content server

Copyright The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Predicting academic self-handicapping in differentage groups: The role of personal achievementgoals and social goals

Angeliki Leondari1* and Eleftheria Gonida21Department of Pre-school Education, University of Thessaly, Greece2School of Psychology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Background. Academic self-handicapping refers to the use of impediments tosuccessful performance on academic tasks. Previous studies have shown that it isrelated to personal achievement goals. A performance goal orientation is a positivepredictor of self-handicapping, whereas a task goal orientation is unrelated to self-handicapping.

Aims. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between academic self-handicapping, goal orientations (task, performance-approach, performance-avoidance),social goals, future consequences and achievement in mathematics. An additional aimwas to investigate grade-level and gender differences in relation to academic self-handicapping.

Sample. Participants were 702 upper elementary, junior and senior high schoolstudents with approximately equal numbers of girls and boys.

Results. There were no grade-level or gender differences as regards the use of self-handicapping. The correlations among the variables revealed that, when the wholesample was considered, self-handicapping was positively related to performance goalorientations and pleasing significant others and negatively to achievement inmathematics. The results of hierarchical regression analysis showed that, in upperelementary and junior high schools, the association between achievement inmathematics and self-handicapping was mediated by performance-avoidance goals. Insenior high school, only task goal orientation was a negative predictor of self-handicapping.

In describing the motivated student, researchers talk about approach behaviours, such

as effort, persistence and engagement, and avoidant behaviours, such as purposefully

withdrawing effort, resisting seeking help in the classroom, avoiding risk-taking and

giving up when faced with failure. The use of handicapping is a form of avoidant

* Correspondence should be addressed to Angeliki Leondari, Irinis 89, Agia Paraskevi, 15342 Athens, Greece(e-mail: [email protected]).

TheBritishPsychologicalSociety

595

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

q 2007 The British Psychological Society

www.bpsjournals.co.uk

DOI:10.1348/000709906X128396


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

most agree that it involves creating obstacles to successful performance on tasks that the

individual considers important (Covington, 1992; Rhodewalt, 1994). The obstacles may

interfere with performance but allow the person to discount responsibility for failure

and augment credit for success (Kelley, 1971). The purpose of self-handicapping is to

deflect the attributions of others away from low ability causes and towardscircumstantial or situational causes of failure; that is, to blur the link between ability

and poor performance (Harris & Snyder, 1986; Urdan, Midgley, & Anderman, 1998).

In the face of failure, it is difficult to question the individuals ability because of the

presence of the performance-inhibiting cause, the handicap. In the event of success,

attributions to the individuals abilities are augmented because the good performance

occurred despite the presence of the handicap. A by-product of augmentation is that

the individuals positive self-image is enhanced (Rhodewalt, Morf, Hazlett, &

Fairfield, 1991).Self-handicapping can take a variety of forms. Arkin and Baumgardner (1985) make a

distinction between acquired impediments, which are likely to lower the individuals

chances of success, and claimed impediments, in which individuals claim a

handicapping condition. Leary and Shepperd (1986) suggest the term behavioural

self-handicapping to describe acquired self-handicaps and self-reported handicapping

to connote claimed self-handicaps. Behavioural self-handicaps include lack of sleep,

drug and alcohol consumption (Berglas & Jones, 1978; Higgins & Harris, 1988), the

choice of performance-debilitating circumstances (Sheppard & Arkin, 1989), thestrategic reduction in effort (Baumeister, Hamilton, & Tice, 1985; Pyszczynski &

Greenberg, 1983) and engaging in little or no practice for forthcoming tasks (Baumeister

et al., 1985; Harris & Snyder, 1986). Self-reported handicaps include reporting social

anxiety, test anxiety and the presence of physical and psychological symptoms,

including health problems (Smith, Snyder, & Handelsman, 1982; Snyder & Smith, 1986).

These forms of self-handicapping differ from one another in terms of cost. Self-reported

handicaps are less costly than behavioural self-handicaps in that they do not necessarily

reduce the likelihood of successful performance. For example, alcohol consumptionbefore performing will serve as an excuse for poor performance but will also decrease

ones chances of successful performance; in contrast, simply reporting high anxiety may

serve as an excuse for poor performance without lowering ones chances of success

(Hirt, Deppe, & Gordon, 1991).

There has been some debate in the literature about whether self-handicapping is

primarily a self-presentation strategy or a self-protection strategy. Several researchers

propose that self-handicapping is motivated by self-presentational concerns, particularly

if there is uncertainty about ones ability (DeGree & Snyder, 1985; Greenberg, 1985;Kolditz & Arkin, 1982; Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1983). Others (Berglas & Jones, 1978;

Higgins & Harris, 1988; Rhodewalt & Davison, 1986) have argued that the major

motivation behind self-handicapping is to protect ones self-esteem from the potentially

damaging effects of failure. The existing evidence shows that handicapping serves as

both a means of protecting ones self-esteem (Thompson, Davison, & Barber, 1995;

McCrea & Hirt, 2001) as well as a presentation strategy aimed at manipulating others.

Most researchers, however, emphasize that self-handicapping is primarily a self-

presentational strategy designed to manipulate others perceptions rather than onesown (Covington, 1992; Urdan et al., 1998).

There is an extended literature on the antecedents, process and consequences of

self-handicapping (Arkin & Oleson, 1998; Rhodewalt & Tragakis, 2002). The impetus for

596 Angeliki Leondari and Eleftheria Gonida


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

uncertainty about ones ability (Berglas & Jones, 1978). Rhodewalt and Tragakis

proposed that the precursors of self-handicapping are based on a learning history that

encourages the development of a fixed-entity theory of competence (Dweck, 1999;

Rhodewalt, 1994) as well as an uncertain concept of self-worth (Berglas & Jones, 1978).

The combination of these two belief systems results in habitual self-handicapping(Zuckerman & Tsai, 2005). The costs of self-handicapping include low academic

achievement, mental and behavioural withdrawal from school work, a pessimistic

perception of academic performance and perhaps depressed levels of self-esteem (Elliot

& Church, 2003; Martin, Marsh, Williamson, & Debus, 2003; Urdan & Midgley, 2001).

There is also evidence that the negative effects of self-handicapping may generalize to

adjustment and well-being (Zuckerman & Tsai, 2005). The negative relation between

self-handicapping and academic achievement found in many studies seems to be

reciprocal. The results of several studies (Midgley & Urdan, 1995, 2001) show thatstudents with lower grades use self-handicapping strategies more than do students with

higher grades. In turn, low achievement leads to increased use of self-handicapping

strategies, thus undermining further academic performance.

Although there have been many studies of the use of a variety of handicapping

strategies by people of different ages, only recently have researchers focused on the use

of academic self-handicapping by students at elementary and high school level (Midgley,

Arunkumar, & Urdan, 1996; Midgley & Urdan, 1995; Urdan et al., 1998). Moreover, the

associations between self-handicapping and achievement goals have also been ofparticular interest among researchers in their attempts to understand self-handicapping

better (Elliot & Church, 2003; Midgley & Urdan, 2001; Rhodewalt, 1994). These

associations are examined in the present study and the review of the relevant literature

follows.

Academic self-handicapping and personal achievement goalsAchievement goal theory proposes that students adopt a certain orientation to learningand achievement that is instrumental in motivating learning behaviours. The orientation

adopted will, in turn, influence the ways in which a student approaches and responds to

academic demands. Research on students achievement goals conducted over the past

decades has largely focused on two types: task goals and performance goals. Task goals

are defined as a desire to improve ones competence, to master a skill and to understand

learning material. Performance goals represent a desire to demonstrate high ability

relative to others and to attain favourable judgments of ones abilities. Recent research

has resulted in the identification of two performance orientations. Students whoseorientation is to demonstrate ability are seen to have a performance-approach and those

who aim to hide the demonstration of lack of ability are seen to have a performance-

avoidance goal orientation (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996;

Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997).

Goal theory research has shown that the pursuit of mastery goals is associated with

positive outcomes such as intrinsic motivation, the use of deep cognitive and self-

regulatory strategies, persistence in the face of failure, positive feelings about school and

school work and self-efficacy (Elliot, 1997; Urdan, 1997). On the other hand, researchhas shown a consistent negative pattern of associations between attitudinal and

behavioural measures with performance-avoidance goals but a positive or null pattern of

associations with performance-approach goals (Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, &

Trach, 2002).

Predicting academic self-handicapping in different age groups 597


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

Urdan, 1995, 2001; Urdan, 2004; Urdan et al., 1998) revealed that a performance goal

orientation and a performance goal structure in the classroom are positive predictors of

self-handicapping, whereas a task goal orientation and perceived task goal structures are

weakly related or unrelated to self-handicapping. Researchers incorporating the

distinction of approach and avoidance dimensions of performance goals into theirstudies have found that handicapping is positively associated with performance-

avoidance goals (Midgley & Urdan, 2001), while it is either unrelated or only weakly

related to performance-approach goals (Midgley & Urdan, 2001; Urdan, 2004).

The competence-related goals clearly have a major influence on student engagement

and achievement, but recent research has also indicated that students social

relationships and social motives may also be important reasons for engaging in, or

failing to engage in, academic work (Miller, Greene, Montalvo, Ravindra, & Nicholls,

1996; Wentzel, 1991). Although several researchers have suggested that a morethorough understanding of motivation and achievement may be gained by expanding

goal theory to include social goals (Ford, 1992; Ford & Nicholls, 1991; Maehr, 1984;

Turner et al., 1995; Wentzel, 1991), achievement goal theorists have typically ignored

social goals in their studies of motivation (Blumenfeld, 1992). A number of researchers

who have included social goals in their work have often examined them with other

types of goals including, for example, adult approval goals and ability goals in the same

construct (e.g. Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Nicholls, Cobb, Wood, Yackel, &

Patashnick, 1990). In this study, social goals are defined as trying to achieve academicallyin order to please parents and teachers and to gain their approval.

In addition, research has indicated that the consideration of future consequences

might also be another important category of goals in understanding students motivation

for academic work (Miller et al., 1996). The consideration of future consequences refers

to the extent to which individuals consider potential distant outcomes of their current

activities and the extent to which they are influenced by these outcomes (Strathman,

Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards, 1994). Although valuing the future has been shown to

influence educational attainment and cognitive engagement (Husman & Lens, 1999),goal theory does not discuss the motivational effects of future time perspectives.

Research on achievement goals implicitly assumes that performance-oriented or task-

oriented students are focused on the present. Future consequences related to the

academic work of upper elementary and high school students might include long-term

financial rewards, obtaining admission to college and gaining a scholarship or reaching

future career objectives.

The present studyThe main aim of the study was to examine the interrelationships between academic self-

handicapping, personal achievement goals, social goals, future consequences and

achievement in mathematics. Based on previous research (Molden & Dweck, 2000;

Rhodewalt, 1994; Urdan & Midgley, 2001), we hypothesized that an orientation to

demonstrating ability (a personal performance-approach goal orientation) or an

orientation to hiding the demonstration of lack of ability (a personal avoidance-goalorientation) would be positively associated with self-handicapping. Since self-

handicapping is essentially an avoidance strategy, we expected performance-avoidance

goals to predict handicapping more strongly than would performance-approach goals.

On the other hand, we assumed that personal task goals should minimize the need for



handicapping because handicapping undermines learning and development, the

defining characteristics of task goals.

The study focuses on students goals in relation to mathematics. We limited our

investigation to this academic domain because evidence suggests that childrens

motivation-related beliefs and perceptions tend to be differentiated according to

achievement domains quite early (Gottfried, 1990; Marsh, Craven, & Debus, 1991), andthat domain-specific measures of motivation tend to be more predictive of learning

outcomes than general measures (Assor & Connell, 1992; Meece & Miller, 2001).

We expected that the goal of seeking acceptance from parents and teachers or trying

to please them would increase the use of self-handicapping. Since the goal of the person

seeking social approval is to demonstrate commitment to others, anticipated failure

would make students think that their relationship with significant others will be

damaged. This concern about failure might be alleviated by using a self-handicap.

In relation to future consequences, because self-handicappers actually place obstaclesin the path to success, we hypothesized that self-handicapping would be either

negatively associated or unrelated to future consequences.

Based on previous research, we predicted that students with lower grades in

mathematics would report using self-handicapping strategies more than students with

higher grades (Midgley et al., 1996; Midgley & Urdan, 1995, 2001; Urdan et al., 1998).

As regards gender, we expected boys to engage in more self-handicapping strategies

(Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Hirt et al., 1991; Midgley & Urdan, 1995, 2001; Urdan

et al., 1998). In relation to grade level, it was expected that older children would useself-handicapping more than younger ones because the high school environment is

more competitive and places more emphasis on performance demands. Finally, we

wanted to investigate possible changes in the pattern of relationships between goal

orientations and handicapping in the three grade levels given that, as previous studies

have shown, there is a decline in task goals and a corresponding increase in

performance goals in the transition from elementary to high school (Anderman &

Midgley, 1997; Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993; Meece & Miller, 2001).

Method

ParticipantsThe participants included 702 upper elementary and high school students. There were

approximately equal numbers of boys (368) and girls (334) in the study. The distribution

of students across grade levels was 255 upper elementary school students (sixth grade,aged 1112 years), 249 junior high school students (second grade, aged 1314 years)

and 198 senior high school students (fourth grade, aged 1516 years). The age range was

11 years, 6 months to 15 years 4 months with a mean age of 13 years, 6 months. Students

were recruited from five different public schools located in urban areas in Greece. Data

for the three grade levels were collected from all the participating schools. Parental level

of education was used to estimate socio-economic status (SES; Entwisle & Astone, 1994).

Students indicated the highest level of education each of their parents reached

(1 finished elementary school, 2 finished high school, 3 graduated fromcollege or university). Each participant received a score by taking the average of the two

parents scores. The percentages of parental education for the whole sample were as

follows: 1 (5.4%), 2 (41.7%) and 3 (52.9%). Participants of the three grade levels did not

significantly differ in terms of their parents educational level, x24 5:410, p . :05:



MeasuresParticipants were asked to respond to each item in the questionnaires in relation to the

mathematics domain. Aside from the demographic data, items on all subscales were

responded to using a four-point Likert-type rating scale (1 not at all true to 4 verytrue). To establish the validity of the scales used in the study, they were all submitted to

principal component analysis with varimax rotation. Internal consistency reliability wastested using Cronbachs a coefficient.

Self-handicappingAcademic self-handicapping was assessed by the six-item Academic Self-Handicapping

Scale (Midgley et al., 1996; Urdan & Midgley, 2001). Each of the six items in the scale

asks about an a priori strategy that students use to influence self-presentation. Sample

items are Some students fool around the night before a test so that if they dont do as

well as they hoped, they can say that is the reason. How true is that of you? and Some

students put off doing their school work until the last minute so that, if they dont dowell on their work, they can say that is the reason. How true is that of you?

The principal component analysis indicated that the six items comprising the self-

handicapping scale formed a single factor accounting for 48.89% of the common

variance with factor loadings from .65 to .75. Internal consistency reliability, using

Cronbachs a, was .79, which is similar to alpha levels reported by Midgley andassociates (Midgley et al., 1996, Midgley & Urdan, 2001; Urdan et al., 1998).

Personal achievement goalsPersonal achievement goals were assessed using the Patterns of Adaptive LearningSurvey (PALS; Midgley et al., 1998). The PALS was designed to measure three student

goal orientations. An average score was computed for each scale. The personal task goal

scale included items such as An important reason I do my maths work is because I like

to learn new things. The personal performance-approach included items such as I want

to do better than other students in my class. The personal performance-avoidance scale

included items such as It is important to me that I dont look stupid in my class.

Results for the achievement goal orientation scales revealed that the items loaded on

three factors, as predicted. The personal task goal scale (six items, factor loadings from.38 to .81, a :75) the personal performance-approach scale (six items, factor loadingsfrom .52 to .72, a :82) and the personal performance-avoidance scale (four items,factor loadings from .55 to .72, a :58). One item of the last subscale was omitted dueto its very low loading.

Social goalsSocial goals were measured by a scale developed by Miller et al. (1996) to measure

pleasing the family and teachers, gaining their approval (e.g. doing well in ones work in

order to please a teacher or parents) and being perceived as socially responsible by thefamily and teachers. The scale includes items such as I want the teacher to think I am a

good student and I want my family to think I am a good student.

The eight items referring to pleasing family and teachers and being perceived as

socially responsible by them formed one factor, which was named pleasing significant

others (factor loadings from .50 to .79, a :80).



Future consequencesThe future consequences subscale was adapted from a Miller et al. (1996) subscale,

which comprised four items. Each of the items included a variety of examples of

possible consequences, such as university admission, money or a scholarship, etc.

Sample items are Good grades lead to other things that I want (e.g. money, graduation,

university admission, scholarship) and My grades have a personal payoff for me (e.g.rewards from my family, graduation, scholarships).

The four items referring to future consequences also formed one factor. One of the

items had a very low loading and was discarded and therefore the scale future

consequences contained three items with loadings from .64 to .79 and Cronbach acoefficient .60.

Academic achievementGrade point average in mathematics was used as the indicator of academic achievement.

Grades were collected from the school records.

Demographic dataOn the front page of the questionnaire, students were asked to indicate their grade level,

age, gender, school and the educational level of their parents.

ProcedureThe questionnaire package was administered during class time with one of the

researchers and the class teacher in attendance. Permission was given by the schools

administrator in order for students to participate in the study.Instructions and sample items were read aloud to all participants. Students were

informed that their responses would remain confidential and were reminded that the

questions referred specifically to mathematics.

Results

Grade level, gender and SES differencesIn order to examine possible grade level, gender and SES differences in relation to self-

handicapping, achievement goals (task, performance-approach and performance-

avoidance), social goals and future consequences, we performed a 3 (SES

categories) 3 (grade level) 2 (gender) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA).Following Bonferroni inequality, the adjusted a level used in any separate test was.05/6 0.008 (Winer, Brown, & Michels, 1991). Univariate ANOVAs indicated nosignificant differences among the three grade levels in relation to self-handicapping,

F2; 513 0:017, p . :05. Significant differences were found in relation to task goals,F2; 513 19:82, p , :000, observed power 1.00. Elementary school studentswere more strongly oriented towards task goals as compared with high school students.

As the results of a Tukey test showed, elementary school students differed significantly

from both junior high and senior high school students. In addition, junior high schoolstudents differed significantly from senior high school students. As can be seen in

Figure 1, there is a clear decline in task goals from elementary to high school. This

decline of task goals in high school students has also been reported by previous studies

(Eccles et al., 1993; Meece & Miller, 2001). No significant differences were found in

relation to SES categories or gender.



Correlations among variablesPearson correlation coefficients were computed in order to examine the bivariate

relationships among the variables (see Table 1). As hypothesized, self-handicapping was

positively correlated to the two performance goals and unrelated to task goals. However,

the correlation between self-handicapping and performance-avoidance goal wasstronger than the one with performance-approach goal, a result which has been

reported in previous studies (Midgley & Urdan, 2001). Self-handicapping was also

positively related to the goal of pleasing significant others and negatively to achievement

in mathematics. There was no significant association between future consequences and

self-handicapping.

Task goals were positively, although weakly, correlated with performance-approach

goals and pleasing significant others and more strongly with future consequences and

achievement in mathematics. The two performance goals were positively related to each

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

Table 1. Pearson productmoment correlations for the whole sample

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Self-handicapping 2. Task goals 2 .05 3. Perf.-approach .10* .09* 4. Perf.-avoidance .21** 2 .02 .44** 5. Pleasing others .15** .10* .43** .53** 6. Future conseq. 2 .04 .17** .32** .11** .24** 7. Maths grades 2 .14** .27** .05 2 .17** 2 .04 .12**

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



other and strongly with pleasing significant others. This finding indicates that students

attempts to demonstrate ability or avoid the demonstration of lack of ability are

intertwined with wanting to please others. Performance-avoidance goals were also

positively associated with future consequences, and negatively with achievement in

mathematics. The negative association between performance-avoidance goals and

achievement has been reported in several studies (e.g. Harachiewicz, Barron, Pintrich,Elliot, & Thrash, 2002).

Predicting self-handicapping in the three grade levelsHierarchical regression analysis was applied to the data, separately for elementary, juniorand senior high school students in an attempt (a) to specify the predicting variables of self-

handicapping in the three grades, and (b) to test for mediational relationships. In order to

apply hierarchical regression analysis, significant bivariate relations among the variables

involved in the analysis have to be established, therefore, Pearson correlations

were separately computed for each of the three grade levels. As Table 2 indicates,

Table 2. Pearson productmoment correlations for (i) elementary school, (ii) second high school

grade and (iii) fourth high school grade

(i)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Self-handicapping 2. Task goals 2 .08 3. Perf.-approach .16* .04 4. Perf.-avoidance .22** 2 .05 .47** 5. Pleasing others .16** .06 .42** .53** 6. Future conseq. 2 .03 .21** .25** .03 .16** 7. Maths grades 2 .26** .03 2 .03 2 .18** 2 .10 .12

(ii)

1. Self-handicapping 2. Task goals 2 .19** 3. Perf.-approach .05 .14 4. Perf.-avoidance .26** 2 .09 .40** 5. Pleasing others .18** .03 .52** .51** 6. Future conseq. 2 .05 .26** .46** .11 .29** 7. Maths grades 2 .22** .13 .16 2 .27** 2 .04 .30**

(iii)

1. Self-handicapping 2. Task goals 2 .16** 3. Perf.-approach .01 .09 4. Perf.-avoidance .12 .03 .41** 5. Pleasing others .09 .12 .35** .58** 6. Future conseq. 2 .01 .20** .33** .24** .35** 7. Maths grades 2 .08 2 .05 .01 2 .24** .21** .17**

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



bivariate relationships among the examined variables were different in the three groups.

Specifically, for upper elementary school students, self-handicapping was positively

correlated with performance-approach goals, performance-avoidance goals and pleasing

significant others and negatively correlated with achievement in mathematics. For junior

high school students, self-handicapping was positively correlated with performance-

avoidance goals and the goal of pleasing others and negatively correlated with task goalsand achievement inmathematics. For senior high school students, self-handicappingwas

only negatively correlated with task goals. There were also significant negative

correlations between achievement in mathematics and performance-avoidance goals in

relation to elementary and junior high school students.

For elementary and junior high school, hierarchical regression analysis was

conducted in order to examine whether the association between achievement in

mathematics and self-handicapping was mediated by performance-avoidance goals. We

hypothesized that achievement in mathematics would predict self-handicapping, mainlyfor students who pursue performance-avoidance goals. For both grade levels, mediation

of performance-avoidance goals was confirmed (b 0:179, p , :01 and b 0:229,p , :01, for elementary school and junior high school students, respectively) and thedirect effect of achievement remained significant in the final model equation

(R2c :052, p , :001, b 20:231, p , :001, and R2c :025, p , :05, b 20:163,p , :05, for the two grade levels, respectively). However, if the results in the two gradesare compared, a decline in the value of achievement and an increase in the value of

performance-avoidance goals in predicting self-handicapping from late elementary tojunior high school are evident.

The above model could not be applied to the data of the senior high school because

significant bivariate relationships between mathematics achievement, performance-

avoidance and self-handicapping have not been established. Task goal orientation was

the only variable which was significantly correlated to self-handicapping. Applying a

linear regression on these data, it was found that task goal orientation negatively

predicted self-handicapping (b 20:155, p , :05).

Discussion

The first objective of this study was to examine the association between personal

achievement goals, social goals, future consequences and the reported use of self-

handicapping strategies. Consistent with the results of previous studies, the use of self-

handicapping strategies was found to be positively related to performance goals

(Midgley & Urdan, 1995; Urdan et al., 1998). As predicted, self-handicapping was morestrongly related to the avoidance component than to the approach component of

performance goals.

Self-handicapping was also positively related with the goal of pleasing significant

others in relation to upper elementary and junior high school data. It seems that

students who believe that the purpose of doing well in school is to gain the approval

of teachers and parents are likely to make greater use of self-handicapping strategies.

This finding is in line with the research linking procrastination with unrealistic

parental expectations (Flett, Hewitt, & Martin, 1995; Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, &Neubauer, 1993). As the results of these studies show, the development of

failure-avoidant patterns of behaviour is associated with defective reinforcement

from family members as well as non-contingent evaluative feedback. Berglas

(1986, 1990; Berglas & Jones, 1978) suggest that the strategic orientation of



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

Jones, 1978, p. 407) and the performance pressures implicit in such feedback. Urdan

(2004), in a study examining the mediating effects of family orientation on the

association of performance goals with achievement, did not find any interactions

between family orientation and either of the performance goals on self-handicapping.

Clearly, the role of social goals as predictors of self-handicapping needs furtherconsideration in future studies.

As was the case in previous studies (Urdan & Midgley, 2001; Urdan et al., 1998),

achievement in mathematics was an important predictor variable of handicapping at the

elementary and junior high school levels. Students with lower grades in mathematics

tended to make more use of self-handicapping strategies than did students with higher

grades. It makes sense that children who do not perform well in school are particularly

uncertain about their future performance, and would be more likely than higher

achieving students to use handicapping. However, as the results of regression analysisshow, it is not simply low achievers who are likely to be self-handicappers, but mainly

those who have developed performance-avoidance goals. Several studies show that both

performance-avoidance goals and self-handicapping are negatively associated with

achievement (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Leondari & Gialamas, 2002; Middleton &

Midgley, 1997; Urdan & Midgley, 2001). Therefore, some of the association between self-

handicapping and performance-avoidance goals may be attributable to previous levels of

achievement. It is possible that low academic achievement leads some students to adopt

performance-avoidance goals and the adoption of these goals, in turn, leads students toengage in self-handicapping behaviour (Urdan, 2004).

Self-handicapping in the senior high school group was predicted only by low task

goals. Consistent with previous findings (Eccles et al., 1993; Meece & Miller, 2001), task

goals showed a significant gradual decline from elementary to high school. It is generally

assumed that the decline in task goals results from increases in students concerns about

evaluation, social comparison and competition (Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks, 1995).

In the present study, the decline of task goals in senior high school is probably

influenced by the fact that Greek students at this school level are oriented towards anexternally set final examination on the basis of which selection to university courses is

determined. Therefore, the changes that take place in students achievement behaviour

are related to performance demands. The increased preoccupation with performance

outcomes diminish the efforts to master a task or to develop competence and this is

something that educators have to consider very carefully.

Comparing the different patterns of relationships in the three grade levels, a

developmental trend is apparent in terms of self-handicapping predictors. During upper

elementary school years, self-handicapping is predicted by achievement. This is still thecase for junior high school as well, but at this grade level, performance-avoidance goals

become a stronger predictor of self-handicapping than achievement. For senior high

school students, the decline of task goals predicts self-handicapping. This finding shows

how the pattern of interrelationships between goal orientations and self-handicapping

changes from late childhood to middle adolescence and has implications in terms of

educational intervention.

As the results of this study show, there were no grade-level differences in the use of

self-handicapping strategies. Self-handicapping was predicted by different indicators indifferent grade levels, but students seem to start employing such strategies quite early in

their school career. Probably the upper elementary school students have acquired the

cognitive sophistication to use these strategies to protect their image in front of others.



There is evidence that, as children enter early adolescence, they develop a more

differentiated conception of the nature of ability, moving from equating ability and effort

to an understanding of the notion of ability as capacity (Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton,

2001; Nicholls, 1984). However, as Nicholls has suggested, although these cognitive

shifts in conceptions of ability are age-related, the nature of the learning environment

also influences the notion of ability that individuals will invoke. These developmentaldifferences or the effects of differences in the learning environment across grade level

are likely to influence the use of self-handicapping strategies. Previous studies (Midgley

et al., 1995) have shown that middle school teachers and students perceive the school

goal structure as more performance focused than do elementary school teachers and

students. Although one would expect that the perceived emphasis on performance

goals in the learning environment at least as was indicated by the grade level in our

study would be associated with a greater reported use of self-handicapping strategies

by students (Midgley et al., 1996, 2001; Midgley & Urdan, 1995; Turner et al., 2002), thiswas not the case in this study.

No gender differences were found in this study in relation to the use of self-

handicapping strategies. There has been some evidence of gender differences in self-

handicapping (e.g. Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Berglas & Jones, 1978; Hirt,

McCrea, & Boris, 2003; Midgley & Urdan, 1995), but these findings have not been

consistently replicated.

The results of this study raise implications for teachers and parents. Academic self-

handicapping may be part of a cycle of academic underachievement and effortwithdrawal that can undermine long-term academic performance (Covington, 1992).

A number of researchers who have studied the consequences of failure-avoidant

strategies indicate that these strategies eventually lead to a reduced interest in

achievement and to emotional exhaustion (Higgins & Berglas, 1990). While avoidance

behaviours initially enable failure to be attributed to a factor unrelated to ability,

eventually the student is forced to acknowledge his/her inability to succeed. The result

is internalization of failure, diminished expectancies for future success and low

achievement. In the long run, this gives way to passivity and helplessness (Covington,1992; Thompson, 1996; Thompson & Richardson, 2001).

The nature of evaluative feedback offered to students by teachers and parents is

important in terms of intrinsic motivation, persistence and goal setting. Equally

important is the manner in which students construe their achievement outcomes and

the way in which they view ability whether it is a fixed quantum that cannot be

changed or a repertoire of skills and abilities that can be (Dweck, 1999; Dweck &

Leggett, 1988). As research results show, failure-avoidant patterns of behaviour are

associated with an overconcern with competence and a sensitivity to evaluative threatin situations that are assessed as likely to reveal low ability (Covington, 1992). The goal

of teachers and parents should be to encourage students towards alternative ways of

personal evaluation so that they come to realize that academic achievement is not

equated to personal worth.

Limitations and future directionsThis study has several limitations. First, the data are correlational in nature. Longitudinal

studies are needed to understand issues of causality and to determine how individual

differences and developmental changes influence the use of self-handicapping

strategies.



Second, the social goals included in this study refer only to adult approval goals.

Although a concern with the social aspect of achievement motivation may suggest a

broad range of goals, we limited our focus to considering the ways in which students

beliefs about the social reasons for trying to succeed academically affect their behaviour

in academic situations. In future studies, in order to understand the effects of social goal

orientations on motivation and performance, it will be necessary to examine severaldistinct types of social goals simultaneously.

Third, the pursuit of multiple goals in achievement situations needs further

study. Some researchers suggest that achievement motives and social motives

conflict and inhibit optimal performance (McClelland, 1961). Other researchers have

demonstrated that social concerns can have either positive or negative effects on

motivation and achievement (Brendt & Keefe, 1992). Still others argue that the

pursuit of social and academic goals can be either complementary or conflicting,

depending on how well the student is able to coordinate different goals (Ford,1992; Wentzel, 1993). Future studies need to examine how different types of social

goals, when pursued simultaneously with achievement goals, affect motivation and

performance in school.

References

Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations, perceived

academic competence and grades across the transition to middle-level schools. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 22, 269298.

Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students achievement

goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 2137.

Arkin, R. M., & Baumgardner, A. H. (1985). Self-handicapping. In J. H. Harvey & G. Weary (Eds.),

Attribution: Basic issues and applications (pp. 169202). New York: Academic Press.

Arkin, R. M., & Oleson, K. C. (1998). Self-handicapping. In J. M. Darley & J. Cooper (Eds.),

Attribution and social interaction: The legacy of Edward E. Jones (pp. 313347).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Assor, A., & Connell, J. (1992). The validity of students self-reports as measures of performance

affecting self-appraisals. In D. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom

(pp. 2550). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baumeister, R. F., Hamilton, J. C., & Tice, D. M. (1985). Public versus private expectancy of

success: Confidence booster or performance pressure? Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 48, 14471457.

Berglas, S. (1986). Ths success syndrome: Hitting bottom when you reach the top. New York:

Plenum.

Berglas, S. (1990). Self-handicapping: Etiological and diagnostic considerations. In R. L. Higgins,

C. R. Snyder, & S. Berglas (Eds.), Self-handicapping: The paradox that isnt (pp. 152182).

New York: Plenum.

Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to

noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 405417.

Blumenfeld, P. C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and expanding goal

theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 272281.

Brendt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1992). Friends influence on adolescents perceptions of themselves at

school. In D. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 5173).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school

reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.



DeGree, C., & Snyder, C. (1985). Adlers psychology (of use) today: Personal history of traumatic

life events as a self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,

15121519.

Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.

Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.

Psychological Review, 95(2), 256273.

Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in

childrens self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64,

830847.

Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the classic and the contemporary approaches to achievement

motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation.

In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10,

pp. 143179). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement

motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218232.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (2003). A motivational analysis of defensive pessimism and self-

handicapping. Journal of Personality, 71(3), 369396.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance goals and intrinsic motivation:

A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461475.

Entwisle, D. R., & Astone, N. M. (1994). Some practical guidelines for measuring youths

race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Child Development, 65, 15211540.

Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Martin, T. R. (1995). Dimensions of perfectionism and procrastination.

In J. R. Ferrari, J. L. Johnson, & W. G. McCown (Eds.), Procrastination and task avoidance:

Theory research and practice (pp. 113136). New York: Plenum.

Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Ford, M. E., & Nichols, C. W. (1991). Using goal assessments to identify motivational patterns and

facilitate behavioral regulation and achievement. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances

in motivation and achievement: Goals and self-regulatory processes (Vol. 7, pp. 5184).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison of

two measures of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 119126.

Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525538.

Greenberg, J. (1985). Unattainable goal choice as a self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 15, 140152.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, J. A., & Trach, T. M. (2002). Revision of

achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94,

638645.

Harris, R., & Snyder, R. C. (1986). The role of uncertain self-esteem in self-handicapping. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 451458.

Higgins, R., & Harris, R. (1988). Strategic alcohol use: Drinking to self-handicap. Journal of Social

and Clinical Psychology, 6, 191202.

Higgins, R. L., & Berglas, S. (1990). The maintenance and treatment of self-handicapping. In

R. L. Higgins, C. R. Snyder & S. Berglas (Eds.), Self-handicapping: The paradox that isnt

(pp. 187238). New York: Plenum Press.

Hirt, E. R., Deppe, R. K., & Gordon, L. J. (1991). Self-reported versus behavioral self-handicapping:

Empirical evidence for a theoretical distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

61(6), 981991.

Hirt, E. R., McCrea, S. M., & Boris, H. I. (2003). I know you self-handicapped last exam: Gender

differences in reactions to self-handicapping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

84, 177193.



Husman, J., & Lens, W. (1999). The role of the future in student motivation. Educational

Psychologist, 34, 113125.

Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attribution in social interaction. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley,

R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior

(pp. 126). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Kolditz, T., & Arkin, R. (1982). An impression management interpretation of the self-handicapping

strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 492502.

Leary, M. R., & Shepperd, J. A. (1986). Behavioral self-handicaps versus self-reported self-

handicaps: A conceptual note. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 12651268.

Leondari, A., & Gialamas, V. (2002). Implicit theories, goal orientations and perceived

competence: Impact on students achievement behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 39(3),

279291.

Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In R. Ames

& C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Student motivation (Vol. 1.,

pp. 115144). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Debus, R. (1991). Self-concepts of young children 5 to 8 years of age:

Measurement and multidimensional structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83,

377392.

Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., Williamson, A., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Self-handicapping, defensive

pessimism, and goal orientation. A qualitative study of university students. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 95(3), 617628.

McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. New York: Free Press.

McCrea, S. M., & Hirt, E. R. (2001). The role of ability judgements in self-handicapping. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 13781389.

Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students goal orientations and cognitive

engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514523.

Meece, J. L., & Miller, S. D. (2001). A longitudinal analysis of elementary school students

achievement goals in literacy activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 454480.

Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An

unexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710718.

Midgley, C., Anderman, E. M., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and middle

school teachers and students: A goal theory approach. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15,

90113.

Midgley, C., Arunkumar, R., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). If I dont do well tomorrow, theres a reason:

Predictors of adolescents use of academic self-handicapping strategies. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 88(3), 423434.

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for

whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,

7786.

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Urdan, T., Maehr, M. L., Hicks, L., Anderman, E., & Roeser,

R. W. (1998). Development and validation of scales assessing students achievement goal

orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 113131.

Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1995). Predictors of middle school students use of self-handicapping

strategies. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 389411.

Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic self-handicapping and achievement goals: A further

examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 6175.

Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in

academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and

perceived ability. Comtemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388422.

Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2000). Meaning and motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz

(Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and

performance (pp. 131159). San Diego: Academic Press.



Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task

choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328346.

Nicholls, J. G., Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., & Patashnick, M. (1990). Assessing students theories

of success in mathematics: Individual and classroom differences. Journal for Research in

Mathematics Education, 21, 109122.

Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (1983). Determinants of reduction in intended effort as a strategy

for coping with anticipated failure. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 412422.

Rhodewalt, F. (1994). Conceptions of ability, achievement goals, and individual differences in self-

handicapping behavior: On the application of implicit theories. Journal of Personality, 62,

6785.

Rhodewalt, F., & Davison, J. (1986). Self-handicapping and subsequent performance: Role of

outcome valance and attributional certainty. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7,

307323.

Rhodewalt, F., Morf, C., Hazlett, S., & Fairfield, M. (1991). Self-handicapping: The role of

discounting and augmentation in the preservation of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 61, 122131.

Rhodewalt, F., & Tragakis, M. (2002). Self-handicapping and the social self: The cost and rewards of

interpersonal self-construction. In J. P. Forgas & K. D. Williams (Eds.), The social self:

Cognitive, interpersonal, and intergroup perspectives (pp. 121140). New York: Psychology

Press.

Sheppard, J., & Arkin, R. (1989). Determinants of self-handicapping: Task importance and the

effects of pre-existing handicaps on self-generated handicaps. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 15, 101112.

Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task and

avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational


Smith, T., Snyder, C., & Handelsman, M. (1982). On the self-serving function of an academic

wooden leg: Test anxiety as a self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Personality and Social


Snyder, C. R., & Smith, T. W. (1982). Symptoms as self-handicapping strategies: The virtues of old

wine in a new bottle. In G. Weary & H. L. Mirels (Eds.), Integrations of clinical and social

psychology (pp. 104127). New York: Oxford University Press.

Snyder, C. R., & Smith, T. W. (1986). On being Shy like a fox, A self-handicapping analysis.

In W. E. Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness: Perspectives on research and

treatment (pp. 161172). New York: Plenum.

Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The consideration of future

consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 66(4), 742752.

Thompson, T. (1996). Self-worth protection in achievement behaviour: A review and implications

for counselling. Australian Psychologist, 31, 4151.

Thompson, T., Davidson, J. A., & Barber, J. G. (1995). Self-worth protection in achievement

motivation: Performance effects and attributional behavior. Journal of Educational


Thompson, T., & Richardson, A. (2001). Self-handicapping status, claimed handicaps and reduced

practice effort following success and failure feedback. British Journal of Educational


Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M., Kang, Y., & Patrick, H. (2002).

The classroom environment and students reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 88106.

Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M., Kang, Y., Urdan, T. U., &

Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: A case for social

goals. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 213243.



Urdan, T. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future directions. In M. L. Maehr & P. R.

Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10. pp. 94141). Greenwich,

CT: JAI Press.

Urdan, T. (2004). Predictors of academic self-handicapping and achievement: Examining

achievement goals, classroom goal structures, and culture. Journal of Educational


Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2001). Academic self-handicapping: What we know, what more there is

to learn. Educational Psychology Review, 13(2), 115138.

Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E. M. (1998). The role of classroom goal structure in students

use of self-handicapping strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1),

101122.

Wentzel, K. (1991). Social and academic goals at school: Motivation and achievement in context.

In P. Pintich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Goals and self-

regulatory processes (Vol. 7, pp. 185212). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Motivation and achievement in early adolescence: The role of multiple

classroom goals. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 420.

Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design

(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Zuckerman, M., & Tsai, F. (2005). Costs of self-handicapping. Journal of Personality, 73(2),

411442.

Received 7 November 2005; revised version received 27 May 2006


content server

Documents