A Critical Review of The Literature On Academic Self-Handicapping - Theory, Manifestations, Prevention and Measurement

Social Psychology of Education (2018) 21:1175–1202
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9460-z
A critical review of the literature on academic

self‑handicapping: theory, manifestations, prevention
and measurement
Lilla Török1,3 · Zsolt Péter Szabó2,3 · László Tóth1
Received: 16 November 2017 / Accepted: 19 June 2018 / Published online: 7 August 2018
© Springer Nature B.V. 2018
Abstract
Academic self-handicapping is a very popular subject of research in educational
psychology, in which a growing number of related findings are reported. However,
apart from a recent meta-analysis (Schwinger et al. in J Educ Psychol 106(3):744–
761, 2014), the last comprehensive review of the subject was published 17 years
ago (Urdan and Midgley in Educ Psychol Rev 13(2):115–138, 2001). This paper
integrates relevant findings accumulated since then, which are discussed in a coher-
ent interpretive framework. The first part of the paper discusses the definition and
theoretical grounds of academic self-handicapping, then its manifestations in an aca-
demic context are enumerated. The second part of the study focuses on the self-pro-
tective function of stereotypes based on self-handicapping as well as on the impres-
sions self-handicapping students may make on others at school. A summary of the
contributions of goal orientation theory is provided in relation to self-handicapping,
and the effects of various goal orientations and goal structures on academic perfor-
mance are analysed. Based on an analysis of interactions between self-handicapping
and academic performance, the authors argue for the importance of prevention and
suggest possible ways to prevent self-handicapping. In conclusion, measurement
issues of academic self-handicapping and the methodological paradox inherent in
questionnaire measures are discussed.
Keywords Academic self-handicapping · Self-protection · Self-worth
* Lilla Török
torok@tf.hu
1
Department of Psychology and Sport Psychology, University of Physical Education, Budapest,
Hungary
2
Department of Social Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
3
Department of Social Psychology and Organisational Psychology, University of Pécs, Pécs,
Hungary
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1176 L. Török et al.
1 Introduction
In our review, we summarize and integrate the theoretical and empirical findings
on academic self-handicapping from the past 30 years and identify issues that
require thorough examination and clarification in this area.
We conducted a comprehensive literature review in order to identify studies
dealing with (academic) self-handicapping between 1978 and 2016. First, we
searched several electronic databases (Web of Science, Educational Research
Information Center [ERIC], ScienceDirect, ProQuest, EBSCO, Google Scholar),
using the following keywords: self-handicapping, academic self-handicapping,
self-sabotage, self-protection and self-enhancement. Second, we searched the
database of relevant journals (Educational Psychology, Journal of Educational
Psychology, British Journal of Educational Psychology, European Journal of
Psychology of Education) using the same terms. Third, we probed the references
sections of each article. We retained articles that measured self-handicapping in
student or teacher populations as well as review articles that could be relevant
for the academic domain. This procedure yielded 262 studies including 22 book
chapters. We cited the most relevant and/or the most recent articles. The search-
ing process did not involve any ethical issues.
In a study published in 1978, Berglas and Jones found that (US) subjects who
received success feedback irrespective of their actual performance (whether they
succeeded or failed) were more likely to take a performance-inhibiting drug (Pan-
dokrin) rather than a performance-enhancing drug (Actavil). The authors con-
cluded that individuals showing certain characteristics (e.g. unstable self-esteem)
would reduce their chance of success before entering into a performance situa-
tion in the hope of gaining attributional benefits (Jones and Berglas 1978; Berglas
and Jones 1978). This phenomenon has been termed self-handicapping, which the
authors defined as “any action or choice of performance setting that enhances the
opportunity to externalize (or excuse) failure and to internalize (reasonably accept
credit for) success” (Berglas and Jones 1978, p. 406). A widely cited example
(originally mentioned in Berglas and Jones 1978) is the case of a student who
goes out at the night preceding an important exam so that next day they sit for
the exam unslept and perhaps having a hangover. In such a case, the student may
face either of two outcomes in accordance with the principles of discounting and
augmentation proposed by Kelley (1971): (1) in case of failure, poor performance
is attributed to sleepiness and alcohol consumption, (2) while in case of success,
their perceived ability is augmented by the consideration that success has been
achieved in spite of hindering circumstances. By means of the proactive, anticipa-
tory self-protective technique of self-handicapping, a “win-win” situation may be
arranged prior to task performance because subsequent failure may (mostly) be
attributed to unstable, controllable and specific causes (e.g. “my friend invited me
to her birthday party at the weekend”), while success may be explained by abili-
ties overcoming even hindering factors. Moreover, following Weiner (1985), such
attributions help one maintain motivation for, and positive emotions towards,
subsequent performance situations (as opposed to internal attributions of failure,
13
A critical review of the literature on academic… 1177
e.g. “I am stupid”). If one performs well, however, it may be attributed to one’s

extraordinary abilities and competences. Thus success appears to have been
achieved in spite of hindering factors. In sum, self-handicappers strive to protect
and/or enhance their positive self-image and others’ positive views on them by
blurring the connection between their abilities and performance.
These findings contradict the basic assumption of Festinger’s social comparison
theory (Festinger 1954) suggesting that a fundamental human motive is to obtain
accurate, valid and diagnostic environmental feedback about one’s abilities, since
people apparently avoid such information in certain situations. However, the find-
ings are in harmony with Atkinson’s observations (Atkinson 1957), who found that
subjects with high achievement motivation preferred tasks of medium difficulty
(being the most diagnostic of actual abilities), while subjects with high failure avoid-
ance preferred tasks of either extremely low or extremely high difficulty (those hav-
ing poor diagnostic value). Most empirical findings suggested that setting unattain-
able goals may be a way of self-handicapping and that self-handicapping is based
on failure avoidance (Greenberg 1985). Self-handicapping occurred in personally
important performance situations providing valid and diagnostic information on
performance by involving a difficult test (Doebler et al. 2000; Shepperd and Arkin
1989b) or other forms of evaluation (Sanna and Mark 1995; Kimble and Hirt 2005).
However, it is worth noting that simply denying the importance of a task may also
serve as a self-reported handicap.
It is a subject of discussion whether self-handicapping is a personality trait or a
situation-dependent state. Berglas and Jones noted in their pioneering work that “it
is beyond question that some individuals are more prone to use self-handicapping
strategies than others” (Berglas and Jones 1978, p. 406). Accordingly, a trait-based
approach has become more and more popular after the trait questionnaire had been
developed (e.g. Rhodewalt 1990; Strube 1986). Self-handicapping measured as a
trait appears to be related to global personality traits: it is positively related to neu-
roticism and negatively related to conscientiousness (Ross et al. 2002; Bobo et al.
2013). Authors regarding self-handicapping as a state focus on the environmental
context, attributing key importance to the impact of certain situational factors and
aiming to identify these factors (Elliot et al. 2006; Self 1990; Shepperd and Arkin
1989a). Self-handicapping has been a subject of lively interest in the international
literature since the 1990s, when trait scales were more and more commonly used
and more and more emphasis was laid on individual achievement, rising above the
crowd and thus on interpersonal comparison. The phenomenon may be discussed in
various theoretical frameworks but, since it is essentially based on causal inferences,
it is primarily relevant in cognitive social psychology, and, more precisely, in the
literature on attributional phenomena.
It has to be emphasized, however, that self-handicapping occurs prior to perfor-
mance as opposed to causal attribution and the self-serving bias (attributing suc-
cess to abilities and failure to external circumstances), this latter closely related to
self-handicapping, which follow the performance situation. Scientific attention
towards self-handicapping rose early in educational psychology as well, and the
subject has perhaps been most often studied in the academic context. In this con-
text, the most frequently mentioned theoretical paradigm is Covington’s self-worth
13
theory (Covington 1984, 1992). According to the theory, schools maintain a “zero
sum scoring system” since the amount of awards available in the classroom is lim-
ited, therefore when one student wins, the others are condemned to lose (Coving-
ton 1992, p. 131). The author suggested that individuals base their self-worth on
both their perceived abilities and perceived performance, which people believe from
school age and throughout adulthood to be the two most important values. Conse-
quently, (self-)acceptance, their most essential need, is also based on these values.
The theory is based on two widely shared assumptions: (1) society equates one’s
ability (revealed by one’s achievements) with one’s worth, and (2) the primary
motivational force of human behaviour is self-enhancement, thus people strive to
maximize success (testifying their exceptional abilities) and avoid failure (reflect-
ing a lack of abilities) whenever possible. Covington (1992; Covington and Omelich
1979) describes effort as a double-edged sword: on one hand, students are com-
pelled to make efforts to avoid being punished by the teacher and feeling guilt, while
on the other hand, making efforts involves the risk of humiliation and shame suf-
fered when effort results in failure, which allows observers to infer poor abilities.
In sum, students have two choices: they either refuse to make efforts and expose
themselves to punishment, or they make efforts and expose themselves to the risk of
being judged as having poor abilities. As a result, students are constantly compelled
to protect themselves in order to protect their positive self-image. Covington (1992)
suggested that self-handicapping provides an excellent means for this purpose. In a
different theoretical model, Covington and Omelich (1991) sorted (US) students into
four categories (Fig. 1).
As shown in Fig. 1, success-oriented students are intrinsically motivated: they
regard learning the most important value and strive to do their own best rather than
Fig. 1 The model proposed by Covington and Omelich (1991). Adapted from Covington and Mueller
(2001)
13
adjust their goals to others’ performance (in this respect, they essentially differ from
students in the other three categories). Overstrivers show high expectation of suc-
cess and a likewise pronounced fear of failure. They are motivated by the anticipa-
tion of pride and better performance than that of others, which they strive to achieve
by various strategic means (e.g. choosing extremely easy tasks, setting low expecta-
tions, rote memorization, being occupied with unessential details, cheating). Failure-
avoiding students are highly motivated to avoid failure while they have no expec-
tation of success. They are driven by anticipated relief rather than pride, therefore
they prefer self-protective strategies (e.g. being uninvolved, finding excuses, setting
extremely difficult or unattainable goals, refusing to make efforts). Failure-accepting
students are those who have given up their ambition to prove their abilities and to
maintain their self-worth. Their attributional style is similar to that characteristic to
learned helplessness: they attribute past failures to uncontrollable factors. They also
perceive success achievement uncontrollable, explain failure by internal causes and
regard it as a justification of their poor abilities. According to the theory, failure-
accepting students are the most difficult to motivate.
Another theory proposed in educational psychology integrates motivation and
engagement in a multidimensional model referred to as the Motivation and Engage-
ment Wheel (Martin 2003, 2010; Liem and Martin 2012; see Fig. 2).
Fig. 2 The Motivation and Engagement Wheel (Martin 2010). Reprinted with permission
13
The wheel comprises four higher-order and 11 first-order factors. The higher-
order factors compose two dimensions, namely, the adaptive-maladaptive and
behavioural-cognitive dimensions. The two dimensions define four distinctive pat-
terns accordingly. First, adaptive cognition relates to a positive attitude towards
tasks. Second, adaptive behaviour covers a range of positive behavioural strategies
used for learning and task performance. Third, hindering or maladaptive cognition
refers to an attitude that prevents adequate engagement in tasks. Fourth and finally,
maladaptive behaviour includes harmful strategies used to deal with tasks. The
theory suggests that hindering or maladaptive cognitions develop as a result of a
decline in adaptive cognitions and behaviour, while maladaptive behaviour is a con-
sequence of an even more serious decline.
A school environment clearly makes students prone to develop self-handicapping
strategies since they continuously face situations requiring them to demonstrate and
prove performance and abilities in front of others. In response to such situations, stu-
dents may develop self-protective techniques in order to deal with threatening condi-
tions. For this reason, the school context has received special scientific attention in
the field of self-handicapping and it is still the most popular research context. This
paper provides a discussion of self-handicapping occurring in a school environment.
2 Manifestations of self‑handicapping in a school environment
The literature on self-handicapping makes a distinction between behavioural self-

handicapping and self-reported handicaps (Arkin and Baumgardner 1985; Leary
and Shepperd 1986; Hirt et al. 1991). The former includes overt self-handicapping
behaviours (e.g. going out at the night before an important exam), while the latter
are mere verbal statements of the presence of factors hindering performance (e.g. “I
did not have time to prepare”). Self-handicapping students engage in these kinds of
activities in order to shift attention away from their abilities. By statements such as
“if I had prepared enough, then I would have performed better”, self-handicappers
prevent their abilities from being questioned since they introduce a hindering factor
that provides an obvious explanation for failure. Countless different ways of self-
handicapping offer themselves to students, of which those mentioned in the litera-
ture are discussed below.
Perhaps the most common behavioural form of self-handicapping in a school
environment is a lack or reduction of effort or practice in preparation for a perfor-
mance situation (Tice and Baumeister 1990; Thompson and Richardson 2001). In
a chronic form, this may result in constant underperformance (Nurmi et al. 1995;
Rhodewalt 1990, Finnish sample). At the same time, Smith et al. (2009, US sam-
ple) pointed out that excessive effort could also be a form of behavioural self-hand-
icapping when it has harmful consequences for future performance. Procrastination
was another strategy frequently used by students. Although Lay et al. (1992) empha-
sized that procrastination is not equal to self-handicapping, but students prone to
self-handicapping often resort to procrastination as well (Beck et al. 2000; Ferrari
and Tice 2000; Steel 2007; Strunk and Steele 2011, US samples). Setting unattain-
able goals may also be regarded a way of self-handicapping (Greenberg 1985, US
13
sample) since failing to achieve such goals does not appear to be an actual failure.
Alcohol and drug consumption may likewise play an important role as a means of
self-handicapping (Berglas and Jones 1978; Higgins and Harris 1988; Tucker et al.
1981, US samples) since these substances provide a self-evident explanation for fail-
ure while leaving abilities unquestioned.
Individuals preferring behavioural self-handicapping are convinced of inevitable
failure (low perceived self-efficacy), thus they follow a “nothing to lose” strategy.
At the same time, those who relied on self-reported handicaps did not clearly antici-
pate failure, nor did they necessarily accompany their statements about hindering
factors by actual self-handicapping actions prior to a performance situation. Such
statements may take countless different forms, some of which are particularly com-
mon, however. In a school environment, one of these common excuses used before
a performance situation refers to anxiety (e.g. “I am too nervous”; Smith et al. 1982,
US sample), and the same function may be fulfilled by a bad mood (e.g. “I am
down”; Baumgardner et al. 1985, US sample), physical symptoms and exaggerated
pain (e.g. “my stomach hurts so much”; Smith et al. 1983; Uysal and Lu 2010, US
samples) or even a trauma (DeGree and Snyder 1985, US sample). Snyder (1990)
proposed that internal handicaps may be more convincing than external ones. Self-
reported symptoms may in some cases resemble signs of clinical syndromes (e.g.
ADHD; Suhr and Wei 2013, US sample), therefore it is advisable to take account of
self-handicapping when making a differential diagnosis.
Behavioural self-handicapping and self-reported handicaps show gender differ-
ences: males are more likely to exhibit self-handicapping behaviour than females
(Dietrich 1995; Hirt and McCrea 2009; Hirt et al. 2000; Lucas and Lovaglia 2005;
Martin 2004, US and Australian samples). A possible explanation of this find-
ing is that women assign greater value to effort (both personally and normatively)
and find its lack more unacceptable (McCrea et al. 2008a, b). Nonetheless, little is
known about other factors possibly discriminating between behavioural and self-
reported handicaps. While behavioural self-handicapping involves actual sabotage,
self-reported handicaps do not, thus it seems plausible that different predictors and
prevention methods would prove reliable in the two cases. Further clarification is
needed in order to determine the similarities and differences between these two
forms of self-handicapping.
3 Self‑handicapping and stereotypes
In educational contexts, particular emphasis is laid on the issues of stereotypes and

stigmatization, which are dominantly discussed in relation to their harmful or nega-
tive aspects (Aronson et al. 2009). Stereotype threat in fact appeared to elicit self-
protective mechanisms such as self-handicapping (Midgley et al. 1996; Stone 2002,
US samples) while Crocker and Major (1989) also drew attention to another aspect
of the phenomenon. They pointed out that although psychological theories predicted
that members of stereotyped groups have low self-esteem, empirical findings did
not support this hypothesis. The authors suggested that such individuals use group
13
membership to protect their self-esteem by, for example, attributing negative feed-
back to prejudicial views on their group.
In line with this position, Burkley and Blanton (2008, US sample) found that
women receiving failure feedback about their performance in a mathematical task
reported higher self-esteem when they were reminded of negative gender stereotypes
about women’s mathematical ability compared to the condition in which female sub-
jects were not reminded. In another empirical study based on these findings, Kim
et al. (2012, US sample) demonstrated that women who expected to be presented
with a difficult mathematical task were much more likely to agree with statements
about women’s poor mathematical ability than those who expected an easy task. The
same pattern was found for men in relation to verbal ability. The authors suggested
that these findings reflect the dynamics of self-handicapping, which shifts the causal
attribution of potential failure from the central core of the self (one’s own compe-
tence) to a more peripheral part (that one has in common with other group mem-
bers). At the same time, these results raise the question whether apart from the two
forms of self-handicapping (behavioural and self-reported handicaps) a third form
also exists (see also Dolinski 1996). These self-thoughts or beliefs may stand closer
to the self-reported form but are not verbalised. This would provide further support
that self-handicapping primarily is a means of self-protection rather than of impres-
sion management since these beliefs are only accessible for the participants.
4 Self‑handicapping and impression management
It is a subject of vivid interest from the beginning, whether self-handicapping domi-

nantly occurs in privacy or in social situations. A vast amount of empirical evidence
showed that self-handicapping more frequently occurs in the presence of observers
(e.g. Brown and Kimble 2009; Kolditz and Arkin 1982; Tice and Baumeister 1990,
US samples), which suggests that self-handicapping (also) serves purposes related to
self-presentation. However, the authors of this review agree with Tetlock and Man-
stead (1985) who note that “the dichotomy between impression management and
intrapsychic processes is arbitrary” (p. 59). That is, reflected appraisals show that
people’s self-views are formed by others’ perception of them. Self-worth may espe-
cially be influenced by others’ evaluations of them. Furthermore, self-perception
processes and cognitive dissonance also provide good examples how these processes
are interconnected. Empirical results by Jones et al. (1981) demonstrated that stra-
tegic self-presentation (either self-enhancing or self-deprecating) had an impact on
subsequently reported (elevated and lowered) self-esteem among US participants.
However, it is an important question what characterizes the impressions observers
form of self-handicappers. Self-handicapping seems to fulfil its final purpose effec-
tively since observers did not attribute one’s failure to one’s abilities and imposed
less punitive sanctions when they were previously aware of a hindering factor (Lev-
esque et al. 2001; Smith and Strube 1991, US samples). Luginbuhl and Palmer
(1991, US sample) found that self-handicapping positively influenced observers’
judgments on self-handicappers’ abilities and expected future performance. Com-
pared to non-self-handicappers, behavioural self-handicappers were judged to be
13
more intelligent and they were predicted to perform better in future situations. How-
ever, self-reported handicaps show a different picture. In a related study, observers
judged performance less favourably when the target claimed an obstacle compared
to the case when an objectively identical performance was shown by a non-self-
handicapper (Rhodewalt et al. 1995, US sample). Judgments are also influenced by
the extent to which the target holds the obstacle under control. Targets who did not
make any effort were judged more negatively in terms of both competence and gen-
eral impression than those who complained of side-effects of a drug or anxiety (Lev-
esque et al. 2001; Rhodewalt et al. 1995, US samples). Furthermore, observers who
themselves reported low self-esteem or low dispositional self-handicapping were
more likely to shift their attention from the target’s abilities to the obstacle when
explaining the observed performance compared to those with high self-esteem or
high dispositional self-handicapping (Martin et al. 2003b; Smith and Strube 1991,
Australian and US sample).
It has to be added that although self-handicappers’ abilities are usually judged
favourably, they take such benefits at the expense of the overall evaluation of their
personality (e.g. “this kid is smart but lazy”). Self-handicappers are seen as unmoti-
vated, uncertain, less responsible than others and they are less preferred study part-
ners (Levesque et al. 2001; Luginbuhl and Palmer 1991; Park and Brown 2014, US
samples). However, behavioural self-handicappers and those relying on self-reported
handicaps are judged differently: behavioural self-handicapping had more unfavour-
able consequences for others’ general impressions of the self-handicapper’s per-
sonality (Cox and Giuliano 1999, US sample). As Rhodewalt and Tragakis (2002b)
pointed out, “the self-handicapper is willing to accept the label of drunkard or lazy
to preserve a more central label of competence and worthiness” (p. 110).
Judgments of self-handicapping and self-handicappers also vary across gen-
ders. In this regard, Hirt et al. (2003, US sample) surprisingly found that personal
characteristics of the self-handicapper did in most cases not influence how they are
judged by an observer, while the observer’s gender did (Milner 2009, US sample).
Women as opposed to men found self-handicappers less likeable and less similar
to themselves, while they found their motivations more questionable. By contrast,
men regarded self-handicapping more acceptable and they were more willing to rec-
ognize the importance of a hindering factor. Women attributed self-handicapping
behaviour to a lack of discipline and self-control, held that a lack of effort is unac-
ceptable and responded with severe punitive judgments as a result of person percep-
tion processes (e.g. negative dispositional attributions; Hirt et al. 2003, US sample).
Besides gender, perception of self-handicapping is also influenced by age and sta-
tus (Park and Brown 2014, US sample). As opposed to students, adult employees
expressed unfavourable views on a self-handicapping target (they were unwilling
to meet or work with a self-handicapper), which is an important finding regarding
school teachers’ impressions and attitudes formed at the workplace.
In sum, self-handicapping seems to protect one’s abilities in front of others but it
demands a heavy price. However, Milner (2009, US sample) pointed out that sub-
jects found real and personally known self-handicappers more sympathetic, more
likeable, more similar to themselves and formed a more positive overall judgment of
them as opposed to a fictitious target generally used in empirical studies. Likewise,
13
according to McElroy and Crant (2008, US sample) a person was judged more posi-
tively when it was not them but a third person who reported the obstacle (e.g. “Ben
is very nervous”).
5 Achievement goal theory and self‑handicapping
5.1 Implicit theory of ability
A vast amount of empirical findings were obtained in studies whose approach to

self-handicapping was based on the achievement goal theory (Dweck 1986; Elliot
1999). The goal orientation theory suggests that human behaviour is targeted at spe-
cific goals and that the types of goals one sets have particular importance. How-
ever, these are determined by one’s implicit theory of intelligence, which may be
considered either innate and unchangeable (fixed/entity implicit theory) or change-
able and even improvable (incremental implicit theory; Dweck and Leggett 1988;
Dweck 2006). The essential assumption of the theory is that those students who
think that their abilities are predetermined and unchangeable do not invest energy in
self-development (since it is not possible) but strive to show their abilities in front
of others and themselves in the most favourable light possible. For this reason, they
are more likely to engage in self-handicapping than those who regard their abilities
changeable since these latter strive to develop and improve rather than protect them-
selves (Ommundsen 2001; Ommundsen et al. 2005; Rhodewalt 1994; Rickert et al.
2014; Shih 2011, Norwegian, US and Taiwanese samples). This also held true when
students received general information about the changeable versus fixed nature of
abilities instead of relying on their own judgment of their intelligence (Snyder et al.
2014, US sample). Accordingly, Snyder et al. (2014) found that talented students
who were informed that abilities were unchangeable were more likely to engage in
self-handicapping following a failure experience than those who were told that abili-
ties were changeable (irrespective of their own personal views). However, a more
recent finding (De Castella and Byrne 2015; Australian sample) refined this conclu-
sion: students’ implicit theories concerning their own abilities (e.g. “in fact, I cannot
really change how intelligent I am”) are better predictors of motivation, performance
as well as maladaptive behaviours such as truancy and self-handicapping than their
implicit theories of abilities in general (e.g. “in fact, you cannot really change how
intelligent you are”). In threatening situations, however, even students holding incre-
mental theories engaged in self-handicapping if their self-esteem and general sense
of self-worth largely depended on their academic performance (Niiya et al. 2010,
US sample).
5.2 Achievement goals
Dweck and Leggett (1988) suggested that individuals’ implicit theories of abilities
orient them towards specific types of goals. Dweck’s goal orientation theory distin-
guishes between two types of goals: learning goals focus on the acquisition of new
13
skills and abilities in a given performance situation, emphasis is laid on learning,

and comparison is based on self-reference, while performance goals are aimed at
outdoing others and proving individual abilities (Dweck 1986). A similar conceptu-
alization was proposed by Elliot (1997) who made a distinction between mastery and
performance goals. According to Dweck and Leggett (1988), incremental theories
of abilities facilitate the formation of learning goals, while entity theories support
performance goals. Related empirical findings supported this position: the more one
preferred performance goals (outdoing others/avoiding being outdone by others), the
more likely one was to engage in self-handicapping (Martin et al. 2003a; Midgley
et al. 1996; Urdan and Midgley 2001; Rhodewalt 1994, Australian and US samples).
When students strived to appear competent/avoid appearing untalented and they
focused on the outcome of learning rather than on the learning process itself (the
outcome being assessed in comparison with others’ performance), they were more
likely to self-handicap. The reason for this is that self-handicapping provided a suit-
able means to achieve these goals. By contrast, those setting learning/mastery goals
strive to acquire new skills and abilities or to improve the existing ones and base
comparison on self-reference. Students pursuing learning/mastery goals were less
prone to self-handicapping since it undermines development and learning (Martin
et al. 2003a; Midgley et al. 1996; Schwinger and Stiensmeier-Pelster 2011; Urdan
and Midgley 2001; Rhodewalt 1994, US and German samples). According to Brown
et al. (2012, US sample), growth motivation also has a moderating effect on self-
handicapping behaviours, at least among women.
The theoretical relationship between goals and self-handicapping has been refined
by a model dividing both learning/mastery and performance goals into approach and
avoidance goal types (Elliot and Church 1997; Elliot and McGregor 2001). In this
way, four distinct goals have been defined. Those setting performance-avoidance
goals strive to avoid showing a performance poorer than others’, while those pursu-
ing performance-approach goals focus on showing a performance better than others’.
Learning/mastery-avoidance goals entail striving to avoid incomplete acquisition of
knowledge, while those following learning/mastery-approach goals focus on self-
development, laying emphasis on learning, understanding and acquisition. Related
empirical findings suggested that the best predictor of self-handicapping among the
four mentioned goals is the performance-avoidance type. That is, the more intense
one’s fear of failure was and the more motivated one was to avoid failure, the more
likely one was to self-handicap (Chen et al. 2009; Elliot et al. 2006; Ntoumanis et al.
2010; Ommundsen 2004; Urdan 2004; Urdan and Midgley 2001; Shih 2005). This
finding was consistent across Taiwanese, US, UK and Norwegian samples. These
results are in accordance with the nature of performance goals on one hand, and the
essentially avoidance-oriented motivational basis of self-handicapping on the other
hand (Elliot and Church 2003; Martin et al. 2001). However, Tannenbaum (2007)
suggested that self-handicapping is specifically aimed at achieving success by mini-
mal or no effort (work avoidance goal; Elliot 1999), which implies a lack of achieve-
ment goals.
Since the distinction between approach and avoidance goals within the learning
goal orientation is a more recent development, there is little empirical data related
to self-handicapping. Findings reported by Chen et al. (2009, Taiwanese sample)
13
suggested that learning/mastery-approach goals are negatively related to self-hand-

icapping. Findings concerning performance-approach goals are inconsistent. Some
studies have found that these goals increase the likelihood of self-handicapping
(Chen et al. 2009; Leondari and Gonida 2007, Taiwanese and Greek samples),
while others have found the opposite effect of performance-approach goals on
self-handicapping (Ommundsen 2004; Urdan 2004, Norwegian and US samples).
There also are studies suggesting that there is no relationship between them (Midg-
ley and Urdan 2001, US sample). This inconsistence may probably be explained by
the nature of performance-approach goals, which are not in all cases maladaptive
(Midgley et al. 2001). Their consequences largely depend on whether they are asso-
ciated with high or low-level learning goals (multiple goals theory). For example,
Ommundsen (2004, Norwegian sample) has found that performance-approach goals
are in most cases adaptive while they may also result in self-handicapping if they
are not associated with high-level learning/mastery-type goals. Furthermore, a class-
room environment can play a role as well (Dorman and Ferguson 2004, Australian
and Canadian samples). However, (Hulleman et al. 2010) pointed out that various
researchers of achievement goals use the same terms for conceptually different phe-
nomena. The authors concluded that goal concepts focus on normative and appear-
ance components. While the former emphasizes explicit normative comparison, the
latter focuses on the demonstration or affirmation of ability. Goal orientation scales
differ in the relative importance assigned to the two elements, which pose difficulty
to integrating findings obtained by different scales. According to the authors, domi-
nantly normative performance-approach goal scales were positively correlated with
performance, whereas negative correlation was found with scales emphasizing the
appearance component. Importantly, this finding seems to reveal the connection
between performance-approach goals and self-handicapping. Furthermore, it may
provide additional information regarding the nature of behavioural and self-reported
handicapping suggesting that the two may differ in terms of the component that
motivates them.
5.3 Goal structures
Goals held important by the environment (goal structures) could also have strong
influence on students’ motivational strategies. The theory of goal structures pro-
posed by Ames (1992) focuses on messages received from the social environment
that have an impact on the goal orientations students develop (e.g. a teacher may
communicate that errors are inherent in development or that the standard is set by
the student who shows the best performance). Lovejoy and Durik (2010, US sample)
found that both performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals may lead
to self-handicapping but only in an environment that emphasizes the importance of
performance-avoidance goals.
Some authors suggested that goal structures are even more important than goal
orientations since goal structures influence students irrespective of their goal ori-
entations (e.g. Midgley and Urdan 2001, US sample). Findings concerning goal
structures were similar to those obtained for goal orientations: an environment
13
emphasizing performance goals was a positive predictor of self-handicapping

(Coudevylle et al. 2015; Midgley and Urdan 1995; Standage et al. 2007; Urdan
2004, French, US and UK samples), while a learning/mastery goal structure either
negatively predicted (Midgley and Urdan 2001, US sample) or had no effect on self-
handicapping (Urdan et al. 1998, US sample). Urdan et al. (1998) have found that
this relationship not only holds true for the goal structure perceived by students but
also for teachers’ instructions supporting a performance goal structure. We think
that investigating goal structures could support the development of prevention meth-
ods. In addition, considering a culture as having a particular goal structure could
contribute to a better understanding of cross-cultural differences in the level of
self-handicapping.
6 Self‑handicapping and academic performance
Existing empirical findings supported the conclusion that self-handicapping yields

short-term benefits but also entails long-term costs (Baumeister and Scher 1988;
Tice and Baumeister 1990). A short overview of these benefits and costs elucidates
the relationship between self-handicapping and performance.
The benefits of self-handicapping lie in its contribution to the protection of self-
esteem as well as to anxiety regulation. These self-protective functions enable indi-
viduals who face failure to continue to rely on their abilities instead of focusing
on their momentary performance so that they are able to maintain their self-worth
(McCrea and Hirt 2001, US sample). Both behavioural self-handicapping and self-
reported handicaps protected self-handicappers’ self-esteem (Feick and Rhodewalt
1997; Isleib et al. 1988, US samples). Rhodewalt (1990) pointed out that this effect
can be demonstrated both by objective measurement and by self-report methods.
The role of self-handicapping in anxiety regulation is likewise important (cf. “res-
ignation to prospective failure”). As a result of self-handicapping, the social envi-
ronment lowers its expectations on the self-handicapper’s prospective performance,
which may help them regulate their anxiety. Accordingly, Snyder and Higgins
(1988) concluded that self-handicapping reduces anxiety related to self-esteem and
thus supports concentration on, and better performance of, the current task. Other
researchers (e.g. Deppe and Harackiewicz 1996, US sample) demonstrated that indi-
viduals with high dispositional self-handicapping were more involved, performed
better and took more pleasure in a performance situation when they did not prac-
tice previously (or chose debilitating performance conditions) than when they did.
This “buffer-effect” is also supported by Drexler et al. (1995, US sample) who dem-
onstrated that behavioural self-handicappers showed a smaller decrease in positive
affect than those who did not engage in behavioural self-handicapping. However,
individuals with low dispositional self-handicapping were more involved when they
practiced before the task (Deppe and Harackiewicz 1996, US sample).
The above listed benefits of self-handicapping are exceeded by its costs. Self-
handicappers were more likely to develop maladaptive coping strategies (e.g.
denial), while ineffective adaptation led to increased self-handicapping, thereby gen-
erating a vicious circle (Zuckerman et al. 1998, US sample). Moreover, Zuckerman
13
and Tsai (2005, US sample) pointed out that self-handicappers are more likely to
turn against themselves (e.g. by self-blame) and to turn away from “hard” reality,
replacing it with a construction which better supports their self-image. As a con-
sequence, handicappers’ satisfaction with their competences decreased, while their
negative mood became more and more intense in parallel with their increasing use
of self-handicapping strategies (see also Smith et al. 2002, Australian sample). In a
longitudinal study, Zuckerman and Tsai (2005) found that self-handicappers expe-
rience over time a decreasing level of intrinsic motivation at work. In addition,
another maladaptive cycle also came into play: self-handicapping led to reduced
self-esteem over time that, in turn, further increased the amount of self-handicap-
ping and thus the two mutually and continuously facilitated one another. Moreover,
the more dissatisfied a student was with their academic performance and the less
competent they regarded themselves at school, the more likely they were to resort to
self-handicapping during their studies. This relationship has been demonstrated in
both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies (Urdan et al. 1998; Eronen et al. 1998,
US and Finnish samples). In addition, the debilitating effect of self-handicapping
on well-being has been observed among teachers as well (Parker and Martin 2009,
Australian sample).
Considering these findings, the relationship between self-handicapping and aca-
demic performance is particularly complex. Rhodewalt and Fairfield (1991, US sam-
ple) reported no difference in performance between subjects with high and low dis-
positional self-handicapping when they expected an easy task, while they did show
differences when expecting a difficult task. In the latter case, subjects scoring low on
self-handicapping performed significantly better. Moreover, low self-handicappers’
performance increased in parallel with increasing anticipated difficulty of the task,
while high self-handicappers’ performance decreased. The explanation for this find-
ing is that high self-handicappers generally chose to invest less effort in the tasks
than low self-handicappers did, and the difference was even more pronounced when
subjects expected a difficult task. McCrea and Hirt (2001, US sample) reported sim-
ilar findings concerning self-reported handicaps: task performance was influenced
by previous statements about a lack of effort, while statements about anxiety had no
effect on performance. Ryska (2002) found that the effect of self-handicapping on
running performance varied according to the level of self-confidence among middle
school students. While self-reported handicaps had a positive effect on running per-
formance for students with low self-confidence, this was not true for confident stu-
dents. Rhodewalt and Hill (1995, US sample) found that while the number of female
subjects’ claimed self-handicapping was negatively correlated to their academic per-
formance (exam grade), no similar relationship was obtained for male subjects. In
short, the relationship between self-reported handicaps and academic performance
is still quite unclear (Rhodewalt and Tragakis 2002a, b).
In sum, empirical studies have revealed a negative relationship between self-
handicapping at school and academic performance: self-handicapping resulted in
decreasing performance over time (Gadbois and Sturgeon 2011; McCrea and Hirt
2001; Midgley and Urdan 1995; Urdan 2004; Zuckerman et al. 1998, Canadian
and US samples). This conclusion has been further corroborated by a recent meta-
analysis in the field, which likewise found a negative relationship between the two
13
variables based on data obtained from a total of 25,000 subjects involved in 36 stud-
ies (Schwinger et al. 2014). It also has to be pointed that the negative relationship
between self-handicapping and performance is in part due to the ineffective or sur-
face learning strategies (e.g. rote memorization) used by students prone to self-hand-
icapping (Gadbois and Sturgeon 2011; Thomas and Gadbois 2007; Zuckerman et al.
1998; Warner and Moore 2004; Canadian, US and Australian samples). Differences
in conceptualization and operationalization make it difficult to form a clear picture.
A systematic meta-analysis is required to clarify the relationship of academic per-
formance with trait self-handicapping (measured either by the Self-Handicapping
Scale [SHS] or by the Academic Self-Handicapping Scale [ASHS]) and with state
or context-specific self-handicapping.
7 Prospects for prevention
Self-handicapping as a means of self-protection has been found to be maladaptive

in several respects, therefore special attention has to be paid to its prevention. Its
influencing factors may be categorized according to whether they are related to
the person or to the situation and whether they elicit or prevent self-handicapping
(Torok and Szabo 2018). In terms of prevention, situation-dependent protective fac-
tors are of the highest importance, therefore they are discussed first in this part of
the study. One such factor is a learning goal structure, which has already been men-
tioned (Midgley and Urdan 2001). A teacher supporting a learning goal structure
in the classroom emphasizes that errors are acceptable if they serve development,
helps students understand rather than memorize the subject matter, aims to make
the acquisition of knowledge enjoyable, and appreciates trying and effort. In order
to achieve these goals, teachers have to emphasize students’ autonomy since it is
enough in itself to reduce the frequency of self-handicapping (Knee and Zuckerman
1998; Lewis and Neighbors 2005, US samples). Likewise, self-handicapping did not
emerge in situations where subjects perceived a pre-existing hindering factor since
in such situations there was no need to set further obstacles (Shepperd and Arkin
1989a, US sample).
Another important protective factor could be self-affirmation. Those who had
the opportunity of self-affirmation prior to a performance situation (e.g. by writing
an essay on their most important virtues) were less likely to self-handicap (Kim-
ble et al. 1998; Siegel et al. 2005, US samples). However, self-affirmation was only
effective when it did not remind the individual of the prospective task such as when
an academic performance situation was preceded by an essay writing task on a topic
unrelated to academic performance. Such reminders made the task even more ego-
threatening in accordance with McCrea and Hirt (2011). Findings on the protective
effect of self-affirmation have been refined by Tandler et al. (2014, German sample)
who found that only individuals with high self-esteem were less likely to self-handi-
cap as a result of self-affirmation.
Formulation of goals by “if…, then…” statements (implementation intention
Thürmer et al. 2013, German sample) provided an even more effective strategy
than self-affirmation. Thürmer et al. (2013) suggested that this self-regulation
13
strategy is particularly effective because it activates the mental representations of

the subsequent performance situation, thus increasing their accessibility. Moreo-
ver, a close associative connection developed between the eliciting situation and
the elicited response so that the critical stimulus automatically activated the goal-
directed response, without requiring conscious control. Similarly, self-handicap-
ping may be prevented by preparing the individual for the performance situation
by the following formulation, for example: “if I do…, I will perform better on
the task” (upward prefactual McCrea and Flamm 2012, US sample). Uncondi-
tional acceptance also reduced self-protection motivation and thus the likelihood
of self-handicapping (Arndt et al. 2002, US sample). When subjects thought of a
person who accepted them as they were, they took more responsibility for their
performance than those thinking of a person who tied acceptance to certain con-
ditions and/or standards or of a person who was neutral in this respect.
Besides protective factors, there are certain contexts that elicit self-handicap-
ping and therefore should be avoided by teachers. One of them is the above men-
tioned performance goal structure: the more emphasis was laid on interpersonal
comparison and on performance, the more likely students were to self-handicap.
Another such context is stereotype threat, which provided a means to cope with
the threatening situation (Midgley et al. 1996; Stone 2002, US samples).
Noncontingent success feedback has been known since the beginning of
research on self-handicapping to elicit such behaviour (Alter and Forgas 2007;
Berglas and Jones 1978; Thompson 2004, Australian and US samples). Kim
et al. (2010, US sample) found that subjects showing outstanding performance
but receiving feedback about poor performance were more likely to self-handicap
than either control subjects or those who received adequate feedback about their
performance. The same applied to subjects who performed poorly: those receiv-
ing feedback about outstanding performance were more likely to self-handicap
than the other two mentioned groups. The possible explanation for these findings
is, on one hand, that subjects informed of a better performance than they expected
were motivated to maintain this induced self-image (inflated self-assessment) and
less motivated to receive feedback about their actual abilities after the next task.
On the other hand, those informed of a performance poorer than they expected
(deflated self-assessment) were compelled to question their abilities so that sub-
sequently they preferred to avoid diagnostic ability feedback by self-handicapping
in order to protect themselves (which results over time in further unfavourable
feedback about abilities). However, the experimental ego-threatening situation
was in several studies (e.g. Hobden and Pliner 1995, Canadian sample) based on
an environment emphasizing social comparison and performance, therefore it is
unclear whether the obtained findings are due to the manipulated independent
variable (e.g. noncontingent success feedback) or to the environment emphasiz-
ing performance goals. Likewise, students who perceived their parents as perfec-
tionists and critical in terms of academic performance showed an elevated level
of self-handicapping (Reis and Peixoto 2013, Portuguese sample). Frequent use
of formulations such as “if I do…, I will perform poorer” (downward prefactual)
should also be avoided since it also increased the likelihood of self-handicapping
(McCrea and Flamm 2012, US sample).
13
Factors related to the social environment that increased the frequency of self-
handicapping were friends with a negative orientation towards school (Midgley and
Urdan 1995, US sample) and anticipation of social exclusion (Twenge et al. 2002,
US sample). Subjects given the feedback based on a supposed personality test that
they would eventually not find a partner procrastinated more before the subsequent
task compared to control subjects who did not receive such feedback.
Other researchers also emphasized the importance of reducing self-handicapping
(e.g. Steward and De George Walker 2014). A cognitive-behavioural coaching inter-
vention designed by Kearns et al. (2007) successfully reduced the level of self-hand-
icapping. Uysal and Knee (2012) suggested that improving self-control may also be
efficient in reducing self-handicapping. However, it should be added that, the most
of these results are based on small number of papers, so more empirical work is
needed in order to have a clear picture regarding the protecting factors.
8 Measuring academic self‑handicapping
The most widely used tool for measuring self-handicapping is the Self-Handicap-
ping Scale (SHS) developed by Jones and Rhodewalt (1982), which taps general and
trait self-handicapping. The Likert-type scale comprises 25 items, which subjects
rate on six-point scales according to their agreement with each item (e.g. “I tend
to put things until the last moment”). The scale was originally developed as a mul-
tidimensional instrument but it has been used in most studies as a unidimensional
measure (e.g. Thompson and Richardson 2001). Application of the SHS has raised
several points of criticism; for example, the scale was not always capable of clearly
separating self-handicapping from post hoc attributional processes (e.g. excusing
failure) and it measures an undifferentiated self-protective behaviour rather than
a specific self-handicapping tendency (Schwinger et al. 2014). This has raised the
need for a new instrument (Clarke and MacCann 2016).
Certain empirical findings (Schwinger 2013, German sample) provided a basis
and support for a domain-specific approach to self-handicapping, in which an instru-
ment adapted to the school context, namely, the Academic Self-Handicapping Scale
(ASHS; Urdan and Midgley 2001) has been developed. The Likert-type scale con-
sists of six items, which explicitly assesses strategic and a priori use of self-handi-
capping behaviour (e.g. “Some students purposely don’t try hard in school, so that if
they don’t do well. How true is this for you?”). Each item is constructed according
to a predefined structure comprising a behaviour (don’t try hard), a cause (they can
say it is because they didn’t try) and the a priori timing. Subjects rate each item on
five-point scales.
Another scale adapted to the school context is the Motivation and Engagement
Scale (MES; Liem and Martin 2012), which assesses the cognitive and behavioural
aspects of motivation and engagement. The self-sabotage subscale comprising four
items measures self-handicapping. These items were adopted from the SHS and
ASHS, that is, they provide an explicit measure. Measuring self-handicapping by
questionnaires may raise considerable difficulties since the relationship between
self-handicapping and self-deception is far from clear. Several authors point out the
13
possible importance of self-deception in the self-handicapping process (Torok et al.

2014; Baumeister 1996; Clarke and MacCann 2016; McCrea et al. 2009; Rhode-
walt and Vohs 2005). As Quattrone and Tversky (1984) argued, “when people select
actions to infer an auspicious antecedent cause, then, to accept the inference as valid,
they often render themselves unaware of the fact that they selected the action just in
order to infer the cause […] When people select an action to make a favorable diag-
nosis, but fail to realize that purposefully selected the action in order to make the
diagnosis, we classify action and the denial collectively as a form of deceptive diag-
nosis” (p. 239). More specifically, as Jones (1990) noted, “the perils of deception
and self-deception are always present. For self-handicapping to be effective, it would
appear that the right hand must not be fully aware of what the left hand is doing” (p.
xi). At the same time, according to Alicke and Sedikides (2009), self-enhancement
is a luxury, self-protection is a necessity. This is also in line with the results of Tice
(1991) who found that high self-esteem people self-handicapped in order to enhance
success whereas low self-esteem participants self-handicapped to protect themselves
against failure. Alicke and Sedikides (2009) proposed that self-deception might be
more efficient in the latter case. In sum, self-handicapping protects self-worth, which
implies that self-deceptive mechanisms are involved. Arkin and Oleson (1998) com-
pare this process to complimenting: it may fail or even backfire if its purpose is seen
as mere ingratiation. Importantly, there is similarity between self-handicapping and
self-serving biases. If participants are not aware of interpreting success and failure
in a biased fashion (a posteriori), then why should self-handicappers be assumed
to be aware of their biased (a priori) perception? Midgley et al. (2001) argued that
self-handicappers tend to have lower self-esteem than non-self-handicappers, there-
fore the reasoning is incorrect. However, this finding was obtained in studies using
trait but not state measures of self-steem and failing to measure self-esteem imme-
diately after self-handicapping. Regarding chronic self-handicapping, the discrep-
ancy between performance and illusions may be extremely inconsistent with reality,
which makes it difficult to maintain stable high self-esteem. However, the hypotheti-
cal relationship between self-handicapping and self-deception has yet to be empiri-
cally verified.
Our intuition is that explicit self-report measures of self-handicapping are also
sensitive to sandbagging. As Gibson and Sachau (2000) noted, “sandbagging is a
self-presentational strategy involving the false prediction or feigned demonstration
of inability used to create artificially low expectations for the sandbagger’s per-
formance” (p. 56). According to the authors, the explanation for failure offered by
sandbaggers (lack of ability) is the conclusion self-handicappers want to avoid. This
is possibly because this manoeuvre is strategically used by sandbaggers, hence they
are not threatened by an ability-based explanation for failure because they personally
do not accept it. By contrast, a self-handicapper would find such explanations threat-
ening. As Cramer (2009) noted, “there could be two types of self-handicappers,
– those identified by a self-report scale, and another based more on self-deception”
(p. 354). In our view, the first may be more a sandbagger, while the second may be
more a self-handicapper. A thorough examination of the differences between sand-
bagging and self-handicapping is needed to gain a better understanding of the self-
handicapping process.
13
Another difficulty with Likert-type scales of self-handicapping is that self-handi-

capping does not emerge in situations where participants perceive a pre-existing hin-
dering factor, since in such situations there is no need to set further obstacles (Shep-
perd and Arkin 1989a). For example, a participant marking 5 on the first item(s)
may find no reason to “claim” other hindering factors. This is in line with the “self-
zoo” theory of Tesser et al. (1996), which proposes that different self-protective
mechanisms serve the same underlying motive (protecting self-esteem), thus they
can be used interchangeably. In other words, administering Likert-type scales prior
to an experiment on behavioural self-handicapping may reduce the level of state
behavioural self-handicapping because participants are enabled to provide a priori
excuses before the experiment. Moreover, findings reported by Hirt et al. (1991,
US sample) suggest that participants prefer self-reported handicaps to behavioural
self-handicapping.
In addition, Likert-type measures of self-handicapping list several alternative
forms of self-handicapping (e.g. ineffective practice, feeling under the weather)
while only those scoring high on the scale as a whole are considered high self-
handicappers. The rich array of self-handicapping behaviours even includes socially
positive forms (Wusik and Axsom 2016). For example, people who report a constant
lack of sleep (score 5 on the respective item) but do not use either performance-
reducing drugs or other means of self-handicapping are not considered self-hand-
icappers. Self-handicapping was also assessed in semi-structured interviews (e.g.
Martin et al. 2003b) but the technique did not prove efficient in revealing the a priori
nature of the process.
Considering these difficulties, the authors of the present study argue that self-
handicapping should be measured experimentally (since any questionnaire measur-
ing a process possibly based on self-deception raises serious methodological issues).
Behavioural self-handicapping may be directly assessed by measuring self-handi-
capping behaviour (e.g. amount of practice/effort, preferring favourable conditions
to unfavourable ones, amount of alcohol/drug consumed), while measurement of
self-reported handicaps may be based on an analysis of statements about hinder-
ing factors (whether one makes such statement(s), to what extent the mentioned
obstacle(s) hinder one’s performance). A considerable difficulty posed to the sys-
tematization and generalization of empirical findings is that several different meas-
ures of self-handicapping are in use.
9 Summary
This review provides a discussion of the field of academic self-handicapping. The

authors argue for the importance of research in this field and, especially, for the
importance of knowledge of the phenomenon since it occurs in a wide range of situ-
ations in a school environment and it has particularly harmful consequences for both
academic performance and well-being or general self-confidence (Zuckerman and
Tsai 2005, US sample). Likewise it is important that teachers are able to recognize
this form of self-protection. This is because an observer may easily find a self-hand-
icapping child irresponsible, negligent or even consider them to be a lazy student,
13
uninterested in school and academic performance. On the contrary, Midgley and

Urdan (1995) pointed out that self-handicapping shows that students do attribute
great significance to academic achievement. Teachers should pay attention to pre-
vention since—as it has been raised by several authors—permanent self-handicap-
ping not only entails chronic academic underperformance but students may as well
remain unaware of their true abilities for a long time (e.g. Harris and Snyder 1986).
In sum, prevention at school and during childhood is of utmost importance.
Likewise, special attention should be paid by teachers to students with develop-
mental disorders or learning disabilities. Self-handicapping is positively correlated
to both ADHD and learning disabilities (e.g. dyslexia, dyscalculia and dysgraphia;
Alesi et al. 2012; Waschbusch et al. 2007, Italian and US samples). The authors
explain these findings by suggesting that affected students have to face more experi-
ences of failure than students with typical development, therefore they are even more
susceptible to the temptation of self-handicapping. As Alesi et al. (2012) pointed
out, this leads to a downward spiral in the long term since self-handicapping results
in declining academic performance (due to a decrease in the study of reading/arith-
metic) and thus learning disabilities worsen as well.
Researchers in the field have to deal with a vast number of issues. One of the most
urgent tasks is to ensure the commensurability of empirical findings obtained in dif-
ferent studies by developing methodological standards. Academic self-handicapping
has in most cases been measured by the ASHS, which is based on an approach that
conceptualizes the measured construct as a conscious and strategic process, while
the validity of such an approach is highly questionable (as previously discussed).
Further ecologically valid experiments and meta-analyses are needed to verify exist-
ing questionnaire data. A further disadvantage of questionnaires is that they are
incapable of distinguishing between behavioural self-handicapping and self-reported
handicaps, therefore little is known about their separate effects on performance.
While the harmful consequences of behavioural self-handicapping for academic per-
formance have been completely clarified, little and inconsistent data are available
concerning self-reported handicaps.
Likewise, the time and exact process of the emergence of self-handicapping
have yet to be revealed by research. Existing empirical findings suggest that insuf-
ficiency or absence of maternal care is responsible for the emergence of self-hand-
icapping, while little is known about the exact time of developmental emergence
(Greaven et al. 2000; Want and Kleitman 2006, US samples). Urdan and Midley
(2001) argued that it does not emerge before late childhood since third grade (8 or
9-year-old) students typically did not relate performance assessment to self-esteem
as opposed to sixth graders (10 to 12-year-olds), who did (Kimble et al. 1998). Self-
handicapping appeared to be a self-protective reaction primarily among students
with fragile self-esteem. According to Jordan and Zeigler-Hill (2013), the indicators
of fragile self-esteem include contingent self-esteem, unstable self-esteem and a dis-
crepancy between high explicit and low implicit self-esteem. All of these indicators
have been identified as a precursor of self-handicapping (Lupien et al. 2010; Niiya
et al. 2010; Newman and Wadas 1997).
Evaluating existing research on self-presentation, Martin Ginis et al. (2007) cited
Forscher’s (1963) allegorical tale of the scientist as a “brickmaker” who failed to
13
keep in mind that science was ultimately aimed at constructing edifices rather than
at producing a huge amount of bricks without assembling them. In our view, the
conclusion of this tale is also worth considering in the field of self-handicapping.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments
and suggestions. We also would like to thank István Csertő for his valuable lectoring work in terms
of revising and improving the quality of the text.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
Alesi, M., Rappo, G., & Pepi, A. (2012). Self-esteem at school and self-handicapping in childhood: Com-
parison of groups with learning disabilities. Psychological Reports, 111(3), 952–962.
Alicke, M., & Sedikides, C. (2009). Self-enhancement and self-protection. What they are and what they
do. European Review of Social Psychology, 20(1), 1–48.
Alter, A., & Forgas, J. P. (2007). On being happy but fearing failure: The effects of mood on self-handi-
capping strategies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(6), 947–954.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms. Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 84(3), 261–271.
Arkin, R. M., & Baumgardner, A. H. (1985). Self-handicapping. In J. H. Harvey & G. Weary (Eds.),
Attribution. Basic issues and applications (pp. 169–202). New York: Academic Press.
Arkin, R. M., & Oleson, K. C. (1998). Self-handicapping. In J. M. Darley & J. Cooper (Eds.), Attribution
and social interaction: The legacy of Edward E. Jones (pp. 313–371). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Arndt, J., Schimel, J., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (2002). The intrinsic self and defensiveness. Evi-
dence that activating the intrinsic self reduces self-handicapping and conformity. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 671–683.
Aronson, J., Cohen, G., & McCloskey, W. (2009). Reducing stereotype threat in classrooms. A review
of social-psychological intervention studies on improving the achievement of Black students. No.
076, U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Services, National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory, Washington, DC.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64(1),
359–372.
Baumeister, R. F. (1996). Self-regulation and ego threat. Motivated cognition, self-deception, and
destructive goal setting. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action. Link-
ing cognition and motivation to behaviour (pp. 27–47). New York: Guilford.
Baumeister, R. F., & Scher, S. J. (1988). Self-defeating behavior patterns among normal individuals:
Review and analysis of common self-destructive tendencies. Psychological Bulletin, 104(1), 3–22.
Baumgardner, A. H., Lake, E. A., & Arkin, R. M. (1985). Claiming mood as a self-handicap. The influ-
ence 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 procrasti-
nation. The effects of academic procrastination, self-consciousness, self-esteem and self-handicap-
ping. 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 noncontin-
gent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(4), 405–417.
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.
Brown, C. M., & Kimble, C. E. (2009). Personal, interpersonal, and situational influences on behavioral
self-handicapping. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(6), 609–626.
13
Brown, C. M., Park, S. W., & Folger, S. F. (2012). Growth motivation as a moderator of behavioral self-
handicapping in women. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152(2), 136–146.
Burkley, H., & Blanton, H. (2008). Endorsing a negative ingroup stereotype as a self-protective strategy.
Sacrificing the group to save the self. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(1), 37–49.
Chen, L. H., Wu, C., Kee, Y. H., Lin, M., & Shui, S. (2009). Fear of failure, 2 × 2 achievement goal, and
self-handicapping. An examination of the hierarchical model of achievement motivation in physi-
cal education. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(4), 298–305.
Clarke, I. E., & MacCann, C. (2016). Internal and external aspects of self-handicapping reflect the dis-
tinction between motivations and behaviours. Evidence from the Self-handicapping Scale. Person-
ality and Individual Differences, 100, 6–11.
Coudevylle, G. R., Sinnapah, S., Charles-Charlery, C., Baillot, M., & Hue, O. (2015). Impact of motiva-
tional climates on claimed self-handicapping strategies. Illustration in tropical environment. Jour-
nal of Applied Sport Psychology, 27(4), 384–397.
Covington, M. V. (1984). The motive for self-worth. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motiva-
tion in education. Student motivation (pp. 77–113). New York: Academic Press.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade. A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Covington, M. V., & Mueller, K. J. (2001). Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. An approach/avoidance
reformulation. Educational Psychology Review, 13(2), 157–176.
Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1979). Effort. The double-edged sword in school achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 169–182.
Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1991). Need achievement revisited. Verification of Atkinson’s origi-
nal 2 × 2 model. In C. D. Spielberger, I. G. Sarason, Z. Kulcsar, & G. L. Van Heck (Eds.), Stress
and emotion. Anxiety, anger, and curiosity (Vol. 14, pp. 85–105). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Cox, C. B., & Giuliano, T. A. (1999). Constructing obstacles versus making excuses. Examining per-
ceiver’s reactions to behavioral and self-reported self-handicapping. Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, 14(3), 419–432.
Cramer, P. (2009). Defense mechanisms and self-doubt. In R. M. Arkin, K. C. Oleson, & P. J. Carroll
(Eds.), Handbook of the uncertain self (pp. 338–359). New York: Psychology Press.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem. The self-protective properties of stigma.
Psychological Review, 96(4), 608–630.
De Castella, K., & Byrne, D. (2015). My intelligence may be more malleable than yours. The revised
implicit theories of intelligence (self-theory) scale is a better predictor of achievement, motivation,
and student disengagement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30(3), 245–267.
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.
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 compe-
tence implications. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 23(4), 403–410.
Doebler, T. C., Schick, C., Beck, B., & Astor-Stetson, E. (2000). Ego Protection: The effects of gen-
der and perfectionism on acquired and claimed self-handicapping and self-esteem. College Student
Journal, 34(4), 524–537.
Dolinski, D. (1996). Belief in an unjust world: An egotistic delusion. Social Justice Research, 9(3),
213–221.
Dorman, J. P., & Ferguson, J. M. (2004). Associations between students’ perceptions of mathematics
classroom environment and self-handicapping in Australian and Canadian high schools. McGill
Journal of Education, 39(1), 68–86.
Drexler, L. P., Ahrens, A. H., & Haaga, D. A. F. (1995). The affective consequences of self-handicapping.
Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 10(4), 861–870.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10),
1040–1048.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset. The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psy-
chological Review, 95(2), 256–273.
13
Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating “classic” and “contemporary” approaches to achievement motivation: A

hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In P. Pintrich & M. Maehr
(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 143–179). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psycholo-
gist, 34(3), 169–189.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement moti-
vation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (2003). A motivational analysis of defensive pessimism and self-handicap-
ping. Journal of Personality, 71(3), 369–396.
Elliot, A. J., Cury, F., Fryer, J. W., & Huguet, P. (2006). Achievement goals, self-handicapping, and per-
formance 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.
Eronen, S., Nurmi, J. E., & Salmela-Aro, K. (1998). Optimistic, defensive-pessimistic, impulsive and
self-handicapping strategies in university environments. Learning and Instruction, 8(2), 159–177.
Feick, D. L., & Rhodewalt, F. (1997). The double-edged sword of self-handicapping: Discounting, aug-
mentation, and the protection and enhancement of self-esteem. Motivation and Emotion, 21(2),
147–163.
Ferrari, J. R., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Procrastination as a self-handicap for men and women. A task avoid-
ance strategy in a laboratory setting. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(1), 73–83.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.
Gadbois, S. A., & Sturgeon, R. D. (2011). Academic self-handicapping. Relationships with learning spe-
cific and general self-perceptions and academic performance over time. British Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 81(2), 207–222.
Gibson, B., & Sachau, D. A. (2000). Sandbagging as a self-presentational strategy: Claiming to be less
than you are. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(1), 56–70.
Greaven, S. H., Santor, D. A., Thompson, R., & Zuroff, D. C. (2000). Adolescent self-handicapping,
depressive affect, and maternal parenting styles. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(6),
631–646.
Greenberg, J. (1985). Unattainable goal choice as a self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 15(2), 140–152.
Harris, R. N., & Snyder, C. R. (1986). The role of uncertain self-esteem in self-handicapping. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 451–458.
Higgins, R. L., & Harris, R. N. (1988). Strategic alcohol use. Drinking to self-handicap. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 6(2), 191–202.
Hirt, E. R., Deppe, R. K., & Gordon, L. J. (1991). Self-reported versus behavioral self-handicapping:
Empirical evidence for a theoretical distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
61(6), 981–991.
Hirt, E. R., & McCrea, S. M. (2009). Man smart, woman smarter getting to the root of gender differences
in self-handicapping. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(3), 260–274.
Hirt, E. R., McCrea, S. M., & Boris, H. I. (2003). “I know you self-handicapped last exam”: Gender dif-
ferences in reactions to self-handicapping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1),
177–193.
Hirt, E. R., McCrea, S. M., & Kimble, C. E. (2000). Public self-focus and sex differences in behavioral
self-handicapping: Does increasing self-threat still make it “just a man’s game?”. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1131–1141.
Hobden, K., & Pliner, P. (1995). Self-handicapping and dimensions of perfectionism. Self-presentation vs
self-protection. Journal of Research in Personality, 29(4), 461–474.
Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, S. M., Bodmann, S. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). A meta-analytic review
of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with
similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 422–449.
Isleib, R. A., Vuchinich, R. E., & Tucker, J. A. (1988). Performance attributions and changes in self-
esteem following self-handicapping with alcohol consumption. Journal of Social and Clinical Psy-
chology, 6(1), 88–103.
Jones, E. E. (1990). Foreword. In R. L. Higgins, C. R. Snyder, & S. Berglas (Eds.), Self-handicapping.
The paradox that isn’t (pp. ix–xi). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
13
Jones, E. E., & Berglas, S. (1978). Control of attributions about the self through self-handicapping strate-
gies. The appeal of alcohol and the role of underachievement. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 4(2), 200–206.
Jones, E. E., & Rhodewalt, F. (1982). The self-handicapping scale. Unpublished manuscript, Princeton
University.
Jones, E. E., Rhodewalt, F., Berglas, S., & Skelton, J. A. (1981). Effects of strategic self-presentation on
subsequent self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 407–421.
Jordan, C. H., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2013). Fragile self-esteem. The perils and pitfalls of (some) high self-
esteem. In V. Zeigler-Hill (Ed.), self-esteem (pp. 80–98). NY: Psychology Press.
Kearns, H., Forbes, A., & Gardiner, M. (2007). A cognitive behavioural coaching intervention for the
treatment of perfectionism and self-handicapping in a non-clinical population. Behaviour Change,
24(3), 157–172.
Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attribution in social interaction. New York: General Learning Press.
Kim, Y., Chiu, C., & Zou, Z. (2010). Know thyself. Misperceptions of actual performance undermine
achievement motivation, future performance, and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and
Kim, H., Lee, K., & Hong, Y.-Y. (2012). Claiming the validity of negative ingroup stereotypes when fore-
seeing a challenge. A self-handicapping account. Self and Identity, 11(3), 285–303.
Kimble, C., & Hirt, E. (2005). Self-focus, gender, and habitual self-handicapping: Do they make a differ-
ence 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), 524–535.
Knee, C. R., & Zuckerman, M. (1998). A nondefensive personality. Autonomy and control as moderators
of defensive coping and self-handicapping. Journal of Research in Personality, 32(2), 115–130.
Kolditz, T. A., & Arkin, R. M. (1982). An impression management interpretation of the self-handicap-
ping strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 492–502.
Lay, C. H., Knish, S., & Zanatta, R. (1992). Self-handicappers and procrastinators. A comparison of their
practice behavior prior to an evaluation. Journal of Research in Personality, 26(3), 242–257.
Leary, M. R., & Shepperd, J. A. (1986). Self-handicapping. 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.
Levesque, M. J., Lowe, C. A., & Mendenhall, C. (2001). Self-handicapping as a method of self-presenta-
tion. An analysis of costs and benefits. Current Research in Social Psychology, 6(15), 1–13.
Lewis, M. A., & Neighbors, C. (2005). Self-determination and the use of self-presentation strategies.
Journal of Social Psychology, 145(4), 469–489.
Liem, G. A., & Martin, A. J. (2012). The motivation and engagement scale. Theoretical framework, psy-
chometric properties, and applied yields. Australian Psychologist, 47(1), 3–13.
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.
Lucas, J. W., & Lovaglia, M. J. (2005). Self-handicapping: Gender, race, and status. Current Research in
Luginbuhl, J., & Palmer, R. (1991). Impression management aspects of self-handicapping. Positive and
negative effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(6), 655–662.
Lupien, S. P., Seery, M. D., & Almonte, J. L. (2010). Discrepant and congruent high self-esteem: Behav-
ioral self-handicapping as a preemptive defensive strategy. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 46(6), 1105–1108.
Martin, A. J. (2003). The student motivation scale. Further testing of an instrument that measures school
students’ motivation. Australian Journal of Education, 47(1), 88–106.
Martin, A. J. (2004). School motivation of boys and girls: Differences of degree, differences of kind, or
both? Australian Journal of Psychology, 56(3), 133–146.
Martin, A. J. (2010). Building classroom success: Eliminating academic fear and failure. London:
Continuum.
Martin Ginis, K. A., Lindwall, M., & Prapavessis, H. (2007). Who cares what other people think? Self-
presentation in sport and exercise. In G. Tenenbaum & R. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psy-
chology (3rd ed., pp. 136–157). New York: Wiley.
13
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001). A quadripolar need achievement representation
of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3),
583–610.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2003a). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism. A
model of self-protection from a longitudinal perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychol-
ogy, 28(1), 1–36.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., Williamson, A., & Debus, R. L. (2003b). Self-handicapping, defensive
pessimism, and goal orientation: A qualitative study of university students. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 95(3), 617–628.
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. (2001). The role of ability judgments in self-handicapping. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1378–1389.
McCrea, S. M., & Hirt, E. R. (2011). Limitations on the substitutability of self-protective processes.
Self-handicapping is not reduced by related-domain self-affirmations. Social Psychology, 42(1),
9–18.
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.
McCrea, S. M., Myers, A. L., & Hirt, E. R. (2009). Self-handicapping as an anticipatory self-protec-
tion strategy. In E. P. Lamont (Ed.), Social psychology. New research (pp. 31–53). Hauppuage,
NY: Nova Science.
McElroy, J. C., & Crant, J. M. (2008). Handicapping. The effects of its source and frequency. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 893–900.
Midgley, C., Arunkumar, R., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). “If I don’t do well tomorrow, there’s a reason”.
Predictors of adolescents’ use of academic self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88(3), 423–434.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. J. (2001). Performance-approach goals. Good for what, for
whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1),
77–86.
Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1995). Predictors of middle school students’ use of self-handicapping strat-
egies. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15(4), 389–411.
Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic self-handicapping and performance goals. A further
examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(1), 61–75.
Milner, B. (2009). Individual differences in peer relationships. The role of self-handicapping. Saar-
brücken: VDM Verlag.
Newman, L. S., & Wadas, R. F. (1997). When stakes are higher: Self-esteem instability and self-
handicapping. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 12(1), 217–232.
Niiya, Y., Brook, A. T., & Crocker, J. (2010). Contingent self-worth and self-handicapping. Do con-
tingent incremental theorists protect self-esteem? Self and Identity, 9(3), 276–297.
Ntoumanis, N., Taylor, I., & Standage, M. (2010). Testing a model of antecedents and consequences
of defensive pessimism and self-handicapping in school physical education. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 28(14), 1515–1525.
Nurmi, J. E., Onatsu, T., & Haavisto, T. (1995). Underachievers’ cognitive and behavioral strategies—
Self-handicapping at school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(2), 188–200.
Ommundsen, Y. (2001). Self-handicapping strategies in physical education classes. The influence of
implicit theories of the nature of ability and achievement goal orientations. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 2(3), 139–156.
Ommundsen, Y. (2004). Self-handicapping related to task and performance-approach and avoidance
goals in physical education. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16(2), 183–197.
Ommundsen, Y., Haugen, R., & Lund, T. (2005). Academic self-concept, implicit theories of ability,
and self-regulation strategies. Scandanavian Journal of Education Research, 49(5), 461–474.
Park, S. W., & Brown, C. M. (2014). Different perceptions of self-handicapping across college and
work contexts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(2), 124–132.
13
Parker, P. D., & Martin, A. J. (2009). Coping and buoyancy in the workplace: Understanding their effects
on teachers’ work-related well-being and engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1),
68–75.
Quattrone, G. A., & Tversky, A. (1984). Causal versus diagnostic contingencies: On self-deception and
on the voter’s illusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(2), 237–248.
Reis, I. G., & Peixoto, F. (2013). “My parents just criticize me”—Relationship between parenting prac-
tices (perfectionism and critical) and self-esteem, academic self-concept, motivation and the use of
self-handicapping strategies. Analise Psicologica, 31(4), 343–358.
Rhodewalt, F. (1990). Self-handicappers. Individual differences in the preference for anticipatory, self-
protective acts. In R. L. Higgins, C. R. Snyder, & S. Berglas (Eds.), Self-handicapping. The para-
dox that isn’t (pp. 69–106). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Rhodewalt, F. (1994). Conceptions of ability, achievement goals and individual differences in self-hand-
icapping behavior. On the application of implicit theories. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 67–85.
Rhodewalt, F., & Fairfield, M. L. (1991). Claimed self-handicapping and the self-handicapper: The rela-
tion of reduction in intended effort to performance. Journal of Research in Psychology, 25(4),
402–407.
Rhodewalt, F., & Hill, S. K. (1995). Self-handicapping in the classroom. The effects of claimed self-
handicaps on responses to academic failure. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16(4), 397–416.
Rhodewalt, F., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Tschanz, B., Feick, D. L., & Waller, A. (1995). Self-handicapping
and interpersonal trade-offs. The effects of claimed self-handicaps on observers’ performance eval-
uations and feedback. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(10), 1042–1050.
Rhodewalt, F., & Tragakis, M. W. (2002a). Self-handicapping and the social self: The cost and rewards of
interpersonal self-construction. In J. P. Forgas & K. D. Williams (Eds.), The social self: Cognitive,
interpersonal, and intergroup perspectives (pp. 121–140). New York: Psychology Press.
Rhodewalt, F., & Tragakis, M. (2002b). Self-handicapping and School: On academic self-concept and
self-protective behavior. In J. Aronson & D. Cordova (Eds.), Improving academic achievement:
Impact of psychological factors (pp. 109–134). New York: Academic Press.
Rhodewalt, F., & Vohs, K. D. (2005). Defensive strategies, motivation, and the self: A self-regulatory
process view. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp.
548–565). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Rickert, N. P., Meras, I. L., & Witkow, M. R. (2014). Theories of intelligence and students’ daily self-
handicapping behaviors. Learning and Individual Differences, 36, 1–8.
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 Dif-
ferences, 32(7), 1173–1184.
Ryska, T. A. (2002). Effects of situational self-handicapping and state self-confidence on the physical
performance of young participants. Psychological Record, 52(4), 461–478.
Sanna, L. J., & Mark, M. M. (1995). Self-handicapping, expected evaluation, and performance: Accen-
tuating the positive and attenuating the negative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 64(1), 84–102.
Schwinger, M. (2013). Structure of academic self-handicapping. Global or domain-specific construct?
Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 134–143.
Schwinger, M., & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2011). Prevention of self-handicapping—The protective func-
tion of mastery goals. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(6), 699–709.
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.
Self, E. A. (1990). Situational influences on self-handicapping. In R. L. Higgins, C. R. Snyder, & S. Ber-
glas (Eds.), Self-handicapping. The paradox that isn’t (pp. 37–68). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Shepperd, J. A., & Arkin, R. M. (1989a). Determinants of self-handicapping. Task importance and the
effects of preexisting handicaps on self-generated handicaps. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 15(1), 101–112.
Shepperd, J. A., & Arkin, R. M. (1989b). Self-handicapping: The moderating roles of public self-con-
sciousness and task importance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 155, 252–265.
Shih, S. (2005). Taiwanese sixth graders’ achievement goals and their motivation, strategy use, and
grades: An examination of the multiple goal perspective. The Elementary School Journal, 106(1),
39–58.
Shih, S. (2011). Perfectionism, implicit theories of intelligence, and Taiwanese eighth-Grade students’
academic engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 104(2), 131–142.
13
Siegel, P. A., Scillitoe, J., & Parks-Yancy, R. (2005). Reducing the tendency to self-handicap. The effect
of self-affirmation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(6), 589–597.
Smith, J. L., Hardy, T., & Arkin, R. (2009). When practice doesn’t make perfect: Effort expenditure as
an active behavioral self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(1), 95–98.
Smith, L., Sinclair, K., & Chapman, E. (2002). Students’ goals, self-efficacy, self-handicapping, and neg-
ative affective responses: An Australian senior school student study. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 27(3), 471–485.
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 Psy-
chology, 42(2), 314–321.
Smith, T. W., Snyder, C. R., & Perkins, S. C. (1983). The self-serving function of hypochondriacal com-
plaints. Physical symptoms as self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 44(4), 787–797.
Smith, T. W., & Strube, M. J. (1991). Self-protective tendencies as moderators of self-handicapping
impressions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 63–80.
Snyder, C. R. (1990). Self-handicapping processes and sequelae. In R. L. Higgins, C. R. Snyder, & S.
Berglas (Eds.), Self-handicapping. The paradox that isn’t (pp. 107–150). New York, NY: Plenum
Press.
Snyder, C. R., & Higgins, R. L. (1988). Excuses. Their effective role in the negotiation of reality. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 104(1), 23–35.
Snyder, K. E., Malin, J. L., Dent, A. L., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2014). The message matters. The role
of implicit beliefs about giftedness and failure experiences in academic self-handicapping. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 230–241.
Standage, M., Treasure, D., Hooper, K., & Kuczka, K. (2007). Self-handicapping in school physical
education. The influence of the motivational climate. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
77(1), 81–99.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential
self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65–94.
Steward, M. A., & De George-Walker, L. (2014). Self-handicapping, perfectionism, locus of control, and
self-efficacy: A path model. Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 160–164.
Stone, J. (2002). Battling doubt by avoiding practice. The effects of stereotype threat on self-handicap-
ping in White athletes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1667–1678.
Strube, M. J. (1986). An analysis of the self-handicapping scale. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
7(3), 211–224.
Strunk, K. K., & Steele, M. R. (2011). Relative contributions of self-regulation, self-efficacy, and self-
handicapping in predicting student procrastination. Psychological Reports, 109(3), 983–989.
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.
Tandler, S., Schwinger, M., Kaminski, K., & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2014). Self-affirmation buff-
ers claimed self-handicapping? A test of contextual and individual moderators. Psychology, 5,
321–327.
Tannenbaum, R. E. (2007). Goal orientation, work avoidance goals, and self-handicapping in community
college students (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses data-
base. (UMI No. 3274072).
Tesser, A., Martin, L., & Cornell, D. (1996). On the substitutability of self-protective mechanisms. In P.
M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking motivation and cognition to
behavior (pp. 48–68). New York: Guilford.
Tetlock, P. E., & Manstead, A. S. (1985). Impression management versus intrapsychic explanations in
social psychology: A useful dichotomy?. Psychological Review, 92(1), 59–77.
Thomas, C. R., & Gadbois, S. A. (2007). Academic self-handicapping. The role of self-concept clarity
and students’ learning strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 101–119.
Thompson, T. (2004). Re-examining the effects of noncontingent success on self-handicapping behav-
iour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 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.
13
Thürmer, J. L., McCrea, S. M., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2013). Regulating self-defensiveness. If-then plans
prevent claiming and creating performance handicaps. Motivation and Emotion, 37(4), 712–725.
Tice, D. M. (1991). Esteem protection or enhancement? Self-handicapping motives and attributions differ
by trait self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 711–725.
Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1990). Self-esteem, self-handicapping, and self-presentation. The strat-
egy of inadequate practice. Journal of Personality, 58(2), 443–464.
Torok, L., & Szabo, Z. P. (2018). The theory of self-handicapping: Motives, consequences and measure-
ment. Československá psychologie, 62(2), 173–188.
Torok, L., Szabo, Z. P., & Boda-Ujlaky, J. (2014). Self-esteem, self-conscious emotions, resilience, trait
anxiety and their relation to self-handicapping tendencies. Review of Psychology, 21(2), 123–130.
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.
Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Social exclusion causes self-defeating behav-
ior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 606–615.
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.
Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2001). Academic self-handicapping. What we know, what more there is to
learn. Educational Psychology Review, 13(2), 115–138.
Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E. M. (1998). Classroom influences on self-handicapping strate-
gies. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 101–122.
Uysal, A., & Knee, C. R. (2012). Low trait self-control predicts self-handicapping. Journal of Personal-
ity, 80(1), 59–79.
Uysal, A., & Lu, Q. (2010). Self-handicapping and pain catastrophizing. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 49(5), 502–505.
Want, J., & Kleitman, S. (2006). Imposter phenomenon and self-handicapping. Links with parenting
styles and self-confidence. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(5), 961–971.
Warner, S., & Moore, S. (2004). Excuses, excuses: Self-handicapping in an Australian adolescent sample.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(4), 271–281.
Waschbusch, D. A., Craig, R., Pelham, W. E., Jr., & King, S. (2007). Self-handicapping prior to aca-
demic-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.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review,
92(4), 548–573.
Wusik, M. F., & Axsom, D. (2016). Socially positive behaviors as self-handicapping. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 35(6), 494–509.
Zuckerman, M., Kieffer, S. C., & Knee, C. R. (1998). Consequences of self-handicapping. Effects on cop-
ing, academic performance, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6),
1619–1628.
Zuckerman, M., & Tsai, F. F. (2005). Costs of self-handicapping. Journal of Personality, 73(2), 411–442.
Lilla Török is an assistant research fellow at the University of Physical Education, Budapest, and a PhD
student at the University of Pécs. Her major research interests are connected to performance psychology
and the “self-zoo”. Her main research topics are self-protective mechanisms (with the special focus on
self-handicapping) and the fragility of self-esteem.
Zsolt Péter Szabó is a senior lecturer of social and organizational psychology at the Eötvös Loránd Uni-
versity (ELTE), Budapest. His main interests are self-perceived collective victimhood, group-based emo-
tions, the relationship between psychology and history, and social identities.
László Tóth is an associate professor at the Department of Psychology and Sport Psychology at the Uni-
versity of Physical Education, Budapest, Hungary. His research interests are exploring different possibili-
ties of performance enhancement in top level athletes, with particular regard to psychological self-regula-
tion and sport motivation, and also the impact of sport on the mental health of young people.
13
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

A Critical Review of The Literature On Academic Self-Handicapping - Theory, Manifestations, Prevention and Measurement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Critical Review of The Literature On Academic Self-Handicapping - Theory, Manifestations, Prevention and Measurement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Psychology of Education (2018) 21:1175–1202

A critical review of the literature on academic

Lilla Török1,3 · Zsolt Péter Szabó2,3 · László Tóth1

Keywords Academic self-handicapping · Self-protection · Self-worth

e.g. “I am stupid”). If one performs well, however, it may be attributed to one’s

Fig. 2 The Motivation and Engagement Wheel (Martin 2010). Reprinted with permission

2 Manifestations of self‑handicapping in a school environment

The literature on self-handicapping makes a distinction between behavioural self-

In educational contexts, particular emphasis is laid on the issues of stereotypes and

4 Self‑handicapping and impression management

It is a subject of vivid interest from the beginning, whether self-handicapping domi-

5 Achievement goal theory and self‑handicapping

5.1 Implicit theory of ability

A vast amount of empirical findings were obtained in studies whose approach to

skills and abilities in a given performance situation, emphasis is laid on learning,

suggested that learning/mastery-approach goals are negatively related to self-hand-

emphasizing performance goals was a positive predictor of self-handicapping

6 Self‑handicapping and academic performance

Existing empirical findings supported the conclusion that self-handicapping yields

Self-handicapping as a means of self-protection has been found to be maladaptive

strategy is particularly effective because it activates the mental representations of

8 Measuring academic self‑handicapping

possible importance of self-deception in the self-handicapping process (Torok et al.

Another difficulty with Likert-type scales of self-handicapping is that self-handi-

This review provides a discussion of the field of academic self-handicapping. The

uninterested in school and academic performance. On the contrary, Midgley and

Compliance with ethical standards

Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating “classic” and “contemporary” approaches to achievement motivation: A

You might also like

Fig. 2 The Motivation and Engagement Wheel (Martin 2010). Reprinted with permission

2 Manifestations of self‑handicapping in a school environment

4 Self‑handicapping and impression management

5 Achievement goal theory and self‑handicapping

5.1 Implicit theory of ability

6 Self‑handicapping and academic performance

8 Measuring academic self‑handicapping