FlashReport Discrepant and congruent high self-esteem: Behavioral self-handicapping as a preemptive defensive strategy ☆ Shannon P. Lupien ⁎, Mark D. Seery ⁎, Jessica L. Almonte University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, USA abstract article info Article history: Received 3 February 2010 Revised 8 April 2010 Available online 25 June 2010 Keywords: Behavioral Self-handicapping Defensiveness Explicit Self-esteem Implicit Self-esteem Discrepant High Self-esteem Self-esteem IAT Discrepant high self-esteem (i.e., high explicit and low implicit self-esteem) has been associated with a number of defensive behaviors. This study investigated the use of behavioral self-handicapping as a preemptive defensive strategy among those with discrepant high self-esteem. Participants were told that an upcoming test of an important ability was only diagnostic of either exceptionally high or very low skills (i.e., only success or failure was diagnostic of ability) and were given the opportunity to behaviorally self- handicap by selecting from a range of performance-detracting versus neutral music choices. Results showed that when success was diagnostic, participants with discrepant high self-esteem engaged in significantly greater behavioral self-handicapping than other participants. This suggests that (1) the defensiveness of those with discrepant high self-esteem extends to the use of preemptive strategies such as self- handicapping, and (2) this defensiveness is triggered when the situation provides a test of exceptionally high ability. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. The importance of self-esteem (SE) in Western culture is marked not only by popular societal interest—demonstrated by the numerous endeavors devoted to producing high self-esteem (HSE; e.g., Califor- nia Task Force, 1990)—but also in the substantial body of psycholog- ical literature investigating the effects of HSE. The distinction between implicit and explicit SE has been shown to be an important factor in understanding the nature of HSE and reactions to psychological threats and daily events (Hoffman-Lambird & Mann, 2006; Jordan, Spencer, & Zanna, 2005; Jordan, Spencer, Zanna, Hoshino-Browne, & Correll, 2003; McGregor, Nail, Marigold, & Kang, 2005; also see Kernis, Grannemann, & Barclay, 1989). Discrepant HSE refers to the combination of high explicit SE and low implicit SE, whereas congruent HSE refers to the combination of high explicit and high implicit SE. Several studies have indicated that people with discrepant HSE respond defensively in a number of situations. The current study sought to extend these findings to the domain of self-handicapping as a preemptive defensive strategy. Jordan et al. (2003) posited that defensive reactions among people with discrepant HSE stem from a self-view that although positive, is fragile and vulnerable to the personal implications of daily life events. In contrast, people with congruent HSE hold positive self-views that are secure and confident. Relative to congruent HSE, discrepant HSE has predicted larger in-group bias in a minimal group paradigm, greater dissonance reduction in the form of larger post-decision spread of alternatives (Jordan et al., 2003), and greater use of ethnic discrimination as a defensive strategy (Jordan et al., 2005). Hoffman- Lambird and Mann (2006) showed that after failure but not success feedback, discrepant HSE people were more prone to use poor self- regulation tactics following an ego threat than congruent HSE people. Similarly, relative to others, after describing uncertainties about a close relationship, those with discrepant HSE expressed higher certainty of opinions on social issues (McGregor & Marigold, 2003), and after performing a difficult task, estimated higher agreement between other's opinions and their own (McGregor et al., 2005). The above findings demonstrate defensive reactions among those with discrepant HSE following situations that trigger their fragile self- views and reveal post-hoc efforts to bolster the self. However, it is also possible that individuals with discrepant HSE use preemptive defensive strategies to avoid situations that may threaten their fragile self-views. One such strategy is behavioral self-handicapping, which refers to hindering one's performance on an important task by engaging in prior activities that are not conducive to optimal task performance (Jones & Berglas, 1978; for a review, see Rhodewalt, 2008). Examples of behavioral self-handicapping include drug and alcohol use (Berglas & Jones, 1978; Higgins & Harris, 1988; Jones & Berglas, 1978; Kolditz & Arkin, 1982; Tucker, Vuchinich, & Sobell, 1981), and lack of preparation and procrastination (Ferrari & Tice, 2000; Tice & Baumeister, 1990; Tice, 1991). These various displays of behavioral self-handicapping place performance outcomes at risk in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46 (2010) 1105–1108 ☆ We would like to thank Kimberly Arnold for her assistance in conducting the study and Sandra Murray for her comments on a previous version of this manuscript. ⁎ Corresponding authors. Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Park Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260-4110, USA. Fax: +1 716 645 3801. E-mail addresses: splupien@buffalo.edu (S.P. Lupien), mdseery@buffalo.edu (M.D. Seery). 0022-1031/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.022 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Experimental Social Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp