Self-Handicapping Related to Task and Performance-Approach and Avoidance Goals in Physical Education

Transcription

1 JOURNAL OF APPLIED SPORT PSYCHOLOGY, 16: , 2004 Copyright Association for Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology ISSN: print / online DOI: / Self-Handicapping Related to Task and Performance-Approach and Avoidance Goals in Physical Education YNGVAR OMMUNDSEN The Norwegian University of Sport and Physical Education This study examined the relationships between achievement goals (task, performanceapproach, performance-avoid) and self-handicapping in the area of secondary school physical education. The sample consisted of 273 ninth grade students (125 male, 148 female). Regression analysis revealed that a task goal and a performance-approach goal were negatively related to self-handicapping, whereas a performance-avoidance goal related positively to self-handicapping. Altogether, 14% of the variance in self-handicapping was explained by the three achievement goals. Analyses of covariance further revealed that a task goal influenced the way performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal related to self-handicapping. Specifically, to some extent a high task goal seems to moderate the aversive effects on selfhandicapping of holding either a performance-approach goal or a performance-avoidance goal. Taken together, analyses indicate that, a performance-avoidance goal more strongly deserve being labeled the motivationally bad guy in terms of generating self-handicapping. In terms of self-handicapping a performance-approach goal, in contrast, seems more readily characterized as a motivationally double-edged sword. Early adolescence is a time of heightened self-consciousness and concern regarding how one appears to others, particularly to peers (Urdan & Midgley, 2001). Physical education experiences may be considered as personally important or ego relevant in this age period due to the weight given to successful physicality in the youth culture (Harter, 1990). Physical education (PE) offers numerous possibilities for the body and bodily competence to be on public display and the exposition of physical and motor competence or lack thereof to fellow pupils may be quite strong and explicit. This sets the self-concept under test and makes the PE context ego-involving and potentially threatening for a lot of youngsters (Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1983; Fox, 1997). In such cases pupils may come to use self-handicapping strategies. Self-handicapping refers to a strategic manipulation of a situation in such a way that an individual can claim that obstacles to her or his performance account for a potential failure. Indeed, self-handicapping behavior was found to be embedded in a general negative expectancy cluster in achievement-related situations (Haugen, Ommundsen, & Lund, 2004). As such selfhandicapping represents a self-protective strategy. Such a strategy involves drawing attention to a possible impediment for performance so that it can be blamed if failure should occur (Jones & Berglas, 1978). By means of self-handicapping in which the failure can be blamed on a number of factors, such as having been up late the night before the test or that they were disturbed by fellow pupils before taking the test, pupils may manage to save face. Self-handicapping Received 13 August 2002; accepted 10 June Address correspondence to Yngvar Ommundsen, The Norwegian University of Sport and Physical Education, P.O. Box 4014, U.S. N-0806 Oslo, Norway. yngvar.ommundsen@.nih.no 183

2 184 Y. OMMUNDSEN thereby allows pupils to control the causal attribution of a potential failure thereby minimizing the perceived loss of self-esteem and its accompanying emotional distress (Ryska, Yin, & Cooley, 1998). Claiming a handicap for one s failure may afford short-term protection from feelings of diminished self-esteem (Thompson & Richardson, 2000). However, in the longer run selfhandicapping may become habitual and is incorporated into the pupils characteristic mode of achievement for extended periods of time (Covington, 2000). Then self-handicapping leads to poorer self-regulation of learning and becomes negatively associated with academic engagement, persistence and achievement (Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001; Riggs, 1992). Accordingly, from an applied perspective it may be of great importance to investigate motivational precursors of pupils avoidance behaviors such as self-handicapping in the context of school physical education classes. Knowledge of motivational factors associated with self-handicapping may help practitioners and curriculum makers develop PE ideologies and practices that diminish potential threatening ego-involving PE situations such that this form of dysfunctional self-protection strategy can be prevented. ACHIEVEMENT GOALS AND SELF-HANDICAPPING The study of self-handicapping in academics and physical activity has only recently been informed by the achievement goal approach (Midgley & Urdan, 1995; Midgley, Arunkumar, & Urdan, 1996; Urdan, Midgley, & Anderman, 1998; Midgley & Urdan, 2001; Rhodewalt, 1994; Ryska, Yin, & Boyd, 1997; Ommundsen, 2001a). Research has resulted in the identification of two principal goal orientations that influence the ways in which a student approaches and responds to academic demands. Students whose orientation is toward mastering a task and developing competence are seen to have a mastery or task goal orientation. Conversely, students whose orientation is toward demonstrating ability relative to their fellow students are seen to have a performance or ability goal orientation (Ames & Archer, 1988). Recently, this performance orientation has further been differentiated into performance-approach (to demonstrate ability) and performance-avoidance (to avoid demonstration of lack of ability) goals (Elliot & Church, 1997; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997). When pupils hold a performanceapproach goal they become focused on demonstrating normative ability, whereas those holding a performance-avoidance goal become focused on avoiding demonstrating lack of ability. Even though achievement goal theorists initially distinguished between approach and avoidance dimensions of performance oriented achievement goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, 1989), the items assessing the goal of avoiding incompetence have been dropped from performance goal scales, or the two dimensions have collapsed together into one within an omnibus performance goal orientation (i.e., Nicholls, 1989; Roberts, Treasure, & Balague, 1998). As Elliot (1999) has argued, for several variables, the influence of performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals is actually reciprocal, meaning that null results would probably have been obtained had these two goals been collapsed together into one single, omnibus performance goal construct. By no surprise, therefore, many inconsistent results regarding performance oriented achievement goals might be explained by the fact that items often measure two contradictory goals (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Rawsthorne & Elliot, 1999; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997; Cury, Laurent, Tonnac, & Sot, 1999). In their revised trichotomous achievement goal model, Elliot and Harackiewicz (1996) make use of scales comprising three distinct achievement goals. Both mastery and performanceapproach goals are construed as approach orientations because they represent regulation according to potential positive outcomes (self/task-referential competence and normative competence, respectively), whereas the performance-avoidance goal is construed as an avoidance

3 APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE GOALS, SELF-HANDICAPPING 185 orientation because it represents regulation according to a potential negative outcome (normative incompetence) (Elliot, 1997). Skaalvik (1997), taking a similar approach, used the terms of self-enhancing (performance-approach) and self-defeating (performance-avoidance) ego orientation to label the same constructs. In addition he included a pure work avoidance goal in his validation work of the performance-approach and performance-avoidance framework (Skaalvik, 1997). Previous research has provided evidence for the construct validity of three distinct achievement goal orientations, and that these constructs had different relations to other constructs such as self-efficacy, self-esteem, anxiety and intrinsic motivation and graded performance (Cury, Elliot, Sarrazin, Da Fonseca, & Rufo, 2002; Elliot, 1997; Middleton & Migley, 1997; Smith, Duda, Allen, & Hall, 2002). Only a couple of studies, however, have examined the differential role of performanceapproach goal orientations versus performance-avoidance upon self-handicapping (i.e., Pintrich, 2000; Midgley & Urdan, 2001). Further, to this researcher s knowledge published work is non-existent in the context of physical education. Thus, the present study sought to examine the potential differential effects of a task achievement goal, a performance-approach goal and a performance-avoidance goal on pupils self-handicapping tendencies in physical education classes. In academics, Midgley and Urdan (2001) examined the combined effects of task achievement goals, performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal on pupils selfhandicapping. To this end they examined first, potential differential effects of a high versus low performance-approach goal on self-handicapping under conditions of high versus low task orientation. Second, they examined potential differential effects of a high versus low performanceavoidance goal on self-handicapping under conditions of high versus low task orientation. In the first analysis, (i.e., when examining the effect of the high vs. low performance-approach goal on self-handicapping under conditions of high vs. low task orientation) they included as a covariate (by means of ANCOVA) the performance-avoidance goal. In the second analysis (i.e., when examining the effect of the high vs. low performance-avoidance goal on self-handicapping under conditions of high versus low task orientation), the performance-approach goal was included as a covariate. Results showed that a task goal influenced the role of performance-approach goals on self-handicapping in that students in the high task/low performance-approach group reported engaging in less self-handicapping than did students in either of the two low task groups (i.e., low task/high performance-approach and low task/low performance-approach). Students in the high task/high performance-approach group did not differ significantly from those in the low task/high performance-approach group, indicating a small effect of performance-approach goals on handicapping for students also high in their pursuit of task goals. Students high in performance-avoidance goals used self-handicapping more than did those low in performance avoid goals regardless of the level of task goals. Further, students, low in performance-avoid goals and high in task goals, handicapped less than the low task/low performance-avoidance group. Results of these analyses suggest that performance-avoidance goal is the dominant predictor of self-handicapping, but the simultaneous level of task orientation has some inhibiting influence when performance-avoidance goals are low. Whereas previous research has included measurements of the students grades as a statistical control (i.e., Midgley & Urdan, 2001), a control for variations in perceived competence has not been included. Elliot has shown that the influence of achievement goals is clearly not a reflection or epiphenomenon of ability constructs (Elliot, 1999). Nevertheless, the focus of the performance-avoidance items embedded in the measure is on self-presentation and the desire to avoid looking incompetent or stupid in front of others. As argued by Smith et al.

4 186 Y. OMMUNDSEN (2002), pupils lacking confidence in their ability would be more likely to agree with such items. Indeed, a significant and negative relationship has been found between perceived competence and performance-avoidance goal in several studies (i.e., Skaalvik, 1997; Smith, Duda, Allen, & Hall, 2002). Accordingly, given that one would expect a negative association between perceived competence and performance-avoidance orientation, perceived competence should be controlled for when examining the combined relationship of task goal and performanceavoidance goal on self-handicapping. Therefore, perceived competence was included together with the performance approach goal as covariates when examining the effect of a high versus low performance-avoidance goal on self-handicapping, under conditions of a high versus a low task goal, respectively. By doing so the current study represents not only a contextual extension of the one by Midgley and Urdan (2001), but a methodological extension as well. I expect: 1. A task goal orientation to be negatively related to self-handicapping in PE. 2. A performance-approach goal to relate negatively to self-handicapping 3. A performance-avoidance goal to relate positively to self-handicapping. 4. When controlling for a performance-avoidance goal, I expect a performance-approach goal to be more strongly negatively related to self-handicapping when task orientation is high than when a task goal orientation is low. 5. When controlling for a performance-approach goal and perceived competence, I expect a high performance-avoid goal to predict self-handicapping regardless of levels of task orientation. Participants METHOD Students, fifteen to sixteen years old (boys N = 125; girls N = 148), attending 10th grade physical education classes in three junior high schools participated in the study. All classes were co-educational, and presumably pupils represent a variety of skill levels given no system of dividing pupils by skill level in the Norwegian school system. All pupils approached agreed to participate and informed parental consent was obtained for each participant. Measures Achievement Goals The proposed achievement goal orientations were examined by means of the goal orientation scale originally developed and reported for the accademic realm by Skaalvik (1997). These scales contained four sub-dimensions varying from four to seven items; that is task goal, performance-approach goal, performance-avoidance goal and avoidance goal. The four scales had items stating what the students were concerned with in school without reference to any particular school subject or activity, whereas in the present study all items referred to the physical education context. For instance, in the Skaalvik (1997) study one item measuring task goal orientation was the following: At school it is important for me to learn something new. In the current study, this item was reformulated into the following: In PE it is important for me to learn something new. Thus, all adaptations of items centered around making them context-specific to PE by substituting of single words such as School with PE/PE classes, Blackboard with In the gym and so forth. The original meaning and focus of each item have thus been kept. An example of an Self-enhancing goal orientation (performance-approach)

5 APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE GOALS, SELF-HANDICAPPING 187 item is: I always try to do better than other students in my PE class ; an example of an Selfdefeating goal orientation (performance-avoidance) items is: When I am working in the gym I am concerned about what my classmates think about me ; an example of an Avoidance orientation item is: I like PE classes best when there is no hard work. The last dimension Avoidance was included in order to examine whether the performanceapproach, and performance-avoid sub-dimension represented two independent achievement goals conceptually distinct from an avoidance orientation. All items were rated on 5-point scales, anchored by don t agree at all (1) and agree completely (5). In previous research, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses as well as regression analyses supported factorial, convergent and discriminant validity of that the Skaalvik (1997) academic scale. This was shown in that the scale was found to contain four conceptually distinct sub-dimensions of achievement goals and had different relations to academic achievement, self-esteem, anxiety, self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation (Skaalvik, 1997; Smith, Duda, Allen, & Hall, 2002). In the present study, Cronbach s alphas for task orientation, self-enhancing/performance-approach, self-defeating/performance-avoid, and avoidance orientation in PE were.77,.86,.87, and.77, respectively. Self-Handicapping A 6-item self-handicapping scale was based on instruments used to measure selfhandicapping in academic contexts (Midgley et al., 1996; Midgley & Urdan, 1995; Urdan et al., 1998). Previous scales (Midgley & Urdan, 1995) have been criticised, first, for not being anticipatory and instead more attribution like, and second, for focusing on cognition instead of active strategies and behaviors. The present scale took advantage of these criticisms, and like the later versions used by Urdan and co-workers (Midgley et al., 1996; Urdan et al., 1998), the present scale was clearly anticipatory, and also clearly self-presentational in format. Thus, each of the six items asks about proactive strategies that pupils use to influence self-presentation. Indicating the latter aspect, the scale included items with a phrase such as they can say that this is the reason or they can say it is because. In the survey, the self-handicapping items were introduced with these sentences: Below are examples of things most pupils do at one time or another. Please tell how true each of these is for you. All items was modified to fit into the context of physical education classes and made specific to situations naturally occurring in the context of PE. Two examples of items are: Some pupils fool around the night before a test in PE so that if they don t do as well as they had hoped, they can say that is the reason. How true is that for you? Some pupils let their friends keep them from paying attention in PE classes or from practicing. Then, if they don t do well they can say that is the reason. How true is this for you? Responses were indicated on 5-point scales, ranging from 1 (very much like me) to 5(very much unlike me). Evidence of the construct validity of the Norwegian version of the self-handicapping scale is presented in (Ommundsen, 2001a). Cronbach s alpha of the scale in the present study was.70. Perceived Competence The perceived competence subscale was developed in the sport context by McAuley, Duncan, and Tammen (1989) as part of a scale to measure intrinsic motivation following sport tasks (IMI). The IMI has been reworded in order to reflect the context of PE lessons by Goudas and Biddle (1994). For this study, the perceived competence sub-scale of the inventory was included as a controlling factor when examining combined effects performance-avoidance and task goals. The scale consists of four items rated on 5-point scales, ranging from 1 (don t agree at all) to 5(agree completely). In a previous study (Ommundsen, 2000a) a principal component

6 188 Y. OMMUNDSEN analysis showed that all four items loaded on one factor, with factor loadings ranging from.81 to.67. Cronbach s alpha in the present study was.87. Procedures Pupils were requested to answer questions anonymously on their motivational beliefs and self-reported self-handicapping strategies concerning PE classes. Questionnaires were completed in about minutes, and took place in a classroom setting. A research assistant was present in every class when the pupils filled out the questionnaire. Data Analysis The hypotheses were examined by means of simple correlations, hierarchical multiple regression, and analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA). Dimensions of Goal Orientations RESULTS Given that the goal orientation scale was adapted to the physical education context for the first time, maximum likelihood exploratory factor analysis of the 22 items designed to measure the four potential dimensions of goal orientation was conducted to examine whether the factor structured found in Skaalvik s study (Skaalvik, 1997) was found also in the context of physical education. No particular number of factors was asked for, and the criteria was set to an eigenvalue grater than one. The factor analysis extracted four factors, consistent with predictions. These factors explained 49% of the variance in the matrix. With two exceptions, (1 item on the avoidance factor, and 1 item on the task factor), all items had high factor loadings (above.49) on the predicted factor. In addition all items had lower factor scores than.20 on all other factors than the predicted one. Thus, the four factors seem to represent four distinct and different dimensions of achievement goal orientations. I computed a performance-approach sum-score based on the five items loading between.49 and.82; a performance-avoidance factor sum-score consisting of the seven items loading between.58 and.83; and the fourth factor, task, which was based on the five items loading between.52 and.84. The avoidance factor sum-score was not generated for further computations, as this score was only tested for validity purposes regarding the overall factor structure. Descriptive Statistics Means and standard deviation were computed for each variable in the study. As can be seen from Table 1, generally the pupils only modestly engaged in self-handicapping. Whereas the pupils endorsed a relatively strong task goal, their self-report of performance-approach goal and performance-avoidance goal was somewhat lower (see Table 1). By means of t-test analyses gender was found to be associated with the following constructs: Boys and girls were equally likely to report using self-handicapping strategies (boys M = 2.28; girls M = 2.18); t = 1.02, p = n.s.). Girls more strongly endorsed a task orientation than did boys (M = 4.55) and (M = 3.75), respectively; t = 3.64, p <.001). Boys (M = 3.25) were more likely to hold a performance-approach goal than did girls (M = 2.81); t = 3.14, p = <.01; boys (M = 3.10) were more likely than girls (M = 2.68) to endorse a performanceavoidance goal; t = 3.05, p <.01. Finally, boys (M = 3.85) reported somewhat lower levels

7 APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE GOALS, SELF-HANDICAPPING 189 Table 1 Descriptive Statistics (Alphas, Means, Standard Deviations) and Zero-Order Correlation for Achievement Goals and Self-Handicapping Behavior (N = 273) Variable alpha M SD Self-handicapping c.15 b.23 c.39 c 2. Task goal c c 3. Performance-approach c.42 c 4. Performance-avoid c 5. Perceived competence a p <.05; b p <.01; and c <.001. of perceived competence than did girls, (M = 3.51 and M = 3.78; t = 1.84, p <.05. Given these differences by gender, gender was controlled for in all subsequent main analyses. Correlational Analysis: Achievement Goals, Perceived Competence and Self-Handicapping Simple correlations were computed for each variable in the study (see Table 1). The correlations show that self-handicapping is negatively related to a task goal orientation and a performance-approach goal as well as perceived competence, whereas handicapping relate positively to a performance avoid goal. Regression Analyses To examine the genuine effects of the different achievement goals on self-handicapping, I conducted hierarchical multiple regression analysis. Given several significant differences between boys and girls, gender was included as a statistical control (not shown in the table). Results revealed that achievement goals altogether accounted for 14% of the variance in selfhandicapping. First a task orientation was included in step 1, accounting for 6% of the variance in self-handicapping. In line with correlation results, the beta weight for a task goal was negative (beta =.25, p <.001), reflecting that a task goal was negatively related to self-handicapping. In step 2 a performance-approach goal and a performance-avoidance goal was entered. Controlling for the effect of a task goal, step 2 results revealed that both a performance-approach goal (beta =.16, p <.001) and a performance-avoidance goal (beta =.29, p <.001) genuinely predicted self-handicapping. The negative beta weights for task goal and for performanceapproach goal indicate that these two goal orientations relate negatively to self-handicapping. Predictably, controlling for those two achievement goals, a performance-avoidance goal was positively related to self-handicapping. The regression analyses are shown in Table 2. Self-Handicapping Related to Task/Performance-Approach and Task/Performance-Avoidance Goals In the final set of analyses, I used ANCOVA to explore first, whether pupils with high versus low score on performance-approach differed in their reported use of handicapping under the conditions of either scoring low or high on task goal. Second, I examined whether pupils with high versus low score on performance-avoidance differed in their reported use of handicapping when reporting either a low or high task goal.

8 190 Y. OMMUNDSEN Table 2 Summary of Hierarchical Regressions Examining Goal Orientations as Predictors Self-Handicapping Behavior (N = 273) Predictor beta a beta b R 2 R 2 change Step 1: Task goal Step 2: Performance-approach Performance-avoidance Note. Measures of gender were included in the regression as statistical control. a Standardized regression coefficients without performance-approach and performanceavoidance entered into the regression b Standardized regression coefficients with performance-approach and performance-avoidance entered into the regression p <.01 and p <.001. In order to replicate the analysis strategy of Pintrich (2000) and Midgley and Urdan (2001), I used median split analyses (high/low task, high/low performance-approach and high/low performance-avoid) and then created two new variables: a) a four-group task and performanceapproach goals variable and b) a four group task and performance-avoidance goal variable. To determine the effects of first, the performance-approach and second, performance-avoidance achievement goals under conditions of either a high or low task goal, two factorial ANCOVAs were conducted in which the goal groups were included as between-subject factors. When examining the high/low performance-avoid & high/low task goals orientation combination, the performance-approach goal orientation as well as perceived competence was included as covariates. By doing this I was able to examine the simultaneous effects of task goal with the performance-avoidance goal while controlling for the effects of the performance-aproach goal orientation and perceptions of competence. Controlling for perceived competence when conducting this particular analysis was considered important given that a performance-avoidance goal could be confounded by lack of perceived competence (Elliot, 1999; Skaalvik, 1997). Indeed, as shown by the correlation results, a performance-avoidance goal related negatively to perceived competence (r =.25 ). Self-Handicapping Related to Task/Performance-Approach Goals The first analysis reported in Table 3 showed that, when controlling for a performanceavoidance goal orientation, there was an overall main effect for the achievement goal subgroups (i.e., high/low performance-approach & high/low task goal) on self-handicapping, F(259, 3) = 7.22, p <.001. As further revealed by the post-hoc analysis in Table 3, the different task/performance-approach goal orientation profile groups generally did differ in their self-reported self-handicapping. First, the high task/high performance-approach goal group (M = 1.91) reported significantly less self-handicapping behaviors than did the low task/high performance-approach group (M = 2.35) and the low task/low performance-approach group (M = 2.47). Second, the low task/low performance-approach goal group scored higher on self-handicapping than the high task/low performance-approach goal group (M = 2.08). The high task/high performance-approach goal group (M = 1.91) did not, however, significantly differ in self-handicapping from the high task/low performance-approach group (M = 2.08). The pattern of results suggests that the beneficial effect of a task goal orientation not only include pupils endorsing a high performance-approach goal, but also extends to those holding a low performance-approach goal. Taken together, both in case of a low and a high

9 APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE GOALS, SELF-HANDICAPPING 191 Table 3 Results of ANCOVA Comparing Median-Split Task and Performance-Approach or Performance-Avoidance on Self-Handicapping in 9th Graders (Performance-Approach, 1 N = 260; Performance-avoid, 2 N = 244) Low task/ High task/ Low task/ High task/ Low performance- Low performance- High performance- High performanceapproach (Avoid 2 ) approach (Avoid 2 ) approach (Avoid 2 ) approach (Avoid 2 ) Task and performance-approach analysis Handicapping 1 N = 88 N = 45 N = 53 N = c 2.08ab 2.35c 1.91a Task and performance-avoid analysis Handicapping 2 N = 64 N = 54 N = 70 N = b 1.85b 2.66a 2.12b Note. The reported means were adjusted for the covariates (performance-avoid for analysis 1, and performanceapproach and perceived competence for analysis 2. Different superscripts denoted means significantly different from each other at the p <.05 level. 1 F(259, 3) = 7.23, p <.001 controlling for performance-avoid goals. 2 F(243, 3) = 3.29, p <.01, controlling for performance-approach goals and perceived competence. 3 Gender was controlled for in all analyses. performance-approach goal, a moderating effect of a task goal on self-handicapping is indicated. The results complement regression based findings showing differential effects of performance-approach and avoidance goals on self-handicapping. More specifically, combined goal analyses suggest that pupils holding a high performance-approach goal do not engage in self-handicap more than those low in their pursuit of a performance-approach goal as long as they also are high in task goal. Self-Handicapping Related to Task/Performance-Avoidance Goals The second analysis also produced an overall significant main effect. When controlling for a performance-approach goal and perceived competence, there was an overall main effect for the multiple goals groups (i.e., performance-avoidance/task goal) on self-handicapping, F(243, 3) = 3.29, p <.01. As also shown in Table 3, the post-hoc analysis revealed that overall the different task/achievement-avoidance goal orientation subgroups did differ in their selfreported self-handicapping. First, the low task/high performance avoidance goal group reported using self-handicapping more strongly (M = 2.66) than did the three remaining goal subgroups (low performance-avoid/low task, M = 2.14; high task/high performance-avoidance, M = 2.12; and high task/low performance-avoidance goal orientation group, M = 1.85). The significantly stronger report of self-handicapping in the low task/high performance-avoidance group (M = 2.66) than in the high task/high performance-avoidance group (M = 2.12) indicate that in the case of a performance-avoidance goal, a task goal has a dampening effect on self-handicapping. Further, parallel to the findings for a performance-approach goal, the high task/high performance-avoidance goal group (M = 2.12) did not significantly differ from the high task/low performance goal subgroup (M = 1.85) in terms of self-handicapping. This latter result suggests that also in the case of performance-avoidance goal, a high score is not more detrimental with respect to self-handicapping than is a low score as long as the pupils also are high in their pursuit of a task goal.

10 192 Y. OMMUNDSEN DISCUSSION Pupils self-report of self-handicapping behaviors in physical education classes was related in a systematic manner to the three achievement goal orientations embedded in the trichotomous approach-avoidance achievement goal framework (Elliot & Church, 1997). I found, in line with previous research (i.e., Midgley & Urdan, 2001; Smith, Sinclair, & Chapman, 2002), that a performance-avoidance goal positively predicted self-handicapping, whereas a task goal as well as a performance-approach goal related negatively to engaging in such potentially maladaptive behaviors. The regression finding that also a performance-approach goal related negatively to self-handicapping contrasts Midgley and Urdan (2001) who found a performance-approach goal to be unrelated to self-handicapping. The differential effects of performance-approach versus performance-avoidance on self-handicapping found in this study may indicate that the high performance-approach pupils in this study are mainly driven by a need for achievement rather than fear of failure (Elliot, 1999). Correlation results showing that a task goal is positively associated with a performance-approach goal but not with a performance-avoidance goal, also add credence to this interpretation. A performance-approach or self-enhancing achievement goal (i.e., Skaalvik, 1997) is by definition an approach goal as defined by the goal of demonstrating superior ability and outperforming others, but may nevertheless also be driven by fear of failure (Elliot & Covington, 2001). However, when driven by a need for achievement, as the inverse performance-approach-self-handicapping relationship indicates, pupils holding a performance-approach goal normally have a high motivation to approach success. In this case the high competence expectancies normally underlying performance-approach goals and their positive outcome focus, presumably elicit a positive set of self-regulation processes such as effort and persistence, as do task focused goals (Elliot, 1997; Haugen et al., 2004; Smith et al., 2002). Indeed, in the present study a positive correlation was observed between perceived competence and a performance-approach goal (r =.42, p <.001). Thus, a performance-approach goal should be less likely to make use of self-protective strategies in order avoid failure and to save their self-worth. In fact, as Elliot argues: When driven by need for achievement, performance-approach goals, like mastery goals, represent fundamentally approach forms of regulation and should engender processes and outcomes that correspond rather closely to those elicited by mastery goals (Elliot, 1997, p. 158). In sum, the possibility of partitioning and refining the performance goal construct and compare these with the task orientation construct seems to allow us to also consider the positive side of the coin of a performance goal orientation. The regression results for performanceapproach goals parallel those found in the realm of academics in general showing that a selfenhancing (performance-approach goal is positively related to achievement, self-perceptions, and intrinsic motivation (Skaalvik, 1997). Among pupils holding performance-avoidance goal, by contrast, the need for self-protection seems to be far more pronounced and such goals should be positively related to threat appraisals. Indeed, as also supported by the regression results, these pupils are more inclined to make use of self-handicapping strategies than are the performance-approach goal group. Performanceavoidance pupils, which may very well also be overrepresented among pupils with low selfesteem, may use self-handicapping when the self-concept becomes under test in order to protect self-esteem (Smith et al., 2002; Tice, 1993). Thus, performance-avoidance pupils may seem willing to run the risk of not doing well by putting hindrances upon themselves in order to be able to increase the attributional ambiguity of their lack of success. Indeed, failure due to lack of practice or low effort is less threatening than failure because of low ability (Covington, 1992).

11 APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE GOALS, SELF-HANDICAPPING 193 Self-Handicapping Related to Task/Performance-Approach Goals Supporting the findings of Midgley and Urdan (2001), the combined goal analyses indicated that, irrespective of level of performance-approach goal, pupils did not differ in their reported use of self-handicapping as long as they were high in their pursuit of a task goal. Apparently, by simultaneously pursuing a task goal focused on mastery, progress and giving a high effort, pupils that focus on demonstrating normative competence, as embedded in a performanceapproach goal, may not be drawn towards a fear of failure focus, in turn generating selfhandicapping. One interpretation of this finding may be that a simultaneous task-oriented focus takes the edge of some of the potential debilitating effect for pupils holding a performanceapproach goal. In cases of facing setbacks and losing against better fellow pupil in the gym, their simultaneous focus on mastery and progress may keep them on track towards a need for achievement. This may prevent that they start focusing on avoiding demonstrating inability instead (Elliot, 1997; Pintrich, 2000). Pupils holding a combination of a low task/high-performance approach goal, by contrast, measured significantly higher on self-handicapping behavior. Due to a more narrow set of criteria of success that by definition is less personally controllable, they may more easily be driven by a fear of failure, in turn eliciting self-handicapping when they face performance setbacks. As stated by Elliot (1997): When driven by fear of failure, performance-approach goals undoubtedly elicit anxiety, low self-determination, and other negative processes that would make the experience of task engagement phenomenologically aversive (p. 158). Thus, the combined goal analyses provide important nuances with respect to the main effect finding of the performance-approach goal revealed by the regression analysis. Apparently, pupils holding a performance-approach goal relate differently to maladaptive achievement behaviors such as self-handicapping, dependent on how this goal perspective work in conjunction with the strength of their task goal (Midgley, Middleton, & Kaplan, 2001). By looking at the regression results in isolation, pupils holding a performance-approach goal would seem primarily driven by need for achievement and demonstrating superior ability as indicated by the negative beta weight for self-handicapping. However, as comes forward more clearly through the results of the combined goal analysis, pupils endorsing a performance-approach goal may turn over to be driven by fear of failure, as indicated by stronger engagement in self-handicapping if that they do not have a simultaneously disposed towards a strong task goal focus. Self-Handicapping Related to Task/Performance-Avoidance Goals Controlling for pupils perceived competence, low task/high performance-avoidance pupils reported to significantly more often to engage in self-handicapping than did pupils in all the three remaining performance-avoid/task goal groups. This clearly documents that also performance-avoidance goals are maladaptive, in particular so when not coupled with a high task goal. Contrary to the findings of Midgley & Urdan s (2001), results of combined goal analyses revealed that pupils in the high task/high performance-avoidance group did not report significantly more self-handicapping than did those the high task/low performance-avoid pupils. Apparently, even when these pupils were high in their pursuit of performance-avoidance goals, the negative effects of holding performance-avoidance goals did not outweigh the benefit of holding a high task goal. In the study by Midgley and Urdan (2001), a more clear-cut negative effect for performanceavoidance goal on students self-handicapping behavior was found. Such differences could be due to the different school subjects examined in the present versus the Midgley study. However, a second explanation might be that in the present study pupils perceived competence

12 194 Y. OMMUNDSEN was statistically controlled when examining performance-avoidance/task goal effects. Indeed, the self-protective value of also focusing on mastery and progress as criteria for success thus reducing the need to self-handicap, may benefit performance-avoidance pupils differentially, dependent on whether they perceive themselves to have high competence in PE or not. Pupils with a low evaluation of their competence may be more inclined to focus on fear of failure and activate self-protective strategies such as self-handicapping when being performanceavoidance oriented. Indeed, correlation results also revealed a negative association between perceived competence and a performance-avoidance oriented goal as well as self-handicapping. Thus, in terms of alleviating self-handicapping, performance-avoidance pupils with low ability perceptions may take particular advantage of a simultaneous task goal adoption. Clearly, in physical education, even performance-avoidance goals do not facilitate self-handicapping among pupils that also construe ability in terms of progress, effort and value hard work. Limitations The current data are cross-sectional. Thus, causal inferences regarding the relationship between achievement goals and self-handicapping cannot be drawn. It should also be acknowledged that the variance in self-handicapping accounted for by the differential achievement goals is of a relative small magnitude. The relatively low mean score and a skewed distribution on the self-handicapping scale may have resulted in a ceiling effect regarding the amount of variance accounted for by the achievement goals. In addition, other personal as well as situational factors may add to the variance observed and enhance the practical significance of the findings. For example, Urdan, Midgley, and Anderman (1998) observed that students perceptions of an emphasis on performance goals in the classroom and teachers reports of their use of performance-focused strategies in the classroom predicted the use of handicapping. Further, in the study by Midgley and Urdan (2001), a performance oriented motivational climate added to the variance in self-handicapping after the influence of the trichotomous goals had been taken into account. Previous studies have also revealed that pupils low in self-esteem self-handicap more than those perceiving themselves as high in self-esteem (Tice, 1993). In light of reasoning that self-esteem may drive different achievement goals (i.e. Skaalvik, 1997), future studies would benefit from focusing on the interplay between achievement goals and self-esteem in pupils tendency to self-handicap in PE. The present study used a paper-and-pencil based survey to examine pupils engagement in self-handicapping. Several methods exist to investigate self-handicapping, such as observation of practice persistence before task engagement, whether they select difficult or distracting conditions in which to complete tasks and so on. These methods have, however, only been used in laboratory settings, and not in the field (i.e., Cury et al., 2002). Future field studies should increase the range of methods in order to more fully examine the engagement in selfhandicapping during PE classes. A combination of methods may help to better understand both its precursors as well as the processes through which contextual factors of the learning environment facilitate or inhibit handicapping in PE (Urdan & Midgley, 2001). Practical Implications The overall pattern of results is encouraging, and underlines the necessity for PE teachers always to keep trying to promote a task involvement in PE. Previous research indicates that both task goals and perceived motivational climates that foster task involvement are associated with constructs reflecting positive effect such as enjoyment, satisfaction and interest as well as adaptive achievement related cognitions, behaviors and strategies (Duda, 2001). Even in the

13 APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE GOALS, SELF-HANDICAPPING 195 simultaneous presence of performance-oriented situational cues a mastery oriented climate in PE have been found to lead to task involvement among pupils (Ommundsen & Bar-Eli, 1999). Thus, extrapolating from such research combined with the present findings, promoting a mastery/learning-oriented motivational climate may seem particularly important with respect to preventing students from engaging in self-handicapping. In a predominantly task/mastery climate, pupils can more easily feel more in control of their learning process (Skinner, 1995). A sense of control of their own learning may be obtained when teachers design tasks taking into consideration task variety and task choice. This may help promoting a sense of autonomy and help all pupils feel successful, irrespective of variations in skill levels. Also, task variety and the use of teacher feedback based on progress and effort allow pupils to develop a view of ability as a conglomerate of personal forces, consisting of the perceived capability to mobilize effort and execute strategies that are necessary for learning. Further, PE teachers should allow for mistakes, and view mistakes as a natural part of learning. This may reduce fixed theories of abilities among pupils. Indeed, previous finding within the physical education domain have found that situational cues emphasizing progress, learning and effort counteract any belief in ability as fixed, stable and unaffected by effort; beliefs that in turn have been found to relate to self-handicapping Ommundsen, 2001a,b). PE teachers may also create greater individual optimism for learning by letting every pupil have an important role in class, and recognize all of them for effort and perseverance. Then pupils, including also those holding performance-approach or avoidance goals, may more readily invest in the learning tasks and try to demonstrate their competence instead of being preoccupied with self-esteem protective tactics in the form of self-handicapping. Indeed, the present data are cross-sectional. Accordingly, in suggesting any practical implications as to how self-handicapping might be alleviated, this should be kept in mind. CONCLUSIONS Both in the correlation and the regression analyses a task goal was found to be the goal most clearly negatively associated with self-handicapping. Thus, the most important generalization from the present study seems to be that in terms of preventing pupils from self-handicapping it is still accurate to say that a task achievement goal is most adaptive. Apparently, the implication that pupils should be encouraged to adopt a task goal orientation still seems valid. Nevertheless, a revised perspective on performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals (Pintrich, 2000) was also supported. Holding a performance-approach goal is primarily adaptive, but may facilitate self-handicapping when not coupled with a strong task orientation. Results further suggest that a performance-avoidance goal is not necessarily maladaptive in terms of facilitating self-handicapping. Taken together, analyses indicate that, a performanceavoidance goal more strongly deserve being labeled the motivationally bad guy in terms of generating self-handicapping. A performance-approach goal, however, seems more readily characterized as a motivationally double-edged sword in terms of self-handicapping. REFERENCES Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students earning strategies and motivational processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, Covington, M. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press. Covington, M. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51,

14 196 Y. OMMUNDSEN Cury, F., Laurent, E., de Tonnac, A., & Sot, V. (1999). An under-explored aspect of achievement goal theory in sport: Development and predictive value of the AAASQ. In V. Hosek, P. Tilinger, & L. Bilek (Eds.), Proceedings from the 10th European Congress on Sport Psychology (pp ). Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Physical education and Sport, Prague. Cury, F., Elliot, A., Sarrazin, D., Da Fonseca, D., & Rufo, M. (2002). The trichotomous achievement goal model and intrinsic motivation: A sequential mediational analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, Duda, J. L. (2001). Goal perspectives research in sport: Pushing the boundaries and clarifying some misunderstandings. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp ). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the Classic and Contemporary approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, Vol. 10 (pp ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, Elliot, A. J., & Covington, M. (2001). Approach and avoidance motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, Fox, K. (1997). The physical self and processes in self-esteem development. In K. Fox (Ed.), The physical self: From motivation to well-being (pp ). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Goudas, M., & Biddle, S. (1994). Perceived motivational climate and intrinsic motivation in school physical education classes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 9, Harter, S. (1990). Causes, correlates, and the functional role of global self-worth: A life-span perspective. In J. Kolligan, Jr., & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Competence considered (pp ) New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Haugen, R., Ommundsen, Y., & Lund, T. (2004). The concept of expectancy: A central factor in various personality dispositions. Educational Psychology, 24, Jones, E. E., & Berglas, S. (1978). Control of attributions about self through self-handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and underachievement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: Exploring a model of predictors and outcomes from a self-protection perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, Midgley, C., Arunkumar, R., & Urdan, T. C. (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, Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1995). Predictors of middle-school students use of self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (2001). Academic self-handicapping and achievement goals: A further examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, Midgley, C., Middleton, M., & Kaplan, A. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, Nicholls, J. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.