To the University of Wyoming:

The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Trent K. Wondra presented on

April 24th, 2018.

Sean McCrea, Ph.D., Chairperson

Matthew Painter, Ph.D., Outside Department Member

Benjamin Wilkowski, Ph.D.

APPROVED:

Dr. Karen Bartsch Estes, Department Chair, Department of Psychology

Dr. Paula M. Lutz, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

Wondra, Trent K., Perpetuated Disadvantage: How Socioeconomic Status Impacts Self-
handicapping, M.S., Department of Psychology, May 2018.

Self-handicapping is a short-term defense mechanism where individuals create obstacles

to their own success to create a proactive excuse for failure. Despite numerous reasons to expect

individuals lower in socioeconomic status will engage in more self-handicapping, no previous

research on this potential relationship existed. We first review evidence suggesting that self-

handicapping and socioeconomic status would be related. We then conducted correlational

surveys, which established that subjective socioeconomic status is negatively correlated with

both claimed and behavioral self-handicapping. The purpose of the current experiment was to

extend this work by examining the relationship between socioeconomic status and self-

handicapping behavior while controlling for potential confounds. In the current experiment, we

gathered participants’ subjective socioeconomic status as well as objective childhood and adult

socioeconomic status. Participants were randomly assigned to either a threat or no-threat

condition on an intelligence test. Participants were then given the opportunity to engage in

behavioral self-handicapping (by choosing to listen to distracting noise) as well as claimed self-

handicapping (by claiming stress) before the intelligence test. The current study provided further

support for the inverse relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and both claimed as

well as behavioral self-handicapping subscales. Additionally, results indicated a potential

inverse relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and propensity to claim a self-

handicap (by claiming stress), as well as identified potential intervening variables. We also

found that parental education may predict self-handicapping propensity. Finally, results

provided further support for gender effects in self-handicapping, wherein males and females tend

to utilize behavioral and claimed self-handicapping more, respectively.

1
PERPETUATED DISADVANTAGE: HOW SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS IMPACTS

SELF-HANDICAPPING

by

Trent K. Wondra

A thesis submitted to the University of Wyoming

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
PSYCHOLOGY

Laramie, Wyoming
May 2018




ProQuest Number: 10811637




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






ProQuest 10811637

Published by ProQuest LLC (2018 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 COPYRIGHT PAGE

© 2018 by Trent K. Wondra

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PAGE

I would like to thank the numerous individuals who helped make this project possible.

Firstly, my best friend and soulmate, my wife, Leslie for her endless love, support,

encouragement, and advice. Secondly, my adviser, Sean McCrea for his patience and guidance.

Thirdly, the other members of my committee, Benjamin Wilkowski and Matthew Painter for

their counsel and direction. Fourthly, my incredible research assistants, Laramie Valle, Veronica

Carey, and Bryan Webb for their time and help in running participants. Additionally, I would

like to thank all of those who helped me get into graduate school in the first place. Especially,

John Thomas, Julie Jacks, Richie Zweigenhaft, William Gentry, E.J. Masicampo, Kari

Eddington, Fade Eadeh, and James Urquhart. Furthermore, thank you to my parents, Ken

Wondra, Paula Wondra, and Lafayette & Randy Judkins, the love and support that you have and

continue to provide me is ineffable. Thank you to my siblings, Heather & Brian Heim, Chris

Williams, Taylor Cannon, Lafayette Jr. & Lu Judkins, Monique & Greg Holman, Michelle &

Victor Embrey, LaToya Robertson, Huong Do & Glenn Shriver, Caroline Curtiss, Judah & Tony

Serrano, and Kala & Drew Hockenbrocht. I know that I can always count on all of you for

anything and that makes everything easier. Also, thank you to all those whose specific inclusion

would have made this acknowledgements page too long, hopefully you know who you are.

Finally, thank you to my best (non-human) friend, my dog, Inle for always keeping me company

and reminding me to take regular breaks.

iii
 DEDICATION PAGE

For the most intelligent, most beautiful, most kindhearted, funniest, and most perfect

person in the world, my wife, Leslie Judkins Wondra. Like everything I do, this is for you (and a

little bit for me too).

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

COPYRIGHT PAGE ...................................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PAGE ............................................................................................... iii

DEDICATION PAGE ................................................................................................................... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................v

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1

CHAPTER TWO: PRELIMINARY RESEARCH & PILOT STUDY .........................................14

CHAPTER THREE: CURRENT STUDY ....................................................................................17

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................60

APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................81

v
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Numerous prior studies have established that low socioeconomic status is related to short-

term goal orientation. For example, research shows that individuals who are lower in

socioeconomic status are more likely to engage in risky behaviors such as substance use and

abuse (Boardman, Finch, Ellison, Williams, & Jackson, 2001; Hoffmann, 2002; Jones-Webb,

Snowden, Herd, Short, & Hannan,1997; Stimpson, Ju, Raji, & Eschbach, 2007; Waitzman &

Smith, 1998), less likely to engage in risk-averse behaviors such as regular physical activity

(Giles-Corti & Donovan, 2002; McLaren, 2007; Wardle, Waller, & Jarvis, 2002), more likely to

seek immediate gratification (Freire, Gormana, & Wessman, 1980), and more likely to

underachieve academically due to non-intellective factors (Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, &

Hengstler, 1992; Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004). The present research

examines whether these behaviors could reflect an increased tendency to self-handicap among

individuals low in socioeconomic status.

Self-handicapping: Antecedents and Consequences

Self-handicapping is a self-protective strategy in which individuals intentionally create

(“behavioral self-handicapping”) or claim (“claimed self-handicapping”) obstacles before an

important performance to provide a plausible excuse for potential failure (Deppe &

Harackiewicz, 1996). For example, individuals might withdraw preparatory effort or claim an

illness prior to a test. Self-handicapping provides the immediate benefit of protecting self-

esteem, but has numerous long-term consequences. These include an eventual decrease in self-

esteem (Zuckerman & Tsai, 2005), a future reliance on self-handicapping (Zuckerman, Kieffer,

1
& Knee, 1998; Zuckman & Tsai, 2005), and poorer overall adjustment, well-being, and physical

health (Zuckerman et al., 1998).

Previous research has found self-handicapping to manifest in many ways including drug

(Berglas & Jones, 1978; Kolditz & Arkin, 1982) and alcohol (Jones & Berglas, 1978; Tucker,

Vuchinich, & Sobell, 1981) use, as well as presentation of both temporary (Baumgardner, Lake,

& Arkin, 1985; DeGree & Snyder, 1985; Mayerson & Rhodewalt, 1988) and chronic (Smith,

Snyder, & Handelsman, 1982; Snyder & Smith, 1986; Snyder, Smith, Augelli., & Ingram, 1985)

somatization tendencies. Beck, Koons, and Milgram (2000) displayed that individuals who have

a proclivity for self-handicapping are more likely to engage in academic procrastination (see also

Ferrari 1991, 1992). Self-handicapping has been demonstrated in athletic (Coudevylle, Ginis, &

Famose, 2008; Rhodewalt, Saltzman, & Wittmer, 1984), social (Snyder & Smith, 1986; Snyder,

et al., 1985), and academic (Midgley & Urdan, 2001; Urdan, 2004) settings.

Research has found that certain individuals are more susceptible to self-handicapping

than others. For example, previous studies have found that males are more likely to self-

handicap than females (Dietrich, 1995; Hirt, McCrea, Boris, 2003; Kimble & Hirt, 2005;

Kimble, Kimble, & Croy, 1998; McCrea et al., 2008; McCrea, Hirt, & Milner, 2008; Midgley &

Urdan, 1995; Shepperd & Arkin, 1989). Specifically, males tend to display both behavioral and

claimed self-handicapping, whereas females tend to only display claimed self-handicapping

(McCrea, Hirt, & Milner, 2008).

Personality traits can also increase one’s likelihood of engaging in self-handicapping.

For example, high levels of neuroticism are associated with avoidant coping mechanisms,

including self-handicapping (Bobo, Whitaker, & Strunk, 2013; Ross, Canada, & Rausch, 2002).

Self-esteem may not be indicative of a tendency to self-handicap overall, as both individuals

2
high (Lupien, Seery, & Almonte, 2010; Tice, 1991) and low (Coudevylle, et al., 2008; Finez,

Beriot, Rosnet, Cleveland, & Tice, 2012; Uysal & Knee, 2012) in self-esteem have been found to

self-handicap. Additionally, uncertainty about one’s ability (Smith, Snyder, and Handelsman,

1982; Smith, Snyder, and Perkins, 1983), uncertainty in how to avoid failure (Rhodewalt &

Davidson, 1986), social anxiety (Leary, 1986), and public self-consciousness (Shepperd &

Arkin, 1989) have been shown to be associated with self-handicapping.

Behaviors that can impair performance are only reflective of a self-handicapping attempt

when they are used as a self-protective strategy. Therefore, past research has manipulated

evaluative threat to elicit this self-protective strategy. Such studies have typically included skill

tasks, specifically intelligence or academic performance tasks. Tests of academic performance

or intelligence can illicit evaluative threats (Smith, Snyder, & Handelsman, 1982). This is

because individuals are more likely to engage in self-handicapping prior to an important task

(Shepperd & Arkin, 1989). Berglas and Jones (1978) found that individuals were more likely to

take a performance hindering drug for an intelligence test in response to noncontingent success

feedback (i.e., a high score on an extremely difficult task) than to contingent success feedback.

Individuals who receive noncontingent feedback to a performance (Thompson & Richardson,

2001; Kim, Chiu, & Zou, 2010) are more likely to self-handicap due to an uncertainty of their

core abilities and the potential future threat to self-esteem (Rhodewalt & Tragakis, 2003;

Thompson, 2004).

Goal orientation can also moderate self-handicapping. Performance-avoidance goals are

framed as trying to avoid failure relative to the performance of others. These types of goals are

particularly likely to elicit evaluative threat, thus activating self-protective strategies. In contrast,

mastery-approach goals are framed as increasing performance relative to one’s own previous

3
standard, thus activating a desire for learning and improvement (Elliot, 1999; Elliot &

McGregor, 2001). Performance-avoidance goals are linked to increased self-handicapping

behaviors, relative to mastery goals. Numerous studies have shown that, compared to other

goals, individuals pursuing performance-avoidance goals tend to display more fear of failure,

negative emotions, anxiety, shallow processing, learned helplessness, perfectionism, and reduced

preparatory effort (Butler, 1993; Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Dweck, 1988; Elliot & McGregor, 2001;

Grant & Dweck, 2003; van Yperen, 2006). In contrast, a meta-analysis by Schwinger,

Wirthwein, Lemmer, and Steinmayr (2014) found that, individuals who are more mastery-

approach goal oriented are less likely to engage in self-handicapping behaviors. Compared to

other goals, individuals who pursue mastery-approach goals have more persistence when faced

with failure, positive emotions, self-efficacy, deeper processing, need for achievement, intrinsic

motivation, and self-determination (Butler, 1993; Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Dweck, 1988; Elliot &

McGregor, 2001; Grant & Dweck, 2003; van Yperen, 2006). Similarly, in a meta-analysis of 19

studies regarding achievement goals and academic achievement, Huang (2012) found that

mastery-approach goals were positively correlated with academic achievement, whereas

performance-avoidance goals were negatively correlated with academic achievement. Therefore,

studies have previously used performance-avoidance goal orientations to evoke self-

handicapping behavior and mastery-approach goal orientations to serve as a control group in

which self-handicapping is unlikely. For example, Tyser, McCrea, and Knupfer (2012) used

performance-avoidance and mastery-approach goal orientations to demonstrate the impact that

upward counterfactual thinking has on self-handicapping in the form of preparatory effort and

performance.

4
 Previous research has documented numerous situational and individual differences that

influence self-handicapping. However, there is a noticeable dearth of research on how self-

handicapping manifests across certain demographics beyond gender. In particular, no previous

research on self-handicapping and socioeconomic status currently exists. Because

socioeconomic status affects resources, goals, and values, self-handicapping likely differs across

socioeconomic status. Therefore, it is important to explore what unique impact socioeconomic

status may have on self-handicapping behavior.

Potential Connections between Life-History Strategy, Self-handicapping, and SES

As mentioned earlier, individuals low in socioeconomic status tend to pursue more short-

term goals. The relationship between low socioeconomic status and short-term goal orientation

may be partially explained by life history strategy. Life history theory postulates that individual

differences in early-life socioecological factors may result in individual differences in life history

strategy (Rushton, 1985). A fast life history denotes a general psychological disposition for

short-term strategizing (Gladden et al., 2009), and short-term mating effort (Figueredo et al.,

2005). A slow-life history strategy denotes more long-term planning and investment in the self,

resulting in delayed reproduction. An individual’s life history approach impacts numerous

psychosocial indicators (Figueredo et al., 2005, 2006). As discussed in the following, many of

these behaviors and traits could be associated with increased self-handicapping behavior.

The stability as well as harshness of childhood socioecological conditions shape

personality traits as adaptations to solve tasks (Brumbach, Figueredo, & Ellis, 2009; Rushton,

1985; Thornhill and Palmer, 2004). In particular, harsh or variable environments encourage a

fast life history strategy. For example, a fast life history approach is associated with an insecure

attachment pattern (Olderbak & Figueredo, 2009). Past research has found that socioeconomic

5
status affects how individuals react to uncertainty and mortality cues (Griskevicius, Delton,

Robertson, & Tybur, 2011; Griskevicius, Tybur, Delton, & Robertson, 2011). Uncertainty has

been found to lead individuals who had low childhood socioeconomic status to be more

impulsive, take more risks, and seek more immediate gratification (Griskevicius et al., 2013;

Mittal & Griskevicius, 2014). In individuals who had low childhood socioeconomic status,

mortality cues lead them to gamble for large immediate rewards at the expense of future rewards.

They value the present more than the future, including a desire to reproduce sooner, even at the

expense of furthering one’s career or education. In individuals who had high childhood

socioeconomic status, the opposite effects were found (Griskevicius, Delton, Robertson, &

Tybur, 2011; Griskevicius, Tybur, Delton, & Robertson, 2011). Chen and Chang (2016) found

that procrastination was negatively correlated with a slow life history strategy. Because

procrastination prioritizes short-term benefits, often by decreasing the amount of time preparing

for a long-term goal, it can often be conceptualized as self-handicapping strategy (Ferrari, 1991;

Ferrari & Tice, 2000; Lay, Knish, and Zanatta, 1992). Del Giudice, Ellis, and Shirtcliff (2011)

found that early life stress speeds up life strategies such as earlier reproductive maturity,

increased risk taking, and shorter life spans. Additionally, decreased resources could lead to

increased early life stress among lower socioeconomic status individuals (Lupien, King, Meaney,

& McEwen, 2000; McEwen & Gianaros, 2010). In summary, increased risk taking as well as

shorter life spans potentially relate to increased self-handicapping behavior.

Substance use. The use of alcohol and drugs to self-handicap is a well-established

strategy. The use of drugs and alcohol was first described as a self-handicapping strategy by

Jones and Berglas (1978). They also reported two empirical investigations regarding the use of

drugs as a self-handicapping strategy (Berglas & Jones, 1978). Subsequently, Tucker,

6
Vuchinich, and Sobell (1981) as well as Higgins and Harris (1988) presented findings that

further supported the work of Berglas and Jones (1978) regarding the use of alcohol as a self-

handicapping strategy. Kolditz and Arkin (1982) presented findings that further supported the

work of Berglas and Jones (1978) regarding the use of drugs as a self-handicapping strategy.

Numerous studies have found that individuals with lower socioeconomic status have a

greater propensity toward substance use, such as drugs and alcohol. Several studies have found

lower levels of education to be associated with heavy alcohol consumption in both sexes

(Cummins et al., 1981; Hulshof et al., 1991; Knupfer, 1989; Tejera et al. 1991). Among young

adults, lower socioeconomic groups reported more frequent alcohol consumption (Crowley,

1991). Goodman and Huang (2002), found that low socioeconomic was associated with greater

cigarette, alcohol, and cocaine use. Daniel et al. (2009) found evidence that childhood

disadvantage is associated with later cannabis use. Research has also found that adolescents

whose parents are college-educated are less likely to engage in illicit drug use or hazardous

drinking (Hamilton, Noh, & Adlaf, 2009) and that low family socioeconomic status is associated

with an increased likelihood of substance abuse disorders in early adulthood (Reinherz et al.,

2000). Therefore, the increased drug and alcohol use and abuse among lower socioeconomic

status individuals is possibly a manifestation of a self-handicapping strategy.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Another reason that self-handicapping could

potentially be higher among lower socioeconomic status individuals is the fact that Attention-

Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) diagnosis is higher among lower socioeconomic status

individuals (Akinbami, Liu, Pastor, & Reuben, 2011; Biederman, Faraone, & Monuteaux, 2002;

Charach et al., 2011; Froehlich et al., 2007; St Sauver et al., 2004). Although little research

regarding self-handicapping and ADHD exists, a few studies have demonstrated that the two are

7
interrelated. Waschbusch et al. (2007) found that children (ages 6 to 13) with ADHD engaged in

more behavioral self-handicapping (practiced less as well as chose distracting music while

completing a task) and had more positive self-evaluations than children without ADHD. Suhr

and Wei (2013) found that ADHD symptoms were used as a post-task excuse for perceived poor

performance after a task containing an evaluative threat. Jaconis et al. (2016) found that both

claimed and behavioral self-handicapping are positively correlated with self-reported

hyperactivity, inattention, and ADHD impairment. Furthermore, college students are

increasingly attributing poor academic performance to attentional issues and possible diagnosis

of ADHD (Suhr, Hammers, Dobbins-Buckland, Zimak, & Hughes, 2008). Therefore, ADHD

might increase self-handicapping by providing a chronic somatic excuse for poor performance.

Additionally, the disproportionately higher diagnosis among lower socioeconomic status

individuals may, in turn, drive self-handicapping to be disproportionately higher among lower

socioeconomic status individuals.

Academic underachievement. Across numerous studies, poor academic achievement

has been linked to self-handicapping (Leondari & Gonida, 2007; Midgley, Arunkumar, & Urdan,

1996; Midgley & Urdan, 1995; Urdan, 2004). In fact, self-handicapping directly impacts both

decreased preparatory behaviors (i.e., behavioral self-handicapping) and increased reports of

stress (i.e., claimed self-handicapping) resulting in poorer exam performance as well as a

mediating the relationship between negative attitudes toward school and grade point average

(Gadbois & Sturgeon, 2011). Low socioeconomic status has been linked to academic

underachievement, in part due to increased actions that are indicative of self-handicapping.

Woodward and Fergusson (2000) found that children who reported difficulty in peer

relationships were more likely to come from “family backgrounds characterized by early and

8
single parenthood, lower maternal educational achievement, and socioeconomic adversity”

(p.198). This adds to the plethora of research that has found peer-rejected children are more

likely to come from backgrounds of lower socioeconomic status (Coie et al., 1992, 1995;

Hinshaw, 1994; Hinshaw & Melnick, 1995; O’Neil et al., 1997; Pettit, Harrist, Bates, & Dodge,

1991; Pope, Bierman, & Mumma, 1991; Taylor, 1989; Vitaro, Gagnon, & Tremblay, 1990;

Vitaro et al., 1994; Vuchinich, Bank, & Patterson, 1992; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997; Woodward

& Fergusson, 1999). This is significant because children with peer relationship problems are

more likely to show poor classroom work habits (reported by their teachers), miss school, be

truant, get suspended, leave school early, lack motivation, and possibly under-achieve

academically throughout childhood (Woodward & Fergusson, 2000). All of these actions could

potentially be manifestations of self-handicapping behavior.

Family-level and neighborhood-level socioeconomic status have been found to be

directly correlated with both cognitive and social skills among urban 4-year-olds. However,

parental involvement was found to partially moderate social skills and socioeconomic status

(Kinston, et al., 2013). Therefore, the correlation between socioeconomic status and academic

underachievement may be partially mediated by low social support. Parental support has been

shown to be an important predictor of adjustment in late adolescence (Meeus, 1996). Among

college students, the availability of supportive individuals as well as a positive self-concept can

even be more important than traditional measures of cognitive skills, such as the SAT, in

predicting academic success (Fuertes & Sedlacek, 1994; Tracey & Sedlacek, 1985, 1987). Peer

support can be especially important for college students as it is positively correlated with GPA as

well as college adjustment (Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005). Additionally, peer support

facilitates academic adjustment through study groups, sharing notes and experiences, advice on

9
classes and strategies, as well as a “safety net” to explore and experiment (Astin, 1993;

Richardson & Skinner, 1992; Sarason, Sarason, & Pierce, 1990; Tinto, 1993).

However, low socioeconomic status and first-generation students, defined as individuals

whose parents have earned a high school diploma or less (Chen, 2005; Choy, 2001; Warburton et

al., 2001), are less likely to receive financial support and less likely to perceive support from

faculty (Terenzini et al., 1996). Higher levels of socioeconomic status have been found to have a

positive effect on academic and social integration (Pascarella & Chapman, 1983). First

generation college students are also more likely to have lower income, be enrolled as part-time,

have minority status, and be geographically constrained because they want to go to college close

to home (Inman & Mayes, 1999; Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). These are some of the

reasons that first generation college students face unique challenges and find the college

experience to be more stressful compared to continuing-generation college students (Phinney &

Haas, 2003) resulting in a more difficult transition to college than their peers (Terenzini et al.,

1996). This difficulty in transition may be due to self-handicapping, as stress has been linked to

claimed self-handicapping, resulting in poorer school performance (Gadbois & Sturgeon, 2011).

Additionally, low socioeconomic status and first generation students are more likely to take

fewer credit hours, have lower grades, take longer to graduate, and withdraw from college; all of

which are potential manifestations of behavioral self-handicapping (Ishitani, 2006; Pascarella,

Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004; St. John, Andrieu, Oescher, & Starkey, 1994; St. John,

Paulsen, & Starkey, 1996; Terenzini et al., 1996).

Studies suggest that non-intellective factors are major factors in low socioeconomic

status students and first-generation students withdrawing from college (Cabrera et al., 1992).

Pascarella et al. (2004) found no significant differences between first generation college students

10
and continuing-generation college students in writing skills, reading comprehension, or critical

thinking. Pascarella et al. (2004) also found that first-generation college students have modestly

larger internal locus of attribution for academic success and preference for higher order cognitive

tasks, but lower levels of degree plans. College underperformance and attrition among low

socioeconomic status students and first-generation students have been linked to poor academic

preparation from high school, working more hours at a job while in school, insufficient financial

aid, and inadequate social support (Hochstein & Butler, 1983; Knight & Arnold, 2000; Lam,

1999; Zalaquett, 1999). Although these additional burdens on low socioeconomic status students

might account for poor academic outcomes, it is also possible that these issues exacerbate self-

handicapping behavior. A study that control for these burdens would clarify the unique role of

self-handicapping behavior on academic outcomes, which was the focus of the present research.

Beyond social support, there may be differences in cultural values across socioeconomic

status. Education is often viewed as means for an individual to better their life, and for low

socioeconomic status students a way to have less difficult lives than their parents (Lopez, 2001).

Additionally, many first-generation students not only come from low socioeconomic status

backgrounds, but from families that emphasize interdependence and collectivism (Tseng, 2004).

Students’ cultural values influence their motivation for attending college (Phinney, Dennis, &

Osorio, 2006). Individuals with collectivistic orientations are more likely to be motivated to

attend college to meet family expectations, whereas those with an individualistic orientation are

more likely to attend based on personal interest, intellectual curiosity, and the desire to attain a

rewarding career (Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). College

students with personal, intellectual, and career motivation have higher grades and better college

adjustment than those with other types of motivation (Cote & Levine, 2007; Phinney et al.,

11
2006). Individuals who are motivated to attend college in order to meet family expectations may

feel the perceived threat of higher levels of pressure and therefore would be more likely to self-

handicap.

Financial aid is important to equalize opportunities between high and low socioeconomic

status students and facilitate the integration of students academically and socially (Cabrera, Nora,

& Castaneda, 1992). However, financial aid can be detrimental as well. Research has shown

that, while parental financial aid increases the likelihood that an individual will graduate college,

it also decreases student GPA. GPA impacts students’ ability to matriculate into advanced

degree programs and boost long-term earning power (Jones and Jackson 1990; Loury and

Garman 1995; Mullen, Goyette, and Soares 2003). Instead of utilizing parental funding as an

advantage to maximize their chances for long-term success, students with parental funding take a

more short-term perspective and put in less academic effort (Hamilton, 2013). Parental financial

support may be creating an increased threat of expectations and decreased external excuse for

potential failure, thereby this decrease in effort would be due to self-handicapping.

Finally, success and racial belonging correlate for some minorities in low-income

neighborhoods. In-group connectivity from ethnic identity (operationally defined as “looking

Latino”) was found to positively correlate with grades (GPA), in-class behavior (rated by their

teacher), and school engagement (on a 6-item self-reported scale) among low-income Latino

boys (Oyserman et al., 2006). Butler-Barnes, Williams, and Chavous (2012) found that

educational utility beliefs and grade performance were correlated stronger in African American

boys who rated higher in racial pride. Although Butler-Barnes, Williams, and Chavous (2012)

did not mention socioeconomic status specifically, their study did address lower educational

utility beliefs. This is a common theme between minority and low socioeconomic status children

12
due to segregation discrimination and learned helplessness from historical and contemporary

experiences. These lower educational utility beliefs can easily lead to self-handicapping as a

coping response such as minimizing personal relevance of a threatened domain (Graham et al.,

1998; Osborne, 1999). Specifically, these lower educational utility beliefs can lead to a more

pessimistic view on the value of education (Butler-Barnes, Williams, & Chavous, 2012) resulting

in lower school engagement and, subsequently, lower achievement (Chavous, et al. 2008;

Swanson et al., 2003).

In summary, there are a range of differences in educational experience, social support,

and value and identity that may contribute to the academic underperformance among individuals

low in socioeconomic status. Research that controls for these differences would shed more light

on the reasons for this relationship, and specifically whether it could be attributed in part to self-

handicapping behavior.

13
 CHAPTER TWO: PRELIMINARY RESEARCH & PILOT STUDY

Preliminary Research

The current study aimed to address the relationship between self-handicapping and

socioeconomic status. Earlier, we completed a correlational study on socioeconomic status and

self-handicapping in the form of a questionnaire, using participants (N = 280) recruited from the

SONA psychology participant pool at the University of Wyoming as well as Amazon’s

Mechanical Turk (M-Turk) to test the generalizability of this interaction as well as some other

potential intervening variables (see Appendix B). Participants from the SONA psychology

participant pool at the University of Wyoming (N = 151) were 18 years or older and received

extra credit in a psychology class for their participation. M-Turk participants (N = 129) were 18

years or older, living throughout the United States and were compensated 40-cents for

completing the survey with the potential for a 10-cent bonus.

Subjective socioeconomic status was operationally defined by a perceived social class

measure from a set of distance from privilege measures designed by Kerr et al. (2012). This

perceived social class measure is a ten-item ladder with anchors of “Most ideal, values, accepted

social class” and “Least ideal, values, accepted social class” and eight blanks between them,

where participants denote which rung they feel best describes them. Self-handicapping was

measured by the “Self-handicapping scale” created by Jones and Rhodewalt (1982). Previous

research has shown that self-handicapping can be broadly categorized in two distinct

manifestations: actively acquiring impediments (known as behavioral self-handicapping) and

claiming impediments (known as claimed self-handicapping; Arkin & Baumgardner, 1985;

Leary & Shepperd, 1986). Therefore, the “Self-handicapping scale” was also analyzed as two

14
subscales, as previous research has shown the scale measures these two distinct types of self-

handicapping: claimed self-handicapping and behavioral self-handicapping (McCrea, Hirt,

Hendrix, Milner, & Steele, 2008). The data supported our hypothesis that socioeconomic status

and self-handicapping are negatively correlated. Specifically, we found that subjective

socioeconomic status was negatively correlated with both behavioral self-handicapping (r = -

.118, p = .048) as well as claimed self-handicapping (r =.152, p = .011). Additionally, although

previous research suggests that females tend to behaviorally self-handicap less than males, this

correlation was found among females as well as males. Data from other measures assessing self-

efficacy, beliefs, and values were also gathered (see Appendix A). However, none of these other

variables were found to intervene in the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status

and self-handicapping behavior.

These findings helped inform potential additional variables that were included in the

current study. A limitation of this prior work is that it is not possible to control for possible

confounds associated with lower socioeconomic status, such as added responsibilities (i.e.,

working while in school) or fewer resources (i.e., lower quality schools). Therefore, the current

study took an experimental approach in which participants were randomly assigned to either a

threat (“try to not be one of the poor performers”) or no-threat (“do your best on the test and

improve performance”) condition regarding an intelligence test. They then were given the

opportunity to engage in behavioral self-handicapping (by choosing to listen to distracting noise)

as well as claimed self-handicapping (by reporting stress) before the intelligence test.

Pilot Study

Prior to the current study, a pilot study (N = 40) was conducted to address potential

unseen issues with the study design and execution. A full analysis of the pilot study confirmed

15
that the experiment could be executed within the prescribed half-hour and confirmed that the

original manipulation was insufficient. During the pilot study, participants had a naïve belief

that “music” would be helpful for task performance, regardless of how distracting we told them it

would be. Therefore, the current study added a social component to the intelligence test

feedback and changed the wording of the distraction from “music” to “noise.” Additionally, the

pilot study suggested the need for participants to have the opportunity for claimed self-

handicapping via claimed stress. Thus, the present experiment included a subjective stress scale

to measure claimed self-handicapping.

16
 CHAPTER THREE: CURRENT STUDY

Current Study

The current study tested the association between socioeconomic status and self-

handicapping, removing possible confounds associated with lower socioeconomic status. In

order to discern if individuals are using self-handicapping behaviors as a defense mechanism to

protect their own self-construct, researchers have previously manipulated the level of threat

presented by an evaluative task. This evaluative component has been manipulated by presenting

a specific test of skill (i.e., Finez & Sherman, 2012; Ryska, Yin, & Cooley, 1998) or more

generally with a test of intelligence (i.e., Berglas & Jones, 1978; Snyder & Smith, 1986).

Additionally, prior research has found that a threat to academic performance or intelligence can

illicit evaluative threats (Smith et al., 1982). Therefore, participants completed a nonverbal

intelligence test (The Culture-Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT), see Appendix T; Cattell & Cattell,

1961). They were randomly assigned to a threat (performance-avoidance goal: “do not be one of

the poor performers”) or no-threat (mastery-approach goal: “do your best on the test and improve

your performance”) condition to evoke self-handicapping behavior on this test. This threat/no-

threat manipulation allowed for determining whether the participant’s behaviors are in service of

a self-protective strategy (and therefore self-handicapping) or reflect other motivations (and

therefore not self-handicapping). This manipulation is adapted from previous work by Tyser et

al. (2012).

Self-handicapping tendencies have been shown to be positively related to performance-

avoidance goals, but negatively related to mastery-approach goals (Elliot & Church, 2003;

Rhodewalt, 1994; Tyser et al., 2012; Urdan, 2004). Previous research has shown that individuals

17
who are assigned to a performance-avoidance goals self-handicap more than individuals who are

assigned to a mastery goal or no goal (Elliot et al., 2006; Lovejoy & Durik, 2010; Tyser et al.,

2012). This is because mastery-approach goals activate a desire for learning and improvement,

whereas performance-avoidance goals elicit evaluative threat, thus activating self-protective

strategies (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001).

Behavioral self-handicapping was measured by asking participants to select noise to

listen to while taking the CFIT. Their options ranged from “extremely helpful for performance”

to “extremely hurtful for performance.” Previous studies have shown that selecting unfavorable

and distracting performance music can function as an active behavioral self-handicap (McCrea &

Flamm, 2012; Rhodewalt & Davison, 1986; Shepperd & Arkin, 1989). Therefore, selecting

distracting noise (“hurtful for performance”) more frequently in the threat condition (“do not be

one of the poor performers”) was considered evidence of behavioral self-handicapping. Claimed

self-handicapping was measured by asking participants to indicate their current levels of stress

just prior to taking the CFIT. Claiming higher levels of stress in the threat condition (“do not be

one of the poor performers”) was considered evidence of claimed self-handicapping.

Past work has shown that females often are unwilling to self-handicap by selecting

performance inhibiting music (McCrea & Flamm, 2012; Rhodewalt & Davidson, 1986).

Additionally, males tend to display both behavioral and claimed self-handicapping, whereas

females tend to only display claimed self-handicapping (McCrea, Hirt, & Milner, 2008).

However, we expected socioeconomic status to moderate self-handicapping behavior

independent of gender. Our preliminary research found socioeconomic status to correlate with

self-handicapping in females and indicated that gender effects do not moderate the relationship

between socioeconomic status and self-handicapping.

18
Hypotheses

Our first hypothesis was that the threat (“do not be one of the poor performers”)

condition would evoke more self-handicapping behaviors than the no-threat (“do your best on

the test and improve your performance”) condition.

Our second hypothesis was that subjective socioeconomic status would moderate the

effect of the threat condition. Participants who are lower in subjective socioeconomic status

would be more likely to self-handicap than participants who are higher in subjective

socioeconomic status within the threat (“do not be one of the poor performers”) condition.

Our third hypothesis was that objective childhood socioeconomic status will moderate the

effect of the threat condition. Participants who are lower in objective childhood socioeconomic

status would be more likely to self-handicap than participants who are higher in objective

childhood socioeconomic status within the threat (“do not be one of the poor performers”)

condition.

Our fourth hypothesis was that objective current socioeconomic status will moderate the

effect of the threat condition. Participants who are lower in objective current socioeconomic

status would be more likely to self-handicap than participants who are higher in objective current

socioeconomic status within the threat (“do not be one of the poor performers”) condition.

Our fifth hypothesis was that none of these effects will be mediated by the interaction of

the threat (“do not be one of the poor performers”) condition and any of the following variables

life history, impulsivity, self-control, self-esteem, Big Five personality traits, childhood stress,

narcissism, regulatory focus, effort beliefs, self-absorption, or fluid intelligence beliefs.

Our sixth hypothesis was that the impact of socioeconomic status on self-handicapping

would not be moderated by gender.

19
 Method

Participants and Design

Participants were 181 students, from the University of Wyoming who participated in the

study in exchange for research credit. An original sample size of 150 was determined by a

power analysis (power of .80) using G*Power software and an expected small effect size of .20

(based on a conservative interpretation of preliminary research). However, due to a combination

of missing data and participants having signed up for the study prior to closing signups there

were 181 participants in the study. Participants were randomly assigned to a threat

(performance) or no-threat (mastery) condition.

Materials and Procedure

Prescreening measures. Prior to registering for the study, participants completed the

Jones and Rhodewalt (1982) self-handicapping scale (see Appendix C), Kerr et al.’s (2011)

measure of subjective socioeconomic status (see Appendix E), current and previous symptoms

and diagnosis of ADHD (see Appendices F & G), and basic demographic questions as part of a

prescreening questionnaire.

Jones and Rhodewalt’s (1982) self-handicapping scale is an established and valid

measure. McCrea, et al. (2008) established how the scale could be utilized to evaluate both

behavioral and claimed self-handicapping.

Although there is no single ubiquitous measure for socioeconomic status, most research

agrees that socioeconomic status is defined as a measure of one's combined economic and social

status and composed of three unique, interdependent elements: education (indicative of skills for

acquiring social and economic resources), occupation (symbolic of prestige and responsibilities),

and income (representative of spending power and resource availability; Adler & Ostrove, 1998;

20
Boocock, 1972; Liberatos, Link, & Kelsey, 1988; White, 1982). Additionally, the American

Psychological Association Task Force on Socioeconomic Status (American Psychological

Association, 2007) recommends, when reporting socioeconomic status, using education, income,

occupation, and family size as measures as well as reporting poverty measures and subjective

measures of socioeconomic status. Although approaches to measuring these unique elements

vary, different socioeconomic status measures tend to have inter-measure reliability (Cirino et

al., 2002; Oakes & Rossi, 2003).

The two most prominent issues that drive researchers to differ on socioeconomic status

measures are that household income data is often unreliable or unavailable and occupation

measures are often inadequate (Boyce et al., 2006; Kolenikov & Angeles, 2009). Therefore, we

took a best-practices approach to addressing these issues and evaluating socioeconomic status for

the purposes of this study. Because income is meant to be representative of resource availability,

household income alone is an insufficient measure. Instead, we gathered household income as

well as household size, the number of adults and children, to calculate a true indicator of

financial resources. Occupational data was gathered via an opened question regarding job title

and place of employment, then coded using the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010

Standard Occupational Classification definitions (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics,

2010). Additionally, because socioeconomic status is a fluid concept that can change drastically

from childhood to adulthood, we included both a childhood as well as a current socioeconomic

status measure. To have comparable data across participants, childhood socioeconomic status

was oriented to when they were fourteen-years-old, as this has been established as one of the

youngest ages to get reliably consistent recall data (Krieger, Okamoto, & Selby, 1998).

21
 Not only does the American Psychological Association (2007) recommend the use of

subjective measures when reporting socioeconomic status, previous research has established that

subjective socioeconomic status and objective socioeconomic status are different constructs, with

subjective socioeconomic status often being more strongly related to attitudes and perceptions

(Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000; Chen & Paterson, 2006; Cohen et al., 2008;

Jackman & Jackman, 1973). Using a ladder to rank one’s perceived socioeconomic status is a

widely used and accepted measure of subjective socioeconomic status (Anderson, Kraus,

Galinsky, & Keltner, 2012; Demakakos, Nazroo, Breeze, & Marmot, 2008; Kerr et al., 2012;

Operario, Adler, & Williams, 2004; Singh-Manoux, Adler, & Marmot, 2003). Therefore, we

utilized Kerr et al.’s (2012) ten-rung ladder of social class (income level, occupation and

education level) to measure subjective socioeconomic status.

Laboratory procedure. Upon arriving to the lab for the experiment participants were

informed that they will be completing a study regarding factors that affect performance. They

first completed an initial questionnaire containing various measures of individual difference

variables (see Appendices H-S) including objective childhood and adult socioeconomic status

questionnaire (see Appendix D).

After finishing the initial questionnaire, participants were told that the purpose of the

study was to examine how external factors, such as noise, impact performance on an intelligence

test (CFIT; Cattell & Cattell, 1961) that is free from ethnic bias that is found in traditional

intelligence tests. The CFIT was presented as a two-part test for all participants. Additionally,

all participants were informed that: “Previous research has shown that people who achieve a high

score on the CFIT generally have high intelligence and the ability to use logic and solve

complicated problems. Individuals who do well on the CFIT also are more successful in their

22
career and are more satisfied with their achievements in life. Scores on the test also predict GPA.

Thus, one can assume that the test is a valid measure of a person's true intellectual capabilities.”

After learning of the CFIT’s validity, participants were informed of their goals (adapted

from Tyser et al., 2012). Those in the no-threat (mastery-approach goal) condition were told:

“When you have completed the test, the experimenter will inform you of the percentage

of the total problems that you solved correctly. The purpose of this session is to see if

people can improve on the test with experience. Your goal is to do your best on the test

and improve performance.”

Whereas, those in the threat (performance-avoidance goal) condition were told:

“When you have completed the test, the experimenter will inform you of how you did,

compared to other UW students. In our previous work, we have found that most UW

students are fairly comparable in their ability to solve these problems, but some students

stand out because they do quite poorly on the test. The purpose of this session is to

identify poor performers. Your goal is to not be one of the poor performers.”

All participants then received training on how to complete the CFIT. It was explained that every

problem consists of 4 pictures, 3 of which were presented, and their task was to recognize the

pattern and select the picture that completes the row. Three CFIT examples were then given.

Afterwards, participants were reminded of their prescribed, condition specific, goal and informed

that previous research has shown that different kinds of noise can either facilitate performance or

undermine performance on tests.

They then chose which kind of noise they want to listen to during the exam using a 5-

point scale (1 = extremely helpful for performance to 5 = extremely hurtful for performance), as

well as their expectations of their noise choice using a 5-point scale (1 = improve my score a lot

23
to 5 = lower my score a lot; see Appendix U). Selecting distracting noise (“hurtful for

performance”) more frequently in the threat condition (“do not be one of the poor performers”)

was evidence of behavioral self-handicapping. Participants were then informed that stress can

artificially decrease scores on intelligence tests such as the CFIT and were asked to complete a

twelve-item survey to indicate their current level of stress so that we could control for this

potential confound (see Appendix V). Claiming higher levels of stress in the threat condition

(“do not be one of the poor performers”) was evidence of claimed self-handicapping.

A manipulation check of how important it was for them to do well on the intelligence test

and what they thought the CFIT was measuring also took place at this time. Participants

indicated how important it was to them to do well on the intelligence test as well as what they

thought the CFIT is measuring. Additionally, participants were asked “What do you think was

the purpose of this study?” and “Was anything during the study strange?”

Noise was then played over headphones at a comfortable listening level as participants

attempted two sets of 10 CFIT items while listening to the same noise, regardless of their choice.

At the conclusion of the experiment, participants were thoroughly debriefed concerning the

purpose of the study and the reasons for deception. In particular, they were told that all

participants received the same feedback and therefore the scores they received are not an

accurate reflection of their actual abilities. They were also given the opportunity to ask any

questions they might have had about the study at this point.

Results

The original dataset (N = 181) was screened for missing or implausible values. While all

values were within bounds and reasonable, it was determined that 17 participants had data that

were missing at random and were therefore removed from further analysis. Additionally, 11

24
participants were removed as their data indicated either a lack of attention or effort (9 forgot their

task goal and 2 failed multiple trap questions). Finally, 1 participant was removed because they

overheard the previous participant mention that feedback on intelligence test would not actually

be provided. Screening procedures identified no further violations of univariate or multivariate

outliers, linearity, homoscedasticity, or collinearity assumptions. Data within the final set (N =

152) can be reasonably assumed to approximate multivariate normality. Barring the potential for

bias occurring as a result of non-random missingness in variables, data were otherwise suitable

for multivariate analysis.

Participants (N = 152) consisted of 53 males and 99 females. There were 66 first year

students, 42 second year students, 28 third year students, 11 fourth year students, 4 students who

were in at least their fifth year, and 1 student who decline to answer their year in school. One

hundred and eighteen participants identified as Caucasian (77.6%), fifteen participants identified

as Hispanic (9.9%), seven participants identified as Asian (4.6%), four participants identified as

African American (2.6%), one participants identified as Native American (0.7%), five

participants identified as “Other” (3.3%), and two participants declined to identify their ethnicity.

English was the first language for 143 of the participants, while English was not the first

language for 9 of the participants. Thirty-eight participants were first-generation college

students, one hundred and thirteen were not first-generation college students, and one declined to

answer. The average age of the participants was 19.54-years-old (sd = 1.90), with the youngest

participants 18-years-old and the oldest participant 28-years-old.

Manipulation checks of task importance (t (150) = -.430, p = .668), belief of what they

think the CFIT is measuring (t (150) = .182, p = .856), and perceived purpose of the study (t

25
(150) = -.977, p = .330) did not differ across condition. Additionally, task importance was rated

high for all participants (M = 3.625, sd = .989, on a 5-point Likert-type scale).

Self-handicapping Across Conditions

The self-handicapping behaviors of individuals in the threat (n = 73) and no-threat (n =

79) groups was compared using two independent samples t-tests. It was hypothesized that

individuals in the threat (“do not be one of the poor performers”) condition would display more

self-handicapping behaviors than individuals in the no-threat (“do your best on the test and

improve your performance”) condition. The condition effect was marginal for claimed self-

handicapping (t (150) = 1.849, p = .066), but showed no difference for behavioral self-

handicapping (t (150) = .585, p = .559).

The comparison of self-handicapping across conditions, coupled with the lack of a task

importance difference across conditions (see above) suggests that the manipulation of threat was

not effective. These findings also indicate that potentially all participants were operating under

threat, regardless of condition.

Additionally, the no-threat group chose an unexpectedly high rate of distracting noise (M

= 3.760, sd = 1.28, on a 5-point Likert-type scale) compared to previous research. For example,

individuals in a control group in a similar study chose less distracting music (M = 2.37, sd =

1.42, on a 5-point Likert-type scale; McCrea & Flamm, 2012). In comparison, the average mean

and standard deviation of stress in the control group did not indicate an unexpectedly high rate of

claimed self-handicapping (M = 2.512, sd = .83, on a 5-point Likert-type scale).

Subjective Socioeconomic Status & Self-handicapping

It was hypothesized that subjective socioeconomic status would moderate the effect of

threat condition. Specifically, individuals who are lower in subjective socioeconomic status

26
were predicted to self-handicap more than participants who are higher in subjective

socioeconomic status within the threat (“do not be one of the poor performers”) condition.

Condition (“threat” condition coded as “-0.52” and “no-threat” condition coded as “0.48”

to reflect the imbalanced groups, per Aiken and West, 1991), subjective socioeconomic status,

and behavioral self-handicapping were centered. Condition, subjective socioeconomic status,

and their interaction were entered in a multiple linear regression model predicting behavioral

self-handicapping, which was not found to be significant [F (3, 148) = .622, p = .602]. Neither

subjective socioeconomic status (β = .097, p = .236) nor condition (β = -.049, p = .550) alone

predicted behavioral self-handicapping. Additionally, the interaction of condition and subjective

socioeconomic status on behavioral self-handicapping was not significant (β = .391, p = .697).

Therefore, we did not find evidence that the relationship between subjective socioeconomic

status and behavioral self-handicapping would be stronger within the threat (“do not be one of

the poor performers”) condition.

Using the same model that we did for behavioral self-handicapping; condition, subjective

socioeconomic status, and their interaction were entered in a multiple linear regression model

predicting claimed self-handicapping, which was found to be significant [F (3, 148) = 3.172, p =

.026]. This model accounted for 6.0% of the observed variability in claimed self-handicapping.

Subjective socioeconomic status predicted claimed self-handicapping (β = -.186, p = .021), such

that lower socioeconomic status was associated with higher claimed self-handicapping. The

effect of condition predicting claimed self-handicapping was approaching significance (β = -

.147, p = .067), so that claimed self-handicapping tended to be higher in the threat condition.

The impact of subjective socioeconomic status on claimed self-handicapping did not differ

across condition (β = .051, p = .521). Therefore, we did not find evidence that the relationship

27
between subjective socioeconomic status and claimed self-handicapping would be stronger

within the threat (“do not be one of the poor performers”) condition.

Simple slopes for the association between condition and claimed self-handicapping were

tested for low (1 SD below the mean) and high (1 SD above the mean) levels of subjective

socioeconomic status. The simple slope tests indicated that condition was not associated with

claimed self-handicapping when an individual had high levels of subjective socioeconomic status

(b = -1.884, seb = 2.225, p = .399) or low levels of subjective socioeconomic status (b = -3.910,

seb = 2.225, p = .081), although the effect among low levels of subjective socioeconomic status

was approaching significance.

Self-handicapping scale. We analyzed the correlation between subjective socioeconomic

status and the self-handicapping scale as well as both the behavioral and claimed subscales.

Subjective socioeconomic status was negatively correlated with the self-handicapping scale (r = -

.234, p = .004). Additionally, subjective socioeconomic status was negatively correlated with the

claimed self-handicapping subscale (r = -.219, p = .007) and was approaching a significant

negative correlation with the behavioral self-handicapping subscale (r = -.154, p = .058).

Objective Childhood Socioeconomic Status & Self-handicapping

It was hypothesized that objective childhood socioeconomic status would moderate the

effect of threat condition. Specifically, individuals who are lower in objective childhood

socioeconomic status were predicted to self-handicap more than participants who are higher in

objective childhood socioeconomic status within the threat (“do not be one of the poor

performers”) condition. We attempted to gather objective childhood socioeconomic status in

three ways: parental occupation at the age of fourteen, household income per capita at the age of

fourteen, and average parental education at the age of fourteen. Unfortunately, there was not

28
enough overlap between participants for parental occupation to be interpreted in a meaningful

way and household income per capita was skewed as 21.1% of participants indicated that their

household income was over $100,000. Due to the lack of a true maximum value, the measure

did not allow for a reasonable approximation of actual household income for many participants.

Therefore, only average parental education at the age of fourteen offered a representation of

objective childhood socioeconomic status, one participant indicated that they did not know what

their parents’ education level when they were at the age of fourteen and therefore were

eliminated from this analysis.

Condition (“threat” condition coded as “-0.52” and “no-threat” condition coded as “0.48”

to reflect the imbalanced groups, per Aiken and West, 1991), average parental education at the

age of fourteen, and behavioral self-handicapping were centered. Condition, average parental

education at the age of fourteen, and their interaction were entered in a multiple linear regression

model predicting behavioral self-handicapping, which was not found to be significant [F (3, 148)

= .116, p = .950]. Neither average parental education at the age of fourteen (β = -.021, p = .799)

nor condition (β = -.043, p = .601) alone predicted behavioral self-handicapping. Additionally,

the interaction of condition and average parental education at the age of fourteen on behavioral

self-handicapping was not significant (β = -.021, p = .882). Therefore, we did not find evidence

that the relationship between average parental education at the age of fourteen and behavioral

self-handicapping would be stronger within the threat (“do not be one of the poor performers”)

condition.

Using the same model that we did for behavioral self-handicapping; condition, average

parental education at the age of fourteen, and their interaction were entered into a multiple linear

regression model predicting claimed self-handicapping, which was found to be significant [F (3,

29
147) = 3.172, p = .025]. The model accounted for 6.1% of the observed variability in claimed

self-handicapping. Neither average parental education at the age of fourteen (β = -.062, p = .443)

nor condition (β = -.145, p = .074) alone predicted claimed self-handicapping. However, the

interaction of average parental education at the age of fourteen and condition on claimed self-

handicapping was significant (β = -.188, p = .021; see Appendix W). Therefore, we did find

evidence that the relationship between average parental education at the age of fourteen and

claimed self-handicapping was stronger within the threat (“do not be one of the poor

performers”) condition.

Simple slopes for the association between condition and claimed self-handicapping were

tested for low (1 SD below the mean) and high (1 SD above the mean) levels of average parental

education at the age of fourteen. The simple slope tests indicated that condition was associated

with claimed self-handicapping when an individual had high levels of average parental education

at the age of fourteen (b = -6.567, seb = 2.223, p = .004), so that individuals in the threat

condition reported more claimed self-handicapping than those who were in the no-threat

condition. However, condition was not associated with claimed self-handicapping when an

individual had low levels of average parental education at the age of fourteen (b = .890, seb =

2.269, p = .696).

Self-handicapping scale. We analyzed the correlation between average parental

education at the age of fourteen and the self-handicapping scale as well as both the behavioral

and claimed subscales. Average parental education at the age of fourteen was negatively

correlated with the self-handicapping scale (r = -.188, p = .020). Additionally, average parental

education at the age of fourteen was approaching a significant negative correlation with both the

30
claimed self-handicapping subscale (r = -.142, p = .081) as well as the behavioral self-

handicapping subscale (r = -.159, p = .052).

Objective Current Socioeconomic Status & Self-handicapping

It was hypothesized that objective current socioeconomic status would moderate the

effect of threat condition. Specifically, individuals who are lower in objective current

socioeconomic status were predicted to self-handicap more than participants who are higher in

objective current socioeconomic status within the threat (“do not be one of the poor performers”)

condition. We attempted to gather objective current socioeconomic status in three ways: current

occupation, current household income per capita, and current financial support as a percent of

total cost of college. Average current education was not utilized to measure objective current

socioeconomic status, because all participants were current undergraduate students and therefore

there was no variability. Additionally, most participants identified as full-time students and there

was not enough occupational overlap between participants among those who did not identify as

students to be interpreted in a meaningful way. Unfortunately, as with household income per

capita at age fourteen, current household income per capita was skewed so that 21.1% of

participants indicated that their household income was over $100,000. The lack of a true

maximum value did not allow for a reasonable approximation of their actual household income.

However, current financial support as a percent of total cost of college was calculated from a

combination of financial support from parents and own employment, divided by the individual’s

expected annual cost of college, did provide a representation of current objective socioeconomic

status.

Condition (“threat” condition coded as “-0.52” and “no-threat” condition coded as “0.48”

to reflect the imbalanced groups, per Aiken and West, 1991), current financial support as a

31
percent of total cost of college, and behavioral self-handicapping were centered. Condition,

current financial support as a percent of total cost of college, and their interaction were entered in

a multiple linear regression model predicting behavioral self-handicapping, which was not found

to be significant [F (3, 148) = .374, p = .772]. Neither current financial support as a percent of

total cost of college (β = -.075, p = .389) nor condition (β = -.055, p = .503) alone predicted

behavioral self-handicapping. Additionally, the interaction of condition and current financial

support as a percent of total cost of college on behavioral self-handicapping was not significant

(β = -.039, p = .654). Therefore, we did not find evidence that the relationship between current

financial support as a percent of total cost of college and behavioral self-handicapping would be

stronger within the threat (“do not be one of the poor performers”) condition.

Using the same model that we did for behavioral self-handicapping; condition, current

financial support as a percent of total cost of college, and their interaction were entered in a

multiple linear regression model predicting claimed self-handicapping, which was not found to

be significant [F (3, 147) = 1.360, p = .257]. Neither current financial support as a percent of

total cost of college (β = .070, p = .419) nor condition (β = -.142, p = .083) alone predicted

claimed self-handicapping. Additionally, the interaction of condition and current financial

support as a percent of total cost of college on claimed self-handicapping was not significant (β =

.037, p = .668). Therefore, we did not find evidence that the relationship between current

financial support as a percent of total cost of college and claimed self-handicapping would be

stronger within the threat (“do not be one of the poor performers”) condition.

Self-handicapping scale. We analyzed the correlation between current financial support

as a percent of total cost of college and the self-handicapping scale as well as both the behavioral

and claimed subscales. Current financial support as a percent of total cost of college was not

32
correlated with the self-handicapping scale (r = -.058, p = .479). Additionally, current financial

support as a percent of total cost of college was not correlated with the claimed self-

handicapping subscale (r = -.044, p = .592) or the behavioral self-handicapping subscale (r = -

.066, p = .418).

Potential Intervening Variables of Subjective Socioeconomic Status & Self-handicapping

Because earlier analysis had established that behavioral self-handicapping did not differ

across participants based on subjective socioeconomic status within the threat condition (β =

.391, p = .697), the lack of the predicted interaction eliminated the necessity to analyze potential

intervening variables. Therefore, only potential intervening variables of subjective

socioeconomic status and claimed self-handicapping were analyzed.

Earlier analysis had established that claimed self-handicapping did not differ by

subjective socioeconomic status within the threat condition. However, condition’s association

with claimed self-handicapping when an individual had low levels of subjective socioeconomic

status (b = -3.910, seb = 2.225, p = .081) was approaching significance. Therefore, potential

intervening variables were analyzed.

It was hypothesized the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and self-

handicapping would hold, even when controlling for: life history, impulsivity, self-control, self-

esteem, Big Five personality traits, childhood stress, narcissism, regulatory focus, effort beliefs,

self-absorption, or fluid intelligence beliefs. Therefore, the potential intervention from each of

these variables was analyzed individually utilizing Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach for

intervening variables.

Firstly, potential correlation with subjective socioeconomic status was analyzed (results

in Appendix X). Only life history (r = -.342, p < .001), self-control (r = .176, p = .030), self-

33
esteem (r = .430, p < .001), extraversion (r = .337, p = <.001), neuroticism (r = -.259, p = .001),

childhood stress (r = -.343, p < .001), promotion regulatory focus (r = .239, p = .003), and

ADHD-inattention (r = -.169, p = .037) were found to have correlations that were significant,

while the correlation with prevention regulatory focus (r = .145, p = .075) was approaching

significance.

Secondly, potential correlation with claimed self-handicapping was analyzed (results in

Appendix Z). Only self-control (r = -.278, p = .001), self-esteem (r = -.530, p < .001),

neuroticism (r = .483, p < .001), childhood stress (r = .175, p = .031), promotion regulatory

focus (r = -.368, p < .001), self-absorption (r = .456, p < .001), ADHD-hyperactivity and

impulsivity (r = .229, p = .005), and ADHD-inattention (r = .350, p < .001) were found to have

correlations that were significant, while the correlation with impulsiveness (r = .146, p = .072),

conscientiousness (r = -.157, p = .054), and effort beliefs (r = -.137, p = .093) was approaching

significance.

Therefore, because only self-control, self-esteem, neuroticism, childhood stress,

promotion regulatory focus, and ADHD-inattention were found to have correlations that were

significant or approaching significance with both subjective socioeconomic status and claimed

self-handicapping, these were the only variables that could potentially act as intervening

variables and thus were the only ones which received further analysis.

After centering condition ( “threat” condition coded as “-0.52” and “no-threat” condition

coded as “0.48” to reflect the imbalanced groups, per Aiken & West, 1991), subjective

socioeconomic status, claimed self-handicapping, self-control, self-esteem, neuroticism,

childhood stress, promotion regulatory focus, and ADHD-inattention the hypotheses were

analyzed using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach for intervening variables to determine if the

34
individual potential intervening variables did intervene in the relationship between subjective

socioeconomic status and claimed self-handicapping. Additionally, the hypothesized indirect

effects of self-control, self-esteem, neuroticism, childhood stress, promotion regulatory focus,

and ADHD-inattention were examined using the bootstrap approach advocated by Shrout and

Bolger (2002), analyzing 95% confidence intervals based on 5000 bootstrapped replications.

Self-control. Subjective socioeconomic status, self-control, and claimed self-

handicapping were centered. Self-control and subjective socioeconomic status were entered in a

multiple linear regression model predicting claimed self-handicapping, which was found to be

significant [F (2, 149) = 8.097, p < .001]. In the model, self-control (β = -.253, p = .002) alone

predicted claimed self-handicapping, but subjective socioeconomic status (β = -.146, p = .067)

alone did not, even though it was approaching statistical significance. Therefore, we did find

evidence that self-control could be an intervening variable in the relationship between subjective

socioeconomic status and claimed self-handicapping. However, because a bootstrapped 95%

confidence interval [-.6877, .0038], did include zero, the bootstrap approach (based on 5000

bootstrapped replications) indicated that self-control was not a significant intervening variable of

claimed self-handicapping across participants based on subjective socioeconomic status.

Self-esteem. Subjective socioeconomic status, self-esteem, and claimed self-

handicapping were centered. Self-esteem and subjective socioeconomic status were entered in a

multiple linear regression model predicting claimed self-handicapping, which was found to be

significant [F (2, 149) = 29.402, p < .001]. In the model, self-esteem (β = -.550, p < .001) alone

predicted claimed self-handicapping, but subjective socioeconomic status (β = .046, p = .548)

alone did not. Therefore, we did find evidence that self-esteem could be an intervening variable

in the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and claimed self-handicapping.

35
Additionally, because a bootstrapped 95% confidence interval [-2.0188, -.9340], did not include

zero, the bootstrap approach (based on 5000 bootstrapped replications) indicated that self-esteem

did serve as an intervening variable of claimed self-handicapping across participants based on

subjective socioeconomic status.

Neuroticism. Subjective socioeconomic status, neuroticism, and claimed self-

handicapping were centered. Neuroticism and subjective socioeconomic status were entered in a

multiple linear regression model predicting claimed self-handicapping, which was found to be

significant [F (2, 149) = 23.281, p < .001]. In the model, neuroticism (β = .465, p < .001) alone

predicted claimed self-handicapping, but subjective socioeconomic status (β = -.070, p = .348)

did not. Therefore, we did find evidence that neuroticism could be an intervening variable in the

relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and claimed self-handicapping.

Additionally, because a bootstrapped 95% confidence interval [-1.3142, -.2479], did not include

zero, the bootstrap approach (based on 5000 bootstrapped replications) indicated that neuroticism

was an intervening variable of claimed self-handicapping across participants based on subjective

socioeconomic status.

Childhood stress. Subjective socioeconomic status, childhood stress, and claimed self-

handicapping were centered. Childhood stress and subjective socioeconomic status were entered

in a multiple linear regression model predicting claimed self-handicapping, which was found to

be significant [F (2, 149) = 3.916, p = .022]. In the model, neither subjective socioeconomic

status (β = -.147, p = .085) nor childhood stress (β = .125, p = .144) alone predicted claimed self-

handicapping. Therefore, we did not find evidence that childhood stress could be an intervening

variable in the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and claimed self-

handicapping. Additionally, because a bootstrapped 95% confidence interval [-.6718, .0701],

36
did include zero, the bootstrap approach (based on 5000 bootstrapped replications) indicated that

childhood stress was not an intervening variable of claimed self-handicapping across participants

based on subjective socioeconomic status.

Promotion regulatory focus. Subjective socioeconomic status, promotion regulatory

focus, and claimed self-handicapping were centered. Promotion regulatory focus and subjective

socioeconomic status were entered in a multiple linear regression model predicting claimed self-

handicapping, which was found to be significant [F (2, 149) = 12.781, p < .001]. In the model,

promotion regulatory focus (β = -.342, p < .001) alone predicted claimed self-handicapping, but

subjective socioeconomic status (β = -.109, p = .166) did not. Therefore, we did find evidence

that promotion regulatory focus could be an intervening variable in the relationship between

subjective socioeconomic status and claimed self-handicapping. Additionally, because a

bootstrapped 95% confidence interval [-.9363, -.1452], did not include zero, the bootstrap

approach (based on 5000 bootstrapped replications) indicated that promotion regulatory focus

was an intervening variable of claimed self-handicapping across participants based on subjective

socioeconomic status.

ADHD-inattention. Subjective socioeconomic status, ADHD-inattention, and claimed

self-handicapping were centered. ADHD-inattention, subjective socioeconomic status, and their

interaction were entered in a multiple linear regression model predicting claimed self-

handicapping, which was found to be significant [F (2, 149) = 12.154, p < .001]. In the model,

ADHD-inattention (β = .327, p < .001) alone predicted claimed self-handicapping, but subjective

socioeconomic status (β = -.135, p = .082) did not, even though it was approaching statistical

significance. Therefore, we did find evidence that ADHD-inattention could be an intervening

variable in the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and claimed self-

37
handicapping. However, because a bootstrapped 95% confidence interval [-.7488, .0033], did

include zero, the bootstrap approach (based on 5000 bootstrapped replications) indicated that

ADHD-inattention was not an intervening variable of claimed self-handicapping across

participants based on subjective socioeconomic status.

Potential Intervening Variables of Average Parental Education at the Age of Fourteen &

Self-handicapping

Because earlier analysis had established that behavioral self-handicapping did not differ

across participants based on average parental education at the age of fourteen within the threat

condition (β = -.021, p = .882), the lack of the predicted interaction eliminated the necessity to

analyze potential intervening variables. Therefore, only potential intervening variables of

average parental education at the age of fourteen and claimed self-handicapping were analyzed.

It was hypothesized that the following variables: life history, impulsivity, self-control,

self-esteem, Big Five personality traits, childhood stress, narcissism, regulatory focus, effort

beliefs, self-absorption, or fluid intelligence beliefs would not intervene in the relationship

between average parental education at the age of fourteen and self-handicapping, within the

threat (“do not be one of the poor performers”) condition. Therefore, the potential intervention

from each of these variables was analyzed individually utilizing Baron and Kenny’s (1986)

approach for intervening variables.

Firstly, potential correlation with average parental education at the age of fourteen was

analyzed (results in Appendix Y). Only life history (r = -.167, p = .041), impulsiveness (r = -

.174, p = .033), openness to experience (r = -.222, p = .006), and childhood stress (r = -.407, p <

.001) were found to have correlations that were significant, while the correlation with prevention

38
regulatory focus (r = .154, p = .059) was approaching significance and were therefore the only

potential intervening variables which received further analysis.

Secondly, these variables’ potential correlation with claimed self-handicapping, as

moderated by the threat condition was analyzed. None of the interactions of: life history and

condition (β = .081, p = .316), impulsiveness and condition (β = .041, p = .618), openness to

experience and condition (β = .036, p = .663), childhood stress and condition (β = .015, p =

.853), or prevention regulatory focus and condition (β = .000, p = .999) were found to be

statically significant. Thus, none of the potential intervening variables were found to have

significant or approaching significance correlations with subjective socioeconomic status as well

as correlations that were significant or approaching significance with claimed self-handicapping

as moderated by the threat condition. Therefore, none of the potential intervening variables were

found to be able to act as intervening variables and no further analysis was conducted.

Potential Intervening Variables of Current Financial Support as a Percent of Total Cost of

College & Self-handicapping

It was hypothesized that none of the following variables: life history, impulsivity, self-

control, self-esteem, Big Five personality traits, childhood stress, narcissism, regulatory focus,

effort beliefs, self-absorption, or fluid intelligence beliefs would intervene in the relationship

between current financial support as a percent of total cost of college and self-handicapping

within the threat (“do not be one of the poor performers”) condition. Therefore, the potential

intervention of each of these variables would have been analyzed individually. However,

because earlier analysis had established that behavioral self-handicapping did not differ across

participants based on current financial support as a percent of total cost of college within the

threat condition (β = -.039, p = .654), the lack of the predicted interaction eliminated the

39
necessity to analyze potential intervening variables. Earlier analysis had also established that

claimed self-handicapping did not differ across participants based on current financial support as

a percent of total cost of college within the threat condition (β = .037, p = .668). Therefore, the

lack of the predicted interaction eliminated the necessity to analyze potential intervening

variables on claimed self-handicapping as well.

Gender & Self-handicapping

Behavioral self-handicapping. The effect of condition and gender, as well as their

interaction, on behavioral self-handicapping was compared using a 2x2 Factorial ANOVA.

Alone, neither gender [F (1,151) = .453, p = .502] nor condition [F (1,151) = 1.155, p = .284]

were found to have a statistically significant effect on behavioral self-handicapping. However,

the effect of the interaction between gender and condition was approaching significance [F

(1,151) = 3.362, p = .069]. Additionally, a Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variances found

that the data did not violate our assumption of homogeneity. Therefore, independent sample t-

tests were analyzed with the assumption of equal variances.

Analysis of the behavioral self-handicapping for participants who were in the no-threat

group and were male (n = 30) and participants who were in the threat group and were male (n =

23) was compared using an independent samples t-test. Results indicated the difference between

males in the no-threat group (M = 3.43, SD = 1.30) and males in the threat group (M = 4.04, SD

= 1.11) in behavioral self-handicapping (t51 = 1.800, p = .078) was approaching statistical

significance.

Analysis of the behavioral self-handicapping for participants who were in the no-threat

group and were female (n = 49) and participants who were in the threat group and were female (n

= 50) was compared using an independent samples t-test. Results indicated no statistically

40
significant difference between females in the no-threat group (M = 3.96, SD = 1.24) and females

in the threat group (M = 3.80, SD = 1.21) in behavioral self-handicapping (t97 = -.646, p = .520).

Claimed self-handicapping. The effect of condition and gender, as well as their

interaction, on claimed self-handicapping was compared using a 2x2 Factorial ANOVA. Gender

[F (1,151) = 6.877, p = .010] alone was found to have a statistically significant effect on claimed

self-handicapping. However, condition [F (1,151) = 2.650, p = .106] alone was not found to

have a statistically significant effect on claimed self-handicapping. Additionally, the effect of

the interaction between gender and condition [F (1,151) = .003, p = .959] not found to have a

statistically significant effect on claimed self-handicapping.

Gender, Subjective Socioeconomic Status & Self-handicapping

It was hypothesized that gender would not moderate the relationship between subjective

socioeconomic status and self-handicapping within the threat (“do not be one of the poor

performers”) condition. After centering gender (male coded as “-0.65” and female coded as

“0.35” to reflect the imbalanced groups, per Aiken & West, 1991), condition ( “threat” condition

coded as “-0.52” and “no-threat” condition coded as “0.48” to reflect the imbalanced groups),

subjective socioeconomic status, and claimed self-handicapping, these terms and their

interactions were entered in a multiple linear regression model, which was found to be

significant [F (7, 144) = 2.152, p = .042] and accounted for 9.5% of the observed variability in

self-handicapping. Gender predicted claimed self-handicapping (β = .187, p = .022), subjective

socioeconomic status predicted claimed self-handicapping (β = -.159, p = .050) and condition’s

ability to predict claimed self-handicapping was approaching significance (β = -.134, p = .097).

However, the ability of the three-way interaction of gender, subjective socioeconomic status, and

condition to predict claimed self-handicapping was not found to be statistically significant (β =

41
.005, p = .946). Therefore, we did not find evidence that gender moderated the relationship

between subjective socioeconomic status and claimed self-handicapping by condition.

Gender, Objective Childhood Socioeconomic Status & Self-handicapping

It was hypothesized that gender would not moderate the relationship between average

parental education at the age of fourteen and self-handicapping within the threat (“do not be one

of the poor performers”) condition. After centering gender (male coded as “-0.65” and female

coded as “0.35” to reflect the imbalanced groups, per Aiken & West, 1991), condition ( “threat”

condition coded as “-0.52” and “no-threat” condition coded as “0.48” to reflect the imbalanced

groups), average parental education at the age of fourteen, and claimed self-handicapping, these

terms and their interactions were analyzed in a multiple linear regression model, which was

found to be significant [F (7, 143) = 2.828, p = .009] and accounted for 12.2% of the observed

variability in self-handicapping. Gender predicted claimed self-handicapping (β = .209, p =

.010), average parental education at the age of fourteen did not predict claimed self-handicapping

(β = -.027, p = .744) and condition’s ability to predict claimed self-handicapping was

approaching significance (β = -.152, p = .060). However, the ability of the three-way interaction

of gender, average parental education at the age of fourteen, and condition to predict claimed

self-handicapping was not found to be statistically significant (β = -.105, p = .194). Therefore,

we did not find evidence that gender moderated the relationship between average parental

education at the age of fourteen and claimed self-handicapping by condition.

Gender, Objective Current Socioeconomic Status & Self-handicapping

It was hypothesized that gender would not moderate the relationship between current

financial support as a percent of total cost of college and self-handicapping within the threat (“do

not be one of the poor performers”) condition. After centering gender (male coded as “-0.65”

42
and female coded as “0.35” to reflect the imbalanced groups, per Aiken & West, 1991),

condition ( “threat” condition coded as “-0.52” and “no-threat” condition coded as “0.48” to

reflect the imbalanced groups), current financial support as a percent of total cost of college, and

claimed self-handicapping, these terms and their interaction were entered in a multiple linear

regression model, which was found to be significant [F (7, 144) = 3.007, p = .006] and accounted

for 12.8% of the observed variability in self-handicapping. Gender predicted claimed self-

handicapping (β = .208, p = .009), current financial support as a percent of total cost of college

did not predict self-handicapping (β = .060, p = .477) and condition’s ability to predict claimed

self-handicapping was approaching significance (β = -.139, p = .080). However, the ability of

the three-way interaction of gender, current financial support as a percent of total cost of college,

and condition to predict claimed self-handicapping was not found to be statistically significant (β

= -.107, p = .191). Therefore, we did not find evidence that gender moderated the relationship

between current financial support as a percent of total cost of college and claimed self-

handicapping by condition.

Discussion

The present study examined whether socioeconomic status predicts claimed and

behavioral self-handicapping. Because behaviors that could undermine performance are only

reflective of a self-handicapping attempt when they are used as a self-protective strategy, the

present study manipulated threat via the assigned task goal (performance-avoidance goal: “do not

be one of the poor performers” vs. mastery-approach goal: “do your best on the test and improve

your performance;” see also Tyser et al., 2012). Additionally, participants in both groups were

told that they were participating in an “intelligence test” and that the experimenter would provide

them with feedback of their performance.

43
 Independent-samples t-tests indicated that behavioral self-handicapping did not differ

between the “threat” and “no-threat” conditions. Claimed self-handicapping did not differ

between the “threat” and “no-threat” conditions, but this effect was approaching significance.

The lack of significant effects could be explained by findings on the manipulation checks. Task

importance, belief of what participants thought the CFIT is measuring, and perceived purpose of

the study all indicated that the participants did not differ across condition in their perception that

the task as an important measurement of intelligence designed to examine how noise impacts

performance on an intelligence test. Additionally, task importance did not differ across

conditions and was rated as highly important for all participants. The lack of significant

difference between conditions evidenced by the independent-samples t-tests indicated that the

phrasing of “intelligence test” that was used for both conditions undermined the manipulation of

performance-avoidance and mastery-approach goals. After all, numerous intelligence tests

purposefully avoid using the term “intelligence test” so as to avoid creating a threat as well as

inducing test anxiety (Sattler, Dumont, & Coalson, 2016, Sattler & Ryan, 2009). Furthermore,

the no-threat group chose an unexpectedly high rate of distracting noise but did not indicate an

unexpectedly high rate of stress. Therefore, it may have been the case that participants in both

conditions were operating under threat (i.e., there was not a true control group). This may

account for the lack of significant condition effects on the measures of self-handicapping,

particularly noise selection.

Subjective Socioeconomic Status & Self-handicapping

The possible manipulation failure may have contributed to the lack of an interaction with

subjective socioeconomic status on behavioral self-handicapping. The results did, however,

further support the two previous studies that we had performed which found a correlation

44
between socioeconomic status and the self-handicapping scale as well as both its claimed and

behavioral subscales. Subjective socioeconomic status was negatively correlated with the self-

handicapping scale, the claimed self-handicapping subscale, and was approaching significance

with the behavioral self-handicapping subscale. The finding that participants lower in subjective

socioeconomic status were claiming more stress than those higher in subjective socioeconomic

status, independent of condition, replicates and extends the findings from our two previous

studies.

Additionally, the fact that simple slopes analysis indicated that the effect of condition on

claimed self-handicapping tended to be stronger among low levels of subjective socioeconomic

status indicates that a stronger manipulation would be advisable. A more powerful manipulation

may have resulted in this relationship being found to be statistically significant. A stronger

manipulation is needed especially since the sample size did fall within the originally advised

parameter from the power analysis. In summation, if all participants are assumed to have

operated under threat, as previously mentioned, due to being instructed that they were taking not

only “a test” but a test of “intelligence” then it stands to reason that the elevated levels of

claimed stress are attributable to claimed self-handicapping. Thus, the results indicate that low

socioeconomic status individuals engage in more claimed self-handicapping behavior than other

individuals or that they at least start at a higher level of stress and engage in claimed self-

handicapping behavior as much as others.

Objective Childhood Socioeconomic Status & Self-handicapping

There were three measures used to assess objective childhood socioeconomic status, all

of which applied to recalling when the participant was fourteen years-old. However, two of the

methods proved to be ineffective.

45
 Parental occupation at the age of fourteen was problematic for two reasons. Occupations

are not an ordinal variable, but instead nominal. We attempted to address this issue by coding

occupations into subcategories, based on the subcategories created by the United States Census,

and then examining the relationships of these subcategories. However, there was so much

variability in listed occupations that these subcategories would have been too small for analysis.

Second, as mentioned earlier, household income per capita at the age of fourteen was

problematic due to method in which this data was gathered and thus deemed to be unacceptable

for meaningful analysis.

Therefore, only average parental education at the age of fourteen offered a representation

of objective childhood socioeconomic status. However, as mentioned earlier, while parental

education is indicative of skills for acquiring social and economic resources, it is not as symbolic

of prestige/responsibilities or spending power/resource availability as occupation and income

are, respectively (Adler & Ostrove, 1998; Boocock, 1972; Liberatos, Link, & Kelsey, 1988;

White, 1982). Average parental education at the age of fourteen was negatively correlated with

the self-handicapping scale and was approaching significance with both the claimed and the

behavioral self-handicapping subscales.

However, independent of condition, average parental education was not correlated with

either claimed or behavioral self-handicapping. As mentioned before, it appeared that all

participants were operating under a threat and there was not a true control group. Thus, the

finding that the interaction impact of average parental education at the age of fourteen on

claimed self-handicapping did differ across condition so that higher average parental education at

the age of fourteen appeared to self-handicap more was especially surprising.

46
 This seems to be counter to our previous findings that subjective socioeconomic status is

negatively correlated with self-handicapping. Additionally, other data from this study seems to

support these previous findings, as long as we are operating under the idea that the manipulation

created a threat for participants in both conditions. Therefore, it is odd that higher average

parental education at the age of fourteen appeared to self-handicap more. However, it is possible

that the “threat” condition was more effective for individuals whose parents achieved higher

levels of education. Although all participants were told that their performance on the

intelligence task was indictive of career success, participants whose parents achieved higher

levels of education may have been more susceptible to this information as a threat. Therefore,

participants whose parents achieved higher levels of education may have been especially

sensitive to the information, provided in the “non-threat condition,” that they could improve their

scores with experience so that they were less threatened than others.

This could have created a larger threat in individuals whose parents have already

achieved college success due to a parental expectation that their children will do the same.

Additionally, this explanation is supported by the fact that, independent of condition, average

parental education’s negative correlation with claimed self-handicapping was approaching

significance.

Objective Current Socioeconomic Status & Self-handicapping

There were three methods that we utilized to assess objective current socioeconomic

status. Average current education was not utilized to measure objective current socioeconomic

status, because all participants were current undergraduate students. However, as with childhood

objective socioeconomic status, two of the methods proved to be ineffective.

47
 Firstly, as mentioned earlier, current occupation was problematic due being a nominal

variable as well as the lack of variability in our participants’ occupations outside of full-time

student. Secondly, as mentioned earlier, current household income per capita was problematic

due to method in which this data was gathered and thus deemed to be unacceptable for

meaningful analysis.

However, current financial support as a percent of total cost of college was able to be

calculated from a combination of financial support from parents and own employment divided

by the individual’s expected annual cost of college. Thus, we attempted to utilize this as a

representation of current objective socioeconomic status. Current financial support as a percent

of total cost of college was not correlated with the self-handicapping scale nor either the

behavioral or claimed subscales. Additionally, current financial support as a percent of total cost

of college was not correlated with behavioral or claimed self-handicapping, irrespective of

condition. Finally, the interaction impact of condition and current financial support as a percent

of total cost of college failed to predict either claimed or behavioral self-handicapping.

This was most likely due to two factors. Firstly, there was insufficient variability among

current financial support as a percent of total cost of college as 91.4% of participants indicated

that their current financial support as a percent of total cost of college was under 50%, which was

indicative of the second problem. Secondly, current financial support as a percent of total cost of

college was not a good representation of objective current socioeconomic status. Current

financial support as a percent of total cost of college assumes that all participants are operating

under the same amount of non-parental or self-funding, which is a fundamentally flawed

assumption. Therefore, we lacked an adequate operational definition of objective current

socioeconomic status.

48
Potential Intervening Variables of Subjective Socioeconomic Status & Self-handicapping

The lack of a significant relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and

behavioral self-handicapping within the threat condition negated the need to explore potential

intervening variables. Although there was a lack of a significant relationship between subjective

socioeconomic status and claimed self-handicapping within the threat condition, the effect of

condition on claimed self-handicapping when an individual had low levels of subjective

socioeconomic status was approaching significance. Additionally, our previous research had

established a negative correlation between subjective socioeconomic status and claimed self-

handicapping. This was supported by the current data when collapsing across conditions.

Therefore, potential intervening variables of the correlation between subjective socioeconomic

status and claimed self-handicapping, regardless of condition, were analyzed.

Baron and Kenny’s (1986) seminal work on intervening variables indicates that an

intervening relationship can only exist if there is a significant relationship between the

independent variable (subjective socioeconomic status) and a potential intervening variable as

well as the potential intervening variable and the dependent variable (claimed self-

handicapping). Therefore, only potential intervening variables that correlated with subjective

socioeconomic status (results in Appendix X) as well as claimed self-handicapping (results in

Appendix Z) received further analysis. Only self-control, self-esteem, neuroticism, childhood

stress, promotion regulatory focus, and ADHD-inattention were found to have correlations that

were significant with both, and thus were the only possible intervening variables of the

relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and self-handicapping.

Self-control was positively correlated with subjective socioeconomic status and

negatively correlated with claimed self-handicapping. Self-control was found to potentially

49
intervene in the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and claimed self-

handicapping in the model, regardless of condition. A bootstrap approach indicated that the

indirect effect though was marginal. The bootstrapped 95% confidence interval is right on the

margin of including zero and Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach for intervening variables

indicated self-control alone predicted claimed self-handicapping, while subjective

socioeconomic status was approaching statistical significance. Therefore, self-control is a

plausible intervening variable and further examination of self-control’s potential intervention in

the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and self-handicapping is

recommended. Self-handicapping is a short-term defense mechanism (e.g. Ferrari, 1991) and

individuals who are lower in socioeconomic status are often more short-term goal oriented (e.g.

Freire et al., 1980), therefore self-control’s potential intervention in the relationship between

subjective socioeconomic status and claimed self-handicapping has theoretical support.

Self-esteem was positively correlated with subjective socioeconomic status and

negatively correlated with claimed self-handicapping. Self-esteem was found to potentially

intervene in the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and claimed self-

handicapping using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach for intervening variables, regardless of

condition. A bootstrap approach indicated that self-esteem did intervene in the relationship

between subjective socioeconomic status and self-handicapping. Therefore, individuals who are

lower in subjective socioeconomic status have lower self-esteem and are more likely to utilize

claimed self-handicapping. Self-handicapping is often viewed as a way to shield one’s self-

esteem, because higher self-esteem is associated with positive affect. Whereas, individuals who

are lower in socioeconomic status may have lower self-esteem due to feeling as if they fall

further from the “most ideal, valued, and accepted social class.” Therefore, self-esteem’s

50
intervention of the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and claimed self-

handicapping, therefore, has theoretical support.

Neuroticism was negatively correlated with subjective socioeconomic status and

positively correlated with claimed self-handicapping. Neuroticism was found to potentially

intervene in the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and claimed self-

handicapping using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach for intervening variables, regardless of

condition. A bootstrap approach indicated that neuroticism did intervene in the relationship

between subjective socioeconomic status and self-handicapping. Therefore, individuals who are

lower in subjective socioeconomic status have more neuroticism and are more likely to utilize

claimed self-handicapping. Previous research has found that neuroticism is not only related to

negative affect (Miller, Vachon, & Lyman, 2009), but is also correlated with self-handicapping

(Ross, Canada, & Rausch, 2002) which indicates that neuroticism’s intervention of the

relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and claimed self-handicapping is at least

partially driven by its strong positive correlation with self-handicapping. However, our findings

also indicate that neuroticism is strongly negatively correlated with subjective socioeconomic

status.

Childhood stress was negatively correlated with subjective socioeconomic status and

positively correlated with claimed self-handicapping. Childhood stress was not found to

potentially intervene in the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and claimed

self-handicapping using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach for intervening variables,

regardless of condition. A bootstrap approach indicated that childhood stress did not intervene in

the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and self-handicapping.

51
 Promotion regulatory focus was positively correlated with subjective socioeconomic

status and negatively correlated with claimed self-handicapping. Promotion regulatory focus

was found to potentially intervene in the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status

and claimed self-handicapping using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach for intervening

variables, regardless of condition. A bootstrap approach indicated that promotion regulatory

focus did intervene in the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and self-

handicapping. Therefore, individuals who are lower in subjective socioeconomic status have less

promotion regulatory focus and are more likely to utilize claimed self-handicapping. Self-

handicapping is often viewed as a way to shield oneself from potential blame for failure

therefore it makes theoretical sense that promotion regulatory focus is strongly negatively

correlated with claimed self-handicapping. Additionally, it makes theoretical sense that those

who are higher in subjective socioeconomic status are promotion regulatory focused as they are

focused on how much further they can climb on the subjective socioeconomic status, while those

who are lower in subjective socioeconomic status would have less promotion regulatory focus as

they be trying to avoid slipping further down the subjective socioeconomic status ladder, which

would be representative of a short-term orientation.

ADHD-inattention was negatively correlated with subjective socioeconomic status and

positively correlated with claimed self-handicapping. ADHD-inattention was found to

potentially intervene in the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and claimed

self-handicapping using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach for intervening variables,

regardless of condition. A bootstrap approach indicated that ADHD-inattention may not

intervene in the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and self-handicapping.

However, because the bootstrapped 95% confidence interval is right on the margin of including

52
zero and Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach for intervening variables indicated self-control

alone predicted claimed self-handicapping, while subjective socioeconomic status was

approaching statistical significance; ADHD-inattention is a plausible intervening variable. As

mentioned earlier, not only is self-handicapping is a short-term defense mechanism (e.g. Ferrari,

1991), but individuals who are lower in socioeconomic status are often more short-term goal

oriented (e.g. Freire et al., 1980). Therefore, ADHD-inattention’s potential intervention of the

relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and claimed self-handicapping has

theoretical support. Thus, further analysis of ADHD-inattention’s potential intervention of the

relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and self-handicapping is recommended.

Previous research has shown that ADHD and self-handicapping are correlated (Jaconis et

al., 2016; Waschbusch et al., 2007), also self-handicapping is a short-term defense mechanism

and ADHD-inattention indicates one’s inability to pay attention. Additionally, individuals who

are lower in socioeconomic status are often more short-term goal oriented, therefore ADHD-

inattention’s potential intervention of the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status

and claimed self-handicapping has theoretical support.

Overall, although individuals who are lower in socioeconomic status may start at a higher

level of stress and engage in claimed self-handicapping behavior as much as others, the potential

intervening variables of: self-control, self-esteem, neuroticism, promotion regulatory focus, and

ADHD-inattention indicate that individuals who are lower in socioeconomic status engage in

more claimed self-handicapping behavior than other individuals. Additionally, these potential

intervening variables suggest that the relationship between socioeconomic status and self-

handicapping is potentially driven by two main factors: short-term orientation as well as negative

affect. As mentioned earlier subjective socioeconomic status is negatively correlated with self-

53
esteem and neuroticism, thus indicating that socioeconomic status is positively associated with

negative affect. Subjective socioeconomic status is negatively correlated with self-control as

well as promotion regulatory focus and positively correlated with ADHD-inattention, thus

indicating that socioeconomic status is negatively associated with short-term orientation.

Additionally, as mentioned earlier, there is theoretical support for both of these assertions.

Therefore, it seems negative affect and short-term orientation might be the primary intervening

variables of the relationship between socioeconomic status and self-handicapping.

Potential Intervening Variables of Average Parental Education at the Age of Fourteen &

Self-handicapping

The lack of a significant relationship between average parental education at the age of

fourteen and behavioral self-handicapping within the threat condition negated the need to explore

potential intervening variables, as a relationship must be significant to have an intervening

variable. The significant relationship between average parental education at the age of fourteen

and claimed self-handicapping within the threat condition necessitated the exploration of

potential intervening variables. An intervening variable can only exist if there is a significant

relationship between the independent variable (average parental education at the age of fourteen)

and a potential intervening variable as well as the potential intervening variable and the

dependent variable (claimed self-handicapping) (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Therefore, only

potential intervening variables who correlated with average parental education at the age of

fourteen (results in Appendix Y) as well as with claimed self-handicapping, within the threat

condition would qualify as intervening variables. However, none of the potential intervening

variables were found to have correlations with both that were significant or approaching

significance and thus no further analysis was necessary.

54
Potential Intervening Variables of Current Financial Support as a Percent of Total Cost of

College & Self-handicapping

The analysis indicated that there was no interaction of current financial support as a

percent of total cost of college by condition on either claimed or behavioral self-handicapping.

This indicated that life history, impulsivity, self-control, self-esteem, Big Five personality traits,

childhood stress, narcissism, regulatory focus, effort beliefs, self-absorption, or fluid intelligence

beliefs could not intervene in this relationship. The lack of a significant relationship between

current financial support as a percent of total cost of college within condition and self-

handicapping precluding the ability for the existence of an intervening variable.

Gender & Self-handicapping Across Subjective Socioeconomic Status, Average Parental

Education at the Age of Fourteen, & Current Financial Support as a Percent of Total Cost

of College

Other researchers have previously shown that females tend to only display claimed self-

handicapping (McCrea, Hirt, & Milner, 2008). However, based on our preliminary research we

expected socioeconomic status to moderate self-handicapping behavior independent of gender.

None of the three types of socioeconomic status measured (subjective socioeconomic status,

average parental education at the age of fourteen, or current financial support as a percent of total

cost of college) significantly interacted with gender and condition. Indeed, the interaction of

condition and gender was not significant for claimed self-handicapping. The interaction of

condition and gender was approaching significance for behavioral self-handicapping. Further

analysis was approaching statistical significance to indicate that males were behaviorally self-

handicapping, while females were not. Additionally, there was no difference in behavioral self-

55
handicapping between males and females in the threat group or males and females in the no-

threat group.

Independent of condition, gender predicted claimed self-handicapping, so that females

were more likely to engage in claimed self-handicapping than males. There were no significant

interactions of gender with any of the three types of gathered socioeconomic status (subjective

socioeconomic status, average parental education at the age of fourteen, and current financial

support as a percent of total cost of college) for claimed or behavioral self-handicapping. These

findings provide further evidence to other researchers’ findings that females are more likely to

utilize claimed self-handicapping (e.g., DeGree & Snyder, 1985; Smith et al., 1982; Smith et al.,

1983). Also, these findings provide further support that the manipulation failed to create a

distinct enough difference and that failure to find support for our hypotheses regarding

socioeconomic status and self-handicapping was attributable to true population differences being

obscured by this weak manipulation.

Limitations and Recommendations

Although our research provided insight into and support for our previous work on

socioeconomic status and self-handicapping as well as others work on gender and self-

handicapping, the current study had three primary limitations.

Firstly, our manipulation proved flawed as all participants were operating under a

“threat” condition resulting in the lack of a true control group. Therefore, future research should

make sure to account for the threat of an “intelligence test” and confirm that the manipulation

creates a true control group.

Secondly, our attempt to gather an accurate representation of the income portion of

objective socioeconomic status was undermined by the lack of a true maximum value.

56
Therefore, future attempts to gather objective socioeconomic status should utilize more exact

income measures to avoid having to include large variability within one subgroup. This can be

achieved either via asking for exact numbers (which we avoided due to people’s desire to be

overly precise and therefore resulting in less representative data) or by having more subgroups

(i.e., instead of grouping every household that is over $100,000 together, continue to have

$10,000 increments to a much larger number).

Thirdly, our attempt to gather an accurate representation of the occupation portion of

objective socioeconomic status was undermined by the both the abundance of (in the case of

parental occupation at fourteen) and lack of (in the case of current occupation of our participants)

variability in occupations. Therefore, there is a need for a better way to categorize occupations,

due to variability.

Implications & Future Directions

The present research project provided support for previous research as well as indicated

that continued exploration is advisable. Firstly, the main hypothesis that socioeconomic status

and self-handicapping are inversely correlated did receive support from our findings.

Specifically, participants lower in subjective socioeconomic status were claiming more stress

than those higher in subjective socioeconomic status, irrespective of condition. Simple slopes

analysis indicated a nonsignificant effect of condition on claimed self-handicapping among

lower levels of subjective socioeconomic status. This may be indicative of higher prior levels of

stress in lower socioeconomic status individuals rather than a strategic attempt to self-handicap.

However, the overall effect of subjective socioeconomic status on claimed self-handicapping did

seem stronger in the threat condition. Additional support for these increased stress reports as

representative of self-handicapping behavior will require further study. Therefore, it may be

57
advisable to utilize a measure of claimed self-handicapping other than stress. Specifically, mood

(Baumgardner et al., 1985), shyness (Snyder & Smith, 1986), illness (Rhodewalt et al., 1984),

and unfavorable performance settings (Rhodewalt & Davidson, 1986) can be utilized as a form

of claimed self-handicapping. Additionally, measuring participant stress during a prescreener

could serve as a baseline to control for higher prior levels of stress.

Subjective socioeconomic status was also negatively correlated with the self-

handicapping scale, the claimed subset of the self-handicapping scale, and was approaching

significance with the behavioral subset of the self-handicapping scale. This provides further

support to the findings in our previous two studies regarding subjective socioeconomic status and

self-handicapping scale. Additionally, the significant interventions from self-esteem,

neuroticism, and promotion regulatory focus as well as the potential interventions from self-

control & ADHD-inattention on the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and

self-handicapping scale are evidence that lower socioeconomic status is associated with both

short-term oriented behavior as well as negative affect. Therefore, these potential intervening

variables should be researched further.

Secondly, the results from average parental education at the age of fourteen indicated that

individuals whose parents have already achieved academic success in their secondary education

are more susceptible to self-handicapping when their own potential academic success in college

is threatened. However, the findings that, independent of condition, the negative correlation

between average parental education at the age of fourteen and both claimed as well as behavioral

self-handicapping was approaching significance, provides further support for our main

hypothesis that socioeconomic status and self-handicapping are inversely correlated. Therefore,

future research should explore the relationship between average parental education at the age of

58
fourteen and both claimed as well as behavioral self-handicapping further, as well as the

potential implications of this threat to first-generation college students.

Thirdly, the results provided further support for the previously established gender effects

in self-handicapping (e.g., McCrea et al., 2008b; McCrea & Flamm, 2012; Rhodewalt &

Davidson, 1986) and the previously established worker scale (McCrea et al., 2008a). These

findings show that males tend to behaviorally self-handicap more, while females tended to utilize

claimed self-handicapping more, score higher on the claimed self-handicapping subscale, and

avoid behavioral self-handicapping.

In conclusion, it is highly advisable to attempt this study with a stronger manipulation to

create a true control group as well as utilizing a more naturalistic manipulation to increase

external validity and increase the threat. Both of these studies will need to utilize better

operational definitions of objective childhood and current objective socioeconomic status.

Replicating this research project with one group operating under the threat of an “intelligence

test” and the other group operating under no threat by completing a “puzzle game” would create

a stronger manipulation and provide the opportunity for further exploration of the potential

intervening variables of subjective socioeconomic status. Additionally, despite being utilized in

previous research, the use of noise as a measure of behavioral self-handicapping may not have

been ideal. As mentioned earlier, we found that participants in our prescreener had a naïve belief

that music would help their performance on the intelligence test. Therefore, we are currently

performing a longitudinal study of participants’ socioeconomic status and their self-handicapping

in the classroom as a naturalistic study. This will provide us the opportunity to not only utilize a

more realistic and reliable measure of behavioral self-handicapping, but also eliminate the need

to artificially create threat to elicit the self-protective strategy that is self-handicapping.

59
 References

Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and

objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data

in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586-592.

Adler, N. E., & Ostrove, J. M. (1999). Socioeconomic status and health: what we know and what

we don't. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 896(1), 3-15.

Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting

interactions. Sage.

Akinbami, L.J., Liu, X., Pastor, P.N., & Reuben, C.A. (2011). Attention deficit hyperactivity

disorder among children aged 5–17 years in the United States, 1998–2009. NCHS Data

Brief, 70, 1–8.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

(DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub.

American Psychological Association, Task Force on Socioeconomic Status. (2007). Report of

the APA Task Force on Socioeconomic Status. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Anderson, C., Kraus, M. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Keltner, D. (2012). The local-ladder effect:

Social status and subjective well-being. Psychological Science, 23(7), 764-771.

Arkin, R. M., & Baumgardner, A. H. (1985). Self-handicapping. In J. H. Harvey & G. W.

Weary (Eds.), Attribution: Basic issues and applications (pp.169-202). San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited (Vol. 1). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

60
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Baumgardner, A. H., Lake, E. A., & Arkin, R. M. (1985). Claiming mood as a self-handicap:

The influence of spoiled and unspoiled public identities. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 11(4), 349-357.

Beck, B. L., Koons, S. R., & Milgrim, D. L. (2000). Correlates and consequences of behavioral

procrastination: The effects of academic procrastination, self-consciousness, self-esteem

and self-handicapping. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15(5), 3-13.

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(4), 405-417.

Biederman J, Faraone SV, Monuteaux MC. Differential effect of environmental adversity by

gender: Rutter's index of adversity in a group of boys and girls with and without ADHD.

The American journal of psychiatry. 2002; 159(9):1556–1562.

Boardman, J. D., Finch, B. K., Ellison, C. G., Williams, D. R., & Jackson, J. S. (2001).

Neighborhood disadvantage, stress, and drug use among adults. Journal of health and

social behavior, 151-165.

Bobo, J. L., Whitaker, K. C., & Strunk, K. K. (2013). Personality and student self-handicapping:

A cross-validated regression approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(5),

619-621.

Boocock, S. S. An introduction to the sociology of learning. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1972.

Boyce, W., Torsheim, T., Currie, C., & Zambon, A. (2006). The family affluence scale as a

measure of national wealth: validation of an adolescent self-report measure. Social

61
 indicators research, 78(3), 473-487.

Brumbach, B. H., Figueredo, A. J., & Ellis, B. J. (2009). Effects of harsh and unpredictable

environments in adolescence on development of life history strategies: a longitudinal test

of an evolutionary model. Human Nature, 20, 25–51.

Burka, J. B., & Yuen, L. M. (1983). Procrastination. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Butler-Barnes, S. T., Williams, T. T., & Chavous, T. M. (2012). Racial pride and religiosity

among African American boys: Implications for academic motivation and achievement.

Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 41, 486-498.

Cabrera, A. F., Castaneda, M. B., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. (1992). The convergence between

two theories of college persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 63(2), 143-164.

Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1992). The role of finances in the persistence

process: A structural model. Research in Higher Education, 33(5), 571-593.

Cattell, R. B., & Cattell, A. K. S. (1961). Test of “g”: Culture fair intelligence test. Champaign,

IL: The Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Charach, A., Dashti, B., Carson, P., Booker, L., Lim, C. G., Lillie, E, & Schachar, R. (2011).

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Effectiveness of treatment in at-risk

preschoolers. Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 44. (AHRQ Publication No.

12EHC003-EF). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Chen, X. (2005). First Generation Students in Postsecondary Education: A Look at Their College

Transcripts (NCES 2005–171). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Chen, B. B., & Chang, L. (2016). Procrastination as a fast life history strategy. Evolutionary

Psychology, 14(1), 1-5.

62
Chen, E., & Paterson, L. Q. (2006). Neighborhood, family, and subjective socioeconomic status:

How do they relate to adolescent health?. Health Psychology, 25(6), 704-714.

Choy, S.P. (2001). Findings from the Condition of Education 2001: Students Whose Parents Did

Not Go to College: Postsecondary Access, Persistence, and Attainment (NCES2001-126).

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Cirino, P. T., Chin, C. E., Sevcik, R. A., Wolf, M., Lovett, M., & Morris, R. D. (2002).

Measuring socioeconomic status: reliability and preliminary validity for different

approaches. Assessment, 9(2), 145-155.

Cohen, S., Alper, C., Adler, N., Treanor, J. J., & Turner, R. B. (2008). Objective and subjective

socioeconomic status and susceptibility to the common cold. Health Psychology, 27(2),

268-274.

Coudevylle, G. R., Ginis, K. A. M., & Famose, J. P. (2008). Determinants of self-handicapping

strategies in sport and their effects on athletic performance. Social Behavior and

Personality: An International Journal, 36(3), 391-398.

Crowley, J. E. (1991). Educational status and drinking patterns: How representative are college

students?. Journal of studies on alcohol, 52(1), 10-16.

Cummins, R. O., Shaper, A. G., Walker, M., & Wale, C. J. (1981). Smoking and drinking by

middle-aged British men: effects of social class and town of residence. Br Med J (Clin

Res Ed), 283(6305), 1497-1502.

Daniel, J. Z., Hickman, M., Macleod, J., Wiles, N., Lingford‐Hughes, A. N. N. E., Farrell, M., ...

& Lewis, G. (2009). Is socioeconomic status in early life associated with drug use? A

systematic review of the evidence. Drug and alcohol review, 28(2), 142-153.

63
DeGree, C. E., & Snyder, C. R. (1985). Adler’s, psychology (of use) today: Personal history of

traumatic life events as a self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 48(6), 1512-1519.

Del Giudice, M., Ellis, B. J., & Shirtcliff, E. A. (2011). The adaptive calibration model of stress

responsivity. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 1562–1592.

Demakakos, P., Nazroo, J., Breeze, E., & Marmot, M. (2008). Socioeconomic status and health:

the role of subjective social status. Social Science & Medicine, 67(2), 330-340.

Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental support,

and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation college

students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 223-236.

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(4), 868-876.

Dietrich, D. (1995). Gender differences in self-handicapping: Regardless of academic or social

competence implications. Social Behavior and Personality: An International

Journal, 23(4), 403-410.

Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C.-y., & Hong, Y.-y. (1995). Implicit theories: Elaboration and extension of

the model. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 322-333.

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational

psychologist, 34(3), 169-189.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (2003). A motivational analysis of defensive pessimism and self

handicapping. Journal of personality, 71(3), 369-396.

Elliot, A. J., Cury, F., Fryer, J. W., & Huguet, P. (2006). Achievement goals, self-handicapping,

64
 and performance attainment: A mediational analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise

Psychology, 28(3), 344-361.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2× 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of

personality and social psychology, 80(3), 501-519.

Feldt, R. C. (2008). Development of a brief measure of college stress: The college student stress

scale. Psychological Reports, 102(3), 855-860.

Ferrari, J. R. (1991). Self-handicapping by procrastinators: Protecting self-esteem, social

esteem, or both?. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 245–261.

Ferrari, J.R. (1992). Procrastinators and perfect behavior: An exploratory factor analysis of self

presentation, self-awareness, and self-handicapping components. Journal of Research in

Personality, 26, 75–84.

Ferrari, J. R., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Procrastination as a self-handicap for men and women: A

task-avoidance strategy in a laboratory setting. Journal of Research in personality, 34(1),

73-83.

Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., Sefcek, J. A., Kirsner, B. R., & Jacobs, W. J.

(2005). The K-factor: Individual differences in life history strategy. Personality and

Individual Differences, 39, 1349–1360.

Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., Schneider, S. M., Sefcek, J. A., Tal, I. R., ... &

Jacobs, W. J. (2006). Consilience and life history theory: From genes to brain to

reproductive strategy. Developmental Review, 26(2), 243-275.

Finez, L., Beriot, S., Rosnet, E. L., Cleveland, C., & Tice, D. M. (2012). Trait self-esteem and

claimed self-handicapping motive in sports situations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(16),

1757-1765.

65
Finez, L., & Sherman, D. K. (2012). Train in vain: The role of the self in claimed self-

handicapping strategies. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34(5), 600-620.

Freire, E., Gormana, B., & Wessman, A. E. (1980). Temporal span, delay of gratification, and

children's socioeconomic status. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 137(2), 247-255.

Froehlich, T.E., Lanphear, B.P., Epstein, J.N., Barbaresi, W.J., Katusic, S.K., & Kahn, R.S.

(2007). Prevalence, recognition, and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

in a national sample of US children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine,

161, 857–864.

Fuertes, J. N., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1994). Using the SAT and noncognitive variables to predict

the grades and retention of Asian American university students. Measurement &

Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 27, 74-85.

Gadbois, S. A., & Sturgeon, R. D. (2011). Academic self-handicapping: Relationships with

learning specific and general self-perceptions and academic performance over time.

British Journal of educational Psychology, 81(2), 207-222.

Giles-Corti, B., & Donovan, R. J. (2002). Socioeconomic status differences in recreational

physical activity levels and real and perceived access to a supportive physical

environment. Preventive medicine, 35(6), 601-611.

Gladden, P. R., Figueredo, A. J., & Jacobs, W. J. (2009). Life history strategy, psychopathic

attitudes, personality, and general intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences,

46, 270–275.

Goodman, E., & Huang, B. (2002). Socioeconomic status, depressive symptoms, and adolescent

substance use. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 156(5), 448-453.

Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five

66
 personality domains. Journal of Research in personality, 37(6), 504-528.

Griskevicius, V., Ackerman, J. A., Cantú, S. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., Simpson, J. A.,

. . . Tybur, J. M. (2013). When the economy falters do people spend or save? Responses

to resource scarcity depend on childhood environment. Psychological Science, 24, 197-

205.

Griskevicius, V., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., & Tybur, J. M. (2011). Environmental

contingency in life history strategies: the influence of mortality and socioeconomic status

on reproductive timing. Journal of personality and social psychology, 100(2), 241-254.

Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Delton, A. W., & Robertson, T. E. (2011). The influence of

mortality and socioeconomic status on risk and delayed rewards: a life history theory

approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 100(6), 1015-1026.

Hamilton, L. T. (2013). More is more or more is less? Parental financial investments during

college. American Sociological Review, 78(1), 70-95.

Hamilton, H. A., Noh, S., & Adlaf, E. M. (2009). Perceived financial status, health, and

maladjustment in adolescence. Social Science & Medicine, 68(8), 1527-1534.

Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001).

Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus

prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3-23.

Higgins, R. L., & Harris, R. N. (1988). Strategic “alcohol” use: Drinking to self

handicap. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6(2), 191-202.

Hill, S. E., Rodeheffer, C. D., DelPriore, D. J., & Butterfield, M. E. (2013). Ecological

contingencies in women's calorie regulation psychology: A life history approach. Journal

of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 888-897.

67
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(1), 177-193.

Hochstein, S. K., & Butler, R. R. (1983). The effects of the composition of a financial aids

package on student retention. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 13(1), 21–27.

Hoffmann, J. P. (2002). The community context of family structure and adolescent drug

use. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 314-330.

Hostinar, C. E., Johnson, A. E., & Gunnar, M. R. (2015). Early social deprivation and the social

buffering of cortisol stress responses in late childhood: An experimental study.

Developmental Psychology, 51, 1597–1698.

Hulshof, K. F., Löwik, M. R., Kok, F. J., Wedel, M., Brants, H. A., Hermus, R. J., & Ten Hoor,

F. (1991). Diet and other life-style factors in high and low socio-economic groups (Dutch

Nutrition Surveillance System). European journal of clinical nutrition, 45(9), 441-450.

Inman, W. E., & Mayes, L. (1999). The importance of being first: Unique characteristics of first

generation community college students. Community College Review, 26(4), 3-22.

Ishitani, T. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation

college students in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 861-885.

Jackman, M. R., & Jackman, R. W. (1973). An interpretation of the relation between objective

and subjective social status. American Sociological Review, 569-582.

Jaconis, M., Boyd, S. J., Hartung, C., McCrea, S. M., Canu, W. H., Lefler, E. K. (2016). Sex

differences in claimed and behavioral self-handicapping and ADHD

symptomatology. ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders, 8, 205-214.

Jones, E. E., & Berglas, S. (1978). Control of attributions about the self through self

68
 handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and the role of

underachievement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(2), 200-206.

Jones, E. B., & Jackson, J. D. (1990). College grades and labor market rewards. The Journal of

Human Resources, 25(2), 253-266.

Jones, E. E., & Rhodewalt, F. (1982). The Self-Handicapping Scale. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University.

Jones-Webb, R., Snowden, L., Herd, D., Short, B., & Hannan, P. (1997). Alcohol-related

problems among black, Hispanic and white men: the contribution of neighborhood

poverty. Journal of studies on alcohol, 58(5), 539-545.

Kerr, Barbara A., Multon, Karen D., Syme, Maggie L., Fry, Nancy M., Owens, Rhea, Hammond,

Marie, & Robinson-Kurpius, Sharon. (2012). Development of the Distance from

Privilege measures: A tool for understanding the persistence of talented women in

STEM. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Vol 30(1), 88-102.

Kim, Y., Chiu, C, & Zou, A. (2010). Know thyself: Misperceptions of actual performance

undermine achievement motivation, future performance, and subjective well-being.

Attitudes and Social Cognition, 99(3), 395-409.

Kimble, C. E., & Hirt, E. R. (2005). Self-focus, gender, and habitual self-handicapping: Do they

make a difference in behavioral self-handicapping?. Social Behavior and Personality: An

International Journal, 33(1), 43-56.

Kimble, C. E., Kimble, E. A., & Croy, N. A. (1998). Development of self-handicapping

tendencies. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138(4), 524-534.

Kinston, S., Huang, K. Y., Calzada, E., Dawson-McClure, S., Brotman, L. (2013). Parent

involvement in educationas a moderator of family and neighborhood socioeconomic

69
 context on school readiness among young children. Journal of Community Psychology,

41(3), 265-276.

Knight, W. E., & Arnold, W. (2000). Towards a Comprehensive Predictive Model of Time to

Bachelor's Degree Attainment. AIR 2000 Annual Forum Paper.

Knupfer, G. (1989). The prevalence in various social groups of eight different drinking patterns,

from abstaining to frequent drunkenness: analysis of 10 US surveys combined.

Addiction, 84(11), 1305-1318.

Kolditz, T. A., & Arkin, R. M. (1982). An impression management interpretation of the self

handicapping strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 492-502.

Kolenikov, S., & Angeles, G. (2009). Socioeconomic status measurement with discrete proxy

variables: Is principal component analysis a reliable answer?. Review of Income and

Wealth, 55(1), 128-165.

Konrath, S., Meier, B. P., & Bushman, B. J. (2014). Development and validation of the single

item narcissism scale (SINS). PLOS one, 9(8), e103469.

Kovaleva, A., Beierlein, C., Kemper, C. J., & Rammstedt, B. (2012). Eine Kurzskala zur

Messung von Impulsivität nach dem UPPS-Ansatz: Die Skala Impulsives-Verhalten-8 (I

8).

Krieger, N., Okamoto, A., & Selby, J. V. (1998). Adult female twins' recall of childhood social

class and father's education: a validation study for public health research. American

Journal of Epidemiology, 147(7), 704-708.

Lay, C. H. (1994). Trait procrastination and affective experiences: Describing past study

behavior and its relation to agitation and dejection. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 269-284.

Lam, L. T. (1999, May). Assessing financial aid impacts on time-to-degree for nontransfer

70
 undergraduate students at a large urban public university. In 39th Annual Forum of the

Association for Institutional Research, Seattle, WA.

Lay, C. H., Knish, S., & Zanata, R. (1992). Self-handicapping and procrastinators: A comparison

of their practice behavior prior to an evaluation. Journal of Research in Personality, 26,

242–257.

Leary, M. R. (1986). The impact of interactional impediments on social anxiety and self

presentation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(2), 122-135.

Leary, M. R., & Shepperd, J. A. (1986). Behavioral self-handicaps versus self-reported

self-handicaps: A conceptual note. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6),

1265-1268.

Leondari, A., & Gonida, E. (2007). Predicting academic self-handicapping in different age

groups: The role of personal achievement goals and social goals. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 77(3), 595-611.

Liberatos, P., Link, B. G., & Kelsey, J. L. (1988). The measurement of social class in

epidemiology. Epidemiologic reviews, 10(1), 87-121.

Lopez, G. (2001). The value of hard work: Lessons on parent involvement from an (im)migrant

household. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 416-437.

Loury, L. D., & Garman, D. (1995). College selectivity and earnings. Journal of labor

Economics, 13(2), 289-308.

Lovejoy, C. M., & Durik, A. M. (2010). Self-handicapping: The interplay between self-set and

assigned achievement goals. Motivation and Emotion, 34(3), 242-252.

Lupien, S. J., King, S., Meaney, M. J., & McEwen, B. S. (2000). Child’s stress hormone levels

correlate with mother’s socioeconomic status and depressive state. Biological

71
 psychiatry, 48(10), 976-980.

Lupien, S. P., Seery, M. D., & Almonte, J. L. (2010). Discrepant and congruent high self-esteem:

Behavioral self-handicapping as a preemptive defensive strategy. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1105-1108.

Mayerson, N. H., & Rhodewalt, F. (1988). The role of self-protective attributions in the

experience of pain. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6(2), 203-218.

McCrea, S. M., & Flamm, A. (2012). Dysfunctional anticipatory thoughts and the self

handicapping strategy. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1), 72-81.

McCrea, S. M., Hirt, E. R., Hendrix, K. L., Milner, B. J., & Steele, N. L. (2008a). The worker

scale: Developing a measure to explain gender differences in behavioral self

handicapping. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), 949-970.

McCrea, S. M., Hirt, E. R., & Milner, B. J. (2008b). She works hard for the money: Valuing

effort underlies gender differences in behavioral self-handicapping. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 44(2), 292-311.

McEwen, B. S., & Gianaros, P. J. (2010). Central role of the brain in stress and adaptation: links

to socioeconomic status, health, and disease. Annals of the New York Academy of

Sciences, 1186(1), 190-222.

McKenzie, K. S., & Hoyle, R. H. (2008). The self-absorption scale: Reliability and validity in

non-clinical samples. Personality & Individual Differences, 45, 726-731.

McLaren, L. (2007). Socioeconomic status and obesity. Epidemiologic Reviews, 29(1), 29-48.

Meeus, W. (1994). Psychosocial problems and social support in adolescence. Social networks

and social support in childhood and adolescence, 241-255.

Midgley, C., Arunkumar, R., & Urdan, T. (1996). “If I don’t do well tomorrow, there’s a

72
 reason”: Predictors of adolescents‟ use of academic self-handicapping strategies. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 423-434.

Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1995). Predictors of middle school students‟ use of self-handicapping

strategies. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 15(4), 389-411.

Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic self-handicapping and achievement goals: A further

examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(1), 61-75.

Miller, D. J., Vachon, D. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2009). Neuroticism, negative affect, and negative

affect instability: Establishing convergent and discriminant validity using ecological

momentary assessment. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(8), 873-877.

Mittal, C., & Griskevicius, V. (2014). Sense of control under uncertainty depends on people’s

childhood environment: A life history theory approach. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 107(4), 621-637.

Mullen, A. L., Goyette, K. A., & Soares, J. A. (2003). Who goes to graduate school? Social and

academic correlates of educational continuation after college. Sociology of Education,

143-169.

Nunez, A., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-Generation Students: Undergraduates Whose

Parents Never Enrolled in Postsecondary Education (NCES 1998-082). U.S. Department

of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Oakes, J. M., & Rossi, P. H. (2003). The measurement of SES in health research: current practice

and steps toward a new approach. Social science & medicine, 56(4), 769-784.

Olderbak, S. G., & Figueredo, A. J. (2009). Predicting romantic relationship satisfaction from

life history strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 604–610.

73
Operario, D., Adler, N. E., & Williams, D. R. (2004). Subjective social status: Reliability and

predictive utility for global health. Psychology & Health, 19(2), 237-246.

Oyserman, D., Brickman, D., Bybee, D., & Celious, A. (2006). Fitting in matters: Markers of in

Group belonging and academic outcomes. Psychological Science, 17(10), 854-861.

Pascarella, E. T., & Chapman, D. W. (1983). A multiinstitutional, path analytic validation of

Tinto’s model of college withdrawal. American educational research journal, 20(1), 87-

102.

Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation

college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal

of Higher Education, 75(3), 249-284.

Phinney, J. S., Dennis, J., & Osorio, S. (2006). Reasons to attend college among ethnically

diverse college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12(2), 347.

Phinney, J. S., & Haas, K. (2003). The process of coping among ethnic minority first-generation

college freshmen: A narrative approach. The Journal of social psychology, 143(6), 707-

726.

Reinherz, H. Z., Giaconia, R. M., Hauf, A. M. C., Wasserman, M. S., & Paradis, A. D. (2000).

General and specific childhood risk factors for depression and drug disorders by early

adulthood. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(2),

223-231.

Rhodewalt, F. (1994). Conceptions of ability, achievement goals, and individual differences in

self‐handicapping behavior: On the application of implicit theories. Journal of

Personality, 62(1), 67-85.

Rhodewalt, F., & Davison, J. (1986). Self-handicapping and subsequent performance: Role of

74
 outcome valence and attributional certainty. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7,

307–322.

Rhodewalt, F., Saltzman, A. T., & Wittmer, J. (1984). Self-handicapping among competitive

athletes: The role of practice in self-esteem protection. Basic and Applied Social

Psychology, 5(3), 197-209.

Rhodewalt, F., & Tragakis, M. W. (2003). Self-esteem and self-regulation: Toward optimal

studies of self-esteem: Comment. Psychological Inquiry, 14(1), 66-70.

Richardson, R., & Skinner, E. (1992). Helping first-generation minority students achieve

degrees. New Directions for Community Colleges, 80, 29-43.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Ross, S. R., Canada, K. E., & Rausch, M. K. (2002). Self-handicapping and the Five Factor

Model of personality: Mediation between neuroticism and conscientiousness. Personality

and Individual Differences, 32(7), 1173-1184.

Rushton, J. P. (1985). Differential K theory: the sociobiology of individual and group

differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 441–452.

Ryska, T. A., Yin, Z., & Cooley, D. (1998). Effects of trait and situational self-handicapping on

competitive anxiety among athletes. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse

Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 17(1), 48-56.

Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., & Pierce, G. R. (1990). Social support: The search for theory.

Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 9, 133-147.

Sattler, J. M., Dumont, R., & Coalson, D. L. (2016). Assessment of Children: WISC-V and

WPPSI-IV. La Mesa, California: Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher, Incorporated.

75
Sattler, J. M., & Ryan, J. J. (2009). Assessment with the WAIS-IV. La Mesa, California: Jerome

. Sattler, Publisher, Incorporated.

Schwinger, M., Wirthwein, L., Lemmer, G., & Steinmayr, R. (2014). Academic self-

handicapping and achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,

106(3), 744-761.

Shepperd, J. A., & Arkin, R. M. (1989). Determinants of self-handicapping: Task importance

and the effects of preexisting handicaps on self-generated handicaps. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 101–112.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new

procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422-445.

Singh-Manoux, A., Adler, N. E., & Marmot, M. G. (2003). Subjective social status: Its

determinants and its association with measures of ill-health in the Whitehall II

study. Social Science & Medicine, 56(6), 1321-1333.

Smith, T. W., Snyder, C. R., & Handelsman, M. 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(2), 314-321.

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(4), 787-797.

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. 161-172). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Snyder, C. R., Smith, T. W., Augelli, R. W., & Ingram, R. E. (1985). Shyness as a self-

76
 handicapping strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 970-980.

St. John, E., Andrieu, S., Oescher, J., & Starkey, J. (1994). The influence of student aid on

within-year persistence by traditional college-age students at four-year colleges. Research

in Higher Education, 35, 455–480.

St. John, E., Paulsen, M., & Starkey, J. (1996). The nexus between college choice and

persistence. Research in Higher Education, 37(2), 175–220.

St. Sauver, J.L., Barbaresi, W.J., Katusic, S.K., Colligan, R.C., Weaver, A.L., & Jacobsen, S.J.

(2004). Early life risk factors for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A population

based cohort study. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Mayo Clinic, 79, 1124–1131.

Stimpson, J. P., Ju, H., Raji, M. A., & Eschbach, K. (2007). Neighborhood deprivation and

health risk behaviors in NHANES III. American journal of health behavior, 31(2), 215-

222.

Suhr, J., Hammers, D., Dobbins-Buckland, K., Zimak, E., & Hughes, C. (2008). The relationship

of malingering test failure to self-reported symptoms and neuropsychological findings in

adults referred for ADHD evaluation. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 23(5), 521-

530.

Suhr, J., & Wei, C. (2013). Symptoms as an excuse: attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder

symptom reporting as an excuse for cognitive test performance in the context of

evaluative threat. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32(7), 753-769.

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self‐control predicts good

adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of

Personality, 72(2), 271-324.

Tejera, J., Santolaria, F., Gonzalez-Reimers, E., Batista, N., Jorge, J. A., & Hernandez-Nieto, L.

77
 (1991). Alcoholic intake in a small rural village. Alcohol and alcoholism, 26(3), 361-366.

Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P. M., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1996). First-

generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development.

Research in Higher education, 37(1), 1-22.

Thompson, T. (2004). Re-examining the effects of noncontingent success on self-handicapping

behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 239-260.

Thompson, T., & Richardson, A. (2001). Self-handicapping status, claimed self-handicaps and

reduced practice effort following success and failure feedback. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 71(1), 151-170.

Thornhill, R., & Palmer, C. T. (2004). Evolutionary life history perspective on rape. In C.

Crawford & C. Salmon (Eds.), Evolutionary psychology, public policy, and personal

decisions (pp. 249–274). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tice, D. M. (1991). Esteem protection or enhancement? Self-handicapping motive and

attributions differ by trait self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

60(5), 711-725.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.

University of Chicago Press, 5801 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637.

Tracey, T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1985). The relationship of noncognitive variables to academic

success: A longitudinal comparison of race. Journal of College Student Personnel, 405-

410.

Tracey, T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1987). Prediction of college graduation from noncognitive

variables by race. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 19, 177-

184.

78
Tseng, V. (2004). Family interdependence and academic adjustment in college: Youths from

immigrant and U.S.-born families. Child Development, 75, 966-983.

Tucker, J. A., Vuchinich, R. E., & Sobell, M. B. (1981). Alcohol consumption as a self

handicapping strategy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90(3), 220-230.

Tyser, M. P., McCrea, S. M., & Knüpfer, K. (2012). Pursuing perfection or pursuing protection?

Self‐evaluation motives moderate the behavioral consequences of counterfactual

thoughts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(3), 372-382.

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). On behalf of the Standard Occupational

Classification Policy Committee (SOCPC). Retrieved from

https://www.bls.gov/soc/soc_2010_definitions.pdf

Urdan, T. (2004). Predictors of academic self-handicapping and achievement: Examining

achievement goals, classroom goal structures, and culture. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 96(2), 251-264.

Uysal, A., & Knee, C. R. (2012). Low trait self-control predicts self-handicapping. Journal of

Personality, 80(1), 59-79.

Waitzman, N. J., & Smith, K. R. (1998). Phantom of the area: poverty-area residence and

mortality in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 88(6), 973-976.

Warburton, E.C., Bugarin, R., & Nunez, A. (2001). Bridging the Gap: Academic Preparation and

Postsecondary Success of First-Generation Students (NCES 2001-153). U.S. Department

of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Wardle, J., Waller, J., & Jarvis, M. J. (2002). Sex differences in the association of socioeconomic

status with obesity. American Journal of Public Health, 92(8), 1299-1304.

79
Waschbusch, D. A., Craig, R., Pelham, W. E., & King, S. (2007). Self-handicapping prior to

academic-oriented tasks in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD):

Medication effects and comparisons with controls. Journal of Abnormal Child

Psychology, 35(2), 275-286.

Weiss, M. D. (2000). Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale (WFIRS) Self-Report.

Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia. Retrieved from

naceonline.com/AdultADHDtoolkit/assessmenttools/wfirs.pdf

White, K. R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement.

Psychological bulletin, 91(3), 461-481.

Woodward, L. J., & Fergusson, D. M. (2000). Childhood peer relationship problems and later

risks of educational under-achievement and unemployment. Journal of Child Psychology

and Psychiatry, 41(2), 191-201.

Zalaquett, C. P. (1999). Do students of noncollege-educated parents achieve less academically

than students of college-educated parents? Psychological Reports, 85, 417-421.

Zuckerman, M., Kieffer, S. C., & Knee, C. R. (1998). Consequences of self-handicapping:

Effects on coping, academic performance, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 74(6), 1619-1628.

Zuckerman, M., & Tsai, F. (2005). Costs of self-handicapping. Journal of Personality, 73(2),

411-442. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00314

80
 Appendix A: Potential Intervening Variables, Not Found to be Significant,
in Self-handicapping & SES Correlational Study

x Two other socioeconomic measures

x Demographic Information
x First Generation College Student
x First Member of Family in College
x Academic Effort
x Previous Academic Achievement
x Worker Scale
x College and Career Readiness School Diagnostic
o Goal Driven Behaviors
o Persistence
o Study Skills
o Self-Monitoring
x Fear of Success
x Academic Stress
x Self-efficacy and Identity in School
x School Self-efficacy
x Achievement Guilt with Family
x Life and Career Self-efficacy
o Prescriptive Beliefs
o Descriptive Beliefs
x Life and Career Self-efficacy
o Internality
o Luck
o Helplessness
o Power of Others
o Externality
x Cultural Values
o Individualism
o Collectivism
x Individual Identity
o Hometown Identity
o Campus Identity
o Campus Dependence
x Parental Values
x Family and Peer Support

81
 Appendix B: Potential Intervening Variables in MTurk Study

x Childhood and Current/Future Socioeconomic Status

x Objective Socioeconomic Status
x Life History
x Impulsivity
x Trait Self-control
x Self-esteem
x Big Five Personality Traits
x Life History Stressors in Childhood

82
 Appendix C: Self-handicapping Scale (Jones and Rhodewalt, 1982)

Please indicate (by writing a number in the blank before each item) the degree to which you
agree with each of the following statements as a description of the kind of person you think you
are most of the time. Use the following scale:

0 = disagree very much

1 = disagree pretty much
2 = disagree a little
3 = agree a little
4 = agree pretty much
5 = agree very much

1. When I do something wrong, my first impulse is to blame the circumstances.

2. I tend to put things off to the last moment.
3. I tend to overprepare when I have any kind of exam or “performance.”
4. I suppose I feel “under the weather” more often than most people.
5. I always try to do my best, no matter what.
6. Before I sign up for a course or engage in any important activity, I make sure I have the proper
preparation or background.
7. I tend to get anxious before an exam or performance.
8. I am easily distracted by noises or my own creative thoughts when I try to read.
9. I try not to get too intensely involved in competitive activities so it won’t hurt too much if I
lose or do poorly.
10. I would rather be respected for doing my best than admire for my potential.
11. I would do a lot better if I tried harder.
12. I prefer the small pleasures in the present to the larger pleasures in the dim future.
13. I generally hate to be in any condition but “at my best.”
14. Someday I might “get it all together.”
15. I sometimes enjoy being mildly ill for a day or two because it takes off the pressure.
16. I would do much better if I did not let my emotions get in the way.
17. When I do poorly at one kind of thing, I often console myself by remembering I am good at
other things.
18. I admit that I am tempted to rationalize when I don’t live up to others’ expectations.
19. I often think I have more than my share of bad luck in sports, card games, and other measures
of talent.
20. I would rather not take any drug that interfered with my ability to think clearly and do the
right thing.
21. I overindulge in food and drink more than I should.
22. When something important is coming up, like an exam or job interview, I try to get as much
sleep as possible the night before.
23. I never let emotional problems in one part of my life interfere with things in my life.
24. Usually, when I get anxious about doing well, I end up doing better.
25. Sometimes I get so depressed that even easy tasks become difficult.

83
 Appendix D: Objective Childhood and Adult Socioeconomic Status Questionnaire

When you were fourteen-years-old:

What was the occupation (e.g. registered nurse, personnel manager) & business or industry
(hospital, newspaper publishing) of the person who was the head of your household?
x OPEN-ENDED (code with Census occupational scaling system)

What was the occupation (e.g. registered nurse, personnel manager) & business or industry
(hospital, newspaper publishing) of the person who was your other parental figure?
x OPEN-ENDED (code with Census occupational scaling system)

What was the highest level of formal education of the person who was the head of your
household?
x Did not graduate from High School
x GED or alternate credential
x High School Graduate
x Some College, but did not graduate
x Vocational Degree
x Associates Degree (e.g. AA, AS)
x Bachelor’s Degree (e.g. BA, BS)
x Master’s Degree (e.g. MA, MS, MEng, Med, MSW, MBA)
x Professional Degree beyond Bachelor’s (e.g. MD, DDS, DVM, LLB, JD)
x Doctorate Degree (e.g. PhD, EdD)
x Do not know

What was the highest level of formal education of the person who was your other parental
figure?
x Did not graduate from High School
x GED or alternate credential
x High School Graduate
x Some College, but did not graduate
x Vocational Degree
x Associates Degree (e.g. AA, AS)
x Bachelor’s Degree (e.g. BA, BS)
x Master’s Degree (e.g. MA, MS, MEng, Med, MSW, MBA)
x Professional Degree beyond Bachelor’s (e.g. MD, DDS, DVM, LLB, JD)
x Doctorate Degree (e.g. PhD, EdD)
x Do not know

How many adults were in your household?

x 1
x 2

84
 x 3
x 4
x >4

How many children were in your household?

x 1
x 2
x 3
x 4
x >4

What was the total Household Income during the 12 months that you were fourteen-years-old?
x < $10,000
x $10,000 to $19,999
x $20,000 to $29,999
x $30,000 to $39,999
x $40,000 to $49,999
x $50,000 to $59,999
x $60,000 to $69,999
x $70,000 to $79,999
x $80,000 to $89,999
x $90,000 to $99,999
x > $100,000

Currently:
What is your current occupation (e.g. registered nurse, personnel manager) & business or
industry (hospital, newspaper publishing)?
x OPEN-ENDED (code with Census occupational scaling system)

What is your highest level of formal education?

x Did not graduate from High School
x GED or alternate credential
x High School Graduate
x Some College, but did not graduate
x Vocational Degree
x Associates Degree (e.g. AA, AS)
x Bachelor’s Degree (e.g. BA, BS)
x Master’s Degree (e.g. MA, MS, MEng, Med, MSW, MBA)
x Professional Degree beyond Bachelor’s (e.g. MD, DDS, DVM, LLB, JD)
x Doctorate Degree (e.g. PhD, EdD)

85
In completing this section, do not include roommates
How many adults are in your household?
x 1
x 2
x 3
x 4
x >4

How many children are in your household?

x 0
x 1
x 2
x 3
x 4
x >4

What was your total Household Income during the past 12 months?
x < $10,000
x $10,000 to $19,999
x $20,000 to $29,999
x $30,000 to $39,999
x $40,000 to $49,999
x $50,000 to $59,999
x $60,000 to $69,999
x $70,000 to $79,999
x $80,000 to $89,999
x $90,000 to $99,999
x > $100,000

86
 Appendix E: Measure of Subjective Socioeconomic Status (Kerr et al., 2011)

Think of this ladder as representing where people stand in our society. At the top of the ladder
are the people whose social class (income level, occupation and education level) is the most
ideal, accepted, and valued in our society. At the bottom of the ladder are the people whose
social class is the least ideal, accepted and valued in our society. The higher up you are on this
ladder, the closer you are to the people at the very top and the lower you are, the closer you are
to the bottom. Where would you put yourself on the ladder? Please place an X on the rung where
you think you stand.

MOST IDEAL, VALUED, ACCEPTED SOCIAL CLASS

____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
LEAST IDEAL, VALUED, ACCEPTED SOCIAL CLASS

87
 Appendix F: Current and Previous Symptoms and Diagnosis of ADHD,
DSM-5 Checklist (American Psychiatric Association, 2013)

Please choose the number next to each item that best describes your behavior DURING THE
PAST 6 MONTHS. If you are taking medication to treat ADHD (such as Ritalin) or have taken it
in the past six months please respond to these items based on your non-medicated behavior.

Never or Sometimes Often Very

rarely often
1. Fail to give close attention to details or 0 1 2 3
make careless mistakes in schoolwork, at
work, or during other activities (e.g.,
overlook or miss details or work is
inaccurate)
2. Have difficulty sustaining attention in 0 1 2 3
tasks or play activities (e.g., have difficulty
remaining focused during lectures,
conversations, or lengthy reading)
3. Do not seem to listen when spoken to 0 1 2 3
directly (e.g., mind seems elsewhere, even in
the absence of any obvious distraction)
4. Do not follow through on instructions and 0 1 2 3
fail to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in
the workplace (e.g., start tasks but quickly
lose focus and am easily sidetracked)
5. Have difficulty organizing tasks and 0 1 2 3
activities (e.g., difficulty managing sequential
tasks; difficulty keeping materials and
belongings in order; messy, disorganized
work; have poor time management; fail to
meet deadlines)
6. Avoid, dislike, or am reluctant to engage in 0 1 2 3
tasks that require sustained mental effort
(e.g., schoolwork or homework; for older
adolescents and adults, preparing reports,
completing forms, reviewing lengthy papers)
7. Lose things necessary for tasks or activities 0 1 2 3
(e.g., school materials, pencils, books, tools,
wallets, keys, paperwork, eyeglasses, mobile
telephones)
8. Am easily distracted by extraneous stimuli 0 1 2 3
(for older adolescents and adults, may
include unrelated thoughts)
9. Am forgetful in daily activities (e.g., doing 0 1 2 3
chores, running errands; for older adolescents

88
 and adults, returning calls, paying bills,
keeping appointments)
10. Fidget with or tap hands or feet or 0 1 2 3
squirms in seat
11. Leave seat in situations when remaining 0 1 2 3
seated is expected (e.g., leaves his or her
place in the classroom, in the office or other
workplace, or in other situations that require
remaining in place)
12. Run about or climb in situations where it 0 1 2 3
is inappropriate. (Note: In adolescents or
adults, may be limited to feeling restless.)
13. Unable to play or engage in leisure 0 1 2 3
activities quietly
14. Am often “on the go,” acting as if “driven 0 1 2 3
by a motor” (e.g., is unable to be or
uncomfortable being still for extended time,
as in restaurants, meetings; may be
experienced by others as being restless or
difficult to keep up with)
15. Talk excessively 0 1 2 3
16. Blurt out an answer before a question has 0 1 2 3
been completed (e.g., completes people’s
sentences; cannot wait for turn in
conversation)
17. Have difficulty waiting for my turn (e.g., 0 1 2 3
while waiting in line)
18. Interrupt or intrude on others (e.g., butts 0 1 2 3
into conversations, games, or activities; may
start using other people’s things without
asking or receiving permission; for
adolescents and adults, may intrude into or
take over what others are doing)

x When did these symptoms begin?

(This establishes the presence of ADHD in the developmental period which is a criteria)

(IA-Inattention, 1-9; HI-Hyperactivity & Impulsivity, 10-18)

89
 Appendix G: ADHD & Disability Diagnoses

These next questions list several clinical diagnoses. Please indicate whether you have ever
received any of these diagnoses from a health professional, and if so when you were first
diagnosed.

x Dyslexia (reading disability)

x Dyscalculia (math disability)
x Dysgraphia (writing/fine motor disability)
x Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD or ADD)
x Physical disability (visual, motor, or hearing problem)
x Other (please specify)

90
 Appendix H: Life History Scale, Mini-K (Figueredo, et al., 2006)

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements. Use the scale
below and write your answers in the spaces provided. For any item that does not apply to you,
please enter “0”.

Disagree Disagree Disagree Don’t Know/ Agree Agree Agree

Strongly Somewhat Slightly Applicable Slightly Somewhat Strongly
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

x I can often tell how things will turn out.

x I try to understand how I got into a situation to figure out how to handle it.
x I often find the bright side to a bad situation.
x I don’t give up until I solve my problems.
x I often make plans in advance.
x I avoid taking risks.
x While growing up, I had a close and warm relationship with my biological mother.
x While growing up, I had a close and warm relationship with my biological father.
x I have a close and warm relationship with my own children.
x I have a close and warm romantic relationship with my sexual partner.
x I would rather have one than several sexual relationships at a time.
x I have to be closely attached to someone before I am comfortable having sex with them.
x I am often in social contact with my blood relatives.
x I often get emotional support and practical help from my blood relatives.
x I often give emotional support and practical help to my blood relatives.
x I am often in social contact with my friends.
x I often get emotional support and practical help from my friends.
x I often give emotional support and practical help to my friends.
x I am closely connected to and involved in my community.
x I am closely connected to and involved in my religion.

91
 Appendix I: Impulsivity Scale, I-8 (Kovaleva, Beierlein, Kemper, & Rammstedt, 2012)

For each of the following statements, indicate how much each applies to you.

5-point scale, “applies completely” to “does not apply at all”

x Sometimes I do things impulsively that I should not do

x I sometimes do things to cheer myself up that I later regret
x I usually think carefully before I act
x I usually consider things carefully and logically before I make up my mind
x I always bring to an end what I have started
x I plan my schedule so that I get everything done on time
x I am willing to take risks
x I am happy to take chances

92
 Appendix J: Trait Self-Control Scale (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004)

Please answer the following items as they apply to you. There are no right or wrong answers.
Please choose a number, 1 through 5, that best represents what you believe to be true about
yourself for each question. Use the following scale to refer to how much each question is true
about you.
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Sometimes Very much
like me like me like me

____ 1. I have a hard time breaking bad habits.

____ 2. I am lazy.
____ 3. I say inappropriate things.
____ 4. I do certain things that are bad for me, if they are fun.
____ 5. I refuse things that are bad for me.
____ 6. I wish I had more self-discipline.
____ 7. I am good at resisting temptation.
____ 8. People would say that I have iron self-discipline.
____ 9. I have trouble concentrating.
____ 10. I am able to work effectively toward long-term goals.
____ 11. Sometimes I can’t stop myself from doing something, even if I know it’s wrong.
____ 12. I often act without thinking through all the alternatives.
____ 13. Pleasure and fun sometimes keep me from getting work done.

93
 Appendix K: Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965)

For each of the items below, please circle the number that corresponds to how you generally feel
about yourself.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly agree strongly disagree

1. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. (R)

2. At times, I think I am no good at all.
3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. (R)
4. I am able to do things as well as most other people. (R)
5. I feel that I do not have much to be proud of.
6. I certainly feel useless at times.
7. I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others. (R)
8. I wish I could have more respect for myself.
9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
10. I take a positive attitude towards myself. (R)

94
 Appendix L: Big Five Personality Traits Scale (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003)

Here are a number of personality traits that may or may not apply to you. Please write a number
next to each statement to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement.
You should rate the extent to which the pair of traits applies to you, even if one characteristic
applies more strongly than the other.

Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither/ Agree Agree Agree

strongly moderately a little agree nor a little moderately strongly
disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I see myself as:

1. _____ Extraverted, enthusiastic.
2. _____ Critical, quarrelsome.
3. _____ Dependable, self-disciplined.
4. _____ Anxious, easily upset.
5. _____ Open to new experiences, complex.
6. _____ Reserved, quiet.
7. _____ Sympathetic, warm.
8. _____ Disorganized, careless.
9. _____ Calm, emotionally stable.
10. _____ Conventional, uncreative.

TIPI scale scoring (‘‘R’’ denotes reverse-scored items): Extraversion: 1, 6R; Agreeableness: 2R,
7; Conscientiousness; 3, 8R; Emotional Stability: 4R, 9; Openness to Experiences: 5, 10R.

95
 Appendix M: Life History Stressors in Childhood
(Hill, Rodeheffer, DelPriore, & Butterfield, 2013)

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Ratings for the 5 items are made on 7-point scales (endpoints: 1 = "strongly disagree," 7 =
"strongly agree").

x My parents had significant financial struggles while I was growing up.

x There were times in childhood when I went to bed hungry.
x There were times in my childhood when I qualified for reduced cost or free lunch at
school.
x There were times in my childhood when my family received financial assistance (e.g.,
welfare, food stamps, etc.) to help make ends meet.
x My family had enough money for things growing up. (reverse scored)

96
 Appendix N: Single Item Narcissism Scale (Konrath, Meier, & Bushman, 2014)

Indicate to what extent do you agree with the statements.

To what extent do you agree with this statement: “I am a narcissist.” (Note: The word
“narcissist” means egotistical, self-focused, and vain.)

1 (not very true of me)

2
3
4
5
6
7 (very true of me)

97
 Appendix O: Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (Higgins et al., 2001)

This set of questions asks you HOW FREQUENTLY specific events actually occur or have
occurred in your life. Please indicate your answer in the blank provided by using the following
scale:

1 2 3 4 5
never seldom sometimes very often

1. Compared to most people, are you typically unable to get what you want out of life?
*(Promotion)
2. Growing up, would you ever “cross the line” by doing things that your parents would not
tolerate? *(Prevention)
3. How often have you accomplished things that got you “psyched” to work even harder?
(Promotion)
4. Did you get on your parents’ nerves often when you were growing up? *(Prevention)
5. How often did you obey rules and regulations that were established by your parents?
(Prevention)
6. Growing up, did you ever act in ways that your parents thought were objectionable?
*(Prevention)
7. Do you often do well at different things that you try? (Promotion)
8. Not being careful enough has gotten me into trouble at times. *(Prevention)
9. When it comes to achieving things that are important to me, I find that I don’t perform as well
as I ideally would like to do. *(Promotion)
10. I feel like I have made progress toward being successful in my life. (Promotion)
11. I have found very few hobbies or activities in my life that capture my interest or motivate me
to put effort into them. *(Promotion)

98
 Appendix P: Worker Scale (McCrea, Hirt, Hendrix, Milner, & Steele, 2008)

Please indicate the degree to which you agree with each of the following statements as a
description of the kind of person you think you are most of the time. Use the following scale:

0 = disagree very much

1 = disagree pretty much
2 = disagree a little
3 = agree a little
4 = agree pretty much
5 = agree very much

1. I tend only to work as hard as I have to in my classes.

2. I try to devote my full effort to every class I take.
3. I pride myself in being a hard worker.
4. I push myself a lot to perform well academically.
5. I blow things off more than I should.
6. My grades are the result of effort and hard work.
7. I work hard to be successful at whatever I do.
8. I am proud to admit how hard I work to other people.

99
 Appendix Q: Self-Absorption (McKenzie & Hoyle, 2008)

Please indicate the degree to which you agree with each of the following statements as a
description of the kind of person you think you are most of the time.

1. I find myself wondering what others think of me even when I don’t want to.
2. I have difficulty focusing on what others are talking about because I wonder what they’re
thinking of me.
3. I feel like others are constantly evaluating me when I’m with them.
4. I think about myself more than anything else.
5. When I try to think of something other than myself, I cannot.
6. When I have to perform a task, I do not do it as well as I should because my concentration is
interrupted with thoughts of myself instead of the task.
7. I wish others weren’t as critical of me as they are.
8. I am very aware of what others think of me, and it bothers me.
9. My mind never focuses on things other than myself for very long.
10. When I start thinking about how others view me, I get all worked up.
11. I cannot stop my head from thinking thoughts about myself.
12. Sometimes I am so deep in thought about my life I am not aware of my surroundings.
13. It upsets me when people I meet don’t like me.
14. I do not spend long amounts of time thinking about myself.
15. When I think about my life, I keep thinking about it so long I cannot turn my attention to
tasks that need to be done.
16. When I’m about to meet someone for the first time, I worry about whether they’ll like me.
17. After being around other people, I think about what I should have done differently when I
was with them.

100
 Appendix R: Theories of Intelligence (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995)

Select whether individuals can or cannot change on the following constructs.

1. A person’s intelligence is something about them that they

A. can change
B. cannot change

2. People’s intelligence is an attribute that they

A. can change
B. cannot change

3. Someone’s intelligence is part of them that they

A. can change
B. cannot change

101
 Appendix S: Parental Financial Aid

Please answer the following questions based on the current school year, not including this last
or next summer.

1) How much financial support do you anticipate receiving from your parents this school
year (not including the summer)? This includes: tuition and fees as well as money for
books, rent, living expenses, food, clothing, and transportation.
x Open-ended

2) How much financial support do you anticipate receiving from your own employment this
school year (not including the summer)? This includes: work-study and funds earned
through student employment.
x Open-ended

3) How much financial support do you anticipate receiving this school year (not including
the summer) from just Hathaway scholarships?
x Open-ended

4) How much financial support do you anticipate receiving total this school year (not
including the summer)? This includes: grants and scholarships, loans, work-study, other
forms of aid (e.g. veteran benefits), and funds earned through student employment.
x Open-ended

102
 Appendix T: Culture Fair Intelligence Test (Cattell & Cattell, 1961)

Example Items:

103
 Appendix U: Noise Selection

Before the test begins, we will give you more information about the noise to help you select
which type of noise you wish to choose. You will then be asked to complete the test while
listening to this noise.

Previous research has shown that different kinds of noise can either facilitate performance or
undermine performance on tests. Certain kinds of noise evoke a positive mood or cause people to
relax, and therefore make it easier to concentrate. Other noise can put people into a bad mood
or upset them, and therefore make it harder to concentrate.
We will now allow you to choose which kind of noise you want to listen to. We will then test how
this choice of noise affects your performance on the CFIT.

Which type of noise do you wish to listen to during the intelligence test?
a) extremely helpful for performance
b) somewhat helpful for performance
c) neutral for performance
d) somewhat hurtful for performance
e) extremely hurtful for performance

I expect the noise I chose to:

1) improve my score a lot
2) somewhat improve my score
3) have no effect
4) somewhat lower my score
5) lower my score a lot

104
 Appendix V: College Student Stress Scale (Feldt, 2008)

Please indicate the degree to which you agree with each of the following statements as a
description of how you currently feel. Use the following scale:

1 = disagree a lot
2 = disagree a little
3 = neither disagree nor agree
4 = agree a little
5 = agree a lot

x Feel anxious or distressed about personal relationships

x Feel anxious or distressed about family matters
x Feel anxious or distressed about financial matters
x Feel anxious or distressed about academic matters
x Feel anxious or distressed about housing matters
x Feel anxious or distressed about health matters
x Feel anxious or distressed about being away from home
x Questioning your ability to handle difficulties in your life
x Questioning your ability to attain your personal goals
x Feel anxious or distressed because events are not going as planned
x Feel as though you are NO longer in control of your life
x Feel overwhelmed by difficulties in your life

105
Appendix W: Interaction of Parental Education at the Age of Fourteen & Condition

106
Appendix X: Potential Intervening Variables of Subjective Socioeconomic Status & Self-handicapping
Appendix Y: Potential Intervening Variables of Average parental education at the age of fourteen & Self-handicapping

108
Appendix Z: Potential Intervening Variables of Claimed Self-handicapping

109