CONFRONTING THE ENEMY WITHIN: AN IN-DEPTH STUDY ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SELF-HANDICAPPING AMONG COLLEGIATE MUSICIANS Michelle Clements Flowers, B.Mus., M.M. Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS August 2016 APPROVED: Vern Kagarice, Major Professor Tony Baker, Major Professor Kris Chesky, Committee Member Brian Bowman, Committee Member Benjamin Brand, Director of Graduate Studies in the College of Music John Richmond, Dean of the College of Music Victor Prybutok, Vice Provost of the Toulouse Graduate School Flowers, Michelle Clements. Confronting the Enemy Within: An In-Depth Study on Psychological Self-Handicapping Among Collegiate Musicians. Doctor of Musical Arts (Performance), August 2016, 105 pp., 6 tables, 7 figures, references, 34 titles. Self-handicapping is a psychological behavior people engage in to protect their self- image, project a desired image to others, and to augment feelings of success and achievement. Self-handicapping occurs when individuals have a positive but uncertain self-image about their competence in an arena of life fundamental to their self-identity. Musicians have been underrepresented in self-handicapping studies; yet the very competitive nature of their education and craft, the strong identification musicians have as musicians, and the frequent challenges during all phases of development to their abilities would suggest they are extremely vulnerable to developing self-handicaps. This dissertation discusses the theoretical components of self- handicapping, the personality traits typically exhibited by high self-handicappers, causes, types, and possible motivations for self-handicapping, short and long term effects of the behavior, and the implications these concepts have to the musician community. Copyright 2016 by Michelle Clements Flowers ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First off, a giant thank you is owed to Kevin Stephenson for his statistical help and expertise. Thank you to my committee: Tony Baker, Dr. Brian Bowman, and Dr. Kris Chesky for all of their help. Also thank you, Dr. Angela Nievar for talking me through this project when I got stuck. A huge thank you to my trombone professors Dr. Vern Kagarice, Tony Baker, and Jan Kagarice for all your guidance. I learned a lot from all of you and I will always be appreciative of your time and efforts on my behalf. I would like to especially thank my mentor professor, Vern. I truly enjoyed my time studying with you despite your absolutely terrible puns. I never would have survived my days in Texas without some amazing friends. Thanks to all of you! In particular I would like to thank Becky Wernham who’s been my comrade in arms throughout all this. Sundance, Watson, and Indiana, thank you for your constant companionship. These have been rough years – you have no idea how much it’s meant to me to come home to your enthusiastic barking every night. I’m glad I’ve got you guys to keep me sane. But the biggest thank you goes to my family and first and foremost to my parents, Julia and Kent Flowers for your unwavering love, support, and encouragement through all the ups and downs of my education and life. Thank you for listening to me practice all these years, for all the late night phone calls, surprise pizza deliveries, care packages from home containing Utah food and multiple flashlights, for talking me through car repairs, for teaching me to love the outdoors, for insisting I be prepared for emergencies (that’s come in handy more than once), and for everything you have sacrificed and done for me. I’m so grateful for you and love you both with all my heart! And so, Mom and Pop, I dedicate this dissertation to you. It wouldn’t have been possible without you guys! iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... vii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 II. SELF-HANDICAPPING: ORIGINS OF A THEORY ........................................ 6 Impression Management Theory .................................................................... 7 Causal Attribution ........................................................................................... 10 III. SELF-HANDICAPPING DEFINED .................................................................... 14 Alcohol as a Self-Handicapping Method ....................................................... 17 Empirical Evidence for the Theory ................................................................. 19 Timing is Everything: How Self-handicapping and Excuse Making Differ .. 24 IV. SELF-HANDICAPPING AND IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT ...................... 26 V. THREE CATEGORIES OF SELF-HANDICAPPING ........................................ 29 Behavioral vs. Claimed Self-Handicapping .................................................... 29 Motivational Differences Between Behavioral and Claimed Self-Handicapping .................................................................... 31 Dispositional Handicaps: Self-Handicapping Escalated ................................. 35 VI. CAUSES AND DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-HANDICAPPING ....................... 41 Susceptibility to Self-Handicapping ............................................................... 46 Success Depression ......................................................................................... 48 Is Self-Handicapping a Self-Defeating or Self-Protective Behavior? ............ 51 VII. PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTS RELATED TO SELF-HANDICAPPING .................................................................................. 54 Self-Esteem and the Role it Plays ................................................................... 54 Implicit vs. Explicit Self-Esteem .................................................................... 58 Imposter Phenomenon .................................................................................... 61 iv VIII. EXPLAINING THE GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SELF-HANDICAPPING .. 67 IX. THE ENEMY WITHIN: POTENTIAL RISK FACTORS FOR MUSICIANS ... 72 X. SELF-HANDICAPPING AMONG UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS MUSICIANS ...................................................................................................... 77 Method ............................................................................................................ 78 Results ............................................................................................................. 79 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 79 XI. SELF-HANDICAPPING AMONG MUSICIANS: THE BIGGER PICTURE ... 81 Method ............................................................................................................ 82 Participants ...................................................................................................... 83 Results ............................................................................................................. 87 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 96 XII. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 100 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 102 v LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1: Ethnicity of Participants by Percentage ....................................................................... 84 Table 2: Instruments Represented by Percentage ...................................................................... 85 Table 3: Schools Represented by Current Students ................................................................... 86 Table 4: Results of Multiple Regression Predicting SHS – Total Score ................................... 95 Table 5: Results of Multiple Regression Predicting SHS – Claimed Score .............................. 95 Table 6: Table 1. Results of Multiple Regression Predicting SHS – Behavioral Score ............ 95 vi LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1: Responses to Importance of Creating Music .............................................................. 87 Figure 2: Self-Handicapping Scores by Gender ........................................................................ 88 Figure 3: Gender and Instrument Interaction for Self-Handicapping Results ........................... 90 Figure 4: Professional vs. Amateur Self-Handicapping Scores ................................................. 91 Figure 5: Subscale Scores by Gender ........................................................................................ 92 Figure 6: Correlation between Claimed Self-Handicapping and Self-Esteem .......................... 93 Figure 7: Relationship Between Behavioral Self-Handicapping and Self-Esteem .................... 94 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION I’m not a coward I’ve just never been tested. I’d like to think that if I was I would pass. Look at the tested and think there but for the Grace go I. Might be a coward I’m afraid of what I might find out. --- The Mighty Mighty Boss Tones The study of music is often an arduous process which can be grueling on both body and mind. Musicians face innumerable obstacles in their quest to reach their artistic goals. Success as a musician is often determined through a process that can seem both capricious and judgmental, with the potential for rejection, failure, and embarrassment running high and often. The competitive nature of musical education and the strong identification musicians have with their art can potentially make musicians extremely vulnerable to self-handicapping, a psychological defense mechanism that protects one’s self-esteem, yet limits one’s ability to achieve. An expanded definition of self-handicapping, given by University of Kansas psychology professor C. R. Snyder, states that: [s]elf-handicapping is a process of preserving the personal theory of self, wherein the person, experiencing uncertainty about success in an anticipated important performance arena, utilizes seeming impediments in order to (1) decrease the linkage to that impending performance should it prove to be poor (i.e., discounting), and (2) increase the linkage should the performance prove to be good (augmentation).1 While most people engage in a certain amount of self-handicapping at times, the protections provided by these actions can be particularly tempting to individuals with low, high, or discrepant self-esteem as well as those suffering from imposter phenomenon who are already 1 C. R. Snyder, “Self-Handicapping Processes and Sequelae: On the Taking of a Psychological Dive” in Self-Handicapping: the Paradox that Isn’t, ed. Raymond L. Higgins, C. R. Snyder, and Steven Berglas (New York: Plenum, 1990), 119. 1 more likely to self-handicap.2 The seduction lies in the potential self-handicapping has to allow individuals to manipulate (or attempt to) their environment when that environment is deemed dangerous.3 Danger is here defined as a situation that could adversely affect one’s self-image through negative feedback at a task or skill that is integral to an individual’s sense of self. Conversely, self-handicapping can enhance success by augmenting the feeling of achievement when success is obtained in a dangerous environment. This concept of self-identity is a crucial component in developing self-handicapping tendencies. Those who identify very strongly with a particular occupation or ability (e.g. “My job is who I am”) tend to be more at risk for self-handicapping in evaluative situations involving that skill or task. Failure at the that specific task becomes an attack on the individual’s concept of self; thus it becomes vitally important to the individual to protect their own self concept even at the risk of bringing about the very failure they are trying to avoid. By projecting the failure to some external cause through self-handicapping behaviors, self-handicappers are able to feel in control of their self image while paradoxically minimizing their chances of success.4 Uncertainty plays a key role in developing self-handicapping. Possessing a positive image (something worth protecting) but also feeling uncertain about whether or not others hold the same belief or doubting one’s ability to recreate the success which have built such an image (for example those suffering from imposter phenomenon or after non-contingent success 2 Leah R. Spalding and Curtis D. Hardin, “Unconscious Unease and Self-Handicapping: Behavioral Consequences of Individual Differences in Implicit and Explicit Self-Esteem,” Psychological Science, 10, no. 6 (1999): 535-539. Accessed April 5, 2015 via Sage Journals. 3 Raymond L. Higgins, “Self-Handicapping: Historical Roots and Contemporary Branches” in Self- Handicapping: the Paradox that Isn’t, ed. Raymond L. Higgins, C. R. Snyder, and Steven Berglas (New York: Plenum, 1990), 13. 4 Shannon P. Lupien, Mark D. Seery, and Jessica L. Almonte, “Discrepant and Congruent High Self- esteem: Behavioral Self-handicapping as a Preemptive Defensive Strategy,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, (2010): 1105-6. 2