Self-handicapping: Are you sabotaging yourself to avoid evaluation or failure?

I was watching an old episode of Grey’s Anatomy – my only TV addiction – where a lawyer who’s about to take the Bar exam in a few days for the fifth time is brought in for severe burns in her hand. She says that before she took some practice tests, she wanted some tea so she put on a pot of water, set the timer and after 30 minutes the smoke alarm went off. When taking the pot off the stove she held on to it too long leading to severe burns. She explains that she should have known better and that whenever she is studying for the Bar that she can't focus on anything with all the stuff that she has to know. She complains how bad it is with what happened to her hand with the exam coming up. With all the complaining you would think she would be happy about the news when the doctor says they can get her fixed up and she'll be fine and can take the test, but instead one can clearly see the shock on her face… Well, in the end it becomes clear that she couldn’t stand taking the risk of failing yet another Bar exam:

“Can you imagine failing the Bar five times? It's absurd and pathetic. I can't sit for two and a half days to prove again to everyone how pathetic I am.”

This is a perfect example of the lengths people would go – although this one is quite extreme – to sabotage themselves prior to an important and potentially self-defining challenge. The name for this tendency in social psychology literature: self-handicapping. It is said to occur when

"people actively try to “arrange the circumstances of their behavior so as to protect their conceptions of themselves as competent, intelligent persons.” (Jones & Berglas, 1978, p.200)

Other examples:

• the athlete getting drunk the night before the game;
• the student who stays up too late studying so that the exhaustion impedes test performance;
• the employee who “gets” sick or sleep-deprived before important presentations;
• the expat/the immigrant who keeps on postponing taking that language course that would surely increase his chances of getting a promotion/job

Research has established that self-handicapping is motivated by uncertainty about one's ability or, more generally, anticipated threats to self-esteem. It is quite an ironic strategy when you think about it. The individual is so concerned about protecting self-esteem that they set themselves up for poor performance! The catch: they now have a good excuse for why they failed and it is not about their intelligence, talent or competence.

Here is what makes it an even more ironic and risky approach: Self-handicapping only offers a strategic advantage "in those settings where the attributional implications of performance are more important than the success of the performance itself" (Jones & Berglas, 1978; p. 201). Meaning, if the “why you failed” is more important than “you failed”. The outcome doesn’t change (you still underperform) but the explanation for failure doesn’t reflect on your intelligence, talent or competence.

Now, it works if that’s what is important or what you care about. But it is rarely the case that the outcomes does not matter! In other words, many times when we self-handicap to avoid self-evaluative feedback, the success of the performance really does matter.  The lawyer from Grey’s Anatomy won’t be able to avoid the failure even if she has the excuse of the “burned hand”. Yes, maybe it decreases the impact of the failure on her self-esteem because people will say “Oh, but she had a burned hand”, but really, she will know what really happened. And if she succeeds despite the burned hand – even a better outcome than passing the test without a burned hand!*

However, once the person uses self-handicapping over and over again, people stop being sympathetic about his excuses. Actually, self-handicapping is also self-deception focused strategy. It is not only targeting to protect your self-image in front of others, but you are also trying to deceive yourself into thinking “if you didn’t have that excuse you could have pulled it off successfully!” So you’re postponing putting yourself out there and give it all to see if you can actually pull it off. In other words, it is a reflection of the fear of not being able to make it if you were to give it your best.

How about you? Have you been tempted to literally create an excuse that would prevent you from being at your best? How did you rationalize your following suboptimal performance?  And of course, what would be a better strategy to deal with being evaluated or fear of failure?

Here’re a few ideas:

1. Awareness, awareness, awareness! I think this is my default advice for any kind of coping and adopting a better strategy. Be more mindful of your thinking and behavioral patterns.
2. Reframe the upcoming test/project/presentation also as a learning goal, rather than only as performance goal. Even if you fail – what can you learn from it?
3. The above strategy requires having a growth mindset, that is believing that with effort, focus and perseverance people can improve their performance and qualities. If you don’t have growth mindset (you can test it here), adopting it would open up great perspectives for you!
4. Make a it a choice! Weigh the costs and benefits of self-handicapping and then actively choose to (if you will) or not to do it. So, at least take the self-deception out own the equation. 

 *  Research shows that high self-esteem people self-handicap to enhance success, whereas low self-esteem people self-handicap to protect against the self-esteem threatening implications of failure.  

References:

Jones, E.E, & Berglas, S. (1978). Control of attributions about the self through self-handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and the role of under achievement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 200-206.

Dweck, Carol. (2006). The New Psychology of Success.

Falling prey to “False Consensus Effect”: Are you normalizing your success?

In a study published 10 years ago Cornell University psychologists David Dunning and Justin Krueger (now at NYU) demonstrated an interesting relationship between competence and self-confidence.

Their findings showed that incompetent people were also unaware of their incompetence and tended to overestimate their performance. They seemed to lack the meta-cognitive skill that allows them to compare their performances to their peers and realize their own poor performance. Only after they got training to become more competent they also got better in assessing their ability. This, of course, presents an interesting paradox – people become more skilled at recognizing their incompetence once they were no longer incompetent.

What I’ve found equally interesting in their results was the inaccuracy of competent people in assessing their level of performance. In contrast to their incompetent counterparts, competent people tended to underestimate their performance – they had less confidence in their superior performance. In other words, they did not think that they performed particularly “great” relative to their peers; they thought they performed at a “normal” level.

What was the reason for their underestimation? Were they just being modest? Or did they also lack the meta-cognitive skill required for making accurate comparisons , just like the incompetent people?

The explanation of Krueger and Dunning for this “burden of expertise” is a well-established bias in social psychology: false consensus effect. This effect refers to our tendency to overestimate the degree to which our own behavior, attitudes, beliefs, and so on are shared by other people.

There are a few reasons for that tendency. First, we take our own behaviors, attitudes, or beliefs as a reference point, or an as anchor when predicting the behaviors, attitudes, or beliefs of other people. Secondly, we feel good when we think others would behave or think the same way as we do. Besides, we tend to hang out and be friends with people who are actually similar to us – that further biases our point of reference when predicting the behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs of “majority”.

So, how does false consensus lead competent people to underestimate their performance? They project their performance onto their peers and “normalize” their success. They think others would perform at a similar level. The implications go even one step further when their peers are also high-performers – they might think what they are doing is just “normal”.

This might lead to a systematic pattern of underestimation in high performance environments. It might also give into perfectionist tendencies – thinking, to be “really good” you should be doing much better when in reality your performance is already superior.

How might this be relevant for YOU?

• Do you tend to explain your successes or good performance as “normal”?
• When complimented for your success do you respond “Thanks, but it’s nothing special”. Or go on to explaining how anybody could’ve done it? (That’s what I did years ago when my supervisor had pointed out how doing a Ph.D. was an indication of competence and success. Being surrounded with other graduate students, I tried to explain it away by saying ‘But that’s normal…” Well, I was simply normalizing my accomplishments.)
• Are you taking credit for your successes or are you consistently attributing it to external factors such as luck, “easy” assignments, “nice” evaluators (i.e., peers, clients, managers)?

If so, you might be falling prey to false consensus effect. The idea is not giving up the modesty and start bragging about your accomplishments, but rather acknowledging and appreciating them. This presents a number of benefits:

1. A more accurate self-assessment goes a long way in managing your time and resources strategically. You’re in a better position to decide where your attention and self-improvement efforts should be directed to when you assess your performance accurately.
2. A boost to your self-esteem. High self-esteem serves as a stock of positive feelings that lead to greater initiative and a decreased vulnerability to failures and stress.
3. Positioning yourself better in relation to others. When you start normalizing your accomplishments others will start doing the same (about your accomplishments) even when initially they were convinced about your superior performance. Once you give yourself the credit you’ve deserved, others will follow.

Now, try to reflect back on your typical responses to your successes, are you a victim or the false consensus effect?

Reference:

Kruger, J. & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121-1134.

“Confidence always needs to be a half-step ahead of competence”

This is one of the best pieces of advice I’ve heard of recently. Really, take a moment and let that sink… It is very precise about what should come first and by how much. When you think about it makes perfect sense!

A full-step (or more, for that matter) ahead is too much, generating an over-reliance on self-confidence that is unsubstantiated. This is very much related to the debates around the benefits of high self-esteem. Taken to the extreme, without a solid base high self-esteem can take a narcissist edge. That is, it becomes rather an unhealthy kind of self-esteem which is fragile, unstable and highly contingent upon external factors such as materialistic success, approval of others etc.. In other words, it is not backed up by a solid sense of competence – well, because it would be one, if not more, step ahead of competence.

We all know people who have that kind of self-esteem. Those who’ve made us recognize either their fragility underneath the egos they’ve built, or the complete unawareness of how unrealistic their positive self-views seem from outside. The outcome? Well, mostly these people live in a state of self-deception and continuously generate defenses such as boasting about accomplishments, downplaying or denying responsibility of failures, or putting others down as a way to make themselves look better.

Along the way, they either receive the pity and sympathy of people who recognize their fragility behind the surface, or they might encounter the displeasure of others who can not stand their boastful egos lacking the competence foundation. In either case the chances are they are not taken seriously or considered competent by others.

Confidence a full step behind competence is also problematic. In an earlier post I had written about four stages of competence – a model that describes learning as a journey that involves moving from incompetence to competence. In this journey confidence plays an important role especially for the transition from Stage 2 Conscious Incompetence to Stage 3 Conscious Competence. Conscious incompetence is an uncomfortable and awkward place to be – mainly because nobody enjoys feeling incompetent! But at that point your “half-step ahead confidence” acts as energy to pull you in the direction you need to go – that is, to Stage 3. With that pull you commit to whatever is necessary to improve your competence.

For those who are especially careful not to be boastful or over-confident, having confidence before – even if half a step – competence is not that easy. Many of us have internalized the “assumption” you feel confident once you have developed your competence. It is most likely that the relationship between confidence and competence is a circular one where they continue feeding each other. But within that circle, especially when undertaking new tasks or committing to new areas puts one in a “novice” situation, that a half-step ahead confidence gives the first push.

The most important conclusion of a thorough review of studies on benefits of self-esteem is that high self-esteem serves as a stock of positive feelings that lead to greater initiative and a decreased vulnerability to failures and stress. These are qualities that indeed pull people up to Stage 3 (conscious competence) despite the wobbling at Stage 2 (conscious incompetence).

Then, the question is how to make sure that confidence does come a half-step ahead. Two methods come to my mind:

1. Start with creating a vision of yourself at Stage 4 - Unconscious Competence - where your expertise or skill flows naturally. What would it look like to be there? How would you be behaving, responding, feeling? What would your posture look like, the way you interact with people? Once you have that vision try to live into that NOW as much as possible. This will “trick” your mind to start feeling that competence and confidence.
2. Refer to your previous journeys of learning. Remember how you DID manage to climb from incompetence to competence. And please, ignore those self-limiting beliefs that start with “Yes, but….” (Yes, but that was in a different area; Yes but, I was younger then…etc.). Use previous experiences a) as a way to boost your confidence and b) to remember what tools helped you along the way (e.g., social support, having more structure, more practice…etc.)

And enjoy watching the dance between your confidence and competence – it’s all about getting the steps and the timing right!

References:

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self- esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(Whole No. 1), 1– 44.

Are self-affirmations only for high self-esteem people?

A recent article in Psychological Science (March, 2009) by Dr. Joan Wood and her colleagues from University of Waterloo has stirred up quite a bit of discussion about the value of self-affirmations. People started questioning if we’ve been all wrong in repeating positive statements to ourselves or believing in positive psychology. The findings of the study suggest that self-affirmations do work for high self-esteem people (who are already doing quiet well) and they actually backfire among low self-esteem people (who are believed to need the benefits more) by leading to negative mood.

So, shall we stop relying on self-affirmations on our journeys to be at our best? Well, I think that would be throwing the baby out with the bath water! I think there is great value in discussing if the self-affirmations work – this is a good time to weed out false assumptions and unrealistic expectations about how and when they work.

First of all, the skeptics are right about the value in repeating affirmations such as “I am great”,“ I am successful in whatever I do” or “Life is a joy filled with delightful surprises” without even the slightest reality check! My own research has challenged the assumption of “having overly positive self-views is good for you”. Let’s do our reality check about the value of self-affirmations, shall we?

In social psychology literature there are quiet a few studies that would help us make sense of the self-affirmation business and the confusion around it. Dr. Bill Swann and his colleagues have published numerous articles about a need called “self-verification” – the need to collect evidence or feedback to validate the self-perceptions we have. In one study published in 1981 they pitted self-verification against self-enhancement: Do people prefer validating who they are or do they prefer to receive positive feedback even if it conflicts with their self-perceptions?

Their findings showed that when it comes to choosing between feedback that was consistent with people’s self-perceptions (self-verification) versus enhancing feedback that conflicted with self-perceptions, people preferred the former. In other words, positive feedback for a person who didn’t have positive self-perceptions was not readily acceptable, and he would rather take the verifying not-so-positive feedback. Of course the process was more straightforward for high self-esteem people - because positive feedback was in line with their already positive self-perceptions it further reinforced their self-perceptions. Based on these findings we really shouldn’t be surprised about the recent findings on self-affirmation – that, it works better for high self-esteem people than their low self-esteem counterparts.

Similar set of results were reported by University of California researchers: self-affirmation helps high self-esteem people cope with stress by reducing psychological stress responses, while it actually exacerbates responses among low self-esteem people (Creswell et al, 2005; although it helped both groups by leading to a decrease in their physiological stress responses). But no need to be discouraged – let me explain why…

Luckily, giving people positive feedback that conflicts with what they “know” about themselves (which is akin to using self-affirmations) is not the only way to affirm the self. There is well-established evidence in social psychology that shows the benefits of an albeit a slightly different way of affirming the self. This form of self-affirmation involves thinking or writing about your core (personal and/or cultural) values and things you are competent at; and doing things, even small ones, in line with your values. Note that, here the affirmations are not unrealistic or overly positive statements. They are also not global statements such as “I am good enough” or “I am lovable”. They are about specific values (e.g., family, legacy, fairness) or competencies (e.g., being a supportive team member, a good tennis player).

These self-affirmations have been shown to help people to restore their self-image especially following a blow to their self-esteem. In other words, especially after a failure or rejection, affirming the self this way helps you bounce back quickly. They work especially well if affirmations are done in an unrelated domain. In other words, when you receive negative feedback at work, use self-affirmations about your relationships.

A recent study on further benefits of self-affirmation (Schmeichel & Vohs, 2009) showed its role in replenishing self-control, which is a limited resource that gets depleted after tasks that require will power. Consider these situations that require self-control and will-power: getting yourself out of a negative mood; managing to generate positive thoughts following negative events; ability to manage emotions; ability to motivate yourself; delaying short-term gratification for future benefits. For sure you would want to have enough resources to be successful in accomplishing them – and self-affirmation is a tool you wouldn’t want to discard, regardless of your level of self-esteem.

A very important point to consider is what outcome we have in mind when we ask the question “Does self-affirmation work?” We have to ask more specific questions: Does it work in

• feeling better about yourself? (Only for high self-esteem people, Wood et al.)
• boosting your mood? (No for moods we are aware of; yes for unconscious moods which further decrease ruminative thoughts, Koole et al.)
• strengthening the will power? (Yes, Schmeical & Vohs)
• reducing perceptions of stress? (Only for high self-esteem people, Creswell et al.)
• reducing physiological stress responses (Yes, Creswell et al.)

Then, the take home message would be to continue using self-affirmations, but maybe in a different way/form that you were using.

• Focus on your positive aspects (and contrary to popular belief, low self-esteem people also believe they do have some positive aspects) and affirm them by writing about them.
• Reflect on your core personal values and/or the values of your culture, which form your worldview. Again, either write about these values, or take some action - small or big - to validate those values.

Warning: Research also suggests that self-affirmations are not effective when one tries too hard and is fully aware of using them to increase self-worth. So try to find more subtle ways of affirming the self.