See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324913710

The theory of self-handicapping: forms, influencing factors and

measurement

Article  in  Ceskoslovenská psychologie · April 2018

CITATION READS

1 5,183

2 authors:

Lilla Torok Zsolt Péter Szabó

Semmelweis University Eötvös Loránd University
10 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   97 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Self-handicapping View project

COST IS1205 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lilla Torok on 18 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Československá psychologie 2018 / ročník LXII / číslo 2

THE THEORY OF SELF-HANDICAPPING: FORMS,

INFLUENCING FACTORS AND MEASUREMENT
LILLA TÖRÖK1,2, ZSOLT PÉTER SZABÓ2,3
1
University of Physical Education, Department of Psychology and Sport Psychology, Budapest
2
University of Pécs, Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Pécs
3
Eötvös Lóránd University, Department of Social Psychology, Budapest

AB ST R AC T
L. Török, Z. P. Szabó Questionnaire and experimental techniques
of measuring SH are presented. The summary
The term self-handicapping (SH) refers to the evaluates existing theoretical and empirical re-
phenomenon when, under certain conditions, search and discusses the issues of practical ap-
individuals characterized by certain personal- plication, difficulties of research and relevant
ity factors hinder their success by self-imposed topics that need to be further investigated.
obstacles in important performance situations.
The study starts with an accurate definition of key words:
SH that is then placed in the context of psycho- self-handicapping,
logical theories and related social psychological self-protection,
concepts. Two distinct forms of SH, namely, impression management
behavioural and self-reported handicaps are
discussed in detail. The factors influencing SH klíčová slova:
are categorized and analysed according to two sebe-znevýhodňování,
dimensions, that is, personal versus environ- sebeochrana,
mental and eliciting versus preventive factors. organizování dojmů

THE THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF THE PHENOMENON

OF SELF-HANDICAPPING
In our review, we summarize and integrate the theoretical and empirical results from
the past (almost) 40 years relating self-handicapping (SH). We spent 3 years collect-
ing articles (from 2012-2015), using the databases Web of Science, ScienceDirect,
ProQuest, EBSCO, Google Scholar. The keywords we used were SH, self-protection
and self-enhancement.
The term SH refers to the phenomenon when one hinders one’s success by self-
imposed obstacles in important performance situations. A good example is provided
by the case when a student enters into excessive recreational activity at the night be-
fore an exam or when an athlete complains of disease prior to a sports competition.
SH has been a subject of lively interest in the literature since the 1990s because more
and more emphasis is laid on individual achievement, rising above the crowd and
interpersonal comparison. Although the phenomenon has Adlerian roots (DeGree
& Snyder, 1985), the concept was introduced in 1978 when Jones and Berglas found in
an empirical study that subjects expecting failure in a performance situation chose to use
a performance-inhibiting drug (Pandokrin) rather than a performance-enhancing drug
(Actavil; Berglas & Jones, 1978; Jones & Berglas, 1978). These findings raised ques-
tions concerning the basic assumption of the social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954)
suggesting that a fundamental human motive is to obtain accurate, valid and diagnostic
feedback about their abilities, since people apparently avoid such information in certain
situations. Based on their findings, Jones and Berglas (1978) defined SH as “any action

Došlo: 26. 5. 2016; L. T., University of Physical Education, Department of Psychology and Sport
Psychology, Budapest, 1123, Alkotás u. 44; e-mail: torok.lilla@tf.hu

Přehledové studie / 173

or choice of performance setting that enhances the opportunity to externalize (or excuse)
failure and to internalize (reasonably accept credit for) success” (p. 406). By means of
SH, a “win-win” situation may be arranged prior to task performance because subse-
quent failure may be attributed to external, unstable, controllable and specific causes
while success may be accounted for by abilities overcoming even hindering factors.
Such attributions are beneficial because they support the sustenance of motivation and
positive emotions in case of either failure or success (Weiner, 1985). Self-handicappers
use the obstacle to blur the connection between their abilities and performance, and this
allows their positive self-image and others’ positive views on them.
Regarding motivation-based attributional biases, self-serving biases (SSB; Miller
& Ross, 1975) show an outstanding similarity with SH; in fact, several times there
is a confusion regarding the two concepts. SSBs essentially serve to show the indi-
vidual in the most favourable light possible following a given performance situation
(i.e. to explain success by abilities and failure by external factors). However, SH and
SSB may be distinguished on the basis that the former takes place before a perfor-
mance situation (a priori) whereas the latter occurs after (a posteriori; McCrea, Myers
& Hirt, 2009). Jones and Berglas (1978) relied from the beginning on the discounting
and augmenting principles of Kelley’s covariation model (Kelley, 1971) to explain
the SH phenomenon. According to the discounting principle, a strong cause available
to explain a given outcome will discount other less strong causes. The augmenting
principle suggests that greater importance is assigned to a specific cause if its conse-
quence occurs despite the presence of an antagonistic factor. Jones and Berglas (1978)
suggest that, SH takes advantage of both principles at the same time: the obstacle dis-
counts the importance of abilities in case the outcome is failure while success reached
despite the obstacle augments individual abilities. However, it is important to note,
that just a few empirical evidence has been found supporting the augmenting effect.
SH can be also discussed on the basis of Atkinson’s achievement motivation theory
(Atkinson, 1964). Atkinson (1964) suggests that individuals with high failure avoid-
ance strive to avoid diagnostic information about their abilities and therefore set goals
requiring unrealistically little or much effort (cf. Greenberg, 1985).
Coudevylle, Martin Ginis and Famose (2008) view SH through the lens of Bandura’s
social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986). Social cognitive learning theories propose that
human motivation and thus human action and performance are largely influenced by
expectations. The authors suggest that individuals hindering their own performance take
such a great risk because they are convinced they will end up in failure (e.g., Pyszc-
zynski & Greenberg, 1983). Accordingly, those who see relatively little or no chance
to reach success will invest less effort in the upcoming ego-relevant task compared to
those expecting success. That is, as the social cognitive theory predicts, maladaptive be-
haviours such as the lack of effort primarily occurs in situations of an uncertain outcome
when expectations on feedback about good achievement/ability are low.
Based on the Freudian concept of death instinct (Thanatos) coined in 1920,
Baumeister and Scher (1988) identified and categorized certain self-defeating behav-
iours. The authors classified such behaviours under three categories in a review such
as primary self-destruction (the harm is foreseen and desirable; e.g., seeking to make
mistakes), tradeoffs between short-term benefits and long-term costs (the harm is fore-
seen but not desired; e.g., drug abuse, ignoring state of health) as well as counterpro-
ductive strategies (the harm is neither foreseen nor desired; e.g., overdone persistence,
learned helplessness). The review discusses SH as a tradeoff where self-handicappers
undertake long-term disadvantages (underachievement, alcoholism, drug abuse) in
order to gain immediate benefits (protection from failure). However, SH also involves
obvious immediate disadvantages (risking/sacrificing successful performance).
174 / Přehledové studie
 Besides the so-called proximate explanations focusing on the direct causes of SH,
evolutionary psychology provides an ultimate explanation of the phenomenon based on
distant causes: Zahavi’s handicap principle widely observable in animal life suggests
that morphological and behavioural features requiring large amounts of investment and
thereby producing disadvantages are worth developing if the investment produces re-
turns in other ways (e.g., in reproductive success; Zahavi & Zahavi, 1997). For example,
the tail of a peacock draws predators’ attention as well as impedes the movement of the
peacock when trying to escape, therefore only the fittest peacocks survive.
An accurate definition of SH requires its distinction from other concepts of a simi-
lar nature such as SSB, defensive pessimism and sandbagging. Table 1 summarizes
concepts related to SH.
Table 1 Concepts related to SH
Similarities with
Definition Differences from SH Authors
SH
Proneness to at- SH occurs before,
tribute success to Similar Miller
while SSB after the
SSB our own disposi- attributional & Ross
performance situ-
tions and failure patterns. (1975)
ation
to external forces.
SH alters the mean-
ing of failure by
Setting unrealisti- turning attention
cally low expec- from abilities to
tations in a risky Unrealistically Martin,
less stable factors
Defensive situation in an Marsh
attempt to harness in a risky situation whereas
low expectations defensive
pessimism & Debus
pessimism involves
anxiety so that (2003)
self-attunement to
performance is failure as well as set-
unimpaired. ting low and secure
standards.
Norem &
Cantor (1986)
Sandbagging Sandbaggers claim
refers to a ma- (or demonstrate)
nipulation-based poor abilities where-
negative self- as self-handicappers
presentation strat- Negative self- try to avoid infer-
egy by which one presentation and ences regarding their Gibson
Sandbagging presents oneself making the & Sachau
ability. Also, self-
as a worthless, audience expect (2000)
handicappers are
less or not com- poor performance. typically uncertain
petent opponent about their abilities
in order to reduce while sandbaggers
others’ effort and/ are not.
or defence.
Sheppers
& Socherman
(1997)
Any deliberate SH can be
or intentional classified as
behavior that has a type of Baumeister
Self-defeating clear, definitely or selfdefeating & Scher
behavior probably negative behavior, where (1988)
effects on the self the harm is
or on the self’s foreseen but not
projects. desired.
Přehledové studie / 175
 It is a subject of discussion whether SH is a personality trait or a situation-depend-
ent state. The question was raised as early as in the pioneering work of Berglas and
Jones (1978) who noted that “no doubt some persons are more prone to adopt SH
strategies than are others” (p. 406). Accordingly, initial studies adopted a trait-based
approach (e.g., Rhodewalt, Saltzman, & Wittmer, 1984; Strube, 1986). SH as being
a trait is supported by the empirical result found the anatomical correlates of SH
tendency (Takeuchia et al., 2013). SH measured as a trait shows relationships with
global personality traits: it is positive related to neuroticism and negatively related
to conscientiousness (Bobo, Whitaker, & Strunk, 2013). Some hypothesize that SH
is not only related to the two “big” traits but also mediates their relationship (Ross,
Canada, & Rausch, 2002).
A more moderate version of the trait-based approach proposes that SH is not a
global trait but only pertains to specific domains of one’s life such as studying, doing
sports or work (Martin & Brawley, 1999; Schwinger, 2013). The state-based approach
to SH focuses on the environmental context suggesting that certain situational factors
increase the likelihood of SH. Related studies are primarily aimed at revealing such
situational factors (Elliot et al., 2006).

T he forms of self - handicapping

In the early studies on SH (Berglas & Jones, 1978), the primary obstacle used was
some substance (drugs, alcohol) while from 1982 more and more studies reported
results based on verbal statements rather than on actions as behavioural manifesta-
tions of SH (Baumgardner, Lake, & Arkin, 1985; Smith, Snyder, & Handelsman,
1982). Arkin and Baumgardner (1985) were the first to distinguish between acquired
and claimed obstacles according to the above types of manifest SH. This distinction
was further clarified and confirmed by Leary and Shepperd (1986) who referred to
acquired obstacles by the term behavioural SH and to claimed hindering factors by
self-reported handicaps. While the former include overt SH actions preceding task
performance, the latter cover verbal statements about the presence of factors hinder-
ing performance. The distinction is important for several reasons including different
risks each type exposes self-handicappers to as well as their possibly different situ-
ational antecedents and different underlying motivational factors (Coudevylle et al.,
2008). Thus, conceptual distinction is also justified empirically.
As it has already been mentioned, research in the field began with studies on behav-
ioural self-handicaps (Berglas & Jones, 1978). Such manifestations are typically more
observable, more controllable and more closely related to performance compared to
self-reported handicaps (Hirt, Deppe, & Gordon, 1991). Behavioural SH involves
higher costs than its claims-based counterpart since SH actions actually decrease the
likelihood of successful performance. Furthermore, it is a more effective means to
achieve the aim of SH because it is less questionable and presence of the hindering
factor is self-evident. Behavioural SH include, for example, drug effects and side
effects (Berglas & Jones, 1978), procrastination (Ferrari & Tice, 2000) or facing a
performance situation without increased effort (Rhodewalt et al., 1984) or even with
reduced effort (Thompson & Richardson, 2001). Another specific form of behavioural
SH could be the phenomenon of other-enhancement (Shepperd & Arkin, 1991). The
authors suggest that one’s enhancing the individual or opponent serving as a subject
of comparison (e.g., ensuring better conditions for them in case one expects compari-
son in a situation with an uncertain outcome) provides attributional benefits similar
to those of SH.

176 / Přehledové studie

 Self-reported handicaps only involve statements about the presence of hindering
factors while in such cases self-handicappers are not necessarily convinced of failure
to occur. Therefore, they do not sabotage task performance by risky behaviours but
only rely on attributional ambiguity resulting from SH (Coudevylle et al., 2008). Self-
reported handicaps include statements about physical symptoms or disease (Mello-
Goldner & Jackson, 1999), exaggerated pain (Uysal & Lu, 2010) as well as reference
to anxiety (Smith et al., 1982) or mood (Baumgardner et al., 1985).
Research has revealed a form of SH more closely related to, but not completely
overlapping, self-reported handicaps in which a certain belief serves as an anticipated
obstacle. Negative ingroup stereotypes, for example, enable one to associate possible
failure with one’s group rather than with oneself (Burkley & Blanton, 2008; Kim, Lee,
& Hong, 2012). Kim and colleagues (2012) found that women expecting a difficult
mathematical task were more willing to accept negative gender stereotypes related to
mathematical skills compared to those expecting an easy task.
Hirt and colleagues (1991) suggest that most self-handicappers prefer self-reported
handicaps to behavioural SH. This idea is supported by two considerations: behav-
ioural SH exposes the individual to actual risk as well as making failure more likely.
By contrast, a self-reported handicap does not involve actual risk neither increases
the likelihood of failure. Rhodewalt (1990) suggests that the two types may not be
sharply distinguished since high trait self-handicappers often turn statements into ac-
tions, thus claimed and behavioural SH are related.
It is interesting whether SH could be observed at group-level1. Future studies should
consider the opportunity to conceive SH as a collective phenomenon, e.g. collective
victimhood.
Overall, individuals preferring behavioural SH are convinced of inevitable failure
(low perceived self-efficacy), thus they follow a “nothing to lose” strategy, while those
who rely on self-reported handicaps do not clearly anticipate failure (Coudevylle et
al., 2008), nor do they necessarily accompany their statements about hindering factors
by actual SH actions prior to a performance situation. However, little is known about
their separate effects on performance, or well-being. While the harmful consequences
of behavioural SH for (academic) performance have been fairly clarified, little and in-
consistent data are available concerning self-reported handicaps. More investigations
are needed in order to clarify these connections.

T H E I N F L U E N C I N G FA C T O R S O F S E L F - H A N D I C A P P I N G
The factors influencing SH stem from two types of sources: its occurrence depends on
the situational context as well as on personal qualities. Probably the most frequently
mentioned contextual eliciting factor is uncertainty. Some argues that uncertain out-
come of future performance (more specifically, uncertainty of success) alone is suf-
ficient to elicit SH. This may be due to non-contingent success feedback in which case
the individual receives clear information about a high ability level and yet remains
uncertain whether they can achieve success in future tasks (Berglas & Jones, 1978).
Additional important contextual factors are the features of the task. Those tasks are
the most likely to elicit SH which are relevant to the self (Pyszczynski & Greenberg,
1983), threatening or diagnostic to individual abilities (Finez et al., 2011; Shepperd
& Arkin, 1989). This is because such tasks expose favourable judgement of one’s
abilities to the highest risk.

1
We would like to thank to the anonymous reviewer for this assumption.

Přehledové studie / 177

 Another task-related factor is the presence versus lack of an audience, that is, pub-
lic versus private task performance. In general, SH more frequently occurs in public
situations (Hirt, McCrea, & Kimble, 2000; Kolditz & Arkin, 1982). This may be ex-
plained by the favourable image the task performer wishes to present in order to be
seen as a competent person. There are empirical results suggesting that besides the
presence of an audience, its composition may also influence the occurrence of SH.
Brown and Kimble (2009) found that subject showed a higher level of SH when an
experimenter of the opposite gender was present. This effect was particularly strong
when a female experimenter observed a male subject.
An additional important task-related factor affecting the likelihood of SH is pro-
vided by the goals emphasized by the social environment. Dweck’s goal orientation
theory distinguishes between learning goals and performance goals (Dweck, 1986).
Learning or mastery goals focus on the acquisition of new skills and abilities in a giv-
en task while performance goals are aimed at outdoing others and proving individual
abilities. According to studies linking SH to the goal orientation theory, when the
environment emphasizes learning goals (mastery goal structure e.g., under classroom
conditions), it will lead to reduced SH, while stressing performance goals increases its
likelihood (Standage et al., 2007). In our review the terms learning goal and mastery
goal are used synonymously (Murphy & Alexander, 2000).
The actor’s group membership as well as actual presence of other group members
in a performance situation may also affect the likelihood of SH. For example, Stone
(2002) found that white athletes exercised less when they were exposed to negative
stereotypes of white people (supposed to be less athletic) compared to the control
group being not presented with such information. The effect may probably be ex-
plained by SH that enabled subjects to avoid a situation which would have confirmed
the existing stereotype (they performed poorly because they did not exercise enough
versus because they were white). Group members may also have more direct influence
on SH. Members of groups seen to be cohesive are more likely to claim hindering fac-
tors than members of a less cohesive group (Carron, Prapavessis, & Grove, 1994).
Carron and colleagues (1994) explain this by suggesting that the possibility of failing
to meet others’ expectations imposes a more severe threat on members of highly val-
ued cohesive groups as opposed to those of less cohesive ones. Anticipation of social
exclusion is another factor related to the social environment which increases the like-
lihood of SH. 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 subject who did not receive such feedback (Twenge, Cata-
nese, & Baumeister, 2002). Another positive predictor of SH in a school context is
the presence of friends having negative school orientation (Midgley & Urdan, 1995).
Situational causes also include mood effects on SH. Alter and Forgas (2007) found
that happiness, that is, positive mood significantly increased the willingness to self-
handicap. This was particularly true in cases when positive mood was accompanied by
noncontingent performance feedback. The authors explain these findings by suggest-
ing that when the feedback is unreliable/uninformative, people try to maintain posi-
tive mood and therefore they exonerate themselves from the consequences of possi-
ble failure. An additional situational factor facilitating SH is objective self-awareness
(Hirt et al., 2000; Kimble & Hirt, 2005). Subjects observed through a one-way mirror
or a camera (being aware of observation while completing a personality inventory)
practiced significantly less before a performance situation than those who were asked
to present a fictitious person based on a description without being observed through a
one-way mirror or a camera.

178 / Přehledové studie

 Other features of the experimental arrangement may also influence the likelihood
of SH. McCrea and Flamm (2012) used prefactual thought generation task in a study
(see also McCrea, 2008). Different types of generated thoughts preceding task per-
formance led to more or less SH in experimental groups compared to control groups.
Inducing individuals to consider downward prefactual thoughts such as “if I ..., I will
perform worse in the task” or upward counterfactual thoughts such as “if I had learnt
more, I might have earned an A” led members of the experimental group to practice
less in the performance situation compared to control subjects. By contrast, goals
formulated by upward prefactual thoughts such as “if I ..., I will perform better in
the task” or using “if ..., then ...” format produced the opposite effect, that is, the
experimental group showed less SH than the control group (McCrea, 2008; McCrea
& Flamm, 2012; Thürmer, McCrea, & Gollwitzer, 2013).
Naturally, not only situational factors eliciting SH deserve scientific attention but
also those reducing SH and thereby supporting the realization of actual potentials.
Three of these factors have already been mentioned: learning goals emphasized
by the environment (mastery goal structure), inducing prefactual thoughts such as
“if I ..., I will perform worse in the task” as well as implementation intentions, so goals
formulated using “if ..., then ...” format. These findings are particularly important
also because they show that differences in instructions and external expectations have
implications for the relationship between actual abilities and performance. Further
situational factors reducing SH include high external incentive (e.g., money) because
these prevent claiming self-handicaps even before important tasks (Greenberg, Pyszc-
zynski, & Paisley, 1984). Shepperd and Arkin (1989) reported results suggesting that
SH only occurs in the absence of a pre-existing obstacle since in case of such obsta-
cles self-handicappers would undertake unnecessary risk.
Furthermore, those who have the opportunity of self-affirmation prior to a perfor-
mance situation are also less likely to self-handicap (Siegel, Scillitoe, & Parks-Yancy,
2005). However, self-affirmation is only effective if it does not reminds the individual
of the prospective task since such reminders make the task even more ego-threatening
in accordance with McCrea and Hirt (2011).
Research has definitely clarified that several factors may influence the likelihood of
SH. However, relevant studies also point out that SH may be influenced by context-
independent factors related to more stable personality traits or individual characteris-
tics. These factors may also elicit or prevent SH.
As it has already been discussed, self-esteem and SH are in a complex relationship.
Early studies argued that self-handicappers are characterized by unstable self-esteem
irrespective of whether it is high or low (Newman & Wadas, 1997). Subsequent re-
search rather focused on the question of whether high or low self-esteem is associated
with more frequent SH behaviour (although it should be noted that individuals with
low self-esteem have been found to be less certain about who they are (Campbell
et al., 1996), and their self-knowledge is less stable over time (Kernis & Waschull,
1995)). Some authors argued that individuals with high self-esteem are more likely to
self-handicap since they have more at stake to be protected (e.g., Rhodewalt, 1990).
By contrast, the vast majority of empirical findings suggest that people with low self-
esteem are more prone to self-handicap. The main reasons for such findings are that
people with low self-esteem face more situations of an uncertain outcome and they
find others’ judgements of them more threatening (Coudevylle, Gernigon, & Martin
Ginis, 2011; Martin & Brawley, 1999). Contradictory empirical results may partly
be due to possibly different goals pursued by self-handicappers with high versus low
self-esteem. According to this approach, the two groups differ in the causes rather

Přehledové studie / 179

than in the frequency of SH (Kim, Chiu, & Zou, 2010). The distinction between ex-
plicit and implicit self-esteem in the related literature makes the issue even more com-
plicated. Lupien, Seery and Almonte (2010) suggest that individuals with a combina-
tion of high explicit and low implicit self-esteem are the most likely to self-handicap.
Overall, as Jordan and Zeigler-Hill (2013) define, fragile self-esteem connects to SH.
Another person-related influencing factor is individuals’ implicit theories concern-
ing whether their abilities are improvable versus innately given. People holding in-
cremental implicit personality theories believe that their abilities are improvable. By
contrast, people developing fixed implicit personality theories think their abilities are
innately given and therefore unchangeable. Empirical studies show that the former are
more likely to self-handicap than the latter (Snyder et al., 2014). Those viewing their
abilities as innately given and unchangeable also judge their failures as more threaten-
ing since they appear more permanent. This is also related to the goals set in a given
performance situation, that is, whether one follows learning/mastery goals or perfor-
mance goals. People pursuing performance goals are more likely to resort to SH. The
reason for this is that such individuals want to see and present themselves as more
competent than others and they want to prove “immaculate” in social comparison
(Standage et al., 2007). This interpretive framework was further refined by integrating
the concepts of success orientation and failure avoidance to goal orientations and goal
structures (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). In this way, two types of performance goals
were defined: performance-approach (focusing on outdoing others) and performance-
avoidance goals (focusing on the prevention of performing worse than others). Mas-
tery goals were also divided into the same two categories, that is, mastery-approach
(focusing on full acquisition or understanding) and mastery-avoidance goals (focus-
ing on the prevention of incomplete acquisition or understanding). Apparently, the
avoidance-oriented subtype of both performance and mastery/learning goals leads to
SH (Chen et al., 2009).
A remarkable finding was reported by Uysal and Knee (2012) in a study investigat-
ing the relationship between self-control and SH: the level of trait self-control was
found to reliably predict all forms of SH irrespective of self-esteem, poor self-confi-
dence, gender and social desirability. The authors raise the possibility that behaviours
occurring due to low self-control are consolidated by learning. As an example, the
authors present a student with low self-control who spends considerable time online.
The student realizes over time that internet use provides a good explanation for his
poor school performance, therefore he continues to do the activity while also taking
attributional benefits from it. This may be consolidated by a few occasions and may
as well be used strategically. The authors also propose an alternative explanation sug-
gesting that SH indicates a failure of self-regulation. Individuals with low self-control
are more likely to fail at self-regulation and they prefer immediate satisfaction under-
taking long-term costs.
SH is closely related to typical attributional patterns. Individuals with high causal
uncertainty report more obstacles before a performance situation compared to those
with low causal uncertainty (Thompson & Hepburn, 2003). Research on attributional
patterns show that individuals prone to SH produce external and unstable attributions
irrespective of the (positive or negative) outcome of the observed event (Rhodewalt,
1990) thereby excluding attributions to (typically internal and stable) abilities. In this
way, they view events as uncontrollable and unpredictable (Arkin & Oleson, 1998).
This finding is consistent with results showing that SH effects protect rather than en-
hance self-esteem (Hendrix & Hirt, 2009).

180 / Přehledové studie

 Likelihood of SH is increased by the orientation towards external goals or goals
set by others (Midgley & Urdan, 1995). According to the authors, this is because
self-handicappers assess their competences on the basis of external performance cri-
teria that do not form a stable internal part of the self. Another related subject is
the positive relationship between SH and maladaptive perfectionism (Mushquash
& Sherry, 2012; Stewart & De George-Walker, 2014). Flett and Hewitt (2002) sug-
gest that the most important factor of maladaptive perfectionism is socially prescribed
perfectionism based on others’ expectations. Setting unrealistically high goals neces-
sarily involves failure, therefore self-protection by means of SH seems logical (Török
& Szabó, 2015).
Besides individual traits, abilities, implicit theories and attributional tendencies,
gender also considerably influences the likelihood of SH. Regarding self-reported
handicaps, men and women report in most cases similar amounts of obstacles (Arkin
& Oleson, 1998; Rhodewalt, 1990; but for an exception, see e.g., Hirt et al., 1991).
Behavioural SH, however, is only displayed by men (Berglas & Jones, 1978; Hirt et
al., 2000; McCrea, Hirt, & Milner, 2008a) apart from a few exceptions (e.g., Ferrari
& Tice, 2000). Several alternative explanations have been proposed for the latter dif-
ference between genders. Early explanations proposed that women are deterred by the
(otherwise desired) demonstration of their abilities in a public situation (Rhodewalt,
1990), however, empirical results obtained by Hirt and colleagues (2000) did not sup-
port this. Another explanation was based on the idea that men have more at stake in
a situation in which they can lose since they have higher self-esteem than women
(Kling et al., 1999). This hypothesis also seems to be falsified by empirical results
(e.g., McCrea & Hirt, 2001) because controlling for self-esteem does not eliminate
the difference between genders. A further explanation raised was that in a stereo-
typically masculine school environment, men as opposed to women hold performance
more important; in stereotypically feminine areas (e.g., social interactions), however,
men likewise self-handicapped more than women (Kimble, Funk, & DaPolito, 1990).
A more recently proposed explanation was based on the finding that women’s fail-
ures are more often attributed to a lack of ability while men’s failures to a lack of
effort (Swim & Sanna, 1996). Thus, it seems logical to presume that men take more
attributional benefits from behavioural SH since women’s failures typically lead to
ability attributions. The currently accepted and most convincing explanation is based
on studies suggesting that behavioural self-handicappers’ gender (whether a man or a
woman failed to prepare for the exam) does not affect others’ views on them whereas
gender of the self-handicapper’s observer does. Women as opposed to men proved
much more critical to individuals described as self-handicappers (Milner, 2009). Fur-
ther studies on this observation explain gender differences in behavioural SH by the
finding that women value effort more (both personally and normatively) and find its
lack more unacceptable than men (McCrea et al., 2008a; McCrea, Hirt, Hendrix, Mil-
ner, & Steele, 2008b).
A further person-related facilitating factor may be the imposter phenomenon (Fer-
rari & Thompson, 2006). The term refers to individuals who feel, despite objective
evidence of success, that they actually have less potential, they are overestimated
by their environment and therefore they are impostors. Since impostors are typically
afraid of being judged negatively and they strive for social acceptance and apprecia-
tion, they are characterized by increased self-presentation that serves to avoid nega-
tive judgements (Ferrari & Thompson, 2006).
Since self-handicappers mostly produce external and unstable attributions concern-
ing everyday life events (see above), it is not surprising that external control predicts

Přehledové studie / 181

the occurrence of SH, according to findings reported by Stewart and De George-Walk-
er (2014).
Furthermore, low success orientation and high fear of failure also predicts SH since
the latter is essentially based on avoidance motivation (De Castella, Byrne, & Cov-
ington, 2013).
Similarly to situational conditions, preventive factors have also been identified at
the level of personality. Most of these factors are the opposites of those facilitating
SH: stable self-esteem, holding incremental implicit personality theories, emphasiz-
ing learning goals as opposed to performance goals, high self-control, low causal
uncertainty, internal control and high self-efficacy. In addition, Knee and Zuckerman
(1998) point out the importance of high autonomy and low perceived control since
highly autonomous individuals use less SH than those with low autonomy. Table 2
summarizes the situational and personality factors which influence SH.
Table 2 The influencing factors of SH
Situational Person-related
-Important ego-threatening
task
-Public situation, presence of -Fragile self-esteem
audience -False self-esteem
-Non-contingent success -Fixed implicit personality theory
feedback -Performance goal orientation (particularly perfor-
-Performance goal structure mance-avoidance)
-Negative stereotype threat -Low self-control
Eliciting -High perceived group cohe- -High causal uncertainty
self-handi- sion -Orientation towards goals set by others
capping -Anticipation of social exclu- -Maladaptive perfectionism
sion -Being a man (gender)
-Presence of friends with -High self-awareness
negative school orientation -Imposter phenomenon
-Happiness, positive mood -External control
-Environment facilitating -Low success orientation and high failure avoidance
self-focus (mirror, camera)
-Downward prefactual and
counterfactual thoughts
-Mastery goal structure
-Upward prefactual thoughts
-Implementation intention
(if-then plan)
-High external incentive
Preventing -Mastery/learning goal orientation (particularly
-Presence of a pre-existing
self-handi- mastery-approach)
obstacle
capping -High autonomy
-Self-affirmation in a con-
text other than that of the
performance situation
-Unconditional acceptance
-Cognitive overload

THE MEASUREMENT OF SELF-HANDICAPPING

The most widely used tool for measuring SH is the Self-Handicapping Scale (SHS)
developed by Jones and Rhodewalt in 19822. The SHS assesses trait SH. Originally,
2
Jones, E. E. & Rhodewalt, F. (1982): The Self-handicapping Scale. Available from the second au-
thor F. Rhodewalt. Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.

182 / Přehledové studie

the scale was intended to measure the use of the two types of self-reported and behav-
ioural self-handicaps (Rhodewalt, 1990) but due to the poor reliability of the behav-
ioural factor, the scale was used as a unidimensional measure in most studies (Hendrix
& Hirt, 2009). The original scale consisted of 25 items. The first abridged version was
reduced to 14 items (Rhodewalt, 1990) while Strube (1986) proposed a more reliable
10-item version obtained by a reanalysis of the original SHS. The SHS was adapted
to several languages such as, for example, Polish (Doliński & Szmajke, 1994), Turk-
ish (Akin, 2012), French (Kraїem & Bertsch, 2011) and Hungarian (Török, Szabó
& Buda-Ujlaky, 2014). The questionnaire has adequate statistical properties and sev-
eral studies attested its construct and predictive validity (Rhodewalt, 1990). The most
frequently mentioned criticisms of the SHS concern the following points: the scale is
not always capable of clearly separating SH from subsequent attributional processes
(e.g., excusing failure) and it measures an undifferentiated defensive behaviour rather
than a specific SH tendency (Schwinger et al., 2014).
The turn previously discussed under the theoretical background of SH, that is,
replacement of a general trait-based approach by a domain-specific approach to
SH, raised the need for instruments capable of measuring SH in specific domains.
This need led to the development of the Academic Self-Handicapping Scale (Urdan
& Midgley, 2001), the sports-specific SHS (Martin & Brawley, 1999) and the scale
specific to physical activity (Maddison & Prapavessis, 2007).
Some point out as a major limitation of self-report measures of SH that respondents
may be aware of the specific forms and motivations of their SH behaviour (this has
since been questioned by several authors: McCrea, 2008; McCrea & Flamm, 2012;
McCrea et al., 2009; Thürmer et al., 2013; Twenge et al., 2002). However, the truth
most probably is that the questionnaires are not capable of detecting discreet, se-
lective or self-deceptive self-handicappers (Rhodewalt, 1990). This insight led to an
increased preference for alternative methods such as experiment (Coudevylle et al.,
2008) or interview techniques (Ferrand, Tetard, & Fontayne, 2006).
Another problem is the lack of longitudinal studies in the field. The vast majority
of the studies are cross-sectional which are not capable to capture the causal connec-
tions between the variables, neither the long-term consequences of the phenomenon.
More investigations are needed with such a design, and also, with qualitative meth-
ods. It would be more adequate using observation and experiment in order to deter-
mine behavioural SH, and a-priori excuse listing to measure the level of self-reported
handicaps.

S U M M A RY
This study discussed some issues of SH. Self-handicaps are self-imposed obstacles
hindering one’s own success so that they provide an explanation in case of failure
while subsequent success seems to be reached despite the obstacle. This definition
raises several questions which have not yet been answered in the literature. Is SH a
deliberately chosen strategy which provides a means of self-presentation or a self-de-
ception based process serving to protect uncertain and/or low self-esteem? This is an
especially important question because most studies assume explicitly or implicitly, as
it has been discussed above in relation to measurement, that subjects are aware of the
self-handicaps they use, therefore the phenomenon may be measured by self-report
questionnaires. If most self-handicaps proved to be used in a self-deceptive manner,
it would question the validity of self-report measures. Another unclarified issue in the
field whether SH is a trait, a state or exists in both forms? The related part of this study

Přehledové studie / 183

enumerated several situational factors which either increase or decrease the likelihood
of SH while apparently “no doubt some persons are more prone to adopt SH strate-
gies than are others” (Berglas & Jones, 1978, p. 406). Research on person-related and
situational factors is especially important because it may support effective preventive
methods to be developed. Studies on situational factors suggest that external expec-
tations such as goals related to the performance situation or verbal statements given
before the task, for example, influence the use of self-handicaps while person-related
factors often lead self-handicappers to pitfalls (Thürmer et al., 2013). For example,
low and uncertain self-esteem results in SH that (especially behavioural SH) increases
the likelihood of failure that, in turn, further lowers self-esteem, thus increasing the
likelihood of defensive reactions. Further research is also needed in order to explain
gender differences in SH. Although McCrea and colleagues (2008a; 2008b) reported
compelling results, their studies only focused on the lack of effort. Answering open
questions in the field is complicated by the difficulties of comparing empirical results
obtained in different studies which were based on different operationalizations of SH.
To the authors’ view, one of the most relevant practice-related aspects of the theo-
retical and empirical literature, whether school psychology, sport psychology or clini-
cal psychology is in question, is provided by possible interventions to be devised at a
situational and personality level in order to reduce the need for, and thus the likelihood
of, SH. Kearns, Forbes and Gardiner (2007) effectively reduced the level of SH in a
5-week intervention programme based on cognitive behavioural coaching. Such sys-
tematic preventive interventions are especially important because most related studies
emphasize the long-term negative consequences of SH that are not balanced by its few
short-term benefits (Crocker & Park, 2004).
The present review fills an important gap considering the lack of recent reviews on
the subject. The authors hold research on SH important because a tragic consequence
of SH is that although self-handicappers are temporarily able to separate their abilities
from possible negative outcomes, SH may in the long term lead to the loss of actual
personal potentials.
REFERENCES
A k i n , A. (2012): Self-Handicapping Scale: B a ume is te r, R . F., & Sc he r, S. J. (1988):
A study of validity and reliability. Egitim ve Self-defeating behavior patterns among nor-
Bilim – Education and Science, 37, 176-187. mal individuals: Review and analysis of com-
Al t e r, A. L . , & F o rg as , J. P. (2007): On be- mon self-destructive tendencies. Psychologi-
ing happy but fearing failure: The effects of cal Bulletin, 104, 3-22.
mood on self-handicapping strategies. Jour- B a umga rdne r, A . H ., La ke , E. A ., &
nal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, Arkin, R. M. (1985): Claiming mood as a
947-954. self-handicap: The influence of spoiled and
Ar k i n , R . M . , & Ba u mg a rd n e r, A. H. unspoiled public identities. Personality and
(1985): Self-handicapping. In J. H. Harvey Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 349-357.
& G. Weary (Eds.), Attribution: Basic issues Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978): Drug
and applications (pp. 169-202). New York: choice as a self-handicapping strategy in re-
Academic Press. sponse to noncontingent success. Journal of
Ar k i n , R . M . , & O le s o n , K. C. (1998): Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 405-
Self-handicapping. In J. M. Darley & J. Coop- 417.
er (Eds.), Attribution and social interaction: B obo, J . L., W hita ke r, K . C ., & Strunk,
The legacy of Edward E. Jones (pp. 313-371). K. K. (2013): Personality and student self-
Washington, DC: American Psychological handicapping: A cross-validated regression
Association. approach. Personality and Individual Differ-
A t k i n s o n , J. W. (1964): An introduction to mo- ences, 55, 619-621.
tivation. Princeton. NJ: Van Nostrand. B row n, C . M ., & K imble , C. E. (2009):
B a n d u r a , A. (1986): Social foundations of Personal, interpersonal, and situational influ-
thought and action: A social-cognitive theory. ences on behavioral self-handicapping. The
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 609-626.
184 / Přehledové studie
B u r k l e y, H. , & Bla n to n , H. (2008): En-
dorsing a negative in-group stereotype as a
self-protective strategy: Sacrificing the group
to save the self. Journal of Experimental So-
cial Psychology, 44, 37-49.
C a m p b e l l , J. D . , Trap n e ll, P. D . , H ein e,
S. J. , Ka t z , I. M . , L a v alle e , L . F. , &
L e h m a n , D. R. (1996): Self-concept clarity:
Measurement, personality correlates, and cul-
tural boundaries. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70, 141-156.
C a r r o n , A. V. , P rap av es s is , H . , &
G r o v e , R. J. (1994): Group effects and self-
handicapping. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 16, 246-257.
C h e n , L . H. , Wu , C . , K e e , Y. H . , L in ,
M . , & S h u i , S. (2009): Fear of failure, 2x2
achievement goal, and self-handicapping:
An examination of the hierarchical model of
achievement motivation in physical educa-
tion. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
34, 298-305.
C o u d e v y l l e , G . R. , G ern ig o n , C. , &
M a r t i n G i n i s , K. A. (2011): Self-esteem,
self-confidence, anxiety and claimed self-
handicapping. A meditational analysis. Psy-
chology of Sport and Exercise, 12, 670-675.
C o u d e v y l l e , G . R. , M a rtin G in is , K .
A . , & F a m o s e , J.-P. (2008): Determinants
of self-handicapping strategies in sport and
their effects on athletic performance. Social
Behavior and Personality, 36, 391-398.
C r o c k e r, J . , & P a r k , L. E. (2004): The cost-
ly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bul-
letin, 130, 392-414.
De C a st e l l a , K . , By rn e , D . , & C o v in g -
t o n , M. (2013): Unmotivated or motivated to
fail? A cross-cultural study of achievement
motivation, fear of failure, and student disen-
gagement. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 105, 861-880.
De Gr e e , C . E. , & S n y d e r, C. R. (1985):
Adler’s psychology (of use) today: Personal
history of traumatic life events as a self-hand-
icapping strategy. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 48, 1512-1519.
Do l i ń sk i D. , & S zma jk e, A. (1994):
Samoutrudnianie. Dobre i złe strony rzuca-
nia kłód pod własne nogi [Self-handicapping
strategy. Dark and bright sides of the pulling
the rug from under your own feet]. Olsztyn,
Pracownia Wydawnicza PTP.
D w e c k , C. S. (1986): Motivational processes
affecting learning. American Psychologist,
41, 1040-1048.
E l l i o t , A. J. , Cu ry, F. , F ry e r, J . W. , &
H u g u e t , P. (2006): Achievement goals, self-
handicapping, and performance attainment:
a mediational analysis. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 28, 344-361.
Elliot, A . J ., & M c G re gor, H. A. (2001): A
2x2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-
519.
Fe rra nd, C ., Te ta rd, S., & Fonta yne , P.
(2006): Self-handicapping in rock climbing:
A qualitative approach. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 18, 271-280.
Fe rra ri, J . R ., & Thomps on, T. (2006):
Impostor fears: Links with self-presentational
concerns and self-handicapping behavior.
Personality and Individual Differences, 40,
341-352.
Fe rra ri, J . R ., & Tic e , D. M. (2000): Pro-
crastination as a self-handicap for men and
women: A task avoidance strategy in a labora-
tory setting. Journal of Research in Personal-
ity, 34, 73-83.
Fes tinger, L. (1954): A theory of social compar-
ison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
Fine z , L., B e rjot, S., R os ne t, E., &
Cleveland, C. (2011): Do athletes claim
handicaps in low ego-threatening conditions?
Re-examining the effect of ego-threat on
claimed self-handicapping. The Sport Psy-
chologist, 25, 288-304.
Fle tt, G . L., & H e w itt, P. L. (2002): Per-
fectionism: Theory, research, and treatment.
Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
G ibs on, B ., & Sa c ha u, D. (2000): Sandbag-
ging as a self-presentational strategy: Claim-
ing to be less than you are. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 56-70.
Greenberg, J. (1985): Unattainable goal
choice as a self-handicapping strategy. Jour-
nal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 140-
152.
G re e nbe rg, J ., Pys z c z yns ki, T., & Pa is -
ley, C. (1984): Effect of extrinsic incentives
on use of test anxiety as an anticipatory at-
tributional defense: Playing it cool when the
stakes are high. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 47, 1136-1145.
H e ndrix, K . S., & H irt, E. R. (2009):
Stressed out over possible failure: The role of
regulatory fit on claimed self-handicapping.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
45, 51-59.
H irt, E. R ., D e ppe , R . K ., & G ordon,
L. J. (1991): Self-reported versus behavioral
self-handicapping: Empirical evidence for a
theoretical distinction. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61, 981-991.
H irt, E. R ., M c C re a , S. M ., & K im-
ble, 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 Psy-
chology Bulletin, 26, 1131-1141.
Přehledové studie / 185
Jo n e s, E . E . , & B erg la s , S. (1978): Con-
trol of attributions about the self through
self-handicapping strategies: The appeal of
alcohol and the role of underachievement.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
4, 200-206.
Jo r d a n , C . H. , & Z e ig ler-H ill, V. (2013):
Fragile self-esteem. The perils and pitfalls of
(some) high self-esteem. In V. Zeigler-Hill
(Ed.). Self-esteem (pp. 80-98). New York:
Psychology Press.
Ke a r n s, H. , F o rb es , A . , & G ard in e r, M.
L. (2007): A cognitive behavioural coaching
intervention for the treatment of perfection-
ism and  self-handicapping in a nonclinical
population. Behaviour Change, 24, 157-172.
K e l l e y, H. H. (1971): Attribution in social in-
teraction. New York: General Learning Press.
Ke r n i s, M. H . , & Was c h u ll, S. B. (1995):
The interactive roles of stability and level of
self-esteem: Research and theory. Advanc-
es in Experimental Social Psychology, 27,
93-141.
Ki m , H. , L e e , K . , & H o n g , Y.-Y. (2012):
Claiming the validity of negative ingroup
stereotypes when foreseeing a challenge: A
self-handicapping account. Self & Identity,
11, 285-303.
Ki m , Y. , C h iu , C. , & Z o u , Z. (2010):
Know thyself: Misperceptions of actual per-
formance undermine achievement motiva-
tion, future performance, and subjective
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 99, 395-409.
Ki m b l e , C . E . , F u n k , S . C. , & D a P o lito ,
K. L. (1990): The effects of self-esteem cer-
tainty on behavioral self-handicapping. Jour-
nal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5,
137-149.
Ki m b l e , C . R . , & H irt, E. (2005): Self-fo-
cus, gender, and habitual self-handicapping:
Do they make a difference in behavioral self-
handicapping? Social Behavior and Person-
ality, 33, 43-56.
Kl i n g , K. C . , H y d e, J . S . , S h o w ers , C.
J . , & B u s w e l l , B. N. (1999): Gender dif-
ferences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 125, 470-500.
Kn e e , C . R . , & Z u ck erma n , M. (1998):
A nondefensive personality: Autonomy and
control as moderators of defensive coping
and self-handicapping. Journal of Research
in Personality, 32, 115-130.
Ko l d i t z , T. A . , & A rk in , R. M. (1982): An
impression management interpretation of the
self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 43, 492-502.
Kr a ï e m , S. , & Be rts c h , J. (2011): Adapta-
tion française d’une échelle d’auto-handicap:
la Self-Handicapping Scale [French adapta-
186 / Přehledové studie
tion of the Self-Handicapping Scale]. Revue
Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 2,
5-31.
Le a ry, M . R ., & She ppe rd, J. A. (1986):
Behavioral self-handicaps versus self-report-
ed handicaps: A conceptual note. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1265-
1268.
Lupie n, S. P., Se e ry, M . D ., & A lmonte ,
J. L. (2010): Discrepant and congruent high
self-esteem: Behavioral self-handicapping as
a preemptive defensive strategy. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1105-
1108.
M a ddis on R ., & Pra pa ve s s is , H. P.
(2007): Self-handicapping in sport: a self-
presentation strategy. In S. Jowett, & D. Lav-
allee (Eds.), Social psychology in sport (pp.
209-220). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
M a rtin, K . A ., & B ra w le y, L. R. (1999): Is
the Self-Handicapping Scale reliable in non-
academic achievement domains? Personality
and Individual Differences, 27, 901-911.
McCrea, S. M. (2008): Self-handicapping,
excuse making, and counterfactual thinking:
consequences for self-esteem and future mo-
tivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95, 274-292.
M c C re a , S. M ., & Fla mm, A. (2012): Dys-
functional anticipatory thoughts and the self-
handicapping strategy. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 42, 72-81.
M c C re a , S. M ., & H irt, E. R. (2001): The
role of ability judgments in self-handicap-
ping. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 27, 1378-1389.
M c C re a , S. M ., & H irt, E. R. (2011): Limi-
tations on the substitutability of self-protec-
tive processes: Self-handicapping is not re-
duced by related-domain self-affirmations.
Social Psychology, 42, 9-18.
M c C re a , S. M ., H irt, E. R ., & M ilne r,
B. J. (2008a): She works hard for the money:
Valuing effort underlies gender differences in
behavioral self-handicapping. Journal of Ex-
perimental Social Psychology, 44, 292-311.
M c C re a , S. M ., H irt, E. R ., H e ndrix,
K . L., M ilne r, B . J ., & Ste e le , N. L.
(2008b): The worker scale: Developing a
measure to explain gender differences in be-
havioral self-handicapping. Journal of Re-
search in Personality, 42, 949-970.
M c C re a , S. M ., M ye rs , A . L., & H irt, E.
R. (2009): Self-handicapping as an anticipa-
tory self-protection strategy. In E. P. Lamont
(Ed.). Social Psychology: New Research (pp.
31-53). Hauppuage, NY: Nova Science.
M e llo-G oldne r, D ., & J a c ks on, J. (1999):
Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) as a self-
handicapping strategy among college women.
 Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
14, 607-616.
Mi d g l e y, C . , & U rd an , T. (1995): Predic-
tors of middle school students’ use of self-
handicapping strategies. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 15, 389-411.
Mi l l e r, D. T. , & R o s s , M. (1975): Self-
serving biases in the attribution of causality:
Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82,
213-225.
M i l n e r, B. (2009): Individual differences in
peer relationships: the role of self-handicap-
ping. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.
Mu r p h y, P. K . , & A lex an d e r, P. (2000):
A motivated exploration of motivation termi-
nology. Contemporary Educational Psychol-
ogy, 25, 3-53.
Mu sh q u a sh , A . R . , & S h e rry, S. B. (2012):
Understanding the socially prescribed perfec-
tionist’s cycle of self-defeat: A 7-day, 14-oc-
casion daily diary study. Journal of Research
in Personality, 46, 700-709.
Ne wm a n , L . S . , & Wad as , R. F. (1997):
When stakes are higher: Self-esteem instabil-
ity and self-handicapping. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 12, 217-232.
No r e m , J. K. , & C an to r, N. (1986): De-
fensive pessimism: “Harnessing” anxiety as
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 1208-1217.
Py sz c z y n sk i , T. , & G re e n b e rg , J. (1983):
Determinants of reduction in intended effort as
a strategy for coping with anticipated failure.
Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 412-422.
R h o d e w a l t , 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 paradox that isn’t
(pp. 69-106). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
R h o d e wa l t , F. , S a ltz ma n , A . T. , & Witt-
m e r, J. (1984): Self-handicapping among
competitive athletes: The role of practice in
self-esteem protection. Basic and Applied So-
cial Psychology, 5, 197-209.
R o ss, S. R . , C an ad a, K . E . , & Ra u s ch ,
M. K. (2002): Self-handicapping and the
five factor model of personality: Mediation
between neuroticism and conscientiousness.
Personality and Individual Differences, 32,
1173-1184.
S c h w i n g e r, M. (2013): Structure of academic
self-handicapping: Global or domain-specific
construct? Learning and Individual Differ-
ences, 27, 134-143.
Sc h wi n g e r, M . , Wirth w e in , L . , L e m-
m e r, G. , & S te in may r, R. (2014): Aca-
demic self-handicapping and achievement: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 106, 744-761.
She ppe rd, J . A ., & A rkin, R. M. (1989):
Determinants of self-handicapping: task
importance and the effects of pre-existing
handicaps on self-generated handicaps. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15,
101-112.
She ppe rd, J . A ., & A rkin, R. M. (1991):
Behavioral other-enhancement: Strategically
obscuring the link between performance and
evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 79-88.
Sie ge l, P. A ., Sc illitoe , J ., & Pa rks -
Yancy, R. (2005): Reducing the tendency to
self-handicap: The effect of self-affirmation.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
41, 589-597.
Smith, T. W., Snyde r, C . R ., & H a n-
delsman, M. M. (1982): On the self-serving
function of an academic wooden leg: Test
Anxiety as a self-handicapping strategy. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42,
314-321.
Snyde r, K . E., M a lin, J . L., D e nt., A .
L., & Linne nbrink-G a rc ia , L. (2014):
The message matters: The role of implicit be-
liefs about giftedness and failure experiences
in academic self-handicapping. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 106, 230-241.
Sta nda ge , M ., Tre a s ure , D ., H oope r,
K., & Kuczka, K. (2007): Self-handicap-
ping in school physical education: The influ-
ence of the motivational climate. British Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 77, 81-99.
Ste w a rt, M . A ., & D e G e orge -Wa lke r,
L. (2014): Self-handicapping, perfectionism,
locus of control and self-efficacy: A path
model. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 66, 160-164.
Stone, J. (2002): Battling doubt by avoiding
practice: The effects of stereotype threat on
self-handicapping in white athletes. Personal-
ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1667-
1678.
Strube, M. J. (1986): An analysis of the self-
handicapping scale. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 7, 211-224.
Sw im, J . K ., & Sa nna , L. J. (1996): He’s
skilled, she’s lucky: A meta-analysis of ob-
servers’ attributions for women’s and men’s
successes and failures. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22, 507-519.
Ta ke uc hia , H ., Ta kib, Y., N ouc hia , R .,
H a s hiz ume b, H ., Se kiguc hic , A ., K o-
tozakia, Y., et al. (2013): Anatomical corre-
lates of self-handicapping tendency. Cortex,
49, 1148-1154.
Thomps on, T., & H e pburn, J. (2003):
Causal uncertainty, claimed and behavioural
self-handicapping. British Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 73, 247-266.
Přehledové studie / 187
 T h o m p so n , T. , & Ric h ard s o n , A. (2001):
Self-handicapping status, claimed self-hand-
icaps and reduced practice effort following
success and failure feedback. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 71, 151-170.
T h ü r m e r, J. L. , M c C rea , S . M . , & G o ll-
w i t z e r, P. M. (2013): Regulating self-defen-
siveness: If-Then plans prevent claiming and
creating performance handicaps. Motivation
and Emotion, 37, 712-725.
T ö r ö k , L . , & S z a b ó , Zs. P. (2015, July): Per-
fectionism, self-handicapping and attribution
of positive and negative events among ath-
letes. Poster presented at the 14th FEPSAC
European Sport Psychology Congress, Bern,
Switzerland.
T ö r ö k , L . , S za b ó , Z s . P. , & Bu d a -
U j l a k y, J. (2014): Self-esteem, self-con-
scious emotions, resilience, trait anxiety and
their relation to self-handicapping tendencies.
Review of Psychology, 21, 123-130.
Twe n g e , J. M . , Ca ta n es e , K . R. , &
B a u m e i s t e r, R. F. (2002): Social exclusion
causes self-defeating behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 606-
615.
U r d a n , T. , & M i d g l e y, C. (2001): Academic
self-handicapping: What we know, what more
there is to learn. Educational Psychology Re-
view, 13, 115-138.
U y s a l , A . , & K n e e , C. R. (2012): Low trait
self-control predicts self-handicapping. Jour-
nal of Personality, 80, 59-79.
U y s a l , A . , & L u , Q. (2010): Self-handicap-
ping and pain catastrophizing. Personality
and Individual Differences, 49, 502-505.
188 / Přehledové studie
View publication stats
Weiner, B. (1985): An attributional theory of
achievement motivation and emotion. Psy-
chological Review, 92, 548-573.
Za ha vi, A ., & Za ha vi, A. (1997): The hand-
icap principle: A missing piece of Darwin’s
puzzle. New York: Oxford University Press.
SOUHRN
Te orie s e be z ne výhodňová ní:
formy, ovlivňujíc í fa ktory a mě ře ní
Termín sebeznevýhodňování označuje jev, kdy
za určitých podmínek jednotlivci charakteri-
zovaní určitými osobnostními faktory si brání
v  úspěchu v  důležitých výkonových situacích
dobrovolně přijímanými překážkami. Studie
vychází z přesné definice sebeznevýhodňování,
která je zařazena do kontextu psychologických
teorií a příbuzných sociálně psychologických
pojmů. Podrobně jsou probrány dvě odlišné
formy sebeznevýhodňování, behaviorální a se-
bevýpověďová. Faktory ovlivňující sebeznevý-
hodňování jsou kategorizovány a analyzovány
ve dvou rozměrech, osobním versus environ-
mentálním, a vyvolávajícím versus preventiv-
ním. Jsou uvedeny jak dotazník, tak experimen-
tální techniky měření sebeznevýhodňování.
Ve shrnutí jsou zhodnoceny existující teorie
a empirické výzkumy a probrána témata praktic-
kých aplikací, výzkumné problémy a relevantní
náměty, které by měly být dále zkoumány.