Main Argument 2: The Taxonomy of Self-Handicapping: A Spectrum of Strategies from Acquired Behaviors to Claimed States.
To truly grasp the strategic depth of self-handicapping, one must move beyond the general concept and delve into its specific forms. The behavior is not a single tool, but an entire toolbox, with different instruments selected for different jobs. The book, drawing on the evolution of research in the field, makes a powerful case for classifying these strategies along two critical axes. This classification scheme not only organizes the seemingly disparate examples of the behavior—from reduced practice and alcohol use to feigned anxiety and shyness—but also illuminates the intricate psychological trade-offs inherent in each choice.
The First and Most Fundamental Distinction: Acquired versus Claimed Handicaps
The primary way in which self-handicapping strategies differ is in their mode of implementation. This is the distinction between what the book, following the work of Arkin, Baumgardner, Leary, and Shepperd, refers to as acquired (or behavioral) handicaps versus claimed (or self-reported) handicaps. This is the difference between actively creating a real impediment and simply stating that one exists.
1. Acquired (Behavioral) Self-Handicapping: The Active Construction of Obstacles
Acquired self-handicapping is the most direct and, in many ways, most dramatic form of the strategy. It involves the individual taking concrete, observable actions that create a genuine impediment to successful performance. The handicap is not just a story; it is a tangible reality. This is the form of self-handicapping first empirically demonstrated in the classic studies by Berglas and Jones (1978), which became the bedrock of the field. In their experiments, subjects who were given non-contingent success feedback (thus making them feel successful but uncertain about why) were more likely to choose a (bogus) performance-inhibiting drug (“Pandocrin”) over a performance-enhancing drug (“Actavil”) before a subsequent test. The act of choosing and ostensibly taking the drug was an acquired handicap.
Other classic examples of acquired handicaps include:
- Alcohol or Drug Consumption: Consuming alcohol before an important social or intellectual performance is a quintessential acquired handicap. The chemical effects of the substance provide a powerful and socially recognized excuse for potential failure.
- Withdrawal of Effort: This is one of the most common forms of the behavior. A student who deliberately reduces their study time before an exam, a musician who neglects to practice before a recital, or an employee who puts minimal effort into a project are all acquiring a handicap. The lack of preparation becomes a ready-made explanation for any substandard outcome.
- Choosing Disadvantageous Performance Conditions: An individual might choose to perform a task in a noisy, distracting environment, use inferior equipment, or agree to an impossibly tight deadline. They are actively engineering the situation to build in an excuse.
The psychology of acquired self-handicapping is one of high risk and high reward, particularly in terms of its attributional effectiveness. The primary strength of an acquired handicap is its credibility. Because the obstacle is real and often observable, it provides an almost undeniable excuse. It is difficult for an observer—or for the self—to dismiss the impact of intoxication, sleep deprivation, or a complete lack of practice. This high credibility makes the discounting of failure exceptionally powerful. The causal link between the poor performance and a lack of ability is effectively severed.
However, this credibility comes at a steep price: the handicap genuinely increases the probability of failure. The student who stays out all night is more likely to do poorly on the exam. The athlete who doesn’t practice is less likely to win the match. This is the core of the apparent paradox. The individual is actively sabotaging their objective chances of success in order to secure a psychological victory in the realm of attributions. This choice highlights the profound power of the underlying motive: for the self-handicapper, protecting their image of competence is often more important than the actual achievement of competence itself. The potential psychic pain of being diagnosed as “incompetent” outweighs the tangible rewards of success. Therefore, they will accept a higher likelihood of actual failure if that failure can be explained away in a manner that leaves their core ability unquestioned.
2. Claimed (Self-Reported) Self-Handicapping: The Strategic Avowal of Impediments
While the early research focused on acquired handicaps, a major expansion of the concept, championed by C. R. Snyder and his colleagues, brought a more subtle but pervasive form of the strategy to light: the claimed, or self-reported, handicap. This form does not necessarily involve creating a real obstacle. Instead, it consists of the individual verbally claiming the existence of a debilitating state, condition, or symptom that could plausibly inhibit performance. The handicap exists in the story the person tells, rather than in an observable behavior.
This expansion was a critical theoretical development because it connected the modern social psychological concept of self-handicapping back to the much older clinical observations of Alfred Adler. Adler had long noted that his neurotic patients used their symptoms as “safeguarding devices” to excuse themselves from the challenges of life. Snyder and Smith (1982) explicitly built this bridge, arguing that the strategic use of symptoms was a key form of self-handicapping.
Examples of claimed handicaps include:
- Test Anxiety: Before an exam, a student complains to peers or the instructor about their debilitating test anxiety. This claim serves to preemptively frame any potential poor performance as a result of anxiety, not a lack of knowledge.
- Physical Symptoms: Reporting a headache, fatigue, illness, or the lingering effects of an old injury are common claimed handicaps. These subjective states are difficult for others to verify, making them convenient and flexible excuses.
- Psychological States: Claiming to be in a bad mood, feeling depressed, or being distracted by personal problems also serves to create an attributional smoke screen around performance.
- Past Trauma: An individual might allude to a difficult upbringing or recent traumatic life events as a reason why they are not able to perform at their best.
The psychological dynamics of claimed self-handicapping are quite different from those of its acquired counterpart. It is a lower-risk but potentially lower-credibility strategy. The risk to performance is lower because the individual is not actively creating an impediment. The student who claims anxiety may still be able to focus and perform well; their claim does not, in itself, guarantee failure. This allows for the possibility of having the best of both worlds: the attributional protection is in place if needed, but the objective chance of success is not necessarily diminished.
However, the effectiveness of a claimed handicap hinges entirely on its plausibility and the audience’s acceptance. It is a verbal gambit, and its success depends on whether others believe the story. The handicap’s power lies in its subjective nature. While this makes it difficult for others to definitively disprove (“How can you say I don’t have a headache?”), it also makes it easier for a skeptical audience to dismiss. Furthermore, claimed handicaps are more intimately tied to the processes of self-deception. It is psychologically easier for an individual to convince themselves that they feel anxious or ill than it is to ignore the conscious decision to not study. The line between a genuine, debilitating state and a strategically amplified claim becomes blurry, allowing the individual to deploy the excuse while maintaining a sense of honesty.
The Second Dimension: The Locus of the Handicap (Internal vs. External)
Cutting across the acquired/claimed distinction is the second major axis of classification: the locus of the handicap. This refers to whether the source of the impediment is located inside the person (internal) or in the outside world (external).
1. External Handicaps: An external handicap is any obstacle or condition that is part of the situation or environment. When a person uses an external handicap, they are effectively saying, “I might not do well, but it’s because of the situation, not because of me.” Examples include a faulty tool, a noisy room, an unfairly difficult test, or a biased judge. This type of handicap is often the “safest” from an attributional standpoint. It shifts blame completely away from the self and carries little to no risk of creating a negative personal image. In fact, succeeding in the face of an external obstacle can lead to particularly strong augmentation effects, making the individual seem especially skilled.
2. Internal Handicaps: An internal handicap is an impediment that resides within the person. This category is more complex and involves a significant trade-off. While these handicaps are internal, they are crucially distinct from the core dimension of ability. Examples of internal handicaps include both acquired states like intoxication and fatigue, and claimed states like anxiety, illness, and shyness.
The strategic choice to use an internal handicap represents a delicate negotiation of personal identity. The self-handicapper is essentially choosing to accept a lesser negative dispositional attribution in order to avoid a greater one. They are willing to be seen as “anxious,” “lazy,” “a partier,” or “shy” because any of these labels is preferable to being seen as “incompetent” or “stupid.” This is a crucial insight of the book: self-handicapping is often a process of choosing the most palatable personal flaw. While an external handicap provides a “clean” excuse, an internal handicap is a strategic concession. It acknowledges a flaw, but carefully selects one that is seen as less central to one’s core worth and competence.
However, this strategy carries a significant long-term risk. While a single claim of test anxiety may be an effective excuse, chronic reliance on this handicap can lead others (and the self) to form a new, stable, and undesirable dispositional attribution: the person is no longer just using anxiety as an excuse, they are an anxious person. The handicap becomes incorporated into one’s identity. The strategy designed to protect the self from a negative label ends up creating one.
The Integrated Taxonomy: Four Categories of Strategic Behavior
By combining these two dimensions, the book presents a comprehensive four-part taxonomy that captures the full range of self-handicapping behaviors:
- External-Acquired: The individual actively chooses a situational impediment. (Example: A golfer knowingly chooses to play with a faulty set of clubs.)
- External-Claimed: The individual verbally points to a situational impediment. (Example: A speaker complains that the microphone is of poor quality before beginning their talk.)
- Internal-Acquired: The individual actively creates an internal impediment. (Example: A student gets drunk the night before an exam.)
- Internal-Claimed: The individual verbally reports an internal impediment. (Example: A musician claims to be suffering from a creative block.)
This taxonomy is not merely an academic exercise; it provides a powerful lens for understanding the intricate logic of the self-handicapper. The choice between these four quadrants is a strategic one, influenced by the nature of the task, the presence and skepticism of an audience, the individual’s history, and their tolerance for risk. An insecure student facing a private practice test might simply engage in self-deception and claim to feel ill (Internal-Claimed), as the risk is low and the only audience is the self. The same student, facing a public, high-stakes final exam with skeptical peers, might feel compelled to engage in the more credible, high-risk strategy of staying out all night (Internal-Acquired) to provide observable proof of their handicap.
In conclusion, this second major argument moves the understanding of self-handicapping from a singular concept to a rich and varied field of strategic action. By differentiating between handicaps that are acquired versus claimed, and those that are internal versus external, the book reveals the complex calculations that govern this seemingly irrational behavior. It shows how each type of strategy carries its own unique profile of credibility, performance risk, and social cost. This taxonomic approach is essential for appreciating the full psychological depth of the phenomenon, illuminating the path from a simple, situational excuse to a chronic, identity-defining pattern of behavior that lies at the very interface of social and clinical psychology.