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

net/publication/13629564

Consequences of self-handicapping: Effects on coping, academic

performance, and adjustment

Article  in  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · July 1998

DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1619 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
167 3,496

3 authors, including:

Miron Zuckerman C. Raymond Knee

University of Rochester University of Houston
110 PUBLICATIONS   8,299 CITATIONS    69 PUBLICATIONS   3,947 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Religious cognition project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by C. Raymond Knee on 21 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 1998 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
1998, Vol. 74, No. 6, 1619-1628 0022-3514/98/$3.00

Consequences of Self-Handicapping: Effects on Coping, Academic

Performance, and Adjustment
Miron Zuckerman and Suzanne C. Kieffer C. Raymond Knee
University of Rochester University of Houston

Self-handicappers erect impediments to performance to protect their self-esteem. The impediments

may interfere with the ability to do well and, as such, may result in poor adjustment. Using a
longitudinaldesign, the present studies examined prospective effects of self-handicappingon coping,
academic performance, and several adjustment-relatedvariables (e.g., self-esteem). It was found
that, compared to low self-handicappers, high self-handicappers reported higher usage of coping
strategies implying withdrawal and negative focus. High self-handicappersperformed less well aca-
demically, an effect that was mediated in part by poor study habits. Finally, high self-handicapping
resulted in poorer adjustment over time, and poorer adjustment resulted in higher self-handicapping
over time. These relations are consistent with the idea of a vicious cycle in which self-handicapping
and poor adjustment reinforce one another.

Self-handicaps are obstacles to successful performance that
are constructed by a person to protect or enhance self-esteem
(Berglas & Jones, 1978; Jones & Berglas, 1978). The obstacles
may interfere with performance but allow the person to discount
responsibility for failure and augment credit for success (Kelley,
1971). If one fails, attribution to poor ability can be discounted
because of the presence of another potential cause (the obsta-
cle). If one succeeds, attribution to ability can be augmented
because the good performance occurred despite the presence of
the obstacle.
Over 15 years of research have provided ample illustrations
of when and how self-handicapping occurs. The impetus for
self-handicapping behavior is usually some threat to self-esteem
(Snyder & Smith, 1982). Behaviors fulfilling the function of
self-handicapping include drug and alcohol consumption (Ber-
glas & Jones, 1978; Higgins & Harris, 1988; Kolditz & Arkin,
1982; Tucker, Vuchinich, & Sobell, 1981), decrease in practice
(Baumeister, Hamilton, & Tice, 1985; Rhodewalt, Saltzman, &
Wittmer, 1984), reduction in effort (Pyszczynski & Greenberg,
1983), and choice of debilitating performance settings (Rhode-
walt & Davison, 1986; Shepperd & Arkin, 1989). Other research
has shown that self-handicapping also can be accomplished by
reports of test anxiety (Smith, Snyder, & Handelsman, 1982),
social anxiety (Snyder, Smith, Augelli, & Ingram, 1985), bad
mood (Baumgardner, Lake, & Arkin, 1985), and traumatic life
events (DeGree & Snyder, 1985).
The various forms of self-handicaps were classified by Arkin
and Baumgardner (1985) into acquired obstacles (obstacles
that actually lower the likelihood of success) and claimed obsta-
cles (obstacles that people claim to have). Leary and Shepperd
(1986) assigned the term behavioral self-handicapping to ac-
Miron Zuckermanand Suzanne C. Kieffer, Departmentof Psychology,
Universityof Rochester; C. Raymond Knee, Department of Psychology,
Universityof Houston.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Miron
Zuckerrnan,Departmentof Psychology, Universityof Rochester, Roches-
ter, New York 14627.
quired self-handicaps (e.g., consuming alcohol) and the term
self-reported handicapping to claimed self-handicaps (e.g., re-
porting high social anxiety). They also argued that behavioral
self-handicaps are more costly in that they actually lower
chances for success but also are more convincing and less dis-
putable than their self-reported counterparts. In support of this
reasoning, Hirt, Deppe, and Gordon ( 1991 ) found that research
participants predisposed to engage in self-handicapping pre-
ferred to use the less costly self-reported handicaps over the
behavioral self-handicaps when both were available.
Aiming to study self-handicapping as a disposition, Jones and
Rhodewalt ( 1982; see also Rhodewalt, 1990) developed the Self-
Handicapping Scale (SHS). The SHS is a 25-item questionnaire
that samples a large variety of self-handicapping behaviors (e.g.,
"I tend to put things off to the last minute" ). Internal reliability
(Cronbach's alpha) of the scale was .79, and test-retest reliabil-
ity over 1 month was .74 (see Rhodewalt, 1990, p. 75). Those
scoring high on the SHS appear more likely to use both behav-
ioral and self-reported handicaps when facing threats to self-
esteem (Rhodewalt & Fairfield, 1989, as cited in Rhodewalt,
1990; Rhodewalt et al., 1984; Strube & Roemmele, 1985). For
example, Rhodewalt et al. found that intercollegiate swimmers
and professional golfers with high SHS scores (compared to
those with low SHS scores) were more likely to withhold prac-
tice effort in the face of upcoming important competitions.
In subsequent work, the SHS was abridged to form a 10-
item scale (Strube, 1985) and, alternatively, a 14-item scale
(Rhodewalt, 1990). These two shorter versions are similar in
that all 10 items from the form recommended by Strube are
included in Rhodewalt's 14-item scale. (However, Strube short-
ened an earlier version of the SHS; consequently, his 10 items
appear in the 14-item scale in a slightly modified form.) To the
best of our knowledge, there have been no additional data on
the psychometric qualities of the various forms of the SHS. In
the present studies, we took a further look at the factor structure
of the SHS and examined the viability of a shorter version of
the scale.
However, the primary goal of this investigation was to exam-

1619
1620 ZUCKERMAN, KIEFFER, AND KNEE
ine the influence of self-handicapping, as measured by the SHS,
on well-being. The SHS can be viewed as a gauge of habitual
excuse making, the excuse being either an actual obstacle to
goal achievement or an obstacle that the person merely claims
to have (Arkin & Baumgardner, 1985). Admittedly, this view
is somewhat of a departure from the traditional definition of
self-handicapping as strategies designed to protect self-esteem
in the face of ego threat. However, habitual self-handicapping
is consistent with Rhodewalt's (1990) interpretation of the SHS:
" T h e chronic procrastinator and the 'habitually ill' hypochon-
driac have 'incorporated' those traits into their self-conceptions,
and they will admit to them on the S H S " (p. 92).
If the high self-handicapper makes excuses by erecting imped-
iments to performance, he or she cannot achieve as much as
the low self-handicapper. Interestingly, the impact of person-
initiated handicaps on performance has not been clearly estab-
lished. Existing research has found either performance benefits
(e.g., Rhodewalt & Davison, 1986; Rhodewalt et al., 1984,
Study 2), no effects (e.g., Harris & Snyder, 1986; Rhodewalt
et al., 1984, Study 1), or performance decrements (e.g.,
Springston & Chafe, 1987). A rationale for the performance
benefits of self-handicapping was proposed by Snyder (1990).
He argued that by lessening the impact of poor performance on
self-evaluation, self-handicapping allows the person to focus on
the task and not on potentially distracting self-relevant cues.
Although performance on a specific task may be helped by
self-handicapping, it is difficult to see how long-term achieve-
ment and well-being would be affected. Given that the high
self-handicapper is thought to employ a mixture of behavioral
excuses, ranging from deleterious health practices to inept at-
tempts at problem-solving, the cumulative effect of such tenden-
cies should be anything but beneficial. Consistent with this anal-
ysis, Rhodewalt (1990) reported a substantial relation (r =
- . 4 3 ) between high SHS scores and underachievement. ~ To the
best of our knowledge, no one else has examined how self-
handicapping, as a dispositional variable, influences achieve-
ment or well-being.
We conducted two studies to investigate the relation between
self-handicapping, as measured by the SHS, and several mea-
sures of adjustment. In both studies, we used a longitudinal
design, allowing a test of the prospective effects of SHS scores
on all other variables. In the first study, we examined the relation
between the SHS and measures of coping and academic achieve-
ment. In Study 2, we replicated and extended the findings from
Study 1.
Study 1
Coping and academic achievement are natural choices for a
study on the consequences of self-handicapping. With respect
to coping, self-handicapping appears relevant to a central con-
struct in the coping l i t e r a t u r e I t h e distinction between prob-
lem-focused and emotion-focused strategies (Lazarus & Folk-
man, 1984). Although both types of coping strategies represent
attempts to manage stressful situations, problem-focused coping
is aimed at changing the cause of the distress whereas emotion-
focused coping is aimed at managing the affect associated with
the distress. If self-handicappers erect obstacles to performance
as a means of protecting self-esteem, they can be viewed as
engaging in emotion-focused coping (protecting self-esteem) at
the expense of problem-focused coping (successful perfor-
mance). Stated differently, self-handicappers aim to maintain
positive feelings about themselves at the cost of dealing effec-
tively with the situation. It follows that people high on the SHS
will be more likely to report use of emotion-focused strategies,
particularly those that inhibit movement toward actual goals (cf.
Carver, Scheier, & Pozo, 1992). For example, the high self-
handicapper may deny the existence of a stressful situation or
disengage from it. Such coping mechanisms may be part and
parcel of an overall effort to protect self-evaluation even while
neglecting actual situational demands.
The relation between the SHS and academic performance was
examined as a follow-up of Rhodewalt's (1990) results. It was
expected that after potential ability (as measured by Scholastic
Aptitude Test [SAT] scores) was controlled for, high SHS stu-
dents would earn lower grades than low SHS students. Grades
depend in part on the quality of studying, and self-handicappers
are expected to study less well as a way of protecting their
self-esteem against poor performance. To examine whether the
relation between the SHS and underachievement is in fact medi-
ated by less efficient studying, we also measured the amount of
time participants spent doing academic work and the efficiency
of their study habits.
Method
Participants
Two hundred sixty-two undergraduate students (181 women and 81
men) participated in partial fulfillment of an introductory course require-
ment. All participants filled out a battery of questionnaires near the
beginning (Time 1) and again near the end (Time 2) of the fall semester.
Approximately 2 months separated Time 1 and Time 2. Participants
attended the sessions in small groups.
In addition to the participants listed above, 12 undergraduates filled
out the questionnaires at Time 1 but not at Time 2. Reasons for failure
to attend the Time 2 sessions included participants' leaving early for the
semester break, finishing the course requirement with other experiments,
dropping the introductory psychology course, and our being unable to
contact the participants despite repeated phone calls. The analyses re-
ported below are based on data from the 262 undergraduates who partici-
pated in both sessions.
Measures
SHS. Participants filled out the 25-item SHS (Rhodewalt, 1990) at
Time 1 and Time 2.
Coping. At both Time 1 and Time 2, participants filled out a coping
inventory titled the Coping Operations Preference Enquiry (COPE;
Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989) and two coping subscales added
to the COPE by the present authors. The COPE consists of a series of
four-item subscales, each measuring a specific coping strategy. Some
1 Rhodewalt (1990) reported that underachievement was operation-
alized as a ratio between grade point average (GPA) and Scholastic
Aptitude Test (SAT) score. To create an interval scale, he further modi-
fied the ratio by the formula 1 + log (GPA/SAT x 1,000). Cohen and
Cohen (1983) noted that if the components of a ratio variable are not
themselves ratio scales (having true zeros and equal intervals ), "correla-
tions involving ratios should probably be avoided altogether, and an
alternative m e t h o d . . , should be chosen, such as partial correlations"
(p. 75). Thus, the results reported by Rhodewalt should be considered
with a degree of caution.
 CONSEQUENCES OF SELF-HANDICAPPING
strategies (e.g., active coping, planning) are clearly problem-focused,
whereas others (e.g., denial, mental disengagement) are emotion-fo-
cused. Two additional coping strategies, self-blame and self-focused
rumination, seemed relevant to our purpose but were not covered by
the COPE. Self-blame, a tendency to criticize oneself for negative events,
appears in several classifications of coping, including the various ver-
sions of Folkman and Lazarus's (1980) The Ways of Coping Checklist
(see, e.g., Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Vitaliano, Russo, Carr, Maiuro, &
Becker, 1985). Self-focused rumination is a potential response to nega-
tive events that has been implicated in depression (Lyubomirsky &
Nolen-Hoeksema, 1993; Nolen-Hoeksema, Morrow, & Fredrickson,
1993; Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1986). In the present study, we added
to the COPE two four-item subscales that assessed these two other
domains. Participants completed the COPE (including the two additional
subscales) under trait-like instructions that asked them to indicate what
they generally do under stress. Response choices ranged from 1 (I usually
don't do this at all) to 4 (I usually do this a lot).
Appendix A lists the coping strategies and a sample item from each
subscale. The Study 1 portion of Appendix A presents the internal reli-
abilities (Cronbach's alphas) of all subscales from Time 1 and Time 2.
With the exception of mental disengagement, internal reliabilities were
adequate, ranging from .62 to .90 at Time 1 and from .63 to .87 at Time
2. Cronbach's alphas for mental disengagement were .38 at Time 1 and
.44 at Time 2. Carver et al. (1989) also reported somewhat lower reliabil-
ity for this subscale. The reason, according to those investigators, is that
the items describe very different ways of disengaging (e.g., sleeping vs.
watching TV).
Missing from Appendix A are subscales of three additional coping
strategies: alcohol use-drug use, humor, and use of religion. Alcohol
use-drug use and humor were developed after the publication of the
original COPE in 1989; neither was used consistently in relevant re-
search (cf. Carver & Scheier, 1994, footnote 1 ). We considered use of
religion to be irrelevant to the college population. All three subscales
were included in Study 1 but not in Study 2. None of the three produced
any results of interest, and they will not be discussed further.
Academic performance. Participants were asked to sign consent
forms allowing us to obtain from the registrar their SAT scores and
grade point averages (GPAs) from both the fall and the spring semester.
This information was collected after the end of the academic year. In
addition, participants were asked at Time 2 to (a) list the courses they
were taking, (b) note the number of hours per week they were spending
on academic work (excluding the time spent in class), and (c) write a
short description of how they typically prepare for exams. Participants
were divided into four groups, and each group's descriptions of exam
preparations were rated by 10 or It undergraduate judges. The judges
performed the task in partial fulfillment of an introductory course re-
quirement during the spring semester. For each description, the judges
rated on a 7-point scale how efficient the preparations were ( 1 = very
inefficient, 7 = very efficient). The ratings were averaged across judges
within each of the four groups, yielding mean scores with reliabilities
(Cronbach's alphas) that ranged from .88 to .93.
On the basis of the descriptions of exam preparations, judges also
predicted the GPA that each participant would likely obtain. Because
efficiency of exam preparation and predicted GPA were highly correlated
(r = .94), only results concerning the former will be reported here. In
addition, the judges rated the difficulty of courses the participants were
taking. However, this measure was not related to any other variable of
interest and will not be discussed further.
Results
Constructing a Short SHS
We conducted a factor analysis of the 25 SHS items and also
e x a m i n e d the corrected i t e m - t o t a l correlations. These analyses
1621
were conducted after we reversed relevant items such that higher
scores always reflected higher self-handicapping. The results
indicated that 11 items could be deleted due to low i t e m - t o t a l
correlations or low Ioadings on the first unrotated factor. The
analyses were then repeated for the remaining 14 items. The
varimax rotation yielded three factors with eigenvalues greater
than one. However, a major break occurred between the eigen-
values of the first and second factors, 3.43 and 1.39, respectively.
This suggests that the 14 items largely represent a single con-
struct. Corrected i t e m - t o t a l correlations for the 14 items ranged
from .26 to .58 (see Appendix B ) ; loadings on the first unrotated
factor ranged from .34 to .71; internal reliability ( C r o n b a c h ' s
alpha) for the 14-item scale was .76.
It is reassuring that the resulting 14-item SHS is extremely
similar to the one reported by Rhodewalt (1990). In fact, the
current 14-item version and his 14-item version of the SHS
differ by a single item. The current version includes Item 23
( " I never let emotional problems in one part of m y life interfere
with things in m y l i f e " ; this item is reverse scored) but not
Item 14 ( " S o m e d a y I might 'get it all together' " ) . Rhodewalt's
version included Item 14 but not Item 23. In our data, internal
reliability for Rhodewalt's 14-item version was .74. All subse-
quent analyses are based on the current 14-item version of the
SHS.
Coping
Scores for each coping scale from Time 2 were regressed
onto baseline coping (the corresponding coping score from Time
1 ), sex, and SHS (all entered simultaneously in Step 1 ) and on
SHS x Sex (entered in Step 2). Here and in all subsequent
analyses, the number of significant interactions involving sex
did not exceed what could be expected by chance; consequently,
these interactions will not be discussed further. The left portion
of Table 1 presents significant SHS effects obtained in the cur-
rent study. It can be seen that a higher level of SHS was associ-
ated with increases in denial, behavioral disengagement, mental
disengagement, self-blame, and self-focused rumination. It thus
appears that self-handicapping is associated with emotion-
focused strategies that orient persons away from their goals.
Academic Performance
GPAs from the fall and spring semester were substantially
related ( r = .69), and separate analyses of grades from each
semester yielded almost identical results. We thus averaged the
two GPAs and examined the results in a series of regression
analyses. First, we regressed the mean GPA on Verbal SAT,
Math SAT, sex, and SHS (Step 1) and on the SHS x Sex
interaction (Step 2). The results are presented in the left half
of Table 2. It can be seen that, after SAT scores were controlled
for, SHS and GPAs were significantly related such that higher
self-handicapping scores resulted in lower GPA over time.
We also e x a m i n e d whether the relation between self-handi-
capping and underachievement was mediated by study habits.
Recall that participants provided estimates of the time spent per
week on academic work and that their descriptions of exam
preparations were rated on their degree of efficiency. As ex-
pected, high SHS scores were related to less time spent on
academic work ( r = - . 16, p < .05) and to lower efficiency of
1622 ZUCKERMAN, KIEFFER, AND KNEE

Table 1
Predicting Coping Strategies From Self-Handicapping Scale (SHS) Scores and Self-Esteem

SHS SHS SHS

Without self-esteem Without self-esteem With self-esteem Self-esteem
(Study 1) (Study 2) (Study 2) (Study 2)
Coping strategy F(I, 256) pr F(1, 248) pr F(1,247) pr H I , 247) pr
Denial 17.00"** .25 10.06"* .18 7.77** .17 0.07 -.02
Behavioral disengagement 29.76"** .32 8.61"* .20 5.91" .15 1.04 -.06
Mental disengagement 11.15"* .20 10.65'* .16 6.63* .16 0.82 -.06
Self-blame 8.60"* .18 3.43t .12 0.66 .05 6.23" - . 16
Self-focused rumination 8.02** .17 13.92"** .23 11.59"** .21 0.08 -.02

t p < .10 (marginally significant). *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

exam preparation (r = - . 2 1 , p < .01 ). The next questions to such effects on variables beyond coping and academic achieve-
be examined were (a) whether duration and efficiency correlate ment. In Study 2, accordingly, we examined the prospective
with GPA when SHS is controlled for and (b) whether the effects of SHS on self-esteem, affect, and the number of times
relation between SHS and GPA diminishes when duration and participants (all college students) visited the university health
efficiency are controlled for. Accordingly, the regression analysis service. We also again examined the prospective effects of SHS
of mean GPA was repeated with duration and efficiency as two on coping and academic performance but modified the coping
more predictors that were entered in Step 1. As can be seen in measure to increase the generalizability of the results.
the right-hand side of Table 2, higher scores on duration and A claim that self-handicapping influences adjustment also
efficiency were both significantly related to higher GPA after has to be defended against potential confounds. One immediate
controlling for SAT and SHS scores (as well as for each other). possibility is that self-handicapping effects reflect self-esteem
In addition, the magnitude of the relation between SHS and effects. Indeed, measures of the two constructs typically share
GPA became smaller (pr = - . 2 0 , p < .01, when duration and 20% of their variance. There is ample evidence, however, that
efficiency were not controlled for; pr = - . 1 2 , p = .07, when effects of self-handicapping are obtained even when self-esteem
duration and efficiency were controlled for). Clearly, at least is controlled for (see Rhodewalt, 1990, for a review). Still, it
some of the relation between SHS and GPA was mediated by seemed important to reexamine this issue in the present study as
the study habits that we chose to measure. some potential consequences of self-handicapping (e.g., lower
Overall, the results support the view that the high self-handi- academic achievement) seem natural consequences of lower
capper does not cope well and does not do well academically. self-esteem.
However, questions can be raised as to the validity, generalizabil- The relation between self-handicapping and adjustment also
ity, and implications of both effects. These questions were ad- raises the question of how self-handicapping itself is influenced
dressed in Study 2. by adjustment-related factors. Both self-esteem and affect ap-
pear relevant to this issue. Regarding self-esteem, Snyder and
Study 2 Higgins (1988) suggested that people low in self-esteem are
more uncertain about outcomes and, hence, more likely to self-
If we are to make claims about the effects of self-handicap- handicap. If so, one would expect that low self-esteem would
ping on general adjustment, it will be reassuring to demonstrate result over time in higher dispositional self-handicapping. How-
ever, if self-handicapping leads to lower general adjustment over
time (e.g., poorer academic performance), it may also lead to
Table 2 lower self-esteem. Results confirming prospective effects of
Predicting Grade Point Average From Self-Handicapping each construct on the other would be consistent with the idea
Scale (SHS) Scores With and Without Study Habits (Study 1) that low self-esteem and high self-handicapping create a vicious
cycle of reciprocal reinforcement. On the other hand, if the
Without study habits With study habits
results show prospective effects of self-esteem on self-handicap-
Predictor F(1,218) pr F(1, 216) pr ping but not vice versa, then the theoretical importance of self-
handicapping would be diminished considerably.
Verbal SAT 11.32"** .22 12.93"** .24 Regarding affect and mood, negative affect may induce a
Math SAT 12.62"* .23 15.51"** .26 person to engage in self-handicapping to guard against future
Sexa 2.46 - . 11 0.29 -.04
SHS 8.86** -.20 3.20t - . 12 mishaps and the resulting distress and anxiety. In fact, experi-
Duration -- -- 4.59* .14 menters often use noncontingent success, which supposedly
Efficiency -- -- 10.71 ** .22 arouses anxiety over performance, to elicit self-handicapping.
However, in the current formulation, negative affect due to fail-
Note. SAT = Scholastic Aptitude Test.
"Sex was coded as female = 0, male = 1. ure may also elicit self-handicapping as a means of preventing
t p < .10. (marginally significant). *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p a repetition of this experience. Self-handicapping, in turn, may
< .001. induce poor coping and lower achievement and, as such, may
 CONSEQUENCES OF SELF-HANDICAPPING
also elicit additional negative affect. That is, to the extent that
self-handicapping guards against loss of self-esteem at the ex-
pense of effective coping, it eventually leads to additional disap-
pointment and further distress. Results confirming the reciprocal
relation between self-handicapping and negative affect would
again support the idea of a vicious cycle with higher self-handi-
capping and lower adjustment reinforcing each other.
Finally, we also added to Study 2 a behavioral measure of
symptom r e p o r t i n g - - t h e n u m b e r of times participants visited
the university health service for the purpose of treating an illness
(as opposed to preventive care). Because individuals can use
s y m p t o m reporting to protect self-esteem (Mayerson & Rhode-
walt, 1988; Smith et al., 1982; Smith, Snyder, & Perkins, 1983),
high self-handicappers may be more likely to complain about
sickness c o m p a r e d to low self-handicappers. To the extent that
these symptoms are perceived as real (as they must be if they
are to serve as an excuse), the high self-handicapper may engage
in more health care visits. The visits, in other words, are a
consequence of a continuous search for excuses that include
health-related issues.
Method
Participants
The study was conducted a year after the completion of Study 1. Two
hundred fifty-two undergraduate students (142 women and 110 men)
participated in partial fulfillment of an introductory course requirement.
As in Study 1, participants filled out a battery of questionnaires near
the beginning and, 2 months later, near the end of the fall semester (Time
1 and Time 2, respectively). Also as in Study 1, and for similar reasons,
an additional number of undergraduates (n = 10) attended the Time 1
session but not the Time 2 session. The analyses below are based on
the 252 undergraduates who participated in both sessions.
Measures
Coping. At both Time 1 and Time 2, participants completed an
enlarged COPE measure that included all the subscales administered in
Study 1 plus three new ones. The reason for further enlarging the COPE
was that this instrument lists problem-focused strategies (e.g., planning)
that are mostly viewed as adaptive and emotion-focused strategies (e.g.,
denial) that are mostly viewed as maladaptive. In Study 2, we wanted
to employ a more balanced coping inventory. We therefore added three
emotion-focused strategies that, at least on the surface, appear adaptive
(see Appendix A for sample items), q~vo of these strategies--under-
standing emotion and repairing emotion--were derived from the Trait
Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS; Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, & Palfai,
1995). The TMMS measures individual differences in attending to one's
feelings, clarity of feelings, and regulation of feelings. In the current
work, the strategy of understanding emotion represents both attention
to and clarification of feelings, whereas the strategy of repairing emotion
represents mood regulation when facing a negative event. The third
added strategy--expressing emotion--was a modification of an original
subscale of the COPE that has since been deleted. That subscale, focus
on and venting of emotion, included one item that represents the expres-
sion of emotion ( "I let my feelings out" ) and three items that represent
the experience and expression of negative affect (e.g., "I get upset and
let my emotions out"). The subscale was eventually deleted from the
COPE because it was too close in content to the symptoms it was
supposed to predict. In the current work, the subscale of expressing
emotion entails only the display of feelings; none of the items refer to
the experience or expression of negative affect.
One purpose of the present study was to examine whether the results
1623
obtained in Study 1 for the trait-like version of the COPE would general-
ize to a situational or time-limited version. Accordingly, the enlarged
COPE was administered in a dispositional format at Time 1 (as it was
administered in Study 1 ) and in a situational format at Time 2. Specifi-
cally, the participants were first asked at Time 2 to describe their most
stressful experience of the semester and then to indicate their use of
each COPE item with regard to that experience. Response choices for
each item again ranged from 1 (1 didn't do this at all) to 4 (l did this
a lot).
Internal reliabilities for the COPE are presented in the Study 2 portion
of Appendix A. It can be seen that the reliabilities of the subscales in
Study 2 were very similar to the values obtained in Study 1. Again,
except for mental disengagement, Cronbach's alphas for the COPE sub-
scales ranged from .60 to .90 at Time 1 and .68 to .91 at Time 2. As
before, mental disengagement yielded lower reliability (.43 and .36,
respectively ).
Remaining measures. At both Time 1 and Time 2, participants filled
out the 25-item SHS (Rhodewalt, 1990) as well as measures of self-
esteem and mood. Self-esteem was assessed by Rosenberg's 10-item
Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1979). Mood was assessed by the Posi-
tive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,
1988). The PANAS Negative Affect (NA) is a 10-item scale that mea-
sures the extent to which the person experiences negative feeling (e.g.,
irritable, hostile) and the PANAS Positive Affect (PA) is a 10-item scale
that measures experience of positive feeling (e.g., enthusiastic, proud).
At Time 1, participants completed the PANAS scales under long-term
instructions, which directed them to indicate how they feel in general;
at Time 2, participants indicated how they felt during the last 3 weeks.
In addition to these scales, participants were asked to sign consent forms
allowing us to obtain from the registrar their SAT scores and GPAs for
the fall and spring semesters and from the university health service the
number of visits for the purpose of treating an illness during the fall
and spring semesters.
Results
Shortening the SHS: A Replication
Factor analyses and corrected i t e m - t o t a l correlations of the
25 SHS items produced results that were similar to those of
Study 1. The 11 items deleted earlier were again deleted due to
low i t e m - t o t a l correlations or low loadings on the first unrotated
factor. A varimax rotation of the 14 remaining items produced
four factors with eigenvalues greater than one. There was again
a major break between the first and second factors (3.27 and
1.62, respectively), suggesting the existence of a single con-
struct. Corrected i t e m - t o t a l correlations for the 14 items ranged
from .22 to .49 (see Appendix B ); loadings on the first unrotated
factor ranged from .29 to .66; internal reliability ( C r o n b a c h ' s
alpha) for the 14-item scale was .74. Internal reliability for
Rhodewalt's ( 1 9 9 0 ) 14-item version was .72. Once again, all
subsequent analyses are based on the current 14-item version
of the SHS. (For both Study 1 and Study 2, analyses using
Rhodewalt's 14-item version of the SHS or the full SHS yielded
similar results.)
Coping
Scores from each coping scale were first examined in regres-
sion analyses identical to those conducted in Study 1. To test
whether self-handicapping effects are independent of those of
self-esteem, we then repeated the analyses with self-esteem
added as a predictor in Step 1 (along with coping baseline,
1624 ZUCKERMAN, KIEFFER, AND KNEE
SHS, and sex), and Self-Esteem x Sex and Self-Esteem × SHS
added as predictors in Step 2 (along with SHS x Sex). The
results are presented in the right portion of Table 1.
Without self-esteem in the equation, a higher level of SHS
was again associated with increases in denial, behavioral disen-
gagement, mental disengagement, self-blame (this relation only
approached significance), and self-focused rumination. With
self-esteem in the equation, SHS retained its significant effects
on four coping strategies; self-blame was no longer influenced
by SHS. Interestingly, self-blame was also the only strategy
influenced by self-esteem (see the right-hand column in Table
1 ) and by a Self-Esteem x SHS interaction, F ( 1 , 2 4 5 ) = 5.76,
p < .05; however, this interaction could be easily obtained by
chance alone.
SHS was not associated with any other coping strategy, in-
cluding the more "positive" emotion-focused strategies such
as expressing, understanding, and repairing emotion, all Fs <
1. Once again, therefore, it appears that self-handicapping is
related to emotion-focused strategies that are also avoidance
oriented.
A c a d e m i c Performance
As GPAs from fall and spring were again related (r = .62),
they were averaged and examined in a regression analysis identi-
cal to the one conducted in Study 1. The analysis was then
repeated with self-esteem added as a predictor in Step 1 (along
with the two SAT scores, SHS, and sex) and with Self-Esteem
x Sex and Self-Esteem x SHS added as predictors in Step 2
(along with SHS x Sex). The results are presented in Table 3.
Without self-esteem in the equation, higher levels of SHS were
once again associated with lower GPA; this association re-
mained significant even when self-esteem was added to the equa-
tion. Self-esteem and GPA were not related, and none of the
two-way interactions were significant, p s > . 16. Overall, these
results replicate those obtained in Study 1.
Self-Esteem, Mood, and Visits to the Health Service
Zero-order correlations between self-handicapping, self-es-
teem, and affect are presented in Table 4. It can be seen that,
for both Time 1 and Time 2, the SHS was negatively related to
self-esteem and the PANAS PA and positively related to the
PANAS NA. More important from the current perspective are
Table 3
Predicting Grade Point Average From Self-Handicapping
Scale (SHS) Scores With and Without Self-Esteem (Study 2)
Without self-esteem With self-esteem
Predictor F(1, 219) pr F(1,218) pr
Verbal SAT 17.53"* .27 16.68"* .27
Math SAT 8.46** .19 8.44* .19
Sexa 6.54* -.17 6.53* -.17
SHS 5.11" -.15 3.93* -.13
Self-esteem -- -- 0.03 .01
a Sex was coded as female = 0, male = 1.
*p <.05. **p <.01.
the prospective effects of self-handicapping on self-esteem and
affect and vice versa.
We conducted two regression analyses to examine the pro-
spective effects of SHS and self-esteem on one another. In the
first analysis, self-esteem from Time 2 was regressed onto the
baseline (self-esteem from Time 1 ), sex, and SHS (Step 1 ) and
then on the SHS x Sex interaction (Step 2). Results showed
that higher SHS scores at Time 1 led to a reduction in self-
esteem over time, F ( 1 , 250) = 9.50, p < .01, pr = - . 1 9 . In
the second analysis, SHS from Time 2 was regressed onto the
baseline (SHS from Time 1 ), sex, and self-esteem (Step 1 ) and
on the Self-Esteem × Sex interaction (Step 2). The results
showed that lower self-esteem scores at Time 1 led to an in-
crease in self-handicapping over time, F ( 1 , 2 5 0 ) = 3.77, p <
.05, pr = -.12.
To examine the prospective effects of self-handicapping and
affect on one another, we repeated the above analyses except
that the PANAS NA and PANAS PA replaced self-esteem as
dependent variables, baselines, and predictors. The analysis with
the PANAS NA as the dependent variable showed that higher
SHS scores at Time 1 resulted in more negative affect over time,
F ( 1 , 2 1 3 ) = 7.69, p < .01, pr = .19; this effect was maintained
even when self-esteem was added to the equation as another
predictor, F ( 1 , 212) = 5.76, p < .05, pr = .16. The analysis
with the PANAS PA as the dependent variable did not yield a
significant effect for SHS, either without or with self-esteem as
a predictor, F ( 1 , 2 1 3 ) = 1.63, F ( 1 , 2 1 2 ) = 1.75, respectively;
however, the effect was in the expected direction (higher SHS
resulting in lower positive affect). Self-esteem did not influence
either the PANAS N A scores, F < 1.15, or the PANAS PA
scores, F < 1.
The analysis with SHS scores as the dependent variable
showed that both the PANAS NA and the PANAS PA (entered
together and thus controlling for each other's effect) influenced
self-handicapping. Higher PANAS NA scores and lower PANAS
PA scores at Time 1 resulted in higher SHS scores over time,
F ( 1 , 2 1 2 ) = 5.10, p < .05, pr = .15, and F ( 1 , 2 1 2 ) = 4.88,
p < .05, pr = - . 15, respectively. Thus, self-handicapping seems
to reinforce both low self-esteem and negative affect but, in
turn, is also reinforced by both constructs (as well as by low
positive affect).
Finally, the number of times participants went to the university
health service to receive treatment for an illness was examined
in a regression analysis with sex and SHS scores as predictors
in Step 1 and SHS x Sex as a predictor in Step 2. Higher SHS
scores at Time 1 resulted in a higher number of visits during
the fall semester, F ( 1 , 2 3 3 ) = 3.79, p = .05, pr = .13, and the
effect largely remained even when self-esteem was added as
another predictor, F ( 1 , 2 3 3 ) = 3.18, p = .07, pr = . 12. Self-
esteem and visits to the health service were not related, F < 1.
Finally, there was no relation between SHS from Time 1 and
the number of visits to the health service during the spring
semester.
General Discussion
The present studies examined the relation of dispositional
self-handicapping with coping, academic performance, and sev-
eral measures of adjustment. The designs were longitudinal in
nature such that the relations that were obtained indicate pro-
 CONSEQUENCES OF SELF-HANDICAPPING
Table 4
Correlations Between Self-Handicapping, Self-Esteem, and Affect (Study 2)
1 2
Scale Time 1 Time 2 Time 1
1. SHS -- -- -.43
2. Self-Esteem --
3. PANAS NA
4. PANAS PA
Note. SHS = Self-Handicapping Scale; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; PA = Positive
Affect; NA = Negative Affect. All correlations were significant, ps < .01.
spective effects of self-handicapping on the variable of interest.
It was found that high self-handicappers reported higher usage
of coping strategies associated with withdrawal and negative
self-focus, performed less well academically, and scored lower
on several adjustment-related variables. Most of the findings
were replicated across two studies and, therefore, appear robust.
All the analyses were based on a short 14-item form of the
SHS that was identified in both studies and is also similar to
Rhodewalt's (1990) 14-item version. Nevertheless, we believe
that future investigators should administer the full 25-item SHS
and conduct their own analyses to confirm the viability of the
present short form of the scale.
To assess coping, we used either a dispositional (Study 1 ) or
a situational (Study 2) measure. In both cases, high SHS scores
were related to an increase in emotion-focused strategies that
imply withdrawal (denial, mental disengagement, and behav-
ioral disengagement) and negative focus (rumination). The rela-
tion of SHS with a fifth strategy, self-blame, disappeared when
self-esteem was held constant. It is important to note that SHS
was not related to emotion-focused strategies that imply a more
positive focus (such as positive reinterpretation and repairing
emotion). It thus appears that self-handicapping results in a
dysfunctional coping style. It should be acknowledged that a
contextual approach to coping suggests that no coping strategy
is universally good or bad and that coping outcomes depend on
the particular circumstances that are involved. However, even
Lazarus (1993), a strong proponent of this view, admitted that
some coping strategies "might more often be better or worse
than others" (p. 234). In empirical studies, denial and disen-
gagement have been associated with poorer health outcomes
(Aldwin & Revenson, 1987) and with lower optimism and
higher anxiety (Carver et al., 1989). As previously noted, self-
focused rumination has been linked with depression (Nolen-
Hoeksema et al., 1993).
The reader may wonder about the relation of SHS with self-
focused rumination. After all, self-handicapping is designed to
protect the person from the negative implications that rumina-
tion entails. Accordingly, self-handicapping style might be ex-
pected to correlate negatively with this strategy. However, a
common finding in the coping literature is that a tendency to
dwell on one's negative experience is often related to denial
and disengagement (e.g., Carver et al., 1989; Folkman & Laza-
rus, 1985; Scheier et al., 1989). Indeed, in the current data, the
correlations of the three withdrawal strategies (denial, behav-
ioral disengagement, and mental disengagement) with self-fo-
cused rumination were all positive, ranging from .23 to .43
1625
3 4
Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2
-.41 .50 .44 -.46 -.33
-- -.49 -.38 .35 .38
-- -- -.37 -.31
-- --
(Mdn = .34) in Study 1 and from .04 to .36 (Mdn = .27) in
Study 2. To explain the apparent paradox, Scheier et al. ( 1989,
footnote 9) suggested that focusing on negative aspects of one's
experience may lead to more active attempts to suppress it. In
the same vein, people who self-handicap may do so precisely
because they are prone to dwell on the negative aspects of their
experience.
Turning now to academic achievement, it was found that after
SAT scores were controlled for, higher self-handicappers earned
lower grades than did low self-handicappers. Although our mea-
sures of coping were based on self-reports, GPA is a perfor-
mance variable and as such provides hard evidence that the
practice of self-handicapping puts the person at risk. That is,
self-handicappers may indeed accrue attributional benefits but,
at least in the current studies, they paid for such benefits with
poor academic performance.
The relation between SHS and GPA was mediated in part by
study habits. Specifically, it was shown that (a) high SHS scores
were related to shorter and less efficient exam preparations, (b)
shorter and less efficient exam preparation were each related to
lower GPAs after SHS scores were controlled for, and (c) the
relation between SHS and GPA was weaker when duration and
efficiency of exam preparations were held constant. Because
we used self-reports to assess study habits, correspondence of
our measures with actual behavior is suspect. For example, it
is possible that high self-handicappers do not work less before
exams but report having done so to protect self-esteem. Because
both self-reported duration and efficiency of exam preparation
were related to actual grades, it may be argued that they must
reflect some actual exam preparation. On the other hand, it can
also be argued that those who anticipate lower grades report
worse study habits as a self-handicapping technique. However,
if actual study habits do not account for the relation between
self-handicapping and lower grades, it is not clear what does.
Stated differently, it is more parsimonious to infer that high
self-handicappers prepared a behavioral excuse (they actually
studied less well) that resulted in a lower GPA than to infer
that high self-handicappers only said they studied less well and
that something else accounted for their lower GPA.
Higher SHS scores were also related to a decrease in self-
esteem, an increase in negative affect, and a higher number of
visits to the university health service. Lower self-esteem, higher
negative affect, and lower positive affect, in turn, resulted over
time in higher levels of self-handicapping. Both low self-esteem
and negative affect indicate poor adjustment. Low self-esteem
is a correlate of helplessness and depression; higher levels of
1626 ZUCKERMAN, KIEFFER, AND KNEE
negative affect (and, to a lesser extent, lower levels of positive
affect) have been related to measures of distress, depression,
and anxiety (Watson et al., 1988). Thus, the reciprocal relations
between these adjustment-related variables and self-handicap-
ping are consistent with the hypothesis that these constructs
reinforce each other, thus forming a vicious circle: Self-handi-
capping results in lower adjustment which, in turn, induces fur-
ther increases in self-handicapping. Of course, a complete test
of this hypothesis requires that participants be followed for a
longer period of time than a single semester. It would also be
interesting to examine whether experimental mood induction
influences the actual use of behavioral self-handicaps. The hy-
pothesis is that people are more likely to self-handicap under a
bad mood than under a good mood.
The relation between SHS and frequency of visits to the health
service further supports the notion of a negative relation between
self-handicapping and well-being. However, although number
of health visits is a behavioral measure, its relation with self-
handicapping is open to various interpretations. One obvious
possibility is that the high self-handicapper who frequently visits
the health service is the "habitually" ill hypochondriac that
Rhodewalt (1990) hypothesized is likely to have a high score
on the SHS. An alternative is that high self-handicappers go to
the health service to obtain an official excuse (a physician's
report) and a justification for the special consideration they
request from their instructors. Either way, health visits that are
not related to the person's actual health appear dysfunctional.
Still, without additional information it is difficult to identify the
exact implications of the finding, and the difficulty is exacer-
bated by a lack of relation between the SHS and health visits
in the spring semester.
Taken together, the results illustrate the nature and conse-
quences of self-handicappers' habitual self-defeating behavior.
As noted earlier, this view of self-handicapping is somewhat
different from its usual characterization as a strategic response
to ego threat. In the present studies we did not identify ego-
threatening antecedents of self-handicapping behaviors but
rather examined these behaviors as a way of life.
Still, it is necessary to acknowledge some of the ambiguity
inherent in the findings. Because most of our measures were
based on self-reports, it is not clear whether we identified what
high self-handicappers actually do or what they merely claim
to do. As argued earlier, one interpretation of the relation be-
tween SHS and inefficient study habits is that high self-handi-
cappers do not study less but only claim to. A similar question
can be raised about the relation of the SHS with self-reports of
avoidant coping. It is not clear, for example, whether high self-
handicappers actually engage in more denial or merely claim
to. Even a more behavioral measure such as health care visits
is not free from ambiguity. We noted that high self-handicappers
are more likely to seek health care because they habitually culti-
vate symptoms or perhaps as a means of getting special consid-
eration from instructors. 2
Naturally, self-handicapping would be seen as less of a threat
to adjustment if it results in claimed obstacles to success (claims
of inefficient study habits, avoidant coping, and bad health)
but not in actual or acquired obstacles to success (e.g., actual
inefficient study habits; cf. Arkin & Baumgardner, 1985). We
believe, however, that the "claimed obstacles" interpretation of
the results is not as plausible as the "actual obstacles"
interpretation.
First, one consequence of self-handicapping--lower G P A - -
cannot be easily seen as a claimed obstacle only; and, as noted
earlier, if high self-handicappers merely claimed bad study hab-
its, it is not clear why they obtained lower grades. Second, most
of the coping strategies related to high self-handicapping can
hardly serve as claimed obstacles, particularly as measured in
Study 2. For example, high self-handicappers in Study 2 re-
ported responding to a stressful event with denial and behavioral
disengagement; such reactions may help the individual to deal
with the stress, but they cannot serve as an excuse for an event
that has already happened. Third, visits to the health service as
a means for special consideration from instructors is actually
not a self-handicapping technique. The person asking for special
consideration is trying to get a better grade rather than fend off
an ego threat; and a higher grade on the basis of a false claim
can be construed as better performance at some cost to self-
esteem, almost the inverse of a self-handicapping technique.
The most parsimonious explanation of the findings, therefore,
is that the self-reports used in the current studies serve as indica-
tors of actual behavior. We conclude that self-handicapping re-
sults in poor adjustment over time and that poor adjustment, in
turn, elicits more self-handicapping.
2 These issues were raised by two anonymous reviewers.
References
Aldwin, C. M., & Revenson, T. A. (1987). Does coping help? A reexam-
ination of the relation between coping and mental health. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 337-348.
Arkin, R. M., & Baumgardner, A. H. ( 1985 ). Self-handicapping. In J. G.
Harvey & G. W. Weary (Eds.), Attribution: Basic issues and applica-
tions (pp. 169-202). San Diego: Academic Press.
Baumeister, R. E, 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, 1447-
1457.
Baumgardner, A.H., Lake, E.A., & Arkin, R.M. (1985). Claiming
mood as a self-handicap: The influence of spoiled and unspoiled public
identities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 349-357.
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, 405-417.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. E (1994). Situational coping and coping
dispositions in a stressful transaction. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 66, 184-195.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. E, & Pozo, C. (1992). Conceptualizing the
process of coping with health problems. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.),
Hostility, coping, and health (pp. 167-199 ). Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychological Association.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. E, & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing cop-
ing strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal ofPersonali~
and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
DeGree, C.E., & Snyder, C.R. (1985). Adler's psychology (of use)
today: Personal history of traumatic life events as a self-handicapping
strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; 48, 1512-
1519.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-
 CONSEQUENCES OF SELF-HANDICAPPING
aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21,
219-239.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. ( 1985 ). If it changes it must be a process:
A study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college exami-
nation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150-170.
Harris, R. N., & Snyder, C. R. (1986). The role of uncertain self-esteem
in self-handicapping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 451-458.
Higgins, R. L., & Harris, R. N. (1988). Strategic "alcohol" use: Drink-
ing to self-handicap. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6,
191-202.
Hirt, E. R., Deppe, R. K., & Gordon, L. J. (1991). Self-reported versus
behavioral self-handicapping: Empirical evidence for a theoretical
distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 981-
991.
Jones, E. E., & Berglas, S. (1978). Control of attributions about the
self through self-handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and
the role of underachievement. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 4, 200-206.
Jones, E.E., & Rhodewalt, E (1982). The Self-Handicapping Scale.
(Available from Frederick Rhodewalt, Department of Psychology, Uni-
versity of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112.)
Kelley, H.H. (1971). Causal schemata and the attribution process.
Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Kolditz, T. A., & Arkin, R. M. (1982). An impression management inter-
pretation of the self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 43, 492-502.
Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Coping theory and research: Past, present, and
future. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 234-247.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping.
New York: Springer.
Leary, M. R., & Shepperd, J. A. (1986). Behavioral self-handicaps ver-
sus self-reported self-handicaps: A conceptual note. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 51, 1265-1268.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1993). Self-perpetuating
properties of dysphoric rumination. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65, 339-349.
Mayerson, N. H., & Rhodewalt, E (1988). The role of self-protective
attributions in the experience of pain. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 6, 203-218.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Morrow, J., & Fredrickson, B.L. (1993). Re-
sponse styles and the duration of episodes of depressed mood. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 20-28.
Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (1983). Determinants of reduction in
intended effort as a strategy for coping with anticipated failure. Jour-
nal of Research in Personality, 17, 412-422.
Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (1986). Evidence for a depressive self-
focusing style. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 95-106.
Rhodewalt, E (1990). Self-handicappers: Individual differences in the
preference for anticipatory self-protective acts. In R. Higgins, C. R.
Snyder, & S. Berglas (Eds.), Self-handicapping: The paradox that
isn't (pp. 69-106). New York: Plenum.
Rhodewatt, E, & Davison, J. (1986). Self-handicapping and subsequent
performance: Role of outcome valence and attributional certainty.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 307-323.
Rhodewalt, E, & Fairfield, M. L. (1989). Claimed self-handicaps and
the self-handicapper: The effect of reduction in intended effort on
performance. Unpublished manuscript. University of Utah, Salt Lake
City.
(Appendixes follow)
1627
Rhodewalt, E, Saltzman, A. T., & Wittmer, J. (1984). Self-handicapping
among competitive athletes: The role of practice in self-esteem protec-
tion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5, 197-209.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self New York: Basic Books.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, L., & Palfai, T. (1995).
Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelli-
gence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. In J. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emo-
tion, disclosure, health (pp. 125-154). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Scheier, M. F., Matthew, K. A., Owens, J. E, Magovern, G. J., Sr., Lefeb-
vre, R. C., Abbott, R. A., & Carver, C. S. (1989). Dispositional opti-
mism and recovery from coronary artery bypass surgery: The benefi-
cial effects on physical and psychological well-being. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 57, 1024-1040.
Shepperd, J. A., & Arkin, R. M. (1989). Determinants of self-handicap-
ping: Task importance and effects of pre-existing handicaps on self-
generated handicaps. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15,
101-112.
Smith, T. W., Snyder, C. R., & Handelsman, M. M. (1982). On the self-
serving function of an academic wooden leg: Test anxiety as a self-
handicapping strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
42, 314-321.
Smith, T. W., Snyder, C. R., & Perkins, S. (1983). On the self-serving
function of hypochondriacal complaints: Physical symptoms as self-
handicapping strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 44, 787-797.
Snyder, C. R. (1990). Self-handicapping processes and sequelae: On the
taking of a psychological dive. In R. Higgins, C.R., Snyder, & S.
Berglas (Eds.), Self-handicapping: The paradox that isn't (pp. 107-
150). New York: Plenum.
Snyder, C. R., & Higgins, R. L. (1988). Excuses: Their affective role
in the negotiation of reality. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 23-35.
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. 104-127). New York: Oxford University Press.
Snyder, C.R., Smith, T. W., Aagelli, R.W., & Ingram, R.E. (1985).
On the self-serving function of social anxiety: Shyness as a self-
handicapping strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
48, 970-980.
Springston, E J., & Chafe, P. M. ( 1987, June). Impressions of fictional
protagonist exhibiting self-handicapping behaviors. Paper presented
at the meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada.
Strube, M. J. (1985). An analysis of the Self-Handicapping Scale. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 211-224.
Strube, M.J., & Roemmele, L.A. (1985). Self-enhancement, self-
assessment, and self-evaluative task choice. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 49, 981-993.
Tucker, J. A., Vuchinich, R. W., & Sobell, M. ( 1981 ). Alcohol consump-
tion as a self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
90, 220-230.
Vitaliano, P. P., Russo, J., Carr, J. E., Maiuro, R. D., & Becker, J. (1985).
The Ways of Coping Checklist: Revision and psychometric properties.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 20, 3-26.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and
validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The
PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
1063-1070.
1628 ZUCKERMAN, KIEFFER, AND KNEE

Appendix A

S a m p l e I t e m s a n d I n t e r n a l R e l i a b i l i t i e s o f C o p i n g S u b s c a l e s f o r S t u d i e s 1 a n d 2 at T i m e 1 a n d T i m e 2

Study l Study 2

Time Time Time Time

Coping subscale Sample item 1 2 1 2

COPE subscales
Active coping I concentrate my efforts on doing something about it. .70 .69 .67 .72
Planning I try to come up with a strategy about what to do. .85 .79 .83 .83
Suppression of competing activities I keep myself from getting distracted by other thoughts or activities. .64 .63 .61 .68
Restraint coping I restrain myself from doing anything too quickly. .63 .70 .60 .74
Instrumental support-seeking I try to get advice from someone about what to do. .82 .83 .82 .75
Emotional support-seeking I discuss my feelings with someone. .90 .87 .90 .91
Positive reinterpretation I look for something good in what is happening .70 .73 .73 .77
Acceptance I accept the reality of the fact that it happened. .62 .69 .68 .77
Denial I refuse to believe that it has happened. .70 .78 .73 .77
Behavioral disengagement I just give up trying to reach my goal. .65 .74 .68 .71
Mental disengagement I turn to work or other substitute activities to think about it less. .38 .44 .43 .36

Subscales added to Studies 1 and 2

Self-blame I blame myself. .74 .78 .71 .86
Self-focused rumination I relive the problem by dwelling on it all the time. .86 .83 .80 .87

Subscales added to Study 2

Expressing emotion I take time to express my emotions. .90 .90
Understanding emotion I work on understanding my feelings. .86 .85
Repairing emotion I try to be optimistic in spite of what happened. .86 .78

Appendix B

P s y c h o m e t r i c s o f the 1 4 - I t e m S e l f - H a n d i c a p p i n g S c a l e F r o m S t u d y 1 a n d S t u d y 2

Corrected i t e m - t o t a l Loadings on the first

correlations unrotated factor

Study Study Study Study

Item 1 2 1 2

1 .27 .32 .36 .42

2 .41 .26 .53 .34
4 .44 .43 .57 .59
5 .37 .36 .50 .45
8 .37 .35 .49 .47
9 .36 .28 .48 .39
11 .35 .22 .49 .29
15 .31 .34 .43 .46
16 .43 .49 .56 .66
18 .26 .34 .34 .45
19 .36 .34 .48 .47
21 .30 .38 .42 .51
23 .32 .32 .44 .48
25 .58 .47 .71 .63

Received October 28, 1996

Revision received July 9, 1997
Accepted July 11, 1997 •

View publication stats