CURRENT RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp.html

Volume 10, Number 15

Submitted: May 25, 2005
First Revision: July 7, 2005
Accepted: July 15, 2005
Published: July 15, 2005

SELF-HANDICAPPING: GENDER, RACE, AND STATUS

Jeffrey W. Lucas
University of Maryland

Michael J. Lovaglia
University of Iowa

ABSTRACT

Self-handicapping behavior exhibits a robust gender effect: Men but not women consistently
choose behavior that they believe will impair their performance, even when that performance is
important to them. Because previous research shows self-handicapping to occur when esteem is
threatened, we propose that high status individuals will be more likely to self-handicap than will
those of lower status. An experiment tests this proposition. In the study, men selected more study
time (and thus self-handicapped more) than did women. With gender controlled, non-European
Americans self-handicapped less than did European Americans. The study provides tentative
evidence for our proposition that status processes impact self-handicapping behavior.

234
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 16) (Lucas & Lovaglia)

INTRODUCTION

Individuals self-handicap when they select an alternative that they expect will impair a future
performance (Berglas and Jones 1978). For example, a student concerned about his performance
on an important test may decide to go out partying the night before rather than stay home to
prepare for the test or get a good night's sleep. Curiously, self-handicapping appears unrelated to
a person's motivation to achieve (Rhodewalt 1990). A student for whom a strong performance on
the SAT is very important might be just as likely to decide to go partying the night before as one
for whom the test matters little. Self-handicapping is an important area of study because it is
surprisingly common and undermines performance that handicappers themselves deem important
(Zuckerman, Kieffer and Knee 1998). Self-handicappers, however, are primarily male (Berglas
and Jones 1978).

Self-handicapping exhibits one of the more robust gender effects in social psychological
research, so much so that women who witness self-handicapping behavior are consistently
critical of it, attributing it to lack of motivation or suspect motives (Hirt, McCrea and Boris
2003). We have noticed that male students in our classes often relate to a description of self-
handicapping as something they themselves might do, while our female students just as often
find the idea inexplicable. Why would someone who wants to perform well choose to do
something that would hamper his performance?

Theories attempting to explain self-handicapping have struggled to account for the gender effect.
Berglas and Jones (1978) proposed that self-handicapping shores up a person's wavering belief in
his own abilities. A person who responds to a difficult challenge by self-handicapping can more
easily attribute failure externally, to the handicapping behavior, but also can more easily attribute
success internally, to personal ability capable of overcoming the handicap. Self-esteem is
protected when failure is blamed on the handicap. Moreover, success enhances self-esteem
because it was achieved despite the handicap. Kolditz and Arkin (1982) proposed that the esteem
of others was also at stake because they found more self-handicapping when performance
outcomes were public rather than private. Self-handicapping, then, could be explained as an
attempt to reduce a threat to esteem (Arkin and Baumgardner 1985). Women, however, also have
concerns about their abilities. Why do men consistently self-handicap but not women?

We propose that a person's social status plays a role in the decision to self-handicap. We define
status as a person's rank in a social hierarchy based on the esteem accorded that person by self
and others. If self-handicapping serves to reduce a threat to esteem, and if those with high status
have more esteem to protect than do those with low status, then high status individuals would be
more likely to self-handicap. And because men have generally been accorded higher status than
women in our society, men would have more incentive to self-handicap than would women.
The following section briefly describes research that established self-handicapping as a
surprisingly common though perplexing phenomenon. We then use status characteristics theory
to develop a general explanation for it. Our explanation implies that, in addition to women,
minority group members will be less likely to self-handicap than majority group members.

235
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 16) (Lucas & Lovaglia)

SELF-HANDICAPPING TO PROTECT ESTEEM

Berglas and Jones (1978) studied self-handicapping as a problem related to such self-destructive
behaviors as drug and alcohol abuse that they felt could stem from a person's basic uncertainty
about personal competence. They proposed that individuals most likely to self-handicap would
be those who had been amply rewarded in life but who were also deeply uncertain about what
they had be rewarded for. That is, self-handicappers do not perceive that their rewards have been
contingent on the quality of their performance.

Berglas and Jones (1978) conducted an experiment in which participants were told that they were
testing the effect of different drugs on intellectual performance. Participants were given a
preliminary test containing "challenging" intellectual puzzles to prepare them for the main test to
come. In a contingent success condition, participants were given puzzles that they could solve
easily. In a non-contingent success condition, participants were given insoluble puzzles. Then all
participants were given feedback showing that that they did very well on the preliminary test.
Next, participants chose to take one of two drugs, either Activil purported to enhance
performance or Pandocrin purported to inhibit performance on the main test.

Participants who received high marks for solving insoluble problems experienced non-contingent
success, while those who solved easy problems experienced contingent success. Berglas and
Jones predicted that participants who had experienced non-contingent success would choose the
performance-hampering drug, Pandocrin, more often that would participants who experienced
contingent success. Results supported that prediction but only for male participants. A substantial
majority, 70%, of male participants in the non-contingent condition chose Pandocrin, a drug they
believed would impair their performance. Only 13% of male participants in the contingent
condition did so. Non-contingent success had no significant effect, however, on the drug choice
of female participants, 40% of whom chose Pandocrin in the non-contingent condition compared
to 26% in the contingent condition.

The basic results, that a surprising number of people self-handicap and that men are more likely
to self-handicap than women, have been replicated in a variety of settings with various controls.
Shepperd and Arkin (1989) informed college students that they would be taking a test that was a
predictor of college success, and then gave them the option of listening to music that would
facilitate their performance on the test or hamper it. In the study, most students self-handicapped
by selecting the performance hampering music. Male normal drinkers were found to drink more
alcohol in preparation for a non-contingent success task than for a contingent success task
(Tucker, Vuchinich and Sobell 1981). In a study of heavy drinkers, Higgins and Harris (1988)
found similar results. Kolditz and Arkin (1982) replicated the original Berglas and Jones (1978)
study and found that not only would most male participants take a performance impairing drug in
a non-contingent success condition but on average quite a high dose of it. In addition, Kolditz
and Arkin established that self-handicapping was more likely among men when they expected
the outcome of a performance to be public.

236
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 16) (Lucas & Lovaglia)

The public nature of self-handicapping was supported by a study showing that participants
primed to focus on their "intrinsic self" self-handicapped less than did participants focused on the
potential evaluations of others (Arndt, Schimel, Greenberg and Pyszczynski 2002). Self-
handicapping, however, may shore up self-perceptions as well. McCrea and Hirt (2001) found
that high self-handicapping men maintained high levels of self-esteem with respect to a specific
ability despite poor performance. Thus the assumption is supported that people self-handicap in
response to a threat to esteem, whether self-esteem or the esteem in which a person is held by
others.

Gender Differences in Self-Handicapping

Various studies have found that men self-handicap more often and more consistently than do
women and in a variety of contexts, from academic settings to sports to tests of social
competence (See Berglas and Jones 1978; Harris and Snyder 1986; Hirt, McCrea and Kimble
2000; Midgley and Urdan 1995; Rhodewalt and Davison 1986: Rhodewalt and Hill 1995:
Snyder, Smith, Augelli and Ingram 1985; Shepperd and Arkin 1989; Urdan, Midgley, and
Anderman 1998). A study of grade school children found that by the sixth grade, boys were self-
handicapping more than girls (Kimble, Kimble and Croy 1998). A survey of eighth graders
found that boys reported more often using self-handicapping strategies than did girls (Midgely
and Urdan 1995). In an attempt to explain the gender effect, Dietrich (1995) proposed that
women would self-handicap more than men if a performance was indicative of social
competence rather than academic competence. Contrary to her prediction, she found that men
self-handicapped more than women prior to both academic and social performances. (1)

The Problem of Motivation

One puzzling aspect of self-handicapping is that motivation to succeed does not reduce self-
handicapping (Rhodewalt 1990) and in some contexts may increase it. Shepperd and Arkin
(1989) found that students chose music that they thought would impair their performance more
often when the test was more important, but only when no pre-existing excuse for poor
performance was readily available. With an alternative excuse available, students self-
handicapped about the same for important and unimportant tests.

The amount of practice time that participants choose before taking a test is a commonly used
indicator of self-handicapping, choosing more practice time indicates less self-handicapping. In
one such study, men more concerned with the prospect of failure on a test chose less study time
than did men less concerned with the prospect of failure (Hirt, McCrea and Kimble 2000). To
test for self-handicapping in a non-academic setting, Stone (2002) gave participants the option of
choosing the amount of practice time they wanted before an athletic contest. He found that
participants who were motivated and engaged in the contest self-handicapped at least as much as
those who were unmotivated and disengaged.

237
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 16) (Lucas & Lovaglia)

To summarize the results of self-handicapping research that suggest a role for status processes in
self-handicapping: (1) self-handicapping is more likely when people are faced with a threat to
esteem; (2) self-handicapping is more pronounced when the results of a performance will be
publicly known; (3) men self-handicap more often than do women; (4) self-handicapping occurs
more often when a performance is important to the self-handicapper and high motivation to
succeed does not reduce self-handicapping; (5) self-handicapping is more likely when people are
amply rewarded but uncertain about what they could have done to produce those rewards.

SELF-HANDICAPPING TO PROTECT HIGH STATUS

Status characteristics theory (Berger, Cohen, and Zelditch 1966, 1972; Berger, Fisek, Norman,
and Zelditch 1977) relates characteristics of an individual such as gender and race to that
person's rank in a status hierarchy based on the esteem in which the person is held by self and
others. The theory proposes that members of a group form expectations about each other's
competence to contribute to group goals based on their status characteristics. Individuals
expected to contribute more are more highly valued by the group, held in higher esteem
(Podolny, 1993, Thye, 2000).

Status characteristics theory may explain gender differences in self-handicapping because

performances have status implications. It may be that high-status individuals have more at stake
from a performance than do low-status individuals. If a high-status individual fails when working
on an important task, then her or his high-status position may be challenged, unless the failure is
attributed to something other than personal competence. Gender is a status characteristic in many
societies, with men more highly valued and esteemed than women (Pugh and Wahrman 1983).
Thus men may self-handicap more than women to protect expectations for personal competence.

The theory operates within the scope of groups working on a valued and collective task (Berger,
Fisek and Norman 1989). A status characteristic is any feature of an individual around which
expectations and beliefs come to be organized (Berger, Fisek and Norman 1989). One category
of a status characteristic is considered to be more desirable and highly esteemed than another. A
status characteristic is diffuse if it carries with it expectations for competence in a wide variety of
situations. Gender, race, and education are examples of diffuse characteristics. A characteristic is
specific if it carries expectations for competence in a narrow range of situations, such as a math
SAT score. Both diffuse and specific status characteristics contribute to determining group
members' relative status--whether or not the characteristic is directly relevant to the task--by
altering expectations for competence that members hold for one another (Berger, Norman,
Balkwell and Smith 1992).

According to the theory, those individuals expected to make competent contributions to group
goals are treated in ways that reinforce expectations for their competence and indicate the esteem
in which they are held. High-status group members (1) are given more opportunities to perform
in the group, (2) perform more, (3) have their performances evaluated more highly, and (4) have
more influence over group decisions (Berger, Fisek, Norman and Zelditch 1977).

238
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 16) (Lucas & Lovaglia)

Interactions among group members create a stable status hierarchy because expectations for
competence are self-fulfilling. The esteem accorded those with high status derives from
expectations that they will make competent contributions. Those expectations, in turn, can be
reinforced or undermined by the performances made and evaluations of those performances. In
some cases, prior performances become status characteristics, SAT scores for example. Because
those with high status can perform more and are evaluated more highly for their performances,
competence expectations are self-fulfilling. High-status individuals get more credit than they
deserve when the group succeeds and less blame when it fails than do those with low status.

Thus we propose that high-status individuals regularly experience non-contingent success. They
are amply rewarded in life but may often wonder what they have done to deserve it and worry
that the rewards may end. High status, then, results in non-contingent success that has been
found conducive to self-handicapping.

Gender as a Diffuse Status Characteristic

Gender is a diffuse characteristic because it carries expectations for performance in a wide range
of situations. In the United States, men are expected to perform better than women on many
important tasks. Tests of status characteristics theory indicate that men are more highly valued
than women in a variety of contexts (Berger, Rosenholtz, and Zelditch 1980; Carli 1991; Pugh
and Wahrman 1983; Ridgeway and Diekema 1989). Research shows that men have more
influence than women on tasks that would appear to be gender-neutral, that men tend to receive
higher evaluations for their performances than do women, and that it is illegitimate for women to
occupy positions of high status (Eagley Makhijani, and Klonsky 1992; Fennell et al. 1978; Lucas
2003). Thus, men enjoy generally higher status than women, perhaps explaining the propensity
for men to self-handicap.

Race/Ethnicity as a Diffuse Status Characteristic and Self-Handicapping

The status explanation also implies that status differences in characteristics other than gender
will produce a similar self-handicapping effect, those with high status self-handicapping more
than those with low status. Race is a diffuse status characteristic with European Americans
valued more highly than members of other racial (and ethnic) groups in the United States
(Webster and Driskell 1978). The analysis of self-handicapping using status characteristics
theory suggests that African Americans and other minority groups would self-handicap less than
would European Americans. Stone (2002) found that Hispanic participants self-handicapped less
than did European-American participants in a sports contest. It is uncertain, however, whether
that result was due to ethnicity, because stereotype threat was primed for European-American
participants by framing the contest as one of "natural athletic ability." Thus, investigating
possible differences in self-handicapping by race or ethnicity represents a cogent first test of the
proposition that individuals with high status will self-handicap more than will those with low
status.

239
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 16) (Lucas & Lovaglia)

RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE

We designed a study to investigate the relationship between race as a status characteristic and
self-handicapping. We predicted that, if status has an effect on self-handicapping, then
European-American participants will self-handicap more than will African Americans, Asian
Americans or Hispanic Americans. Students completed a standard ability test expecting that their
performance on it would be made known in a subsequent group discussion. Prior to taking the
test, students could select the amount of study time they wanted to use. Students who select less
study time self-handicap more than do those who select more study time. The amount of study
time selected by European-American students could then be compared to the amount selected by
students of other races or ethnicities.

Participants in the study were undergraduate students at a large Midwestern university who were
told that they would complete a standard ability test, and then work as part of a "focus group"
with a partner to discuss issues related to the test. Before taking the test, participants were told
that study time was a factor that influences test scores and that increased study time improves
performance. They were then asked to select how much time they wanted to study for the test,
between 5 and 20 minutes. Instructions made clear that their partner would know both the
amount of study time they selected and their score on the test.

After selecting the amount of study time, participants studied problems from the Standard Raven
Progressive Matrices test. They then took the Advanced Raven Progressive Matrices, a standard
mental ability test for individuals in the top 25% of the population in IQ. (2) Either the Standard
Progressive Matrices test or the Advanced test may be used with university students. The
Advanced Progressive Matrices avoids ceiling effects. (Some students get a perfect score on the
Standard Progressive Matrices.) The Raven is considered one of the least biased and most
accurate tests of general intelligence (Raven, Court, and Raven 1992; Jensen 1992). Each item
on both the Standard and Advanced Raven Progressive Matrices consists of a large pattern of
geometric shapes that is missing a piece. The test taker must determine what the missing piece
should look like and identify it from several options in a multiple-choice format. The tests are
similar except that items on the advanced test are more difficult. After studying, participants
were given as much time as they needed to complete the Advanced Raven Progressive Matrices.

Our measure of self-handicapping was the amount of study time chosen by the participant, a
standard measure of self-handicapping (Deppe and Harackiewicz 1996; Eronen, Nurmi, and
Salmela 1998; Ferrari and Tice 2000; Urdan, Midgley, and Anderman 1998). Participants who
selected a small amount of study time self-handicapped more than participants who selected a
larger amount.

Hypothesis: Controlling for gender, European-American participants will select less study time
(self-handicap more) than will African-American, Asian-American, or Hispanic-American
participants.

240
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 16) (Lucas & Lovaglia)

RESULTS

117 undergraduates participated. Experimental conditions contained unequal numbers of

participants reflecting the size of different groups and the difficulty of recruiting minority
participants. In all, Study 1 comprised 24 European-American men, 65 European-American
women, 4 African-American men, 15 African-American women, 2 Asian-American men, 2
Hispanic-American men, 1 Hispanic-American woman, and 4 participants in other categories.
Minority students are underrepresented at research universities. To increase the proportion of
minority participants, we actively recruited in classes that contained a greater proportion of
minority students with some success, but lack of resources prevented us from attempting to
enroll comparable numbers of minority and non-minority students.

We predicted that European-American participants would self-handicap more than participants

from other racial groups. Thus, we should expect lower levels of study time among European-
American participants than among other participants. Because researchers have found self-
handicapping to vary by gender, we examined self-handicapping and race independently among
men and women.

Table 1. Mean Levels of Selected Study Time (Standard Deviations, N) and Results of t-test
by Gender and Race of Participants.
Men Women
European-American 8.38 (4.19, 24) 10.28 (4.53, 65)
Non-European American 11.45 (4.61, 11) 14.29 (5.49, 17)

t-tests: European-American men versus Non-European-American men, t = 1.96, one-tailed p = .030.

European-American women versus Non-European-American women: t = 3.11, one-tailed p = .002.

Table 1 shows that European-American men (n = 24) selected the lowest amount of study time,
an average of 8.38 (S.D. = 4.19) minutes. Although numbers in specific racial and ethnic
categories are small rendering results unreliable in each cell, study time chosen by non-
European-American men was consistently higher than that by European-American men. (See
Appendix A for mean levels of self-handicapping by gender and race/ethnicity.)

Because male participants in all non-European-American racial (and ethnic) categories, as

predicted, selected higher amounts of study time than did European-American participants, we
felt comfortable in aggregating our data for non-European-American participants. Non-
European-American men (n = 11) selected an average of 11.45 (S.D. = 4.61) minutes. This
difference is in the predicted direction and significant; European-American men self-
handicapped more than did non-European-American men.

Among women, self-handicapping was also greater for European-American participants than it
was for African Americans and the Hispanic American. (No Asian-American women
volunteered for the study.) The mean level of study time selected by European-American women
was lower than the level selected by non-European-American women. This difference is in the
predicted direction and significant; European-American women self-handicapped more than did
non-European-American women.

241
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 16) (Lucas & Lovaglia)

Table 2. Regression Analysis of Gender and Race Effects on Selected Study Time (N = 117).

Variable B SE P
(Constant) 13.85 1.67 .000
Male -2.38 1.06 .013
European-American -3.58 1.08 .001
Male X Euro-Amer. .25 .53 .645 (2-tailed)
Score on Raven .01 .07 .876 (2-tailed)
R squared = .132

The regression analysis in Table 2 confirms the bivariate results while controlling for
participants' test scores. The coefficients for being male (-2.38) and for being European
American (-3.58) are negative and significant, indicating that men and European Americans
selected less study time (and self-handicapped more) than did others. The interaction between
gender and race was not significant.

Test Score

Participants' scores on the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices were consistent with those
typical of university undergraduates. Overall mean score was 22.93 (S.D. = 6.02). Raven, Raven
and Court (1998) provide normative data for the test. For 18 – 22 year olds in the United States,
a score of 20 represents the fiftieth percentile, while a score of 30 represents the ninetieth
percentile. Mean score of undergraduates at the University of Alabama-Birmingham was 20.14
(S.D. = 5.92), while at the University of California-Berkeley it was 27.98 (S.D. = 4.40).

DISCUSSION

Results from the study support the proposition that status affects self-handicapping. We
investigated two diffuse status characteristics, race and gender. We found that European-
American participants self-handicapped more than did others, similar to the way that men self-
handicap more than do women.

Although race and gender are status variables, factors other than status associated with race and
gender may have produced the observed effects on self-handicapping. More motivated students,
for example, might choose more study time than less motivated students. While we do not have
data to show whether women or minority group members in the study were more motivated than
were European-American men, data from a similar sample found that women university
undergraduates were more motivated to succeed academically than were men, and that African-
American and other disadvantaged minority students were as motivated to succeed as were
European-Americans (Lovaglia, Thompkins, Lucas and Thye 2000). African-American students,
however, have been found to report high motivation to succeed academically while also
reporting spending less time studying than do European-American students (Ainsworth-Darnell
and Downey, 1998), suggesting that motivation to succeed might not be the reason that African-
American participants chose more study time than European Americans in the study.

242
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 16) (Lucas & Lovaglia)

CONCLUSION

Our study supported the idea that self-handicapping behavior is related to the desire to protect a
valued status position. Non-European Americans and women self-handicapped less than did
European Americans and men. How is it that men learn to self-handicap when self-handicapping
can impair the performances that would reinforce their high status? Self-handicapping has been
shown to impair performance (Markus 1989, Urdan, Midgley, and Anderman 1998). Why not
forgo self-handicapping and turn in the best possible performance, expecting that high esteem
will follow?

The answer may be that self-handicapping is only effective when it is costly to the self-
handicapper. Surprisingly, other species handicap themselves. Zahavi and Zahavi (1997) find
that handicaps are widely used in the animal kingdom to signal an individual's fitness. An
effective signal, however, must be costly to the individual. Gazelles for example jump vertically
several times when approached by a wolf. Jumping in place increases the gazelle's danger,
wasting energy needed to escape and giving the wolf time to approach. Only the fastest gazelles
can do it and survive. Jumping vertically signals the gazelle's ability to escape, discouraging the
wolf from attempting an exhausting chase. A higher and more energetic jump is more convincing
than a feeble one.

In social animals, fitness implies value to the group. Thus, high-status individuals esteemed as
being especially worthy will be most likely to handicap themselves. Zahavi and Zahavi (1997)
find, for example, that within flocks of babblers in Israel, individual birds compete for the right
to act as sentry while the flock feeds. Sentry is a lonely and dangerous activity that interferes
with the sentry's ability to feed. Yet only high-status babblers handicap themselves by acting as
sentries, signaling their value to the group. Lower-ranked individuals then defer to a sentry in
sleeping arrangements and other social activities.

The student who self-handicaps before an important test could be signaling (to himself as well as
others) that any reduction in performance caused by the handicap will be overcome by his
superior abilities or the high esteem in which he is already held. Men may self-handicap because
they feel that they can afford to and because they have grown up watching high-status role
models self-handicap. For example, Muhammad Ali became perhaps the highest prestige
prizefighter of all time. He signaled ability early in his boxing career by approaching his
opponent and then lowering his guard, dropping his hands to his sides, slouching and sticking out
his chin. Ali's daring enthralled boys who watched him fight but his self-handicapping would not
have increased his prestige had it gotten him knocked out.

We propose that men have been socialized to bid for high status using risky, self-handicapping
behavior while women have not. This implies a possible interaction between status and
socialization that could be detected in a full factorial study of gender, race, and assigned status
effects on self-handicapping. If African-American men, like European-American men, have been
socialized to bid for status by self-handicapping, then African-American men assigned to a high-
status position would self-handicap more than would African-American men assigned to a low-
status position. In contrast, African-American women placed in a high-status position would not
self-handicap more than would African-American women placed in a low-status position.

243
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 16) (Lucas & Lovaglia)

Further research can test for interactions by assigning participants to status positions, and can
additionally rule out potential alternative explanations for our results. Some propose that men
self-handicap more than women because they are less motivated or more confident in their
ability. This may be so. If it is, we should expect that in 25 years of research on self-
handicapping, researchers would have identified settings in which women were less motivated or
more confident than men. However, men continue to be more likely to self-handicap than women
regardless of characteristics of the task setting.

Future research on the relationship between status and self-handicapping can address motivation
or confidence as alternative explanations in two ways. First, pre-test items can be used to
measure the motivation and confidence of participants before they have the opportunity to self-
handicap. Second, future research might use measures of self-handicapping (such as
performance-enhancing or performance-hampering dietary supplements) that are less likely than
study time to correlate with motivation or confidence. It makes sense to assume that a non-
motivated person will select less study time, perhaps in the hopes of finishing faster. There is
little apparent benefit, however, to selecting a performance-hampering herbal supplement unless
the goal is to self-handicap.

Having found evidence for a connection between status and self-handicapping, we hope to use
that insight in future research to explain one of the most robust and interesting gender effects in
social psychological research.

REFERENCES

Ainsworth-Darnell, James W. and Douglas B.Downey. 1998. "Assessing the Oppositional

Culture Explanation for Racial/Ethnic Differences in School Performance." American
Sociological Review, 63, 536-553.

Arkin, Robert M. and A. H. Baumgardner. 1985. "Self-Handicapping. Pp. 169-202 in

Attribution: Basic Issues and Applications edited by J. H. Harvey and G. W. Weary. Orlando,
FL: Academic Press.

Arndt, Jamie, Jeff Schimel, Jeff Greenberg and Tom Pyszczynski. 2002. "The Intrinsic Self and
Defensiveness: Evidence That Activating the Intrinsic Self Reduces Self-Handicapping and
Conformity." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 671-683.

Berger, Joseph and Thomas L. Connor. 1974. "Performance Expectations and Behavior in Small
Groups: A Revised Formulation." Pp. 85-110 in Expectation States Theory: A Theoretical
Research Program edited by Joseph Berger, Thomas L. Connor and M. Hamit Fisek. Cambridge,
MA: Winthrop Publishers.

Berger, Joseph, M. Hamit Fisek, and Robert Z. Norman. 1989. "The Evolution of Status
Expectations: A Theoretical Extension." Pp. 100-130 in Sociological Theories in Progress: New
Formulations, edited by Joseph Berger, Morris Zelditch, Jr., and Bo Anderson. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.

244
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 16) (Lucas & Lovaglia)

Berger, Joseph, M. Hamit Fisek, Robert Z. Norman, and Morris Zelditch, Jr. 1977. Status
Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation States Approach. New York: Elsevier.

Berger, Joseph, Robert Z. Norman, James Balkwell, and Roy F. Smith. 1992. "Status
Inconsistency in Task Situations: A Test of Four Status Processing Principles." American
Sociological Review, 57, 843-855.

Berger, Joseph, Susan J. Rosenholtz, and Morris Zelditch, Jr. 1980. "Status Organizing
Processes." Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 477-508.

Berglas, Steven, and Edward E. Jones. 1978. "Drug Choice as Self-Handicapping Strategy in
Response to Success." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 405-417.

Carli, Linda L. 1991. "Gender, Status, and Influence." Pp. 89-114 in Advances in Group
Processes, Vol. 8, edited by Edward J. Lawler, Barry Markovsky, Cecilia Ridgeway, and Henry
Walker. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Cohen, Jacob, Patricia Cohen, Stephen G. West and Leona S. Aiken. 2003. Applied Multiple
Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Third edition. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Degree, C. E. and C. R. Snyder. 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.

Deppe, Roberta K., and Judith M. Harackiewicz. 1996. "Self-Handicapping and Intrinsic
Motivation from the Threat of Failure." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4),
868-876.

Eagly, Alice H., Mona G. Makhijani, and Bruce G. Klonsky. 1992. "Gender and the Evaluation
of Leaders: A Meta-Analysis." Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-22.

Eronen, Sanna, Jari-Erik Nurmi, and Katariina Salmela-Aro. 1998. "Optimistic, Defensive-
Pessimistic, Impulsive, and Self-Handicapping Strategies in the University Environments."
Learning and Instruction, 8(2), 159-177.

Fennell, Mary L., Patricia R. Barchas, Elizabeth G. Cohen, Anne M. McMahon, and Polly
Hilderbrand. 1978. "An Alternative Perspective on Sex Differences in Organizational Settings:
The Process of Legitimation." Sex Roles, 4, 589-604.

Ferrari, Joseph R., and Dianne M. Tice. 2000. "Procrastination as a Self-Handicap for Men and
Women: A Task-Avoidance Strategy in a Laboratory Setting." Journal of Research in
Personality, 34(1), 73-83.

245
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 16) (Lucas & Lovaglia)

Harris, Robert N., and C.R. Snyder. 1986. "The Role of Uncertain Self-Esteem in Self-
Handicapping." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 451-458.

Harris, Robert N., C. R. Snyder, Raymond L. Higgins and Jennifer L. Schrag. 1986. "Enhancing
the Prediction of Self-Handicapping." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1191-
1199.

Higgins, Raymond L. and Robert N. Harris. 1988. "Strategic 'Alcohol' use: Drinking to Self-
Handicap." Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 191-202.

Hirt, Edward R., Sean M. McCrea and Charles E. Kimble. 2000. "Public Self-Focus and Sex
Differences in Behavioral Self-Handicapping: Does Increasing Self-Threat Still Make it "Just a
Man's Game?" Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1131-1141.

Hirt, Edward R., Sean M. McCrea and Hillary I. Boris. 2003. " 'I Know you Self-Handicapped
Last Exam': Gender Differences in Reactions to Self-Handicapping." Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 84, 177-193.

Jemmott, John B. III and Elida Gonzalez. 1989. "Social Status, the Status Distribution, and
Performance in Small Groups." Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 584-598.

Jensen, Arthur R. 1992. "Spearman's hypothesis: Methodology and evidence." Multivariate

Behavioral Research, 27, 225-233.

Kolditz, Thomas A., and Robert M. Arkin. 1982. "An Impression Management Interpretation of
the Self-Handicapping Strategy." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 492-502.

Lovaglia, Michael J., Jeffery W. Lucas, Jeffrey A. Houser, Shane R. Thye and Barry Markovsky.
1998. "Status Processes and Mental Ability Test Scores." American Journal of Sociology,
104,195-228.

Lovaglia, Michael J., Douglas Thompkins, Jeffrey W. Lucas, and Shane R. Thye. 200. "The
Shadow of the Future: How Negative Expectations Cloud Test Performance." Presented at the
Henry B and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development.

Lucas, Jeffrey W. 1999. "Behavioral and Emotional Outcomes of Leadership in Task Groups."
Social Forces, 78(2), 747-778.

Lucas, Jeffrey W. 2003. "Status, Legitimacy, and the Institutionalization of Women as Leaders."
American Sociological Review 68(3), 464-480.

Lucas, Jeffrey W. and Michael J. Lovaglia. 1998. "Leadership Status, Gender, Group Size, and
Emotion in Face-to-Face Groups. Sociological Perspectives, 41, 617-637.

Markus, Anton. 1989. "Performance and Self-Reflexive Indicators in Problem-Solving." Studia

Psychologica, 31(3), 237-239.

246
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 16) (Lucas & Lovaglia)

McCrea, Sean M. and Edward R. Hirt. 2001. "The Role of Ability Judgments in Self-
Handicapping." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1378-1389.

Midgley, Carol, and Timothy C. Urdan. 1995. "Predictors of Middle-School Students' Use of
Self-Handicapping Strategies." Journal of Early Adolescence, 15(4), 389-411.

Pedhazur, Elazar J. 1982. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and

Prediction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Podolny, Joel M. 1993. "A Status-Based Model of Market Competition." American Journal of
Sociology, 98, 829-872.

Pugh, Meredith D., and Ralph Wahrman. 1983. "Neutralizing Sexism in Mixed-Sex Groups: Do
Women Have to be Better than Men?" American Journal of Sociology, 88, 746-762.

Raven, J. C., J.H. Court and J. Raven. 1992. "Standard Progressive Matrices." Raven Manual:
Section 3. Oxford, England: Oxford Psychologists Press.

Rhodewalt, Frederick. 1990. "Self-Handicappers: Individual Differences in the Preference for

Anticipatory, Self-Protective Acts." Pp. 69-106 in Self-Handicapping: The Paradox that Isn't
edited by Raymond L. Higgins, C. R. Snyder and Steven Berglas. New York: Plenum.

Rhodewalt, Frederick and J. Davison. 1986. "Self-Handicapping and Subsequent Performance:

Role of Outcome Valence and Attributional Certainty." Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7,
307-323.

Rhodewalt, Frederick, and Kristian S. Hill. 1995. "Self-Handicapping in the Classroom: The
Effects of Claimed Self-Handicaps on Responses to Academic Failure." Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 16(4), 397-416.

Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and David Diekema. 1989. "Dominance and Collective Hierarchy
Formation in Male and Female Task Groups." American Sociological Review, 54, 79-93.

Shepperd, James A., and Robert M. Arkin. 1989. "Self-Handicapping: The Moderating Roles of
Public Self-Consciousness and Task Importance." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Vol. 15(2), 252-265.

Smith, T. W., C. R. Snyder and S. C. Perkins (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., T. W. Smith, R. W. Augelli and R. E. Ingram. 1985. "On the Self-Serving
Function of Social Anxiety." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 970-980.

247
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 16) (Lucas & Lovaglia)

Steele, Claude M. 1997. "A Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity and
Performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.

Steele, Claude M. and Joshua Aronson. 1995. "Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test
Performance of African-Americans." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-
811.

Stone, Jeff. 2002. "Battling Doubt by Avoiding Practice: The Effects of Stereotype Threat on
Self-Handicapping in White Athletes." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1667-
1678.

Thye, Shane R. 2000. "A Status Value Theory of Power in Exchange Relations." American
Sociological Review, 65, 407-432.

Tucker, Jalie A. Rudy E. Vuchinich and Mark B. Sobell. 1981. "Alcohol Consumption as a Self-
Handicapping Strategy." Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 220-230.

Urdan, Timothy C., Carol Midgley, and Eric M. Anderman. 1998. "The Role of Classroom Goal
Structure in Students' Use of Self-Handicapping Strategies." American Educational Research
Journal, 35(1), 101-122.

Webster, Murray, Jr. and James E. Driskell, Jr. 1978. "Status Generalization: A Review and
Some New Data." American Sociological Review, 43, 220-236.

Zahavi, Amotz and Avishag Zahavi. 1997. The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's
Puzzle. New York: Oxford University Press.

Zuckerman, Miron, Suzanne C. Kieffer, and C. Raymond Knee. 1998. "Consequences of Self-
Handicapping: Effects on Coping, Academic Performance, and Adjustment." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1619-1628.

APPENDIX A: MEAN LEVELS OF STUDY TIME (STANDARD DEVIATIONS, N) BY

GENDER AND RACE/ETHNICITY

Men Women
European-American 8.38 (4.19, 24) 10.28 (4.53, 65)
African-American 10.00 (5.77, 4) 14.53 (5.08, 15)
Asian-American 12.50 (3.54, 2) ---
Hispanic-American 15.50 (.707, 2) 20.00 (---, 1)
Other 10.00 (5.00, 3) 5.00 (---, 1)

248
Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 10, No. 16) (Lucas & Lovaglia)

APPENDIX B: MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND CORRELATIONS FOR

RELEVANT VARIABLES

Mean (SD) Gender Race Test score

Gender (F=0, .30(.46)
M=1)
Race (Non- .76(.43) -.115
white=0,
White=1)
Test score 21.85(6.17) -.014 .253
Study time 10.58(4.89) -.166 -.299 -.071
selected

ENDNOTES

(1) Studies of self-handicapping in women find that it may take a different form than the
performance-impairing behavior typical of men. Instead, women faced with a performance
capable of threatening their esteem may use excuses or attributions for potential poor
performance (Degree and Snyder 1985; Harris, Snyder, Higgins and Schrag 1986; Smith, Snyder
and Perkins, 1986).

(2) Because participants work alone to complete a test, it may appear that our experimental
situation violates the scope condition of status characteristics theory that group members be
collectively oriented. Researchers, however, have extended status characteristics theory to apply
to individual tasks, especially those, like standardized tests, that have implications for an
individual's future status rank. See Jemmott and Gonzales (1989), Lucas (1999), Lovaglia,
Lucas, Houser, Thye, and Markovsky (1998).

AUTHORS' NOTE

Supported by National Science Foundation Grant SES-0136242 to Lucas.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Jeffrey W. Lucas (jlucas@socy.umd.edu) is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of

Maryland-College Park. His primary research interest is the experimental analysis of theories of
basic social processes. Recent works include "Theory Testing, Generalization, and the Problem
of External Validity" (Sociological Theory, 21, 3, 236-253) and "Status Processes and the
Institutionalization of Women as Leaders" (American Sociological Review, 68, 3, 464-480).

Professor Michael J. Lovaglia (michael-lovaglia@uiowa.edu) chairs the Department of

Sociology at the University of Iowa. His research investigates power, status and identity and how
those social processes can be applied to problems of educational achievement and leadership.

249