The study investigated the possibility of emotions to predict Self-handicapping among students in a bid to achieve their academic goals and performance. Self-handicapping can be defined as any choice or act of performance setting that improves the opportunity to externalise or excuse failure and internalise success. In other words, it is the uncertainty about the ability of an individual including anticipated threats to ones’ self-esteem. Previous literature has defined self-handicapping as a cognitive strategy to withhold their efforts in a bid to take a safe position and save their self-esteem from hurting or ‘injuries’. These would only mean that the individual is afraid of making an effort so that to avoid frustration and shame on their self-esteem. According to Berglas & Jones (1978) the construction of barriers or impediments to performance with the intention of protecting or enhancing one’s perceived competence. In most instances self-handicapping manifests itself in different individuals by way of effort withdrawal, procrastinating, claims of anxiety or illness before the performance (Urdan & Midgley, 2001). For those facing challenges, seeking psychology dissertation help can provide valuable insights into overcoming self-handicapping behaviours.
Most of the previous scholars agree that the act of academic self-handicapping impacts negatively on the educational improvement and results of different students like motivation and achievements (Martin et al. 2001). It is important to note that emotions are a crucial element to self-handicapping because they are the root cause of the same. The individuals could not be involved in the same if it were not for their emotional well-being that they think they need protection from public criticism, embarrassment or disgrace. The presence of low self-esteem and emotional imbalance can lead to some of these symptoms or behaviours which display signs of self-handicapping.
H1: The predictor variables predict the criterion variable
There are different researchers who have covered the self-handicapping; these researchers have covered the same in different perspectives and from different angles. In terms of academic performance, a study by Leondari & Gonida (2007) found that there was a correlation between the self-handicapping and achievement among elementary as compared to the same existing among high-school students. According to literature, there are different types of hand-capping, hand capping can either be categorised as behavioural or claimed self-handicapping. Leary & Shepperd, 1986). The two types or categories of self-handicapping can be distinguished from each other in terms of cost benefits analysis (Hirt, Depped & Gordon, 1991). Behavioural handicaps have been defined as more credible since they are more attached to performance and are results based, this is as opposed to the claimed handicaps category. However, the former has been defined as more costly and expensive. Further, claimed handicaps have been having in most cases been reported as an excuse for failure, but the same cannot be said to cause or to affect an individual’s potential for success as would be with the case of behavioural handicaps (Zuckerman & Tsai, 2005).
Most studies which have covered the self-handicapping and achievements have ended up using either Academic Self-Handicapping Scale (ASHS) or the Self-Handicapping Scale (SHS) (Midgley & Urdan, 1995). Zuckerman al (1998) reported that the ASHS has been adopted and applied it to their original formats. On the other hand, the SHS was also reported to have been used in not only their original form but also in short versions with 10 & 14 items respectively.
The study performed by Hattie (2009) (r = 0.10; 0.20; and 0.30), Urdan (2004) (r = -0.08) and Wesley (1994) (r = -0.07) on self-handicapping and emotions found that there is weak or small relationship between emotions and self-handicapping.
In contrast to the above studies, the study by Elliot and Church (2003) revealed that there is a negative association (r = -0.15) between exam performance and self-handicapping. This is in line with most of the studies which show there is a moderately negative association between exam performance and self-handicapping. The study performed by Elliot and Church (2003) was in line with the study performed by Martin, Marsh, and Debus (2001b; r = -0.19); Zuckerman et al. (1998; r = -0.20); and McCrea and Hirt (2001; r = -0.23).
Contrary to the above studies, researcher conducted by other authors such as Midgley & Urdan (2001) have reported fairly larger correlations of, for instance, r= -0.40; Gadbois & Sturgeon (2011) (r = -0.38), Shih (2005) (r = -0.33, and Midgley & Urdan (1995) (r = -0.38).
Even though the functionalities of both the ASHS and SHS have a level of interactions, the two are considerably different especially in their systems and functioning of the same in self-handicapping. Previous studies have related the formulation and development of ASHS to the existing theory (Midgley, 2001). Midgley argued that there are three characteristics of a valid self-handicapping item. According to the study, one of the characteristics included behavioural, which include the withdrawal of effort or need to try. The same was used in order to apply limited efforts and concertation in the task at hand. It was reported that all the items that characterise ASHS were developed by use of the said recommendations. In terms of academic performance, a student will withdraw effort during the normal school period so that they can flag the same as the reason for failure at the end of the semester upon receiving of the performance report.
In this regards the present study focuses on the impact of six types of emotions, namely; Anger, Anxiety, Boredom, Enjoy, Pride, and Hopeless on Self-handicapping (SH). Through this research, the researcher tries to establish whether or not self-handicapping is an obstacle for academic achievement for many students.
In total 79 participants were selected with include both males and females participants. A self-handicapping questionnaire was used to collect the responses of the participants, which was based on Self-handicapping scale. The self-handicapping scale was based on a Likert five-point scale where 1 represents completely disagree, and 5 represents completely agree. The questionnaires were set up and put online using a piece of snap professional software. Participants were invited to complete the questionnaire online through social media.
Reliability Statistics
The researcher first undertook the reliability test by use of Statistical Packages for Social Sciences in order to get the reliability of the data by use of the Cronbach test. The findings for the Cronbach alpha above show that the coefficient was 0.802 which indicates a significant level of internal consistency. The same output on the different reliability tables (statistics) shows that the Cronbach coefficient was equal or greater than 0.7 suggesting that the items have relatively high internal consistency.
As per table 2, reliability statistics, the Cronbach’s Alpha for all the six emotional scale is coming out to be greater than 0.70. This shows that the questionnaire used for data collection is highly reliable and will give similar results every time.
The study presented the outputs of the data with the sex of the respondents being assigned dummy values that is 1 for male and 2 for female. The table above shows the findings that are the summary statistics for the 79 participants (n=79), the same shows the descriptive statistics for Anger, Anxiety, Boredom, Enjoy, Hopeless, Pride and SHS. The predictor variable Anger had 9 observations with a minimum and a maximum of 1.00 and 4.22 respectively. The same had a mean of 2.5174; SD = 0.733431. The second explanatory variable was Anxiety with a mean of 2.9513; SD = 0.3957. The same variable had a minimum and a maximum of 1 and 4.91uits respectively. The explanatory variable Boredom had a mean of 2.617; SD = 0.83510, the variable had a minimum value of 1 and a maximum value of 5 owing to the values of the variable attached by the Statistical Packages for Social Sciences. The Self-Handicapping Scale or indicators was attached to a mean of 1.809; SD = 0.77296. It was further established that the Self-Handicapping Scale had a minimum and a maximum of 1 and 3.67respectively. The variable Hopeless had a minimum and a maximum of 1 and 4.64units respectively. The same variable had a mean of 2.384; SD = 0.89941. The predictor Pride was estimated to have a mean of 3.6928; SD = 0.70474. The same had an estimated minimum and maximum of 1.33 and 5.00respectively. Finally, the predictor variable tagged as Enjoy had a mean of 3.6293; SD =0.54481.
In order to test whether there is multicollinearity in the dataset, an inter-item correlation was performed between the variables. Multi-collinearity exists if there is a significantly high correlation between the variables, that is (r>0.8). The following table shows the correlation analysis between the variables.
The above information shows the correlation matrix which displays the linear relationship between the different predictor variables in this study.
The same shows that there was a positive linear relationship between the variable ‘ANGER’ and ‘ANXIETY’. The correlation coefficient between these two variables is 0.703; the same is less than the critical value 0.9. There was also a positive linear relationship between ‘SHS’ and ‘ANGER’, the correlation coefficient between the two variables was 0.471. This is lower than the critical value which is 0.9units.
The findings also show a weak or insignificant positive linear relationship between the ‘SHS’ ad the ‘ANXIETY’. The two variables had a coefficient of 0.183unit. The linear relationship can be defined as weak due to the coefficient. The dependent variable SHS had a positive linear relationship with the variable ‘BOREDOM’. The two variables had a coefficient of 0.402; this is less than the critical value of 0.9. The same can, however, be described as a significant linear relationship. This means that an increase in one of the variable increases the other variable. The same also means that the variables can increase linearly together.
The correlation coefficient between the variables ‘SHS’ and ‘ENJOY’ was -0.087, this shows the negative linear relationship between the two variables that is ‘SHS’ and ‘ENJOY. This means that a negative linear relationship exists between the two variables that as one of the two changes effects a negative change on the other. Such that their linear relationship.
The equation on the model summary table shows the results of the estimated model for this study. The findings show that the R2-value was 0.336; this means that the predictor variables in the estimated model by the study explain 33.6% of the model. The results also imply that the rest of the model is explained by the error term and or the other control variables which have not been included in the study.
ANOVAThe information on the ANOVA table above shows the results of the sum of squares and the mean of squares. The F-statistic was established to be at 5.995units.
The findings on the ANOVA table also display the Sig. Value for the model which is at a low of 0.00005. The significant coefficient for the model is less than the critical value which is 0.05. F (6, 71) = 5.995; p < 0.05.
This means that the model is a good fit and as such, it had goodness of fit courtesy of the low significant value and that the predictor variables explain the changes in the predicted (dependent) value which is Self-Handicapping Scale (SHS).
The significant value-coefficient shows that the study failed to accept the Null hypothesis. This means that the researcher found that the criterion variable is explained by the predictor variables. The ANOVA tells of the significance of the regression model and the predictor in this study is predicting the dependent variables as is evidenced by the significant value which is 0.000.
SHS = 0.246 + 0.613ANGER – 0.257ANXIETY – 0.333PRIDE – 0.084HOPELESS + 0.436ENJOY + 0.261BOREDOM
The coefficient table above shows the findings of the model and the different coefficients showing the type of relationship existing between the dependent and the explanatory variables. As the above regression equation shows:
The constant value for the model that is beta was 0.246. The first predictor variable which is ‘ANGER’ had a coefficient of 0.613, this shows that the variable had a positive relationship with the dependent variable ‘SHS’. This means that an increase in ‘ANGER’ leads to an increase in the Self-Handicapping Scale. The exact information of results attached to ‘ANGER’ means that a unit increase in the predictor variable anger would lead to a 0.613units increase in the ‘SHS’ at ceteris paribus.
The second variables ‘ANXIETY’ had a negative coefficient; this means that the predictor variable had an inverse relationship with the dependent variable. The fact that the predictor variable had a negative relationship with the dependent variable means that a negative change in the predictor variable ‘ANXIETY’ leads to a positive change in the dependent variable. The explanatory variable had a coefficient of -0.257. This means that a unit increase in the explanatory variable ‘ANXIETY’ leads to a -0.257decrease in the ‘SHS’ with all other factors held constant. Thus, the following would also be true that a unit decrease in the ‘ANXIETY’ would lead to a 0.257units increase in the ‘SHS’. The same means that a reduction in the anxiety would lead to the application of more efforts and achievement of the desired academic performance by the student at ceteris paribus.
The explanatory variable ‘PRIDE’ had a negative relationship with the predicted variable ‘SHS’. The inverse relationship was informed by the negative coefficient of -0.333 which was attached to the explanatory variable ‘PRIDE’. This means that the two variables are inversely related and an increase in predictor leads to a decrease in the predicted variable. The same means that an increase in the explanatory variable ‘PRIDE’ leads to a decrease in the ‘SHS’. More specifically a unit increase in the ‘PRIDE’ of the individual leads to a -0.333units decrease in the ‘SHS’ with all factors held constant. In a real sense, this means that if the sample member would reduce pride ad work on their academic goals the same effort applied would be displayed in the end results. If one would decrease their pride, then they would reduce the Self-Handicapping which would give them room to work on their goals and achievements.
The next explanatory variable is the ’HOPELESS’; the same had an inverse relationship with the dependent variable ‘SHS’. This means that an increase in ‘HOPELESS’ leads to a decrease in the ‘SHS’. More specifically a unit increase in the ‘HOPELESS’ of the sample members decreases the ‘SHS’. This means that when hopelessness sets in an individual start feeling like they can withdraw their efforts which they used to apply for certain achievements. The results show that a unit change (positive) in the explanatory variable ‘HOPELESS’ reduces the ‘SHS’ with -0.084units at ceteris paribus.
The findings also show that there was a positive relationship between the explanatory variable ‘ENJOY’ and the dependent variable ‘SHS. The results show that a unit increase in the explanatory variable ‘ENJOY’ increase the dependent ’SHS’. The same also means that a unit change/increase in the explanatory variable ‘ENJOY’ increases the ‘SHS’ with 0.436units at ceteris paribus.
The explanatory variable ‘BOREDOM’ has a positive relationship with the SHS, meaning that a unit change in the explanatory variable ‘BOREDOM’ increases the ‘SHS’ with 0.261units. The researcher found that there was a relationship between the dependent and the explanatory variables. The researcher, therefore, failed to accept the null hypothesis, therefore, accepting the alternative hypothesis guided by the results of the study. The study found that the predictor variables to a large extent predict the criterion variable. Thus, anger, pride, enjoy and boredom statistically significantly predicts the self-handicapping as the p-value for these variables is less than the critical alpha value of 0.05.
The study concurred with that the findings of the study by Rhodewalt & Fairfield (1989) who established that the participants who had completed the SHS previously could not differentiate between the current and the previous exercise. Previous studies have also continued to shows the distinction between the different gender that is male and female and the element of self-handicapping in the employment level (Peterson & Seligman, 1984). Though the SHS has been used by most scholars for measurement of the coping strategies, other studies have also stated that it is important to consider other factors like the ability of the individual and motivational issue.
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.
Hirt, E. R., & McCrea, S. M. (2009). Man smart, woman smarter? Getting to the root of gender differences in self-handicapping. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 260–274.
Hirt, E. R., Deppe, R. K., & Gordon, L. J. (1991). Self-reported versus behavioral self-handicapping: Empirical evidence for a theoretical distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 981–991.
Huang, C. (2011). Self-concept and academic achievement: A meta- analysis of longitudinal relations. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 505–528.
Leary, M. R., & Shepperd, J. A. (1986). Behavioral self-handicaps versus self-reported self-handicaps: A conceptual note. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1265–1268.
Leondari, A., & Gonida, E. (2007). Predicting academic self- handicapping in different age groups: The role of personal achievement goals and social goals. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 595–611.
Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1995). Predictors of middle school students’ use of self-handicapping strategies. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 389–411. doi:10.1177/0272431695015004001.
Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic self-handicapping and achievement goals: A further examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 61–75.
Midgley, C., Arunkumar, R., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). “If I don’t do well tomorrow, there’s a reason”: Predictors of adolescents’ use of academic self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 423–434.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., & Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. Ann Arbor, 1001, 48109-1259.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2005). Achievement emotions questionnaire (AEQ). User’s manual. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Munich, Munich.
Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E. M. (1998). The role of classroom goal structure in students’ use of self-handicapping strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 101–122.
Zuckerman, M., & Tsai, F. F. (2005). Costs of self-handicapping. Journal of Personality, 73, 411–442.
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, 74, 1619–1628.
Looking for further insights on A Comprehensive Analysis of Motorcycle Accidents and Contributing Factors? Click here.
Academic services materialise with the utmost challenges when it comes to solving the writing. As it comprises invaluable time with significant searches, this is the main reason why individuals look for the Assignment Help team to get done with their tasks easily. This platform works as a lifesaver for those who lack knowledge in evaluating the research study, infusing with our Dissertation Help writers outlooks the need to frame the writing with adequate sources easily and fluently. Be the augment is standardised for any by emphasising the study based on relative approaches with the Thesis Help, the group navigates the process smoothly. Hence, the writers of the Essay Help team offer significant guidance on formatting the research questions with relevant argumentation that eases the research quickly and efficiently.
DISCLAIMER : The assignment help samples available on website are for review and are representative of the exceptional work provided by our assignment writers. These samples are intended to highlight and demonstrate the high level of proficiency and expertise exhibited by our assignment writers in crafting quality assignments. Feel free to use our assignment samples as a guiding resource to enhance your learning.