Low Trait Self-Control Predicts Self-Handicapping

8/10/2019 Low Trait Self-Control Predicts Self-Handicapping

1/21

Low Trait Self-Control Predicts Self-Handicapping

Ahmet Uysal1 and C. Raymond Knee2

1Middle East Technical University

2University of Houston

ABSTRACT Past research has shown that self-handicapping stemsfrom uncertainty about ones ability and self-presentational concerns.The present studies suggest that low dispositional self-control is also

associated with self-handicapping. In 3 studies (N= 289), the associationbetween self-control and self-handicapping was tested. Self-control

was operationalized as trait self-control, whereas self-handicapping wasoperationalized as trait self-handicapping in Study 1 (N= 160), self-reported self-handicapping in Study 2 (N= 74), and behavioral self-handicapping in Study 3 (N= 55). In all 3 studies, hierarchical regressionanalyses revealed that low self-control predicts self-handicapping, inde-pendent of self-esteem, self-doubt, social desirability, and gender.

People sometimes do things that will decrease their chances of

success on an upcoming performance. For example, a student mayparty all night before a final exam, or an athlete may decide to

participate in a competition despite an injury. Engaging in behaviors

that create obstacles to successful performance in order to manipu-

late attributions after a performance is defined as self-handicapping

(Jones & Berglas, 1978). According to Berglas and Jones (1978),

self-handicappers aim to manipulate ability attributions based on

attribution principles of discounting and augmentation (Kelley,

1972). That is, if a self-handicapper is unsuccessful, the handicap

accounts for the failure and the attributions to lack of ability arediscounted. On the other hand, if a self-handicapper is successful,

the ability attributions are augmented because the self-handicapper

displayed a good performance in spite of the handicap (Feick &

Rhodewalt, 1997; Tice, 1991).

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ahmet Uysal,

Middle East Technical University, Department of Psychology, Ankara, 06800 Turkey.

Email: [email protected].

Journal of Personality 80:1, February 2012 2012 The AuthorsJournal of Personality 2012, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00715.x


2/21


3/21

2005). Hence, self-handicaps have short-term benefits over long-term

costs, just like many other behaviors resulting from low self-control.

Self-Handicaps Are Tempting

The qualitative study of Martin and colleagues (Martin, Marsh,

Williamson, & Debus, 2003) provides indirect evidence for the idea

that self-handicapping behaviors are tempting to self-handicappers.

In that study, researchers interviewed both high and low self-

handicapping students and asked them about their study habits.

Following are some quotations from interviews with high self-

handicapping students (Martin et al., 2003). Italics are added to

emphasize temptation- or self-control-related aspects. One student

said (Martin et al., 2003),

Its just like if I have an assignment due, say its due on Monday

and its the weekend,I seem to just want to watch TV or go out. Its

just something that happens.You know youve got to do something

but you get off track and go somewhere. (p. 620, italics added)

A second student said, Pointless time wasting? Yeah. Ill say, Ivegot study to do, well I really need to clean my wardrobe (p. 620,

italics added). And a third student who leaves studying to the last

minute said thatshe would promise herself not to do this in the future,

but each time an exam or assignment approached, she seemed to do

the same, no matter how hard she tries.

The words of these high self-handicapping students suggest that

they felt a temptation to do something else rather than study and

failed to resist the temptation. Moreover, the distracting activitydoes not have to be a fun activity to be tempting, as can be seen

from the second students words that even cleaning the wardrobe

can become an urge for a self-handicapper. This means that self-

handicappers feel tempted to self-handicap regardless of the hedonic

value of the self-handicapping behavior. It should also be empha-

sized that these students who reported succumbing to such tempta-

tions were the ones who were categorized as high self-handicappers

before the interview. On the other hand, low self-handicappers also

reported similar distractions, but they took measures to eliminate

them, such as going to the library instead of studying at home or

declining invitations to parties (Martin et al., 2003).

Self-Control and Self-Handicapping 61


4/21


5/21

The Present Studies

The present studies are designed to test the basic association

between trait self-control and self-handicapping. However, itshould be noted that there are different forms of self-handicapping.

Self-handicaps can be considered under two categories, namely,

behavioral handicaps and self-reported handicaps (Leary &

Shepperd, 1986). Behavioral handicaps refer to actual behaviors

that would impede a performance (e.g., a student partying all night

before an important exam). Self-reported handicaps, on the other

hand, refer to claims of handicaps before a performance (e.g.,

Im not feeling well today). Finally, trait self-handicapping as

measured by the Self-Handicapping Scale (Jones & Rhodewalt,

1982; Rhodewalt, 1990) can also be considered as a separate

form of self-handicapping that reflects more habitual or chronic

self-handicapping. Although all of these categories capture

self-handicapping, they are not perfectly correlated. In fact, the

correlations between different forms of self-handicapping range

from low to moderate at best. Thus, it is important to assess

self-handicapping in different ways to test the idea that low trait

self-control predicts self-handicapping.In three studies, we tested whether trait self-control predicts

self-handicapping, controlling for potential confounds. In all

studies, self-control was operationalized as trait self-control, which

was measured by the Self-Control Scale (Tangney et al., 2004).

On the other hand, self-handicapping was operationalized as trait

self-handicapping in the first study, self-reported self-handicapping

in the second study, and behavioral self-handicapping in the third

study. Furthermore, several potential confounds were included ascovariates in each study. As stated before, one major antecedent

of self-handicapping is uncertainty about ones ability. Accord-

ingly, we controlled for feelings of self-doubt. Second, past research

shows that self-esteem is negatively correlated with the Self-

Handicapping Scale (see Rhodewalt, 1990, for a review) and social

desirability is positively correlated with the Self-Control Scale

(Tangney et al., 2004); thus, we also controlled for both self-esteem

and social desirability. Last, some studies have found gender dif-

ferences in self-handicapping (e.g., Hirt, Deppe, & Gordon, 1991;

Hirt, McCrea, & Boris, 2003), so gender was also included as a

covariate.



6/21

STUDY 1

In Study 1, we investigated the basic association between self-report

measures of self-control and self-handicapping. A cross-sectional

survey design was employed. Participants completed a questionnairepacket containing the Self-Handicapping Scale (Rhodewalt, 1990)

and the Self-Control Scale (Tangney et al., 2004), along with other

measures.

Method

Participants

One hundred sixty undergraduates (128 female, 24 male, 8 did not reportgender) participated in the study. Mean age was 23.5 (SD= 6.3), and thesample was ethnically diverse (30% White/Caucasian, 22% Asian, 18%

African American, 18% Hispanic, and 12% other).

Procedure

Participants completed a questionnaire packet that contained measures of

self-esteem, self-control, self-handicapping, self-doubt, and social desir-

ability. Participants received extra credit upon completing the packet.

Measures

Self-esteem. Self-esteem was measured by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem

Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). Internal reliability (Cronbachs alpha) was .90.

Self-control. Self-control was measured by the 36-item Self-Control

Scale (Tangney et al., 2004). The items (e.g., I am good at resisting

temptation) were rated on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)

scale. The scale has demonstrated good convergent and divergent validity

(Tangney et al., 2004). Internal reliability was .87.

Self-handicapping. Self-handicapping was measured by the short version

of the Self-Handicapping Scale (Rhodewalt, 1990). The scale consists of

14 items (e.g., I would do a lot better if I tried harder) rated on a 1

(disagree very much) to 6 (agree very much) scale. Research has shown that

the scale is internally consistent and has good predictive validity (Rhode-

walt, 1990; Strube, 1986). Internal reliability was .75.

Self-doubt. Self-doubt was measured by the 17-item Subjective Over-

achievement Scale (Oleson, Poehlmann, Yost, Lynch, & Arkin, 2000). The

Uysal & Knee64


7/21

scale consists of nine items measuring concern with performance (e.g.,

It is important that I succeed in all that I do) and eight items measuring

self-doubt (e.g., More often than not I feel unsure of my abilities). The

items are rated on a 1 (disagree very much) to 6 (agree very much) scale.

The scale has shown good convergent and divergent validity (Oleson

et al., 2000). Internal reliability of the Self-Doubt subscale was .75.

Social desirability. Social desirability was measured by the Marlowe-

Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). The scale

consists of 33 true-false items that assess socially desirable responding.

Internal reliability was .77.

Results and Discussion

Table 1 provides means, standard deviations, and zero-order corre-

lations among variables. Gender did not significantly correlate with

any of the variables. A hierarchical multiple regression analysis

was conducted with self-handicapping as the criterion variable. In

the first step, self-control was entered. In the second step, self-esteem,

self-doubt, and social desirability were entered as control variables.

The expectation-maximization (EM) method was used to estimate

four missing values in self-esteem and social desirability scores.The standardized regression coefficients for each step are

presented in Table 2. In the first step, self-control had a significant

negative association with self-handicapping (b = -.67, p


8/21

F(1, 158)= 129.35,p


9/21

completed a checklist, which included several excuses that can poten-

tially affect their performance, immediately before an actual exam.

Participants

Seventy-four undergraduates (61 female, 13 male) participated in the

study. The mean age was 21 (SD= 4.1). The sample was ethnicallydiverse (35% Asian, 22% White/Caucasian, 18% African American, 18%

Hispanic, and 7% other).

Procedure

Participants were recruited from introductory psychology classes. They

were asked to complete a questionnaire packet 1 week before their secondor third exam. The packet contained the same measures as in Study 1. On

the exam day, immediately before the exam, participants were handed a

checklist of factors that might impede their performance on the exam. The

instructions stated, Below is a list of circumstances that can prevent

you from displaying your normal performance in the test. Please indicate

the ones that apply to your situation. You can choose more than one

if applicable. The checklist (Strube, 1986) included 12 excuses for poor

performance (e.g., lack of sleep, studied wrong material, sickness)

that have been demonstrated to be valid self-reported measures of self-handicapping in academic settings (Feick & Rhodewalt, 1997; Rhodewalt

& Hill, 1995; Strube, 1986). Students used participant codes to keep the

measures anonymous, and they were debriefed in the following classes.


Self-handicapping was scored by counting the number of handicaps

reported by each participant. Table 3 provides means, standard

deviations, and zero-order correlations among variables. Malesreported higher self-control (M= 3.36) than females (M= 3.06),t(72)= -2.23, p


10/21

to self-handicapping (b = -.37, p


11/21

handicapping. The interaction effect did not explain any variance

after controlling for gender and self-control, F(1, 70)= .83,p= .37.Study 2 replicated the findings of Study 1 with a state measure of

self-handicapping, which was also assessed separately (i.e., after 1week) from the trait measures. It was found that students who were

low on self-control were more likely to report handicaps before an

actual exam, again controlling for self-esteem, self-doubt, and social

desirability. It is also important to note that the findings were repli-

cated in a real-life situation, providing stronger support and more

validity for the link between self-control and self-handicapping.

One shortcoming of the study was the self-reported nature

of the self-handicapping measure. Although the items in the self-

handicapping checklist involved actual behaviors (e.g., other com-

mitments that prevented sufficient study time, missed an important

lecture, lack of sleep, did not keep up with the material, studied

wrong material), these behaviors were not observed. We did not

know whether the claims were true or not, or whether they were

caused by the self-handicapper. To address this issue, we used an

observable measure of self-handicapping in Study 3. We tested

whether the findings of the first two studies would be replicated

with a behavioral measure of self-handicapping in a different setting.Additionally, we also explored whether manipulating state self-

control using the regulatory depletion paradigm (Muraven, Tice,

& Baumeister, 1998) would affect self-handicapping.

STUDY 3

Method

Study 3 involved a behavioral operationalization of self-

handicapping in a laboratory setting. Students initially completed a

fake cognitive ability test. After receiving noncontingent success

feedback, they were allowed to choose their distraction level before

taking the second part of the cognitive ability test.

Participants

Fifty-five undergraduate students (47 female, 8 male) participated in thestudy. Mean age was 24.3 (SD= 7.2), and the sample was ethnicallydiverse (35% African American, 24% Asian, 14% White/Caucasian, 14%

Hispanic, and 13% other).



12/21


13/21

during subsequent efforts just like an exhausted muscle (Muraven et al.,

1998). In other words, participants in the experimental condition were put

in a state of low self-control. After 5 minutes, the experimenter entered the

room and provided the participants with a manipulation check question-

naire, which included cover items to rate the woman on the video clip, as

well as the PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) to assess mood.

The experimenter also explained that each participants answers were

entered into the computer, which ostensibly provided a percentile estimate

of the score based on the sample items. In fact, the experimenter printed

a test score sheet while the participant was watching the video clip. The

score sheet had a fake ID number, date and time of day, a watermark for

a fake testing company (Pearson Testing and Measurement Inc.), and

an estimated percentile rank. Every participant received success feedback,

and his or her percentile rank was printed as 90. The experimenter handed

the score sheet to the participant and congratulated him or her, stating

that the participant did better than 90% of the population.

Given that it was impossible to solve the test in 15 minutes, the success

feedback was noncontingent (i.e., participants were not sure how they had

performed so well). This kind of feedback induces self-doubt, which leads

to self-handicapping (Berglas & Jones, 1978; Rhodewalt, Morf, Hazlett, &

Fairfield, 1991). After receiving noncontingent success feedback, the par-

ticipants were given the opportunity to self-handicap. They were told that

they were going to take the second test, which contained another sample

of 10 items with the same level of difficulty. However, this time they were

going to take the test while listening to background noise. They were told

that five different types of distracting noise were recorded on CDs to

simulate noisy environments. The experimenter also explained that the

noises did not differ in volume or loudness and that they were just differ-

ent types of noise. The CDs were labeled in a Likert-type way from 1( not

distracting at all) to 5 (extremely distracting). Participants were asked to

select the CD they wanted to have playing in the background. After the

participants made their choice, the session ended, a manipulation check

questionnaire was completed, and participants were probed for suspicion

and debriefed.


Manipulation Check

The first manipulation check questionnaire was completed after the

regulatory depletion task. It assessed the experimental condition, the

mood of the participants, as well as the difficulty of the attention

control task. Four participants in the control condition failed to

correctly report the condition to which they were assigned and were



14/21

dropped from the analyses. The groups did not differ significantly

on mood scores, t(49)= -1.42, ns. Finally, one item assessed thedifficulty of the attention control task (1 = not difficult at all, 10=

extremely difficult). As expected, the experimental condition task wassignificantly more difficult (M= 4.31, SD= 2.52) than the controlcondition task (M= 1.64, SD= .95; t(49)= -4.71, p


15/21

step, only self-control was negatively related to self-handicapping

(b = -.34, p


16/21

who were low on trait self-control were more likely to self-handicap

behaviorally, controlling for self-esteem, self-doubt, and social desir-

ability. In contrast to the field setting of Study 2, self-handicapping

was measured in a laboratory setting, using a method that is wellvalidated and has been utilized in several self-handicapping studies

(e.g., Rhodewalt et al., 1991; Tice, 1991). The findings were still

similar, providing more support for the association between self-

control and self-handicapping.

It is also important to note that depleting regulatory resources

had no effect on self-handicapping behavior. This might be due to

the fact that depleting participants regulatory resources leads to a

momentary state of low self-control; however, in the previous studies

the effects were observed for low trait self-control. Previously, we

suggested that people who are low on trait self-control might be

learning to use self-handicapping as a strategy over time. Hence,

reducing self-control momentarily might not be sufficient to induce

self-handicapping behaviors.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Our aim in this article was to lay the groundwork for the associationbetween trait self-control and self-handicapping. Although past

research has shown that self-protection, self-enhancement, and self-

presentation motives play a role in self-handicapping, we are not

aware of any studies that suggest low self-control as an antecedent

of self-handicapping. Consequently, we aimed to establish the basic

link between low self-control and self-handicapping.

In doing so, three studies were conducted with three different

operationalizations of self-handicapping, namely, trait self-handicapping, self-reported self-handicapping, and behavioral self-

handicapping. It was found that low self-control explains a significant

amount of variance in self-handicapping, independent of the associa-

tions with self-esteem, self-doubt, and social desirability. The finding

that self-control predicted self-reported self-handicapping in a class-

room setting and behavioral self-handicapping in a laboratory setting

further strengthens our argument.

The present studies are unique in several ways. First, they provide

the initial evidence for the association between trait self-control and

self-handicapping. By linking self-handicapping to self-control, they

open new possibilities for future research that could further our

Uysal & Knee74


17/21

understanding of self-handicapping. Second, they utilize multiple

methods (i.e., a survey study, a field study, and a laboratory study)

and multiple measures of self-handicapping. The replicated findings

provide strong support for the hypothesized link between the twoconstructs. Third, in a broader sense, they also suggest that self-

control might play a role in defensive or strategic behaviors aimed at

protecting or enhancing the self. Self-handicapping is one example of

defensive behaviors, so future studies can extend these findings to

other defensive or self-serving behaviors. Last, they also contribute

to the predictive validity of the Self-Control Scale by demonstrating

the link between the Self-Control Scale and behavioral measures of

self-handicapping.

Future studies can examine the specific mechanisms for how

low self-control predicts self-handicapping. Some of these potential

mechanisms were suggested in the introduction. First, it could be

that low self-control individuals might be learning to utilize their

behaviors resulting from self-control failure as a self-handicapping

strategy. Self-handicapping is a learned behavior, such that creating

excuses before a performance in order to discount failure does not

even occur to some people. However, people might recognize the

strategic aspect of these behaviors in time. For instance, a low self-control student who spends a lot of time on the Internet would

realize that it provides an excuse for his or her poor academic per-

formance. That way, the student keeps engaging in the tempting

activity (spending time on the Internet) and also discounts negative

ability attributions (I did not do well on the exam because I spent a

lot of time on the Internet. It is not because of my ability). Further-

more, after several occasions of using it as an excuse after a perfor-

mance, it might occur to the student that he or she can also use itstrategically before a performance. Then the student would begin

spending more time on the Internet before exams for no apparent

reason, eventually becoming a chronic self-handicapper. Second,

self-handicapping can be considered a self-regulation failure. It is

beneficial in the short term because it protects or enhances self-

esteem, but it is self-defeating in the long term because it negatively

affects performance and eventually self-esteem. It was suggested that

low self-control people are more likely to fail at self-regulation and

prefer immediate gratification strategies in exchange for long-term

costs; hence, they are also more likely to become self-handicappers.

However, these ideas need to be tested in longitudinal studies.



18/21

In the past, researchers argued that self-enhancement requires

minimal cognitive effort, whereas self-presentation requires cogni-

tive resources (Swann 1990; Swann & Schroeder, 1995). In fact,

recent research has shown that non-self-serving attributions werepreceded by enhanced dorsomedial frontal cortex activity, suggest-

ing that unbiased attributions require greater self-control to override

the automatic tendency to self-enhance (Krusemark, Campbell, &

Klementz, 2008). Our findings were in line with this idea. However,

it should be noted that self-handicapping can be motivated by

impression management concerns, as well as self-serving concerns.

It would be important to delineate the role of self-control in those

instances. For example, research has shown that depleting regulatory

resources impairs strategic self-presentation (Vohs et al., 2005). That

is, people fail at strategic or planned self-presentation in a state of

low self-control. Whether this finding also holds true for planned

self-handicapping can be investigated in future studies. It might be

that when people self-handicap strategically for self-presentational

purposes, people who are low on self-control would be less likely to

have the resources for impression management and less likely to

self-handicap.

One limitation of the present studies is that they have cross-sectional designs and thus the causal direction from self-control to

self-handicapping is theoretical. Based on preliminary evidence, it

was theorized that self-control would predict self-handicapping, but

it might also be that self-handicappers are reporting low self-control

as a way of self-handicapping. However, using different operation-

alizations of self-handicapping in Study 2 and Study 3 still revealed

the same findings. Although we used a valid measure of trait

self-control that has been shown to predict different self-controlbehaviors (Schmeichel & Zell, 2007), unfortunately we did not

have different measures of self-control. Future studies can replicate

the findings using behavioral or other self-report measures of self-

control in longitudinal designs.

Similarly, in future studies state self-control can also be mani-

pulated in different ways. However, state self-control might not be

related to self-handicapping in the same way as trait self-control.

If self-handicapping is a behavior that is learned and acquired in

time by people who are low on trait self-control, manipulating

state self-control might not have the same effect. Our exploratory

manipulation in Study 3 using the regulatory resource paradigm

Uysal & Knee76


19/21

(Muraven et al., 1998) did not reveal any effects; however, further

studies are required before drawing conclusions about the role of

state self-control.

Another limitation of the studies is the limited external validitybecause the student sample consisted mostly of females. Although

we did not find any gender differences (except for self-control in

Study 2), one needs to be cautious before drawing conclusions

because of our small number of male participants. Future studies

can test these findings with a sample of males or with samples from

different settings.

CONCLUSION

The present research offers a clear demonstration of the association

between self-control and self-handicapping. It suggests that people

who are low on trait self-control are more likely to self-handicap.

In addition to feeling uncertain about ones abilities, having

low dispositional self-control appears to be another antecedent of

self-handicapping. Consequently, improving self-control might be

one way of reducing self-handicapping, which is a maladaptive, self-

defeating behavior with short-term benefits and long-term costs.

REFERENCES

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

in response to noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 36, 405417.

Burkley, E. (2008). The role of self-control in resistance to persuasion.Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 419431.Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent

of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 24, 349

354.

Dewitte, S., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (2002). Procrastination, temptations, and

incentives: The struggle between the present and the future in procrastinators

and the punctual. European Journal of Personality, 16, 469489.

Feick, D. L., & Rhodewalt, F. (1997). The double-edged sword of self-

handicapping: Discounting, augmentation and the protection and enhance-

ment of self-esteem.Motivation and Emotion, 21, 2, 147163.

Ferrari, J. R. (1993). Procrastination and impulsiveness: Two sides of a coin?In W. G. McCown, J. L. Johnson, & M. B. Shure (Eds.), The impulsive client:

Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 265276). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.



20/21

Ferrari, J. R., & Emmons, R. A. (1995). Methods of procrastination and their

relation to self-control and self-reinforcement: An exploratory study. Journal

of Social Behavior & Personality, 10, 135142.

Ferrari, J. R., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Procrastination as a self-handicap for men

and women: A task-avoidance strategy in a laboratory setting. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 34, 7383.

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, 981991.

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

last exam: Gender differences in reactions to self-handicapping. Journal of


Jones, E. E., & Berglas, S. C. (1978). Control of attributions about the self through

self-handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and the role of under-

achievement.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 200206.Jones, E. E., & Rhodewalt, F. (1982). The Self-Handicapping Scale. Available

from Frederick Rhodewalt, Department of Psychology, University of Utah,

Salt Lake City, 84112.

Kelley, H. H. (1972). Causal schematas and the attribution process. Morristown,

NJ: General Learning Press.

Krusemark, E. A., Campbell, W. K., & Clementz, B. A. (2008). Attributions,

deception, and event related potentials: An investigation of the self-serving

bias.Psychophysiology, 45, 511515.

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

reported self-handicaps: A conceptual note.Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 51,12651268.

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

handicapping, defensive pessimism, and goal orientation: A qualitative

study of university students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 617

628.

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

handicapping.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 13781389.

Muraven, M. (2008). Prejudice as self-control failure. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 38, 314333.

Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Self-control as limited

resource: Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74, 774789.

Oleson, K. C., Poehlmann, K. M., Yost, J. H., Lynch, M. E., Arkin, R. M. (2000).

Subjective overachievement: Individual differences in self-doubt and concern

with performance. Journal of Personality, 68, 491524.

Rhodewalt, F. (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 isnt (pp. 69106). New York:

Plenum Press.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, 397416.

Uysal & Knee78


21/21

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, 121131.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.Schmeichel, B. J., & Zell, A. (2007). Trait self-control predicts performance on

behavioral tests of self-control. Journal of Personality, 75, 743755.

Strube, M. J. (1986). An analysis of the Self-Handicapping Scale. Basic and

Applied Social Psychology, 7, 211224.

Swann, W. (1990). To be adored or to be known? The interplay of self-

enhancement and self-verification. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.),

Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2,

pp. 408448). New York: Guilford Press.

Swann, W., & Schroeder, D. (1995). The search for beauty and truth: A frame-

work for understanding reactions to evaluations. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 21, 13071318.

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control

predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal

success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271324.

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, 711725.

Vazire, S., & Funder, D. C. (2006). Impulsivity and the self-defeating behavior of

narcissists.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 154165.

Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Ciarocco, N. J. (2005). Self-regulation and

self-presentation: Regulatory resource depletion impairs impression manage-

ment and effortful self-presentation depletes regulatory resources. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 632657.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of

brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of


Zuckerman, M., Kieffer, S. C., & Knee, C. R. (1998). Consequences of self-

handicapping: Effects on coping, academic performance, and adjustment.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 16191628.

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

Personality, 73, 411442.


Documents

Low Trait Self-Control Predicts Self-Handicapping