See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228611433

Self-Handicapping, Defensive Pessimism, and

Goal Orientation: A Qualitative Study of
University Students

Article in Journal of Educational Psychology September 2003

DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.617

CITATIONS READS

107 62

4 authors, including:

Andrew J Martin Herb Marsh

UNSW Sydney Australian Catholic University
355 PUBLICATIONS 6,064 CITATIONS 591 PUBLICATIONS 53,019 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Principal Health and Wellbeing View project

Expectancy(self-concept)-Value interaction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew J Martin on 12 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 0

Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., 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. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.617.

This article may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the journal. It is not the

copy of record. The exact copy of record can be accessed via the DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.617.
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 1

Self-Handicapping, Defensive Pessimism, and Goal Orientation: A Qualitative Study of University Students

Andrew J. Martin, Herbert W. Marsh, and Alan Williamson

SELF Research Centre

University of Western Sydney

Raymond L. Debus

Faculty of Education

University of Sydney

Running Head: Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism

Author Note

Requests for further information about this investigation should be sent to Dr Andrew Martin, SELF Research

Centre, University of Western Sydney, Bankstown, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South DC, New South Wales,

Australia, 1797. E-mail: [email protected].

Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 2

Self-Handicapping, Defensive Pessimism, and Goal Orientation: A Qualitative Study of University Students

Abstract

Interviews with first year university students selected as high or low in either self-handicapping or defensive

pessimism identified (a) personal perspectives on the nature of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism, (b) the

perceived reasons why they engage these strategies and the perceived advantages that follow from them, and (c)

the extent to which ego goals and task goals mark their approach to their studies. The qualitative data not only

confirm previous quantitative research but also extend and illuminate what is currently known about these

strategies. The data also provide important contextual information on phenomena that have typically been studied

from quantitative perspectives. An important yield of approaching these phenomena from a qualitative perspective

is that new critical issues can emerge through giving expression to students voices. Such issues in the present

study included congruencies and differences in goal orientation for self-handicappers and defensive pessimists, the

social and academic costs of self-protective behavior, the control students feel they have over their self-protective

behavior, and the roles of the family and students culture in their tendency to self-protect.
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 3

Self-Handicapping, Defensive Pessimism, and Goal Orientation: A Qualitative Study of University Students

For some students, protecting self-worth is of paramount importance. In the academic context, students

self-worth is most threatened when they fail to perform successfully at a given task and there is the risk that they

may be seen to have low ability. According to the self-worth theory of motivation, ability is closely tied to self-

worth and so when there is doubt as to individuals ability, there is doubt as to their self-worth (Covington, 1984,

1992). A priority of some students, therefore, is to protect their sense of ability and to try to influence others

evaluations of their ability. The present study examines self-handicapping and defensive pessimism as two ways

students are able to do this. Given that the present analysis of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism is

located in an educational context, we consider it important to also investigate motivational constructs that may be

closely related to them and that are relevant to students academic experiences. One such construct, goal

orientation, is central to much educational research and is also explored in this study.

We hope to gain a number of insights through our analysis. First, we seek to explore more fully the

specific ways students engage in self-handicapping and defensive pessimism. Secondly, we aim to uncover

students views on the advantages that they see as emanating from their self-handicapping and defensive

pessimism. Thirdly, we examine what goal orientations underpin self-handicappers and defensive pessimists

educational approaches. Much research is now positing goal orientation as central to students approaches to their

studies and locating self-handicapping and defensive pessimism in this context brings these strategies into line

with central educational theory. Finally, quantitative perspectives on psychological phenomena can limit (through

pre-designed surveys or experimental manipulation) the extent to which new insights and information can emerge

from students and so this study is an opportunity to transport quantitative constructs into a qualitative

methodology and allow new insights and directions to emerge.

A Qualitative Perspective in a Quantitative Domain

There has, in recent years, been growing recognition that quantitative and qualitative research methods

can complement each other in a way that both consolidates findings and sheds light on issues that could only be

researched by one and not the other. Numerous commentators over the past three decades have noted the benefits
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 4

to be derived from both approaches to research (Brewer & Hunter, 1989; Campbell, 1975; Cook & Campbell,

1979; Cronbach, 1975; Firestone, 1987; Gage, 1989; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; Patton, 1990). In terms of self-

handicapping and defensive pessimism, the research to date has adopted a quantitative perspective. It is considered

that a qualitative analysis of these issues is not only timely but can add important personal insights into the lived

experience of self-handicappers and defensive pessimists which experimental manipulations or psychometric

scales would have difficulty accessing. Moreover, self-handicapping and defensive pessimism are strategies that

may be manifested in a variety of ways for a variety of subtle or not so subtle reasons. It is not until individual

respondents are interviewed that the richness of this information can be used to better understand the constructs

and their relationships in the substantive area.

For the most part, self-handicapping and defensive pessimism have been assessed amongst university

students using experimental manipulation or through self-report questionnaires. Data derived from studies using

either of these methodologies provide insights into causal relationships between constructs or provide

correlational information about associated constructs. As a result of this research, we know much about their

correlates or the experimental conditions under which they can be evoked. What we do not know much about are

the finer-grained features of self-protection embedded within them. Our qualitative study provides an opportunity

to find such information. In relation to goal orientation, the quantitative data are not able to provide the personal

detail about the ways self-handicappers and defensive pessimists differ in their orientation to their studies, and the

important ways in which these students converge.

Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism

Self-handicapping involves the choice of an impediment or obstacle to successful performance that

enables individuals to deflect the cause of poor performance away from their competence and on to the acquired

impediment. In doing so, self-handicappers avoid disconfirmation of a desired self-conception (Rhodewalt &

Davison, 1986). Examples of self-handicapping include the strategic reduction of effort, procrastination, ingestion

of drugs or alcohol, or the choice of performance debilitating circumstances (see Berglas & Jones, 1978; Higgins

& Harris, 1988; Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001a, 2001b, in press; Rhodewalt & Davison, 1986; Shepperd &

Arkin, 1989; Tice & Baumeister, 1990). In the event of failure, individuals have a ready excuse for it: For

example, the lack of effort is seen as the cause and not their lack of ability. Self-handicapping is to be
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 5

distinguished from attributions in that it occurs prior to rather than after an event. It should also be noted that not

all procrastination (and the like) is self-handicapping and that an anticipatory self-protective (or enhancing)

motive is needed for it to be considered self-handicapping.

Defensive pessimists are students who set unrealistically low expectations prior to tasks that undergo

some form of assessment. There are a number of advantages associated with the defensive pessimistic strategy.

First, individuals are able to work through potential failure and steel themselves for this outcome. According to

Norem and Illingworth (1993; see also Norem & Cantor, 1986, 1990; Martin et al., 2001a, 2001b, in press),

defensive pessimists acknowledge apprehensions and work through them cognitively. A defensive pessimistic

strategy can also cushion the individual against debilitating anxiety prior to stress-provoking tasks and

motivate continued persistence in the face of that stress (Cantor & Norem, 1989, p. 93). In fact, projecting

lowered expectations can serve to set performance standards that are less difficult to achieve (Martin et al., 2001a,

2001b; Showers & Ruben, 1990), and may even lower the threshold for satisfactory performance (Baumgardner &

Brownlee, 1987; Martin et al., 2001a, 2001b).

As noted earlier, much quantitative research exists in relation to self-handicapping and defensive

pessimism derived from correlational studies utilizing psychometric scales or from experimental manipulations. A

need exists for more focused in-depth perspectives on self-handicapping and defensive pessimism, particularly

from individuals high and low on these traits. This is considered important not only because such data can shed

further light on the quantitative research findings, but also because they can provide new perspectives on the

concepts and how they function in relation to educationally-relevant constructs such as goal orientation. Indeed if,

as may be the case, self-handicapping and defensive pessimism are ultimately not adaptive in the educational

context, students own views of these strategies and reasons for their occurrence must be taken into account if

educators are to successfully help students work through these strategies.

Goal Orientation, Self-Handicapping, and Defensive Pessimism

A good deal of motivational and educational research has identified goal orientation as a pivotal construct

influencing the way students go about their studies. Goal orientation is comprised, inter alia, of ego-orientation

and task-orientation (Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Martin & Debus, 1998; Nicholls, 1989).

Consistent with previous work, we propose that individuals goal orientation plays a role in the degree to which
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 6

they are motivated to protect their self-worth. Ego-oriented individuals tend to be competitive, feel most

successful outperforming others (Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Thorkildsen & Nicholls, 1998), and see outcomes as due

primarily to ability rather than effort (Martin et al., 2001a, 2001b, in press; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Nicholls,

Patashnick, & Nolen, 1985). From a self-protection perspective, ego-oriented students are particularly vulnerable

in achievement scenarios in which there is the possibility of failure (Covington, 1992).

Task-oriented individuals, on the other hand, are more concerned with the task itself than with

outperforming others and see success as due primarily to effort rather than ability. From a self-protection

perspective, failure seen to be due to insufficient effort is not so threatening because the individual usually

believes he or she has control to avoid it next time by simply investing greater effort (Covington, 1992).

Hence, the quantitative data suggest that self-handicappers and defensive pessimists are more inclined to

have a history of concern about their ability relative to others and feel most successful when they outperform

others. The data also suggest that individuals low in the tendency to self-handicap or be defensively pessimistic

are more likely to have a history of mastery and task orientation. We seek to explore the extent to which this

emerges through students stories and then we explore the specific ways students goal orientations play out in

their lives and the personal contexts in which they operate.

Method

Sample

A questionnaire assessing self-handicapping and defensive pessimism (see Martin, 1998) was

administered to 584 first year Education students enrolled in three universities in metropolitan Sydney (Australia).

Included in the questionnaire was an invitation for students to record their names and phone numbers if they were

willing to be interviewed at a later time. In total, 134 students volunteered this information. There was no

significant difference in self-handicapping between these students and the larger sample, t(575)=1.26, p=ns, nor

were there any differences in defensive pessimism, t(581)=.30, p=ns. A list of these students was generated on

which they were sorted in ascending order on the basis of their responses to the self-handicapping scale (e.g. I

often fool around the night before a test or exam so I have an excuse if I dont do as well as I hoped) and

defensive pessimism scale (e.g. No matter how well I have done in the past, I go into academic situations

expecting to do worse) in the questionnaire (adapted from Midgley, Arunkumar, & Urdan, 1996; Norem &
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 7

Cantor, 1986; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994; Strube, 1986).

High self-handicappers in the eligibility list, for example, were the students who volunteered their contact

name and phone number and who were the highest ranked of these volunteers on the self-handicapping score.

Further sorting was done by sex, age, and institution. Respondents were selected using purposive sampling such

that the sample was intended to match approximately age, sex, and institutional composition of the larger sample

as well as ensuring that those sampled represented the four target academic profiles (low and high self-

handicapping and low and high defensive pessimism). The self-handicapping subscale used to select low and high

self-handicappers was reliable for students in the qualitative study (Cronbachs = .97) and for the larger sample

from which the qualitative sample was drawn (Cronbachs = .92). This was also the case for the defensive

pessimism subscale in terms of the subsample examined in this study (Cronbachs = .98) and the larger sample

from which the subsample was drawn (Cronbachs = .92).

Twenty-four students were selected and agreed to a follow-up interview. The mean age of respondents

was 21 years 10 months. Six respondents were male and 18 were female. Eight respondents were drawn from

each of the three institutions in such a way that two were high self-handicappers, two were low self-handicappers,

two were high defensive pessimists, and two were low defensive pessimists. Sample composition appears in Table

1. In aggregate, there was no significant difference between those interviewed and the larger sample in terms of

self-handicapping, t(575)=.47, p=ns and defensive pessimism, t(581)=.95, p=ns. In terms of self-handicapping and

defensive pessimism, then, the interview sample was not markedly different from the larger sample of 584

students.

Insert Table 1 about here

Procedure

Data were collected using a semi-structured interview schedule (see Appendix A). Students were informed

that their honest and frank opinions were what the researchers were interested in and at no stage were any of their

responses reacted to with anything other than acceptance. At no stage were the terms self-handicapping or

defensive pessimism used by the interviewer in the interviews. Descriptions of the behavior rather than their

labels were used. The interview began with some questions about what subjects respondents were studying, their

thoughts about the course and university life in general. When some rapport had been established through the
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 8

introductory questions, the interviewer then began exploring some of the issues relevant to the study. The average

duration of each interview was approximately 45 minutes. The interview was audio taped and transcribed

verbatim. These transcripts were used for the data analysis.

Data Analysis

Formation of Categories

The manner in which the data are coded and categorized directly influences the way in which they are

analyzed and interpreted and so data categorization is one of the most important aspects of qualitative research.

Categorization can dictate the way themes are generated, the way these themes are integrated in subsequent

analyses, and ultimately the conclusions drawn from the study. One criticism of qualitative research is that

researchers often do not document how their categories are formed and so do not leave the important audit trail

for the reader (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In suggesting ways by which the categorization process can be more

transparent, Constas (1992) has proposed that researchers document their category development by outlining the

components of categorization and the temporal aspects of category formation. He divides the components of

categorization into various elements, three of which - origination, verification, and temporal designation - are

relevant here.

Origination refers to where the responsibility or authority of categorization resides. In this study, authority

of categorization lay in (a) the researchers interests and theoretical viewpoints for example, the protective

rather than enhancing dimensions of self-handicapping were explored as the researchers were pursuing a research

program with self-protection as a central component, (b) the literature for example, conceptualizing in the

research literature was the basis upon which students goal orientations were differentiated, and (c) participants

responses for example, students identified issues not anticipated by the researchers or central in the literature

(issues such as family and cultural contexts relevant to self-handicapping). Also, subtleties in how questions were

positioned were influenced by participants reactions in the interview for example, questions about self-

handicapping were often couched in the third person so that students did not feel threatened or uncomfortable

when interviewed. Verification refers to the strategies used to justify the creation of categories. In this study,

categorization was guided by (a) rational considerations in which categories have face validity and the appearance

of logical connectedness (for example, categorization directly reflected the core research questions revolving
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 9

around advantages and disadvantages of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism and the precise ways in

which these are played out in students lives); and (b) referential considerations in which established research

findings are used to justify the category generation (for example, goal orientation research addresses the issue of

multiple goals and so categorization was developed to account for this). Temporal designation refers to the timing

of category development. In this study, many categories were determined a priori because they are largely based

on the extant quantitative literature which is quite prescriptive in terms of findings and relevant arguments and

issues. Notwithstanding this, there was a good degree of iterative processing in that additional categories were

formed in response to participants reports which, on the basis of the researchers interpretation, went beyond the

predetermined category structure (for example, the Thats interesting category was an outlet for such responses).

The broad categories into which the data were sorted are presented in Appendix B. Major divisions within

this categorization are illustrated with extracts from the interviews. The structure of the categories very much

reflects the structure of the interview. Where respondents provided information that went beyond the pre-

determined categories, their responses were assigned to a category labeled Thats interesting. Examples of such

data included details about respondents family or cultural background as deemed relevant to the central issues,

respondents perceived control over their defensive maneuvering, aspects of their behavior that went beyond

previous accounts in the literature, and unforeseen consequences of respondents defensive maneuvering. Hence,

in addition to the a priori determination of categories, there was ample scope provided for more inductive data

analysis and thematic development.

Analytic Methods

Goetz and LeCompte (1981; see also LeCompte & Schensul, 1999) identify a number of qualitative

analytic strategies including analytic induction, pure analytic induction (or constant comparison see Glaser &

Strauss, 1967), typological analyses, enumerative systems, and standardized observational protocols. The former

strategies are aligned to more grounded and naturalistic theoretical approaches while the latter are more typical of

conventional analytic approaches (see Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Because this study explores the ground lying

between traditionally quantitative approaches and qualitative perspectives, an intermediate approach was selected

as the analytic method of choice. On the Goetz-LeCompte continuum this method is the typological analytic

approach (see also Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Here the researcher draws on theory to develop questions, categories,
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 10

and assignment of data. Following this approach, we drew on theory seminal to self-worth motivation (Covington,

1992), self-handicapping (Berglas & Jones, 1978), defensive pessimism (Norem & Cantor, 1986), and goal

orientation (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, 1989). The typological approach is primarily based on what Goetz

and LeCompte refer to as a deductive-verificatory-objective process of data analysis typically drawing on previous

research and theorizing but which also enables inductive-generative-subjective processing so that additional or

qualifying themes can emerge (consistent with the categorization methods described above).

In terms of interpretation and conclusions drawn from the data, it is important to recognize that because

this is not a quantitative study some level of subjectivity was required. In the context of qualitative research,

summary statements such as more likely, less likely, most, least, and less are not quantitatively derived

nor statistically testable with confidence. Rather, they tend to reflect trends, nuances, and profiles. For example,

the fact that all self-handicappers do not share ego goals in a similar way or to a similar extent does not

necessarily mean that ego goals are not relevant to this type of student. Indeed, this is consistent with the fact that

self-handicapping and performance goals do not share 100 percent variance (see Martin et al., 2001b) and that

students holding ego goals can respond to these goals in different ways (see Dweck & Leggett, 1988). It should

also be recognized that task and ego goals are typically not mutually exclusive (Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich,

Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Martin & Debus, 1998) and a growing body of research shows that these goal orientations

are sometimes positively correlated (e.g., Marsh, Craven, Hinkley, & Debus, in press). Hence, some students can

endorse both task and ego goals. Indeed, related to the research issues under focus here, it is of interest whether

defensive pessimists are more likely than self-handicappers to reflect this complementary mix.

Data were analyzed using the NUDIST (Non-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing, Searching, and

Theorising) software program (Richards, Richards, McGalliard, & Sharrock, 1993). NUDIST is designed to

integrate a number of documents (in this case interview transcripts) for analysis; index components of text (in this

case interview responses); search for text; search indexing; and reorganize indexing systematically in a manner

that can both harness and generate theory. NUDIST assists in organizing coded data into nodes and node patterns

that essentially constitute the fabric of data analysis and theorizing findings.

Results

Self-Handicapping
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 11

How students self-handicap

The self-handicapping behavior reported by respondents selected as high in self-handicapping illustrated

the extremity and diversity of ways in which it occurs in their day-to-day lives. When asked how he went about

assignments and study for exams, Peter (HISH see Table 1 for acronyms) indicated that his self-handicapping

behavior seemed to be beyond his control:

It's just like if I have an assignment due, say it's due on Monday and it's the weekend, I seem to just want

to watch TV or go out. It's just something that happens. You know you've got to do something but you

get off track and go somewhere.

Sophie (HISH) actually had a special term for her self-handicapping. When asked whether she engaged in

such behavior she replied: Pointless time wasting? Yeah. I'll say, I've got study to do, well I really need to clean

my wardrobe. Yeah, I relate to that. I'm the queen of pointless time wasting. Sophie (HISH) reported that when

exams or assignments were approaching she would engage in such diverse activities as cleaning her wardrobe,

tidying under her bed, cleaning the fish tank, and cleaning the garage. Sophie (HISH) would even visit her out-of-

town grandmother who, curiously, only received visits when Sophies (HISH) exams were looming.

Carol (HISH) would be inclined to watch television and leave her study until very late in the night.

Christine (HISH) was much the same, reporting that she had been having difficulty adjusting to academic demands

and finds herself becoming occupied on other things, leaving study to the very last minute. Moreover, despite the

fact that she would promise herself not to do this in the future, each time an exam or assignment approached, she

seemed to do the same, no matter how hard I try. Rachel (HISH) said that when an exam approached she would

engage in activities like alphabetizing her books and videos.

When it was put to low self-handicappers that some students seem to place obstacles in the way of

success, they, for the most part, did not identify with such behavior. Tania (LOSH) was well aware of the potential

distractions surrounding her while studying at home (she mentioned distractions as wide ranging as the television

and food in the refrigerator) and so that these would not interfere with her study, she went to the library. Reg

(LOSH) said that he could not go out to nightclubs and parties and expect to stay focused on his studies, so he

stayed at home. Gina (LOSH) reported that she was so inclined to get on top of her assignments and study that she

had no social life. She said that she declined invitations to go out in case it interfered with her study.
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 12

Why students self-handicap

A range of reasons was given by the high self-handicappers as to why they engaged in such behavior. For

example, Rachel (HISH) reported that if she sat down and spent too much time studying she would get stressed

out and lose the plot. She said that procrastination was not so much used as an excuse as it was to avoid

becoming stressed. Interestingly, however, she later reported that if she did fail, she usually identified something

that interfered with her success such as going and getting drunk every night. It seems, then, that while she

explicitly denies using her behavior as an excuse, when failure does occur, she invokes her self-handicapping

behavior for this purpose. Carol (HISH) also felt somewhat uncomfortable with the notion that her behavior could

be used as an excuse. Instead, she suggested that her behavior was used as an explanation for poor performance.

Christine (HISH), however, was in little doubt that her behavior was used as an excuse if she did not do so

well. She said that it was always important to have an alibi in the form of an excuse. When Trudy (HISH) was

asked why she self-handicapped, she also identified the importance of an excuse:

If I leave it [study] to the last minute then I've got an excuse if I didn't do well. Any excuse is better than,

You're just not smart enough to do it. I know that I should be putting effort in all the time but then I've

got the excuse if I don't go well.

Sophie (HISH) said that she engaged in self-handicapping behavior because by not trying then the whole

things not an issue, implying that a lack of effort may rob the event of its importance - with the importance of

the event at a minimum, the threat of failure is not so acute. In fact, when asked at the end of the interview if she

would like to add anything, she returned to her study style, again arguing that her self-handicapping was suited to

her and that she was better off engaging in that kind of behavior because her performance was better served by last

minute study and cramming.

Although several high self-handicappers (Carol, Rachel, and Peter) reported that there were no real

advantages to their self-handicapping, other comments by them suggested otherwise. For example, Peter (HISH)

went on to identify the fact that it was a comfort to him when he did not do so well knowing that there was an

excuse. Christine (HISH) returned to the issue of self-handicapping when asked at the end of the interview if she

had anything to add. In contrast to her earlier thoughts, her comments reflected self-handicapping:

INTERVIEWER. What if you don't do so well?

Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 13

CHRISTINE. Then you've got an excuse . . . It's just easier to cope with if you think you haven't put as

much work into it.

INTERVIEWER. Whats easier to cope with?

CHRISTINE. From feeling like a failure because you're not good at it. It's easier to say, I failed because I

didn't put enough work into it than, I failed because I'm not good at it.

When the low self-handicappers were asked why some students might self-handicap, they, for the most

part, did not seem aware of the protective possibilities that self-handicapping presented. Angela (LOSH) reported

that now that they were all out of school with no-one to push them, some students were enjoying their new-found

freedom and this is why they behaved in ways that seemed to limit their success. Reg (LOSH) also reported that

he did not really know why but suggested that possibly those students wanted to have a break from study and then

tackle the assignment or exam fresh.

Defensive Pessimism

How students are defensively pessimistic

All the students selected as being high in defensive pessimism reported that no matter how well they had

performed in previous exams and assignments, they expected to perform more poorly in the future. For example,

despite the fact that she had never failed anything, Dianne (HIDP) reported that she always had the feeling she

was going to fail. She reported that although a part of her thinks rationally about her likely performance, she finds

that her academic life is a balancing act between how she feels she will do in upcoming exams and assignments

and what she rationally knows will probably be the case.

Robert (HIDP) cited an instance when a lecturer announced that a few students had not performed well in

an assignment and he proceeded to spend the next day worrying that he was one of them (it turned out that he was

not). He said thinking like this was like walking a tightrope between knowing that he has passed everything

before but expecting that he will do more poorly in the future. Cassie (HIDP) also reported that despite having

done well in the past she thought she would do worse in the next assignment or exam. She reported that each time

she begins an assignment or studies for an exam, she starts from scratch in her expectations about how she will

perform. She said that she would slowly build her confidence as she felt she was mastering the subject matter, but

that no matter how confident she eventually feels about it, the next assessment task is met with unrealistic
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 14

pessimism.

All students selected as being low in defensive pessimism reported that they were generally optimistic

about future performance in assignments and exams. In contrast to the students high in defensive pessimism,

when asked how they would perform in the future given previous successful performance, these students replied

that they would be optimistic. As Bernadette (LODP) reported, basically when I'm on a roll, I feel good. I think,

Well I've got this mark and I can do it again.

Why students are defensively pessimistic

Defensive pessimists were also asked for the reasons why they held unrealistically low expectations.

Gwen (HIDP) cited cultural reasons for why she was defensively pessimistic. According to her, there was much

pressure on her to perform well and that having lower expectations was a way of dealing with the fear of not

meeting these expectations: Coming from an [ethnic background withheld] family, if you get a good mark, they'll

expect you to do the same thing again. Also, she has found in the past that when she has been optimistic, these

positive expectations have not been fulfilled: In the past when I've looked at things optimistically, something bad

has happened and now I question myself all the time.

Joe (HIDP) reported that by holding unrealistically negative expectations and entertaining the possibility

of not doing so well, he does not feel let down if those expectations are realized. This disappointment seemed to

be what most defensive pessimists were particularly concerned to protect themselves from. As Robert (HIDP)

reported:

I try to be pessimistic 'cause that way I think the fall's less when you do actually come a cropper. . . I

think if I border slightly on the pessimistic then if I do better than I expected then it's a pleasant surprise

and if I do worse than expected then it's less of a fall. You just try to minimize those falls.

When Marie (HIDP), who has been having some difficulty performing in exams, was asked at the end of

the interview whether she had anything else to add, she reported that her negativity was learnt at home: My

parents have always said, Don't set your goals too high because you'll only get disappointed . . . They're always

careful not to raise my hopes so I don't get disappointed.

According to Cassie (HIDP), Robert (HIDP), and Joe (HIDP), thinking more negatively is a good way of

motivating them into action. According to Joe (HIDP), his negative expectations motivated him into action by
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 15

making him feel more stressed. According to him, if youre negative you stress more and a bit of stress is good.

Robert (HIDP) felt that the pessimism was advantageous in that it kept him more emotionally balanced:

It keeps you a bit more even-keeled. You don't have the highs and lows, the peaks and troughs. You're

not walking around one week saying, I'm fantastic, I'm the greatest thing since sliced bread and not

living up to the expectations the next week and feeling like going out to slash your wrists.

Marie (HIDP) saw mixed blessings in her defensive pessimism. She recognized that it probably is not

good for her self-esteem but that in other respects it reduces the potential blow to the self-esteem by not thinking

that you're going to reach the moon when you can only get as far as the clouds. Dianne (HIDP) added that if it

turns out that she does do well, the advantage of having thought negatively is that she is pleasantly surprised.

Participants Goal Orientation

Students high and low in self-handicapping

High self-handicappers were more likely than low self-handicappers to endorse ego-goals and less likely to

subscribe to a mastery orientation. Carol (HISH) and Christine (HISH) reported that outperforming others would

make them feel more successful than having mastered something and that this was primarily because

outperformance was something visible to other people whereas mastery was not. Trudy (HISH) reported that

outperforming others makes her feel as though I'm not as down there as I thought - at least for a little while. She

said that she always likes to know how close to the top of the class she is and when asked whether mastery or

outperformance would make her feel most successful, she replied: Oh, the top of the class. Because that's how

you're measured in society" In fact, Trudy was actually dismissive of a task-orientation in the context of

university: No-one's going to care if you learn something new - maybe you can solve world peace by it or

something. It doesn't matter that you learnt great things getting those marks - that's not what uni's about.

Nonetheless, in some situations low self-handicappers also reported feeling successful when they

outperformed others, but in a slightly different sense than the high self-handicappers. For example, whereas Gina

(LOSH) was more interested in outperforming others, she did not conform to the stereotypical ego-oriented

student in that she held some regard for those she outperformed. When asked how she felt when she outperformed

others she replied, I feel proud, but I also feel sorry for whoever fails. Also, outperforming others was not

enjoyed for the sake of outperforming others, but in confirming her positive self-concept and also providing
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 16

diagnostic feedback: It's sort of the proof of the pudding . . . That I'm right in being confident in my abilities.

Low self-handicappers were more inclined than high self-handicappers to endorse mastery goals and to

recognize the contribution of mastery to their academic lives. According to Lucy (LOSH), I love that [mastery] . .

.That's something in yourself that you can feel good about rather than outperforming others and bagging them

out. Reg (LOSH) reported gaining great satisfaction through just doing or knowing something that you've never

done before and getting the hang of it and being able to do something well. Tania (LOSH) saw the long-term

benefits of mastery:

It's something that you're always going to have. As a teacher that's important because it doesn't matter that

you went better than everyone in a first year test. It's best if you can learn something that you use in the

future to transfer knowledge to students.

Students high and low in defensive pessimism

The defensive pessimists also provided reports that were indicative of an ego orientation, but their

endorsement of ego-orientation was more equivocal. For example, Gwen (HIDP) reported that outperformance

would make her feel most successful but made the point that this would mean more to her not so much because

she outperformed others, but because, in true defensively pessimistic fashion, the relief of performing well was

great. Although Joe (HIDP) recognized that mastery was a more laudable goal, outperformance would make him

feel more successful primarily because university is a competitive environment and beating others is consistent

with this climate. He also reported that outperforming others is the best way to gauge how he is doing at

university: Don't get me wrong, I would rather feel better by mastering something, but it's all competition. If

you're doing better than others then you know you're doing well and that's how you gauge yourself

In contrast to self-handicappers who were not mastery oriented, defensive pessimists recognized that there

was value in mastery orientation but that this value was connected to performance issues. Such data are a good

example of the grey terrain to which we alluded earlier. For example, Marie (HIDP) reported that mastery was

more important to her because mastery was required in order to outperform others. When asked what was most

important to her, she replied, probably understanding, 'cause to beat other people, you have to have

understanding first. Cassie (HIDP) and Dianne (HIDP) implied that while success in competition would give

them satisfaction, it was difficult to compare their performance with that of others and so by default, mastery
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 17

became important. For example, Cassie (HIDP) reported that because everyone studied different subjects,

competition with them became difficult. Hence it became important to her to compete with herself and this was

more attuned to a task-orientation than an ego-orientation. Dianne (HIDP) also reported that she did not compete

with others because they may all have done badly and outperforming them was not a testament to much.

As another testament to the grey terrain, some low defensive pessimists were also ego-oriented. Again,

however, this was qualified. For example, Bernadette (LODP) reported that she enjoyed outperforming others but

more to satisfy personal standards: In some ways I like to outperform others but it's more a sense of doing better

for myself like, This is what I got last time and I'd like to do better than last time". Interestingly for Bernadette

(LODP), ego-orientation also held implications for mastery. She reported that she preferred to outperform others

because that's indicative of being able to understand. While it was important to Lynne (LODP) to outperform

others, this was because it made her feel good about herself and not because others had not performed as well as

her. Amanda (LODP), another low defensive pessimist, made the point that outperforming others is in no way a

cause for her to feel successful and in fact reported that she saw competition as competition with herself and not

with others.

Students low in defensive pessimism were more unambiguously concerned with mastery (note however that

for some there was also the presence of performance goals described above). For example, Bernadette (LODP)

reported that she loved challenge and the feeling that she has learnt something new. According to Brendan

(LODP), university is not a place of competition, it's more about learning. Amanda (LODP) agreed: If I can

grasp something by stretching my mind or worked really hard on something then I've made progression in myself

and I'm proud of myself more so than being able to do something better than someone else.

Discussion

A major aim of the present study is to use a qualitative approach to shed further light on self-handicapping

and defensive pessimism as a means to generate new insights, identify key complexities, illuminate the personal

perspectives of students in their first year at university, and give expression to students voices to allow new

perspectives, contexts, and insights relevant to self-handicapping and defensive pessimism emerge.

Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism

The qualitative data add to existing knowledge of the idiosyncratic ways in which students self-handicap
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 18

as well as the various lengths to which students will go to protect their self-worth. What these data also underscore

is that there is no shortage of potential handicaps at these students disposal. Motivations and behaviors of the

high self-handicappers contrasted quite markedly with those of the low self-handicappers who were more focused

and conscientious in their studies. The data in relation to low self-handicappers were particularly illuminating in

that these students seemed to be well aware of the distractions that posed a threat to their study. It seems,

therefore, that students are aware of the variety of ways in which they can distract themselves from the central

purpose of study but that high self-handicappers seize opportunities to engage in these distractions whereas the

low self-handicappers actively resist these potential distractions. Importantly, however, although the low self-

handicappers were well aware of potential distractions surrounding them, they were relatively less unaware of the

strategic ways in which these distractions could be used. In this sense the qualitative data lend support to

quantitative research findings which show that individuals who are not inclined to self-handicap are unaware of

the strategic way it can be used and as a consequence are more likely to accept at face value the self-handicapping

strategies of others (Smith & Strube, 1991).

Not only do the data contribute to current understanding about the strategic nature of self-handicapping,

they also underscore and confirm quantitative data concerning the strategic nature of defensive pessimism (Cantor

& Norem, 1989; Martin et al., 2001a, 2001b; Norem & Cantor, 1990). For example, consistent with quantitative

work indicating how defensive pessimism can motivate students (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994; Norem & Cantor,

1986), some defensive pessimists used their defensive pessimism partly to motivate them into action. Defensive

pessimism was also strategic for others in that it obviated disappointment in the event of poor performance,

confirming quantitative data that it may cushion the individual in the event of failure (Martin et al., 2001a, 2001b;

Norem & Cantor, 1986) and establish lower and safer standards with which to compete (Baumgardner &

Brownlee, 1987; Martin et al., 2001a, 2001b). Indeed, the fact that some defensive pessimists reported that they

knew they were not going to fail and yet felt they were going to also suggested some cognitive posturing in

support of the strategic nature of defensive pessimism.

The results also indicated that the role of significant others as well as cultural factors can contribute to

defensive pessimism (see for example, Gwen - HIDP). Indeed, not only do results illustrate the family and cultural

factors that potentially underpin defensive pessimism, they also demonstrate how individuals react to others high
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 19

expectations in a defensive way, confirming quantitative findings (Baumgardner & Brownlee, 1987). However,

not only can the family inadvertently influence the tendency to engage in defensive pessimism, they can quite

directly influence students expectations. For example, Maries (HIDP) parents actually taught her that by holding

lower expectations for upcoming events she could avoid the disappointment if she fails. Indeed, early quantitative

work demonstrated that expected negative outcomes are not so hard-hitting as unexpected ones (Feather, 1967).

While the data were illustrative of the distinctiveness of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism, they

extend extant research by suggesting a number of ways in which they are similar. Both are strategic in the sense

that students are for the most part aware of their tendency to use the strategies and aware of the benefits that

follow from them. Following from this, another common feature is their self-protective nature: self-handicappers

are provided with an excuse (or explanation) for potential poor performance and defensive pessimists create lower

and safer standards against which to compete, minimizing the chances of failure. Importantly, however, while on

an aggregate basis the two share key features (e.g. self-protection), the diversity of ways in which students engage

these strategies highlights the uniqueness of students experiences and the idiosyncratic ways they negotiate their

studies. Indeed, this highlights the strength of qualitative data.

Goal Orientation, Self-Handicapping, and Defensive Pessimism

Although the broad finding is that ego-orientation is a hallmark of self-handicapping, the data indicated

the unique ways in which ego-orientation occurs as well as the reasons respondents were ego-oriented. Indeed, this

is supported by previous research showing that similar goal orientations can be manifested in different ways

(Dweck & Leggett, 1988). For example, a theme that emerged was self-handicappers concern with outperforming

fellow students because such performance was visible to others (whereas mastery was not). This implies an

extrinsic orientation on the part of self-handicappers and their concern with how others view them. Indeed, this

confirms the relationship between self-handicapping and a public orientation obtained in quantitative research

(Ferrari, 1992; Martin et al., 2001a, 2001b; Shepperd & Arkin, 1989; Strube, 1986). Respondents identified other

reasons for their need to outperform others. For example, Trudy (HISH) reported that society judges individuals

worth on the basis of their academic achievement, and hence outperforming others was more important than

mastery. She also identified her familys emphasis on academic results, again underscoring the extrinsic

dimension of goal orientation. Indeed, the low self-handicappers responses contrasted markedly with those of
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 20

high self-handicappers in the sense that their reports were underpinned by an intrinsic orientation in which they

enjoyed the experience of mastery and challenge. On the other hand, the relationship between goal orientation and

defensive pessimism was not as clear-cut as that with self-handicapping. For example, some defensive pessimists

saw value in mastery and other defensive pessimists endorsement of ego-orientation was qualified. It seems, then,

that ego-orientation does not mark defensive pessimists approach to study to the extent that it does that of self-

handicappers.

Self-handicappers and defensive pessimists responses also indicated that their concern with

outperforming others was partly influenced by the learning climate in which they operated. According to Trudy

(HISH), university is about competition and there is little place for mastery in such an environment while Joe

(HIDP) reported that a concern with outperforming others was consistent with the competitive university climate.

Interestingly, not all students saw university as a place of competition. Brendan, low in defensive pessimism, saw

university as a place in which ones focus was on mastering the material and not a place of competition. Another

difference, then, between low and high self-protective students is not only their individual goal orientation, but

also their perceptions of the learning climate in terms of ego and task goals. This supports quantitative research

that has found a relationship between the (performance/ego-oriented) focus of the learning environment and self-

handicapping (Midgley & Urdan, 1995). More recent research utilizing statistical procedures appropriate for the

analysis of class-level data has confirmed the relationship between students perceptions of and emphasis on

relative ability in the classroom and self-handicapping (Urdan, Midgley, & Anderman, 1998).

Implications for Education

The data clarify not only substantive issues relevant to self-protection, but also hold important

implications for educational practice. The data showed that some self-handicappers perceived little or no control

over their self-handicapping. This can be risky from an educational perspective as it can ultimately lead to some

form of learned helplessness (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). It is important for educators to encourage

students to develop a greater sense of perceived control. For example, encouraging students to attribute outcomes

to effort and strategy promotes perceived control (Perry & Magnusson, 1989), adaptive approaches to learning

(Craven, Marsh, & Debus, 1991) and performance (Perry & Penner, 1990; Martin, 2001). Moreover, in the

educational context, a prime contributor to uncertain control is non-contingent or inconsistent feedback (Perry &
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 21

Dickens, 1988; Thompson, 1994). Administering reinforcement and feedback in a way that is commensurate with

students performance is one means of enhancing their perceived control over educational outcomes (Thompson,

1994).

Ego orientation seemed to mark self-handicappers approach to their studies and to a lesser extent was a

feature of defensive pessimists approach. It is important, then, to identify elements of instruction delivery and the

educational environment that contribute to the pursuit of ego goals. One element seems to be competition

(Covington, 1992; Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Nicholls, 1989). We propose that competitive environments not only

contribute to a tendency to pursue ego goals but also are relevant to self-protection. Competition for those not

guaranteed success could represent a climate in which self-protection may be an appealing option. For example,

Urdan et al. (1998) have identified the effects of the learning environment on self-handicapping. Cooperative

learning environments, on the other hand, are task-oriented and focus more on mastery through collaboration with

ones peers (Qin, Johnson, & Johnson, 1995). Balancing competitive interests with mastery and cooperation may

reduce the extent to which students are motivated to manoeuvre defensively. Importantly, we do not reject the

possible benefits to be gained through an ego or competitive focus (see Elliot & Church, 1997; Harackiewicz,

Barron, & Elliot, 1998; Martin & Debus, 1998). We do, however, suggest that an overly competitive focus at the

expense of mastery and cooperation can incur certain academic costs (Qin et al., 1995). What this implies is that

students may benefit from coordinating a competitive and mastery orientation and this brings into consideration

the issue of multiple goals (Ainley, 1993; Martin & Debus, 1998; Wentzel, 1989).

The data also illuminate the lengths to which students will go to avoid failure and self-protect. Covington

has outlined the variety of ways educational environments promote failure avoidance (Covington, 1992; see also

Martin, 2001) and has also suggested ways that this can be addressed. Essentially, the very nature and bases of

learning must be changed so that motives become goals and draw rather than drive the student (Covington, 1992;

Covington & Roberts, 1994). Such a program would encourage students to gain knowledge for masterys sake

rather than for the sake of performance, encourage students to serve the interests of the group, and to give

expression to their creativity and curiosity. Changing the reward system has also been proposed as a way in which

the purpose of learning can be altered. Covington and Roberts suggest that reward should be based on students

meeting personal standards rather than outperforming others. Hence, the student is encouraged to become success-
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 22

oriented rather than failure avoiding or failure accepting. When students are success-oriented, they are then in a

stronger position to learn and as Covington and Roberts note, have even been shown to perform well in

competitive scenarios (see also Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1994; Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1993).

Limitations

There are a number of limitations that require consideration when interpreting the results. The data in this

study were static - collected at only one point in time. Although qualitative research is not centrally concerned

with establishing causal relationships to the extent that quantitative research often is, our conceptualization of the

proposed model of the self-protection process begs the question of what precedes what. Also, all the data were

derived from self-reports. Although this study is based on students personal perspectives, qualitative research

need not be based on self-report alone. There is scope for observational data and reports by others close to the

student. Also, artefacts such as course results and examples of their work would be useful. It is therefore important

that future research examines the issues using data derived from additional sources.

Another concern is the extent to which students are aware of their use of self-protection strategies, or, the

extent to which they are aware of the reasons for their use of these strategies. It may be that individuals cannot

access their self-protective motivations in great detail and to the extent that this is the case, the present data are

limited. Another issue concerns the possibility that some self-protective students are not inclined to acknowledge

their adoption of self-protection strategies - particularly self-handicapping. Although it has been argued that

individuals are prepared to admit to their self-protection (Arkin & Oleson, 1998), the present results must be

interpreted with the possibility of defensive self-reports in mind. Related to this, it must be recognised that

interviews were typically conducted within one hour and in some cases this might mean that more detailed

insights into students academic lives were limited. Future researchers might immerse themselves in students

academic lives on a more extended basis. For example, talking with students just before and after major

assessment periods would provide important data on the strategies under focus. Also related to time constraints,

the time available to interview students required some weighting of the depth to which some constructs were

explored. For example, although students were asked detailed questions about their self-handicapping and

defensive pessimism, questions in relation to self-regulation were broader. Again, immersing in students

academic lives over a longer period of time would provide greater detail about all relevant constructs.
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 23

Future Research

Some self-handicappers and defensive pessimists noted the costs of their defensive manoeuvring, beyond

simply not performing well. These findings suggest that the consequences of self-handicapping and defensive

pessimism are not just restricted to the academic domain but are felt in a variety of areas of students lives. One

direction for future research is to explore more fully the non-academic (e.g., social and affective) consequences of

defensive manoeuvring in the academic context.

The data suggested that cultural factors may also underpin some students defensive manoeuvring.

Although some research has examined cultural differences in self-handicapping and negative attitudes (e.g.,

Midgley et al., 1996), this tends to be restricted to ethnic minorities in the North American context. Cross-cultural

comparisons are needed. Related to the issue of culture is the role of the family in influencing students tendency

to engage in self-protective strategies. The present data are suggestive of some family influence in this respect, but

further work is required to determine the precise nature and extent of this influence. Indeed, this need for further

work into cultural and family factors is not only important in relation to self-protection but is also important from

an achievement goal perspective (Urdan, 1997).

An interesting extension of students goal orientation was their perceptions of the learning climate. The

data indicated that self-handicappers and defensive pessimists tended to see the learning climate as competitive

and this evoked a need to outperform others. This supports previous quantitative findings (Midgley & Urdan,

1995), but some issues remain unclear. For example, the learning climate and its impact on defensive pessimism

have not been addressed to date. Also, the impact of altering the learning climate (e.g., from competitive to

cooperative - see Qin et al., 1995) on students academic strategies has not been studied and future research might

focus on this with a view to identifying interventions that can take place at class and institutional levels. The need

for further research in relation to climate is consistent with recent reviews of achievement goal theory (Urdan,

1997) and data have recently emerged showing a relationship between the nature of the learning environment and

self-handicapping (Urdan et al., 1998).

Conclusion

The present study explored students personal insights into self-handicapping and defensive pessimism

Although previous quantitative findings have identified the broad nature of self-handicapping and defensive
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 24

pessimism, our qualitative data have indicated (a) the idiosyncratic ways in which students engage these strategies,

(b) the salience of these strategies in students lives, (c) the strategic nature of these strategies, particularly in the

context of self-worth protection, and (d) the various factors that contribute to students defensive posturing.

Students personal perspectives shed new light on congruencies and differences in goal orientation for self-

handicappers and defensive pessimists, the social and academic costs of self-protective behavior, the control

students feel they have over their self-protective behavior, and the roles of the family and students culture in their

tendency to self-protect. The strength of this qualitative approach to phenomena typically studied from a

quantitative perspective lies in its detailed and contextualized exploration of self-handicappers and defensive

pessimists motivations and behaviors. In listening to students stories about the diverse ways they go about their

studies in a self-protective manner, we can better understand the factors other than ability which lead to success or

failure at university.
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 25

References
Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P., & Teasdale, J. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and

reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.

Ainley, M.D. (1993). Styles of engagement with learning: Multidimensional assessment of their relationship with

strategy use and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 395-405.

Arkin, R.M., & Oleson, K.C. (1998). Self-handicapping. In J.M. Darley & J. Cooper (Eds.). Attribution and social

interaction: The legacy of Edward E. Jones. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Baumgardner, A.H., & Brownlee, E.A. (1987). Strategic failure in social interaction: Evidence for expectancy

disconfirmation processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 525-535.

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.

Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Campbell, D.T. (1975). Degrees of freedom and the case study. Comparative Political Studies, 8, 178-193.

Cantor, N., & Norem, J.K. (1989). Defensive pessimism and stress and coping. Social Cognition, 7, 92-112.

Constas, M.A. (1992). Qualitative analysis as a public event: The documentation of category development

procedures. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 253-266.

Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings.

Chicago: Rand McNally.

Covington, M.V. (1984). The motive for self-worth. In R. Ames & C. Ames (eds). Research on motivation in

education. Academic Press. Orlando.

Covington, M.V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Covington, M.V., & Roberts, B.W. (1994). Self-worth and college achievement: Motivational and personality

correlates. In P.R. Pintrich., D.R. Brown., & C.E. Weinstein (Eds.). Student motivation, cognition, and

learning: Essays in honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Craven, R.G. Marsh, H.W., & Debus, R. (1991). Effects of internally focused feedback and attributional feedback

on the enhancement of academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 17-26.

Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 26

Cronbach, L.J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116-127.

Duda, J.L., & Nicholls, J.G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 84, 290-299.

Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological

Review, 95, 256-273.

Elliot, A.J., & Church, M.A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.

Elliot, A.J., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (1994). Goal setting, achievement orientation, and intrinsic motivation: A

motivational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 968-980.

Feather, N.T. (1967). Level of aspiration and performance variability. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 6, 37-46.

Ferrari, J.R. (1992). Procrastinators and perfect behavior: An exploratory factor-analysis of self-presentation, self-

awareness, and self-handicapping components. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 75-84.

Firestone, W. (1987). Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational

Researcher, 16, 16-21.

Gage, N. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath. Educational Researcher, 18, 4-10.

Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P.R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role of self-

schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (eds). Self-regulation of learning

and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A,L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York: Longman.

Goetz, J.P., & LeCompte, M.D. (1981). Ethnographic research and the problem of data reduction. Anthropology

and Education Quarterly, 12, 51-70.

Harackiewicz, J.M., Barron, K.E. & Elliot, A.J. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals: When are they adaptive for

college students and why? Educational Psychologist, 33, 1-21.

Harackiewicz, J.M., Barron, K.E., Pintrich, P., Elliot, A.J., & Thrash, T.M. (2002). Revision of achievement goal

theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 638-645.

Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 27

Harackiewicz, J.M., & Elliot, A.J. (1993). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 65, 904-915.

Higgins, R.L., & Harris, R.N. (1988). Strategic 'alcohol' use: Drinking to self-handicap. Journal of Social and

Clinical Psychology, 6, 191-202.

LeCompte, M.D., & Schensul, J.J. (1999). Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data. Walnut Creek, CA:

AltMira Press.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., Hinkley, J., D. & Debus, R. L. (in press). Evaluation of the Big-Two-Factor theory

of motivation orientation: An evaluation of jingle-jangle fallacies. Multivariate Behavioral Research.

Martin, A.J. (1998). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: Predictors and consequences from a self-worth

motivation perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Western Sydney, Macarthur.

Martin, A.J. (2001). The Student Motivation Scale: A tool for measuring and enhancing motivation. Australian

Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 11, 1-20.

Martin, A.J. & Debus, R.L. (1998). Self-reports of mathematics self-concept and educational outcomes: The roles

of ego-dimensions and self-consciousness. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 517-535.

Martin, A.J. Marsh, H.W., & Debus, R.L. (2001a). A quadripolar need achievement representation of self-

handicapping and defensive pessimism. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 583-610.

Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., & Debus, R.L. (2001b). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: Exploring a

model of predictors and outcomes from a self-protection perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,

87-102.

Martin, A.J. Marsh, H.W., & Debus, R.L. (in press). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: A model of

self-protection from a longitudinal perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology.

Middleton, M.J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An unexplored aspect of

goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710-718.

Midgley, C., Arunkumar, R., & Urdan, T.C. (1996). If I dont do well tomorrow, theres a reason: Predictors of

adolescents use of academic self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 423-434.

Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1995). Predictors of middle school students use of self-handicapping strategies.
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 28

Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 389-411.

Nicholls, J.G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Nicholls, J.G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S.B. (1985). Adolescents theories of education. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 77, 683-692.

Norem, J.K., & Cantor, N. (1986). Defensive pessimism: Harnessing anxiety as motivation. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 51, 1208-1217.

Norem, J.K., & Cantor, N. (1990). Cognitive strategies, coping and perceptions of competence. In R.J. Sternberg

& J. Kolligian Jr. (eds). Competence considered. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.

Norem, J.K., & Illingworth, K.S.S. (1993). Strategy-dependent effects of reflecting on self and tasks: Some

implications of optimism and defensive pessimism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 822-

835.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Perry, R.P., & Dickens, W.J. (1988). Perceived control and instruction in the college classroom: Some

implications for student achievement. Research in Higher Education, 27, 291-310.

Perry, R.P., & Magnusson, J.L. (1989). Causal attributions and perceived performance: Consequences for college

students achievement and perceived control in different instructional conditions. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 81, 164-172.

Perry, R.P., & Penner, K.S. (1990). Enhancing academic achievement in college students through attributional

retraining and instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 262-271.

Qin, Z., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving.

Review of Educational Research, 65, 129-144.

Rhodewalt, F., & Davison, J. (1986). Self-handicapping and subsequent performance: Role of outcome valance

and attributional certainty. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 307-322.

Richards, T., Richards, L., McGalliard, J., & Sharrock, B. (1993). NUDIST 2.3: Users Manual. Melbourne:

Replee.

Scheier, M.F., Carver, C.S., & Bridges, M.N. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and test anxiety,

self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 29

Psychology, 67, 1063-1078.

Shepperd, J.A., & Arkin, R.M. (1989). Determinants of self-handicapping: Task importance and the effects of

preexisting. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 63-80

Showers, C., & Ruben, C. (1990). Distinguishing defensive pessimism from depression: Negative expectations

and positive coping mechanisms. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 385-399.

Smith, D.S., & Strube, M.J. (1991). Self-protective tendencies as moderators of self-handicapping impressions.

Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 63-80.

Strube, M.J. (1986). An analysis of the Self-Handicapping Scale. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 211-

224.

Thompson, T. (1994). Self-worth protection: Review and implications for the classroom. Educational Review, 46,

259-274.

Thorkildsen, T.A., & Nicholls, J.G. (1998). Fifth graders achievement orientations and beliefs: Individual and

classroom differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 179-201.

Tice, D.M., & Baumeister, R.F. (1990). Self-esteem, self-handicapping, and self-presentation: The strategy of

inadequate practice. Journal of Personality, 58, 443-464.

Urdan, T.C. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future directions. In M.L. Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Eds).

Advances in motivation and achievement, 10, 99-141. Greenwich: JAI Press.

Urdan, T.C., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E.M. (1998). The role of classroom goal structure in students use of self-

handicapping strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 101-122.

Wentzel, K.R. (1989). Adolescent classroom goals, standards for performance, and academic achievement: An

interactionist perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 131-142.

Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 30

Appendix A
Summary of semi-structured interview schedule

Question guide to establish rapport

Have you come straight from school?

If not, what did you do between school and now?
What subjects are you majoring in?
So now youre at university, what do you think?
Is university what you expected?
Are you enjoying university?
What made you decide to do Education?
What do you think of the course?
Have you found it demanding? Many assignments/exams?

Question guide to address goal orientation

Would you say you feel more successful when you outperform others or when you learn/master something
new?
Why do you say that?
What does outperforming others/mastery mean to you?

Question guide to address defensive pessimism

If I ask you to look down the track to your next assignment or exam, do you think youll do the same, better, or
worse than youve done before?
Why do you say that?
How does it make you feel when you go into an exam thinking more negatively/positively than previous
experience would predict?
Does thinking this way have any advantages/disadvantages?

Question guide to address self-handicapping

Some students do things that seem to get in the way of their success. For example, they might procrastinate
before an upcoming assignment or become occupied on other things before the exams. Other students get onto
the job of doing their assignments and studying for the exam and maximize their chances of success. Would
you relate to either of these two students?
If so, in what ways do you do some of these things?
Why do you think you do these things?
What advantages and disadvantages might follow from doing these things?

Invitation for additional comments

Thats all the questions I have to ask you. Is there anything you would like to add? Is there anything you feel I
havent touched or focused on? Is there anything you would like to emphasize? Is there a particular way you go
about your studies that I havent addressed?
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 31

Appendix B
Categories into which the data were sorted and extracts from interviews that reflect major categories

1. GOAL ORIENTATION

1.1 Ego-orientation/competitiveness
(e.g. Oh, the top of the class. Because that's how you're measured in society" Trudy, HISH)
1.1.1 Feelings of success through outperforming others
1.1.2 Feelings of success not dependent on outperforming others
1.1.3 Feelings of success only partly determined by outperforming others
1.1.4 Thats interesting

1.2 Task-orientation
(e.g. I love that [mastery]. . .That's something in yourself that you can feel good about rather than outperforming
others Lucy, LOSH)
1.2.1 Feelings of success through mastery and new learning
1.2.2 Feelings of success not dependent on mastery or new learning
1.2.3 Feelings of success only partly dependent on mastery
1.2.4 Both mastery and competitive concerns
1.2.5 Thats interesting

2. SELF-PROTECTION STRATEGIES

2.1 Self-handicapping

2.1.1 Students who self-handicap

(e.g. I'll say, I've got study to do, well I really need to clean my wardrobe. I'm the queen of pointless time wasting
- Sophie, HISH)
2.1.1.1 Typical behavior
2.1.1.2 Why do I do it?
2.1.1.3 What advantages does it offer?
2.1.1.4 Thats interesting

2.1.2 Students who do not self-handicap

2.1.2.1 Typical behavior
2.1.2.2 Why do some students self-handicap?
2.1.2.3 What advantages does it offer?
2.1.2.4 Thats interesting

2.2 Defensive pessimism

2.2.1 Students who think in a defensively pessimistic fashion

(e.g. I try to be pessimistic cause that way I think the falls less when you do actually come-a-cropper Robert,
HIDP)
2.2.1.1 Typical defensive expectations
2.2.1.2 Why do I think this way?
2.2.1.3 What advantages does it offer?
2.2.1.4 Self-presented/public aspects
2.2.1.5 Thats interesting

2.2.2 Students who think optimistically

(When Im on a roll, I feel good. I think, Well Ive got this mark and I can do it again - Bernadette, LODP)
2.2.2.1 Typical optimism
2.2.2.2 Why do I think this way?
2.2.2.3 Thats interesting
Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism 32

Table 1
Participants in study*

University 1 University 2 University 3

2
High self-handicapper (HISH) Trudy (HISH) Peter (HISH) Sophie (HISH)
2 2
Christine (HISH) Carol (HISH) Rachel (HISH)
Low self-handicapper (LOSH) Reg (LOSH) Sharon (LOSH) Angela (LOSH)
Gina (LOSH) Lucy (LOSH) Tania (LOSH)
1
High defensive pessimist (HIDP) Gwen (HIDP) Marie (HIDP) Joe (HIDP)
1
Cassie (HIDP) Robert (HIDP) Dianne (HIDP) 1
Low defensive pessimist (LODP) Tony (LODP) Bernadette (LODP) Brendan (LODP)
Amanda (LODP) Tasha (LODP) Lynne (LODP)
*Pseudonyms used
1=Students also high in self-handicapping
2=Students also high in defensive pessimism

View publication stats