either
negatively associated or unrelated to future consequences.
Based on previous research, we predicted that students with lower grades in
mathematics would report using self-handicapping strategies more than students with
higher grades (Midgley et al., 1996; Midgley & Urdan, 1995, 2001; Urdan et al., 1998).
As regards gender, we expected boys to engage in more self-handicapping strategies
(Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Hirt et al., 1991; Midgley & Urdan, 1995, 2001; Urdan
et al., 1998). In relation to grade level, it was expected that older children would use
self-handicapping more than younger ones because the high school environment is
more competitive and places more emphasis on performance demands. Finally, we
wanted to investigate possible changes in the pattern of relationships between goal
orientations and handicapping in the three grade levels given that, as previous studies
have shown, there is a decline in task goals and a corresponding increase in
performance goals in the transition from elementary to high school (Anderman &
Midgley, 1997; Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993; Meece & Miller, 2001).

Method
Participants
The participants included 702 upper elementary and high school students. There were
approximately equal numbers of boys (368) and girls (334) in the study. The distribution
of students across grade levels was 255 upper elementary school students (sixth grade,
aged 1112 years), 249 junior high school students (second grade, aged 1314 years)
and 198 senior high school students (fourth grade, aged 1516 years). The age range was
11 years, 6 months to 15 years 4 months with a mean age of 13 years, 6 months. Students
were recruited from five different public schools located in urban areas in Greece. Data
for the three grade levels were collected from all the participating schools. Parental level
of education was used to estimate socio-economic status (SES; Entwisle & Astone, 1994).
Students indicated the highest level of education each of their parents reached
(1 finished elementary school, 2 finished high school, 3 graduated from
college or university). Each participant received a score by taking the average of the two
parents scores. The percentages of parental education for the whole sample were as
follows: 1 (5.4%), 2 (41.7%) and 3 (52.9%). Participants of the three grade levels did not
significantly differ in terms of their parents educational level, x2 4 5:410, p . :05:

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

600 Angeliki Leondari and Eleftheria Gonida

Measures
Participants were asked to respond to each item in the questionnaires in relation to the
mathematics domain. Aside from the demographic data, items on all subscales were
responded to using a four-point Likert-type rating scale (1 not at all true to 4 very
true). To establish the validity of the scales used in the study, they were all submitted to
principal component analysis with varimax rotation. Internal consistency reliability was
tested using Cronbachs a coefficient.

Self-handicapping
Academic self-handicapping was assessed by the six-item Academic Self-Handicapping
Scale (Midgley et al., 1996; Urdan & Midgley, 2001). Each of the six items in the scale
asks about an a priori strategy that students use to influence self-presentation. Sample
items are Some students fool around the night before a test so that if they dont do as
well as they hoped, they can say that is the reason. How true is that of you? and Some
students put off doing their school work until the last minute so that, if they dont do
well on their work, they can say that is the reason. How true is that of you?
The principal component analysis indicated that the six items comprising the selfhandicapping scale formed a single factor accounting for 48.89% of the common
variance with factor loadings from .65 to .75. Internal consistency reliability, using
Cronbachs a, was .79, which is similar to alpha levels reported by Midgley and
associates (Midgley et al., 1996, Midgley & Urdan, 2001; Urdan et al., 1998).

Personal achievement goals

Personal achievement goals were assessed using the Patterns of Adaptive Learning
Survey (PALS; Midgley et al., 1998). The PALS was designed to measure three student
goal orientations. An average score was computed for each scale. The personal task goal
scale included items such as An important reason I do my maths work is because I like
to learn new things. The personal performance-approach included items such as I want
to do better than other students in my class. The personal performance-avoidance scale
included items such as It is important to me that I dont look stupid in my class.
Results for the achievement goal orientation scales revealed that the items loaded on
three factors, as predicted. The personal task goal scale (six items, factor loadings from
.38 to .81, a :75) the personal performance-approach scale (six items, factor loadings
from .52 to .72, a :82) and the personal performance-avoidance scale (four items,
factor loadings from .55 to .72, a :58). One item of the last subscale was omitted due
to its very low loading.

Social goals
Social goals were measured by a scale developed by Miller et al. (1996) to measure
pleasing the family and teachers, gaining their approval (e.g. doing well in ones work in
order to please a teacher or parents) and being perceived as socially responsible by the
family and teachers. The scale includes items such as I want the teacher to think I am a
good student and I want my family to think I am a good student.
The eight items referring to pleasing family and teachers and being perceived as
socially responsible by them formed one factor, which was named pleasing significant
others (factor loadings from .50 to .79, a :80).

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Predicting academic self-handicapping in different age groups 601

Future consequences
The future consequences subscale was adapted from a Miller et al. (1996) subscale,
which comprised four items. Each of the items included a variety of examples of
possible consequences, such as university admission, money or a scholarship, etc.
Sample items are Good grades lead to other things that I want (e.g. money, graduation,
university admission, scholarship) and My grades have a personal payoff for me (e.g.
rewards from my family, graduation, scholarships).
The four items referring to future consequences also formed one factor. One of the
items had a very low loading and was discarded and therefore the scale future
consequences contained three items with loadings from .64 to .79 and Cronbach a
coefficient .60.
Academic achievement
Grade point average in mathematics was used as the indicator of academic achievement.
Grades were collected from the school records.
Demographic data
On the front page of the questionnaire, students were asked to indicate their grade level,
age, gender, school and the educational level of their parents.
Procedure
The questionnaire package was administered during class time with one of the
researchers and the class teacher in attendance. Permission was given by the schools
administrator in order for students to participate in the study.
Instructions and sample items were read aloud to all participants. Students were
informed that their responses would remain confidential and were reminded that the
questions referred specifically to mathematics.

Results
Grade level, gender and SES differences
In order to examine possible grade level, gender and SES differences in relation to selfhandicapping, achievement goals (task, performance-approach and performanceavoidance), social goals and future consequences, we performed a 3 (SES
categories) 3 (grade level) 2 (gender) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA).
Following Bonferroni inequality, the adjusted a level used in any separate test was
.05/6 0.008 (Winer, Brown, & Michels, 1991). Univariate ANOVAs indicated no
significant differences among the three grade levels in relation to self-handicapping,
F2; 513 0:017, p . :05. Significant differences were found in relation to task goals,
F2; 513 19:82, p , :000, observed power 1.00. Elementary school students
were more strongly oriented towards task goals as compared with high school students.
As the results of a Tukey test showed, elementary school students differed significantly
from both junior high and senior high school students. In addition, junior high school
students differed significantly from senior high school students. As can be seen in
Figure 1, there is a clear decline in task goals from elementary to high school. This
decline of task goals in high school students has also been reported by previous studies
(Eccles et al., 1993; Meece & Miller, 2001). No significant differences were found in
relation to SES categories or gender.

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

602 Angeliki Leondari and Eleftheria Gonida

Figure 1. Grade level mean scores on task goal scale.

Correlations among variables

Pearson correlation coefficients were computed in order to examine the bivariate
relationships among the variables (see Table 1). As hypothesized, self-handicapping was
positively correlated to the two performance goals and unrelated to task goals. However,
the correlation between self-handicapping and performance-avoidance goal was
stronger than the one with performance-approach goal, a result which has been
reported in previous studies (Midgley & Urdan, 2001). Self-handicapping was also
positively related to the goal of pleasing significant others and negatively to achievement
in mathematics. There was no significant association between future consequences and
self-handicapping.
Task goals were positively, although weakly, correlated with performance-approach
goals and pleasing significant others and more strongly with future consequences and
achievement in mathematics. The two performance goals were positively related to each
Table 1. Pearson productmoment correlations for the whole sample
Variable
1. Self-handicapping
2. Task goals
3. Perf.-approach
4. Perf.-avoidance
5. Pleasing others
6. Future conseq.
7. Maths grades
*p , .05; **p , .01.

2.05
.10*
.21**
.15**
2.04
2.14**

.09*
2.02
.10*
.17**
.27**

.44**
.43**
.32**
.05

.53**
.11**
2 .17**

.24**
2 .04

.12**

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Predicting academic self-handicapping in different age groups 603

other and strongly with pleasing significant others. This finding indicates that students
attempts to demonstrate ability or avoid the demonstration of lack of ability are
intertwined with wanting to please others. Performance-avoidance goals were also
positively associated with future consequences, and negatively with achievement in
mathematics. The negative association between performance-avoidance goals and
achievement has been reported in several studies (e.g. Harachiewicz, Barron, Pintrich,
Elliot, & Thrash, 2002).
Predicting self-handicapping in the three grade levels
Hierarchical regression analysis was applied to the data, separately for elementary, junior
and senior high school students in an attempt (a) to specify the predicting variables of selfhandicapping in the three grades, and (b) to test for mediational relationships. In order to
apply hierarchical regression analysis, significant bivariate relations among the variables
involved in the analysis have to be established, therefore, Pearson correlations
were separately computed for each of the three grade levels. As Table 2 indicates,
Table 2. Pearson productmoment correlations for (i) elementary school, (ii) second high school
grade and (iii) fourth high school grade
(i)
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Self-handicapping
Task goals
Perf.-approach
Perf.-avoidance
Pleasing others
Future conseq.
Maths grades

2 .08
.16*
.22**
.16**
2 .03
2 .26**

.04
2 .05
.06
.21**
.03

.47**
.42**
.25**
2 .03

.53**
.03
2 .18**

.16**
2 .10

.12

.29**
2 .04

.30**

.35**
.21**

.17**

(ii)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Self-handicapping
Task goals
Perf.-approach
Perf.-avoidance
Pleasing others
Future conseq.
Maths grades

2 .19**
.05
.26**
.18**
2 .05
2 .22**

.14
2 .09
.03
.26**
.13

.40**
.52**
.46**
.16

.51**
.11
2 .27**
(iii)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Self-handicapping
Task goals
Perf.-approach
Perf.-avoidance
Pleasing others
Future conseq.
Maths grades

*p , .05; **p , .01.

2 .16**
.01
.12
.09
2 .01
2 .08

.09
.03
.12
.20**
2 .05

.41**
.35**
.33**
.01

.58**
.24**
2 .24**

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

604 Angeliki Leondari and Eleftheria Gonida

bivariate relationships among the examined variables were different in the three groups.
Specifically, for upper elementary school students, self-handicapping was positively
correlated with performance-approach goals, performance-avoidance goals and pleasing
significant others and negatively correlated with achievement in mathematics. For junior
high school students, self-handicapping was positively correlated with performanceavoidance goals and the goal of pleasing others and negatively correlated with task goals
and achievement in mathematics. For senior high school students, self-handicapping was
only negatively correlated with task goals. There were also significant negative
correlations between achievement in mathematics and performance-avoidance goals in
relation to elementary and junior high school students.
For elementary and junior high school, hierarchical regression analysis was
conducted in order to examine whether the association between achievement in
mathematics and self-handicapping was mediated by performance-avoidance goals. We
hypothesized that achievement in mathematics would predict self-handicapping, mainly
for students who pursue performance-avoidance goals. For both grade levels, mediation
of performance-avoidance goals was confirmed (b 0:179, p , :01 and b 0:229,
p , :01, for elementary school and junior high school students, respectively) and the
direct effect of achievement remained significant in the final model equation
(R 2 c :052, p , :001, b 20:231, p , :001, and R 2 c :025, p , :05, b 20:163,
p , :05, for the two grade levels, respectively). However, if the results in the two grades
are compared, a decline in the value of achievement and an increase in the value of
performance-avoidance goals in predicting self-handicapping from late elementary to
junior high school are evident.
The above model could not be applied to the data of the senior high school because
significant bivariate relationships between mathematics achievement, performanceavoidance and self-handicapping have not been established. Task goal orientation was
the only variable which was significantly correlated to self-handicapping. Applying a
linear regression on these data, it was found that task goal orientation negatively
predicted self-handicapping (b 20:155, p , :05).

Discussion
The first objective of this study was to examine the association between personal
achievement goals, social goals, future consequences and the reported use of selfhandicapping strategies. Consistent with the results of previous studies, the use of selfhandicapping strategies was found to be positively related to performance goals
(Midgley & Urdan, 1995; Urdan et al., 1998). As predicted, self-handicapping was more
strongly related to the avoidance component than to the approach component of
performance goals.
Self-handicapping was also positively related with the goal of pleasing significant
others in relation to upper elementary and junior high school data. It seems that
students who believe that the purpose of doing well in school is to gain the approval
of teachers and parents are likely to make greater use of self-handicapping strategies.
This finding is in line with the research linking procrastination with unrealistic
parental expectations (Flett, Hewitt, & Martin, 1995; Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, &
Neubauer, 1993). As the results of these studies show, the development of
failure-avoidant patterns of behaviour is associated with defective reinforcement
from family members as well as non-contingent evaluative feedback. Berglas
(1986, 1990; Berglas & Jones, 1978) suggest that the strategic orientation of

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Predicting academic self-handicapping in different age groups 605

self-handicappers stems from a capricious, chaotic reinforcement history (Berglas &

Jones, 1978, p. 407) and the performance pressures implicit in such feedback. Urdan
(2004), in a study examining the mediating effects of family orientation on the
association of performance goals with achievement, did not find any interactions
between family orientation and either of the performance goals on self-handicapping.
Clearly, the role of social goals as predictors of self-handicapping needs further
consideration in future studies.
As was the case in previous studies (Urdan & Midgley, 2001; Urdan et al., 1998),
achievement in mathematics was an important predictor variable of handicapping at the
elementary and junior high school levels. Students with lower grades in mathematics
tended to make more use of self-handicapping strategies than did students with higher
grades. It makes sense that children who do not perform well in school are particularly
uncertain about their future performance, and would be more likely than higher
achieving students to use handicapping. However, as the results of regression analysis
show, it is not simply low achievers who are likely to be self-handicappers, but mainly
those who have developed performance-avoidance goals. Several studies show that both
performance-avoidance goals and self-handicapping are negatively associated with
achievement (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Leondari & Gialamas, 2002; Middleton &
Midgley, 1997; Urdan & Midgley, 2001). Therefore, some of the association between selfhandicapping and performance-avoidance goals may be attributable to previous levels of
achievement. It is possible that low academic achievement leads some students to adopt
performance-avoidance goals and the adoption of these goals, in turn, leads students to
engage in self-handicapping behaviour (Urdan, 2004).
Self-handicapping in the senior high school group was predicted only by low task
goals. Consistent with previous findings (Eccles et al., 1993; Meece & Miller, 2001), task
goals showed a significant gradual decline from elementary to high school. It is generally
assumed that the decline in task goals results from increases in students concerns about
evaluation, social comparison and competition (Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks, 1995).
In the present study, the decline of task goals in senior high school is probably
influenced by the fact that Greek students at this school level are oriented towards an
externally set final examination on the basis of which selection to university courses is
determined. Therefore, the changes that take place in students achievement behaviour
are related to performance demands. The increased preoccupation with performance
outcomes diminish the efforts to master a task or to develop competence and this is
something that educators have to consider very carefully.
Comparing the different patterns of relationships in the three grade levels, a
developmental trend is apparent in terms of self-handicapping predictors. During upper
elementary school years, self-handicapping is predicted by achievement. This is still the
case for junior high school as well, but at this grade level, performance-avoidance goals
become a stronger predictor of self-handicapping than achievement. For senior high
school students, the decline of task goals predicts self-handicapping. This finding shows
how the pattern of interrelationships between goal orientations and self-handicapping
changes from late childhood to middle adolescence and has implications in terms of
educational intervention.
As the results of this study show, there were no grade-level differences in the use of
self-handicapping strategies. Self-handicapping was predicted by different indicators in
different grade levels, but students seem to start employing such strategies quite early in
their school career. Probably the upper elementary school students have acquired the
cognitive sophistication to use these strategies to protect their image in front of others.

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

606 Angeliki Leondari and Eleftheria Gonida

There is evidence that, as children enter early adolescence, they develop a more
differentiated conception of the nature of ability, moving from equating ability and effort
to an understanding of the notion of ability as capacity (Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton,
2001; Nicholls, 1984). However, as Nicholls has suggested, although these cognitive
shifts in conceptions of ability are age-related, the nature of the learning environment
also influences the notion of ability that individuals will invoke. These developmental
differences or the effects of differences in the learning environment across grade level
are likely to influence the use of self-handicapping strategies. Previous studies (Midgley
et al., 1995) have shown that middle school teachers and students perceive the school
goal structure as more performance focused than do elementary school teachers and
students. Although one would expect that the perceived emphasis on performance
goals in the learning environment at least as was indicated by the grade level in our
study would be associated with a greater reported use of self-handicapping strategies
by students (Midgley et al., 1996, 2001; Midgley & Urdan, 1995; Turner et al., 2002), this
was not the case in this study.
No gender differences were found in this study in relation to the use of selfhandicapping strategies. There has been some evidence of gender differences in selfhandicapping (e.g. Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Berglas & Jones, 1978; Hirt,
McCrea, & Boris, 2003; Midgley & Urdan, 1995), but these findings have not been
consistently replicated.
The results of this study raise implications for teachers and parents. Academic selfhandicapping may be part of a cycle of academic underachievement and effort
withdrawal that can undermine long-term academic performance (Covington, 1992).
A number of researchers who have studied the consequences of failure-avoidant
strategies indicate that these strategies eventually lead to a reduced interest in
achievement and to emotional exhaustion (Higgins & Berglas, 1990). While avoidance
behaviours initially enable failure to be attributed to a factor unrelated to ability,
eventually the student is forced to acknowledge his/her inability to succeed. The result
is internalization of failure, diminished expectancies for future success and low
achievement. In the long run, this gives way to passivity and helplessness (Covington,
1992; Thompson, 1996; Thompson & Richardson, 2001).
The nature of evaluative feedback offered to students by teachers and parents is
important in terms of intrinsic motivation, persistence and goal setting. Equally
important is the manner in which students construe their achievement outcomes and
the way in which they view ability whether it is a fixed quantum that cannot be
changed or a repertoire of skills and abilities that can be (Dweck, 1999; Dweck &
Leggett, 1988). As research results show, failure-avoidant patterns of behaviour are
associated with an overconcern with competence and a sensitivity to evaluative threat
in situations that are assessed as likely to reveal low ability (Covington, 1992). The goal
of teachers and parents should be to encourage students towards alternative ways of
personal evaluation so that they come to realize that academic achievement is not
equated to personal worth.

Limitations and future directions

This study has several limitations. First, the data are correlational in nature. Longitudinal
studies are needed to understand issues of causality and to determine how individual
differences and developmental changes influence the use of self-handicapping
strategies.

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Predicting academic self-handicapping in different age groups 607

Second, the social goals included in this study refer only to adult approval goals.
Although a concern with the social aspect of achievement motivation may suggest a
broad range of goals, we limited our focus to considering the ways in which students
beliefs about the social reasons for trying to succeed academically affect their behaviour
in academic situations. In future studies, in order to understand the effects of social goal
orientations on motivation and performance, it will be necessary to examine several
distinct types of social goals simultaneously.
Third, the pursuit of multiple goals in achievement situations needs further
study. Some researchers suggest that achievement motives and social motives
conflict and inhibit optimal performance (McClelland, 1961). Other researchers have
demonstrated that social concerns can have either positive or negative effects on
motivation and achievement (Brendt & Keefe, 1992). Still others argue that the
pursuit of social and academic goals can be either complementary or conflicting,
depending on how well the student is able to coordinate different goals (Ford,
1992; Wentzel, 1993). Future studies need to examine how different types of social
goals, when pursued simultaneously with achievement goals, affect motivation and
performance in school.

References
Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations, perceived
academic competence and grades across the transition to middle-level schools. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 22, 269298.
Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students achievement
goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 2137.
Arkin, R. M., & Baumgardner, A. H. (1985). Self-handicapping. In J. H. Harvey & G. Weary (Eds.),
Attribution: Basic issues and applications (pp. 169202). New York: Academic Press.
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. 313347).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Assor, A., & Connell, J. (1992). The validity of students self-reports as measures of performance
affecting self-appraisals. In D. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom
(pp. 2550). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baumeister, R. F., Hamilton, J. C., & Tice, D. M. (1985). Public versus private expectancy of
success: Confidence booster or performance pressure? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 48, 14471457.
Berglas, S. (1986). Ths success syndrome: Hitting bottom when you reach the top. New York:
Plenum.
Berglas, S. (1990). Self-handicapping: Etiological and diagnostic considerations. In R. L. Higgins,
C. R. Snyder, & S. Berglas (Eds.), Self-handicapping: The paradox that isnt (pp. 152182).
New York: Plenum.
Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to
noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 405417.
Blumenfeld, P. C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and expanding goal
theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 272281.
Brendt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1992). Friends influence on adolescents perceptions of themselves at
school. In D. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 5173).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school
reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

608 Angeliki Leondari and Eleftheria Gonida

DeGree, C., & Snyder, C. (1985). Adlers psychology (of use) today: Personal history of traumatic
life events as a self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,
15121519.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95(2), 256273.
Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in
childrens self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64,
830847.
Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the classic and the contemporary approaches to achievement
motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation.
In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10,
pp. 143179). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218232.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (2003). A motivational analysis of defensive pessimism and selfhandicapping. Journal of Personality, 71(3), 369396.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance goals and intrinsic motivation:
A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461475.
Entwisle, D. R., & Astone, N. M. (1994). Some practical guidelines for measuring youths
race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Child Development, 65, 15211540.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Martin, T. R. (1995). Dimensions of perfectionism and procrastination.
In J. R. Ferrari, J. L. Johnson, & W. G. McCown (Eds.), Procrastination and task avoidance:
Theory research and practice (pp. 113136). New York: Plenum.
Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Ford, M. E., & Nichols, C. W. (1991). Using goal assessments to identify motivational patterns and
facilitate behavioral regulation and achievement. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances
in motivation and achievement: Goals and self-regulatory processes (Vol. 7, pp. 5184).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison of
two measures of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 119126.
Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525538.
Greenberg, J. (1985). Unattainable goal choice as a self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 15, 140152.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, J. A., & Trach, T. M. (2002). Revision of
achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94,
638645.
Harris, R., & Snyder, R. C. (1986). The role of uncertain self-esteem in self-handicapping. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 451458.
Higgins, R., & Harris, R. (1988). Strategic alcohol use: Drinking to self-handicap. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 6, 191202.
Higgins, R. L., & Berglas, S. (1990). The maintenance and treatment of self-handicapping. In
R. L. Higgins, C. R. Snyder & S. Berglas (Eds.), Self-handicapping: The paradox that isnt
(pp. 187238). New York: Plenum Press.
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(6), 981991.
Hirt, E. R., McCrea, S. M., & Boris, H. I. (2003). I know you self-handicapped last exam: Gender
differences in reactions to self-handicapping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84, 177193.

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Predicting academic self-handicapping in different age groups 609

Husman, J., & Lens, W. (1999). The role of the future in student motivation. Educational
Psychologist, 34, 113125.
Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attribution in social interaction. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley,
R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior
(pp. 126). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Kolditz, T., & Arkin, R. (1982). An impression management interpretation of the self-handicapping
strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 492502.
Leary, M. R., & Shepperd, J. A. (1986). Behavioral self-handicaps versus self-reported selfhandicaps: A conceptual note. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 12651268.
Leondari, A., & Gialamas, V. (2002). Implicit theories, goal orientations and perceived
competence: Impact on students achievement behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 39(3),
279291.
Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In R. Ames
& C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Student motivation (Vol. 1.,
pp. 115144). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Debus, R. (1991). Self-concepts of young children 5 to 8 years of age:
Measurement and multidimensional structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83,
377392.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., Williamson, A., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Self-handicapping, defensive
pessimism, and goal orientation. A qualitative study of university students. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95(3), 617628.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. New York: Free Press.
McCrea, S. M., & Hirt, E. R. (2001). The role of ability judgements in self-handicapping. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 13781389.
Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students goal orientations and cognitive
engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514523.
Meece, J. L., & Miller, S. D. (2001). A longitudinal analysis of elementary school students
achievement goals in literacy activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 454480.
Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An
unexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710718.
Midgley, C., Anderman, E. M., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and middle
school teachers and students: A goal theory approach. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15,
90113.
Midgley, C., Arunkumar, R., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). If I dont do well tomorrow, theres a reason:
Predictors of adolescents use of academic self-handicapping strategies. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88(3), 423434.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for
whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,
7786.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Urdan, T., Maehr, M. L., Hicks, L., Anderman, E., & Roeser,
R. W. (1998). Development and validation of scales assessing students achievement goal
orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 113131.
Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1995). Predictors of middle school students use of self-handicapping
strategies. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 389411.
Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic self-handicapping and achievement goals: A further
examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 6175.
Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in
academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and
perceived ability. Comtemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388422.
Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2000). Meaning and motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz
(Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and
performance (pp. 131159). San Diego: Academic Press.

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

610 Angeliki Leondari and Eleftheria Gonida

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task
choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328346.
Nicholls, J. G., Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., & Patashnick, M. (1990). Assessing students theories
of success in mathematics: Individual and classroom differences. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 21, 109122.
Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (1983). Determinants of reduction in intended effort as a strategy
for coping with anticipated failure. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 412422.
Rhodewalt, F. (1994). Conceptions of ability, achievement goals, and individual differences in selfhandicapping behavior: On the application of implicit theories. Journal of Personality, 62,
6785.
Rhodewalt, F., & Davison, J. (1986). Self-handicapping and subsequent performance: Role of
outcome valance and attributional certainty. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7,
307323.
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, 122131.
Rhodewalt, F., & Tragakis, M. (2002). Self-handicapping and the social self: The cost and rewards of
interpersonal self-construction. In J. P. Forgas & K. D. Williams (Eds.), The social self:
Cognitive, interpersonal, and intergroup perspectives (pp. 121140). New York: Psychology
Press.
Sheppard, J., & Arkin, R. (1989). Determinants of self-handicapping: Task importance and the
effects of pre-existing handicaps on self-generated handicaps. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 15, 101112.
Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task and
avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89, 7181.
Smith, T., Snyder, C., & Handelsman, M. (1982). On the self-serving function of an academic
wooden leg: Test anxiety as a self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 42, 314321.
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. 104127). New York: Oxford University Press.
Snyder, C. R., & Smith, T. W. (1986). On being Shy like a fox, A self-handicapping analysis.
In W. E. Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness: Perspectives on research and
treatment (pp. 161172). New York: Plenum.
Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The consideration of future
consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 66(4), 742752.
Thompson, T. (1996). Self-worth protection in achievement behaviour: A review and implications
for counselling. Australian Psychologist, 31, 4151.
Thompson, T., Davidson, J. A., & Barber, J. G. (1995). Self-worth protection in achievement
motivation: Performance effects and attributional behavior. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 87, 598610.
Thompson, T., & Richardson, A. (2001). Self-handicapping status, claimed handicaps and reduced
practice effort following success and failure feedback. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71, 151170.
Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M., Kang, Y., & Patrick, H. (2002).
The classroom environment and students reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 88106.
Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M., Kang, Y., Urdan, T. U., &
Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: A case for social
goals. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 213243.

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Predicting academic self-handicapping in different age groups 611

Urdan, T. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future directions. In M. L. Maehr & P. R.
Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10. pp. 94141). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Urdan, T. (2004). Predictors of academic self-handicapping and achievement: Examining
achievement goals, classroom goal structures, and culture. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96, 251264.
Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2001). Academic self-handicapping: What we know, what more there is
to learn. Educational Psychology Review, 13(2), 115138.
Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E. M. (1998). The role of classroom goal structure in students
use of self-handicapping strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1),
101122.
Wentzel, K. (1991). Social and academic goals at school: Motivation and achievement in context.
In P. Pintich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Goals and selfregulatory processes (Vol. 7, pp. 185212). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Motivation and achievement in early adolescence: The role of multiple
classroom goals. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 420.
Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design
(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Zuckerman, M., & Tsai, F. (2005). Costs of self-handicapping. Journal of Personality, 73(2),
411442.
Received 7 November 2005; revised version received 27 May 2006