Prevention of self-handicapping — The protective function of mastery goals

Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 699–709

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

Prevention of self-handicapping — The protective function of mastery goals Malte Schwinger ⁎, Joachim Stiensmeier-Pelster 1 Department of Psychology, University of Giessen, Otto-Behaghel-Str. 10F, 35394 Giessen, Germany

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 7 March 2010 Received in revised form 25 August 2011 Accepted 3 September 2011 Keywords: Achievement goals Mastery goals Self-esteem Self-handicapping

a b s t r a c t Drawing on modern diathesis-stress theories which suggest a multiplicative approach to determine one's personal vulnerability status, we posit that the degree of an individual's vulnerability for using self-handicapping strategies in case of self-threatening events depends on the interaction between different vulnerability and protective factors. In this article, we assume that the pursuit of mastery goals buffers the relations between self-handicapping and two frequently cited determinants (low self-esteem, high performance-avoidance goals). In three studies with German high-school and college students, we found empirical evidence for the assumed moderator effect of mastery goals. In studies 1 and 3, performance-avoidance goals were remarkably lower associated with self-handicapping in the group of students highly endorsing mastery goals compared to students who proved to be less mastery oriented. In studies 2 and 3, moreover, individuals' self-esteem was less related to self-handicapping when students strongly emphasized mastery goals. We discuss several implications of these findings for both educational practice and future research on self-handicapping. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction More than three decades ago, Berglas and Jones (1978; Jones & Berglas, 1978) introduced the self-handicapping phenomenon to the psychological literature. They defined it “as any action or choice of performance setting that enhances the opportunity to externalize (or excuse) failure and to internalize … success” (Berglas & Jones, 1978, p. 406). Self-handicappers make use of Kelley's discounting principle (Kelley, 1971). It is used if one fails, as the present handicap discounts attributions to internal-stable factors like, for instance, a lack of intelligence. Instead, the failure is attributed to the handicap. On the other hand, if one surprisingly succeeds, attributions to internal-stable factors will be augmented, as the person obviously has been smart or powerful enough to overwhelm the handicap. There is substantial agreement in the literature that selfhandicapping displays negative effects on important educational processes and outcomes like motivation and achievement (e.g., Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001; Zuckerman, Kieffer, & Knee, 1998). These results point to the necessity to examine how students can be prevented from self-handicapping and how they might be encouraged to solve negative performance experiences and threats to their self-esteem in a less costly way. To date, however, only a few studies have been dedicated to this issue (e.g., McCrea & Hirt, 2011; Siegel, Scillitoe, & Parks-Yancy, 2005). Building on modern diathesis-stress conceptions emphasizing the interplay between different personal vulnerability and protective ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 49 641 99 26 255. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Schwinger), [email protected] (J. Stiensmeier-Pelster). 1 Tel.: + 49 641 99 26 251. 1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.09.004

factors (Abela & Hankin, 2008; Scher, Ingram, & Segal, 2005), the present article focuses on the endorsement of mastery achievement goals (Dweck, 1986; Elliot, 2005) as a promising prevention factor against self-handicapping. 1.1. Determinants of self-handicapping Self-handicapping is expressed by a diverse range of behaviors like substance abuse (Berglas & Jones, 1978; Schwinger, 2008; Tucker, Vuchinich, & Sobell, 1981), effort reduction (Deppe & Harackiewicz, 1996; Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1983), setting of unobtainable goals (Greenberg, 1985), or choice of debilitating performance settings (Rhodewalt & Davison, 1986). Regardless of the respective selfhandicapping behavior, negative consequences like poor performance or loss of intrinsic motivation have been documented in several studies (Elliot & Church, 2003; Martin et al., 2001; Thomas & Gadbois, 2007; Urdan, Midgley, & Anderman, 1998; Zuckerman & Tsai, 2005, Zuckerman et al., 1998). Given the wide-ranging implications associated with this phenomenon, it appears to be a critical task for researchers to reveal the circumstances under which selfhandicapping is more or less likely to occur. To begin with, selfhandicapping represents a strategy to regulate one's self-esteem when someone is faced with a self-threatening situation. The perceived threat, in turn, can be elicited by both situational and personal factors. Indeed, a lot of research has been conducted to identify personal risk-factors of self-handicapping. Elliot and Church (2003), for instance, found the behavioral inhibition system (BIS; Gray, 1990) to be positively associated with self-handicapping. Rhodewalt, Tragakis, and Finnerty (2006) revealed narcissism to be related to self-handicapping behaviors. Moreover, several authors reported self-handicapping being

700

M. Schwinger, J. Stiensmeier-Pelster / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 699–709

determined by participants' gender (Keller, 2002; McCrea, Hirt, & Milner, 2007). The two mostly cited determinants of self-handicapping, however, refer to a person's level of self-esteem as well as to her pursuit of performance-avoidance goals (see Rhodewalt & Vohs, 2005, and Urdan & Midgley, 2001, for reviews). Regarding the first factor, it seems reasonable to assume that a person disposing of low selfesteem may experience self-esteem threats more often compared to a person possessing high self-esteem. Negative events, like a critical teacher feedback, are perceived differently by these two persons, with the first one being more at risk to experience a threat to her self-esteem (Rhodewalt & Vohs, 2005; Schwinger, 2008). In line with these assumptions, a number of studies revealed significantly negative correlations between self-esteem and self-handicapping (Coudevylle, Ginis, & Famose, 2008; Pulford, Johnson, & Awaida, 2005; Rhodewalt, 1990; Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster, in press; Zuckerman et al., 1998). Moreover, Zuckerman et al. (1998) pointed out that persons inclined to general low self-esteem may be prone to experience a vicious cycle. They start with reacting to self-esteem threats by self-handicapping. Unfortunately, however, selfhandicapping leads to lower performance, which subsequently decreases one's self-esteem and therefore increases the probability to self-handicap again. Taken together, the empirical evidence suggests that low self-esteem individuals can cope significantly worse with self-threatening events – and thus self-handicap more frequently – compared to high self-esteem individuals (see also vanDellen, Campbell, Hoyle, & Bradfield, 2011, for a recent meta-analysis). The second important personal determinant of self-handicapping is a performance-avoidance goal orientation. From the perspective of achievement goal theory, students can be differentiated according to their long-term goals they endorse in school. By definition, mastery goals orient students toward learning and the development of one's competencies, while performance goals orient them toward considering their ability and performance relative to others (Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1986; Hulleman, Schrager, Bodmann, & Harackiewicz, 2010; Nicholls, 1984). Performance goals can be further subdivided into performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals. Students endorsing performance-approach goals aim to demonstrate their higher abilities in comparison to their classmates, whereas students pursuing performance-avoidance goals strive to not perform worse than others (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Hulleman et al., 2010; Middleton & Midgley, 1997).2 Performance-avoidance oriented students describe themselves as less capable and they seek to avoid other people becoming aware of it. When those students anticipate failing in an upcoming test, they will try to provide alternative explanations for their failure in order to prevent others from attributing their bad performance to lacking abilities (Spinath & Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2003). Selfhandicapping appears to be perfectly suitable to achieve this goal. Thus, unsurprisingly, a performance-avoidance goal orientation has been shown to be associated with a higher use of self-handicapping strategies (Elliot & Church, 2003; Martin et al., 2001; Midgley & Urdan, 2001; Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster, in press; Urdan, 2004). Previous research on self-handicapping has especially focused on mastery (-approach) and performance-avoidance goals (e.g., Urdan & Midgley, 2001), which is why we suppose these two achievement goals to be of foremost interest to the present research. Nevertheless, since the different achievement goals have been found to be substantially inter-correlated (e.g., Elliot & Murayama, 2008; Wang, Biddle,

2 Elliot and McGregor (2001; see also Elliot & Murayama, 2008) extended the goal orientation framework to a 2 × 2 model by incorporating mastery-avoidance goals as a fourth dimension. According to them, mastery-avoidance oriented students aim to not perform worse than before. However, empirical evidence on the conceptual validity of the mastery-avoidance goal construct is still scarce (e.g., Moller & Elliot, 2006), so akin to recent achievement goal studies (e.g., Lau & Nie, 2008; Murayama & Elliot, 2009), we decided not to incorporate it in our research.

& Elliot, 2007), researchers may come to wrong conclusions if they consider the association between certain goals and outcomes without controlling for the effects of other achievement goal dimensions. Stated differently, results obtained for the relation of one particular achievement goal to cognition, affect, or behavior might be confounded by other types of goals. Findings of studies examining antecedents and consequences of multiple goal pursuit further support this line of reasoning (e.g., Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Senko & Harackiewicz, 2005). Therefore, in two of the three studies reported here we controlled for the effects of students' performance-approach goals. 1.2. Mastery goals diminish the effects of self-handicapping determinants A rather simple method to prevent people from using selfhandicapping strategies would be to “turn off” all the negative attitudes and self-perceptions that lead to self-esteem threats and subsequently elicit self-esteem maintenance mechanisms. For instance, high selfesteem (Martin et al., 2001), low performance-avoidance goal pursuit (Midgley & Urdan, 2001), low prevention regulatory focus (Leonardelli, Lakin, & Arkin, 2007), low entity views of intelligence (Rhodewalt, 1994), low uncertain personal control (Martin et al., 2001), and low fear of failure (Elliot & Church, 2003) have all been associated with a low amount of self-handicapping. As a consequence, it would be useful to bolster people's self-esteem, to lower their performance-avoidance goals, and so on. Such undertakings, however, are arduous and riddled with difficulties in order to produce the aspired effects. This holds true especially for self-esteem enhancement programs. For example, interventions aimed primarily at enhancing people's worthiness try to make them feel good about themselves regardless of their actual competencies. As research has shown, such programs produce no long-lasting positive results and may even have negative long-term consequences due to the failing balance between worthiness and perceived competencies (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; Mruk, 2006). Another aspect which impedes direct self-esteem changes refers to most people's tendency to seek self-confirmatory performance feedback (Swann, 1990). This confirmation tendency becomes even stronger the more important the issue is for one's entire self-esteem (Swann & Pelham, 2002; Vonk, 2006). Given the difficulties described above, it might make much more sense to search for a variable that helps to reduce self-handicapping even when all the negative risk-factors are still present. Stated differently, a variable is needed that diminishes the negative impact of the mentioned risk-factors on self-handicapping. In the present article, we examine a mastery goal orientation as a promising prevention factor against self-handicapping. We assume that mastery goals buffer the negative impact of the above mentioned attitudes on self-handicapping (Rothbaum, Morling, & Rusk, 2009). However, the absence of mastery goals is not supposed to boost the relationships between self-handicapping and its determinants in a maladaptive way. The assumed buffering effect of mastery goals can be framed in terms of classical diathesis-stress theories stating that the risk to develop psychologically maladaptive attitudes or behaviors (e.g., depression, self-handicapping) depends on the interaction between the degree of one's personal vulnerability and the level of stress experienced (see Rothbaum et al., 2009, for a discussion of the similar etiologies of depression and self-handicapping). That is, people with low self-esteem are vulnerable to self-handicapping, and they choose handicapping behaviors in response to stressful events such as upcoming exams (Rhodewalt & Vohs, 2005). However, modern multiplicative approaches to diathesis-stress suggest that there are probably numerous factors that either increase or diminish the degree of one's personal vulnerability. Several studies in depression research have therefore adopted this multiplicative approach which posits that the interaction between vulnerability and/or protective factors ultimately determines one's vulnerability status (Abela & Hankin, 2008). For instance, a positive attributional style could protect low self-esteem individuals

M. Schwinger, J. Stiensmeier-Pelster / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 699–709

against increases in depressive symptoms following negative events (Conley, Haines, Hilt, & Metalsky, 2001). Besides multiplicative models in diathesis-stress research, there is also a buffering hypothesis in studies on achievement goals. It suggests that an adaptive personal goal or classroom goal structure weakens the undesirable effect of a maladaptive personal goal or classroom goal structure (Lau & Nie, 2008). Indeed, several studies have reported positive buffering effects for both personal mastery goals (Daniels et al., 2008; Midgley & Urdan, 2001; Wolters, 2004) and mastery classroom goal structures (Ciani, Middleton, Summers, & Sheldon, 2010; Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2011). Given these theories and empirical findings, we believe it reasonable to assume that high mastery goals diminish the negative effects of personal vulnerability factors on self-handicapping.

1.3. What are the Buffering Mechanisms of Mastery Goals? As stated above, self-handicapping could be easily reduced by providing people with positive values on factors relevant to selfesteem threat and self-esteem regulation (e.g., high self-esteem, high personal control). However, such interventions are often unsuccessful (see Mruk, 2006, for difficulties of self-enhancement programs). Even if successful, the problem remains that people are still focused on their self-esteem, their performance in comparison to others, and their appearance in front of others (Hulleman et al., 2010). Stated differently, self-esteem is still contingent on performance outcomes. Thus, an effective and long-lasting prevention factor consists in fostering beliefs that the self and performance are malleable (Dweck & Leggett, 1988) and that self-worth is not contingent on one's abilities (Niiya, Crocker, & Bartmess, 2004). A mastery goal orientation meets these criteria due to the following reasons. 3 First, self-handicapping is characterized as a response to a selfesteem threat elicited, for example, by the expected negative performance in an exam (Martin et al., 2001). Mastery oriented students are supposed to experience such self-esteem threats less frequently than other students because their attention is primarily directed on the task to be mastered and not on what consequences a potential failure might have to their self-esteem. Stated differently, mastery oriented students do not interpret failure as a feedback concerning their self-esteem. Rather, they see negative task experiences as a possibility for personal growth (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). On the other hand, students exclusively relying on performance-avoidance goals are assumed to judge those moments as situations where they will probably lose but not gain anything. Unlike mastery oriented students, they do not see anything positive in a failure, least of all the chance for personal growth. Second, although mastery oriented students probably also experience failures and setbacks, they tend to judge them more positively. A mastery goal orientation leads students to attribute failure to modifiable and controllable factors like low effort (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Such an attributional pattern may further prevent mastery oriented students from self-handicapping because self-esteem threats often emerge from achievement attributions to internal, stable, and uncontrollable factors (Covington, 1992; Martin et al., 2001). The described characteristics of mastery goals seem to be suitable for buffering the negative, self-threatening impact of an individual's low self-esteem and high performance-avoidance goal pursuit. Most notably, mastery goals help people to maintain their self-esteem regardless of any performance outcome which is why 3 Although performance-approach goals have also been found to have positive effects on important educational outcomes (e.g., Elliot & Murayama, 2008), they are not supposed to diminish the tendency to self-handicap. Unlike mastery goals, performance-approach goals focus on outperforming others. That is, the self-worth of performance-approach oriented persons is still contingent on how well they perform. Prolonged failure would thus be threatening to one's self-worth and self-esteem regulation by means of self-handicapping would be needed.

701

maintenance strategies like self-handicapping need to be used less frequently. To further illustrate the moderator hypothesis, we consider two hypothetical students called Lisa and Marie. Both students have low self-esteem and also feel highly committed to performanceavoidance goals. While Lisa is not at all mastery oriented, Marie additionally disposes of a high mastery goal orientation. 4 Lisa and Marie often expect to fail in their exams at school resulting in threats to their self-esteem. These negative emotional states need to be regulated. Lisa normally uses self-handicapping for self-esteem regulation because she has nothing positive to expect from a negative grade in an exam. Negative cognitions and emotions about the upcoming exam are dominant, and Lisa neither sees anything good in this situation nor an adaptive possibility to cope with the potential failure. Marie, on the other hand, usually chooses a more adaptive way to regulate her self-esteem before self-threatening exams, namely by “activating” her mastery goal orientation. She instructs herself in thinking about the possibility to learn from her mistakes in order to perform better next time (Wolters, 2003). She also resolves to attribute her performance in the exam to variable and controllable aspects (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). A failure in the exam would not be equal to a final evaluation about her cognitive abilities, as such. Instead, a failure would indicate the necessity to work harder and to invest more effort in learning than before. By “switching on” her mastery goal orientation, Marie copes with her situational self-esteem threat. As a consequence, she regularly does not need to use self-handicapping or any other maladaptive strategy to regulate her self-esteem. Admittedly, to benefit from the pursuit of mastery goals, Marie is required to be able to activate them in the respective learning situations before exams. This step comprises a regulatory effort, as such. However, research on multiple achievement goals has described such a selective goal pattern where individuals are presumed to choose the most adaptive goal orientation for any given situation (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Senko & Harackiewicz, 2005). Certainly, Marie won't be capable of switching on her mastery goal orientation every time, especially if the expectation to cope with the exam is exceedingly negative. This said, we do not make any predictions here in regard to how often Marie will be able to successfully activate her mastery goal orientation across several learning situations. Nevertheless, if Marie manages it in at least some learning situations along a certain time period, we conclude that her habitual amount of self-handicapping will decrease. Due to the moderating effect of Marie's mastery goal orientation, there will be weaker associations on the habitual level between selfesteem, performance-avoidance goals, and self-handicapping. 1.4. Aims and hypotheses With the present research, we aim to provide empirical evidence for our assumption that an orientation towards mastery goals moderates (i.e., buffers) the association of students' self-esteem and their performance-avoidance goal orientation with their tendency to use self-handicapping for self-esteem regulation. We expect this moderator effect of a mastery goal orientation to operate independently from any direct effect on self-handicapping. We seek to confirm our hypotheses in three studies conducted with German high-school and college students. 4 On first sight, the simultaneous pursuit of mastery and performance-avoidance goals seems to be implausible. In fact, however, mastery and performance-avoidance goals are often only weakly related and sometimes even uncorrelated on the scale level (Hulleman et al., 2010; Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007). This makes it reasonable to assume that at least some students endorse both kinds of goals simultaneously or alternately. Indeed, Pastor and colleagues recently identified a subgroup of students who showed similarly high values on both mastery (-approach) and performanceavoidance goals (Pastor, Barron, Miller, & Davis, 2007; see also Midgley & Urdan, 2001).

702

M. Schwinger, J. Stiensmeier-Pelster / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 699–709

2. Study 1

Table 1 Means, standard deviations and reliabilities of all scales.

2.1. Method 2.1.1. Sample A total of 343 students (80.8% female) from several German high-schools participated in the first study. Students were in 11th (22.1%), 12th (49.0%), or 13th grade (28.9%), with a mean age of M = 18.72 (SD = 2.64) years. The majority of students (70.8%) went to the highest German educational track (Gymnasium), while the remaining students attended schools providing vocational education (Berufsschule, Fachschule). 2.1.2. Measures and procedure Testing took place during a regular school day. Tests were administered by trained research assistants. All students completed a questionnaire which consisted of scales assessing their general level of self-esteem, their mastery, performance-approach and performanceavoidance goal orientation, and their self-handicapping tendencies. All items were answered on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Self-esteem level was assessed with the German version of the Rosenberg scale (Ferring & Filipp, 1996; Rosenberg, 1965) which consists of ten items pointing to participants' overall feelings of self-worth (e.g., On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.). This scale has been frequently used in previous research with German student samples and it was found to be a reliable and valid measure of students' overall self-esteem (e.g., Trautwein, Lüdtke, Marsh, Köller, & Baumert, 2006; Wentura, Kulfanek, & Greve, 2005). Students' mastery (8 items), performance-approach (7 items) and performance-avoidance goals (8 items) were assessed with the respective subscales of a standardized German achievement goal questionnaire (Spinath, Stiensmeier-Pelster, Schöne, & Dickhäuser, 2002) which is based on the Motivational Orientation Scales (MOS; Nicholls, Patashnick, & Nolen, 1985). All items began with “In school I personally strive…”. To assess students' mastery goals, items were continued with, for example, “…to understand complex issues.” or “…to learn as much as possible.”. Examples for items assessing performance-approach goals comprised “…to get my work done better than others.” or “…to obtain better grades or credits than others.”. Performance-avoidance goal items were, for instance, “…that other students don't consider me stupid.” or “…not to make a fool of myself.” (see Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2011, for a complete list of items). These achievement goal scales have proven high internal consistencies as well as good internal validities within a large sample of more than 2000 German high-school and college students (Spinath et al., 2002). Moreover, across several studies (e.g., Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2011; Steinmayr & Spinath, 2009) they showed convergent valid correlations to important educational outcomes (e.g., intrinsic motivation, school achievement) which were similar to those reported in other achievement goal studies (Elliot & Murayama, 2008). Another indicator for the validity of the achievement goal instrument used here comprises the fact that the three scales reflect several dimensions being identified as central elements of the achievement goal construct in recent meta-analysis (Hulleman et al., 2010). The items measuring mastery goals mainly reflect a preference for challenging activities, but also the motivation to master the task in order to gain new knowledge (Hulleman et al., 2010, p. 427). The operationalization of performance-approach and -avoidance goals represents both the appearance and the normative facets of the respective goal (Hulleman et al., 2010, pp. 425–426). Students' self-handicapping tendencies were assessed with the German version of the Academic Self-handicapping Scale (ASHS) by Midgley and colleagues (Midgley, Arunkumar, & Urdan, 1996; Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2010). The scale consists of six

Self-handicapping Mastery goals Self-esteem Performance-avoidance goals Performance-approach goals

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

α

M (SD)

α

M (SD)

α

M (SD)

.80 .81 .88 .87 .77

1.79 4.11 3.91 2.49 3.24

.73 .72 .88 .87 .85

1.74 4.42 3.96 2.25 3.09

.83 .83 .85 .87 –

1.85 3.94 3.69 2.37 –

(.70) (.60) (.71) (.82) (.66)

(.65) (.39) (.66) (.70) (.71)

(.77) (.65) (.73) (.80)

items like “Some students put off doing their school work until the last minute so that if they don't do well on their work they can say that is the reason. How true is this of you?”. Similar to the original version by Midgley and colleagues, the German version of the ASHS has been found to be related to numerous antecedents and outcomes like, for instance, individuals' self-esteem level and stability, school achievement, conscientiousness, learning strategies, intrinsic motivation, and ability self-perceptions (Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2010). Moreover, high values in the German ASHS were associated with a higher probability to choose distracting music as a behavioral handicap in an experimental test situation (Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster, in press). 2.2. Results 2.2.1. Descriptive statistics Scale means, standard deviations, and reliabilities are displayed in Table 1. All scales showed good reliabilities with Cronbach alphas ranging from .80 to .88. Scale intercorrelations are displayed in Table 2. Self-handicapping was significantly negatively related to students' self-esteem and also to their mastery goal orientation. Moreover, results showed a significantly positive correlation between self-handicapping and a performance-avoidance goal orientation, whereas performance-approach goals were not significantly associated with self-handicapping. Self-esteem was significantly positively related to students' mastery goal orientation, and significantly negatively related to students' performance-avoidance goal orientation. Mastery and performance-avoidance goals were not significantly related to each other, but both scales were positively associated with performance-approach goals. 2.2.2. Moderator regression analyses To test the hypothesized moderator effect, we computed two hierarchical regressions with self-handicapping as criterion. To reduce the effect of multicollinearity, all predictor variables were z-standardized. In the first step of each of the two regression analyses, performance-approach goals and also the respectively unconsidered self-handicapping determinant were entered as covariates into the regression equation. In the second step, the two respective predictors (mastery goals plus one self-handicapping determinant) were entered into the model. In the third step, the product term of the two predictors was added to the model. 5 According to Aiken and West (1991), the significance of the product term provides evidence for the assumed moderator effect. Since self-handicapping as the dependent variable 5 Due to the positive correlation between performance-avoidance goals and selfesteem, one of the reviewers suggested performing a simultaneous test of the predicted interactions rather than two separate analyses. We decided, however, to stay with the separate analysis procedure due to the following reasons. First and foremost, the statistical power for regression interaction models decreases dramatically with each predictor or interaction term added to the model (Aguinis, 1995; McClelland & Judd, 1993; Shieh, 2009). If power is low, Type II statistical error rates are high, and this often leads to the incorrect rejection of the hypothesized model. The second reason refers to the nature of our theoretical assumptions. As a start, we propose that mastery goals buffer any single relationship between self-handicapping and a certain determinant. However, we do not point to the question if several buffering effects may be accomplished simultaneously. Therefore, our hypotheses clearly require separate regression analyses.

M. Schwinger, J. Stiensmeier-Pelster / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 699–709

703

Table 2 Intercorrelations of all scales. Study 1 (1) Self-handicapping (1) Mastery goals (2) Self-esteem (3) Performance-avoidance goals (4) Performance-approach goals (5) Note. **p b .01, *p b .05,

+

1 −.16** −.18** .27** .06

Study 2 (2)

(3)

(4)

(1)

1 .44**

1 −.20* −.15* .13+ .01

1 .18** −.07 .28**

1 −.36** .12*

Study 3 (2)

(3)

(4)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1 .62**

1 −.18** −.27** .23** –

1 .19** −.04 –

1 −.26** –

1 –

1 .20** .10 .30**

1 −.22** .05

p b .10.

even when they feel threatened, they still seem to see enough positive in the situation (e.g., the chance to learn from their mistakes), which in turn may prevent them from self-handicapping or other maladaptive forms of self-esteem regulation. In the second study, we seek to provide additional evidence for these assumptions in a different sample, that is, with German college students.

had a rather skewed distribution we sought to control for a potential floor effect in our analyses. We therefore conducted all analyses in Mplus 5.21 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2009) which provides maximum likelihood parameter estimates that are robust to non-normality (ESTIMATOR = MLR). Results of the hierarchical regressions are presented in Table 3. In both models, performance-approach goals had no significant effect on self-handicapping. The first regression revealed significant main effects for self-esteem and mastery goal orientation. Though in the expected direction, the interaction term did not reach statistical significance (ß = .05, p = .30). The second regression revealed significant main effects for performance-avoidance and mastery goal orientation, as well as a significant interaction effect (ß = −.13, p b .01). Additional simple slope analyses were conducted to qualify the interaction effect (Aiken & West, 1991). The relation between performanceavoidance goals and self-handicapping was not significant for highly mastery oriented students (1 SD above the mean; t[339] = 1.69, p = .10), but it was highly significant for their lowly mastery oriented classmates (1 SD below the mean; t[339] = 5.57, p b .01; see Fig. 1).

3. Study 2 3.1. Method 3.1.1. Sample Participants included 167 students (76.6% female) from a University located in midwestern Germany. Average age was M = 22.60 (SD = 5.04) years, ranging from 18 to 49. Most students studied psychology (80.2%). The remaining participants (19.8%) studied different subjects in order to become teachers. The majority of students were in their first (67.1%) or in their second year in university (26.3%). However, the remaining 6.6% had been visiting university for more than two years.

2.3. Discussion 3.1.2. Measures and procedure The students filled out a questionnaire during regular class in one of their study courses. For participation in this study they received extra course credit. The questionnaire consisted of the same items as in Study 1. Participants responded to all items on a rating scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

The results of Study 1 yielded mixed support for our assumptions. At first, we found a significant direct effect of mastery goals on selfhandicapping. Highly mastery oriented students tended to selfhandicap less frequently than lowly mastery oriented students regardless of their level of self-esteem or their performance-avoidance goal orientation. Additionally, we found mixed support for the assumed moderator effect of mastery goals. The interaction between self-esteem and mastery goals did not reach statistical significance, but there was a significant interaction between performanceavoidance and mastery goals in predicting self-handicapping. Along with our hypotheses, the effect of performance-avoidance goals on self-handicapping was remarkably lower when students were also highly mastery oriented. These findings imply a protective function of mastery goals against self-handicapping. Since they are focused on learning and mastery, students who strongly endorse mastery goals might be less prone to self-esteem threats overall. Moreover,

3.2. Results 3.2.1. Descriptive statistics Scale means, standard deviations, and reliabilities are shown in Table 1. Again, reliabilities were satisfying to good, with Cronbach alphas ranging from .72 to .88. As in Study 1, self-handicapping was significantly negatively related both to students' self-esteem and their mastery goal orientation (see Table 2). Moreover, selfhandicapping correlated significantly positively with performanceavoidance goal orientation, whereas there was no association with

Table 3 Moderator regression analyses for the prediction of self-handicapping (Study 1). Step 1

Perf.-approach goals Perf.-avoidance goals Self-esteem Mastery goals Self-esteem ∗ mastery goals R2/ΔR2 Perf.-approach goals Self-esteem Perf.-avoidance goals Mastery goals Perf.-avoidance ∗ mastery goals R2/ΔR2

Step 2

Step 3

B

(SE)

ß

p

B

(SE)

ß

p

B

(SE)

ß

p

−.06 .22

(.04) (.04)

−.08 .31

.20 b.01

.00 .17 −.05 −.09

(.04) (.05) (.04) (.04)

.00 .24 −.07 −.13

.96 b.01 .25 .02

(.04) (.05) (.04) (.04) (.03)

.00 .24 −.07 −.13 .05

.98 b.01 .26 .03 .30

.08 .06 −.13

(.04) (.04)

.08 −.19

.17 b.01

.10/.02 .00 −.05 .17 −.09

(.04) (.04) (.05) (.04)

.00 −.07 .24 −.13

.96 .25 b.01 .02

.00 .17 −.05 −.09 .03 .11/.01 .00 −.04 .16 −.11 −.08 .12/.02

(.04) (.04) (.04) (.04) (.03)

.00 −.05 .23 −.16 −.13

.96 .37 b.01 b.01 b.01

.04

.10/.06

704

M. Schwinger, J. Stiensmeier-Pelster / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 699–709

Fig. 1. Mastery goals moderate the relation between performance-avoidance goals and self-handicapping (Study 1). Note. All predictors z-standardized. Low = 1 SD below mean, High = 1 SD above mean.

students' pursuit of performance-approach goals. Similar to the first study, mastery goals and performance-avoidance goals were not significantly related to each other, but both scales were positively associated with performance-approach goals. Self-esteem correlated significantly positively with students' mastery goal orientation, but significantly negatively with students' performance-avoidance goal orientation. 3.2.2. Moderator regression analyses Similar to the first study, we conducted two hierarchical regression analyses in Mplus 5.21 with self-handicapping as criterion and the other variables as predictors or covariates, respectively (see Table 4). Again, performance-approach goals had no effect on self-handicapping in neither of the two regression models. Results regarding the first regression revealed a significant main effect for mastery goal orientation as well as a significant effect for the product term (ß = .15, p b .01) pointing to the interaction between selfesteem and mastery goals. 6 Simple slope analyses showed that there was a significant relation between self-esteem and selfhandicapping in the group of the lowly mastery oriented students (i.e., 1 SD below the mean), t(163) = − 2.05, p b .05. However, selfesteem did not predict self-handicapping in the group of strongly mastery oriented students, t(163) = 0.16, p = .86, see Fig. 2. The second regression revealed both performance-avoidance and mastery goals as significant predictors of self-handicapping. The interaction between the two goal orientations did not reach statistical significance (ß = −.07, p = .35). 3.3. Discussion This second study revealed the same negative direct effect of students' mastery goals on self-handicapping as in our first study. However, contrary to the results of Study 1, this time regression analyses yielded significant support only for the interaction hypothesis regarding mastery goals and students' self-esteem. As expected, there was no effect of self-esteem on self-handicapping for students who strongly pursued mastery goals, but in the group of lowly mastery oriented students we found the familiar negative relation between self-esteem and self-handicapping. The interaction between performance-avoidance goals and mastery goals was not shown to significantly predict students' self-handicapping. Hence, altogether we found mixed support for our hypotheses once again 6 To further clarify that the effects are unique to mastery goals, we followed a reviewer's suggestion and tested potential buffering effects of performance-approach goals as well. For Studies 1 and 2, none of these regressions revealed a significant interaction effect with self-esteem or performance-avoidance goals (all ps N .10).

with this study. Since the students did not differ remarkably in their age, we suggest random factors to be mainly responsible for variations in the effects for the different samples. An additional reason for the partly insignificant results may be due to the specificity with which we measured the respective variables. In both studies we had asked for the amount of self-handicapping and the other variables on a general level. Results of several studies suggest relations between variables to be more valid when measured in a specific context (e.g., Leutner, Leopold, & den Elzen-Rump, 2007; Steinmayr & Spinath, 2009). Referred to the variables examined here, a student might be mastery oriented in only some, but not all school subjects. Even more, he might not tend to self-handicap in all subjects. For example, in math it may be unnecessary to self-handicap, because all students routinely attribute bad marks in an exam to the inscrutable task demands of their math teacher. Taking this into account, constraining the study context to a specific school-subject appears a suitable way to obtain more congruent results regarding the relations between our variables of interest. Therefore, we decided to examine our assumptions in a third study taking place in a more specific learning context. 4. Study 3 4.1. Method 4.1.1. Sample A total of 389 students (61.4% female) in their 12th grade from several high schools in two federal German states participated in this study. All students visited schools pertaining to the highest educational track (Gymnasium). Contrary to Studies 1 and 2, participants (Age: M = 17.56, SD= 0.66) were asked to fill out a questionnaire referring to a specific learning aspect. Precisely, items referred to students' preparation for an upcoming exam in one of their advanced-level courses. As advanced-level courses, 35.5% of the students took mathematics, 31.1% German, 22.1% English, and 11.3% history. Overall, students from 21 courses were investigated, with the number of students per course ranging from 12 to 25. 4.1.2. Measures and procedure Testing took place during regular class setting in the respective advanced-level course and was administered by trained research assistants. We assessed students' self-esteem, their mastery and performance-avoidance goal orientation, as well as their individual tendency to self-handicap with the same instruments as in the two former studies. Performance-approach goals were not considered in this study. Self-esteem was assessed on a general level, whereas students' mastery and performance-avoidance goal orientation as well as their self-handicapping tendencies were collected with subject-specific items referring to the respective subject of students' advanced-level course. Moreover, because we sought to examine motivational and regulatory processes with regard to this specific learning period, data were collected at two times of measurement. At the first time of measurement approximately two weeks before the exam, we assessed students' self-esteem, mastery, and performance-avoidance goal orientation. At the second time of measurement, which was two to four days before the test, we asked students for their inclination to self-handicap. 4.2. Results 4.2.1. Descriptive statistics Means, standard deviations, and reliabilities are displayed in Table 1. Cronbach alphas for the present sample ranged between .83 and .87. Once again, self-handicapping was significantly negatively related to students' mastery goal orientation and to their self-esteem, while self-handicapping and performance-avoidance goals were significantly positively correlated (see Table 2). Mastery and performance-

M. Schwinger, J. Stiensmeier-Pelster / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 699–709

705

Table 4 Moderator regression analyses for the prediction of self-handicapping (Study 2). Step 1

Perf.-approach goals Perf.-avoidance goals Self-esteem Mastery goals Self-esteem ∗ mastery goals R2/ΔR2 Perf.-approach goals Self-esteem Perf.-avoidance goals Mastery goals Perf.-avoidance ∗ mastery goals R2/ΔR2

Step 2

Step 3

B

(SE)

ß

p

B

(SE)

ß

p

B

(SE)

ß

−.07 .13

(.07) (.07)

−.11 .20

.27 .05

−.01 .09 −.05 −.12

(.07) (.07) (.06) (.05)

−.02 .14 −.08 −.19

.87 .18 .39 .01

(.07) (.07) (.05) (.05) (.02)

−.01 .15 −.04 −.18 .15

.93 .15 .65 .02 b.01

.03 .01 −.10

(.05) (.06)

.02 −.15

.82 .13

.07/.04 −.01 −.05 .09 −.12

(.07) (.06) (.07) (.05)

−.02 −.08 .14 −.19

.87 .39 .18 .01

−.01 .10 −.02 −.12 .07 .09/.02 −.01 −.05 .09 −.13 −.05 .07/.00

(.07) (.06) (.07) (.05) (.05)

−.01 −.08 .14 −.20 −.07

.91 .37 .19 .01 .35

.02

avoidance goals were not inter-correlated. Students' self-esteem showed a positive correlation with their performance-avoidance goal orientation, but a negative correlation with their mastery goal orientation. 4.2.2. Moderator regression analyses The regression analysis procedure was similar to those in Studies 1 and 2, but for this dataset we decided to additionally account for the context specificity (i.e., for the different school subjects). Therefore, we specified our two regression models as multiple-group analyses in Mplus 5.21, where the four groups were the different subjects that students attended to (mathematics, German, English, and history). Using this approach, we were able to clarify whether the computed effects were substantially equal in the four groups. The first regression regarding the interaction effect between self-esteem and mastery goals on students self-handicapping revealed the assumption of equal regression estimates across all groups to be acceptable. 7 The regression showed significant main effects for students' self-esteem and their mastery goal orientation as well as a significant effect regarding the product of self-esteem and mastery goals on self-handicapping (ß = .11, p b .05; see Table 5). Simple slope analyses qualified the negative relation between selfesteem and self-handicapping to be lower for highly mastery oriented students, t(383) = − 2.29, p b .05, compared to their less mastery oriented classmates, t(383) = − 5.00, p b .01, see Fig. 3. The second regression with respect to the interactive effect of students' performance-avoidance and mastery goal orientations on self-handicapping also revealed the presumed equality of regression estimates across all groups to be acceptable. 8 The regression estimates for this model showed significant main effects for both students' performance-avoidance and mastery goal orientation. Moreover, the interaction term of these variables (ß = −.10) was also significant at p b .05 (see Table 5). Simple slope analyses indicated the effect of performance-avoidance goals on self-handicapping to be significant only in the group of the lowly mastery oriented students, t(383) = 5.08, p b .01, but not for students highly endorsing mastery goals, t(383) = 1.51, p = .13, see Fig. 3. 7 The completely unconstrained model (χ2[0, N = 389] = 0; AIC = 120.000), which allows for differences in regression estimates between groups, did not fit the data significantly better than a structural weights model ( Δχ 2[12, N = 389] = 15.019; Δp = .24; AIC = 111.019), in which regression weights were constrained to be constant across groups (Arbuckle, 2007). Further constrained models (e.g., with equal structural means) fitted the data significantly worse, which is why the structural weights model was chosen as the best fitting model. 8 The structural weights model again showed a better fit than the fully unconstrained model (Δχ2[12, N = 389] = 16.916; Δp = .15; AIC = 112.916). However, a structural covariance model in which regression weights, means, intercepts and also the covariances between predictor variables are constrained to be constant across groups, was found to fit the data even better (Δχ2[30, N = 389] = 43.209; Δp = .06; AIC = 96.125).

.07/.05

p

4.3. Discussion This third study provided the strongest support for the assumed moderator effect of a mastery goal orientation on self-handicapping. Contrary to Studies 1 and 2, the effects of both self-esteem and performance-avoidance goals on self-handicapping were found to be significantly moderated by mastery goals. Additionally, we found mastery goals again to be a significant direct predictor of self-handicapping. Furthermore, we proved all effects to result independently from students' learning context (i.e., their school subject attended). 5. General discussion With the present research, we aimed to test the assumption that being oriented towards mastery goals can help to reduce students' self-handicapping tendencies by diminishing the effects of threat eliciting factors on the use of this particular self-esteem regulation strategy. Findings from Studies 1 and 2 revealed mixed support for our hypotheses. Whereas in Study 1, a significant relation to selfhandicapping was only found for the interaction between mastery and performance-avoidance goals but not for mastery goals and self-esteem, the opposite result pattern emerged in Study 2. It is important to note, however, that the significant buffering effects were obtained while controlling for the influence of students' performance-approach goals. Since the several types of achievement goals have been found to be highly inter-correlated in previous studies (e.g., Elliot & Murayama, 2008), it was important to control for the effects of this achievement goal. Our findings indicate that the resilient impact of mastery goals on self-handicapping is probably not confounded by other types of goals. Moreover, regression results

Fig. 2. Mastery goals moderate the relation between self-esteem and self-handicapping (Study 2). Note. All predictors z-standardized. Low = 1 SD below mean, High = 1 SD above mean.

706

M. Schwinger, J. Stiensmeier-Pelster / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 699–709

Table 5 Moderator regression analyses for the prediction of self-handicapping (Study 3). Step 1 B Perf.-avoidance goals Self-esteem Mastery goals Self-esteem ∗ mastery goals R2/ΔR2 Self-esteem Perf.-avoidance goals Mastery goals Perf.-avoidance ∗ mastery goals R2/ΔR2

Step 2 (SE)

ß

p

B

(SE)

.15 (.04) .20 b.01 .15 (.04) −.15 (.04) −.19 b.01 −.15 (.04) −.16 (.04) −.20 b.01 −.16 (.04) .09 (.04) .13 .18/.05 −.10 (.04) −.13 b.01 −.10 (.04) .22 (.04) .27 b.01 .22 (.04) −.20 (.05) −.23 b.01 −.20 (.05) −.12 (.06) .14

ß

p

.20 b.01 −.19 b.01 −.20 b.01 .11 .03 −.13 b.01 .27 b.01 −.23 b.01 −.10 .03

.16/.02

did not point to the existence of a potential “multiple goal moderator” consisting of both mastery and performance-approach goals (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001). However, the interplay between all kinds of achievement goals in the prediction of self-handicapping remains a critical task for future studies (Lovejoy & Durik, 2010). In Study 3, we found consistent support for the presumed moderation effect of mastery goals shown in significant interactions with both self-esteem and performance-avoidance goals. We attribute the clearer results in the last study to the specificity of the measurement context. In the first two studies, questionnaire items were presented on a general level, referring to students' mastery goal orientation in school, for example. However, students do not show the same pattern of motivational orientations and school-related attitudes for every school subject and/or every situation in class. This argument particularly applies to the pursuit of mastery goals. Since several studies reported performance goals to be highly correlated across domains (mean rs about .80), mastery goals were found to be more distinct across domains (mean rs about .40; Bong, 2001; Sparfeldt, Buch, Wirthwein, & Rost, 2007). Moreover, students might use self-handicapping strategies more or less frequently dependent on the current learning situation and context. Although up to now no study has empirically examined the domain-specificity of school-related self-handicapping, it is reasonable to assume at least small variability in self-handicapping across domains. In light of these considerations, we think that results from the first and second study were probably influenced by a high degree of error variance, resulting in only partial empirical support for our hypotheses. By taking into account students' specific school subject and a specific learning situation (i.e., preparation for an exam) in Study 3, we obtained more consistent evidence for mastery goals as an important moderator

of the relations between certain variables and self-handicapping. This interpretation is also in line with a recent study by Steinmayr and Spinath (2009) which showed that domain-specifically assessed motivational constructs explained more variance in achievement than domain-generally assessed ones. Admittedly, we have not directly compared the effects of general vs. specific measures in Study 3, so we cannot be perfectly sure to have interpreted our findings correctly. However, the reasoning we provided here is in line with the literature on the domain specificity of motivational constructs (Bong, 2001; Steinmayr & Spinath, 2009). Furthermore, it is plausible to assume a certain amount of error variance being unconsidered when using too general measures, that this error variance might lead to biased results, and that error variance in turn is being reduced when using more specific measures. Nevertheless, more empirical evidence is needed to clarify the issue of specificity in the protective function of mastery goals. Regardless of statistical significance, the buffering effects of mastery goals on self-handicapping were rather small across all studies. This might question the theoretical and practical importance of our findings and further yield doubts on how far the results contribute to the literature on self-handicapping prevention. However, due to the following reasons we consider even these small effects to significantly enhance our understanding of how self-handicapping can be reduced. First, although mastery goals, self-esteem, and performance-avoidance goals have been frequently reported to be important determinants of selfhandicapping behaviors (Martin et al., 2001; Urdan & Midgley, 2001), the total variance explained in self-handicapping was also rather small across all studies. We thus deem it more important to focus on the relative increase in variance explanation. In doing so, we conclude that in Study 3, for example, the interaction between mastery and performance-avoidance goals explained quite a lot additional variance. Second, the amount of variance additionally explained by interactive goal effects has been similarly small to moderate in other achievement goal studies (e.g., Elliot & Church, 1997; Kaplan & Midgley, 1997; Linnenbrink, 2005). Third, even small effects can be meaningful depending on the importance of the behavior considered. Self-handicappers are at risk to initiate a vicious cycle of continued failures and further self-handicapping (Zuckerman et al., 1998). Consequently, students need to be shown an alternative way to maintain their self-worth in threatening situations. With respect to the individual student, seeing the world through the mastery lens (Urdan & Midgley, 2001) may comprise a very important first step on the way to a more adaptive self-regulation behavior. On a conceptual basis, we interpret our findings as a supplement for the self-esteem stabilizing effects of a mastery goal orientation.

Fig. 3. Mastery goals moderate the relation between self-esteem and self-handicapping as well as between performance-avoidance goals and self-handicapping (Study 3). Note. All predictors z-standardized. Low = 1 SD below mean, High = 1 SD above mean.

M. Schwinger, J. Stiensmeier-Pelster / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 699–709

707

Students who feel committed to the goals of task mastery and the development of one's competencies seem to be less prone to experience self-esteem threats elicited by failures or setbacks. Stated differently, there is no (or at least a smaller) link between performance in a given task and a person's self-esteem. Instead, mastery oriented students seem to link their performance to the task itself and to the solution of how to master it, thus leaving out a connection between task performance and self-esteem. As well, a mastery oriented person does not feel a boost in self-esteem in the case of success; likewise, this person seems to feel little disappointment and threat in the case of failure. In line with this missing link between performance and self-esteem, a mastery goal orientation may additionally lead persons to attribute low performance to specific, less stable and controllable factors like low effort or low attention. Certainly, these are rather preliminary interpretations. We assessed neither how students have perceived the link between performance and self-esteem nor their attributional style. However, the assumptions we made are consistent with results of several studies in motivational and self-esteem research (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Niiya et al., 2004; Rothbaum et al., 2009), which makes our interpretations more likely. Nevertheless, future research is needed to explore the effects of such proximal determinants in further detail.

Urdan, Kneisel, & Mason, 1999). In addition to actively increasing mastery goals, one should also be aware of unconsciously undermining mastery goals, for instance, by inconsiderately using performance-oriented terms when giving feedback to the students. That is, students may not only recognize the emphasis, but also the absence of a mastery goal climate (Urdan & Midgley, 2003). Besides these classroom interventions, goal orientations can also be altered by teaching students to adopt an incremental view of intelligence (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; Dweck & Leggett, 1988), that is, thinking of intelligence as a malleable quality that can be developed compared to seeing it as an unchangeable, fixed entity. Promoting an incremental view of intelligence is supposed to result in more general goal orientation changes, whereas classroom goal structure interventions mainly point to students' achievement goals in a specific domain. Taken together, there seem to be wellestablished procedures for successfully promoting mastery goals in students. Given the difficulties of self-esteem enhancement programs described in the Introduction, it thus appears more promising to focus on changes in students' achievement goals than on changes in their overall self-esteem.

5.1. Implications for educational practice

Though we provided preliminary evidence for a preventive effect of mastery goals on self-handicapping, the present research also comprises a number of limitations. First, our studies used a correlational design and we assessed self-handicapping with self-report measures only. Experimental studies should thus be conducted to provide a methodologically stronger justification for the assumed causal relationship between mastery goals and self-handicapping. An experiment by Elliot, Cury, Fryer, and Huguet (2006) may serve as a methodological guide in this regard (see also Lovejoy & Durik, 2010). They first manipulated students' achievement goals on a basketball dribbling task. Then, both behavioral and self-reported selfhandicapping opportunities were provided, and performance attainment was assessed. Both forms of self-handicapping independently mediated the influence of performance-avoidance goals on students' dribbling performance. A second limitation of our studies refers to the fact that we found the strongest support for our hypotheses in Study 3 which used course-specific measures of mastery goals and self-handicapping. That is, the buffering effects of domainspecifically endorsed mastery goals may be unlikely to generalize to academics in general. Such a conclusion would be in line with studies that reported a high domain-specificity of mastery goals (Bong, 2001; Sparfeldt et al., 2007). Nevertheless, it might also be possible to promote a more general tendency to pursue mastery goals at school overall. A good way to achieve this could be to strengthen an incremental view of intelligence (Blackwell et al., 2007). However, this question needs further elaboration in future studies. As a third limitation, the reported relations might be mediated by more proximal factors like beneficial achievement attributions. If and how such variables help explaining the connections between mastery goals and self-handicapping needs further examination. Fourth, we focused exclusively on self-handicapping as a well-established self-worth regulation strategy. However, we suppose that the preventive influence of mastery goals can be generalized to other forms of self-worth regulation like, for instance, downward social comparisons (Schimel et al., 2001) or self-affirmation (Siegel et al., 2005; Steele & Liu, 1983).

Previous studies had documented negative direct relations between mastery goals and self-handicapping (Midgley & Urdan, 2001), leaving open the impact of mastery goals in conjunction with other variables. As our results show, mastery goals exert their preventive influence even in combination with well-known risk factors for self-handicapping (i.e., low self-esteem and high performance-avoidance goals). Teachers and other persons who work in educational settings may, therefore, just need to promote mastery goals in their classroom in order to prevent students from self-handicapping because mastery goals seem to serve their purpose regardless of other motivational or self-related factors. This conclusion is in line with a recent study by Shim, Ryan, and Anderson (2008) who examined the association between adolescent students' achievement goals and their school achievement over four time points in 6th and 7th grade. They found that “students who increased their mastery goals exhibited greater gains in achievement across time.” (p. 668), independent of what other achievement goals they endorsed. Given the problems of intervention programs that aim to enhance students' self-esteem directly (Mruk, 2006), the rise of mastery goals in educational settings may provide a promising detour in order to achieve the same goal (i.e., to stabilize students' feelings of selfregard). In sum, the positive effects of mastery goals may be less obvious than previously expected (Ames, 1992), but may be rather hidden in the complex grid of human psychological experiences. There are several ways to increase students' mastery goal orientation. Foremost, emphasizing students' autonomy and providing intraindividual (compared to normative) evaluation criteria for good performance have been shown to be important prerequisites to create a mastery-structured context (Ames, 1992; Urdan & Midgley, 2003). Also important, teachers and practitioners need to cultivate a motivational classroom climate that defines mistakes as opportunities to learn and to improve, compared to a perspective in which mistakes are defined as personal failures (Linnenbrink, 2005). Such procedures have considerable effects since several studies across different domains and across different age levels have revealed the assumed causal relationship between mastery goal structures and personal mastery goals (Lau & Nie, 2008; Murayama & Elliot, 2009; Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2011; Wolters, 2004). Moreover, research has shown that when teachers consistently emphasize the valuing of learning and understanding the information presented in the classroom, students perceive a stronger mastery goal structure (Stipek, Givvin, Salmon, & MacGyvers, 1998; Turner et al., 2002;

5.2. Limitations and suggestions for further research

References Abela, J. R. Z., & Hankin, B. L. (2008). Cognitive vulnerability to depression in children and adolescents. In J. R. Z. Abela, & B. L. Hankin (Eds.), Handbook of depression in children and adolescents (pp. 35–78). NY: Guilford Press. Aguinis, H. (1995). Statistical power problems with moderated multiple regression in management research. Journal of Management, 21, 1141–1158. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

708

M. Schwinger, J. Stiensmeier-Pelster / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 699–709

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271. Arbuckle, J. (2007). Amos 16 user's guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.. Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 706–722. Baumeister, R., Smart, L., & Boden, J. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5–33. 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. Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263. Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task-value, and achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 23–34. Ciani, K. D., Middleton, M. J., Summers, J. J., & Sheldon, K. M. (2010). Buffering against performance classroom goal structures: The importance of autonomy support and classroom community. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 88–99, doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.11.001. Conley, C. S., Haines, B. A., Hilt, L. M., & Metalsky, G. I. (2001). The Children's Attributional Style Interview: Developmental tests of cognitive diathesis-stress theories of depression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 445–463. Coudevylle, G. R., Ginis, K. A. M., & Famose, J. -P. (2008). Determinants of self-handicapping strategies in sport and their effects on athletic performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 36, 391–398. Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press. Daniels, L. M., Haynes, T. L., Stupnisky, R. H., Perry, R. P., Newall, N. E., & Pekrun, R. (2008). Individual differences in achievement goals: A longitudinal study of cognitive, emotional, and achievement outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 584–608. Deppe, R. K., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Self-handicapping and intrinsic motivation: Buffering intrinsic motivation from the threat of failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 868–876. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72). New York: Guilford Press. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218–232. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (2003). A motivational analysis of defensive pessimism and self-handicapping. Journal of Personality, 71, 369–396. Elliot, A. J., Cury, F., Fryer, J. W., & Huguet, P. (2006). Achievement goals, selfhandicapping, and performance attainment: A mediational analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 28, 344–361. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519. Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 613–628. Ferring, D., & Filipp, S. -H. (1996). Messung des Selbstwertgefühls: Befunde zu Reliabilität, Validität und Stabilität der Rosenberg-Skala [Measurement of self-esteem: Findings on reliability, validity, and stability of the Rosenberg Scale]. Diagnostica, 42, 284–292. Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 4, 269–288. Greenberg, J. (1985). Unattainable goal choice as a self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 140–152. Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, S. M., Bodmann, S. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136, 422–449, doi:10.1037/a0018947. Jones, E. E., & Berglas, S. (1978). Control of attributions about the self through self-handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and underachievement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 200–206. Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1997). The effect of achievement goals: Does level of perceived academic competence make a difference? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 415–435, doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0943. Keller, J. (2002). Blatant stereotype threat and women's math performance: Self-handicapping as a strategic means to cope with obtrusive negative performance expectations. Sex Roles, 47, 193–198. Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attribution in social interaction. Morristown: General Learning Press. Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). Interplay between personal goals and classroom goal structures in predicting student outcomes: A multilevel analysis of person-context interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 15–29. Leonardelli, G. J., Lakin, J. L., & Arkin, R. M. (2007). A regulatory focus model of self-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 1002–1009. Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & den Elzen-Rump, V. (2007). Self-regulated learning with a texthighlighting strategy: A training experiment. Journal of Psychology, 215, 174–182. Linnenbrink, E. A. (2005). The dilemma of performance-approach goals: The use of multiple goal contexts to promote students' motivation and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 197–213.

Lovejoy, C. M., & Durik, A. M. (2010). Self-handicapping: The interplay between self-set and assigned achievement goals. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 242–252. Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: Exploring a model of predictors and outcomes from a self-protection perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 87–102. McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390. McCrea, S. M., & Hirt, E. R. (2011). Limitations on the substitutability of self-protection processes: Self-handicapping is not reduced by related-domain self-affirmations. Social Psychology, 42, 9–18, doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000038. McCrea, S. M., Hirt, E. R., & Milner, B. J. (2007). She works hard for the money: Valuing effort underlies gender differences in behavioral self-handicapping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.05.006. Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710–718. Midgley, C., Arunkumar, R., & Urdan, T. (1996). “If I don't do well tomorrow, there's a reason”: Predictors of adolescent's use of academic self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 423–434. Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic self-handicapping and achievement goals: A further examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 61–75. Moller, A. C., & Elliot, A. J. (2006). The 2 × 2 achievement goal framework: An overview of empirical research. In A. V. Mitel (Ed.), Focus on educational psychology (pp. 307–326). New York: Nova Science. Mruk, C. (2006). Self-esteem research, theory, and practice. New York: Springer. Murayama, K., & Elliot, A. J. (2009). The joint influence of personal achievement goals and classroom goal structures on achievement-relevant outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 432–447. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2009). Mplus user's guide (Fifth Edition). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346. Nicholls, J. G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S. (1985). Adolescents' theories of education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 683–692. Niiya, Y., Crocker, J., & Bartmess, E. N. (2004). From vulnerability to resilience: Learning goal orientations buffer contingent self-esteem from failure. Psychological Science, 15, 801–805. Pastor, D. A., Barron, K. E., Miller, B. J., & Davis, S. L. (2007). A latent profile analysis of college students' achievement goal orientation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 8–47. Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 128–150. Pulford, B. D., Johnson, A., & Awaida, M. (2005). A cross-cultural study of predictors of self-handicapping in university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 727–737. Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (1983). Determinants of reduction in intended effort as a strategy for coping with anticipated failure. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 412–422. Rhodewalt, F. (1990). Self-handicappers: Individual differences in the preference for anticipatory, self-protective acts. In R. L. Higgins, C. R. Snyder, & S. Berglas (Eds.), Self-handicapping: The paradox that isn't (S. 69–103). New York and London: Plenum Press. Rhodewalt, F. (1994). Conceptions of ability, achievement goals, and individual differences in self-handicapping behavior: On the application of implicit theories. Journal of Personality, 62, 67–85. Rhodewalt, F., & Davison, J. (1986). Self-handicapping and subsequent performance: The role of outcome valence and attributional ambiguity. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 307–322. Rhodewalt, F., Tragakis, M. F., & Finnerty, J. (2006). Narcissism and self-handicapping: Linking self-aggrandizement to behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 573–597. Rhodewalt, F., & Vohs, K. D. (2005). Defensive strategies, motivation, and the self: A self-regulatory process view. In A. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 548–565). NY: Guilford Publications. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rothbaum, F., Morling, B., & Rusk, N. (2009). How goals and beliefs lead people into and out of depression. Review of General Psychology, 13, 302–314. Scher, C. D., Ingram, R. E., & Segal, Z. V. (2005). Cognitive reactivity and vulnerability: Empirical evaluation of construct activation and cognitive diatheses in unipolar depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 487–510, doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2005.01.005. Schimel, J., Arndt, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (2001). Being accepted for who we are: Evidence that social validation of the intrinsic self reduces general defensiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 35–52. Schwinger, M. (2008). Selbstwertregulation im Lernprozess: Determinanten und Auswirkungen von Self-Handicapping [Self-worth regulation in the learning process: Antecedents and consequences of self-handicapping]. Doctoral dissertation: University of Giessen, Germany. Schwinger, M., & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2010). Zusammenhänge zwischen Self-Handicapping, Lernverhalten und Leistung in der Schule [The relationship between self-handicapping, learning behavior and achievement in school]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 38, 266–283. Schwinger, M., & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2011). Performance-approach and performanceavoidance classroom goals and the adoption of personal achievement goals. British Journal of Educational Psychology, doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2010.02012.x. Schwinger, M. & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (in press). Erfassung von Self-Handicapping im Lern- und Leistungsbereich: Eine deutschsprachige Adaptation der Academic Self-

M. Schwinger, J. Stiensmeier-Pelster / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 699–709 Handicapping Scale (ASHS-D) [Measurement of self-handicapping in the learning context: A German adaptation of the Academic Self-handicapping Scale (ASHS-D)]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie. Senko, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2005). Regulation of achievement goals: The role of competence feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 320–336. Shieh, G. (2009). Detecting interaction effects in moderated multiple regression with continuous variables: Power and sample size considerations. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 510–528. Shim, S. S., Ryan, A. M., & Anderson, C. J. (2008). Achievement goals and achievement during early adolescence: Examining time-varying predictor and outcome variables in growth-curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 655–671. Siegel, P. A., Scillitoe, J., & Parks-Yancy, R. (2005). Reducing the tendency to selfhandicap: The effect of self-affirmation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 589–597. Sparfeldt, J. R., Buch, S. R., Wirthwein, L., & Rost, D. H. (2007). Zielorientierungen: Zur Relevanz der Schulfächer [Goal orientations: The relevance of specific goal orientations as well as specific school subjects]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 39, 165–176. Spinath, B., & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2003). Goal orientation and achievement: The role of ability self-concept and failure perception. Learning and Instruction, 13, 403–422. Spinath, B., Stiensmeier-Pelster, J., Schöne, C., & Dickhäuser, O. (2002). Skalen zur Erfassung der Lern- und Leistungsmotivation (SELLMO) [Scales for the assessment of learning and achievement motivation]. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Steele, C. M., & Liu, T. J. (1983). Dissonance processes as self-affirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 5–19. Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2009). The importance of motivation as a predictor of school achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 80–90. Stipek, D., Givvin, K., Salmon, J., & MacGyvers, V. (1998). Can a teacher intervention improve classroom practices and student motivation in mathematics? Journal of Experimental Education, 66, 319–337. Swann, W. B. (1990). To be adored or to be known: The interplay of self-enhancement and self-verification. In R. M. Sorrentino, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, Vol. 2. (pp. 408–480)New York: Guilford Press. Swann, W. B., & Pelham, B. W. (2002). Who wants out when the going gets good? Psychological investment and preference for self-verifying college roommates. Journal of Self and Identity, 1, 219–233. Thomas, C. R., & Gadbois, S. A. (2007). Academic self-handicapping: The role of self-concept clarity and students' learning strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 101–119. Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Marsh, H. W., Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2006). Tracking, grading, and student motivation: Using group composition and status to predict self-concept and interest in ninth-grade mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 788–806, doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.788.

709

Tucker, J., Vuchinich, R., & Sobell, M. (1981). Alcohol consumption as a self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 220–230. Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, A. M., Kang, Y., et al. (2002). The classroom environment and students' reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 88–106. Urdan, T. (2004). Predictors of academic self-handicapping and achievement: Examining achievement goals, classroom goal structures and culture. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 251–264. Urdan, T., Kneisel, L., & Mason, V. (1999). Interpreting messages about motivation in the classroom: Examining the effects of achievement goal structures. In T. Urdan (Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement, vol. 11. (pp. 123–158)Stamford, CT7: JAI Press. Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2001). Academic self-handicapping: What we know, what more there is to learn. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 115–138. Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2003). Changes in the perceived classroom goal structure and pattern of adaptive learning during early adolescence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 524–551. Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E. (1998). The role of classroom goal structure in students' use of self-handicapping strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 101–122. vanDellen, M. R., Campbell, W. K., Hoyle, R. H., & Bradfield, E. K. (2011). Compensating, resisting, and breaking: A meta-analytic examination of reactions to self-esteem threat. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 51–74, doi: 10.1177/1088868310372950. Vonk, R. (2006). Improving self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Self-esteem issues and answers: A sourcebook of current perspectives (pp. 178–187). New York: Psychology Press. Wang, J. C. K., Biddle, S. J. H., & Elliot, A. J. (2007). The 2 × 2 achievement goal framework in a physical education context. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 147–168. Wentura, D., Kulfanek, M., & Greve, W. (2005). Masked affective priming by name letters: Evidence for a correspondence of explicit and implicit self-esteem. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 654–663. Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 189–205. Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students' motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 236–250. Zuckerman, M., Kieffer, S. C., & Knee, C. R. (1998). Consequences of self-handicapping: Effects on coping, academic performance, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 1619–1628. Zuckerman, M., & Tsai, F. F. (2005). Costs of self-handicapping. Journal of Personality, 73, 411–442.