Guillaume R Coudevylle
email: guillaumecoudevylle@hotmail.com

Kathleen A Martin Ginis

Maître De

Christophe Gernigon
email: christophe.gernigon@univ-montp1.fr

Professor Kathleen Martin Ginis

Self-esteem, Self-confidence, Anxiety and Claimed Self-handicapping: A Mediational Analysis

Keywords: Excuses, achievement context, social comparison, basketball

The purpose of the present study was to examine the mediational role of self-confidence and anxiety in the relationship between self-esteem and claimed self-handicapping in an achievement context. After hearing and reading about specific conditions of performing that were intended to favor invoking excuses for future poor performance, 68 competitive basketball players completed measures of self-esteem, anxiety (cognitive and somatic), self-confidence, and claimed self-handicapping. Then, they warmed-up and carried out a basketball task. Self-esteem negatively predicted cognitive anxiety and positively predicted self-confidence. In turn, selfconfidence negatively predicted claimed self-handicapping and mediated the relationship between self-esteem and claimed self-handicapping. Cognitive and somatic anxieties did not mediate the relationship between self-esteem and claimed self-handicapping. Together, these results suggest that individuals with low self-esteem use more claimed self-handicaps because they have lower self-confidence. These findings shed light on the psychological processes that lead people with low self-esteem to use strategies of claimed self-handicaps.

Self-esteem, Anxiety, Self-confidence, and Claimed Self-handicapping: A Mediational Analysis [START_REF] Berglas | Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to non contingent success[END_REF] defined self-handicapping as "any action or choice of performance setting that enhances the opportunity to externalize (or excuse) failure and to internalize (reasonably accept credit for) success" (p. 406). For example, if a self-handicapping person performs poorly, then the failure can be attributed to the performance impediment rather than the person's ability or competence. On the other hand, if the self-handicapping person performs well, then the athlete creates the impression of being especially competent and talented, because success was achieved despite obstacles. In addition, they may also internalize the augmented perceptions of competence [START_REF] Baumeister | Self-presentational motivations and personality differences in self-esteem[END_REF].

Self-Esteem and Self-Handicapping Strategies

As noticed early by [START_REF] Jones | Control of attributions about the self through selfhandicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and the role of underachievement[END_REF], self-handicappers are legion in the sports world. Indeed, Rhodewalt (1990) mentioned that athletic and intellectual performance settings are particularly suited to examine self-handicapping in the face of evaluative threat and potentially self-damaging feedback. Field studies have been used to identify the antecedents of the use of self-handicaps prior to competitive or evaluated physical activity events (for reviews, see [START_REF] Coudevylle | Les stratégies d'auto-handicap: Caractéristiques, déterminants et conséquences[END_REF][START_REF] Martin Ginis | Who care what other people think? Self-presentation in exercise and sport[END_REF][START_REF] Prapavessis | Self-presentational issues in competition and sport[END_REF]. Self-esteem is one factor that has been studied as an antecedent. Self-esteem is the evaluation that individuals make and customarily maintain with regard to themselves. It expresses an attitude of approval or disapproval towards the self [START_REF] Rosenberg | Society and the adolescent self-image[END_REF]. Martin and Brawley (2002, Study 2) found that low self-esteem was associated with greater claimed self-handicapping prior to a fitness test. In another study examining the determinants of self-handicapping strategies in sport, Coudevylle, Martin Ginis, and Famose (2008a) showed that self-esteem was significantly negatively correlated with claimed selfhandicapping. Indeed, several authors have suggested that low self-esteem individuals are likely to self-handicap more frequently than high self-esteem individuals [START_REF] Martin | Self-handicapping in physical achievement settings: The contributions of self-esteem and self-efficacy[END_REF][START_REF] Prapavessis | Self-handicapping and self-esteem[END_REF][START_REF] Snyder | Excuses: Their effective role in the negotiation of reality[END_REF] because low self-esteem individuals encounter more situations where they doubt their ability to be successful. Thus, self-confidence may be a more proximal factor than self-esteem when predicting claimed self-handicapping use.

Self-Esteem, Self-Handicapping Strategies and Potential Mediators

Although several studies have examined the direct relationships between self-esteem and claimed self-handicapping, little is known about the psychological processes that mediate these relationships. In their review of the self-handicapping literature, [START_REF] Arkin | Self-handicapping[END_REF] suggested that the combined influence of state and trait beliefs about the self could be an important area of investigation for self-handicapping researchers. In the present study, we focused on the state beliefs of anxiety and self-confidence, and the trait belief of self-esteem.

State anxiety is a psychological (i.e., cognitive anxiety) and physical (i.e., somatic anxiety) response to a threat to the self-concept, characterized by subjective, consciously perceived feelings of tension [START_REF] Spielberger | The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory[END_REF]. In athletes, self-confidence is an athlete's belief or degree of certainty that he or she has the ability to perform successfully in sport [START_REF] Vealey | Self-confidence in athletes[END_REF].

It seems plausible that the use of claimed self-handicapping may be also linked to situation-specific high anxiety or low levels of self-confidence. On the one hand, some studies have shown that trait self-esteem correlates negatively with scores on measures of manifest anxiety and social anxiety (e.g., [START_REF] Leary | Social anxiety[END_REF]. This has been supported by [START_REF] Suliman | Critical thinking, self-esteem, and state anxiety of nursing students[END_REF] who showed that self-esteem is negatively correlated with state anxiety (i.e., cognitive and somatic anxieties) and self-confidence among baccalaureate nursing students. That said, because self-esteem reflects thoughts about the self, it makes sense that self-esteem would be more related to negative thoughts or concerns about performance (i.e., cognitive anxiety) and not with perceived bodily symptoms of competitive anxiety (i.e., somatic anxiety). On the other hand, self-esteem was found to positively relate to self-confidence [START_REF] Campbell | Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept[END_REF], Study 1). Indeed, people with low self-esteem want to succeed as much as people with high self-esteem but they are simply less confident that they will be able to do so [START_REF] Mcfarlin | Effects of self-esteem and performance feedback on future affective preferences and cognitive expectations[END_REF].

Much has been written about the role of ability uncertainty (e.g., Berglas & Jones, 1978) and threat to self-esteem as predictors of self-handicapping [START_REF] Snyder | Symptoms as self-handicapping strategies: The virtues of old wine in a new bottle[END_REF]. In sport contexts, for instance, trait competitive anxiety [START_REF] Martens | Competitive anxiety in sport[END_REF] was found to positively relate to situational manifestations of claimed self-handicapping [START_REF] Ferrand | Relations between female students' personality traits and reported handicaps to rhythmic gymnastics performance[END_REF] and state competitive anxiety was found to positively relate to trait measures of self-handicapping (Prapavessis & Grove, 1994;[START_REF] Prapavessis | Self-handicapping tendencies, coping, and anxiety responses among athletes[END_REF]. Furthermore, [START_REF] Ryska | Effects of trait and situational self-handicapping on competitive anxiety among athletes[END_REF] showed that athletes' reports of performancedebilitating obstacles prior to competition were positively correlated with their states of cognitive anxiety (negative concerns about performance) and somatic anxiety (perceived bodily symptoms of competitive anxiety), and negatively correlated with their state of self-confidence. In addition, [START_REF] Kuczka | Self-handicapping in competitive sport: Influence of the motivational climate, self-efficacy, and perceived importance[END_REF] found that claimed situational self-handicapping was positively correlated with self-efficacy, a construct that is conceptually close to self-confidence [START_REF] Bandura | Self-efficacy: The exercise of control[END_REF].

Given the links that exist between self-esteem and cognitive anxiety and self-confidence on the one hand, and between states of anxiety and self-confidence and claimed selfhandicapping on the other hand, it seems worthwhile to examine the role of cognitive anxiety and self-confidence as potential mediators of the relationship between self-esteem and claimed self-handicapping. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to examine these mediated relationships in a sport setting, since sport is an achievement context that is propitious to self-handicapping (Jones & Berglas, 1978). We examined the mediational relationships among athletes performing a basketball task. It was predicted that the negative relationship between self-esteem and claimed self-handicapping would be mediated by cognitive anxiety and self-confidence.

Method Participants

Participants were 68 competitive basketball players, 34 men (M age = 21 years; SD = 4.5) and 34 women (M age = 19.5 years; SD = 3.9). To ensure that participants would be personally invested in the experimental task and its outcome, all players competed at the French regional level-a sufficiently competitive level. Participants were recruited from eight different teams.

Note that the data from 56 participants represent a secondary analysis of data previously published [START_REF] Coudevylle | An experimental investigation of determinants and consequences of self-handicapping strategies across motivational climates[END_REF].

Measures

General Self-esteem. [START_REF] Vallières | Traduction et validation canadienne-française de l'échelle de l'estime de soi de Rosenberg[END_REF] French version of Rosenberg's (1965) Self-Esteem Scale was used to measure general self-esteem. This scale includes 10 items capturing a continuum of self-worth statements. The original scale has been used extensively for research in samples with a variety of ages, nationalities, and socioeconomic levels [START_REF] Rosenberg | Society and the adolescent self-image[END_REF] and has demonstrated consistently acceptable internal consistency reliability (coefficient alphas of 0.72-0.87; [START_REF] Wiley | Measures of self-concept[END_REF]. Each item was answered on a four-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree).

Cognitive Anxiety, Somatic Anxiety, and Self-confidence. State anxiety and selfconfidence were measured using [START_REF] Cury | Mesurer l'anxiété du sportif en compétition : Présentation de l'échelle d'état d'anxiété en compétition (EEAC) [Measuring athletes' anxiety in competition: Presentation of the Competitive State Anxiety Scale (CSAS)[END_REF] French version of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory -2 (CSAI-2; [START_REF] Martens | Competitive anxiety in sport[END_REF]. This questionnaire, which was found to be reliable and valid for French athletes, consists of seven items measuring cognitive anxiety, seven items measuring somatic anxiety and nine items measuring selfconfidence. According to Martens and colleagues, cognitive anxiety is conceptualized as negative expectations of success and cognitive concerns about oneself; somatic anxiety is conceptualized as the perception of one's physiological arousal; and self-confidence is conceptualized as one's belief in meeting the challenge of the task to be performed. Participants indicated the extent to which they were currently experiencing the content of each item using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (completely). The questionnaire has been extensively utilized in sport settings and possesses strong reliability and validity [START_REF] Martens | Competitive anxiety in sport[END_REF].

Claimed Self-handicapping. A scale that was adapted from that used by Martin and Brawley (2002, Study 2) was used to measure claimed self-handicapping. Whereas Martin and Brawley's scale consisted of just seven possible impediments, our scale consisted of thirteen impediments that athletes may use as self-handicaps such as: "I am feeling tired," "I have personal concerns in this moment". These impediments were chosen because they were those most frequently cited by athletes in Carron and colleagues' studies of self-handicapping in sport [START_REF] Carron | Group effects and self-handicapping[END_REF][START_REF] Hausenblas | Group cohesion and self-handicapping in female and male athletes[END_REF]. In addition, the participants were presented with a fourteenth, open-ended item that provided them with the opportunity to list any other potential impediments to their performance. For each item, participants indicated (a) whether the impediment was present (yes/no), and (b) the extent to which each impediment would interfere with their performance (i.e., perceived impact), using a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 6 (extremely). A score of claimed self-handicapping was calculated by considering the items to which the participants had answered "yes" and by adding the impact scores for these items. Higher scores were indicative of greater claims of performance impediments and, consequently, greater claimed self-handicapping. This measure has been used in previous studies involving competitive athletes (Coudevylle et al., 2008a;[START_REF] Coudevylle | Effects of selfhandicapping strategies on anxiety prior to athletic performance[END_REF][START_REF] Coudevylle | An experimental investigation of determinants and consequences of self-handicapping strategies across motivational climates[END_REF][START_REF] Kuczka | Self-handicapping in competitive sport: Influence of the motivational climate, self-efficacy, and perceived importance[END_REF].

Construct validity for this way of measuring self-handicapping has been supported by studies showing significant correlations between the claimed impact of performance impediments and theoretically linked constructs such as self-presentational efficacy [START_REF] Martin | Self-handicapping in physical achievement settings: The contributions of self-esteem and self-efficacy[END_REF], self-esteem, and performance self-efficacy (Coudevylle et al., 2008a;[START_REF] Martin | Self-handicapping in physical achievement settings: The contributions of self-esteem and self-efficacy[END_REF].

Internal consistency is not an appropriate psychometric index for this type of self-handicapping measure because athletes are not expected to respond similarly to all of the items on the scale. Indeed, when athletes use claimed self-handicapping, they typically cite only one or two performance impediments. It is unusual for an athlete to cite several claimed self-handicaps, probably because a single self-handicapping claim is sufficient to protect an athlete's image, and the use of multiple self-handicaps could have considerable self-presentational liabilities. Thus, a reliability coefficient was not calculated or reported.

Experimental Task

After having completed measures of self-esteem, anxiety (cognitive and somatic), selfconfidence, and claimed self-handicapping, participants then warmed-up and carried out a basketball task. This task was the same as that used in previous experimental designs intended to investigate self-handicapping (Coudevylle et al., 2008a[START_REF] Coudevylle | Effects of selfhandicapping strategies on anxiety prior to athletic performance[END_REF][START_REF] Coudevylle | An experimental investigation of determinants and consequences of self-handicapping strategies across motivational climates[END_REF] and consisted of completing three repetitions of an obstacle course laid out on a standard basketball court.

Procedure

The experiment was conducted in the athletes' usual training hall and during a regularly scheduled training session. To maximize the likelihood of self-handicapping, the experimental context was designed to enhance the salience of known antecedents of self-handicapping (for a review, see [START_REF] Prapavessis | Self-presentational issues in competition and sport[END_REF][START_REF] Self | Situational influences on self-handicapping[END_REF]. Specifically, the situation emphasized results, comparisons of one's own performance relative to others' (e.g., [START_REF] Ames | Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes[END_REF], public awareness of the use of self-handicaps and a public performance [START_REF] Elliot | Achievement goals, self-handicapping, and performance attainment: A mediational analysis[END_REF]. The experimenter told the participants that their results would be compared with those of their teammates and would be also used to rank the players of the region.

After hearing and reading about the conditions in which the test would be performed, participants completed the measures of self-esteem, anxiety, and self-confidence. At this time, participants did not know that they would have the opportunity to self-handicap. Then, they completed the measure of claimed self-handicapping on another sheet. In order to mask the true purpose of the self-handicapping questionnaire, the experimenter told the participants: "The following questionnaire is intended to know your general actual state in order to interpret your results today. It will allow those who will evaluate your competence (the experimenter, your trainer, the other players, the spectators) to consider your current personal situation when authenticating your results and comparing them with those of the other participants."

After completing the claimed self-handicapping measure, participants then warmed-up and completed the task. They performed the test in the presence of the experimenter, spectators (i.e., player's parents and friends), coaches and other players. Spectators, coaches and the other players were present only to observe and support the tested player while the experimenter scored his or her performance. Once the participants had completed the task, they were debriefed regarding the true purpose of the study. Then, the first author provided each team with a lecture about self-handicapping and led a discussion about this strategy and its consequences. The procedure was similar to that employed in previous studies of self-handicapping (see Coudevylle et al., 2008a;[START_REF] Coudevylle | Effects of selfhandicapping strategies on anxiety prior to athletic performance[END_REF][START_REF] Coudevylle | An experimental investigation of determinants and consequences of self-handicapping strategies across motivational climates[END_REF].

Analyses

The three-step procedure advocated by [START_REF] Baron | The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological reaseach: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations[END_REF] was used to test the assumed mediating roles of anxiety and self-confidence in the relation between self-esteem and claimed self-handicapping. First, each potential mediator (cognitive and somatic anxieties, selfconfidence) was regressed on the independent variable (self-esteem). Second, the dependent variable (claimed self-handicap) was regressed on each potential mediator. Third, the dependent variable was regressed on both the independent variable and each potential mediator. There is a mediating effect of a potential mediator if significant links are found at the first two steps and if the relation between the independent variable and the dependent variable is no longer significant (perfect mediation) or is reduced (partial mediation) when the mediator is introduced into the equation (third step). In addition, the significance of the mediated effect was calculated using a Sobel test.

Results

To test the direct relationship between self-esteem and claimed self-handicapping, claimed self-handicapping was regressed on self-esteem. A significant overall model [F(1, 66) = 9.32, p <.01, R²= .12] was found and self-esteem was a significant negative predictor of claimed self-handicapping (β = -.35, p < .01).

To test the relationship between self-esteem and the potential mediators, each potential mediator was regressed on self-esteem. Regressing cognitive anxiety on self-esteem yielded a significant effect [F(1, 66) = 9.32, p <.01, R²= .12]. Self-esteem was a significant negative predictor of cognitive anxiety (β = -.35, p < .01). Regressing somatic anxiety on self-esteem did not yield a significant effect [F(1, 66) = 3.73, p > .05, R²= .05]. Regressing self-confidence on self-esteem yielded a significant effect [F(1, 66) = 18.92, p <.001, R²= .22]. Self-esteem was a significant positive predictor of self-confidence (β = .47, p < .001).

Finally, the relationship between self-esteem and claimed self-handicapping was tested again with the influence of each remaining potential mediator controlled (i.e., cognitive anxiety and self-confidence). Regressing claimed self-handicapping on both cognitive anxiety and selfesteem yielded a significant effect [F(2, 65) = 4.6, p <.05, R²= .12]. Self-esteem significantly negatively predicted self-handicapping (β = -.34, p < .01) but cognitive anxiety did not.

Regressing claimed self-handicapping on both self-confidence and self-esteem yielded a significant effect [F(2, 65) = 8.04, p <.001, R²= .19]. Self-confidence significantly negatively predicted claimed self-handicapping (β = -.30, p < .05), whereas self-esteem did not. To summarize, self-confidence, but not cognitive anxiety, was found to mediate the relationship between self-esteem and claimed self-handicapping (see Figure 1). To check the significance of the mediated effect, a Sobel test was conducted whereby the products of the unstandardized regression coefficients of Paths B (B = .68) and C (B = -.26) were divided by a standard error term 1 (i.e., z score). The Sobel test was significant (z score = -2.78, p < .05).

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to examine the role of state anxiety and selfconfidence as potential mediators of the relationship between self-esteem and claimed selfhandicapping. First, when considered as the sole predictor variable, self-esteem was a significant negative predictor of claimed self-handicapping. Consistent with our hypotheses, this finding replicates results from previous studies that also addressed the relationship between self-esteem and claimed self-handicapping in sport and exercise settings (Coudevylle et al., 2008a;Martin & Brawley, 2002, Study 2). This finding is also consistent with results that were observed in an academic context [START_REF] Snyder | Excuses: Their effective role in the negotiation of reality[END_REF].

1 z score =
, where a and b are unstandardized regression coefficients for the regression of the mediator on the predictor, and the outcome on the mediator, respectively, while sa and sb are their respective standard errors.

Second, self-esteem was found to negatively predict cognitive anxiety but not somatic anxiety. These results are consistent with several studies showing that trait self-esteem correlates negatively with scores on measures of social anxiety (e.g., [START_REF] Leary | Social anxiety[END_REF] and state anxiety [START_REF] Suliman | Critical thinking, self-esteem, and state anxiety of nursing students[END_REF]. Likewise, these results are in agreement with our expectations that self-esteem would be more related to cognitive anxiety (i.e., negative thoughts or concerns about performance) than with somatic anxiety (i.e., perceived bodily symptoms of competitive anxiety). Indeed, this result makes sense given that self-esteem reflects thoughts about the self; such thoughts should be more strongly linked with thoughts about one's performance than perceptions of somatic symptoms. The relationship between self-esteem and cognitive anxiety was negative because participants with low self-esteem have more concerns about performance (i.e., cognitive anxiety) than participants with high self-esteem. It is also noteworthy that selfesteem was a significant positive predictor of self-confidence. This finding corroborates previous research (e.g., [START_REF] Campbell | Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept[END_REF], Study 1).

The negative relationship between self-esteem and claimed self-handicapping was in fact mediated by self-confidence. Consistent with our hypotheses, this finding complements results from previous research which showed that athletes' reports of performance-debilitating obstacles prior to competition were negatively correlated with their state of self-confidence [START_REF] Ryska | Effects of trait and situational self-handicapping on competitive anxiety among athletes[END_REF]. As a result, self-esteem and self-confidence may no longer be seen as two independent predictors of claimed self-handicapping. Rather, the present research shows that self-confidence may be considered the process through which self-esteem influences claimed self-handicapping. This finding is of importance since it reveals self-confidence as the most proximal determinant of claimed self-handicapping, compared to self-esteem. Contrary to our expectations, the negative relationship between self-esteem and claimed self-handicapping was not mediated by state anxiety. More accurately, cognitive anxiety did not predict claimed self-handicapping, a result inconsistent with previous research showing positive relationships between claimed self-handicapping and both cognitive and somatic anxieties [START_REF] Ryska | Effects of trait and situational self-handicapping on competitive anxiety among athletes[END_REF]. A possible explanation would be that that self-confidence is a factor stronger than cognitive anxiety for determining claimed self-handicapping prior to athletic tests. In addition, previous research has led some authors to consider that people use self-handicapping strategies to reduce their anxiety. For example, [START_REF] Coudevylle | Effects of selfhandicapping strategies on anxiety prior to athletic performance[END_REF] showed that athletes with a greater propensity to use claimed self-handicapping reported greater increases in perceptions of cognitive anxiety as facilitating their performance before the completion of an evaluative sport task. Therefore, while it can be hypothesized that the more anxious the individuals are in a given situation, the more they are prone to use self-handicapping (positive relationship), it can also be hypothesized that the more they plan to use self-handicapping, the less they may feel anxious (negative relationship). These opposite effects might thus nullify each other and result in an apparent absence of relationship between anxiety and self-handicapping.

Overall, the present research demonstrated that, among factors examined, self-confidence was the unique situational mediator of the relationship between self-esteem and claimed selfhandicapping in the sport context. In other words, one reason individuals with high self-esteem use less self-handicapping claims is because they have more self-confidence. Several authors have suggested that low self-esteem individuals are likely to self-handicap more frequently than high self-esteem individuals because low self-esteem individuals encounter more situations where they doubt their ability to be successful [START_REF] Martin | Self-handicapping in physical achievement settings: The contributions of self-esteem and self-efficacy[END_REF][START_REF] Prapavessis | Self-handicapping and self-esteem[END_REF][START_REF] Snyder | Excuses: Their effective role in the negotiation of reality[END_REF]. The present study demonstrated that this perspective is correct and showed that self-confidence is a better factor to determine claimed self-handicapping use than self-esteem. To conclude, by showing the meditational effect of self-confidence in the relationship between self-esteem and self-handicapping, our study sheds light on the very psychological processes that lead people with low self-esteem to use strategies of claimed selfhandicapping. Despite these contributions, there are some limitations that warrant mentioning. The present research demonstrated that, of the variables we measured, self-confidence was the unique situational mediator of the relationship between self-esteem and claimed self-handicapping in a sport context. However, other factors that we did not examine could also mediate this relationship (e.g., self-efficacy, mastery-approach goals). For example, because self-efficacy is more specific to the task at hand than self-confidence, it could be a potent mediator of the self-esteem -selfhandicapping relationship. We recommend that future research examine this possibility.

From an applied perspective, given that athletes with high self-confidence do not use claimed self-handicapping, our results suggest that coaches, sport psychologists, and other interventionists should endeavour to promote strong self-confidence among their athletes. Not only is self-confidence (or self-efficacy) important for success (e.g., [START_REF] Bandura | Self-efficacy: The exercise of control[END_REF][START_REF] Hollenbeck | Self-confidence and leader performance[END_REF][START_REF] Vealey | Self-confidence in athletes[END_REF], but as the observed mediation between self-esteem and claimed self-handicapping indicates, self-confidence is also important for avoiding the use of claimed self-handicapping. Indeed, even if self-handicapping has any short-term benefits on performance [START_REF] Bailis | Benefits of self-handicapping in sport: A field study of university athletes[END_REF], the use of self-handicaps has detrimental long-term effects on well-being [START_REF] Eronen | Optimistic, defensive-pessimistic, impulsive and self-handicapping strategies in university environments[END_REF].

Appendix

A1. I am ill (e.g., flu, nauseous).

If so, how much did illness harm your performance? A2. I have stomach problems (e.g., indigestion, eating too much or not enough).

If so, how much did your stomach problems harm your performance? A3. I have physical problems (e.g., injury, aches, cramps).

If so, how much did your physical problems harm your performance? A4. I am feeling tired (e.g., fatigued, lack of sleep).

If so, how much did feeling tired harm your performance? A5. I have personal concerns at the moment (e.g., family, work).

If so, how much did those personal issues harm your performance? A6. I am feeling good (reverse-scored).

If so, how much did feeling good help your performance? A7. I have a lot going on at the moment (e.g., going out with friends, work).

If so, how much did having so much going on harm your performance? A8. The test conditions do not suit me (e.g., evaluation method, time of day).

If so, how much did the test conditions harm your performance? A9. The test is not important to me.

If so, how much did this lack of importance harm your performance? A10. I am not feeling well mentally (e.g., stressed, anxious).

If so, how much did your mental state harm your performance? A11. I am not sufficiently prepared for the test (e.g., lack of practice/training).

If so, how much did your lack of preparation harm your performance? A12. I recently drank alcohol and/or used drugs.

If so, how much did having consumed alcohol/drugs harm your performance? A13. I am approaching the test under the best conditions (reverse-scored).

If so, how much did those conditions help your performance? A14. Were there other issues/ circumstances which were not mentioned in the preceding list but which harmed your performance?

If so, what were those issues/circumstances, and how much did each harm your performance?


Guillaume R Coudevylle

Stéphane Sinnapah

Cédric Charles-Charlery

Michelle Baillot

Olivier Hue

MOTIVATIONAL CLIMATES AND SELF-HANDICAPPING 1 Impact of Motivational Climates on Claimed Self-Handicapping Strategies: Illustration in Tropical Environment

Keywords: claims, mastery climate, performance climate, tropical environment

The purpose of the present study was to quantitatively and qualitatively examine whether claimed self-handicapping is increased in a performance motivational climate (PMC) compared with a mastery motivational climate (MMC) within a strictly controlled tropical environment. Participants completed measures of self-handicapping using open-ended questions before a physical test. The analyses revealed that (a) participants who engage in self-handicapping strategy were more numerous, (b) the number of self-handicap reported self-handicap score were greater, (c) participants who engage in self-handicapping strategy reported more impediments in the PMC as compared with MMC. Information about the nature of self-handicapping claims is also provided.

Impact of Motivational Climates on Claimed Self-Handicapping Strategies: Illustration in Tropical Environment

People who are preparing for a major event or assessment sometimes use specific strategies to protect themselves against a future failure or enhance their standing in the case of success. For instance, before performing an evaluated task, an individual may drink an alcoholic beverage or complain of fatigue, illness or adverse conditions. [START_REF] Berglas | Drug choice as a self-handicap strategy in response to non contingent success[END_REF] first described these behaviors and statements as "self-handicapping strategies." These authors defined self-handicapping as "…any action or choice of performance setting that enhances the opportunity to externalize (or excuse) failure and to internalize (reasonably accept credit for) success" (p. 406). If a self-handicapping person performs poorly, then the failure can be attributed to a performance impediment rather than the person's ability or competence. And if the self-handicapping person performs well, then the person creates the impression of being especially competent and talented, because success was achieved despite impediments. In addition, these individuals may also internalize the increased perceptions of competence (see [START_REF] Tice | Esteem protection or enhancement? Self-handicapping motives and attributions differ by trait self-esteem[END_REF]. Self-handicapping involves making claims or engaging in behaviors before an evaluated performance to excuse a possible failure or to make a success more gratifying (see [START_REF] Hirt | Self-reported versus behavioral selfhandicapping: Empirical evidence for a theoretical distinction[END_REF][START_REF] Leary | Behavioral self-handicapping vs. self-reported handicaps: A conceptual note[END_REF].

It has been amply documented that people's behaviors and claims are under multiple influences. The perception of a threatening situation may be one of the most powerful potential influences, as some authors have shown that people have a tendency to modulate their behaviors [START_REF] Berglas | Drug choice as a self-handicap strategy in response to non contingent success[END_REF] and claims [START_REF] Snyder | Symptoms as self-handicapping strategies: The virtues of old wine in a new bottle[END_REF] in order to protect themselves. Moreover, [START_REF] Finez | Train in vain: the role of the self in claimed selfhandicapping strategies[END_REF] tested the relationship between athletes' engagement in claimed self-handicapping and trait self-esteem. They showed that athletes with low physical self-esteem claim more handicaps than those with high physical self-esteem. They also showed that self-affirmed athletes have decreased levels of claimed self-handicapping.

Motivational Climates Influence Claimed Self-Handicapping

Self-handicapping strategies can also be influenced by the motivational climate [START_REF] Coudevylle | An experimental investigation of determinants and consequences of self-handicapping strategies across motivational climates[END_REF][START_REF] Kuczka | Self-handicapping in competitive sport: Influence of the motivational climate, self-efficacy, and perceived importance[END_REF][START_REF] Ntoumanis | Achievement goals, selfhandicapping, and performance: A 2 x 2 achievement goal perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Standage | Self-handicapping in school physical education: The influence of the motivational climate[END_REF]. The concept of motivational climate [START_REF] Ames | Achievement goals, motivational climate, and motivational processes[END_REF] refers to the saliency of mastery (task) and performance (ego) cues in an achievement setting and is derived from achievement goal theory [START_REF] Ames | Achievement attributions and self-instructions in competitive and individualistic goal structures[END_REF][START_REF] Dweck | Motivational processes affecting learning[END_REF][START_REF] Nicholls | The competitive ethos and democratic education[END_REF]. According to this theory, the demonstration of ability is the goal of action in achievement settings. In a mastery-oriented motivational climate, evaluations of one's performance are self-referenced and success is defined as mastering a task. In contrast, in a performance-oriented motivational climate, performance evaluations are based on social comparisons and success is defined in terms of out-performing others [START_REF] Ames | Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes[END_REF].

Only two studies have experimentally manipulated motivational climates to examine the effects on claimed self-handicapping [START_REF] Coudevylle | An experimental investigation of determinants and consequences of self-handicapping strategies across motivational climates[END_REF][START_REF] Standage | Self-handicapping in school physical education: The influence of the motivational climate[END_REF].

Within a skill test, Coudevylle and colleagues showed that male basketball players used more claims self-handicaps in the condition of PMC than in the condition of MMC. In the context of a physical education class, Standage and his colleagues found that adolescent students reported more self-handicaps before performing an endurance-running task in a performanceoriented motivational climate than in a task-oriented motivational climate. According to these authors, the adolescent students exposed to performance-involving cues become preoccupied with their comparative ability (i.e., not appearing unable or appearing able), making selfhandicapping more likely as a self-protective strategy to deflect attention away from a lack of ability (Midgley & Urdan, 2001;Urdan & Midgley, 2001). Although PMC is known to stimulate self-handicapping, there seems to be a major gap in the literature as the measurements methods that have been used to date may have prompted the participants to self-handicap.

Possible Influences of Methods of Assessment on Claimed Self-Handicapping

Self-handicapping has been explored as a trait (e.g., [START_REF] Lung | Fear of failure, 2 × 2 achievement goal and self-handicapping: An examination of the hierarchical model of achievement motivation in physical education[END_REF][START_REF] Ommundsen | Self-handicapping strategies in physical education classes: The influence of implicit theories of the nature of ability and achievement goal orientations[END_REF][START_REF] Ommundsen | Self-handicapping related to task and performance-approach and avoidance goals in physical education[END_REF], a state (e.g., [START_REF] Finez | Train in vain: the role of the self in claimed selfhandicapping strategies[END_REF][START_REF] Kuczka | Self-handicapping in competitive sport: Influence of the motivational climate, self-efficacy, and perceived importance[END_REF][START_REF] Martin | Self-handicapping in physical achievement settings: The contributions of self-esteem and self-efficacy[END_REF], and both (e.g., [START_REF] Carron | Group effects and self-handicapping[END_REF][START_REF] Hirt | Self-reported versus behavioral selfhandicapping: Empirical evidence for a theoretical distinction[END_REF][START_REF] Ryska | Effects of trait and situational selfhandicapping on competitive anxiety among athletes[END_REF]. Regarding selfhandicapping conceptualized as a state, several studies have used a scale with a list of several impediments (e.g., [START_REF] Coudevylle | Self-esteem, self-confidence, anxiety and claimed self-handicapping: A mediational analysis[END_REF][START_REF] Coudevylle | Effects of self-handicapping strategies on anxiety prior to athletic performance[END_REF][START_REF] Coudevylle | An experimental investigation of determinants and consequences of self-handicapping strategies across motivational climates[END_REF][START_REF] Standage | Self-handicapping in school physical education: The influence of the motivational climate[END_REF][START_REF] Martin | Self-handicapping in physical achievement settings: The contributions of self-esteem and self-efficacy[END_REF]. Other studies (for a review, Coudevylle, Gernigon, Martin Ginis, & Famose, in press;[START_REF] Prapavessis | Self-presentational issues in competition and sport[END_REF] have employed an "open-ended" response format similar to that of [START_REF] Carron | Group effects and self-handicapping[END_REF], who asked male athletes from a variety of team sports to list any events that had disrupted their preparation for competition during the past week. Prapavessis and colleagues (2004) classified the cited obstacles and observed that those most frequently cited were school activities/commitments (30.5%) and physical state/injury/illness (20.5%), which tend to be situational, uncontrollable, and/or socially desirable. The least frequently cited impediments were personal problems (4.9%) and conflicts with teammates or coaches (3.7%).

It seems reasonable to assume that proposing a list of potential impediments and asking participants which ones pertain to them could actively push them into selfhandicapping. This method could prompt participants to indicate impediments that they might not mention without this invitation and, moreover, this type of question may favor social desirability bias. In order to avoid influencing participants toward self-handicapping, it seems important to remain neutral, which could be achieved by asking them to indicate any "reasons (and not impediments) that would explain their ongoing good (and not only bad) or bad performance."

Possible Influences of Environmental Context on Claimed Self-Handicapping

To be compared, two experimental situations should differ only by the independent variable. Motivational climate may be a possible claimed self-handicap [START_REF] Carron | Group effects and self-handicapping[END_REF][START_REF] Ferrand | Self-handicapping in rock climbing: A qualitative approach[END_REF], which suggests the need to standardize this parameter between sessions to prevent differential bias in comparisons of two experimental conditions. However, previous studies on the influence of motivational climate on self-handicap have not addressed this methodological constraint (e.g., time of day, temperature, hygrometry, ventilation, light). The two experimental studies showing that claimed self-handicaps are used more in PMC than MMC [START_REF] Coudevylle | An experimental investigation of determinants and consequences of self-handicapping strategies across motivational climates[END_REF][START_REF] Standage | Self-handicapping in school physical education: The influence of the motivational climate[END_REF] used methods that could reasonably be thought to stimulate self-handicapping. They also did not report high standardization of conditions between experimental sessions. Therefore, the main purpose of the present study was to determine whether the use of claimed self-handicaps-assessed using non-influencing open-ended questions-would differ across experimentally manipulated motivational climates in a strictly controlled environment. Our general hypothesis was that engagement in self-handicapping is increased in PMC relative to MMC.

In this quantitative study, we tested the following hypotheses: the PMC condition is associated with (a) a greater number of reported impediments, (b) a greater number of impediments per reporter, and (c) a higher perceived impact of the reported impediments on possible failure in a motor task than the MMC condition.

Qualitative Approach in Self-Handicapping Strategies in Tropical Climate

The experiment was conducted in the West Indies, which has a tropical climate (i.e., hot, wet climatic environment). This climate is known to be deleterious for aerobic exercise [START_REF] Galloway | Effects of ambient temperature on the capacity to perform prolonged cycle exercise in man[END_REF][START_REF] Hue | The challenge of performing aerobic exercise in tropical environments : Applied knowledge and perspectives[END_REF][START_REF] Morris | Effect of a hot environment on performance of prolonged, intermittent, high-intensity shuttle running[END_REF] but does not have a negative influence on anaerobic exercise [START_REF] Racinais | Time of day influences the environmental effect on force and contractility[END_REF][START_REF] Racinais | Effect of an accute hot and dry exposure in moderately warm and humid environment on muscular performance at different time of day[END_REF]. Some of the studies on the impact of the tropical climate on performance have suggested that a hot environment modulates several psychological factors, including mood [START_REF] Mcmorris | Heat stress, plasma concentrations of adrenaline, noradrenaline, 5hydroxytryptamine and cortisol, mood state and cognitive performance[END_REF] and complex [START_REF] Gaoua | Sensory displeasure reduces complex cognitive performance in the heat[END_REF] and simple [START_REF] Cian | Effects of fluid ingestion on cognitive function after heat stress or exercise-induced dehydration[END_REF] cognitive performance, which suggests a psychological component of thermal discomfort in this climate. Physiological research has shown that aerobic exercise performance is decreased in the tropical environment [START_REF] Galloway | Effects of ambient temperature on the capacity to perform prolonged cycle exercise in man[END_REF][START_REF] Hue | The challenge of performing aerobic exercise in tropical environments : Applied knowledge and perspectives[END_REF][START_REF] Morris | Effect of a hot environment on performance of prolonged, intermittent, high-intensity shuttle running[END_REF] and that the pain and thermal discomfort associated with exercise is increased. However, it seems reasonable that people in an original situation encouraging comparisons of one's own performance relative to others feel their ego threated (e.g., performance motivational climate), which might lead them to protect themselves with a strategy of overstating impediments. If this is so, perceptions of discomfort and painfulness could be overestimated in a tropical climate. We therefore investigated the nature of the self-handicaps in a physical test performed in hot and wet environment. Using a qualitative approach, the second purpose of the present study was to provide information about the nature of self-handicapping claimed in a physical test in hot-wet climatic environment. We gave particular attention to the hypothesis that tropical climate would be claimed more often in PMC than MMC, which would be interesting in our experimental setting as the participants were all acclimated.

Methodology Participants

Seventy physical education students (M age = 19 years; age range: 18-20 years), 45 men and 25 women, participated in the study after giving written consent. All were Guadeloupian citizens living in the tropical environment throughout the year. At the beginning of each session, the goal was presented (mastery vs. performance, see procedure section); the participants then all underwent two measures to assess their personal investment in the experimental task and its outcome. First, they answered a question on the importance of accomplishing the task on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ("not at all important") to 7 ("completely important"). Second, they answered a question on their intention to do their best to achieve the task-related goal presented on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1

("not at all agree") to 7 ("completely agree"). In line with the methodology of previous studies (e.g., [START_REF] Hausenblas | Group cohesion and self-handicapping in female and male athletes[END_REF][START_REF] Carron | Group effects and self-handicapping[END_REF], we removed those participants who reported low perceived event importance from the data analyses. Only the participants who scored at least "4" on both measures were included in the present study.

Of the 70 participants, 9 participants did not meet the inclusion criteria and were excluded from the study.

Measures

The questions were interviewer-administered. Participants were asked individually if there were any reasons that would explain their potentially good or bad future performance (yes/no). If yes, they were asked to name them, and they were then asked to identify the extent to which each reason could promote or impair their performance by using a Likert-type scale ranging from -4 ("completely harmful") to +4 ("completely helpful"). This measure was named "perceived impact." After answering each question, the participants were asked to verify what the interviewer had written on the questionnaire. Then, an individual score of impediment reporting was obtained by calculating the sum of these extents. Higher scores were indicative of greater reports of performance impediments. This measure has been used in previous studies involving competitive athletes (e.g., [START_REF] Carron | Group effects and self-handicapping[END_REF][START_REF] Ryska | Effects of trait and situational selfhandicapping on competitive anxiety among athletes[END_REF] but by asking to indicate any "reasons (and not impediments) that could explain their ongoing good (and not only bad) or bad performance." We then calculated the mean number of impediments reported by all the participants and by only the impediment reporters.

Participants reporting at least one impediment to performance were categorized as impediment reporters.

Experimental Task

We worked with physical education students, some of whom were aware of the deleterious effect of tropical climate on aerobic performance. We therefore expected that they would be pushed into claiming aerobic exercise in a tropical environment as a potential impediment. To avoid this, we chose an anaerobic exercise, as we assumed it would be less likely to encourage them to claim the tropical climate as a reason for potential failure. They individually performed an isometric maximal voluntary contraction in a handgrip task. This task is mainly anaerobic and has the advantage of simplicity and high reproducibility. Thus, the participants maintained a 70% maximal voluntary contraction until exhaustion. During this contraction, participants were graphically informed of the force they were producing on a laptop screen. With regard to inter-individual comparisons, this type of exercise precludes bias caused by differences in the force production observed between the sexes. Electromyograms (EMG) were obtained using MP30 equipment (Biopac Systems, Inc., Santa Barbara, CA) and BSL Pro Version 3.6.7 software (Biopac Systems, Inc.). Electrical activity was recorded with two surface electrodes.

Procedure

The experiment was conducted during a regularly scheduled class. A crossover design was used, with all participants completing the procedure with a two-week interval between sessions, one in PMC and one in MMC. The conditions were presented in randomized order for all participants. All participants were living in the West Indies, which has a tropical climate (i.e., hot, wet climatic environment) characterized by consistently high monthly temperatures, often exceeding 18°C throughout the year, and rainfall that exceeds evapotranspiration for at least 270 days per year [START_REF] Hue | The challenge of performing aerobic exercise in tropical environments : Applied knowledge and perspectives[END_REF][START_REF] Salati | Precipitation and water recycling in tropical rain forests with special reference to the amazon basim[END_REF]. Thus, the tropical environment was strictly monitored in both sessions to standardize the experimental conditions. In the experimental room, the ambient temperature was 30.7 °C (± 0.9 SD) and the humidity was 70.0 % (± 3.6 SD), and this environment was maintained by electric heating and kettle systems. The ambient light was artificial and strictly the same (fluorescent light 4000 K), and the ventilation was null. The time spent by each participant was set to 20 min.

Performance motivational climate (PMC) test condition.

To increase the likelihood of self-handicapping strategies, we set a PMC [START_REF] Coudevylle | An experimental investigation of determinants and consequences of self-handicapping strategies across motivational climates[END_REF][START_REF] Standage | Self-handicapping in school physical education: The influence of the motivational climate[END_REF]. To do so, we emphasized results by encouraging comparisons of one's own performance relative to others, which is conceptualized as a "normative comparison". The use of self-handicaps and of the performance has been realized in front of an audience [START_REF] Ames | Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes[END_REF]; see [START_REF] Elliot | Achievement goals, selfhandicapping, and performance attainment: A mediational analysis[END_REF]. During this session, participants were told that their results for the experimental task (time at 70% of maximal) would be used to establish a public ranking. To emphasize the importance of this ranking and thus increase the likelihood of self-handicapping strategies, we explicitly underlined that this would lead to the identification of the best and worst students at the university for this task. Then, participants completed the measures of claimed self-handicapping strategies. In order to hide the true purpose of the self-handicapping questionnaire, the experimenter told the participants: "The following questionnaire is intended to determine your actual state right now in order to interpret your results today. It will allow those who evaluate your competence (the other students) to consider your current personal situation when authenticating your results and comparing them with those of the other participants."

Mastery motivational climate (MMC) test condition. In the MMC condition, participants were told that their results on the performance task, as well as the claimed reasons for potential failure and success, would not be made public. We particularly insisted that comparisons would not be made between their scores and those of classmates. They then completed the measures of claimed self-handicapping strategies. In both sessions, the participants performed the experimental task after completing the claimed self-handicapping measures. After the second session, all students were told the true purpose of the study and about self-handicapping strategies. The procedure was similar to that employed in previous studies of self-handicapping (see Coudevylle, Martin Ginis, & Famose, 2008a;[START_REF] Coudevylle | Effects of self-handicapping strategies on anxiety prior to athletic performance[END_REF][START_REF] Coudevylle | An experimental investigation of determinants and consequences of self-handicapping strategies across motivational climates[END_REF].

Analyses

We conducted McNemar's Chi square tests to explore the effect of the performance climate condition on the reporting of (a) any impediment, and then (b) impediments that were reported in both sessions, in the whole sample, and in impediment reporters. We then performed Student's t tests for paired samples to test for differences across conditions in (a) the number of reasons reported, and in (b) the score of impediment reporting in the whole sample, in impediment reporters, and in participants who reported impediments in both sessions. Last, a Student's t test was used to analyse the differences between the mean importance of impediment reported and the performance climate condition in the participants who reported impediments in both sessions.

The second purpose of this study was to provide information about the nature of selfhandicapping claimed in a physical test in hot, wet environment using a qualitative approach.

Categories of impediments were constructed following a methodology presented elsewhere [START_REF] Ferrand | Self-handicapping in rock climbing: A qualitative approach[END_REF] and based on the principle of triangulation described by [START_REF] Patton | Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods[END_REF].

We first performed investigator triangulation by analysing the data at three authors; we then performed theory triangulation by including in the analysis an author outside of the particular field of the study. The authors, after reading and re-reading the questionnaires, independently identified raw items, which better described the reasons reported by the participants for selfhandicapping. Then, the authors discussed these edited items until they reached full agreement. Raw items were then combined into low-order themes until agreement was reached. Then, the low-order themes were combined into high-order themes, and the latter were grouped into categories. In the analysis process, a researcher who was not a study author, but who was knowledgeable about qualitative approaches, was included to criticize and discuss the categorizations. After reaching full agreement from all members, the categories were validated. McNemar's Chi square tests were conducted to analyse the qualitative data.

Results

The results are presented as follows: quantitative analyses of the use of claimed selfhandicapping, followed by qualitative examination of the nature and type of claimed selfhandicapping in a hot, humid environment.

Quantitative Analyses of Claimed Self-handicapping

The first set of analyses aimed at determining whether the use of claimed selfhandicapping strategies varied between the PMC and MMC conditions. Fifty-two participants (74.3%) reported at least one reason that could have modulated their performance in at least one session. Four participants reported only reasons for a good performance in the MMC condition (one for each). Three reported only reasons for a bad performance in the PMC condition, and only one participant reported only reasons for a good performance in both conditions. One participant reported one reason for a bad performance in the MMC condition and one reason for a good performance in the PMC condition. Thirty-six participants (51.4%) reported at least one reason for bad ongoing performance in the MMC condition, whereas 47 (67.2%) did in the PMC condition (Table 1).

The number of participants who reported at least one impediment in the MMC condition and not in the PMC condition was very low (Figure 1). The number of participants who did not report impediment in the MMC condition and did in the PMC one was more than five times higher (Figure 1). Also, the number of impediments reported was increased in the performance climate condition when we took into account the whole group, only impediment reporters, and only participants who reported in both sessions (Table 2). The maximum number of impediments reported was three in both sessions.

The higher mean perceived impact of impediments observed in the PMC condition was not significantly different from the impact observed in the MMC session in participants who reported them in both sessions (Table 2). The maximum perceived impact of impediments reported was three in both sessions. However, the score of impediment reporting was found to be associated with the condition, and with participants reporting higher scores in the performance condition in the whole sample, the impediment reporters, and the participants who reported in both sessions (Table 2). The maximum selfhandicapping score was six in the MMC and eight in the PMC.

Qualitative Analyses of Claimed Self-handicapping

The second set of analyses aimed at providing information on the use of selfhandicapping strategies in a physical test performed in a hot, wet environment. Reasons reported for poor ongoing performance, frequencies and perceived impacts according to motivational climate conditions are presented in Table 3. Two categories (internal and external impediments), three high-order themes (physical state, mental state and environment), six low-order themes and 14 items were edited, requiring some recodifications.

One example of these recodifications is presented for each item in the same table.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to quantitatively and qualitatively examine whether claimed self-handicapping is increased in a performance motivational climate (PMC) compared with a mastery motivational climate (MMC) in a hot, humid testing situation.

Quantitative Analyses of Claimed Self-handicapping

The first aim of the present study was to test the hypothesis that self-handicapping strategies are used more in PMC than in MMC in a controlled environment and using noninfluencing open-ended questions. Our results support this hypothesis. Three working hypotheses were investigated. Two of them were validated while the third was only partially validated.

In accordance with the first working hypothesis, the number of reported impediments increased in the PMC compared with the MMC condition. This finding is consistent with previous works [START_REF] Coudevylle | An experimental investigation of determinants and consequences of self-handicapping strategies across motivational climates[END_REF][START_REF] Standage | Self-handicapping in school physical education: The influence of the motivational climate[END_REF] and supports the idea that PMC stimulates claimed self-handicapping. It is thought that PMC tends to threaten the self through social comparisons and risks to out perform others [START_REF] Ames | Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes[END_REF]. We tried to increase the saliency of these characteristics of PMC through the presentation of the experimental task. It is thus interesting to observe that only 7.5% of the participants who reported impediments in MMC did not report them in PMC, whereas 40.0% of the participants who did not report impediments in MMC became self-handicap users in PMC (see Figure 1).

In accordance with the second working hypothesis, the number of impediments per participant was higher in PMC than MMC. It is interesting to observe that not only did nearly half of the non-reporters in MMC became reporters in the PMC climate, but also that the number of reported impediments increased in PMC in the whole sample, in the impediment reporters, and in the participants who reported in both sessions. The number of reported impediments consequently seemed to be a way for participants who had already claimed self-handicaps in MMC to better protect themselves in the more self-threating performance climate. This finding is important because it suggests that self-handicapping may not be a binary strategy but more complex, with people self-handicapping proportionally to the perceived importance of the threat to self. Conversely to the study of Coudevylle and colleagues and others (e.g., Standage et al., 2007), the present study did not present participants with a list of possible handicaps, asking them to indicate if any of them would be likely to impair performance. It is possible that doing so would push participants to indicate self-handicaps that they might not have suggested on their own, thereby artificially increasing the number of impediments reported. Such a methodology would be biased, exploring not the way people spontaneously engage in self-handicapping but the way they engage in selfhandicapping when they are prompted to do so.

In comparison with other studies (e.g., [START_REF] Carron | Group effects and self-handicapping[END_REF][START_REF] Ryska | Effects of trait and situational selfhandicapping on competitive anxiety among athletes[END_REF] using a similar methodology, we attempted to avoid influencing participants to self-handicap. Indeed, the participants were asked to indicate any "reasons (and not impediments) that could explain their ongoing good or bad (and not only bad) performance." While it is not possible to demonstrate that this methodological difference alone explains the low number of impediments reported, it may have contributed.

The third working hypothesis was only partially validated. Although the perceived impact of impediments was higher in the PMC condition, this difference was not significant.

It is reasonable to assume that a bigger sample might have shown significance. It remains interesting to observe that to improve their self-protection, the participants who were already engaged in self-handicapping strategies seemed to multiply the number of reported impediments rather than increase their mean perceived impact, which led to significantly greater self-handicapping scores. This result is original as Coudevylle and colleagues (2009) failed to statistically demonstrate an increase in the self-handicapping score in PMC, despite differences observed in their study sample. This could be explained by a statistical power difference probably due to different sample sizes (31 vs. 52).

Qualitative Aspects of Claimed Self-handicapping

We investigated the nature of the self-handicaps reported prior to a physical test in a hot, wet environment. As this part of the study was exploratory, no hypotheses were advanced. However, we conducted a statistical analysis to explore the association of motivational climate with each item, low-order theme, high-order theme and category. The inductive categorization of reported impediments suggested only one significant result. The number of internal impediments reported significantly increased in PMC. The number of external impediment reporters also increased in PMC, but not to a significant extent. Thus, it is difficult to draw conclusions on a hypothetical qualitative shift in self-handicapping strategies across motivational climates. However, it is interesting to observe that reported impediments have tended to vary between studies. The first low-order theme was the impediments related to fatigue. This impediment was the most reported in the present study, whereas it was not mentioned by [START_REF] Prapavessis | Self-presentational issues in competition and sport[END_REF] nor reported by [START_REF] Ferrand | Self-handicapping in rock climbing: A qualitative approach[END_REF]. In the present experimental context, the participants claimed "heat" and "stuffiness" as possible external reasons that could impair their performance. These impediments related to tropical climate were less numerous than those related to internal obstacles. This could be explained by the fact that the participants lived in a tropical environment all year long, making tropical conditions less salient potential impediments than for people living in a neutral climate. These impediments are different from what has been previously found in the self-handicap literature. This inconsistency seems to indicate that there is no impediment that is always cited but that participants choose the first obstacles that come to mind. This would explain why the impediments related to the tropical climate were not reported more often: the participants opted for internal impediments, hardly verifiable whatever the context.

Conclusion

The present study aimed at testing the hypothesis that the use of claimed selfhandicaps differs across experimentally manipulated motivational climates, in a controlled environment and using non-influencing open-ended questions. Overall, the present research demonstrated that in the physical activity context, (a) participants who engage in a selfhandicapping strategy were more numerous, (b) the number of self-handicaps reported so as the self-handicap score was greater, and (c) the participants who engaged in a selfhandicapping strategy in both sessions reported more impediments in the PMC condition than in the MMC condition. It seems that the increased engagement in a self-handicapping strategy in PMC was mediated by an increase of the number of reported impediments rather than an increase in the perceived impact of these last. The quantitative differences observed in the present study relative to previous studies might be due to differences in the methodological approach, which suggests the interest of designing a study on the impact of methodological choices on self-handicapping involvement. The main limitation of the present study is the relatively moderate sample size, which may explain the non-significant effect of motivational climate on the perceived impact of impediments. Another limitation is that we did not assess perceptions of the motivational climate, although [START_REF] Midgley | Academic self-handicapping and achievement goals: A further examination[END_REF] showed that these perceptions influence self-handicapping. It is reasonable to assume that a preliminary screening of only participants who perceived PMC as a PMC and MMC as an MMC would have modulated the results, increasing the association of claimed selfhandicapping with the motivational climate.

In future research, it may be helpful to conduct a mixed physiological/psychological study. Some studies suggest that a hot environment modulates several psychological factors, such as mood [START_REF] Mcmorris | Heat stress, plasma concentrations of adrenaline, noradrenaline, 5hydroxytryptamine and cortisol, mood state and cognitive performance[END_REF] and complex [START_REF] Gaoua | Sensory displeasure reduces complex cognitive performance in the heat[END_REF] and simple [START_REF] Cian | Effects of fluid ingestion on cognitive function after heat stress or exercise-induced dehydration[END_REF] cognitive performance. This suggests the hypothesis of a psychological component of thermal discomfort in tropical climate. In the field of physiological research on the impact of the tropical climate on performance, it might therefore be relevant to consider that the selfreported weight of climate, as an impediment, may be modulated by a tendency toward selfhandicapping strategy when the self is threatened, as may occur in competition or experimental work. Indeed, aerobic exercise performance is decreased in a tropical environment [START_REF] Galloway | Effects of ambient temperature on the capacity to perform prolonged cycle exercise in man[END_REF][START_REF] Hue | The challenge of performing aerobic exercise in tropical environments : Applied knowledge and perspectives[END_REF][START_REF] Morris | Effect of a hot environment on performance of prolonged, intermittent, high-intensity shuttle running[END_REF] but it is possible that this claim is overstated by some athletes for self-protection or self-enhancement.

From an applied perspective, it is important to develop an MMC to promote personal progress (e.g., [START_REF] Gernigon | Situational indexes of achievement motivation, help-seeking, and performance: Influences of the learning context and gender differences[END_REF]. Teachers who are aware of the scientific literature favor an MMC to encourage progress. However, students have their own goals. Despite the MMC set by the teacher, students with performance goals may very well remain focused on their performance goals. [START_REF] Urdan | Using multiple methods to assess students' perceptions of classroom goal structures[END_REF] examined how students perceive and interpret achievement goal messages in the classroom. Knowledge of the strong relationship between PMC and self-handicapping might give teachers another reason to control the climate they propose to their class. Assessing self-handicapping rather than the motivational climate would avoid the social desirability effect by which students declare that they are seeking a mastery goal when in fact they are seeking a performance goal. Thus, a student's declaration of obstacles while supposedly in an MMC setting could be an indicator that he or she actually perceives a PMC anyway.


Ghada Moualla

Thierry Turletti

Mathieu Bouet

Damien Saucez

On the Necessity of Accounting for Resiliency in SFC

When deploying network service function chains the focus is usually given on metrics such as the cost, the latency, or the energy and it is assumed that the underlying cloud infrastructure provides resiliency mechanisms to handle with the disruptions occurring in the physical infrastructure. In this position paper, we advocate that while usual performance metrics are essential to decide on the deployment of network service function chains, the notion of resiliency should not be neglected as the choice of virtual-tophysical placement may dramatically improve the ability of the service chains to handle with failures of the infrastructure without requiring complex resiliency mechanisms.

I. INTRODUCTION

To provide the services demanded by their customers, network providers must continually purchase, deploy, and reconfigure middle-boxes, which results in high CAPEX and OPEX and leads to long product cycles to provide these services with a strong dependence on specialized hardware. To provision more rapidly new services while reducing costs, Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) was proposed [1] and extended by Service Function Chaining (SFC) that combines multiple network functions in specific orders. NFV and SFC leverage virtualization to deploy services on commodity hardware hence reducing costs but raising the new challenge of how to provide efficiency and resiliency into software with shared and error-prone hardware resources [2].

To realize service chains, the placement of the virtual functions onto the physical infrastructure becomes critical as it plays a major role in the performance and robustness of the chain. However, while tremendous efforts have been realized on placing functions to reduce costs and improve performances [START_REF] Li | Software-Defined Network Function Virtualization: A Survey[END_REF], robustness is often neglected under the cover that the orchestrator can cope with failures. With this paper, we advocate that accounting for robustness when placing functions can significantly improve robustness of the chain without increasing the load of the orchestrator.

To that aim, we study a reference chain and demonstrate with an exhaustive study how placement in the physical infrastructure can influence the overall robustness of the system even when the virtual chain itself is supposed to be robust to failures.

II. RELATED WORK

Knowing that with virtualization the failure of a host propagates to all its Virtual Machines (VMs), robust placements of the VMs for critical services need to be considered carefully. Aware of this problem, Machida et al. propose an algorithm for the placement of redundant VMs based on affinity and anti-affinity rules to minimize the number of hosts needed to ensure a given level of redundancy [START_REF] Machida | Redundant virtual machine placement for fault-tolerant consolidated server clusters[END_REF].

Alternatively, Jayasinghe et al. present a placement algorithm that takes an application description with constraints and a datacenter description and translates them into tree models [START_REF] Jayasinghe | Improving performance and availability of services hosted on iaas clouds with structural constraint-aware virtual machine placement[END_REF]. Their solution places VMs on physical machines by grouping VMs and placing groups on server clusters, then checking if the individual VM requirements are met. Also, this work does not discuss the robustness issue.

Furthermore, Mehraghdam et al. formalize service chaining requests using context-free language and present a mixed integer quadratic programming placement strategy [START_REF] Mehraghdam | Specifying and placing chains of virtual network functions[END_REF]. In their evaluation, they maximize link available bandwidth and minimize latency and number of hosts but do not account for robustness.

Schöller et al. describe a deployment function that takes an abstract service description including placement and resiliency requirements as input and focusing on delay between redundant instances [START_REF] Schöller | Resilient deployment of virtual network functions[END_REF]. This deployment function is based on OpenStack using availability zones. Finally, Oechsner and Ripke discuss the topic of VM placement in the context of NFV deployment [START_REF] Oechsner | Flexible support of vnf placement functions in openstack[END_REF]. They utilize a placement mechanism with a resilience pattern mapped to OpenStack in order to provide an automatic deployment of resilient components in cloud environments. The considered use-case is to place a redundant activebackup pair of VMs with the requirement of placing instances close enough to ensure the end-to-end delay, but far enough apart to guarantee a certain level of availability. Their heuristic takes as an input the availability of the components of the physical infrastructure, the delay between them, the maximum delay between the redundant instances, and the minimum availability of the joint component.

In the light of the current research, we present a general discussion on the necessity of considering resiliency while placing virtual functions and show that the choice of the placement may have a dramatic impact on the ability of the system to be robust to failures.

III. SERVICE FUNCTION CHAIN ROBUSTNESS A. Reference environment

To illustrate the impact of the network functions placement on the resiliency of a chain, we consider the reference chain presented in Fig. 1 and composed of two equal sub-chains of 3 functions such that when a flow must be processed by the chain, it can be processed by either sub-chain. The sub-chain that processes a flow is selected by the cloud infrastructure (e.g., load balancer). This reference chain is general as it is at the same time robust and fragile. Robust as processing can be done by any of sub-chain and fragile as if an element in one subchain fails, the whole sub-chain is disrupted. This situation is common when flow state is mandatory. We assume that the system that decides the sub-chain to be used is able to determine if a sub-chain is working properly or not while selecting the sub-chain of a flow and that it functions properly. Fig. 2 shows an example where the placement of the chain in the physical infrastructure can impact the robustness of the chain to one single failure (node or link).

To study the impact of the placement of functions onto the physical infrastructure, we consider all placements of the reference chain onto the redundant tree 1 presented in Fig. 3. This topology is intentionally simple, contrary to more connected datacenter topologies such as fat tree, BCube etc., to clearly outline the impact of placement on the service robustness. As the number of potential placements is combinatorial, we randomly sampled the set of all solutions to take a total of 16,718 different placements 2 .

To assess the topological properties of the different placements, we consider three usual metrics: (i) the number of physical hosts and (ii) the number of Top-of-the-Rack (ToR) switches of the physical infrastructure involved in the placement, that indicate how the placement shares the load and how it is distributed in the infrastructure, and (iii) the number of virtual functions per host that indicates how processing virtualization is leveraged by the placement.

Considering the topology as a graph, we can identify two categories of failures: the failure of a node (i.e., a computing host or a switch) or the failure of an edge (i.e., 1 As the purpose is to motivate the robustness problem in service function chaining, we do not apply any constraint (e.g., bandwidth) on the placement. 2 All the code and placements used in this paper are available at https: //team.inria.fr/diana/files/2016/05/procon16.zip a link). To assess the robustness of the placement against failures, we independently considered these two categories and exhaustively tested every combination of n-failures of elements of the category (i.e., n nodes or n links). A placement is considered as n-robust if a flow can be processed by the service chain for any failure of n physical elements of the network. However, by construction of our chain, there exists always at least one case where the chain is not robust: if several failures happen simultaneously (i.e., n ≥ 2). For this reason, we rather consider the probability of the chain to fail in case of n simultaneous failures when failures are independent and equiprobable.

B. Robustness analysis

Overall, no strong linear correlation exists between topological and placement properties in terms of robustness. Nevertheless, the probability that the chain fails is weakly correlated with the number of functions deployed on one physical host (correlation is 0.68) as it is sufficient that at least one function of each sub-chain is deployed on the same host to break the chain in case of one single failure. This conclusion is confirmed by Fig. 4 that shows the empirical cumulative distribution function of having a chain disruption in case of node failures. We consider the failure of a node in the topology in general (i.e., including switches and computing hosts) and the cases accounting only for the failure of a computing host. Fig. 4 indicates that the robustness of the chain is less sensitive to the failure of computing hosts than to the failure of switches. This is because each host is connected to the network without redundancy via a ToR switch. Therefore, the failure of one single ToR switch breaks the entire chain even if it is deployed on different physical hosts. On the contrary, to disrupt the chain with the failure of a host, it is necessary that at least one function of each sub-chain is deployed on the same physical host.

Similar conclusions can be drawn while considering link failures instead of node failures (see Fig. 5) where we distinguish failures of inter-switch links and host-switch links. We can observe that despite the redundancy of the topology, backbone link failures impact the robustness of the chain, particularly the failure of inter-switch links as actually losing the connectivity of ToR switches may impair the chain, regardless of the computing redundancy.

As illustrated by Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, the overall robustness behaviour is the same regardless of the number of simultaneous failures except that the likelihood of having a chain disruption increases with the number of failures.

IV. DISCUSSION

In this paper, we advocate that the choice of the placement of virtual functions constituting chains onto a physical infrastructure should not neglect the robustness of the chain as while some placement may offer good performance, they may be very fragile to failures of a physical component. In Sec. III-B we exhaustively studied the impact on the robustness of the placements of a reference chain in a tree topology. We have seen that even though a chain is logically robust, if robustness is not accounted while deciding the placement it may be broken by a single failure.

One may argue that the failure of physical infrastructure elements is not an issue as recovery mechanisms are implemented by the orchestrator. What we answer is that if these mechanisms are mandatory to make the system truly resistant, they remain slow as they require VM migrations. On the contrary, a wise selection of placement permits to be robust to usual simple failures of the physical infrastructure without having to trigger migrations and thus reducing the stress on the orchestrator that would then be used only for complex situations. We plan on building new mechanisms for deploying service function chains with the use of not only the usual performance metrics, but also the resiliency metrics in order to minimize the probability of the service being disrupted.

Figure 1 .Figure 2 .

 12 Figure 1. Reference chain.

Figure 3 .

 3 Figure 3. Reference topology.

Figure 4 .Figure 5 .

 45 Figure 4. Probability of chain disruption in case of node failure.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is funded by the French ANR under the REFLEXION project (ANR-14-CE28-0019).