 |
Branding Laws · Internet Marketing · eMarketing · Internet Advertising · Online Branding |
|
Branding Laws · Internet Marketing · eMarketing · Internet Advertising · Online Branding |
|
CREATING THE COMPREHENSIVE DIRECT INTERACTIVE MARKETING PROGRAM
William J. Hauser, The University of Akron
Dale M. Lewison, The University of Akron
Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005 1
CREATING THE COMPREHENSIVE DIRECT
INTERACTIVE MARKETING PROGRAM
William J. Hauser, The University of Akron
Dale M. Lewison, The University of Akron
ABSTRACT
Continuing advances in database management and communication technologies have greatly accelerated the
ability of Marketing to become more direct, highly focused, and increasingly interactive. Academic programs must
be able to provide students with both the theoretical knowledge and the applied skills to meet the business expectations
and provide students with distinctive and sustainable career advantages. This paper discusses how these needs and
expectations are being met through the development of a comprehensive direct interactive marketing major fully
integrated with a newly created institute for direct marketing. Students working within the applied, client-centered
environment benefit from the blending of academic knowledge and hands-on experience in a real world setting.
INTRODUCTION
Marketing has become more direct, highly focused,
and increasingly interactive. Contrary to the negative
perceptions usually associated with direct marketing,
consumer acceptance and usage continues to grow as
evidenced in a study by Yankelovich (Gardyn 2003) that
demonstrated over three quarters of the consumers surveyed
had made a purchase through a direct channel
during the past year. This consumer acceptance coupled
with compressed value chains, individualized target markets,
and personalized business relationships have dramatically
changed the face of the practice we call marketing.
Continuing advances in database management and
communication technologies have greatly accelerated the
ability to go direct. Because these changes are occurring
at such a rapid pace, organizations frequently have trouble
understanding and adapting to this one-to-one marketing
phenomenon. Herein lies the opportunity for students and
the challenge of academia. While many business firms
may lack the expertise to pursue high level direct marketing
initiatives, they expect their new hires, usually recent
college graduates, to bring to the table the knowledge and
a set of competencies consistent with the new realities of
direct marketing. Therefore, academic programs capable
of providing the theoretical knowledge together with the
basic skill and core competencies needed in the application
of said knowledge will provide their students distinctive
and sustainable career advantages within the real
world marketplace.
Direct interactive marketing is an exciting, robust,
and expanding field of endeavor. For example, Advertising
Age (Arndorfer 2004) reports that revenues from
direct marketing initiatives reached an all time high in
2003 of $2.87 billion accounting for 51 percent of the
overall marketing budget. Whether it is direct response
mail, telemarketing or, most recently, emarketing, this
component of the marketing mix continues to accelerate
its role through the adaptation and application of new and
ever-improving technology. This value added lift to the
discipline has increased the likelihood that marketers will
reach their goal of providing the right person with the right
product for the right price at the right time and place. At
the same time, the interactive nature of the discipline is
enabling marketers to come ever closer to creating a oneto-
one relationship with customers by knowing and meeting
their needs, solidifying their loyalty and, thereby,
creating profitable customer lifetime value.
When technology develops more quickly than most
businesses can understand and apply it, a cultural lag is
created. Historically, the role of academic marketing
departments is to bridge this lag, or gap, by providing
students with the knowledge and skills needed to effectively
create and implement integrated marketing programs
(Rynes et al. 2001). During the 2003–2004 academic
year, the Department of Marketing at The University
of Akron took major steps to create the prototypical
comprehensive undergraduate program in direct interactive
marketing. This program provides students with both
the knowledge and experience to help businesses become
more effective direct marketers. Based on a significant
alumni donation, the newly formed Taylor Institute for
Direct Marketing provides students with the ideal blending
of state of the art interactive laboratories with experiential
instruction from experts in the field.
The following paper presents the integration of the
direct interactive marketing program (knowledge) with
the Taylor Institute (practice). First, the paper looks at the
Taylor Institute and its triangulated mission. Second, it
demonstrates how the integration of the direct interactive
marketing program and the Taylor Institute serves as an
important pedagogical model for academic marketing
2 Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005
departments, students, and businesses. It then discusses
the logic and composition of the actual course curriculum
for the program. Finally, the paper looks at the short term
goals and future expectations for the program.
EXISTING PROGRAMS
According to data compiled by the Direct Marketing
Educational Foundation (DMEF) for the Direct Marketing
Association, there are approximately 39 U.S. colleges
or universities, across 18 states, that report offering some
form of a direct marketing program wherein at least 50
percent of the course content is spent in areas of direct
marketing, integrated marketing communications, or interactive
marketing. Many of these initiatives offer a
certificate in direct marketing at the undergraduate level,
while others offer continuing education courses, areas of
specialization and, in a few cases, an actual degree. At
least 11 of the schools have direct marketing offerings at
the graduate level. Two of these colleges offer both
undergraduate and graduate courses over the Internet
(DMEF 2005).
The number and types of courses vary from one or
two direct marketing and database marketing courses to a
comprehensive major including both traditional (e.g.,
marketing research, consumer behavior, marketing strategy)
and specific (e.g., copywriting, media planning,
electronic marketing) direct interactive marketing courses.
Only a small number of schools reported a required
student internship or practicum. Finally, none of the
schools indicated that direct hands-on experience with
direct interactive marketing companies was as an underlying
requirement for their program.
TAYLOR INSTITUTE FOR DIRECT
MARKETING
The need to adapt to a highly interactive marketing
environment has quickly become the focus for forward
thinking leaders in the direct marketing industry, especially
those focused on maximizing the firm’s market
value (Ortega 2004). The ever-changing pace of direct
response marketing, further accelerated by enabling
technologies, requires both the business and academic
world to be cognizant of new trends and practices and to
prepare young professionals for leadership roles in this
dynamic arena.
With these challenges and needs in mind, the Department
of Marketing at The University of Akron set forth to
develop and implement an institute dedicated to the advancement
of direct interactive marketing. The institute is
conceptualized as a collaborative effort between the University’s
internal constituencies (students, faculty, and
administrators) and its general publics (practitioners, supporters,
and stakeholders). The high profile and involvement
of practicing direct marketers as faculty, administrators,
and advisors gives the institute a unique image as
both an innovative and applied academic institution.
The goals of this direct marketing institute are multifaceted,
yet integrated. In the area of educational advancement,
the primary goal is to design and offer a creative and
comprehensive undergraduate curriculum in direct marketing
that is consistent with student needs and employer
expectations. In order to achieve this goal the institute
seeks to discover and develop new and innovative teaching
pedagogies and materials that lend themselves to more
effective instruction of direct marketing strategy and
practices. These new pedagogies include developing technical
skills, practical learning opportunities, extracurricular
support, and development opportunities for students
to pursue direct marketing as a profession and career
choice (Floyd and Gordon 1998). Concurrent with this
education advancement of students, the institute also
functions to educate the general public to the value of a
direct marketing education and to promote the field as a
promising and rewarding career path.
The institute’s goals in the area of professional development
center around offering continuing education programs
(e.g., seminars, workshops, training) that extend
and renew the skills and capabilities of professionals
working in the field of direct marketing. In order to do this,
the institute serves as a resource center for direct marketing
firms by developing and maintaining a resource library
containing books, videos, periodicals, and other
online and offline reference materials. Additionally, the
institute is fashioning learning protocols (e.g., professorfor-
a-day, shadowing experience, mentoring by professional
faculty, internships) that encourage and facilitate
the exchange of ideas and experiences between practitioners,
students and faculty. At the same time, through the
use of applied research, the institute will strive to discover
and disseminate new knowledge in the field of direct
marketing.
During the summer of 2003, the direct marketing
institute became a reality due to a significant endowment
from Mr. Gary Taylor, CEO of InfoCision, Inc., a nationally
recognized expert and practitioner in the field of
direct marketing. This generous endowment has provided
the Taylor Institute for Direct Marketing with state of the
art teaching resources and laboratories that enable students
to gain a comprehensive hands-on education.
Business and Academic Models
From its inception, the Taylor Institute for Direct
Marketing was designed to integrate a business model
with an academic model to create a new, applied model of
business education consistent with expanding the relationship
between the direct interactive marketing industry
and academia (Tapp 2003; Mitchell and Strauss 2001;
Lundstrom and White 1997). From the business perspective,
the academic/industry partnership is predicated on
Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005 3
the creation of a number of strategic alliances between the
Institute and a multitude of business partners. The nature
of these partnerships includes involvement in institute
administration, program development, course instruction,
resource management, business development, student
development, and a host of other contributions.
From an academic viewpoint, the program is an
highly interactive and applied program of course offerings
designed to insure that graduates know practice and
application as well as concept and theory (Moody et al.
2002). The curriculum is designed around the process of
transforming market occurrences to databases to information
to knowledge to applications. This process is implemented
through sequences of foundation courses (topical
content), analytical courses (fundamental skills), creative
courses (marketplace perspectives), and application courses
(workplace competencies).
The Mission
The Taylor Institute has a three-fold mission of
teaching, research and service. Exhibit 1 illustrates the
relationship of these pillars of business education.
The Institute’s teaching mission is to enhance direct
marketing curricula programs and instructional pedagogies.
The educational advancement goals include:
♦ Creating and offering a direct marketing curriculum
that is consistent with student needs and
employer expectations.
♦ Discovering and developing more effective pedagogies
for teaching direct marketing concepts
and practices.
♦ Providing and supporting direct marketing learning
opportunities and experiences through an
extensive program of internships, practicums,
and scholarships.
♦ Developing and sponsoring extracurricular activities
for students interested in direct marketing
as a profession and career path.
The research mission is to advance the theory and
practice of direct marketing through theoretical and applied
research. The knowledge advancement goals include:
♦ Designing and establishing a database marketing
resource center that is capable of supporting
and fostering both theoretical and applied research.
♦ Publishing and disseminating scholarly and applied
research findings in academic journals and
trade publications.
♦ Funding and sponsoring student, faculty, and
practitioner research projects and inquiries.
♦ Writing and submitting direct market research
grant proposals for funding by public institutions
and private organizations.
The service mission is to serve the direct marketing
industry and its interested publics by providing programming
that enhances and promotes the general well-being
of the profession and those business organizations involved
with it. Professional service goals include:
♦ Developing and offering seminars, workshops,
training and other developmental programming
that extends and renews the skills and capabilities
of professionals working in the field of direct
marketing.
♦ Arranging and extending consultation services
and direct marketing expertise to business clients
looking for advice and assistance.
♦ Organizing and sponsoring a local professional
direct marketing organization and/or affiliation.
♦ Representing and promoting the direct marketing
industry and specific businesses/companies
to local and national communities.
The Facility
The Taylor Institute for Direct Marketing was conceived
and developed as an integrated marketing facility
that provides students, faculty, and clients with a unique
business environment in which to both develop and apply
ideas and concepts within an experiential context. Thus
the facility closely resembles an open agency environment
allowing students to formulate and test their ideas
and develop their skills in a highly creative and interactive
environment. The facility has been constructed around a
project flow model (see Exhibit 2) that enables the student
to use a series of laboratories for ideation, analysis,
development of creative, campaign testing, and implementation
and presentation of results to clients. Students
and faculty have access to state of the art analytics,
creative, telemarketing, and other laboratories. They also
have access to a direct marketing library (books, videos,
online tools) and conference rooms for meetings and
client presentations. Future additions, currently under
consideration, include a usability lab/focus group room,
an emarketing laboratory, and a small infomercial studio.
The creation and execution of this particular physical
facility model is essential to the development of actual
student skills. Not only does the facility provide a professional
business environment in which to work, it provides
state of the art technology coupled with experienced,
professional instruction. Students use real tools working
with real experts by participating in real world projects
(Tapp 2003). Direct marketing business sponsors work
very closely with the students by providing them with real
projects, real data, and internships or practicums. Students
completing the program are well versed in all
aspects of direct interactive marketing and have demonstrated
hands-on experience with real clients.
4 Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 1
Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005 5
THE LEARNING MODEL
In their excellent discussion of the role of academicians
and practitioners in the development of Internet
Marketing and E-Commerce curricula, Mitchell and
Strauss (2001) posit that business schools should work
closely with practitioners to create relevant curricula and
course content. This is the primary goal of the Taylor
Institute and the related eMarketing and Advertising
major. In order to fully utilize the resources of the Taylor
Institute and to provide students with a comprehensive
academic experience, a learning model was created based
on the work of Bloom (1956). Specifically, the classic
Bloom model recommends that students progress from
memorization to critical thinking via a number of integrated,
progressive stages or modules using the previous
module as the foundation for the next. Early in the program
courses are designed to provide students with basic
knowledge and comprehension focusing on concepts,
theories and processes. For the direct interactive marketing
program discussed in this paper these courses comprise
the foundation module.
Building on the foundation module, students next
move into the areas of application and analysis. In this
stage students hone their decision making, problem solving
and communication skills through in class exercises
and projects. This is handled through an analytical module
(data mining, analysis, interpretation, presentation) and a
creative module (development of creative through brochures,
websites, etc.).
Finally, the students move to the critical thinking
stage that requires synthesis and evaluation. This is done
by providing the students with real life experience through
internships and practicums with related companies. This
constitutes the application module in the direct interactive
marketing program.
As demonstrated in Exhibit 3, the program begins by
providing the students the necessary foundation in the
area of direct interactive marketing and then increases in
complexity to the actual experience and application-centered
courses. At the same time, the model pedagogically
moves students from memorization of core concepts to
integrative learning and then to critical thinking.
Looking in more detail at the Direct Interactive (or
eMarketing) Learning Model, the following sequence of
courses are presented. Prior to entering the program,
students are required to take a series of core courses which
introduces them to the field of marketing and provides
them with training in micro-computer applications. Not
only does this provide a good introductory understanding
EXHIBIT 3
6 Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005
of the overall marketing area, it allows the students to
decide whether they want to progress further into the
major. Upon completing this module the students progress
through the foundation module series of courses which
provide the basic concepts, theories and processes in
direct interactive marketing, eMarketing, and integrated
marketing communications. Next, the students advance to
the analytics module where they gain hands-on experience
in database marketing, knowledge management, and
the development of actionable business intelligence. This
module then progresses to the creative module where
students work on projects to gain experience in developing
marketing “creative” across the spectrum of direct
interactive media, strategy development, campaign planning,
and implementation. The goal of these two modules,
following Bloom’s model, is to integrate knowledge
learned with practical experience. Completion of this
module leads to the applications module where students
are required to utilize the accumulated body of knowledge
and skills in a real life experiential environment. Working
closely with expert practitioners, the students complete
projects with actual clients either in the form of internships
or practicums (Lamb et al. 1995).
The Major
Based on the learning model discussed above, the
first direct marketing program to be developed is a major
in eMarketing titled eMarketing and Advertising. The
fully approved major (see Exhibit 4) consists of a total of
31 hours of coursework of which 25 hours are required
and 6 are elective. All interested students are required to
take the Principles of Marketing and the Microcomputer
Applications for Business courses prior to entering the
major. These two core courses serve as the prerequisite for
the major. Additionally, a one hour career planning seminar
taken by all business administration students and a
course titled Introduction to eBusiness (required for eMarketing
majors) is included in the core course module.
Next, looking specifically at those courses required
for eMarketing major, the foundation module consists of
three courses. The first course, Direct and Interactive
Marketing, introduces students to the principles and practices
of direct and electronic marketing and is designed to
give the student an understanding of direct marketing as
an integrated part of a total marketing program. The
second course, eMarketing Practices, focuses on market-
EXHIBIT 4
Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005 7
ing electronically to consumers and businesses via the
Internet. The third course in this module, Integrated
Marketing Communications, is a survey of the communication
tools used by marketing companies to reach and
sustain contact with customers and prospects.
Moving to the analytics module, two courses are
provided to develop and hone the student’s skills in
collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and presenting data.
The first course, eBusiness Applications Development,
gives the student an understanding of the issues underlying
the design and development of eBusiness websites.
The second course, Marketing Analytics Laboratory, offers
the student hands-on experience in the understanding
and use of appropriate tools and techniques for analyzing,
interpreting, and presenting actionable information derived
from marketing databases.
The next module consists of two courses with a
creative focus. The first course, Creative Marketing Laboratory,
provides the student with experience in producing
creative and developing and managing campaigns.
The second course, Marketing Strategy, is the capstone
course stressing integration of marketing functions through
development of strategic thinking and tactical applications.
The course emphasizes making effective decisions
to solve strategic and tactical marketing problems and
includes experience in writing a marketing plan.
The final module focuses on a customized learning
experience that is designed to give the individual student
or a student team the opportunity to formulate and implement
a direct interactive marketing project that incorporates
the application of the concepts, theories, and practices
associated with the student’s particular field of interest
and study. A qualified experience may be in the area of
telemarketing, emarketing, direct response marketing,
direct selling, or other forms of direct interactive marketing.
Finally students in the major take a minimum of two
elective courses. Based on interest and need, students
choose their elective courses from one of two areas of
emphasis. The first area focuses on analytics and offers
courses in data management, decision support systems,
systems integration, and marketing research. The second
area has a more creative marketing focus with courses in
buyer behavior, supply chain management, product and
brand management, and strategic retail management.
The Minors
Students in other related majors may want to gain
knowledge and experience in certain areas of direct interactive
marketing without undertaking the emarketing
major. For these students two minors have been created.
Both minors consist of 18 hours of coursework of which
15 hours are from required courses and, at least, three
hours from specialized electives. The first minor, Direct
Interactive Marketing, (see Exhibit 5) emphasizes a marketing
creative strategy and focuses on courses in direct
interactive marketing, ebusiness website applications development,
marketing analytics, creative and campaign
development, and a practicum.
The second minor, Database Marketing (see Exhibit
6), focuses more on analytical processes and information
technology management. In this minor the student
takes data management and analysis courses and also
completes a direct interactive marketing practicum.
The Future
While it is still too early to measure the success of the
direct interactive marketing program, early signs are very
promising. Over 140 students have signed up to participate
in the major and numerous others are planning to
complete one of the minors. With the business community
becoming more aware of the Taylor Institute and the
direct interactive marketing program, more and more
interest is being generated to participate in the program.
This is being done in the form of contributions, advising/
instructing, internships, and providing projects for practicums.
Also, local and national direct marketing associations
are currently working with the Department of Marketing
faculty to create partnerships that will benefit
students, faculty and, most importantly, the field of direct
interactive marketing.
Moving forward, the program continues to work with
the industry and practitioners to provide students with
contemporary theories and state of the art tools that will
allow them to have a competitive advantage in the marketplace.
Through a strong partnership with the business
community, the program will continue to stay abreast of
the latest trends and practices in direct interactive marketing.
At the same time, research and applications work
generated by the Taylor Institute will hopefully provide
the industry with new theories and practices essential to
the advancement of the field.
Among the short term future plans for the program
are the development of continuing education and training
programs for local businesses. This will allow these
businesses to provide their employees with current strategies
and skills in a fully functioning facility that emulates
their actual work environment. Finally, within the next
few years, the program will be expanded to include
graduate level courses and possibly a MBA emphasis.
SUMMARY
Augmented by the implementation of the Taylor
Institute, the direct interactive program in the Department
of Marketing at the University of Akron is one of the most
comprehensive undergraduate programs of its kind in the
United States. At the heart of the program is a blended
8 Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005
EXHIBIT 5
EXHIBIT 6
Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005 9
pedagogical model that is dependent on strong links
between the academic and business communities. This
partnership differs from other similar relationships in that
businesses and expert practitioners are at the heart of the
program. Students completing the program will have both
the academic foundation and the practical experience to
quickly become successful practitioners and managers in
the field of direct interactive marketing. The university
will benefit from a reciprocal partnership with the business
community, one where the university relies on the
direction and resources provided by the business community
and businesses advance via the research and strategies
developed for them by the university.
REFERENCES
Arndorfer, James B. (2004), “Direct Get Respect,” Advertising
Age, 75, 1.
Bloom, B.S., ed. (1956), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
New York: Longmans, Green.
Direct Marketing Educational Foundation (2005),
“DMEF’s Direct Marketing Program Listing,” [http:/
/www.the-dma.org/dmef/dmef_degree.shtml].
Floyd, C. and M.E. Gordon (1998), “What Skills are Most
Important? A Comparison of Employer, Student, and
Staff Perceptions,” Journal of Marketing Education,
20, 103–9.
Gardyn, Rebecca (2003), “Be Direct,” American Demographics,
25, 16.
Lamb. C.W., S. Shipp, and W. Moncrief, III (1995),
“Integrating Skills and Content Knowledge in the
Marketing Curriculum,” Journal of Marketing Education,
17, 10–19.
Lundstrom, W. and S. White (1997), “A Gap Analysis of
Professional and Academic Perceptions of the Importance
of International Marketing Curriculum Content
and Research Areas,” Journal of Marketing
Education, 19, 16–25.
Mitchell, Ted and Judy Strauss (2001), “Practitioner and
Academic Recommendations for Internet Marketing
and E-Commerce Curricula,” Journal of Marketing
Education, 23, 91–102.
Moody, Janette, Brent Stewart, and Cynthia Bolt-Lee
(2002), “Showcasing the Skilled Business Graduate:
Expanding the Toolkit,” Business Communication
Quarterly, 65, 21–36.
Ortega, Raquel (2004), “Impact of Directed-to-Consumers
Marketing Strategies on Firm Market Value,”
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28, 466–
69.
Rynes, S., J. Bartunek, and R. Daft (2001), “Across the
Great Divide Knowledge Creation and Transfer Between
Practitioners and Academics,” Academy of
Management Journal, 44, 340–42.
Tapp, Alan (2003), “Linking Business Schools and Practice
in Direct Marketing: Are We Missing an Opportunity?”
Database Marketing & Customer Strategy
Management, 11, 107–13.
10 Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005
PERFORMANCE ON THE FINAL EXAM IN THE
PRINCIPLES OF MARKETING COURSE:
RELATIONSHIPS WITH
SELF-HANDICAPPING
David J. Burns, Xavier University
ABSTRACT
Given the reliance on testing as an evaluation tool in the Principles of Marketing Course, the effectiveness of
testing in determining student comprehension is an important area of study. Do the personal qualities of students,
however, have the ability to interfere with the relationship between comprehension and exam performance? This
study investigates the relationships of self-handicapping with performance expectations, actual performance, and
self-reported anxiety at the time of the final exam for 378 students enrolled in Principles of Marketing courses. A
negative relationship was observed between self-handicapping and performance expectations, no relationship was
observed with actual performance, and a negative relationship was observed with students’ self-reported anxiety.
These findings are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
In the Principles of Marketing course, testing typically
represents the primary tool for measuring students’
comprehension of course material. Although other assignments,
such as exercises involving the Internet, service-
learning opportunities, and project presentations
appear to be growing in use, grades in Principles of
Marketing courses are still most often based on students’
performances on a limited number of exams (Bacon
2003). In fact, so important is the testing process that it is
considered to be an integral component of quality teaching
(Kelley, Conant, and Smart 1989). As a result, a poor
performance on a single exam can often materially adversely
affect a student’s final grade in the course, particularly
when that exam is the final exam.
Although numerous studies have examined the validity
and rigor of the examination process, relatively little
attention has been placed on the problems of the students
who take the exams (Anderson and Sauser 1995). For
instance, given the importance of testing situations in the
Principles of Marketing course, one could logically expect
that students will pursue all opportunities to excel on
these evaluative tools. Many instructors in that course,
however, will attest that not all students appear to follow
this course of action. In fact, some students will at times
so seemingly “stack the deck” against themselves that
their likelihood of excelling, or even surviving, in a
collegiate environment is jeopardized (Smith, Snyder,
and Handelsman 1982).
The purpose of this study is to increase understanding
of this form of student behavior. Specifically, the objective
of this study is to examine the relationship between
students’ proclivity to self-handicap, and their expected
and actual performances on the final exam in a Principles
of Marketing course. First, accounts, or “linguistic devices
(spoken or unspoken) employed whenever an action is
subjected to a valuative enquiry” (Lyman and Scott 1970,
p. 112), will be explored. Second, self-handicapping, a
specific form of anticipatory account and a possible origin
of such seemingly “irrational” behavior, will be examined.
Third, students’ proclivity to self-handicap will be
related to their expected performance on the final exam,
their actual performance on the final exam, and their selfreported
anxiety at the time of the final exam. Finally,
implications of the findings will be discussed.
ACCOUNTS
The prevalence of the use of accounts, such as excuses
and justifications, has been well-documented (Snyder,
Higgins, and Stucky 1983). Accounts represent a specific
type of attribution, or “the process of constructing explanations
for events” (Solomon 2001, p. 81). The purpose
of accounts is to provide an explanation for a performance
(such as a poor exam performance) with the goal of
lessening or eliminating any negativity associated with its
outcome. In other words, accounts are explanations that
“lessen the negative implication of (one’s) performance,
thereby maintaining a positive image for oneself and
others” (Snyder, Higgins, and Stucky 1983, p. 45). Accounts
provide a protective mechanism for an individual
to use as a shield against unpleasant or anxiety-producing
realities (Wahlroos 1981). They play a key role in the
Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005 11
process of coping in an environment viewed as taxing or
as having potential to tax the resources or abilities of a
person (Burns and Perkins 1996), or in other words,
accounts play a key role in an environment where failure
to reach a specific standard is experienced or could be
experienced. Through the use of accounts, an individual
can attempt to “negotiate reality,” or attempt to deceive
oneself or others (Higgins 2002; Szabados 1985), by
seeking to develop a “reality” which is believed to be more
safe and less of a threat. Weiner goes so far to say that
accounts are “untrue, tactical communications” (1992,
p. 135).
Consistent with attribution theory, the central element
of accounts is the self. Without a self to protect, there
is no reason for accounts (Jones and Berglas 1978). One’s
assessment of one’s self, or one’s self-esteem (Ziller
1973), represents the driving force in the construction of
accounts. Many psychology theorists believe that the
maintenance of self-esteem represents a fundamental force
in motivating an individual’s behavior (Adler 1929; Fromm
1941; Horney 1945), a contention which has received a
sizable degree of empirical support (see Greenberg, Pyszczynski,
and Solomon 1986). In fact, James (1890) regarded
self-esteem maintenance as a fundamental instinctive
impulse. According to the self-worth theory of motivation
(Covington 1997, 1992), self-esteem maintenance arises
from a fear of failure and/or the fear of the effect that
failure has on one’s sense of ability and self worth. The
role played by accounts, therefore, appears to be selfesteem
maintenance where individuals use attributions in
the process of self-image protection (Jones and Berglas
1978). Specifically, accounts act primarily through impression
management (Goffman 1959).
IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT
Impression management, a specific aspect of attribution
theory, consists of “any behavior by a person that has
the purpose of controlling or manipulating the attributions
and impressions formed of that person by others” (Tedeschi
and Reiss 1981a, p. 3). According to Tedeschi and
Reiss, impression management involves two types of
explanations:
The first is the actor’s personal explanation, interpretation,
or diagnosis as to whether the situation entails
a predicament or potential predicament. If the cognitive
explanation or definition of the situation as a
predicament is reached the actor should become
aware that some sort of impression management is
required. He will then probably offer a public account
for the predicament-provoking actions in order to
avoid or escape their undesired implications. . . .
Central to the realization that one faces a predicament
is the belief that others attribute to oneself responsibility
for the event in question (1981b, p. 272).
It can be expected, therefore, that an individual will
attempt to lessen or eliminate the adverse effect which a
suboptimal performance will have on his/her self-esteem
(Schlenker and Pontari 2000). Indeed, once a person has
been found responsible for a poor performance, that
person stands liable for blame (Shaver 1985) unless s/he
can successfully account for the action (Tedeschi and
Reiss 1981b).
An individual’s self-esteem is directly affected by
his/her actions by a responsibility linkage (Snyder, Higgins,
and Stucky 1983), where responsibility is “a judgement
made about the moral accountability of a person of
normal capabilities, which usually but not always involves
a causal connection between the person being
judged and some morally disapproved action or event”
(Shaver 1985, p. 5). This responsibility linkage is influenced
by the potential effects of an action and its outcome
on the individual’s self-esteem. Logically, to maintain
self-esteem, individuals can be expected to attempt to
strengthen the responsibility linkage where positive events
exist and attempt to lessen or sever the responsibility
linkage where negative events exist. Empirical research
has provided substantial support to this view – individuals
have been found to readily claim credit for positive events
and to place credit for negative events elsewhere (Goleman
1985; Richins 1985; Zuckerman 1979). It can be said,
therefore, “one is inclined to attribute to oneself good
things, but one suffers when one has to attribute to oneself
something that is not good” (Harvey, Ickes, and Kidd
1976, p. 16). Substantial empirical evidence concerning
the success of impression management techniques exists
(Schlenker and Pontari 2000; Tedeschi, Gaes, Norman,
and Melborg 1986; Wayne and Ferris 1990), as well as
attribution theory in general as it relates to self-esteem
maintenance (Pyszczynski and Greenberg 1987; Weary
1980; Zuckerman 1979).
Impression management appears to play a role in the
academic environment. In education settings, individuals
frequently encounter situations of a diagnostic nature,
such as exams (Thompson and Richardson 2001). A
performance on an exam can be indicative of ability, a key
component of self worth (Covington 1992). In the event
of a poor exam performance then, it can be expected that
a student will attempt to absolve oneself of connections
with and/or responsibility for this negative event in order
to maintain self worth (Martin, Marsh, Williamson, and
Debus 2003). A mechanism which is available to achieve
this goal is accounts. Although several have presented
frameworks of retrospective accounts (accounts given for
performances already given) (Burns and Perkins 1996;
Wahlroos 1981), and have examined the use of such
accounts in an academic setting (Jung 1988), this study
will focus on a form of anticipatory account (accounts
given before the performance), or self-handicapping.
12 Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005
SELF-HANDICAPPING
Self-handicapping involves the use of anticipatory
excuses, or excuses given prior to a possible negative
performance (Baumeister and Scher 1988). Self-handicapping
differs from other attributions in that it occurs
prior to the performance (Martin, Marsh, Williamson, and
Debus 2003). The function of these anticipatory excuses
is to shield individuals from the negativity associated with
a suboptimal performance before it happens (Snyder
1990). “Self-handicappers choose impediments or obstacles
to successful performance that enable them to deflect
the cause of failure away from their competence and on to
the acquired impediments” (Martin, Debus, and Marsh
2003, p. 3). An individual utilizing self-handicapping
then, develops accounts for a subpar performance before
the performance has occurred. In doing so, the individual
is attempting to proactively minimize the potential negativity
of a poor performance and/or sever responsibility
with it before the performance has commenced (Rhodewalt
and Tragakis 2002).
The self-handicapper, we are suggesting, reaches out
for impediments, exaggerates handicaps, embraces
any factor reducing personal responsibility for mediocrity
and enhancing personal responsibility for success.
One does this to shape the implications of
performance feedback both in one’s own eyes and in
the eyes’ of others (Jones and Berglas 1978, p. 202).
Self-handicapping, therefore, involves individuals
protecting their images of competence by proactively
arranging for adversity in specific performances (Higgins
1990; Martin, Marsh, and Debus 2001). If a poor performance
occurs, a ready excuse already exists (Martin,
Debus, and Marsh 2003).
Thompson and Richardson (2001) provides attributional
evidence attesting to the effects of the use of selfhandicapping
on individuals’ self-esteem. Specifically,
they observed that low self-handicappers are more likely
to internalize their success to a greater degree than are
high self-handicappers. Low self-handicappers were also
observed, however, to be more likely to internalize failure
in high-importance situations than are high self-handicappers.
Feick and Rhodewalt (1998) and Rhodewalt and Hill
(1995) observed similar findings. These observations
suggest that self-handicapping succeeds in sheltering
high self-handicappers from the negative effects of failures
in situations of high-importance, but it also suggests
that high self-handicappers may also shield themselves
from the positive effects of successful performances. The
process of self-protection, however, appears to come at a
price. As a result, Murray and Warden (1990) suggest that
high self-handicappers may remain unsure of their abilities,
leading to a continuing use of self-handicapping
tactics leading to an uncertainty-self-handicapping cycle
(Bailis 2001; Zuckerman, Kieffer, and Knee 1998).
Self-handicapping does not appear to involve a fear
of failure per se since the primary concern of high selfhandicappers
is not to avoid failure (Riggs 1992). In fact,
self-handicapping behavior will often increase the likelihood
of failure (Jones and Berglas 1978). Zuckerman,
Kieffer, and Knee (1998) observed, for instance, that in a
classroom setting, high self-handicappers display more
withdrawal and negative coping strategies and poorer
study habits. Instead, self-handicapping is concerned with
the effects of failure – protecting oneself from the negative
effects that failure can have on one’s self-esteem
(Rhodewalt and Tragakis 2002). High self-handicapping
individuals find that it is easier to minimize the effects a
poor performance may produce than to minimize the
likelihood of a poor performance since the ability of one
to ensure that a poor performance will not occur is limited.
Although research interest in self-handicapping is a
relatively recent phenomenon, its foundations lie in the
writings of Adler (1929). Adler posited the existence of a
striving for superiority as a universal guiding motive
(Ansbacher and Ansbacher 1967). Self-handicapping in
turn, represents an unhealthy manifestation of this motive.
Higgins, Snyder, and Berglas (1990), when discussing the
views of Adler, state
Normal individuals in this scheme sought to achieve
superiority by overcoming their felt deficiencies (inferiority
feelings) in a largely task-oriented and socially
contributory manner. Neurotic individuals, in
contrast, were thought to be so impressed with the
magnitude of their perceived inferiorities, and so
discouraged about their chances of overcoming them
in socially useful ways, that they developed an inferiority
complex. The inferiority complex, in turn,
fostered the development of a superiority complex.
For neurotic individuals, then, superiority striving
became directed toward protecting their prestige,
avoiding defeat, and sustaining the esteem-giving
illusion of working toward true superiority (pp. 5–6).
As a result,
The patient selects certain symptoms and develops
them until they impress him as real obstacles. Behind
his barricade of symptoms the patient feels hidden
and secure. To the question, “What use are you
making of your talents?” he answers, “This thing
stops me; I cannot go ahead,” and points to his selferected
barricade (Adler 1929, p. 13).
The success of this strategy lies in the fact that
(the individual’s) self-esteem is protected in his own
judgement, and usually also his prestige in the estimation
of others. If the decision fall against him, he
can refer to his difficulties and to the proof of his
illness (or any other handicap), which he has himself
constructed. If he remains victorious, what could he
not have done if he were well, when, as a sick man, he
achieved so much – one handed, so to speak (Ansbacher
and Ansbacher 1967, p. 276).
Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005 13
Paradoxically, therefore, in order to maintain selfesteem
in the light of possible failure, the prospect of
expected failure is communicated to one’s self and one’s
referent others. This communication typically includes
the “rationale,” or an account for the possible failure.
The situational conditions in which a performance
transpires has been shown to affect the propensity of one
to self-handicap (Higgins 1990). For instance, Self (1990),
and Snyder and Smith (1982) suggest that self-handicapping
is more likely when an individual faces evaluative
situations within which the likelihood of success is uncertain.
Similarly, Rhodewalt, Saltzman, and Wittmer (1984)
observed that increasing the importance of a performance
will lead to a similar increase in the use of self-handicapping
strategies. Pyszczynski and Greenberg (1983), for
example, observed that for a test with “high ego-relevance”
(the test was presented as being highly respected
and a good predictor of academic success), subjects who
were informed that they had a low probability of success
reported intending to exert less effort on the test than those
who were informed that they had a high probability of
success. No such difference was noted for a test with “low
ego-relevance.” Shepperd and Arkin (1989) observed
similar findings.
Self-handicapping can be manifest through a number
of avenues, including strategic reduction in effort, procrastination,
and the use of drugs/alcohol (Martin, Debus,
and Marsh 2003; Martin, Marsh, and Debus 2001; Rhodewalt
and Davison 1986; Sheppard and Arkin 1989).
Relative to individuals with low proclivity to self-handicap,
individuals with a high proclivity to self-handicap
will exhibit less effort (Hirt, Deppe, and Gordon 1991;
Lay, Knish, and Zanatta 1992) and be more likely to
appeal to extenuating circumstances as obstacles of success
prior to a performance (Feick and Rhodewalt 1998;
Rhodewalt and Hill 1995; Thompson and Richardson
2001). The use of self-handicapping strategies in academia
appears to be widespread (Midgley, Arunkumar,
and Urdan 1996; Urdan and Midgley 2001). Furthermore,
self-handicapping is viewed to be a enduring personal
protection style (Higgins 1990).
LOWER GRADE EXPECTATIONS AS A SELFHANDICAPPING
STRATEGY
As mentioned above, the objective of self-handicapping
within the realm of academia is to sever or lessen the
responsibility connection between one’s self and a possible
forthcoming poor performance. In doing so, an individual
attempts to proactively minimize the potential
negativity of a poor performance and/or sever responsibility
with it before the performance has commenced
(Rhodewalt and Tragakis 2002). Grade expectations, however,
represent a standard that an individual has established
as the level of expected performance. The higher
that one’s grade expectations are, therefore, the higher the
standard of achievement which is set. It would seem
likely, therefore, that if individuals displaying a high
proclivity to self-handicap will desire to decrease the
possibility of performance failure (not fulfilling expectations),
the expression of lower grade expectations can be
expected. The lower grade expectations can logically be
expected since a lesser chance of failure to achieve these
expectations would exist. The lower grade expectations,
therefore, in themselves become an avenue that individuals
displaying a high proclivity to self-handicap can use to
protect themselves from the negativity that would be
associated with a poor exam performance.
H1: An individual’s proclivity to self-handicap is
negatively related to anticipated performance on
the final exam.
SELF-HANDICAPPING AND EXAM
PERFORMANCE
Jones and Berglas (1978) suggests that proclivity to
self-handicap should be inversely related to academic
achievement. Rhodewalt (1990) observed a significant
inverse relationship between proclivity to self-handicapping
and an index based on the individuals’ GPA and ACT
scores, as did Zuckerman, Kieffer, and Knee (1998) and
Urdan, Midgley, and Anderman (1998). Furthermore,
Martin, Marsh, and Debus (2001) observed a negative
relationship between proclivity to self-handicap and endof-
year grades.
These findings, however, have not been found to be
universal across the academic setting. Several studies
(Greenberg, Pyszczynski, and Paisley 1985; Harris and
Snyder 1986; Hunsley 1985; Jung 1988; Rhodewalt and
Davison 1986) have reported that although high selfhandicappers
studied and/or practiced less than low selfhandicappers
before a performance, they generally performed
as well as did the low self-handicappers. Feick and
Rhodewalt (1998) also observed no relationship between
self-handicapping and exam performance. Higgins and
Berglas (1990) suggest that this finding may be reflective
of the fact that very high self-handicappers may have a
tendency to avoid self-esteem threatening experiences.
Hence, since higher education, given its performance and
evaluation orientation, can be viewed as potentially highly
threatening to one’s self-esteem, very high self-handicappers
may be apt to avoid this undertaking altogether.
The range of self-handicapping reported in studies examining
self-handicapping in higher education, however,
does not support this contention. Since the originators of
the concept of self-handicapping (Jones and Berglas)
hypothesized the existence of a negative relationship
between self-handicapping and actual exam performance,
and since Higgins and Berglas still support this hypothesis,
the following hypothesis also appears to be justified.
14 Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005
H2: An individual’s proclivity to self-handicap is
negatively related to his/her actual performance
on the final exam.
SELF-HANDICAPPING AND TEST ANXIETY
The relationship between self-handicapping and test
anxiety appears to be more complex. For instance, although
students use numerous self-handicapping strategies,
test anxiety is viewed by some as a primary avenue
for the expression of self-handicapping in the academic
environment (Smith, Snyder, and Handelsman 1982).
The condition of test anxiety can be illustrated by the
“hapless student who claims to have mastered the course
material before the examination but is unable to perform
satisfactorily during the test, only to recall the material
with complete clarity after it is too late” (Covington and
Omelich 1987, p. 393). Test anxiety then, is not given as
a reason for not knowing the information, but instead as a
reason for not being able to adequately recall the information.
Empirical evidence exists which appears to support
the existence of test anxiety. For instance, anxiety arousal
is associated with diminishing academic performance
(Dusek 1980; Tyron 1980; Wine 1982) and anxiety arousal
appears to increase with exam difficulty (Covington
1983). Although Covington and Omelich (1987) also
observe evidence of an inverse relationship between anxiety
arousal and academic performance, they declare that
it is inadequate as an explanation of poor exam performance.
Instead, they suggest that students’ claims that test
anxiety is the cause of poor performance may more
accurately reflect a defensive mechanism employed as a
means to maintain a sense of competency in the event of
inadequate performance. Covington (1984) and Covington,
Omelich, and Schwarzer (1986) make the same
suggestion.
Test anxiety appears to have its basis in the fear of the
negative effects resulting from a possible subpar outcome
from the testing process (Phillips, Pitcher, Worsham, and
Miller 1980). Specifically, highly test-anxious students
“tend to develop problem-solving strategies indicative of
a generally higher motive to avoid failure than to approach
success” (Dusek 1980, p. 91), leading them to seek external
attributions for failure (Dweck 1975). Snyder and
Smith (1982) suggest that test anxiety may be a commonly
used self-handicapping strategy employed by students.
Thompson and Richardson (2001) empirically examined
this contention and conclude that individuals with a higher
proclivity to self-handicap are more likely to claim
impairment due to anxiety before evaluative performances.
The setting of the study, however, was contrived – it
was not based in a classroom setting.
Self-handicapping also has been examined by in the
area of sports where examples of performance anxiety has
been identified as a self-handicapping strategy. Ryska and
Yin (1998), for instance, observe a positive relationship
between proclivity to self-handicap and sport competition
anxiety. The instrument used to measure sport competition
anxiety (Matens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, and Smith
1990), however, differs significantly from the instruments
ordinally used to measure general anxiety – it is
much more specific and addresses imminent performance.
Items in the scale include “I am concerned about choking
under pressure” and “I’m confident I can meet the challenge.”
In his study, Bailis (2001), observes results inconsistent
with those of Ryska and Yin (1998). A closer look,
however, uncovers a fundamental difference between
these two studies. Bailis (2001), for instance, administered
the instruments immediately prior to a competitive
event whereas Rysta and Yin (1998) administered the
instruments before a midseason practice session. Bailis
(2001), therefore, likely more accurately measured competitive
anxiety since the study involves an imminent
game, not an abstract “future games” of Ryska and Yin
(1998).
Furthermore, Prapavessis, Grove, Maddison, and
Zillman (2003) suggest that when test anxiety is used as an
self-handicapping strategy, it merely reflects a declaration
of what the individual seeks to communicate and is
not an indication of the presence of actual increased
anxiety. Consistent with this line of thought, Learly and
Shepard (1986) and Thompson (2004) speak of the need
to make a distinction between behavioral and claimed
self-handicapping activity, where behavioral self-handicapping
activity is performance-adverse, actually lowering
students’ chances of success, and claimed self-handicapping
merely lessens the responsibility linkage between
performance level and one’s self and does actually
affect the level of one’s performance. In the instance of
claimed self-handicapping, it seems is possible, therefore,
for individuals with high proclivities to self-handicap to
appeal to handicaps which do not impede effort or ability
(Hirt, Deppe, and Gordon 1991). In fact, the handicap
itself may not actually exist in reality; claimed test anxiety
may be one of these such handicaps. A student can claim
test anxiety at the time of an exam, but in fact may not be
experiencing excessive anxiety. Instead, the student may
be merely lessening the responsibility linkage in the event
of a possible poor performance.
Test anxiety is ordinarily conceptualized as a psychological
concept measured via self-report (Anderson and
Sauser 1995). Eysenck (1997) suggests self-reported anxiety
conceptually differs from the actual anxiety experienced
by students. He bases this contention on the observation
that individuals who self-report low amounts of
anxiety exhibit differing physiological manifestations of
anxiety. Specifically, differences have been observed
between self-reported anxiety and heart rate (e.g., Derakshan
and Eysenck 2001, 1997), blood pressure (e.g.,
Weinberger, Schwartz, and Davidson 1979), and skin
Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005 15
conductance (e.g., Barger, Kircher, and Croyle 1997).
Although Lazuras and Folkman (1984) suggest that the
discrepancies result from deficiencies in the measures,
empirical results suggest otherwise. Sheffer, Penn, and
Cassisi (2001), for instance, observe that several of the
physiological manifestations of anxiety vary widely between
individuals. Eysenck (1997) suggests that differences
between self-reported anxiety and physiological
manifestations of anxiety arises from the fact that an
individual’s self-reported anxiety is a function of the way
that one’s physiological state and behavior are interpreted
by an individual. Since self-handicapping and expected
grades are psychological phenomenon, and since selfreported
anxiety is also a psychological phenomenon and
is the customary conceptualization of anxiety within an
academic setting, self-reported anxiety appears to be the
appropriate focus in this study.
Although claims of test anxiety have been suggested
as a self-handicapping strategy and have been shown to be
used as such, the theory behind self-handicapping seems
to suggest that individuals with higher proclivities to selfhandicap
should actually report lesser test anxiety than
students with a low propensity to self-handicap. Specifically,
since self-handicapping is an anticipatory account
with the objective of deflecting the negative effects of a
possible poor performance, it would seem that individuals
with high proclivities to self-handicap possess fewer
reasons to be apprehensive about an upcoming exam
performance since they have “less to lose.” Since the
objective of self-handicapping is to sever or lessen the
responsibility connection between one’s self and a possible
forthcoming poor performance, if the individual does
perform poorly, a ready excuse for the poor performance
already exists – there are few self costs in the face of a poor
performance. Consequently, it would appear that there are
fewer reasons to worry about the nature that one’s forthcoming
performance will take.
H3: An individual’s proclivity to self-handicap is
positively related to his/her self-reported anxiety
at the time of the final exam.
METHODOLOGY
The sample was comprised of 378 students enrolled
in introductory marketing classes at a Midwest university
taught by a single instructor. All of the students were
either juniors or seniors. The students were asked to
complete two short questionnaires during the course. The
first questionnaire, which was administered at the beginning
of the course, included the Self-Handicapping Scale
(SHS) – a scale developed to measure the trait of selfhandicapping
(Rhodewalt 1990). This questionnaire was
administered at this time to disguise the intent of this scale.
(Since students did not know that their results would
subsequently be related to their exam performance expectations
on the final exam, their actual performance on the
final exam, or their anxiety experienced a the time of the
final exam, expectations were that this approach would
minimize that source of bias). Students were asked to
include their ID numbers on the questionnaires so that
extra credit could be assigned. Although students were
informed that the extra credit opportunity consisted of two
questionnaires, they were not informed that there responses
would be matched (although they were informed that
there would be two short questionnaires during the semester
and that they needed to complete both questionnaires
to receive the extra credit points). The second questionnaire
was administered at the end of the course, immediately
prior to the start of the final exam. The students were
asked to evaluate their anticipated performance on the
final exam. Furthermore, the students’ self-reported anxiety
were assessed at that time. Students were also asked
to include their ID numbers on the second questionnaire.
Student ID numbers were used to match the two questionnaires.
In an attempt to minimize possible bias, students
were expressly guaranteed anonymity on both questionnaires
as far as the course instructor was concerned. No
nonresponse was observed – all of the students completed
both questionnaires.
The final exam was comprised primarily of multiplechoice
questions with a small number of true-and-false
questions. All of the questions, therefore, were objective
in nature. Consequently, students had no options to provide
any written answers nor to comment on the exams.
Students were aware of the form that the final exam would
take prior to the exam.
INSTRUMENTS
The most commonly used instrument to measure trait
self-handicapping, the Self-Handicapping Scale, is comprised
of 25 statements designed to assess individual
proclivity to use self-handicapping behavior (Table 1).
For each statement, students were asked to indicate their
level of agreement on a six-point scale. After accounting
for reversed-scored items, responses were summed for
each individual to produce their self-handicapping scores.
The results of large group testing sessions indicate that the
scale exhibits acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s
alpha = .79) and test-retest reliability (r = .74 after one
month) (Rhodewalt 1990). The findings from a number of
studies also attest to the predictive ability of the scale
(Feick and Rhodewalt 1998; Rhodewalt 1990, 1994;
Rhodewalt and Hill 1994; Strube 1986).
Although the Self-Handicapping Scale is the most
commonly used scale to assess individual proclivity to
self-handicap including within the academic environment,
alternative instruments have been used to examine
self-handicapping in an academic setting. These instruments,
however, have proven not to be satisfactory replacements.
A scale developed by Garcia (1995), for
16 Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005
instance, addresses only behaviors which are often associated
with self-handicapping, but does not address the
reasons for the behaviors. Furthermore, the scale exhibits
low internal consistency. (This finding was not surprising
since the items included in the scale did not exclusively
address self-handicapping items, but arguably also included
post-performance accounts). Midgley, Arunkumar,
and Urdan (1996) developed an alternative scale to
measure proclivity to self-handicap exclusively within
the academic environment. The five items included in
their scale address only self-handicapping. Questions
remain, however, whether the Midgley, Arunkumar, and
TABLE 1
SELF-HANDICAPPING SCALE
Please indicate the degree to which you agree with each of the following statements as a description of the kind
of person you think you are most of the time using the following scale:
0 – Disagree very much
1 – Disagree pretty much
2 – Disagree a little
3 – Agree a little
4 – Agree pretty much
5 – Agree very much
1. When I do something wrong, my first impulse is to blame the circumstances. (1)
2. I tend to put things off to the last moment. (2)
3. I tend to over prepare when I have any kind of exam or “performance.” *
4. I suppose I feel “under the weather” more often than most people. (1)
5. I always try to do my best, no matter what. (2)
6. Before I sign up for a course or engage in any important activity, I make sure I have the proper preparation
or background.*
7. I tend to get very anxious before an exam or “performance.”
8. I am easily distracted by noises or my own creative thoughts when I try to read. (2)
9. I try not to get too intensely involved in competitive activities so it won’t hurt too much if I lose or do poorly.
(1)
10. I would rather be respected for doing my best than admired for my potential. *
11. I would do a lot better if I tried harder. (2)
12. I prefer the small pleasures in the present to the larger pleasures in the dim future.
13. I generally hate to be in any condition but “at my best.” *
14. Someday I might “get it altogether.” (2)
15. I sometimes enjoy being mildly ill for a day or two because it takes off the pressure. (1)
16. I would do much better if I did not let my emotions get in the way. (1)
17. When I do poorly at one kind of thing, I often console myself by remembering I am good at other things.
18. I admit that I am tempted to rationalize when I don’t live up to others’ expectations. (1)
19. I often think I have more than my share of bad luck in sports, card games, and other measures of talent.
(1)
20. I would rather not take any drug that interfered with my ability to think clearly and do the right thing. *
21. I overindulge in food and drink more often than I should. (1)
22. When something important is coming up, like an exam or a job interview, I try to get as much sleep as
possible the night before. *
23. I never let emotional problems in one part of my life interfere with things in my life. *
24. Usually, when I get anxious about doing well, I end up doing better.
25. Sometimes I get so depressed that even easy tasks become difficult. (1)
* Reverse scored
(1) Item in factor 1 (proclivity for excuse making)
(2) Item in factor 2 (concern about effort or motivation)
Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005 17
Urdan (1996) scale addresses the entire domain of the
construct. As a consequence, the use of the Self-Handicapping
Scale has remained the norm when examining
self-handicapping within the academic environment (Thompson
and Richardson 2001).
Furthermore, attempts have been made to shorten the
Self-Handicap Scale, most notably the efforts of Rhodewalt
(1990) with the development of a fourteen-item Self-
Handicapping Scale. Given validity concerns over the
shortened scale (Martin and Brawley 1999), however,
Zuckerman, Kieffer, and Knee (1998) recommends the
use of the original, full-length version of the instrument.
The Self-Handicapping Scale is also viewed to be a
more valid measure of individuals’ proclivity to selfhandicap
than examining practices believed to be result of
a high proclivity to self-handicap. High self-handicappers
can be expected to exhibit their proclivity via different
behavioral avenues. To accurately measure individuals’
proclivity to self-handicap via behavior, therefore, will
require an identification of each possible behavioral avenue
and the development of an appropriate weighting
mechanism. Furthermore, the several of the behaviors
associated self-handicapping can at times possess origins
other than self-handicapping requiring that research must
be conducted in a much more structured environment. The
use of the Self-Handicapping Scale overcomes these
limitations.
Finally, a factor analysis of the Self-Handicapping
Scale by Rhodewalt (1990) indicates that it includes two
factors – one factor reflecting a proclivity to making
excuses and a second representing concern about effort
and motivation. Interestingly, the factor structure of the
Self-Handicapping Scale has not been recognized in subsequent
studies.
Students’ expected and actual performance on the
final exam are measured on five-point scales based on
letter grade similar to Wong (2000) (A = 1, B = 2, C = 3,
D = 4, F = 5). It is unlikely that students could predict
grades with greater precision via alternative scale (e.g.,
numerical percentage). Actual performance was measured
on the same scale to provide continuity and to be
consistent with past research on self-handicapping. Given
the predominance of the use of multiple-choice exams in
the Principles of Marketing course (Bacon 2003), that was
the form which the final exam took.
Students’ self-reported anxiety, is not an easy concept
to measure (Ebel 1972). For instance, although
various test-anxiety scales have been constructed, the
validity of these scales have yet to be unequivocally
established. Early studies on test anxiety attempted to
measure anxiety by physiological means (Cannon 1929;
Folin, Demis, and Smillies 1914). Since the autonomic
nervous system can seldom be consciously controlled,
this form of measurement should suffer little from faking
or from problems concerning social desirability (Anderson
and Sauser 1995). The results of measuring this
concept by physiological means, however, have been
disappointing (Levitt 1967). When testing five types of
physiological measures used to measure anxiety, Hopkins
and Chambers observed “the physiological measures are
essentially unrelated, and do not provide the basis for the
identification of a preferred measure of anxiety” (1966,
p. 189).
Several attempts have been made to measure test
anxiety via self-administered scales, including such measures
as the Test-Anxiety Questionnaire (TAQ) (Mandler
and Sarason 1952), the Test Anxiety Scale (TAS) (Sarason
1958), the Test Anxiety Inventory (TAI) (Speilberger
1980), the Reactions to Tests Scale (RTT) (Sarason 1984),
and the Revised Test Anxiety Scale (RTA) (Benson et al.
1992). (See Anderson and Sauser (1995) for a complete
list). Such “reliance on self-report inventories of anxiety
implies not only a disillusionment with other types of
measures, but also acceptance of the awareness of test
anxiety as a conscious process” (Anderson and Sauser
1995, p. 19). Several questions concerning the validity of
such scales exist, however. One such problem is that the
existing scales have their origins in differing schools of
thought. For instance, the trait school of thought emphasizes
the stable, enduring nature of test anxiety, whereas
the situation approach emphasizes the situtational determinants
of test anxiety. Which is the correct approach?
Bedell and Marlowe (1995) compared scales developed
under the various schools of thought perporting to measure
test anxiety. Interestingly, the measures were “essentially
equivalent in their assessments. . . . It is obvious that
the differences in their (the scales’) theoretical basis have
little bearing on what is being measured” (Bedell and
Marlowe 1995, p. 41).
Anderson and Sauser raise another question on the
validity of test anxiety scales – “To what extent do the
anxiety measures tap some of the same skills as the abilityachievement
scores (test performance): vocabulary, reading
comprehension, test taking strategies, and so forth?”
(1995, p. 20). A number of the authors and users of these
scales have displayed an active concern for these issues
(Hopkins and Chambers 1966). This question, however,
has not been unequivocally addressed.
Furthermore, Tobias and Hedl (1972) suggests that
test anxiety is a manifestation of general anxiety, and
should be conceptualized as such. Bedell and Marlowe
(1995) observed evidence consistent with this contention.
They observed that students’ test performances were
more strongly related with a scale addressing general trait
anxiety than they were with scales which attempt to
measure only test anxiety. Moreover, in the presence of
self-handicapping, a scale addressing general trait anxiety
can be expected to provide a more accurate measure of
anxiety at the time of a final exam. Students can be
expected to be more likely to notice that an instrument
18 Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005
measuring test anxiety indeed measures test anxiety,
possibly resulting in responses which will represent
claimed test anxiety as opposed to actual anxiety.
For this study then, in a manner similar to that of
Allen and Janiszewski’s (1989) procedure to measure
mood, a 7-item general anxiety scale (Table 2) was
developed. Since it was to be administered immediately
prior to the final exam, it was imperative that the scale and
the scale items be short so that it could be quickly completed.
The scale items were drawn from the State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory (STAI) (Spielberger 1983). The STAI
is a lengthy instrument (40 items long) which would be
inappropriate for admission immediate before the final
exam. Numerous attempts have been made to develop
short forms of the STAI, a process which has been
supported by Speilberger for use where time is a consideration.
Although all of the attempts have seemingly
produced valid results, none of the short forms have
become accepted as a preferred measure (Marteau and
Bekker 1992). For this study, items chosen included those
scoring high on the anxiety-absent and state-anxietypresent
factors (Iwata et al. 1998) and which would easily
be understood by a student sample. For each item, students
were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a
four-point scale. After accounting for reverse-scored items,
respondents’ answers were summed. An acceptable Cronbach’s
alpha was observed (.865).
FINDINGS
The distribution of students’ self-handicapping scores
covered a wide range, indicating the inclusion of individuals
with widely varying proclivities to self-handicap
(mean 63.8, standard deviation 9.95, range 38–95). The
same was true for the scale measuring self-reported anxiety
state (mean 15.2, standard deviation 4.9, range 7–28).
Students’ actual grades on the final exam (mean 3.07,
standard deviation 1.166) were significantly lower than
their expected grades (mean 1.76, standard deviation
.679).
The results of correlation analyses are displayed in
Table 3. Evidence was observed in support of Hypothesis
1 – the hypothesized significant negative relationship
between self-handicapping and expected final exam grade
was observed (r = .258, p < .000). Students with higher
proclivities to self-handicap were found to express significantly
(at the .05 level) lower grade expectations on the
final exam than were students with lower proclivities to
self-handicap.
No evidence in support of Hypothesis 2 was observed
– a significant relationship was not observed between
self-handicapping and actual final exam grade (r =
.083, p = .180). No evidence was observed in support of
the existence of a negative relationship between selfhandicapping
and exam performance, indicating that al-
TABLE 2
GENERAL ANXIETY SCALE
Please describe how you presently feel on the following scale:
1 – Not at all
2 – Somewhat
3 – Moderately so
4 – Very much so
1. I feel calm. *
2. I am tense
3. I feel upset.
4. I feel nervous.
5. I am jittery.
6. I feel content. *
7. I feel over-excited and rattled.
* Reverse scored
Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005 19
though self-handicapping appears to affect students’ grade
expectations, it does not appear to affect actual exam
performance.
Support was observed for Hypothesis 3 – a significant
negative relationship was observed between selfhandicapping
and self-reported anxiety (r = .175, p =
.005). Students with higher proclivities to self-handicap
were observed to be less anxious at the time of the final
exam than those with lower proclivities to self-handicap.
Given the significant results for both Hypotheses 1
(expected final exam grade) and 3 (self-reported anxiety),
does self-reported anxiety mediate the relationship between
proclivity to self handicap and expected final exam
grade? This question was examined using the methodology
of Baron and Kenny (1986). The results from a
regression analysis with self handicapping predicting
self-reported anxiety (b = .079, standard error = .028) and
results from a regression analysis with self-reported anxiety
predicting expected final exam grade (b = .028,
standard error = .007) were tested using the Sobel test
(Sobel 1982). The result (z = 2.31, p = .021) was significant
at the .05 level, suggesting that self-reported anxiety
does act as a mediator between self-handicapping and
expected final exam grade.
Similarly, does self-handicapping moderate the relationship
between self-reported anxiety and expected and
actual exam performance on the final exam? The results of
adding the product of the possible moderator (self handicapping)
and the independent variable (self-reported
anxiety) to regression analyses with students’ expected
and actual final exam grades as the dependent variables
(as recommended by Cohen and Cohen (1983)) produced
insignificant results (t = .228, significance = .820 for
expected exam grade, and t = .192, significance =.848 for
actual final exam grade). Self handicapping does not
appear to moderate the relationship between self-reported
anxiety and expected or actual final exam grade.
The analysis was repeated including only those students
in the top and bottom quartiles of proclivity to selfhandicap
factor to provide a direct comparison of those
students possessing a high proclivity to self-handicap and
those with a low proclivity to self-handicap and those with
a low proclivity to self-handicap. (The examination of
individuals possessing a high proclivity to self-handicap
and those with a low proclivity is a widely used form of
analysis when using the Self-Handicapping Scale (Thompson
2004; Thompson and Hepburn 2003; Thompson
and Richardson 2001)). The mean self-handicapping score
for the top quartile was 75.5 (standard deviation 4.90) and
50.8 (standard deviation 5.14) for the bottom quartile. For
individuals in the top quartile of self-handicapping scores,
the distribution of the scores of the other variables were:
self-reported anxiety, mean 16.6, standard deviation 4.36;
expected final exam grade, mean 1.95, standard deviation
.680; and actual final exam grade, mean 3.05, standard
deviation 1.283. For individuals in the bottom quartile of
self-handicapping scores, the distribution of the scores of
the other variables were: self-reported anxiety, mean
13.8, standard deviation 4.81; expected final exam grade,
mean 1.50, standard deviation .563; and actual final exam
grade, mean 2.78, standard deviation 1.161. The results of
t-tests (also displayed in Table 3) are similar to the results
observed for the entire sample – significant differences
were observed for expected final exam grade (Hypothesis
1) (t = -4.154, df = 136, p < .000) and self-reported
anxiety (Hypothesis 3) (t = -3.589, df = 136, p < .000) , but
not for actual final exam grade (Hypothesis 2) (t = -1.302,
df = 137, p = .195).
For further insight, the analysis was repeated examining
each of the two factors of the Self-Handicapping
TABLE 3
RELATIONSHIPS WITH SELF-HANDICAPPING
Entire Sample Quartiles
Self-Handicapping Self-Handicapping
Correlation Significance t-value df Significance
Hypothesis1: Expected Final .258 .000* -4.154 136 .000*
Exam Grade
Hypothesis 2: Actual Final .083 .180 -1.302 137 .195
Exam Grade
Hypothesis 3: Self-Reported .175 .005* -3.589 136 .000*
Anxiety
* p < .05
20 Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005
TABLE 4
RELATIONSHIPS WITH SELF-HANDICAPPING FACTORS
Factor 1 (Proclivity for Making Excuses)
Entire Sample Quartiles
Self-Handicapping Self-Handicapping
Correlation Significance t-value df Significance
Hypothesis1: Expected Final .161 .000* -1.498 174 .136
Exam Grade
Hypothesis 2: Actual Final .061 .270 -.442 173 .659
Exam Grade
Hypothesis 3: Self-Reported .335 .000* -5.516 173 .000*
Anxiety
Factor 2 (Concern about Effort and Motivation )
Entire Sample Quartiles
Self-Handicapping Self-Handicapping
Correlation Significance t-value df Significance
Hypothesis1: Expected Final .194 .000* -4.049 198 .000*
Exam Grade
Hypothesis 2: Actual Final .072 .190 -1.894 198 .060
Exam Grade
Hypothesis 3: Self-Reported .051 .363 -1.284 199 .201
Anxiety
* p < .05
Scale (a proclivity to making excuses and concern about
effort and motivation) individually (Table 4). The results
observed for the first factor were similar to the results
observed for the entire self-handicapping measure (H1 –
expected final exam grade r = .161, p < .000; H2 – actual
final exam grade r = .061, p = .270; H3 – self-reported
anxiety r = .335, p < .000), except that the relationship
involving self-reported anxiety appears to be stronger.
The results observed for the second factor indicate that a
significant relationship exists only for expected final
exam grade (Hypothesis 1) (r = .194, p < .000), not for
actual final exam grade (Hypothesis 2) (r = .072, p = .190)
nor for self-reported anxiety (Hypothesis 3) (r = .051, p =
.363).
The analysis was repeated including only those students
in the top and bottom quartiles of each proclivity to
self-handicap factor to provide a direct comparison of
those students possessing a high proclivity to self-handicap
and those with a low proclivity to self-handicap. The
results of t-tests for the first factor produced significant
results only for self-reported anxiety (also displayed in
Figure 4) (H1 – expected final exam grade t = -1.498, df =
174, p = .136; H2 – actual final exam grade t = -.442, df =
173, p = .659; H3 – self-reported anxiety t = -5.516, df =
173, p < .000). Similarly, the results of t-tests for the
second factor produced significant results only for expected
exam grade (H1 – expected final exam grade t =
-4.049, df = 198, p < .000; H2 – actual final exam grade t =
-1.894, df = 198, p = .060; H3 – self-reported anxiety t =
-1.284, df = 199, p = .201). These findings suggest that the
two dimensions of self-handicapping may affect individuals
in differing ways.
Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005 21
DISCUSSION
Although the assessment process, especially the examination
process, has been the focus of numerous studies
in marketing literature, the students who are the subjects
of this line of research have received much less attention.
As the introductory course, students taking the Principles
of Marketing course seem to be of particular concern. For
students not majoring in marketing, the Principles of
Marketing course is often the only course in marketing
that they take. For those majoring in marketing, the
Principles of Marketing course forms the basis for the
other courses they will be taking in the area. Experiences
in the Principles of Marketing course can be expected to
affect students’ perceptions of other marketing courses to
be taken. Furthermore, since many students do not enter
college or the business school with a clear understanding
of what the discipline of marketing comprises, the Principles
of Marketing course acts to introduce the field and, as
a result, in attracting students to major in the subject. The
purpose of this study was to increase knowledge about
students’ perceptions of expected performance in a Principles
of Marketing course
The relationship observed between the proclivity to
self-handicap and expected final exam score was consistent
with the hypothesis. High self-handicappers were
found to expect to score significantly lower on the final
exam in their Principles of Marketing course than were
low self-handicappers. This finding supports the contention
that individuals with higher proclivities to self-handicap
will lower the expectations they possess of their
performance on an imminent exam to minimize the probability
of experiencing a poor performance. By lowering
their expectations, students logically lower their risk of
not meeting them, protecting their self-esteem.
Students’ expectations of exam performance appears
to an important area of concern – “accuracy affords
predictability that may help persons cope with their social
and physical environments” (Kruglanski 1989, p. 395).
“Self-perceptions that are out of touch with reality not
only reveal a lack of self-knowledge, but may also impede
effective self-regulation and goal setting in academic,
professional, and interpersonal situations” (Beyer 1999,
p. 280). Since research has also shown a positive relationship
between ability to accurately predict exam performance
and academic success (Fitzgerald, Gruppen, White,
and Davis 1997), the effect that one’s self-handicapping
appears to have on grade expectations has the potential to
affect not just students’ performance in the Principles of
Marketing course, but whether overall academic success
is achieved.
Confirmatory findings were not observed for the
second hypothesis. No significant relationship was observed
between self-handicapping and actual performance
on the final exam. This seems to suggest that proclivity to
self-handicap may have little effect on students’ actual
final exam performance in the Principles of Marketing
course. This finding adds to the growing body of research
which reports not finding such a relationship (e.g., Feick
and Rhodewalt 1998; Greenberg, Pyszczynski, and Paisley
1985; Harris and Snyder 1986; Hunsley 1985; Jung
1988; Rhodewalt and Davison 1986). Similarly, this also
seems to indicate that the smaller number of studies which
report observing a relationship between self-handicapping
and exam performance (e.g., Martin, Marsh, and
Debus 2001; Rhodewalt 1990; Urdan, Midgley, and Anderman
1998; Zuckerman, Kieffer, and Knee 1998) may
have observed spurious results. The lack of a relationship
between self-handicapping and actual exam performance
in this study suggests that self-handicapping does not
appear to be a major hindering factor on students’ performances
on the exam.
An alternative explanation for the results observed,
however, exists. Since the activities often associated with
a high proclivity to self-handicap (e.g., poor study habits,
withdrawal) are widely recognized as adversely affecting
exam performance, individuals with high proclivities to
self-handicap may actually possess higher abilities than
individuals with low proclivities to self-handicap. The
observation that final exam performance is not related to
proclivity to self-handicap may reflect that although individuals
with high proclivities to self-handicap may have
higher abilities, the realization of better exam performance
is thwarted by the negative effects of self-handicapping-
motivated activities.
This finding suggests a number of areas for further
research. First, what are the abilities of individuals with
higher proclivities to self handicap relative to those with
lower proclivities to self handicap? This issue is not an
easy area to examine given the effects of self-handicapping
on the measurement of one’s abilities. Specifically,
are the abilities of individuals with high proclivities to self
handicap equal to those of individuals with lower propensities
to self-handicap with self-handicapping having relatively
little effect on their performance levels, or are the
abilities of individuals with higher proclivities to self
handicap actually greater? If their abilities are greater,
how can marketing instructors structure the Principles of
Marketing course to permit students with higher proclivities
to self-handicap achieve success to the extent permitted
by their abilities?
Finally, the relationship between self-handicapping
and self-reported anxiety was as hypothesized. Low selfhandicappers
reported feeling significantly more anxious
at the time of the final exam than were high self-handicappers.
It appears that students with higher proclivities to
self-handicap may experience less anxiety at the time of
the final exam since they have “less to lose.” If they
experience a suboptimal performance, they can always
appeal to the pre-emptive accounts they have given prior
to the exam. It appears, therefore, that self-handicapping
may be successful in achieving beneficial results in an
22 Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005
academic setting. If the importance of an exam to the
maintenance of one’s self-esteem can be reduced, the
need to be anxious over one’s performance on the exam is
reduced.
Analysis of the two factors of self-handicapping
(proclivity to make excuses and concern over effort and
motivation) provides additional insight into interpreting
the results. The fact that only proclivity to make excuses
was observed to be related to self-reported anxiety of
students with more extreme self-handicapping tendencies
(high and low) suggests that excuse making may act as the
means by which self-handicapping can reduce students’
anxiety over an exam. The fact that concern over effort
and motivation was observed to be related to expected
exam grade also appears logical.
LIMITATIONS
A number of limitations exist which may limit the
generalizability of the results. First, to increase the likelihood
that students would respond truthfully to the items
on the questionnaires, no attempts were made to capture
demographic information from the sample. To control of
extraneous variables, the sample included only students
taking the Principles of Marketing course at a single
medium-sized university located in the Midwest. Furthermore,
only students taking the course from a single
instructor with a single teaching testing style were included.
Additional research is required to establish the generalizability
of the results to students attending other universities
and to instructors with differing teaching/testing
styles. Finally, the general anxiety scale has not yet
undergone significant validity testing.
APPLICATION
The findings seem to indicate that self-handicapping
may not be a serious hindrance to students’ performances
on their final exams in the Principles of Marketing course.
In no instance was self-handicapping observed to be
related to exam performance. Also, self-handicapping
appears to lower students’ anxiety at the time of the exam.
The results appear to indicate that there may be no need for
marketing educators to be overly concerned with the selfhandicapping
proclivities of their students attending the
Principles of Marketing course.
Even though these findings do not identify unequivocal
specific problems, the findings do not imply that
marketing educators should disregard the effects of selfhandicapping.
As discussed earlier, individuals with high
proclivities to self-handicap may also be less likely to
internalize the positive effects of successful outcomes.
The less ability to internalize the positive effects of
success may lead to less confidence in one’s abilities and
may lead to the avoidance of evaluative situations, such as
challenging employment opportunities. Since exam performance
is not the final objective of a collegiate education,
but instead the future success of students, marketing
instructors should still attempt to identify individuals with
high proclivities to self-handicap. Although lowered exam
performance expectations may aid in self protection in the
academic environment, lowered expectations can be expected
to adversely affect their subsequent careers. Referring
these students to counseling may ultimately prove to
be beneficial by helping these students to become more
self-assured in their selves and to become less dependent
on the outcomes of performances to define their selves.
Similarly, students with lower proclivities to self
handicap seem to experience higher test anxiety. Besides
possibly adversely affecting their academic performance,
higher anxiety is likely to be experienced in other performance
situations. The higher anxiety, in turn, may result
in poorer performances in evaluative performances in
one’s career and/or the avoidance of some such endeavors,
likely adversely one’s career performance. These
students, similar to students possessing higher proclivities
to self handicap, would also seem to be able to profit from
counseling, possibly involving learned optimism (Seligman
1998).
REFERENCES
Adler, Alfred (1929), The Problems of Neurosis: A Book
of Case Histories. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench,
Truebner.
Allen, Chris T. and Chris A. Janiszewski (1989), “Assessing
the Role of Contingency Awareness in Attitudinal
Conditioning with Implications for Advertising
Research,” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (February),
30–43.
Anderson, Scarvia B. and William I. Sauser (1995),
“Measurement of Test Anxiety: An Overview,” in
Test Anxiety: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment,
Charles Donald Spielberger and Peter Robert Vagg,
eds. Washington DC: Taylor and Francis, 15–34.
Ansbacher, Heinz L. and Rowena R. Ansbacher (1967),
The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler. New
York: Harper and Row.
Bacon, Donald R. (2003), “Assessing Learning Outcomes:
A Comparison of Multiple-Choice and Short-
Answer Questions in a Marketing Context,” Journal
of Marketing Education, 25 (April), 31–36.
Bailis, Daniel S. (2001), “Benefits of Self-Handicapping
in Sport: A Field Study of University Athletes,”
Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005 23
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 33 (October),
213–23.
Barger, Steven D., John C. Kircher, and Robert T. Croyle
(1997), “The Effects of Social Context and Defensiveness
on the Physiological Responses of Repressive
Copers,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73 (November), 1118–28.
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), “The
Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social
Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and
Statistical Considerations,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51 (December), 1173–82.
Baumeister, Roy F. and Steven J. Scher (1988), “Self-
Defeating Behavior Patterns Among Normal Individuals:
Review and Analysis of Common Self-
Destructive Tendencies,” Psychological Bulletin, 104
(July), 3–22.
Bedell, Jeffery R. and Herbert A. Marlowe (1995), “An
Evaluation of Test Anxiety Scales: Convergent, Divergent
and Predictive Validity,” in Test Anxiety:
Theory, Assessment and Treatment, Charles Donald
Spielberger and Peter Robert Vagg, eds. Washington
DC: Taylor and Francis, 35–46.
Benson, Jeri, Marc Moulin-Julian, Christine Schwarzer,
Bettine Seipp, and Nabil Eid El-Zahhar (1992),
“Cross-Validation of a Revised Test Anxiety Scale
Using Multi-National Samples,” in Advances in Test
Anxiety Research, Knut A. Hagtvet and Tom B.
Johnsen, eds. Lisse Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger,
62–83.
Beyer, Sylvia (1999), “Gender Differences in the Accuracy
of Grade Expectancies and Evaluations,” Sex
Roles, 41 (August), 279–96.
Burns, David J. and Debra Perkins (1996), “Accounts in
Post-Purchase Behavior: Excuses, Justifications Meta-
Accounts,” Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction
and Complaining Behavior, 144–57.
Cannon, W.B. (1929), Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger,
Fear, and Rage. New York: Appleton.
Cohen, Jacob and Patricia Cohen (1983), Applied Multiple
Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Covington, Martin V. (1983), “Anxiety, Task Difficulty
and Childhood Problem Solving: A Self Worth Interpretation,”
in Advances in Test Anxiety Research, R.
Schwarzer and C.D. Sloelberger, eds. New York:
Erlbaum, 101–9.
____________ (1984), “The Motive for Self Worth,” in
Motivation and Education: Student Motivation, R.
Ames and C. Ames, eds. New York: Academic Press,
77–113.
_____________, Carol L. Omelich, and Ralf Schwarzer
(1986), “Anxiety, Aspirations, and Self-Concept in
the Achievement Process: A Longitudinal Model
with Latent Variables,” Motivation and Emotion, 10
(March), 71–88.
____________ and ____________ (1987), “‘I Knew it
Cold Before the Exam’: A Test of the Anxiety-
Blockage Hypothesis,” Journal of Educational Psychology,
79 (December), 393–400.
____________ (1992), Making the Grade: A Self-Worth
Perspective on Motivation and School Reform. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
____________ (1997), “A Motivational Analysis of Academic
Life College,” in Effective Teaching in Higher
Education: Research and Practices, Raymond P.
Perry and John C. Smart, eds. New York: Agathon
Press.
Derakshan, Nazanin and Michael W. Eysenck (1997),
“Interpretive Biases for One’s Own Behavior and
Physiology in High Anxious Individuals and Repressors,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73 (October), 816–25.
____________ and ____________ (2001), “Effects of
Focus of Attention on Physiological, Behavioral, and
Reported State Anxiety in Repressors, Low-Anxious,
High-Anxious, and Defensive High-Anxious
Individuals,” Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An International
Journal, 14 (2), 285–99.
Dusek, Jerome B. (1980), “The Development of Test
Anxiety in Children,” in Test Anxiety: Theory, Research,
and Applications, Irwin B. Sarason, ed. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 87–100.
Dweck, Carol S. (1975), “The Role of Expectations and
Attributions in the Alleviation of Learned Helplessness,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
31 (April), 674–85.
Ebel, Robert L. (1972), Essentials of Educational Measurement.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Eysenck, Michael W. (1997), Anxiety: The Cognitive
Perspective. London: Earlbaum.
Feick, David L. and Frederick Rhodewalt (1998), “The
Double-Edged Sword of Self-Handicapping: Discounting,
Augmentation, and the Protection and Enhancement
of Self-Esteem,” Motivation and Emotion,
21 (June), 147–63.
Fitzgerald, T., L. Gruppen, C. White, and W. Davis
(1997), “Medical Student Self-Assessment Abilities:
Accuracy and Calibration.” Paper presented at American
Educational Research Association Meeting, Chicago
IL.
Folin, O., W. Demis, and W.G. Smillie (1914), “Some
Observations on Emotional Glycosuria in Man,” Journal
of Biological Chemistry, 17, 519–20.
Fromm, Eric (1941), Escape from Freedom. New York:
Rinehart.
Garcia, T. (1995), “The Role of Motivational Strategies in
Self-Regulated Learning,” New Directions in Teaching
and Learning, 63, 29–42.
Goffman, Ethan (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday
Life. New York: Doubleday.
Goleman, Daniel (1985), Vital Lies, Simple Truths. New
24 Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005
York: Simon and Schuster.
Greenberg, Jeff, Tom Pyszczynski, and Chris Paisley
(1985), “Effect of Extrinsic Incentives on Use of Test
Anxiety as an Anticipatory Attributional Defense:
Playing it Cool When the Costs Are High,” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 (November),
1136–45.
____________, ____________, and Sheldon Solomon
(1986), “The Causes and Consequences of a Need for
Self Esteem,” in Public Self and Private Self, Roy F.
Baumeister, ed. New York: Springer-Verlang, 189–
212.
Harris, Robert N. and C.R. Snyder (1986), “The Role of
Uncertain Self-Esteem in Self-Handicapping,” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (August),
451–58.
Harvey, John H., William J. Ickes, and Robert F. Kidd
(1976), New Directions of Attribution Research. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Higgins, Raymond L. (1990), “Self-Handicapping: Historical
Roots and Contemporary Branches,” in Self-
Handicapping: The Paradox That Isn’t, Raymond L.
Higgins, C.R. Snyder, and Steven Berglas, eds. New
York: Plenum, 1–35.
____________ and Steven Berglas (1990), “The Maintenance
and Treatment of Self-Handicapping: From
Risk-Taking to Face-Saving,” in Self-Handicapping:
The Paradox That Isn’t, Raymond L. Higgins, C.R.
Snyder, and Steven Berglas, eds. New York: Plenum,
187–238.
____________, C.R. Snyder, and Steven Berglas (1990),
Self-Handicapping: The Paradox That Isn’t. New
York: Plenum Press.
____________ (2002), “Reality Negotiation,” in Handbook
of Positive Psychology, C.R. Snyder and Shane
J. Lopez, eds. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hirt, Edward R., Roberta K. Deppe, and Lesley J. Gordon
(1991), “Self-Reported Versus Behavioural Self-
Handicapping: Empirical Evidence of a Theoretical
Distinction,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
61 (December), 981–91.
Hopkins, K.D. and A.C. Chambers (1966), Anxiety, Physiologically
and Psychologically Measured, and its
Consequences on Mental Test Performance. Los
Angeles: University of Southern California.
Horney, Karen (1945), Our Inner Conflicts. New York:
Norton.
Hunsley, John (1985), “Test Anxiety, Academic Performance
and Cognitive Appraisals,” Journal of Educational
Psychology, 77 (December), 678–82.
Iwata, Norboru, Norio Mishima, Takashi Shimizu, Tetsuya
Mizoue, Machiko Fukuhara, Tadashi Hidano,
and Charles D. Speilberger (1998), “Positive and
Negative Affect in the Factor Structure of the State-
Trait Anxiety Inventory for Japanese Workers,” Psychological
Reports, 82 (April), 651–56.
James, William (1890), The Principles of Psychology.
Vol. 1. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Jones, Edward E. and Steven Berglas (1978), “Control of
Attributions About the Self Through Self-Handicapping
Strategies: The Appeal of Alcohol and the Role
of Underachievement,” Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 4 (April), 200–6.
Jung, John (1988), “Anticipatory Excuses in Relation to
Expected Versus Actual Task Performance,” Journal
of Psychology, 121 (September), 413–21.
Kelley, Craig A., Jeffrey S. Conant, and Denise T. Smart
(1989), “Examination Procedures in Marketing Education:
Profiling Marketing’s Master Teachers,” in
Developments in Marketing Science, Jon M. Hawes
and John Thanopoulos, eds. Akron OH: Academy of
Marketing Science, 263–67.
Kruglanski, Arie W. (1989), “The Psychology of Being
‘Right:’ The Problem of Accuracy in Social Perception
and Cognition,” Psychological Bulletin, 106
(November), 395–409.
Lay, Clarry H., Steven Knish, and Rita Zanatta (1992),
“Self-Handicappers and Procrastinators: A Comparison
of Their Practice Behavior Prior to an Evaluation,”
Journal of Research in Personality, 26 (September),
242–57.
Lazarus, Richard S. and Susan Folkman (1984), Stress,
Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer.
Leary, Mark R. and James A. Shepperd (1986), “Behavioral
Self-Handicaps Versus Self-Reported Handicaps:
A Conceptual Note,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51 (December), 1265–68.
Levitt, Eugene E. (1967), The Psychology of Anxiety.
Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Lyman, Sanford M. and Marvin B. Scott (1970), A Sociology
of the Absurd. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts.
Mandler, George and Seymour B. Sarason (1952), “A
Study of Anxiety and Learning,” Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 47 (April), 166–73.
Marteau, Theresa M. and Hilary Bekker (1992), “The
Development of a Six-Item Short-Form of the State
Scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
(STAI),” British Journal of Clinical Psychology,
31 (September), 301–6.
Martens, Ranier, Robin S. Vealey, and Damon Burton
(1990), Competitive Anxiety in Sport. Champaign IL:
Human Kinetics.
Martin, Andrew J., Herbert W. Marsh, and Raymond L.
Debus (2001), “Self-Handicapping and Defensive
Pessimism: Exploring a Model of Predictors and
Outcomes from a Self-Protection Perspective,” Journal
of Educational Psychology, 93 (March), 87–102.
____________, ____________, Alan Williamson, and
Raymond L. Debus (2003), “Self-Handicapping, Defensive
Pessimism, and Goal Orientation: A Qualitative
Study of University Studies,” Journal of EducaJournal
for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 6, Summer 2005 25
tional Psychology, 95 (September), 617–28.
____________, Raymond L. Debus, and Herbert W.
Marsh (2003), “Self-Handicapping and Defensive
Pessimism: A Model of Self Protection from a Longitudinal
Perspective,” Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 28 (January), 1–36.
Martin, Kathleen A. and Lawrence R. Brawley (1999), “Is
the Self-Handicapping Scale Reliable in Non-Academic
Achievement Domains?” Personality and Individual
Differences, 27 (November), 901–11.
Midgley, Carol, Revathy Aronkumar, and Timothy C.
Urdan (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 (September), 423–34.
Murray, Carolyn R. and M. Robert Warden (1990), “Implications
of Self-Handicapping Strategies for Academic
Achievement: A Reconceptualization,” Journal
of Social Psychology, 132 (February), 23–37.
Phillips, Beeman N., Gayle D. Pitcher, Murray E. Worsham,
and Steven C. Miller (1980), “Test Anxiety in
the School Environment,” in Test Anxiety: Theory,
Research, and Applications, Irwin B. Sarason, ed.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 327–46.
Prapavessis, J. Robert Grove, Ralph Maddison, and Nadine
Zillman (2003), “Self-Handicapping Tendencies,
Coping, and Anxiety Responses Among Athletes,”
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4 (October),
357–75.
Pyszczynski, Tom A. and Jeff Greenberg (1983), “Determinants
of Reduction in Intended Effort as a Strategy
for Coping with Anticipated Failure,” Journal of
Research in Personality, 17, 412–22.
____________ and ____________ (1987), “Toward an
Integration of Cognitive and Motivational Perspectives
on Social Inference: A Biased Hypothesis-
Testing Model,” in Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, Leonard Berkowitz, ed. San Diego: Academic
Press, 20, 297–340.
Rhodewalt, Frederick, Andrew T. Saltzman, and Jerry
Wittmer (1984), “Self-Handicapping Among Competitive
Athletes: The Role of Practice in Self-Esteem
Protection,” Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5
(September), 197–210.
____________ and James Davison (1986), “Self-Handicapping
and Subsequent Performance: The Role of
Outcome Valence; and Attributional Certainty,” Basic
and Applied Social Psychology, 7 (December),
307–22.
____________ (1990), “Self-Handicappers: Individual
Differences in the Preference for Anticipatory, Self-
Protective Acts,” in Self-Handicapping: The Paradox
That Isn’t, Raymond L. Higgins, C.R. Snyder,
and Steven Berglas, eds. New York: Plenum, 69–
106.
____________ (1994), “Conceptions of Ability, Achievement
Goals, and Individual Differences on Self-
Handicapping Behavior,” Journal of Personality, 62
(March), 67–85.
____________ and S. Kristian Hill (1995), “Self-Handicapping
in the Classroom: The Effects of Claimed
Self-Handicaps on Responses to Academic Failure,”
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16 (June),
397–416.
____________ and Michael W. Tragakis (2002), “Self-
Handicapping and School: Academic Self-Concept
and Self-Protective Behavior,” in Improving Academic
Achievement: Impact of Psychological Factors
on Education, Joshua Aronson, ed. San Diego:
Academic Press, 109–34.
Richins, Marsha L. (1985), “The Role of Product Importance
in Complaint Initiation,” in Consumer Satisfaction/
Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, H.
Keith Hunt and Ralph L. Day, eds. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University School of Business, 50–53.
Riggs, Janet Morgan (1992), “Self-Handicapping and
Achievement,” in Achi