Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 21, No.

2, 1997

The Double-Edged Sword of

Self-Handicapping: Discounting, Augmentation,
and the Protection and Enhancement of
Self-Esteem1
David L. Feick and Frederick Rhodewalt2
University of Utah

A field study was conducted to test the hypothesis that discounted and
augmented ability self-attributions mediate the interactive effects of claimed
self-handicaps and academic success and failure on self-esteem. College
students were assessed for individual differences in self-handicapping and
self-esteem at the beginning of the term and then completed a checklist of
clamed self-handicaps immediately preceding their first in-class exam. At the
following class, graded exams were returned to the students, who then
completed measures of mood, self-esteem, and performance attributions. High
self-handicappers claimed more excuses prior to the test. Among failing
students, claimed handicaps were associated with greater discounting of ability
attributions and higher self-esteem. Among successful students, claimed
handicaps were associated with augmented ability attributions and enhanced
self-esteem. However, we failed to find support for sex differences in claimed
self-handicapping. The implications of the present research with regard to the
functional utility of self-handicapping behavior are discussed.

According to Jones and Berglas (1978), self-handicaps are obstacles created

(or claimed) by the individual in anticipation of a failing performance. Self-
handicaps constitute attempts by the person to select or create those set-
tings for performance that make feedback ambiguous. Such acts form
preemptory attempts to control the esteem implications of anticipated fail-

le wish to thank David Sanbonmatsu and Brian Tschanz for their assistance with this study.
2Address all correspondence concerning this article to Frederick Rhodewalt, Department of
Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112.

147
OM6-7339J97JQ6ro-01«m2£<yO C 1997 Plenum Publishing Corporation
148 Feick and Rhodewalt

ure by establishing a nonability explanation for its cause. In the unexpected

event of success, the self-handicapping individual's sense of competency
and self-esteem are enhanced because the successful performance occurred
despite the handicap. The student who stays at an all-night party rather
than studying for an important exam the following day describes a person
who is self-handicapping.
Jones and Berglas (1978) proposed that the buffering and enhancing
effects of self-handicapping on self-esteem were mediated by the perform-
ance attributions such handicaps afford. That is, self-handicaps function via
the attributional principles of discounting and augmentation (Kelley, 1972).
Our "partying" student may be increasing the likelihood of a poor exam
grade. However, in the event of failure, fatigue and a hangover serve as
plausible alternatives to lack of ability as an explanation for the poor test
performance. The student may thus discount attributions of low ability. The
handicap has reduced the diagnosticity of the feedback. The student can
say, "I didn't fail because I am stupid. I failed because I was tired and
hung over." If the student receives a good grade on the exam, the self-
handicaps of fatigue and a hangover permit augmented or greater attribu-
tions of high ability because the success happened despite inhibiting
influences of the handicap. The student can say, "I am really smart. I suc-
ceeded even though I was tired and hung over." The handicap has clarified
the favorable ability attribution.
Previous research has established that self-handicapping is motivated
by uncertainty about one's ability (Berglas & Jones, 1978) or, more gen-
erally, anticipated threats to self-esteem (Snyder & Smith, 1982). Self-
handicapping can be exacerbated by self-presentational concerns (Kolditz
& Arkin, 1982) but also occurs in situations where such concerns are at a
minimum (Jones & Berglas, 1978; Rhodewalt & Fairfield, 1991). Drug and
alcohol consumption (Berglas & Jones, 1978; Higgins & Harris, 1988), lack
of practice (Rhodewalt, Saltzman, & Wittmer 1984), effort withdrawal
(Rhodewalt & Fairfield, 1991), and test anxiety (Smith, Snyder, & Han-
delsman, 1982) are among the shopping list of behaviors and mood states
that have a demonstrated self-handicapping function.
People also differ in the extent to which they self-handicap (Rhode-
wait, 1990). Although a number of characteristics have been related to self-
handicapping (e.g., hypochondriasis; Smith, Snyder, & Perkins, 1983), most
of the individual difference research has employed the Self-Handicapping
Scale (SHS; Jones & Rhodewalt, 1982). The Self-Handicapping Scale was
developed as a face valid measure of the proclivity to employ excuses and
create handicaps in the service of self-esteem protection. Evidence to date
indicates that the SHS possesses acceptable construct validity (see Rhode-
wait, 1990, for review). For example, high self-handicapping (HSH) indi-
Self-Handicapping and Attributions 149

viduals will withdraw effort or forgo practice when uncertain about their
ability to perform successfully (Hirt, Deppe, & Gordon, 1991; Rhodewalt
& Airfield, 1991; Rhodewalt et al., 1984). They are also more likely than
low self-handicappers (LSH) to cite extenuating circumstances or obstacles
to success prior to performing (Rhodewalt & Hill's 1995; Strube, 1986,
Study 2).

Self-Handicapping, Self-Protection, and Self-Enhancement

This paper is concerned with the "functionality" of self-handicapping

with regard to performance attributions and self-esteem. Specifically, this
research sought to extend our previous research which asked whether self-
handicaps are indeed used to discount and augment the ability implications
of failure and success. And, if so, do such attributions buffer self-esteem
in the event of failure and enhance it in the event of success? What is
unique about this research compared with previous research is that it was
directed at demonstrating the attributional basis for the both protection
and enhancement of self-esteem in a naturalistic setting.
Our previous research suggested that people are generally willing to
use handicaps that are provided to them for self-protection (i.e., to discount
failure) but are hesitant to employ them for self-enhancement (i.e., to aug-
ment success). For example, Rhodewalt, Morf, Hazlett, and Fairfield (1991)
preselected subjects who were either high or low in self-esteem and high or
low in the tendency to self-handicap as measured by the SHS and provided
them with success or failure feedback while performing with an imposed
handicap. The participants then made attributions for their performance.
The results indicated that discounted failure and augmented success oc-
curred but only as a function of levels of self-esteem and self-handicapping
tendencies. High self-handicapping participants, regardless of level of self-
esteem, used the handicap to discount failure but only HSH subjects who
were also high in self-esteem employed the handicap to augment success.
In a second study, Rhodewalt et al. (1991, Study 2) examined the ef-
fects of self-handicapping on postperformance self-esteem by having par-
ticipants take a test with a handicap present or absent. Half of the
participants were given success feedback and half were given failure feed-
back. The results provided clear support for self-protection but not for self-
enhancement. The participants in the failure-feedback handicap-absent
condition attributed the poor performance to lack of ability and reported
lower self-esteem than did failure subjects in the handicap-present condi-
tion. In fact, handicap-present failure-feedback participants reported levels
of postfeedback self-esteem that were equal to the self-esteem of success-
150 Feick and Rhodewalt

feedback, handicap-present and handicap-absent participants. There was no

evidence of augmentation. Subjects who succeeded in the presence of a
handicap did not offer more extreme ability attributions nor did they report
elevated self-esteem relative to their successful no-handicap counterparts.
Although these findings are important because they show that handi-
caps can be used self-protectively (and in rare circumstances, self-enhanc-
ingly), they are limited to laboratory situations where the "handicap" is
explicitly offered by the experimenter as an excuse for poor performance.
It is not clear that "self-handicaps function in the same fashion. That is,
does the creation or claim of performance impediments by individuals buff-
er or enhance self-handicapper's self-esteem when they subsequently suc-
ceed or fail in real world contexts?
Rhodewalt and Hill (1995) provided a partial answer to this question:
The anticipatory claim of an impediment buffers self-esteem in the face of
failure. In their investigation, students completed a packet of questionnaires
at the beginning of an academic term. Included in the packet were measures
of self-handicapping tendencies (SHS), self-esteem, and the students' expec-
tations for performance on their first in-class exam. Then, 2 days prior to
that exam, the students completed a checklist of circumstances that might
impede them from exhibiting their true abilities on the exam (i.e., claimed
handicaps). Following the exam, the students were led to believe that they
had performed below the levels they had indicated that they would be sat-
isfied with on the exam. Thus, all students received failure feedback.3 They
then completed several scales which assessed the level of posttest self-es-
teem, mood, and attributions for their "poor" exam performance.
The results were complicated but provided further evidence for the
attributionally mediated self-protective function of self-handicapping. First,
individual tendencies to self-handicap (from the SHS) reliable predicted
the number of claimed handicaps. Prior to the exam, HSH students claimed
more extenuating circumstances than did LSH students. More important,
upon learning of their poor exam performance, relative to others, HSH
men made more external, unstable, and specific attributions for their poor
grades. They also reported the highest levels of posttest self-esteem, inde-
pendent of their initial levels of self-esteem. Thus, in a naturalistic setting,
there is evidence that at least for HSH men the act of self-handicapping
buffers the effect of failure on self-esteem by permitting the discounting
of ability attributions. However, this study did not provide a test of the
augmentation hypothesis because reactions to successful performances were
not assessed.
3The original exams were photocopied and graded separately. The students were immediately
debriefed and none of the students reported any subsequent negative effects.
Self-Handicapping and Attributions 151

The present study was designed to test in a naturalistic setting the

elusive self-esteem enhancement via augmentation hypothesis as well as to
replicate the Rhodewalt and Hill (1995) findings with regard to failure.
The students provided their class performance expectations at the begin-
ning of the term and had the opportunity to claim handicaps prior to their
first examination. When they received their actual grades, they made at-
tributions for their performance and reported their current mood and self-
esteem. We examined these attributional, affective, and self-esteem
responses by dividing students into those whose test grades were not as
high as they expected (failure) and those whose grades met or exceeded
their expectations (success). Accordingly, students in the present investiga-
tion were provided with veridical test feedback.4 We examined attributional,
affective, and self-esteem responses to students whose test grades were not
as high as they expected (failure) and those whose grades met or exceeded
their expectations (success).
Specifically, we tested the prediction that, relative to nonself-handicap-
pers, students who self-handicapped (claimed a high number of excuses prior
to an exam) and subsequently succeeded would augment or take greater
credit for their success than would successful subjects who did not self-handi-
cap. Moreover, augmented ability attributions among these successful, self-
handicapping students should be associated with enhanced self-esteem.
As in our past research (Rhodewalt & Hill, 1995; Rhodewalt et al.,
1991), we considered the role of individual differences in self-handicapping.
At the beginning of the term, students completed the SHS and a measure
of self-esteem. We expected HSH students to claim more handicaps prior
to the exam than LSH students.
With regard to the question of who would use the claimed excuses to
externalize failure and protect self-esteem versus who would use them to
augment success and enhance self-esteem, previous research indicates that
level of initial self-esteem is a determining factor (Rhodewalt et al., 1991;
Tice, 1991). Recall that Rhodewalt et al. (1991) found that self-esteem was
unrelated to the tendency to use self-handicaps to protect oneself from the
implications of failure. However, only high self-esteem, HSH individuals
employed handicaps to self-enhance. Thus, we predicted that those who
were high in the tendency to self-handicap would claim more excuses prior
to the exam. For those who subsequently failed, claimed self-handicaps
4Unlike the Rhodewalt and Hill (1995) investigation where false failure feedback was given,
the choice to use veridical feedback in this investigation was based on two considerations.
The first consideration centered around the potential ethical problems of providing false
success feedback to students. Second, we chose to use veridical feedback in order to better
understand how a full range of feedback experiences would affect performance attributions
and self-esteem.
152 Feick and Rhodewalt

would lead to external attributions and buffered self-esteem. Among stu-

dents whose performance met or exceeded their expectations, greater num-
bers of claimed handicaps would lead to augmented ability attributions and
elevated postfeedback self-esteem relative to those who succeeded but did
not handicap. Moreover, this pattern of self-enhancing use of claimed
handicaps should be greatest among high self-esteem students.5

METHOD

Subjects

The subjects were 121 (62 women, 49 men) University of Utah students
recruited from four upper-division undergraduate psychology courses. The
four classes had a total enrollment of 136. Ten subjects did not complete
all portions of the study and were dropped from the analyses. All students
were offered the opportunity to participate in the study or to read and
write a summary of a review chapter for extra course credit. They also had
the opportunity not to participate in either option.
The participants completed questionnaires at three different times:
during the first 2 weeks of the academic quarter, during the class period
of but prior to taking the first exam, and during the class period following
the exam after they received their exam grades.

Time 1 Measures

The Time 1 questionnaire packet included the Self-Handicapping Scale

(Jones & Rhodewalt, 1982), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE;
Rosenberg, 1965), and a set of questions designed for the present study
which probed participants about their expected grades on the first course
examination. Also included in the Time 1 measures were several additional
questionnaires that were part of a different research question. These ad-
ditional measures will not be discussed further.
The Self-Handicapping Scale (Jones & Rhodewalt, 1982) is a 25-item
questionnaire that probes peoples' tendencies to use such self-handicapping
5Sex differences in self-handicapping have been reported in a number of studies although the
patterns are neither consistent nor well understood (see Rhodewalt, 1990, for a review). In
the Rhodewalt and Hill (1995) study, a number of SHS by sex differences were observed.
Thus, we expected that the SHS would be a significant predictor of excuse making for men
but not for women. Regression analyses within sex of subject indicated that, although the
relation between the SHS and excuse making was larger for men (6 = .60) than for women
(b = .30), SHS was a significant predictor of excuse making for both sexes.
Self-Handicapping and Attributions 153

behaviors as lack of effort ("I would do a lot better if I tried harder"),

illness ("I suppose I feel 'under the weather' more often than most"), or
procrastination ("I tend to put things off to the last moment"), in conjunc-
tion with evaluative performances. Rhodewalt et al. (1984) reported that
the scale is internally consistent (coefficient alpha r - .78) and temporally
stable (test-retest at 1 month, r = .74). In addition, the scale has shown
good predictive validity (Hirt et al., 1991; Rhodewalt, 1990; Rhodewalt et
al., 1991; Rhodewalt et al., 1984; Strube, 1986; Strube & Roemmele, 1985).
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1995) is a 10-item scale
designed to measure global feelings of self-worth and self-acceptance. The
scale is scored on a 4-point response format (strongly agree, agree, disagree,
strongly disagree) with higher scores indicating higher self-esteem. Fleming
and Courtney (1984) reported that the RSE is internally consistent (coef-
ficient alpha, r = .82) as well as temporally stable (test-retest at 1-week
interval, r = .82). The RSE was included as a covariate to the SHS in
order to demonstrate that differences in claimed self-handicapping, posttest
attributions, mood, and self-esteem were related to the tendency to self-
handicap and not to individual differences in initial levels of self-esteem.
Finally, a set of questions designed by Rhodewalt and Hill (1995) and
modeled after Metalsky, Abramson, Seligman, Semmel, and Peterson
(1982) probed the students' expectations for their performance on the first
examination. Students were asked to report the grades with which they
would be happy, satisfied, and unhappy as well as the grades they expected
to receive on the first exam. They circled one of 13 possible grades (A+,
A, A-, . . . F) for each item.

Time 2 Measure

On the day of the first examination immediately prior to taking the

exam, the students completed a checklist of factors that might impede them
from displaying their true abilities on the exam. This checklist served as
the measure of claimed self-handicaps. The checklist, developed by Strube
(1986), included 12 excuses for poor test performance such as heavy course
load sickness, lack of sleep, studied wrong material, and other exams to
study for. Space was provided to list additional circumstances.

Tune 3 Measures

Immediately upon receipt of their test grades, the subjects completed

a questionnaire designed for this study. The first part of the questionnaire
was the Resultant Self-Esteem Scale (McFarland & Ross, 1982). Respon-
154 Feick and Rhodewalt

dents indicate how self-descriptive each of 30 trait terms is (1 = not at all,

11 — extremely). The scale provides three factor analytically derived
subscales: Negative Affect (displeased, disappointed), Positive Affect (joy-
ful, pleased), and Self-Esteem (stupid, smart, proud). Students were in-
structed to respond to the items as they were "feeling right now." The two
affect subscales served as the posttest measure of mood and the Self-Es-
teem subscale provided the posttest measure of self-esteem. The second
part of the questionnaire asked students to report: the grades they received
on the exam and then to write in an open-ended format the major causes
of their grades. They then answered scaled items regarding the internality-
externality ("Is the cause of your grade due to something about you or
something about the situation?"), specificity-globality ("Is the cause some-
thing that affects only this incident or does it influence other areas of your
life?"), and stability ("In the future when you take an exam, will this cause
be present again?") of the cause of their grades.

Procedure

The study was introduced to the students during the first class meeting
by one of the two authors in each of the four upper-level classes. It was
stated that the study was an investigation of students' thoughts and feelings
about how they approach coursework. It was explained that the issues un-
der study were pertinent to topics to be discussed later in the classes. Stu-
dents were informed that (a) their participation would require completing
questionnaires three times during the first 5 weeks of the term, (b) they
would receive partial course credit for their participation, (c) they could
earn an equal amount of partial credit by reading an article and answering
some questions about it, and (d) their decision to participate in the study
would remain unknown to their instructor.
An envelope containing a cover letter, a statement of informed con-
sent, and the Time 1 questionnaires was distributed to each student by one
of the authors or the instructor. The cover letter explained the purpose of
the study and the requirements for participation. The students were in-
structed to indicate if they chose to participate in the study, to participate
in the optional reading, or to do neither extra credit activity and to sign
the consent form. If they opted to participate in the study, they were in-
structed to complete the questionnaires. All the students, regardless of
whether they were participating in the study, were instructed to place the
consent forms and questionnaires back into their envelopes and drop them
in a locked mailbox outside their classroom by the end of the second week
of the quarter.
Self-Handicapping and Attributions 155

Immediately prior to taking their first exam, a research assistant pro-

vided the students with the Time 2 measure, the extenuating circumstance
checklist to complete before they started the exam. The students were in-
structed to complete the checklist only if they were participating in the
study. All the students returned the checklists to the research assistant.
Immediately after the students received their exam feedback, a re-
search assistant provided the students with the Time 3 mood, self-esteem,
and attribution questionnaires. The questionnaires were to be returned to
the research assistant by the end of the class period. The participants were
instructed to examine their grades and then complete the attached ques-
tionnaires.
During a subsequent class meeting, all the students in the four classes
were fully debriefed by one of the authors. He described the rationale be-
hind the study and revealed the full purpose of the procedures. Questions
and comments about the study were solicited from the author and the stu-
dents were encouraged to communicate any additional concerns or com-
ments to one of the authors.

RESULTS

Time 1 Measures

Pearson correlations were computed among all Time 1 variables and

are displayed in Table I. Consistent with past research, the Self-Handicap-
ping Scale was negatively related to self-esteem (Rhodewalt, 1990; Rhode-
wait & Hill, 1995). There was also a slight and unexpected tendency for
women to score higher in self-handicapping. It should be noted that sub-

Table I. Correlations Among Time 1 Individual Differences, Actual Test Grades,

and Expected Test Gradea
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Self-Handicapping Scale (1) — -.48c .21b -.02 .00
Self-esteem (2) -.05 .14 -.12
Sex (3)a -.13 -.02
Grade-expected (4) -.09
Grade— actual (5)
aSex:0 = male, 1 = female.
bp < .05.
cp < .01.
156 Feick and Rhodewalt

jects' actual test grades and expected test grades were unrelated to any
other Time 1 measure.

Time 2 Measures

The first prediction was that scores on the SHS scale would predict
the number of handicaps students would claim before taking the exam. The
number of items (including "other") on the checklist of extenuating cir-
cumstances was summed to form the measure of claimed handicaps and
entered into a multiple-regression analysis. The final regression model pre-
dicting claimed handicaps included subject sex (men = 0, women = 1),
baseline self-esteem, Self-Handicapping Scale (SHS), and their multiplica-
tive interaction terms. For all regression analyses, continuous variables were
"centered" by subtracting their means so that the main effect terms all had
means of zero (Aiken & West, 1991). The procedure of centering variables
(a) reduces potential problems of multicollinearity often introduced in the
regression analyses where interactions are present and (b) facilitates the
interpretation of regression coefficients.
Only the main effects model was significant for claimed handicaps, R2
= .14, F(3, 197) = 5.28, p < .001, with only SHS significantly and inde-
pendently predicting excuse making (b = .41). This finding replicates past
research (Rhodewalt & Hill, 1995; Strube, 1986). However, contrary to
these earlier studies, level of self-handicapping did not significantly interact
with sex in predicting claimed handicaps.

Time 3 Measures

At the first class meeting following the exam, the subjects received
their grades and immediately completed the Resultant Self-Esteem Scale,
which included subscales for State Self-Esteem, Positive Mood, and Nega-
tive Mood. Students' attributions for their test performance were scored
to form a composite, with higher scores indicating more internal-stable-
global attributions for their grades. Coefficient alpha for the three-item
composite was .66. Postfeedback mood was computed by subtracting the
sum of the Negative Mood scale from the sum of the Positive Mood scale.
Separate multi-regression analyses were conducted for each dependent
variable (ability attributions, postfeedback self-esteem, and mood). Follow-
ing the recommendation of Judd and Kenny (1981), nonsignificant and
theoretically irrelevant interaction terms were trimmed from the model. In-
cluded in the final regression model were baseline self-esteem, SHS, test
outcome, number of claimed handicaps, and six interactions: claimed handi-
Self-Handicapping and Attributions 157

caps by test outcome; SHS by claimed handicaps and by test outcome; and
the interactions of baseline self-esteem with SHS, test outcome, and
claimed handicaps. Main effect terms were entered on the first step, fol-
lowed by the two-way interactions. Preliminary analyses revealed no effect
for sex of student. In addition, the inclusion of three- or four-way higher-
order interactions did not make significant contributions to the predicted
variance of any of the dependent measures.
The test outcome variable reflected self-defined success or failure on
the examination. That is, test outcome was calculated by subtracting sub-
jects' expected grades from their actual grades. Thus, the more positive the
number, the more the outcome exceeded expectations, the more negative
the number, the more the outcome failed to meet expectations.6
Test Performance Attributions. For test attributions a significant inter-
action between claimed handicaps and test outcome was predicted such
that students would offer greater internal attributions for failure the fewer
the number of claimed handicaps. In contrast, they should make more ex-
treme internal attributions for success the greater the number of handicaps.
This prediction was supported in the overall test attribution regression
model [R2 = .30, F(12, 98) = 3.38, p < .005]. The individually significant
predictors were test outcome (b = .45, t = 4.23, p < .001), claimed handi-
caps (b = -.18, t = 1.98, p < .05) and, more importantly, the Test Outcome
x Claimed Handicaps interaction (b = .43, t = 3.95, p < .001). There was
also a significant Test Outcome x Self-Esteem interaction (b = .18, t =
1.99, p < .05).
Interactions were interpreted following the procedure outlined by
Aiken and West (1991). The predicted values for each dependent measure
were calculated by deriving the regression lines for one predictor (claimed
handicaps) at two levels of the second predictor (test outcome). The two
levels of test outcome were failure (-1 standard deviation) and success (+1
standard deviation). The regression slopes from this analysis are displayed
in Fig. la. Tests of the simple slopes (Aiken & West, 1991) indicated that
the slope for failure students was negative (-1.28) and significantly different
from 0 (t = -4.36, p < .001). That is, students' attributions for failure were
less internal the greater the number of handicaps they claimed, a pattern
which clearly supports the discounting prediction. In contrast, the slope of
6The participants reported their performance expectations both at the beginning of the
academic term and, again, at the time they received their test grades. The findings are
reported for the difference between their actual grades and their reported expectations at
the time of test feedback. This value was highly correlated with expectations stated at the
beginning of the class (r = .71). When initial expectations were substituted for expectations
stated at the time of feedback, a virtually identical pattern of significant findings obtained.
We opted to use the time of feedback measure because it reflected the sense of success or
failure the student as feeling at the time the dependent measures were collected.
158 Feick and Rhodewalt

Fig. 1. Simple regression slopes for (a) performance attributions, (b) self-esteem, and (c)
affect as a function of test outcome and level of self-handicapping.

those who met or exceeded their expectations was positive (1.59) and sig-
nificant (t = 2.24, p < .01). Success students offered more extreme internal
Self-Handicapping and Attributions 159

attributions for their success with the more handicaps they claimed. This
pattern supports the augmentation prediction.7
The Test Outcome x Self-Esteem interaction reflects the fact that high
self-esteem participants were more self-serving than lows in their attribu-
tions for failure (high y = 7.7; low y = 19.0). They did not differ in their
attributions for success (high y = 16.1; low y = 16.3).
Self-Esteem. With regard to postfeedback self-esteem, two main effects
were predicted: Self-esteem would be higher the greater the number of
handicaps and higher following success than following failure. This predic-
tion reflects the fact that within failure the self-esteem of high claimed
handicap students should be higher than low claimed handicap students
because the handicaps permit the externalization of failure. Following suc-
cess, high claimed handicap students should experience higher self-esteem
than low claimed handicap students because the success occurred despite
the handicap. Consistent with these predictions, only the main effects
model was significant [R2 = .32, F(5, 105) = 9.91, p < .001]. There were
three individually significant terms: baseline self-esteem (b = .24, t = 2.58,
p < .01), test outcome (b = .48, t = 5.64, p < .001), and claimed handicaps
(b = .38, t = 4.52, p < .001). The simple regression slopes for postfeedback
self-esteem are displayed in Fig. 1b.
The self-esteem of success students (slope = 6.85) and failure students
(slope = 4.71) was positively related to the number of handicaps claimed,
clear evidence for the buffering effects of discounting in the former case
and enhancing effects of augmentation in the latter case.
Mood. Finally, with regard to mood we expected only a main effect
for test outcome. Negative mood was subtracted from positive mood to
produce an overall mood score in order to examine this prediction. Only
the main effects model was significant [R2 = .38, F(5, 105) = 13.24, p
< .001], with only test outcome (b = M,t = 8.07, p < .001) predicting
mood. The simple regression slopes within level of claimed handicaps
displayed in Fig. 1c indicate that postfeedback affective responses were
determined largely by how well the students performed relative to their
expectations.
7Analyses of the open-ended responses the participants gave for their test performance were
also conducted. Two independent raters coded the responses for the extent to which they
attributed test performance to ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck. Interrater reliabilities
for these ratings ranged from .53 to .74. Unfortunately, a significant number of the
participants (n = 11) did not provide open-ended responses, making interpretation difficult.
However, for those that did give open-ended responses, the data showed that test outcome
(b = .26) and number of handicaps (b = .17) significantly predicted ability attributions [R2
= .12, F(1, 103) = 3.51]. Positive outcomes and the claiming of excuses predicted stronger
ability attributions. No other analyses were significant.
160 Feick and Rhodewalt

Attributional Mediation of Postfeedback Self-Esteem and Mood

According to the original self-handicapping model (Jones & Berglas,

1978), self-handicapping is an attributionally mediated phenomenon. That
is, self-esteem is buffered from failure and enhanced by success because
the handicap fosters discounting in the former case and augmentation in
the latter. We conducted two additional regression analyses in order to ex-
amine if the effect of claimed handicaps on self-esteem and mood was me-
diated by performance attributions. Regression equations were computed
separately for failure students and success students because the relation
between internal attributions and self-esteem was negative for failure and
positive for success. First we regressed postfeedback self-esteem on baseline
self-esteem and claimed handicaps. Confirming what was reported earlier,
claimed handicaps predicted higher postfeedback self-esteem among failure
students [b = .49, R2 = .27, F(2, 63) = 11.49, p < .001] as well as among
success students [b = .29, R2 = .14, F(2, 42) = 3.98, p < .05].
We then reran the regression with baseline self-esteem and internal
attributions entered on the first step and claimed handicaps entered on
the second step. Among failure students, internal attributions for poor per-
formance significantly and negatively predicted postfeedback self-esteem [b
= -.29, R2 = .12, F(2, 63) = 4.15, p < .05]. More important, although the
addition of claimed handicaps (b = .14) did result in a significant increase
in R2 [R2 change = .05, F(3,61) = 3.71, p < .05], claimed handicaps' unique
association with postfeedback self-esteem was substantially reduced, as part
of the relationship between handicaps and self-esteem was mediated by
ability attributions.
Among success students, internal attributions for good performance
significantly and positively predicted postfeedback self-esteem [b = .25, R2
= .11, F(2, 42) = 2.68, p < .10]. Claimed handicaps no longer accounted
for significant explained variance in postfeedback self-esteem [b = .08, R2
= .01, F(3, 41) = .31, n.s.].
The same regression analyses were performed on postfeedback affect.
Subjects' moods were more positive the better they performed (b = .60),
the higher the number of claimed handicaps (b = .17), and the more in-
ternal their performance attributions (b = .25). In contrast to self-esteem,
postfeedback affect was not mediated by performance attributions.

DISCUSSION

The hypotheses concerning the effects of self-handicapping on ability

attributions and self-esteem were supported. Consistent with past research
Self-Handicapping and Attributions 161

(Rhodewalt & Hill, 1995; Strube, 1986), individual differences in the ten-
dency to self-handicap as indexed by the Self-Handicapping Scale (Jones
& Rhodewalt, 1982) predicted the claiming of handicaps prior to taking
an exam. More importantly, the results provided clear evidence that self-
handicapping buffers self-esteem from experiences of failure and enhances
self-esteem for experiences of success because the handicap affords, re-
spectively, discounted and augmented ability attributions. That is, compared
to students who did not claim handicaps, students who claimed relatively
high numbers of handicaps prior to the exam made more external, specific,
and unstable attributions upon learning of a poor test grade. Upon learning
of a good test performance, these handicapping students made more in-
ternal, stable, and global attributions than did nonself-handicapping stu-
dents. As a consequence of these self-serving performance attributions, high
self-handicapping students experienced more positive self-esteem relative
to low self-handicapping students for both success and failure experiences.
Although several laboratory studies (Rhodewalt et al., 1991) and a
field study (Rhodewalt & Hill, 1995) have provided support for the dis-
counting effects of self-handicapping, evidence for the augmentation effects
of self handicapping has been limited to those with high self-esteem in a
few highly circumscribed laboratory conditions (Rhodewalt et al., 1991;
Tice, 1991). The present results are the first to demonstrate both discount-
ing and augmentation effects in a naturalistic setting. However, the present
study did not find evidence that augmented ability attributions and bol-
stered self-esteem was the exclusive province of high self-esteem individuals
as has been the case in past laboratory research (Rhodewalt et al., 1991;
Tice, 1991). This fact may point to an important difference between the
field and laboratory settings. In the laboratory studies, handicapping was
done in public view of the experimenter. If, as Tice (1991) argues, differ-
ences in self-esteem reflect differences in self-presentational motives, these
motives should be relevant to the public, laboratory setting. In contrast,
the present field study went to great lengths to make the students' re-
sponses anonymous and private. Here self-presentational motives were pre-
sumably less active and, thus, self-esteem did not moderate the effect of
handicaps and success on postfeedback attributions and self-esteem.
A second contribution of the present research is that it provides fur-
ther support for Weiner's (1986) distinction between outcome-generated
affect and attribution-dependent affect. Weiner's model of achievement
motivation and emotion proposes that outcome-generated affect is the gen-
eralized affective reaction a person experiences in response to positive or
negative performance feedback. Attribution-dependent affect is a secon-
dary affective response generated as a result of the attributions persons
make for their performance and is similar to feelings of self-worth. Our
162 Feick and Rhodewalt

data indicated that postfeedback mood was simply a function of the test
outcome (outcome generated) and not related to test performance attri-
butions. However, postfeedback self-esteem was attributionally mediated.
In summary, this investigation provided support for Jones and Berglas'
(1978) formulation of self-handicapping as an attributionally mediated
strategy for the protection as well as the enhancement of self-esteem. As
we have noted in our previous work (Rhodewalt, 1994; Rhodewalt & Hill,
1995), self-handicapping is a "Catch 22" in that handicappers take a hand
in bringing on an unwanted outcome in order to protect a desired self-im-
age. To casual observers such acts appear to be self-defeating and, at times,
pathological (see Berglas, 1988). We agree that certain chronic and extreme
forms of self-handicapping are indeed potentially self-injurious. However,
the present findings in conjunction with our earlier research (Mayerson &
Rhodewalt, 1988; Rhodewalt & Hill, 1995; Rhodewalt et al., 1991) indicate
that self-handicaps, at least claimed ones, are short-term functional strate-
gies that permit one to maintain a positive self-image in the face of po-
tentially contradictory evidence. Our findings are limited to claims of
obstacles to success. Future research will need to address whether behav-
ioral handicaps provide the same rewards.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Berglas, S. (1988). The three faces of self-handicapping: Protective self-presentation, a strategy
for self-esteem enhancement, and a character disorder. In S. L. Zelen (Ed.),
Self-representation: The second attribution-personality conference, CSPP-LA, 1986 (pp.
133-169). New York: Springer-Verlag.
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.
Fleming, J. S., & Courtney, B. E. (1984). The dimensionality of self-esteem. II. Hierarchical
facet model for revised measurement scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
46, 404-421.
Higgins, R. L., & Harris, R. N (1988). Strategic "alcohol" use: Drinking 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 Bulletin, 4, 200-206.
Jones, E. E., & Rhodewalt, F. (1982). The Self-Handicapping Scale. Unpublished manuscript
(Available from F. Rhodewalt, Department of Psychology, University of Utah).
Judd, C., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Estimating the effects of social interventions. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Kelley, H. H. (1972). Causal schemata and the attribution process. Morristown, NJ: General
Learning Press.
Self-Handicapping and Attributions 163

Kolditz, T. A., & Arkin, R. M. (1982). An impression management interpretation of the

self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 492-502.
Mayerson, N. H., & Rhodewalt, F. (1988). The role of self-protective attributions in the
experience of pain. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 203-218.
McFarland, C., & Ross, M. (1982). Impact of causal attributions on affective reactions to
success and failure. Journal of Personality ad Social Psychology, 43, 937-946.
Metalsky, G., Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., Semmel, A., & Peterson C. (1982).
Attributional styles and life events in the classroom: Vulnerability and invulnerability to
depressive mood reactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 612-617.
Rhodewalt, F. (1990) Self-handicappers: Individual differences in the preference for
anticipatory self-protective acts. In R. Higgins, C. R. Snyder, & S. Berglas. Self-handicapping:
The paradox that isn't. New York: Plenum Press.
Rhodewalt F. (1994) Conceptions of ability, achievement goals, and individual differences in
self-handicapping behavior: On the application of implicit theories. Journal of Personality,
62, 67-85.
Rhodewalt, F., & Fairfield M. (1991). Claimed self-handicaps and the self-handicapper: On
the relation of reductions in intended effort to performance. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 25, 402-417.
Rhodewalt, F., & Hill, S. K. (1995). Self-handicapping in the classroom: The effects of claimed
self-handicaps on responses to academic failure. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17,
397-416.
Rhodewalt, F., Morf, C, Hazlett, S., & Fairfield, M. (1991). Self-handicapping: The role of
discounting and augmentation in the preservation of self-esteem. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61, 121-131.
Rhodewalt, F., Saltzman, A. T., & Wittmer, J. (1984). Self-handicapping among competitive
athletes: The role of practice in self-esteem protection. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 5, 197-209.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
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. C. (1983). The self-serving function of
hypochondriacal complaints: Physical symptoms as self-handicapping strategies. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 787-797.
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.
Strube, M. J. (1986). 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.
Tice, D. M. (1991). Esteem protection of enhancement? Self-handicapping motives and
attributions differ by trait self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,
711-725.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.