Journal of Positive School Psychology http://journalppw.

com
2022, Vol. 6, No. 9, 234-243

The Self-Handicapping Scale: Development And Validation

In Indian Context
Ms. Mandeep Kaur1 , Dr. Navdeep Singh Raji2

1
Research Scholar, Department of Education, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, India,
[email protected]
2
Assistant Professor., Department of Education, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, India,
[email protected]

ABSTRACT

Self-Handicapping is a human tendency that can be defined in terms of behavioral patterns that involve the
creation of barriers to human performance, so that in the event of failure, obstacles are caused rather than
important personal traits such as skill or intelligence. The main objective of the present study was to develop
and validate the “Self-Handicapping Scale” in Indian context. Self-Handicapping of tertiary students will
be measured by using this scale. The study sample consisted of six hundred (300 boys and 300 girls) higher
education students. Random Sampling was used to select the sample. For content and face validity opinions
from experts were taken. Factor analysis was performed on sample responses. The results concluded that
Self-Handicapping is comprised of two dimensions namely “Claimed Self-Handicapping” and
“Behavioural Self-Handicapping”. Cronbach's alpha of “Self-Handicapping Scale” (α=.779), indicators of
internal consistency represent good internal integrity. The results revealed the presence of important
psychometric features of the structured questionnaire.

Keywords: “Self-handicapping” and Higher Education Students.

INTRODUCTION “Self-Handicapping” is a constrct with two

distinct elements: “Claimed Self-Handicapping
“Self-handicapping” is the process where
and Behavioural Self-Handicapping”; Claimed
“individuals pull out effort, generate hindrances
Self-handicapping always identify some
to success, or make excuses so they can uphold a
hindering factors or obstacles and they are not
public or self-image of being competent (Decker
convinced that they can taste failure. Owing to
& Mitchell, 2016)”. Broadly, “self-
this they did not sabotage performance on a given
handicapping” consists of conscious or
task through risky behaviors instead they rely on
unconscious thoughts and behaviors that emerge
attributional ambiguity resulting from Self-
from fear or uncertainty of failure (Bryson,
Handicapping (Coudevylle et al., 2008). Claimed
2019). By self-handicapping, man produces a
handicaps involves issues about physical
prior meaning of possible failure. “Self-
symptoms or disease (Mello-Goldner & Jackson,
Handicapping” can also improve personal
1999), inflated pain (Uysal & Lu, 2010) as well
qualities due to increased personal debt of
as reference to mood (Baumgardner et al., 1985).
success where accomplishment was not
Behavioural Self-Handicapping include, such as,
anticipated (Luginbuhl & Palmer, 1991; Ryska,
impact of drugs (Berglas & Jones, 1978),
2002).
235 Journal of Positive School Psychology

procrastination (Ferrari & Tice, 2000) or Method CVR (content rating) proposed by
performing a task without enhancing the level of Lawshe (1975) a straightforward change in the
their efforts (Rhodewalt et al., 1984) or even with level of the agreement of how many “experts”
less efforts (Thompson & Richardson, 2001). within the rating scale is calculated. At this point,
Another specific form of behavioural Self- an item less than 0.75 was rejected.
Handicapping could be the phenomenon of other-
STANDARDIZATION OF THE SCALE
enhancement (Shepperd & Arkin, 1991).
SAMPLE
ITEM SCALING, CONSTRUCTION For standardizing the “Self-Handicapping Scale”
AND DEVELOPMENT: constitutes of 37 items, a pilot study was
conducted, and an initial tryout was conducted.
The researcher used deductive approach for
For the pilot study, data was collected from 600
generating the items for tool construction. The
higher education students of Punjab which were
deductive approach is requiring comprehension
selected randomly. The sample comprised of
of the construct to be investigate and an extensive
50% male and 50% female students. Data was
review of literature to develop the theoretical
collected on the hard copies of the tools after
meaning of the construct under investigation. The
getting the permission of administrative
first pool of 37 objects was prepared after the
authorities of colleges and universities.
construction of the concept framework,
Investigator personally visited the classes for
distributed over the two dimensions of
getting questionnaires filled for the purpose of
Behavioral self-handicapping and Claimed Self
data analysis.
Handicapping
ITEM ANALYSIS
VALIDITY
After Pilot study, Discrimination Index was
A psychological instrument is considered valid if
measured to find out the discriminatory power of
it measures what is expected or said to be
37 items by calculating t-value so that the final
measured. In other words, the test's effectiveness
tool can be constructed. A Likert –type scale was
is exactly the same as the clearly defined
used with choices namely “Strongly Disagree,
procedure. Both the Facial Verification and
Disagree, Not Sure, Agree & Strongly Agree”.
Content Verification of the Self-Handicapping
The individual scores of 600 students were
Scale were determined based on the expert
ranked higher to lower order. Further 27%
opinion of the six subject experts.
students from upper group and 27% students
FACE VALIDITY: from lower group were sorted for the calculation
of discriminatory power of each of the items of
To measure the facial suitability of the “Self-
the tool. Next considering each item individually,
Handicapping Scale”, the views of professional
the number of students was found who answered
experts were noted. Based on their point of view
“Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Not Sure, Agree &
there were systemic errors and there were indirect
Strongly Agree” for the upper group and lower
questions. Based on their ideas, the names of the
group separately. In this way, for all 37 items, the
objects have been changed.
number of students coming under each category
CONTENT VALIDITY “Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Not Sure, Agree &
Strongly Agree” was found out for the upper
According to academic jurisdiction, the content group and lower group separately, and the
verification indicator is calculated by Lawshe's
Ms. Mandeep Kaur 236

discrimination index was greater than 1.99. All repetition cycles of material analysis have been
the items possessed more than 1.99 used in the data set for the purpose of improving
discrimination index, so no item gets deleted. material composition. The total variability
defined and the number of output items were
CONSTRUCT VALIDITY
checked after each duplication. Items with a
To access the construct validity of the scale, communality value of less than .40 were
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used removed, this resulted in the removal of 25 items.
using “IBM SPSS Statistics software version 22. To determine the value of the feature analysis the
EFA was performed with a sample size of 600 researcher used Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) to
students on items with fixing two factors to be assess the suitability of the sample, the calculated
extracted after face validity, content validity and KMO value was 0.829 which is above the limit
item analysis. value. According to Tabachnick and Fidell
(1996) of fine material the minimum value of
EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS Kaiser Meyer-Olkin (KMO) should be 0.60. The
In the initial trail of extracting the factors, all the overlooked value level was indicated by Bartlett's
37 items were made under the “Principal Sparticity test. Both measures showed that the
Component Analysis” extraction method with sample data was sufficient to perform the
“Oblimin” Rotation method. The investigator analysis. Two factors displayed eigen values
allows items to be measured freely and did not greater than 1 (Kaiser, 1960) with 48.772% of
specify the number of factors a priori. Numerous total variance explained.

Table 1: Total Variance Explained

“Total Variance Explained”

Compo “Initial Eigenvalues” “Extraction Sums of Squared “Rotation Sums of Squared

nent Loadings” Loadings”

“Total “% of “Cumulative “Total “% of “Cumulative “Total “% of “Cumulative

” Variance %” ” Variance %” ” Variance %”
” ” ”

1 3.993 33.278 33.278 3.993 33.278 33.278 3.661 30.512 30.512

2 1.859 15.495 48.772 1.859 15.495 48.772 2.191 18.260 48.772

3 .957 7.976 56.749

4 .841 7.006 63.755

5 .805 6.707 70.462

6 .669 5.579 76.040

7 .662 5.517 81.557

8 .550 4.587 86.144

9 .489 4.077 90.222

237 Journal of Positive School Psychology

10 .442 3.685 93.907

11 .370 3.083 96.989

12 .361 3.011 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table 2: Factor loading of the Extracted two factors of Self-Handicapping Scale

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2

SH1 .748

SH2 .682

SH4 .746

SH5 .705

SH6 .718

SH9 .549

SH12 .649

SH19 .650

SH20 .594

SH22 .714

SH23 .733

SH24 .658

CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS from the test material. Model indices were
CMIN/DF at 5.796, Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
Verified object analysis is a separate case of
at .860, and Root Mean Square of Approximation
Structural Equation Modeling called linear
(RMSEA) at .093. The total number of model
relationship structures (Sorborm & Joreskog,
measurement indices does not satisfy threshold
2004). A validation factor analysis is a
values but is close to the limit value. We can
mathematical method that has previously
therefore say that the model is moderately
confirmed the formation of a feature of a group of
proportional. Figure 1 gives an overview of the
notable variables. Investigator used a version of
verification model.
SPSS Amos 22, CFA applied to 2 items extracted
Ms. Mandeep Kaur 238

Figure 1: Path Diagram of Self-Handicapping the scale. Results indicated that 0.779 is the
Scale coefficient alpha value for the scale which is
more than the threshold value 0.60 (Kline,1999).
CRONBACH’S ALPHA RELIABILITY
Thus, the scale has internal consistency.
To determine the internal consistency of the scale
FINAL DRAFT OF SCALE
Coefficient of Alpha (Cronbach, 1951) was
Final Draft of Self-Handicapping scale constitute
calculated to measure the internal consistence of
of 12 items distributed among two dimensions.
239 Journal of Positive School Psychology

Self-handicapping Scale

“SA - Strongly Agree” “NS - Not Sure” “DA – Disagree”

“A – Agree” “SDA - Strongly Disagree”

NO SA A NS DA SDA
1 When I do something wrong, my first intention
is to blame the circumstances.
2 Sometimes I get depressed that even easy tasks
become difficult.
3 I would have done lot better if I tried harder.
4 I generally hate to be in any condition other than
“at my best”.
5 I feared being out of control in a situation
6 My anxiety interferes with my performance
7 My worthiness depends on how well I do, so I
must do well.
8 Someday, due to use of medicines I think I might
“get it all together”.
9 Sometimes, I participate in final task without
increase effort or with reduce effort.
10 Sometimes purposely, I get involved in a lot of
co-curricular activities, so don’t do as well on
my work as hoped.
11 Sometimes I suffer with severe headache in a
performance situation.
12 Fearing of making mistakes and trauma in early
childhood, are the internal factors which
influence my performance.

SCORING PROCEDURE: “Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Not Sure, Agree,

Strongly Agree”.
“Self-Handicapping Scale” is a 5 point Likert
scale. Each item has five response options namely

Table 3 SCORING PROCEDURE OF SELF-HANDICAPPING SCALE

ITEMS Strongly Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree

Disagree
Ms. Mandeep Kaur 240

0 1 2 3 4

LIMITATIONS 3. Amthauer, R., Brocke, B., Liepmann, D.,

&Beauducel, A. (1999).
In present study, researcher has followed the
IntelligenzStruktur Test
reliable and valid scale development processes
4. 2000. Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000 I-S-
but, still the scale has some limitations. The
T 2000. [Intelligence-Structure-Test
numbers of higher education students can be
2000. IS-
increased and students from other levels of
5. T 2000].
education can be included. The study is limited to
the higher education students studying in Punjab,
6. Anderson, C. A. (1983). Motivational
it can be replicated on the other part of the
and Performance Deficits in
country. Concurrent can be calculated.
Interpersonal Settings: The
CONCLUSION 7. Effect of Attributional Style. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45,
The questionnaire developed and validated by the 1136-
investigator will assess the “self-handicapping” 8. 1147.
of higher education students. The cardinal aim of 9. Arkin, R. M. (1981). Self-presentation
this research paper is to develop and validate a styles. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression
scale which would produce reliable and valid management
results in measuring “self-handicapping” of the 10. and social psychological research (pp.
students at tertiary level in Indian Context. 311-333). San Diego, CA: Academic
Current study has employed the meticulous Press.
methodological process to quantitatively develop
and validate a scale assessing “self- 11. Arkin, R. M., Gabrenya, W. K. Jr.,
handicapping” behaviour of students at tertiary Appelman, A. S., & Cochran, S. T.
level. After applying EFA and CFA, final draft (1979). Self- Presentation, Self-
includes 12. It is a 5-point Likert scale. The range Monitoring, and the Self-Serving Bias in
of the score lie between 0 to 4. Four for “strongly Causal Attribution. Personality and
agree” and Zero for “strongly disagree”. Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 73-76.
REFERENCES
12. Arkin, R. M., Appelman, A. J., & Burger,
1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). J. M. (1980). Social Anxiety, Self-
Multiple Regression: Testing and Presentation, and
Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park: 13. the Self-Serving Bias in Causal
Sage. Attribution. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 38, 23-35.
2. Albert, S. (1977). Temporal Comparison
Theory. Psychological Review, 84(6), 14. Arkin, R. M., &Baumgardner, A. H.
485-503. (1985). Self-handicapping. In J. H.
Harvey & G. W.
241 Journal of Positive School Psychology

15. Weary (Eds.), Attribution: Basic Issues Motivation (pp. 69-164). Lincoln:
and Applications (pp. 169-202). San University of Nebraska Press.
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
25. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The
16. Arkin, R. M., &Baumgardner, A. H. Exercise of Control. New York, NY, US:
(1985b). The Facilitative Effects of W. H.Freeman.
Providing a Handicap. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Missouri, 26. Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Lee-
Columbia. Chai, A., Barndollar, K., &Trötschel, R.
(2001). The
17. Arkin, R. M. &Oleson, K. C. (1998). 27. Automated Will: Nonconscious
Self-handicapping. In J. M. Darley & J. Activation and Pursuit of Behavioral
Cooper (Eds.) Attribution and Social Goals. Journalof Personality and Social
Interaction: The Legacy of Edward E. Psychology, 81, 1014-1027.
Jones (pp. .
28. Baumeister, R. E. (1984). Choking
18. Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational Under Pressure: Self-Counsciousness
Determinants of Risk-taking Behaviour. and ParadoxicalEffects of Incentives on
Psychological Skillful Performance. Journal of
19. Review, 64, 359-372. Personality and SocialPsychology, 46,
610-620.
20. Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An Introduction
to Motivation. In D. McClelland (Ed.), 29. Baumeister, R. E. (1996). Self-
The University Series in Psychology. D. Regulation and Ego Threat: Motivation
Van Nostrand Company, Inc. Toronto, Cognition, Self-Deception, and
Princeton, Desctructive Goal Setting. In Gollwitzer,
21. New York, London. P. M., &Bargh, J. A. (1996).The
psychology of action: Linking Cognition
22. Bailis, D. S. (2001). Benefits of Self- and Motivation to Behavior (p.27-
handicapping in Sport: A Field Study of 47).New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
University Athletes. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science, 33(4), 213-223. 30. Berglas, S. (1985). Self-handicapping –
Etiological and Diagnostic
23. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Considerations. InHiggins, R. L., Snyder,
Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral C. R., &Berglas, S. (Eds.). Self-
Change. Psychological Review, 84, 191- handicapping – the paradoxthat isn’t.
215. New York: Plenum Press.

24. Bandura, A. (1991). Self-regulation of 31. Berglas, S. & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug
motivation through anticipatory and self- Choice as a Self-Handicapping Strategy
reactive mechanisms. In R. Dienstbier in Response to Noncontingent Success.
(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Journal of Personality and Social
Motivation: Vol 38.Perspectives on Psychology, 36, 405-417.
Ms. Mandeep Kaur 242

32. Boninger, D. S., Gleicher, F., of the selfhandicapping Strategy. Journal

&Strathman, A. (1994). Counterfactual of Personality and Social Psychology,
Thinking: From What 43(3), 492-502.
33. Might Have Been to What May Be.
Journal of Personality and Social 45. Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., Reed, G.
Psychology, 67,297-307. M., Bower, J. E., &Gruenewald, T. L.
(2000).Psychological Resources,
34. Cattel, R. B., &Cattell, A. K. S. (1961). Positive Illusions, and Health. American
Test of „g“: Culture Fair Intelligence Psychologist,55(1), 99-109.
Test.
35. Champaign, IL: The Institute for 46. Taylor, S. E., Lerner, J., Sherman, D. K.,
Personality and Ability Testing. Sage, R. M., & McDowell, N. K. (2003).
Are Self-
36. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied 47. Enhancing Cognitions Associated With
Multiple Regression / Correlation Healthy or Unhealthy Biological
Analysis for the Profiles?Journal of Personality and
a. Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Social Psychology, 85(4), 605-615.
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale,
New Jersey. 48. Tice, D. M. (1991). Esteem Protection or
Enhancement? Self-Handicapping
Motives and
37. Ferrari, J. R. (1992). Procrastinators and
49. Attributions Differ by Trait Self-Esteem.
Perfect Behavior: An Exploratory Factor
Journal of Personality and
Analysis of
SocialPsychology, 60(5), 711-725.
38. Self-Presentation, Self-Awareness, and
Self-Handicapping Components. Journal
50. Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed,
of Research in Personality, 26, 75-84.
L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. (1971).
Perceiving the
39. Festinger, L. (1954). A Theory of Social
51. Causes of Success and Failure.
Comparison Processes. Human
Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Relations, 7,117-140.
52. Weiner, B., Amirkhan, J., Folkes, V. S.,
40. Gibbons, F. X., &Gaeddert, W. P.
&Verette, J. A. (1987). An Attributional
(1984). Focus of Attention and Placebo
Analysis of
Utility. Journal of
53. Excuse Giving: Studies of a Naive
41. Experimental Social Psychology, 20,
Theory of Emotion. Journal of
159-17
Personality and Social psychology,
52(2), 316-324.
42. Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attributions in
social interaction. Morristown, N. J.:
54. Wilson, T. D., &Schooler, J. W. (1991).
General Learning
Thinking Too Much: Introspection Can
43. Press.
Reduce the

44. Kolditz, T. A., &Arkin, R. M. (1982). An

Impression Management Interpretation
243 Journal of Positive School Psychology

55. Quality of Preferences and Decisions. among competitive athletes: The role of
Journal of Personality and Social practice in self-esteem protection. Basic
Psychology, 60(2), 181-192. and Applied Social Psychology, 5, 197-
209.
56. Zuckerman, M., Kieffer, S. C., & Knee,
C. R. (1998). Consequences of Self-
Handicapping:Effects on Coping, 61. Shepperd, J. A., & Arkin, R. M. (1991):
Academic Performance, and Adjustment. Behavioral other-enhancement:
Journal of Personalityand Social Strategically obscuring the link between
Psychology, 74(6), 1619-1628. performance and evaluation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60,
57. Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978): Drug 79-88.
choice as a self-handicapping strategy in
response to noncontingent success.
Journal of Personality and Social 62. Uysal, A., & Lu, Q. (2010): Self-
Psychology, 36, 405- 417. handicapping and pain catastrophizing.
Personality and Individual Differences,
49, 502-505.
58. Ferrari, J. R., & Tice, D. M. (2000):
Procrastination as a self-handicap for
men and women: A task avoidance 63. Coudevylle, G. R., Martin Ginis, K. A.,
strategy in a laboratory setting. Journal of & Famose, J.-P. (2008): Determinants of
Research in Personality, 34, 73-83. self-handicapping strategies in sport and
their effects on athletic performance.
Social Behavior and Personality, 36,
59. Thompson, T., & Richardson, A. (2001): 391-398.
Self-handicapping status, claimed self-
handicaps and reduced practice effort
following success and failure feedback. 64. Baumgardner, A. H., Lake, E. A., &
British Journal of Educational Arkin, R. M. (1985): Claiming mood as a
Psychology, 71, 151-170. self-handicap: The influence of spoiled
and unspoiled public identities.
Personality and Social Psychology
60. Rhodewalt, F., Saltzman, A. T., & Bulletin, 11, 349-357.
Wittmer, J. (1984): Self-handicapping