The role of self-handicapping in social networks Bridgett J. Milner Edward R. Hirt Thanks to: Kristin Hendrix & Erin Steury

Self-Handicapping: Background Self-handicapping (SH) has been commonly defined as actively seeking or creating situations which will interfere with performance and therefore create an explanation for possible failure outside of individual ability attributions (Arkin and Baumgardner, 1985). SH has been described throughout current psychological literature as both a method of reducing threat to one’s self esteem (Jones and Berglas, 1978) and an impression management technique (Kolditz and Arkin, 1982).

Impression Management Direct examinations of how others view a SH target do indeed find attributional benefits regarding performance on the handicapped task. These attributional benefits concerning ability however, have been found to come at considerable interpersonal costs (Hirt, McCrea, Boris, 2003; Luginbuhl and Palmer, 1991; Rhodewalt, Sanbonmatsu, Tschanz, Feick, and Waller, 1995). When effort is withdrawn during SH, subjects tend to discount ability related attributions for the specific handicapped performance. Within this situation though, subjects still tend to evaluate targets overall ability or global intelligence quite negatively.

More on Impression Management Costs Beyond this, studies have found that subjects examined, particularly female subjects (and low self-handicappers in some studies), tend to dislike self-handicappers. “John” study by Luginbuhl and Palmer (1991) and “Chris” studies done in the Hirt lab. –Ss watch videos or read scenarios about a handicapping (or non- handicapping control) target, then rate the target on a variety of measures. Handicappers are judged to be disliked, unmotivated, lazy, undesirable as a friend, roommate, and study partner, and unable to be related to.

Implications of Self-Handicapping Costs The implications of these self-handicapping costs are that this strategy is ineffective for impression management purposes, particularly on a social level. The findings suggest that social lives of self-handicapping individuals would suffer, with their peers (particularly female and low self-handicapping individuals) responding quite negatively to them. Currently however nothing is known about the social lives of self-handicappers. It seems based on reactions to an abstract self-handicapper that these individuals would be despised. Conversely however, these people seem sort of fun….

To determine how self-handicappers navigate their social worlds, this study began by trying to develop a general picture of what the social networks of high and low self- handicappers look like. This study also attempted to examine how well self-handicappers understand and can predict reactions to their behavior. Social Networks For this study the social networks beings examined are friendships. In particular, friends recruited to join a study and friends listed as activity partners and close friends were examined.

Questions Addressed Are laboratory reactions to an abstract self-handicapper similar to reactions to self-handicapping individuals in real life situations? Or is it the case that when the self- handicapping individual is known, judgments are less severe? –Following scenario study findings, is it the case that high self-handicappers have fewer female friends? –Are the social worlds of self-handicapping individuals primarily composed of other self-handicappers, thereby creating a greater value for this type of behavior? –Are self-handicapping individuals actually more skilled at interpersonal relationships, with large numbers of close friends, due to their willingness to always put off work and instead have a good time?

Further Questions Are high self-handicappers aware of the negative reactions associated with their behavior? Do they accurately understand social norms and the beliefs of their friends concerning this behavior?

Method As a starting point for the exploration of self-handicappers’ social networks a replication of Snyder, Gangestad, and Simpson’s (1983) methodology was attempted. In addition to this participants were asked to list their close friends and provide details on each relationship. Specific questions related to SH were also asked using a survey methodology. These questions focused on sympathy and normative beliefs regarding self-handicapping behaviors. SH was assessed using the SH scale. Self-monitoring and self-esteem were also measured.

Method continued 198 Subjects (86 male, 112 female) participated in this questionnaire study. Each subject arrived in a pair, accompanied by a friend.

Results: Self-Monitoring Relationship Self-monitoring and SH scale scores were found to correlate r =.243, p=.001. A replication of Snyder’s findings regarding the compartmentalization of high self-monitors social networks was not found. (Snyder found that high self-monitors tended to have high variance across activities for the friends they listed (so do one activity with one friend, another with another friend, etc---compartmentalized social networks) while lows tended to have a “best friend” with whom they did everything. )

Results: Structure of Network No differences between high and low self-handicappers were found in the number of close friends listed; closeness to friends; amount of time spent with friends; the presence or absence of a significant other; or the proportion of female friends listed. Regarding the friend accompanying them to the study: no differences between high and low self-handicappers were found in closeness or knowledge of their peer; self- handicapping scores were uncorrelated.

Results: sympathy expectations Differences were found across high and low self- handicappers regarding expectations of the sympathy that they would receive from the friend that accompanied them were handicapping to occur t(195)= , p<.001 (high expected more). Actual differences in the sympathy friends reported they would feel did not exist. Differences were also found across high and low self- handicappers regarding how sympathetic people in general are towards self-handicapping behaviors t(195)= , p<.001 (highs again expected more). Overall participants reported they would have greater sympathy were handicapping done by a friend rather than a more general other t(197)=3.847, p<.001.

Results: Normative beliefs regarding effort Differences were found between high and low self- handicappers regarding normative beliefs about effort. High self-handicappers (as compared to low self- handicappers) felt that people in general do not value effort and hard work t(196)=2.515, p=.013.

Conclusions These results suggest that while within scenario studies very negative reactions to self-handicapping targets are found, these behaviors may not impact social networks. –There are a variety of possible explanations for this which are currently being investigated. Perhaps friends are unaware of one another’s self-handicapping tendencies and so these tendencies do not impact social networks. Another possibility is that while scenario targets who handicap are disliked, when it is a friend the behavior is excused.

Conclusions continued Overall self-handicappers seem unaware of negative costs associated with these behaviors and expect more sympathy and see effort withdrawal as more normative than is actually the case.