Individual Differences in Peer Relationships: The Role of Self-Handicapping

1. Individual Differences in Peer Relationships:The Role of Self-Handicapping Bridgett Milner Dissertation Proposal

2. Definition!! • Self-handicapping (SH) has been commonly defined within the literature as “actively seeking or creating situations which will interfere with performance and therefore create an explanation for possible failure outside of individual ability attributions” (Arkin & Baumgardner, 1985). • claims such as anxiety or shyness • drug or alcohol use prior to evaluation • effort or preparation withdrawal

3. 2 Types • SH actions are divided into 2 types: • “Behavioral”: those which rely on actively performing a behavior which impedes performance such as drinking prior to evaluation • “Claimed”: those which rely on claims of impediments such as a claim of anxiety

4. Gender Differences • Pronounced gender differences in both use and evaluation of handicaps. • Women use claimed but not behavioral; men use both • Women evaluate targets who behaviorally handicap negatively; men are more lenient.

5. Goals of Handicapping • The primary goal of self-handicapping is to have an excuse in place, in the event of failure, to make attributions about failure external or situational rather than internal or personal. • A debate exists within the literature regarding whether self-handicapping is an impression management technique (used to preserve the opinions of other regarding the self) or a self-esteem maintenance strategy (used to preserve one’s own opinion of one’s self)

6. Which is it? • Recent research, in an attempt to resolve this debate, has examined the effectiveness of self-handicapping in each of these two roles. • found to effectively preserve self-esteem in handicapping participants • seems to result in mixed interpersonal evaluations within scenario studies. While self-handicapping seems to preserve judgments of ability within the specific domain (indicating successful impression management) for a target, overall evaluations on dimensions such as general intelligence and liking are found to suffer • Particularly when judged by women

7. More on this dislike • Negative reactions (particularly from female participants) occur across a variety of scenario situations • Women react very negatively to targets who withdraw effort in any way. • Not only when “Chris” blows off studying for a movie and burger but also when he doesn’t study because he drove a friend to the airport and had car trouble on the way home.

8. Implications • Implications of scenario findings are that the social networks of self-handicappers would suffer due to engagement in these behaviors. • Could predict that self handicappers would have smaller social networks, less reciprocity of their social ties, lower centrality within their networks, have fewer female friends, and be less likely to have a girlfriend. • Might also association primarily with other self-handicappers, creating a norm for this behavior.

9. Or maybe… • Or it could be that scenario findings do not generalize to social networks. • Friends may be unaware of handicapping tendencies. • Friends may excuse their friend when they wouldn’t excuse a fictional character. • Type of handicap typically employed may impact social network. • Currently nothing is known regarding the social networks of high v. low self-handicappers.

10. Importance of Studying Networks • Social networks have a large impact on mental (and physical!) health. • They play an important role in the overall well being of an individual, the satisfaction with one’s self and one’s life that an individual feels, and even the blood pressure and immune system functioning of a person. • They play an important role in the development and maintenance of an individual’s identities, values, and beliefs.

11. This research • Attempt to address existing holes in the literature in a series of 3 studies. • These studies will look at: differences in perception of a peer who self-handicaps and a more abstract self-handicapping target, how self-handicapping situations are navigated when in the presence of a peer, the structure and composition of the social networks of high and low self-handicappers, and lastly, the social lives and interactions of high and low self-handicappers.

12. Study 1 (Presence of a Peer) • This study will look at: • How do self-handicappers navigate a self-handicapping situation when in the presence of a peer versus when alone (situation studied by previous research)? • How do peer reactions to a friend differ from scenario target reactions?

13. Study 1 Methods • 2 (self-handicapping: high/low) X 3 (friend: absent, female present, male present) design. • 120 male participants (80 will bring a friend with them to the lab).

14. Participants • Participants will be exposed to a traditionally used SH situation (CFIT). • DV: Amount of time spent practicing.

15. Friends • Friends accompanying participants will respond to “Chris” scenario embedded in a variety of other scenarios and give same reactions to their friend.

16. Study 2 (Network structure) • This study will look at how self-handicapping tendencies (as measured by the self-handicapping scale) impact the structure of social networks.

17. Study 2 Methods: Ego-centered data • 2 (self-handicapping: high/low) X 2 (gender: male/female) design. • The social networks of 80 participants will be examined using thefacebook.com. • Participants will give information on the nature of their relationship with each member; gender of each member; closeness to, time spent with, and perceived self-handicapping tendency of each member. • Friends will then be contacted and asked to fill out the SHS as well as the same measures for the participant.

18. Full network data • For full network data on each participant, social “clubs” will be examined and centrality will be observed.

19. Study 3 • Study 3 will address how self-handicappers navigate their social worlds through the use of a diary methodology.

20. Study 3 Methods • The same 80 participants from Study 2 will be recruited to participate within this 2 (SH:high/low) X 2 (gender:m/f) design. • Each participant will complete a daily activity log and Rochester Interaction Records for 3 days---these 3 days will be chosen to fall at test times. • The daily activity log will involve the 3 days broken down by hour. Participants will record what they are doing when and with whom they are spending their time.

21. Rochester Interaction Record am______ Date______ Time______ pm______ Length________ Names____________ _____________ ____________ Male Group / Female Group / Mixed Group Sex _______ _______ _______ Initiator: Self / Other / Mutual / Unclear How Personal: Personal 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not Personal Satisfaction: Pleasant 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Unpleasant Location: Mine / Theirs / Ours / Dining / On Campus / Off Campus Nature: Task / Past-time / Conversation / Share / Date / Party / Other

22. Implications • This series of studies will answer a number of questions which currently exist regarding self-handicapping. • These studies will look at how self-handicappers navigate their social worlds, how peers respond to self-handicappers, and how self-handicapping impacts peer networks. • The results of this work will not only shed light onto how self-handicapping affects peer relations but, through this, further explore the underlying motives of self-handicapping.

23. Questions? Comments? • Study 1 is being run this semester and Studies 2 & 3 will begin in the spring….