Guillaume R Coudevylle

Kathleen A Martin Ginis

Jean-Pierre Famose

Christophe Gernigon

Self-handicapping and Anxiety in Sport 1 RUNNING HEAD: SELF-HANDICAPPING AND ANXIETY IN SPORT Effects of Self-handicapping Strategies on Anxiety Prior to Athletic Performance

Keywords: Self-handicapping, Anxiety, Intensity, Direction, Sport

The purpose of the present experiment was to examine whether the use of selfhandicapping strategies influences participants' anxiety levels prior to athletic performance.

Seventy-one competitive basketball players participated in the study. A repeated measures design was utilized, such that state cognitive and somatic anxiety intensity and direction were measured before and after participants were given the opportunity to self-handicap. Overall, participants reported their cognitive anxiety to be more facilitating after they had the opportunity to self-handicap. Thus, participants who were given the opportunity to selfhandicap (i.e., use claimed and behavioral self-handicaps), reported greater increases in perceptions of cognitive anxiety as facilitating their performance. This study shows the importance of looking at anxiety direction, and not just anxiety intensity, when examining self-handicapping's effects on anxiety. Implications for sport psychologists are proposed.

Effects of Self-handicapping Strategies on Anxiety Prior to Athletic Performance

Self-handicapping was first described by [START_REF] Berglas | Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to non contingent success[END_REF], who defined the phenomenon 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).

Self-handicaps are used as an impression management strategy (see [START_REF] Kolditz | An impression management interpretation of the selfhandicapping strategy[END_REF][START_REF] Prapavessis | Self-presentational issues in competition and sport[END_REF]) and provide a means for protecting or even enhancing one's self-and public image. Self-handicaps also blur the relationship between ability and performance.

A self-handicapping athlete who performs poorly can attribute failure to the performance impediment rather than ability or competence, whereas the athlete who performs well creates the impression of being especially competent and talented, because success was achieved despite impediments (see [START_REF] Tice | Esteem protection or enhancement? Self-handicapping motives and attributions differ by trait self-esteem[END_REF]. Self-handicaps can be defined according to their manifestation.

The two manifestations of self-handicaps are behavioral and claimed self-handicaps (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]. Examples of behavioral handicaps include alcohol consumption (e.g., [START_REF] Bordini | Alcohol consumption as a self-handicapping strategy in women[END_REF], the selection of unattainable goals [START_REF] Greenberg | Unattainable goal choice as a self-handicapping strategy[END_REF] or the lack of practice (e.g., [START_REF] Harris | The role of uncertain self-esteem in self-handicapping[END_REF][START_REF] Tice | Self-esteem, self-handicapping, and self-presentation: The strategy of inadequate practice[END_REF]. Examples of claimed self-handicaps include declarations that one is very anxious (e.g., [START_REF] Smith | On the self-serving function of an academic wooden leg: Test Anxiety as a self-handicapping strategy[END_REF] or experiencing various physical and psychological symptoms (e.g., [START_REF] Smith | The self-serving function of hypochondriacal complaints: Physical symptoms as self-handicapping strategies[END_REF]Snyder & Smith, 1982).

Self-handicapping in sport has been conceptualised as both a trait (e.g., [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][START_REF] Pulford | A cross-cultural study of predictors of selfhandicapping in university students[END_REF] and a state phenomenon (e.g., [START_REF] Elliot | Achievement goals, self-handicapping, and performance attainment: A mediational analysis[END_REF][START_REF] Martin | Self-handicapping in physical achievement settings: The contributions of self-esteem and self-efficacy[END_REF][START_REF] Standage | Self-handicapping in school physical education: The influence of the motivational climate[END_REF].

Individual studies of self-handicapping have used either or both of these approaches (e.g., [START_REF] Carron | Group effects and self-handicapping[END_REF][START_REF] Greenlees | The effects of self-handicapping on attributions and perceived judo competence[END_REF][START_REF] Ryska | Effects of trait and situational self-handicapping on competitive anxiety among athletes[END_REF]. The trait approach is typically concerned with whether dispositional assessments of self-Self-handicapping and Anxiety in Sport 4 handicapping tendencies-such as scores on the trait Self-Handicapping Scale [START_REF] Jones | The Self-Handicapping Scale[END_REF]-are related to sport-relevant psychological and behavioral variables. For example, studies have shown that dispositional self-handicapping tendencies are negatively correlated with precompetitive mood states (Prapavessis & Grove, 1994), perceptions of group cohesion [START_REF] Carron | Group effects and self-handicapping[END_REF], practice effort [START_REF] Rhodewalt | Self-handicapping among competitive athletes: The role of practice in self-esteem protection[END_REF], and global self-esteem [START_REF] Prapavessis | Self-handicapping and self-esteem[END_REF]. Other studies have shown that dispositional selfhandicapping tendencies are positively correlated with impression management concerns [START_REF] Hudson | Impression management and self-handicapping in middle-distance runners[END_REF], a high level of optimal experience during competitive performances [START_REF] Bailis | Benefits of self-handicapping in sport: A field study of university athletes[END_REF], and the use of emotion-orientated coping strategies [START_REF] Prapavessis | Self-handicapping tendencies, coping, and anxiety responses among athletes[END_REF].

Unfortunately, the validity of the Self-Handicapping Scale in the sport domain has been heavily criticized [START_REF] Martin | Is the self-handicapping scale reliable in non-academic achievement domains?[END_REF], thus undermining the utility of a dispositional approach. As such, several investigators have utilized a situational approach to study selfhandicapping, and have focused on identifying factors that might be associated with athletes' use of self-handicaps immediately prior to an evaluated event. Within the sport domain, studies have shown that situational use of self-handicaps is associated with performance-avoidance goals [START_REF] Elliot | Achievement goals, self-handicapping, and performance attainment: A mediational analysis[END_REF], low self-efficacy and low self-esteem [START_REF] Martin | Self-handicapping in physical achievement settings: The contributions of self-esteem and self-efficacy[END_REF]. Therefore, the present study utilized a situational approach to examine the relationship between situational manifestations of self-handicapping immediately prior to a basketball task, and state sport competition anxiety.

Self-handicapping and Anxiety

Two approaches have been used to study the relationship between self-handicapping and sport competition anxiety. With the first approach, researchers have examined anxiety as a possible determinant of self-handicapping. These studies have shown that trait competition Self-handicapping and Anxiety in Sport 5 anxiety is positively correlated with 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 that state competition anxiety is positively correlated with trait measures of self-handicapping [START_REF] Prapavessis | Self-handicapping tendencies, coping, and anxiety responses among athletes[END_REF]. The second approach has been to examine whether the use of self-handicaps can decrease state sport competition anxiety.

Theorists have suggested that self-handicapping can decrease performance anxiety by reducing pressure to perform well (see [START_REF] Leary | Behavioral self-handicapping vs. self-reported handicaps: A conceptual note[END_REF][START_REF] Snyder | Self-handicapping processes and sequelae: On the taking of a psychological dive[END_REF]). In the one study to use this approach, Ryska and colleagues (1998) hypothesized that among youth athletes who scored high on a trait measure of self-handicapping, those who used more claimed self-handicaps prior to a sport competition would report less sport competition anxiety than those who used fewer claimed self-handicaps. This hypothesis was not supported.

However, Ryska and colleagues (1998) utilised a correlational design whereby athletes completed the anxiety measure just before they competed. To properly test the effects of selfhandicapping on anxiety, it would be better to measure anxiety before and after athletes were given the opportunity to self-handicap. Using a pre-test/post-test design it would be possible to determine if athletes felt less anxiety after self-handicapping. In addition, the null findings of Ryska and colleagues could be explained by the fact that they did not analyse the anxiety direction (i.e., how people perceived their anxiety as being favourable for the performance vs. unfavourable for the performance). Indeed, [START_REF] Jones | Intensity and direction as dimensions of competitive state anxiety and relationships with competitiveness[END_REF] showed that simply measuring anxiety intensity does not indicate if anxiety is perceived as unfavourable or favourable to performance (i.e., interpretation of this anxiety). Although there was no relationship between the intensity of cognitive and somatic anxiety and the use of self-handicapping, participants could have interpreted both anxiety states as being more facilitative to performance than they did before self-handicapping.

Self-handicapping and Anxiety in Sport 6

With the limitations of Ryska and colleagues (1998) in mind, the purpose of the present experiment was to examine whether the use of self-handicapping strategies influences participants' anxiety levels prior to athletic performance. Specifically, we examined if participants felt less anxiety (i.e., cognitive and somatic) after the use of claimed and behavioral self-handicaps. Additionally, because anxiety is not always perceived in a negative way [START_REF] Jones | Intensity and direction as dimensions of competitive state anxiety and relationships with competitiveness[END_REF], we also examined whether self-handicapping was associated with how participants perceived their anxiety. It was predicted that participants would feel less anxiety (i.e., cognitive and somatic) and perceive anxiety to be more facilitating for their performance (i.e., cognitive and somatic) after the use of self-handicapping strategies.

Method

Participants

Seventy-one competitive basketball players, 31 men (M age = 20.5 years; SD = 3.5) and 40 women (M age = 19.3 years; SD = 2.6), participated in the study. All players competed at the French regional level-a sufficiently competitive level to ensure that participants would be personally invested in the experimental task and its outcome. Note that the data from 56 participants represent a secondary analysis of data currently under review [START_REF] Coudevylle | An experimental investigation of determinants and consequences of self-handicapping strategies across motivational climates[END_REF].

Measure State Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety. State anxiety was measured with a French version of the

Competitive State Anxiety Inventory -2 (CSAI-2; [START_REF] Martens | Competitive anxiety in sport[END_REF]) --l'Echelle d'Etat d'Anxiété à la Compétition (EEAC; [START_REF] Cury | Mesurer l'anxiété du sportif en compétition : présentation de l'échelle d'état d'anxiété en compétition (EEAC)[END_REF]. This questionnaire consists of 7-items measuring cognitive anxiety and 7-items measuring somatic anxiety. For each item, participants indicated the extent to which they were currently experiencing each anxiety symptom, using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (completely). Because athletes' interpretation of anxiety symptoms has been identified as an important dimension for consideration, we also measured the direction of state anxiety using a protocol developed by [START_REF] Jones | Intensity and direction as dimensions of competitive state anxiety and relationships with competitiveness[END_REF]. After each CSAI-2 item, participants indicated whether their level of anxiety (i.e., anxiety intensity) would have a favourable or unfavourable effect on their upcoming performance. Responses were made on a Likert scale ranging from -3 (very unfavourable) to +3 (very favourable). To avoid the possibility of participants claiming anxiety symptoms as a form of claimed self-handicap, the anxiety scale was presented confidentially and participants were told that only the researcher would see their responses.

Claimed Self-handicapping. A state measure similar to that used by Martin and Brawley (Study 2, 2002) was used to measure claimed self-handicapping. Yet whereas Martin and Brawley's scale consisted of just 7 possible impediments, our scale consisted of 13 impediments that athletes may use as self-handicaps such as: "I am feeling tired," "I have personal concerns in this moment," "I am not feeling well mentally," "I am not sufficiently prepared for the test," "I am feeling well," and "I am approaching the test under the best conditions." (Note that the last two items were reverse-scored.) The impediments 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, participants were presented with a fourteenth, open-ended item that gave the opportunity to list any other potential impediments to their performance. For each item, participants indicated whether the impediment was present (yes/no), and the extent to which each impediment would interfere with their performance (i.e., perceived impact), using a scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 6 (extremely). A claimed self-handicapping score was calculated by averaging the impact scores for all impediments that were identified as "present." Higher scores were indicative of greater claims of performance impediments, and as such, greater selfhandicapping.

Self-handicapping and Anxiety in Sport 8

When athletes use claimed self-handicaps, they cite only one or two performance impediments. It is unusual for an athlete to cite several claimed self-handicaps, probably because only a single self-handicapping claim is needed to protect an athlete's image, and the use of multiple self-handicaps could have considerable self-presentational liabilities. Given that athletes do not typically endorse multiple self-handicaps, it is inappropriate to calculate an internal consistency index for this type of self-handicapping measure (i.e., because athletes are not expected to respond similarly to all of the scale items). Construct validity for this approach to measuring self-handicapping has been demonstrated by studies that have shown significant correlations between the claimed impact of performance impediments and theoretically meaningful constructs such as self-esteem, self-presentational efficacy, and performance selfefficacy (Coudevylle, Martin Ginis, & Famose, in press;[START_REF] Martin | Self-handicapping in physical achievement settings: The contributions of self-esteem and self-efficacy[END_REF].

Behavioral Self-handicapping. According to Prapavessis and colleagues (2004), a lack of preparatory effort preceding a test constitutes an index of behavioral self-handicapping within the context of sports participation. Thus, for the purpose of the present experiment, behavioral selfhandicapping was operationalized as the number of preparatory shots taken during a warm-up period immediately prior to performance the experimental task. A short practice time has been identified as a self-handicapping strategy in previous studies because it is detrimental to performance (see [START_REF] Harris | The role of uncertain self-esteem in self-handicapping[END_REF][START_REF] Tice | Esteem protection or enhancement? Self-handicapping motives and attributions differ by trait self-esteem[END_REF]. No participant had previous experience with the experimental task.

Studies have provided evidence of the validity of practice time and effort as an index of behavioral self-handicapping. For example, Rhodewalt and colleagues (1984) showed that high self-handicapping swimmers withheld practice effort prior to competitions compared to low selfhandicapping swimmers. In addition, other studies have shown that the amount of time spent Self-handicapping and Anxiety in Sport 9 warming up/practicing is related to self-handicapping (e.g., [START_REF] Deppe | Self-handicapping and intrinsic motivation: Buffering intrinsic motivation from the threat of failure[END_REF][START_REF] Tice | Self-esteem, self-handicapping, and self-presentation: The strategy of inadequate practice[END_REF].

Performance. Performance was scored by counting the number of successful shots and passes completed on an obstacle course. Specifically, the performance consisted of 2 free-throws, 1 layup, 1 jump shot and 1 three-point shot. The participants scored 1 point for each. Then, for each repetition of the course, participants scored 2 points when they dribbled the ball between three cones, while bouncing the ball between the legs and passing it behind the back. They lost 1 point for each technical error. Performance scores could range from 0 to 11.

The Experimental Task

The task consisted of completing three repetitions of an obstacle course laid out on a standard basketball court. The test began with the completion of two free-throws followed by running to mid-court, and then turning around backwards and performing a backward defensive shuffle to the end of the court. Then, the participant picked up a basketball and dribbled it to midcourt. At mid-court, the participant dribbled the ball between three cones, while bouncing the ball between the legs and passing it behind the back. The participant then continued to the basket and attempted a lay-up. After the lay-up, the participant repeated the entire course again and finished with a jump shot. The course was repeated a third time, finishing with a three-point shot. This is the same task as reported in Coudevylle and colleagues (in press).

Procedure

To test our hypotheses, anxiety was measured before and after participants were given the opportunity to self-handicap. To maximize the likelihood of self-handicapping, an experimental situation was created in which factors that are known to elicit 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] were made salient. Specifically, the testing situation emphasized public performance, an emphasis on results, social comparisons of one's Self-handicapping and Anxiety in Sport 10 performance with others, and public awareness of the use of self-handicaps. Participants performed the test in the presence of spectators, coaches and other players, were told that their test results would be used to identify the best and worst players in the region, and that their scores would be compared with their teammates' scores (see Coudevylle et al., in press).

After hearing and reading this information, participants completed baseline measures of anxiety intensity and direction. Then, they completed the measure of claimed self-handicapping.

To make sure that all participants realized that the questionnaire provided an opportunity to use claimed self-handicaps, participants were told: "The following questionnaire is intended to assess your general actual state in order to comment on your results today. It will allow those that 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. Your responses to this questionnaire will be made public along with your results so that those who evaluate your performance will be better able to evaluate your competence." Thus, the true purpose of the scale was masked in order to obtain honest replies.

After completing the claimed self-handicapping measure, the experimenter explained (orally and through written instructions) the warm-up procedure. Specifically, participants were told that they could have as many practice shots as they desired to warm-up. To make sure that all participants realized that the number of preparatory shots could serve as a behavioral selfhandicap, the experimenter indicated that the number of preparatory shots could provide an explanation for a good or bad performance on the test. He also reminded players that a good warm-up is essential to a good performance. Therefore, participants knew that the lack of practice before the test could be detrimental to their performance (see [START_REF] Harris | The role of uncertain self-esteem in self-handicapping[END_REF][START_REF] Tice | Esteem protection or enhancement? Self-handicapping motives and attributions differ by trait self-esteem[END_REF]. This was a reasonable claim, given that no participant had previous experience with the experimental task. As no participant had previously performed the experimental task, one can assume that a warm-up would be essential to successful performance of the task. After hearing and reading this information, participants completed the second measures of anxiety intensity and direction. These measures were administered before rather than after the warm-up (adapted from [START_REF] Elliot | Achievement goals, self-handicapping, and performance attainment: A mediational analysis[END_REF][START_REF] Hirt | Self-reported versus behavioral selfhandicapping: Empirical evidence for a theoretical distinction[END_REF]. This process was used in order to avoid a break between the warm-up and the test, and participants losing the benefits of their preparation.

Participants then warmed-up in two periods. The first warm-up period (15 minutes) consisted of a quick run, stretching and repetitions of the course, but without taking any practice shots. The second warm-up period consisted of taking practice shots. Although participants performed the experiment in groups, they warmed up individually (i.e., no other players were on the court at the same time, but other players were present as observers). The experimenter counted the number of preparatory shots taken as the measure of behavioral self-handicapping. After the participant indicated to the experimenter that she/he was finished warming up, the experimental task proceeded. Once the participant had completed the task, the participant was debriefed regarding the true purpose of the study. Additionally, the first author provided each team with a lecture and proposed a discussion on self-handicapping and its consequences.

Results

Descriptive statistics for the self-handicapping measures are shown in Table 1. On average, men cited 4.67 performance impediments were present and women indicated the presence of 3.95 performance impediments. The mean impact of these impediments was 3.85 for men and 3.83 for women, indicating that participants perceived the impediments would have a moderate impact on their performance. With regards to behavioral self-handicapping, men took an average of 21.64 practice shots and women took an average of 15.15 shots. Descriptive statistics for the anxiety measures are shown in Table 2. Because there were sex differences on Self-handicapping and Anxiety in Sport 12 several of the dependent measures, sex was subsequently treated as an independent variable in the following analyses.

To determine if participants felt less anxiety (i.e., cognitive and somatic) and perceived anxiety to be more facilitating after the opportunity to self-handicap, separate 2 (gender) × 2 (time) repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted on cognitive and somatic anxiety intensity and direction. The ANOVA for cognitive anxiety intensity showed a main effect for gender [F(1, 69) = 5.04, p < .05], but not for time, and no interaction effects (ps > .05). The ANOVA for cognitive anxiety direction showed a main effect for gender [F(1, 69) = 7.92, p < .01], and a main effect for time [F(1, 69) = 5.91, p < .05], but no interaction effects (p > .05). As shown in Table 2, women perceived more cognitive anxiety than men and perceived their anxiety to be less facilitating. Overall, participants reported their cognitive anxiety to be more facilitating after they had the opportunity to self-handicap. The ANOVAs for somatic anxiety intensity and direction showed no main effect for gender, or time, and no interaction effects (all ps > .05). Thus, participants who were given the opportunity to self-handicap (i.e., claimed and behavioral selfhandicapping) reported greater increases in perceptions of cognitive anxiety as facilitating their performance.

Discussion

The purpose of the present experiment was to determine if participants felt less anxiety and perceived anxiety to be more facilitating after the use of claimed and behavioral selfhandicaps. The results provided minimal support for our hypotheses. Claimed self-handicapping did not have any effect on the intensity of cognitive or somatic anxiety, and behavioral selfhandicapping did not have any effect on the intensity of somatic anxiety. However, participants Self-handicapping and Anxiety in Sport 13 who engaged in more behavioral self-handicapping (i.e., took fewer preparatory shots), reported greater increases in perceptions of cognitive anxiety as facilitating their performance.

Our failure to find an effect of self-handicapping on anxiety intensity is contrary to theorizing [START_REF] Leary | Behavioral self-handicapping vs. self-reported handicaps: A conceptual note[END_REF][START_REF] Snyder | Self-handicapping processes and sequelae: On the taking of a psychological dive[END_REF] but is consistent with the null findings reported by Ryska and colleagues (1998). These results could be explained by the fact that the measure of anxiety intensity does not indicate if this anxiety is perceived as unfavourable or favourable to performance [START_REF] Jones | Intensity and direction as dimensions of competitive state anxiety and relationships with competitiveness[END_REF]. Indeed, although there was no difference on the intensity of cognitive and somatic anxiety after the opportunity to self-handicap, participants interpreted their cognitive anxiety states as being more facilitative to performance than before self-handicapping. Our results showed that to examine the influence of self-handicapping strategies on anxiety, it is necessary to analyse the direction of this anxiety. It seems that the effects of self-handicapping on anxiety are reflected in improvements in athletes' perceptions of their anxiety--self-handicapping may help athletes feel more ready and optimally aroused for the upcoming challenges of an evaluated performance. This interpretation is consistent with Bailis' (2001) finding that athletes who scored higher on a dispositional measure of self-handicapping reported higher levels of optimal experience during competitive performances than athletes who were less prone to self-handicapping. Our study is the first to demonstrate the effects of selfhandicapping on anxiety direction and our results speak to the importance of looking beyond anxiety intensity [START_REF] Jones | Intensity and direction as dimensions of competitive state anxiety and relationships with competitiveness[END_REF] when examining self-handicapping's effects on anxiety.

Self-handicapping affected the perceived beneficence of cognitive, but not somatic anxiety. There are at least two plausible explanations for this finding. First, as shown in Table 1, athletes already had fairly positive perceptions of their somatic anxiety at baseline. Thus, there may have been little space for improvement in anxiety perceptions after self-handicapping. A second possibility reflects differences in factors that underlie cognitive and somatic anxiety.

Self-handicapping and Anxiety in Sport 14

Cognitive anxiety--like self-handicapping--stems from worries about evaluative aspects of an upcoming performance. In contrast, somatic anxiety stems from conditioned responses to aspects of competition, such as the presence of an audience [START_REF] Martens | Competitive anxiety in sport[END_REF][START_REF] Jones | More than just a game: Research developments and issues in competitive state anxiety in sport[END_REF]. As selfpresentational concerns regarding an upcoming sports performance have been shown to be more strongly correlated with cognitive than somatic sport competition anxiety [START_REF] Bray | The relationship between evaluative concerns and sport competition state anxiety among youth skiers[END_REF][START_REF] Wilson | The relationship between competitive anxiety and selfpresentational concerns[END_REF], it makes sense that a strategy designed to allay selfpresentational concerns (i.e., self-handicapping), would have greater effects on cognitive than somatic elements of anxiety.

Another interesting observation was that the analyses showed a main effect for gender on cognitive anxiety (intensity and direction), but no interactive effects with self-handicapping were observed. Gender did not moderate the effects of self-handicapping on anxiety intensity or direction. Although there may be differences in the extent to which male and female athletes use self-handicaps [START_REF] Hausenblas | Group cohesion and self-handicapping in female and male athletes[END_REF][START_REF] Hirt | Public self-focus and sex differences in behavioral self-handicapping: Does increasing self-threat still make it "just a man's game?[END_REF], our data suggest that the effects of self-handicapping on anxiety do not differ as a function of gender.

Despite the contributions of our study to understanding the effects of self-handicapping on anxiety, a couple of limitations warrant mention. First, although the internal validity of our study was enhanced by the use of a controlled basketball task, it is not known whether our findings would generalize to real-world basketball games. However, given that athletes are more likely to use self-handicaps when they perceive an event as highly important [START_REF] Rhodewalt | Self-handicapping among competitive athletes: The role of practice in self-esteem protection[END_REF], we suspect that the findings of the present study would be even more pronounced during actual game situations. A second limitation is that we do not know if all participants considered the warm-up to be equally important. A recommendation for future research is that investigators pre-measure athletes' perceptions of the importance of warming up, and their perceived ideal duration of a warm-up. And finally, as with all self-handicapping studies, it is impossible to know if athletes' Self-handicapping and Anxiety in Sport 15 claims of performance impediments and their reductions in practice time were purely motivated by the self-handicapper's desire for self-enhancement or protection. In future research, it may be helpful to conduct post-experimental interviews in order to better understand athletes' motives for these behaviours.

From an applied perspective, our results suggest that coaches and sport psychologists need to be prudent when intervening with self-handicapping athletes in order to allow for their psychological protection. Although our results showed that self-handicapping helped to change the direction of anxiety, it is not known if there were negative effects of self-handicapping on performance. Future research is needed to examine whether the anxiolytic benefits of selfhandicaps are overshadowed by their performance detriments.

Table 2 .

 2 Means and Standard Deviations for the Measures of Anxiety

		Pre-Self-handicapping	Post-Self-handicapping
		M	SD	M	SD
	Cognitive Anxiety	13.80	4.24	13.50	3.90
	Men +	12.41	3.55	12.64	3.69
	Woman +	14.87	4.46	14.17	9.98
	Cognitive Anxiety Direction*	3.32	9.69	4.61	9.37
	Men ++	6.45	8.82	8.19	7.86
	Woman ++	.90	9.75	1.85	9.60
	Somatic Anxiety	11.21	2.98	10.91	2.78
	Men	11.19	3.10	10.80	3.02
	Woman	11.22	2.93	11.00	2.61
	Somatic Anxiety Direction	9.94	7.30	10.33	7.67
	Men	11.03	7.65	12.22	7.36
	Woman	9.10	7.00	8.87	7.68

* main effect for time, p < .05 + main effect for sex, p < .05 ++ main effect for sex, p < .01

Descriptive Statistics for Self-handicapping


Guillaume R Coudevylle
email: guillaumecoudevylle@hotmail.com

Kathleen A Martin Ginis

Self-handicapping and Motivational Climate 1 Running head: SELF-HANDICAPPING AND MOTIVATIONAL CLIMATE An Experimental Investigation of Determinants and Consequences of Self-Handicapping Strategies Across Motivational Climates

Keywords: claims, behaviors, performance, basketball

The purpose of the present experiment was to examine whether the use of claimed and behavioral self-handicaps and their correlates differed across experimentally manipulated motivational climates. Fifty-six competitive basketball players participated in the study. A cross over design was utilized, such that all participants completed the experimental task (i.e., a test of basketball skill) in both mastery and performance climates. ANOVAs showed that claimed self-handicaps were used more in the performance than the mastery condition but only for the men. In addition, greater behavioral self-handicapping occurred in the performance than the mastery climate.

Contrary to expectation, neither type of self-handicap was related to performance on the basketball task in either climate. These findings reinforce the conceptual distinction between claimed and behavioral self-handicaps and suggest that individual and environmental factors may differentially influence each type of handicap.

An Experimental Investigation of Determinants and Consequences of Self-handicapping Strategies Across Motivational Climates Self-handicapping was first described by [START_REF] Berglas | Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to non contingent success[END_REF], who defined the phenomenon 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).

Self-handicapping involves making claims or engaging in behaviors prior to an evaluated performance, in order to excuse a possible failure or to make a success more gratifying [START_REF] Leary | Behavioral self-handicapping vs. self-reported handicaps: A conceptual note[END_REF]. For example, some people may consume alcohol to avoid the impact of negative feedback for failure and to enhance the repercussions of positive feedback for success (Jones & Berglas, 1978). Other people may get too little sleep before an exam or exaggerate the effects of illness or injury (see Berglas & Jones, 1978). [START_REF] Jones | Control of attributions about the self through selfhandicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and the role of underachievement[END_REF] indicated that self-handicappers are legion in the sports world.

As such, the study of self-handicapping may be particularly pertinent within the physical activity domain. Field studies and controlled experiments have been used to examine factors associated with the use of self-handicaps prior to competitive or evaluated physical activity events (for a review, see [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].

These factors include lower self-efficacy and self-esteem [START_REF] Martin | Self-handicapping in physical achievement settings: The contributions of self-esteem and self-efficacy[END_REF], publicimages on important ability-based dimensions [START_REF] Kolditz | An impression management interpretation of the selfhandicapping strategy[END_REF][START_REF] Self | Situational influences on self-handicapping[END_REF], high perceived event importance (e.g., [START_REF] Rhodewalt | Self-handicapping among competitive athletes: The role of practice in self-esteem protection[END_REF], elevated competitive state anxiety (Prapavessis & Grove, 1994;[START_REF] Ryska | Effects of trait and situational self-handicapping on competitive anxiety among athletes[END_REF], and performanceavoidance goals (e.g., [START_REF] Elliot | Achievement goals, self-handicapping, and performance attainment: A mediational analysis[END_REF]. More recently, a couple of studies have demonstrated that the motivational climate can also influence self-handicapping [START_REF] Kuczka | Self-handicapping in competitive sport: Influence of the motivational climate, self-efficacy, and perceived importance[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] is derived from achievement goal theory (AGT, [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] and refers to the saliency of mastery (task) and performance (ego) cues in an achievement setting. According to AGT, the demonstration of ability is the goal of action in achievement settings. In a performance-oriented motivational climate, success is defined in terms of out-performing others, and performance evaluations are based on social comparisons. In contrast, in a mastery-oriented motivational climate, success is defined as mastering a task, and evaluations of one's performance are selfreferenced [START_REF] Ames | Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes[END_REF].

Several studies have utilized an achievement goal perspective to try to better understand self-handicapping. Most of these studies have focused on the role of participants' personal achievement goals as they relate to self-handicapping in academic (e.g., Midgley & Urdan, 2001;[START_REF] Urdan | Predictors of academic self-handicapping and achievement: Examining achievement goals, classroom goals structures, and culture[END_REF] or physical education domains (e.g., [START_REF] Elliot | Achievement goals, self-handicapping, and performance attainment: A mediational analysis[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].

For example, in a sample of adolescent physical education students, Elliot and colleagues analysed personal achievement goals using a trichotomous framework (i.e., mastery-approach, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance). They demonstrated that performanceavoidance goals evoked more behavioral and self-reported self-handicapping than performanceapproach and mastery goals.

In one of the few studies to utilize an achievement goal perspective within the context of competitive sport, [START_REF] Kuczka | Self-handicapping in competitive sport: Influence of the motivational climate, self-efficacy, and perceived importance[END_REF] found that among elite golfers, the use of claimed self-handicaps prior to a tournament was negatively correlated with perceptions of the team climate as being mastery-oriented. That is, athletes who perceived their team environment to be higher in mastery cues (e.g., a focus on self-referenced performance) used fewer self-handicaps than those who perceived the environment to be lower in mastery-involving cues. In contrast, a weak positive correlation was found between claimed self-handicapping and perceptions of the team climate as being performance-oriented. Thus, golfers who perceived more performanceoriented cues in the team environment (e.g., a focus on social comparisons and out-performing others) used more self-handicaps than golfers who perceived fewer of these cues. The results of this study suggest that motivational climate may influence the use of self-handicaps. However, given the non-experimental study design it was not possible to determine if the actual use of selfhandicaps differed as a function of motivational climates.

To date, only one published study has experimentally manipulated motivational climates and examined the effects on self-handicapping [START_REF] Standage | Self-handicapping in school physical education: The influence of the motivational climate[END_REF]. Standage and colleagues found that within the context of a physical education class, students reported more self-handicaps prior to performing an endurance-running task in a performance-oriented climate than in a taskoriented climate. The authors concluded that students exposed to performance-involving cues become preoccupied with their comparative ability (i.e., appearing able or not appearing unable), thus making self-handicapping more likely as a self-protective strategy to deflect attention away from a lack of ability (Midgley & Urdan, 2001;Urdan & Midgley, 2001).

Taken together, the [START_REF] Kuczka | Self-handicapping in competitive sport: Influence of the motivational climate, self-efficacy, and perceived importance[END_REF] and Standage and colleagues (2007) studies suggest that the motivational climate can influence self-handicapping. However, a key limitation of these studies has been an exclusive focus on claimed self-handicapping. There has been little consideration as to whether different motivational climates differentially elicit claimed versus behavioral self-handicaps. Behavioral handicaps refer to deliberate, overt acts that would make success on a task more difficult such as ingesting drugs or alcohol, withholding effort, and choosing to perform in suboptimal conditions. Conversely, claimed handicaps are verbal claims about performance impediments such as being injured, ill, socially anxious, in a bad mood or a victim of traumatic life events (for a review, see [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]. Theorists have highlighted the important conceptual distinction between the two types of self-handicaps (e.g., [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], but effort has not been directed toward identifying whether they have different determinants. With this shortcoming in mind, the primary purpose of the present experiment was to examine whether the use of claimed and behavioral self-handicaps differ across experimentally manipulated motivational climates.

We predicted that claimed and behavioral self-handicaps would be used more in the performance than mastery condition. Our predictions regarding claimed self-handicaps were based on findings from previous sport and motivational climate research. Specifically, [START_REF] Kuczka | Self-handicapping in competitive sport: Influence of the motivational climate, self-efficacy, and perceived importance[END_REF] showed that the use of claimed self-handicaps were positively correlated with perceptions of a performance climate. Likewise, Standage and his colleagues (2007) found that claimed self-handicaps were more important in a performance climate than a mastery climate. Our predictions regarding behavioral self-handicaps were based on what is known about the nature of behavioral self-handicaps and the motives of people who use them. That is, the behavioral self-handicapper aims to influence an audience's impressions by providing a credible excuse for possible failure (e.g., [START_REF] Schlenker | Excuses and character: Personal and social implications of excuses[END_REF][START_REF] Snyder | Self-handicapping processes and sequelae: On the taking of a psychological dive[END_REF]. As the credibility of a self-handicap hinges on it being observable and verifiable [START_REF] Hirt | Self-reported versus behavioral selfhandicapping: Empirical evidence for a theoretical distinction[END_REF], situations involving social comparisons and an audience (i.e., performance-oriented climates) should prompt athletes to use the more convincing, albeit more detrimental, form of self-handicap (i.e., behavioral self-handicaps) to protect or enhance their public image. In contrast, athletes should be less likely to risk disrupting their performance by using behavioral self-handicaps in a mastery climate where social comparisons and audience evaluations are downplayed.

A secondary purpose was to examine the effects of each type of self-handicap on athletic performance and to determine if these effects vary between performance and mastery climates.

Studies examining the effects of self-handicapping on performance have produced inconsistent results. Some studies have indicated that participants who used a situational self-handicapped performed better than those who did not (e.g., [START_REF] Sanna | Self-handicapping expected evaluation, and performance: Accentuating the positive and attenuating the negative[END_REF], whereas other studies showed that individuals who scored highly on a measure of trait self-handicapping performed less well academically (e.g., [START_REF] Zuckerman | Consequences of self-handicapping: Effects on coping, academic performance, and adjustment[END_REF]. One possible explanation for these inconsistent results is that the actual, situational use of self-handicaps improves performance because the self-handicapper obtains the advantage of anxiety reduction [START_REF] Leary | Behavioral self-handicapping vs. self-reported handicaps: A conceptual note[END_REF]. On the other hand, chronic use of self-handicaps can decrease competence and consequently, performance. Clearly, further research is needed to determine the effects of the situational use of self-handicaps on performance.

In addition, the effects on performance are probably different depending on whether an athlete uses a claimed self-handicap--such as claiming to be sick or tired--or a behavioral selfhandicap, such as reducing preparatory effort. Indeed, simply claiming to be too tired serves as an excuse for poor performance, but does not actually reduce the likelihood of success. In contrast, not practicing can also provide an excuse for poor performance, but also decreases the likelihood of a successful performance (see [START_REF] Hirt | Self-reported versus behavioral selfhandicapping: Empirical evidence for a theoretical distinction[END_REF]. Only one published study has examined the effects of both behavioral and claimed self-handicaps on athletic performance [START_REF] Elliot | Achievement goals, self-handicapping, and performance attainment: A mediational analysis[END_REF]. This study found that both types of self-handicaps had detrimental effects on performance.

However, in contrast, Coudevylle, Martin Ginis, and Famose (2008a) showed that performance on a basketball task was negatively related to behavioral self-handicapping, but was not related to claimed self-handicapping. Another study looked only at claimed self-handicaps and found that claimed self-handicapping had a positive impact on running performance among children in a physical education class who had relatively low self-confidence [START_REF] Ryska | Effects of situational self-handicapping and state self-confidence on the physical performance of young participants[END_REF]. Given these equivocal findings, further examination of the issue is warranted. Consistent with the notion that behavioral self-handicaps are, by definition, more detrimental than claimed self-handicaps [START_REF] Hirt | Self-reported versus behavioral selfhandicapping: Empirical evidence for a theoretical distinction[END_REF], it was predicted that behavioral self-handicaps would have a significant negative effect on performance and the use of claimed self-handicaps would be unrelated to performance in the both climates.

Method

Participants

Fifty-six competitive basketball players, 25 men (M age = 20.7 years, SD = 2.6) and 31 women (M age = 20.8 years, SD = 3.9), participated in the study. All players competed at the French regional or national levels. Participants were recruited from eight different teams.

Design and Overview of Procedure

A cross over design was utilized, such that all participants completed the experimental task in both a mastery and a performance climate. The order of presentation of the climates was randomly assigned by lottery, and the two tests were conducted one week apart. To minimize the possibility of athletes using scheduling problems or discomfort with the testing environment as self-handicaps, the experiment was conducted in the athletes' usual training hall and during a regularly scheduled training session.

Measures

Claimed Self-handicapping. A state measure equivalent to that used by Martin and Brawley (study 2, 2002) was used to measure claimed self-handicapping. Yet whereas Martin and Brawley's scale consisted of just 7 possible impediments, our scale consisted of 13 impediments that athletes may use as self-handicaps such as: "I am feeling tired," "I have personal concerns in this moment," "I am not feeling well mentally," "I am not sufficiently prepared for the test," "I am feeling well," and "I am approaching the test under the best conditions." (Note that the last two items were reverse-scored.) The impediments 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, participants were presented with a fourteenth, open-ended item that gave 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 scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 6 (extremely). The number of claimed self-handicaps was computed. The claimed impact 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 as such, greater self-handicapping. This is the same measure as reported in [START_REF] Coudevylle | Effects of selfhandicapping strategies on anxiety prior to athletic performance[END_REF].

With regard to the psychometric properties of the scale, studies have provided construct validity for this approach to measuring self-handicapping by demonstrating significant correlations between the claimed impact of performance impediments and theoretically meaningful 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], selfesteem, 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 scale items. Indeed, when athletes use claimed self-handicaps, they cite only one or two performance impediments. It is unusual for an athlete to cite several claimed self-handicaps, probably because only a single self-handicapping claim is needed to protect an athlete's image, and the use of multiple selfhandicaps could have considerable self-presentational liabilities.

Behavioral Self-handicapping. According to Prapavessis and colleagues (2004), a lack of preparatory effort preceding a test constitutes an index of behavioral self-handicapping within the context of sports participation. Thus, for the purpose of the present experiment, behavioral self-Self-handicapping and Motivational Climate 10 handicapping was operationalized as the number of preparatory shots taken during a warm-up period immediately prior to the experimental task. A short practice time has been identified as a self-handicapping strategy in previous studies because it is detrimental to performance (see [START_REF] Harris | The role of uncertain self-esteem in self-handicapping[END_REF][START_REF] Tice | Esteem protection or enhancement? Self-handicapping motives and attributions differ by trait self-esteem[END_REF]. Furthermore, as none of the participants had previous experience with the experimental task, it was reasonable to expect that all participants should desire at least some practice time.

The validity of practice time and effort as an index of behavioral self-handicapping has been demonstrated in several studies. For instance, a couple of studies have shown that the amount of time spent warming up/practicing is related to self-handicapping (e.g., [START_REF] Deppe | Self-handicapping and intrinsic motivation: Buffering intrinsic motivation from the threat of failure[END_REF][START_REF] Tice | Self-esteem, self-handicapping, and self-presentation: The strategy of inadequate practice[END_REF]. In addition, Rhodewalt and colleagues (1984) showed that swimmers who scored high on a trait measure of self-handicapping were more likely to withhold practice effort prior to competitions compared to swimmers who scored low on trait self-handicapping.

Performance. Performance was scored by counting the number of successful shots and passes through an obstacle course (described next). Performance scores could range from 0 to 11.

Manipulation Check. Given that athletes experience greater sport competition anxiety in performance than mastery climates [START_REF] Thill | Learning to play golf under-different goal conditions: Their effects on irrelevant thoughts and on subsequent control strategies[END_REF], a French version of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory -2 (CSAI-2; [START_REF] Martens | Competitive anxiety in sport[END_REF]) --l'Echelle d'Etat d'Anxiété à la Compétition (EEAC; Cury, Sarrazin, Peres, & Famose, 1999) was administered in order to determine the veracity of our experimental manipulations. The EEAC is reliable and valid for use with French athletes. It consists of 7-items measuring cognitive anxiety and 7-items measuring somatic anxiety. For each item, participants indicated the extent to which they were currently experiencing each anxiety symptom, using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (completely).

Self-handicapping and Motivational Climate 11

The Experimental Task.

An individual test of basketball skill was designed in consultation with a committee of national level basketball experts. The task consisted of completing three repetitions of an obstacle course laid out on a standard basketball court. The test began with the completion of two freethrows followed by running to mid-court, and then turning around backwards and performing a backward defensive shuffle to the end of the court. Then, the participant picked up a basketball and dribbled it to mid-court. At mid-court, the participant dribbled the ball between three pylons, while dribbling the ball between their legs and behind the back. The participant then continued to the basket and attempted a lay-up. After the lay-up, the participant repeated the entire course again and finished with a jump shot. The course was repeated a third time, finishing with a threepoint shot. This is the same task as reported in Coudevylle andcolleagues (2008a, 2008b).

Procedure

Recent experimental research on self-handicapping and motivational climate has included a public demonstration component along with a normative comparison component in order to create a performance-based environment (e.g., [START_REF] Cury | The trichotomous model and investment in learning to prepare for a sport test: A mediational analysis[END_REF][START_REF] Elliot | Achievement goals, self-handicapping, and performance attainment: A mediational analysis[END_REF]. Indeed, many authors in the achievement goal literature contend that both components are integral to performance-based goals and, therefore, must be included in manipulations of performance-based goal constructs [START_REF] Ames | Achievement goals, motivational climate, and motivational processes[END_REF]. In accordance with these studies, the mastery climate condition was conducted in private while the performance climate condition was conducted in public.

Performance Climate Testing Conditions. To create a performance climate, the testing situation emphasized results, comparisons of one's own performance relative to others, normative comparisons, public awareness of the use of self-handicaps and a public performance [START_REF] Ames | Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes[END_REF]; see [START_REF] Elliot | Achievement goals, self-handicapping, and performance attainment: A mediational analysis[END_REF]. Specifically, each participant performed the test in the presence of spectators, coaches and other players, participants were told that their test results would be used to identify the best and worst players in the region, and their results would be compared with their teammates' results.

After hearing and reading about the conditions in which the test would be performed, participants completed the manipulation check (i.e., measure of anxiety). Then, they completed the measure of claimed self-handicapping. In order to mask the true purpose of the selfhandicapping questionnaire, participants were told: "The following questionnaire is intended to know your general actual state in order to comment on your results today. It will allow those that 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. Your responses to this questionnaire will be made public along with your results so that those who evaluate your performance will be better able to evaluate your competence."

After completing the claimed self-handicapping measure, the experimenter explained (orally and through written instructions) the warm-up procedure. Specifically, participants were told that they could have as many practice shots as they desired to warm-up. To make sure that all participants realized that the number of preparatory shots could serve as a behavioral self-handicap, the experimenter indicated that the number of preparatory shots could provide an explanation for a good or bad performance on the test. He also reminded players that a good warm-up is essential to a good performance. Therefore, participants knew that the lack of practice before the test could be detrimental to their performance (see [START_REF] Harris | The role of uncertain self-esteem in self-handicapping[END_REF][START_REF] Tice | Esteem protection or enhancement? Self-handicapping motives and attributions differ by trait self-esteem[END_REF]. This was a reasonable claim, given that no participant had previous experience with the experimental task.

As no participant had previously performed the experimental task, one can assume that a warmup would be essential to successful performance of the task. Participants then warmed-up in two periods. The first warm-up period (15 minutes) consisted of a quick run, stretching and repetitions of the course, but without taking any practice shots. The second warm-up period consisted of taking practice shots. Although participants performed the experiment in groups, they warmed up individually (i.e., no other players were on the court at the same time, but other players were present as observers). The experimenter counted the number of preparatory shots taken as the measure of behavioral self-handicapping. Once the player indicated to the experimenter that she/he was finished warming up, the basketball test proceeded.

Mastery Climate Testing Conditions. To create a mastery climate, the testing situation emphasized private performance, success was defined as mastering a task, and evaluations of one's performance were self-referenced [START_REF] Ames | Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes[END_REF]. Focus of attention was on the process of learning, the importance of results was downplayed, results were kept confidential, and only the experimenter and the participant were aware of the participant's use of selfhandicaps. Specifically, the participants were told that the purpose of the experiment was to provide an opportunity to improve their level of play, by identifying their strong and weak points and providing useful information on their technical abilities. It was explained that their results would not be made public (i.e., coach and teammates would not know their results), nor would comparisons be made between their scores and other teammates or players from other clubs.

Participants then completed the manipulation check and the measure of claimed selfhandicapping was introduced. Participants were told that the questionnaire was confidential and that nobody other than the experimenter, would see their responses.

After completing the self-handicapping measure, the warm-up procedure was explained.

In accord with [START_REF] Kolditz | An impression management interpretation of the selfhandicapping strategy[END_REF], the warm-up was conducted in private condition.

Therefore, the experimenter counted the number of shots taken without the knowledge of the participant. Once the player indicated to the experimenter that she/he was finished warming up, the experimental task proceeded.

Once the participant had completed the task in both experimental conditions (i.e., mastery and performance), the participant was debriefed regarding the true purpose of the study.

Additionally, the first author provided each team with a lecture and proposed a discussion on self-handicapping and its consequences.

Results

Manipulation Check

In order to assess the adequacy of the motivational climate manipulation, anxiety levels were compared across the two conditions. Consistent with previous motivational climate research, athletes experienced greater anxiety in the performance than mastery climate [START_REF] Thill | Learning to play golf under-different goal conditions: Their effects on irrelevant thoughts and on subsequent control strategies[END_REF]. Indeed, a one-way repeated measures ANOVA indicated that participants reported greater cognitive anxiety in the performance (M = 13.9, SD = 4.2) than mastery conditions (M = 12.4, SD = 3.9), F(1, 55) = 6.73, p < .05. With regard to somatic anxiety, participants tended to report greater somatic anxiety in the performance (M = 11.37, SD = 2.9) than mastery conditions (M = 10.57, SD = 2.68), F(1, 55) = 3.38, p = .07. Based on these results, we were satisfied that different motivational climates had been created and we continued with our hypothesis tests.

Motivational Climate as a Determinant of Self-handicapping

The first set of analyses determined if the use of self-handicapping strategies (i.e., claimed and behavioral) varied between performance and mastery climates. Because previous research suggests that participants' sex should be controlled for in such analyses (e.g., [START_REF] Elliot | Achievement goals, self-handicapping, and performance attainment: A mediational analysis[END_REF][START_REF] Kuczka | Self-handicapping in competitive sport: Influence of the motivational climate, self-efficacy, and perceived importance[END_REF], sex was treated as an independent variable. Separate 2 (sex) × 2 (motivational climate) ANOVAs were conducted on the measures of claimed and behavioral selfhandicaps. The ANOVA for number of claimed self-handicaps showed no main effects for sex, nor motivational climate (all ps > .05), but showed a significant sex × climate interaction [F(1, 54) = 4.43, p < .05]. The ANOVA for impact of claimed self-handicaps showed no main effects for sex, nor motivational climate, and no interaction effects (all ps > .05). With regard to behavioral self-handicapping, the ANOVA showed a main effect for sex [F(1, 54) = 5.44, p <

.05] and a main effect for climate [F(1, 54) = 46.21, p < .001] but no sex × climate interaction (p > .05). Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for the measures of self-handicapping as a function of sex and motivational climate. Inspection of these means indicates that men used claimed handicaps more in the performance climate than in the mastery climate, whereas women used claims similarly in both climates. In addition, both men and women took fewer preparatory shots (i.e., engaged in more behavioral self-handicapping) in the performance climate than the mastery climate.

Consequences of Self-handicapping Strategies on Performance

The second set of analyses examined the effects of self-handicapping (i.e., claimed and behavioral) on performance and determined if these relationships varied between performance and mastery climates. Contrary to our hypotheses, correlational analyses showed that performance (see Table 2 andTable 3) was not associated with claimed or behavioral selfhandicapping in either the performance or mastery climates (ps > .05).

Discussion

Motivational Climate as a Determinant of Self-handicapping

The primary purpose of the present experiment was to examine whether motivational climate differentially influenced claimed and behavioral self-handicapping. Specifically, the first objective was to determine if the use of self-handicapping strategies (i.e., claimed vs. behavioral) varied between performance and mastery climates. Overall, the present research provided partial support for our hypotheses. Both male and female athletes used greater behavioral self-handicapping in the performance than mastery climate. Although male athletes used more claimed self-handicaps in the performance climate than the mastery climate, there were no differences in the impact of claimed self-handicaps for either men or women. The observed differences in self-handicapping across the climates suggest that self-handicaps are used in order to provide audiences with viable and credible explanations for a poor performance. In all logic, athletes performing in private situations would not elect to reduce their effort, or make excuses, as a self-handicapping strategy. However, they will self-handicap when they are being observed, particularly in a public performance climate situation.

Interestingly, the differential effects of motivational climate on claimed self-handicapping were evident only for the male study participants. Women may use claimed self-handicaps equally across performance and mastery climates in order to reassure themselves about their ability. Furthermore, contrary to our expectations, the results concerning claimed impact were not statistically significant. It appears that behavioral self-handicapping is a strategy more efficient than claimed self-handicap to excuse a possible failure or to make a success more gratifying.

Our results also suggest that performance climates are an ideal context in which to study self-handicapping. An experiment conducted in a performance climate (i.e., test in public, evaluation centred on the results, social comparison, results made public) is more likely to produce an environment threatening to the public-self and thus, to elicit self-handicapping, compared to an experiment conducted in a mastery climate (i.e., private test centred on the mastery of execution, temporal comparison, confidentiality of results).

Consequences of Self-handicapping Strategies on Performance

A secondary purpose of our experiment was to examine the effects of self-handicapping (i.e., claimed and behavioral) on athletic performance and to determine if these effects vary between performance and mastery climates. The present research provided support for our hypothesis that the use of claimed self-handicaps would not affect performance. These results are consistent with previous studies (Coudevylle et al., 2008a;[START_REF] Hirt | Self-reported versus behavioral selfhandicapping: Empirical evidence for a theoretical distinction[END_REF] which have shown that simply claiming performance impediments does not have any subsequent effects on performance. However, contrary to our hypothesis, we did not observe any negative effects of behavioral self-handicapping on performance in either the performance or the mastery climates.

The null effects of behavioral self-handicapping are contrary to the findings of Elliot and colleagues (2006) who showed that reduced preparatory effort (i.e., a behavioral self-handicap) was linked with poorer performance. Our findings are also contrary to theorizing regarding the detrimental effects of behavioral self-handicaps (Leary & Shepherd, 1986). There are at least two possible explanations for why we did not find a negative relationship between behavioral self-handicapping and performance. First, Coudevylle and colleagues (2008b) showed that participants who engaged in more behavioral self-handicapping (i.e., took fewer preparatory shots), reported greater increases in perceptions of cognitive anxiety as facilitating their performance. It could be that reduced anxiety serves as a mediator between behavioral self-handicapping and performance. Reducing preparation is likely detrimental to performance, but at same time, this reduction offers protection by generating a decrease of anxiety, which is favourable to performance. In fact, the advantage gained by reducing anxiety likely compensates for the detrimental effect of behavioral self-handicapping and thus, does not allow us to see any effects on performance. This null finding could be also due to the heterogeneous athletic ability of the participants. If participants using a low number of preparatory shots were more skilled than those that use a greater number of preparatory shots, then differences in ability would confound the relationship between behavioral self-handicapping and performance. In future research, skill level of the participants should be controlled in order to gain a better understanding of the effects of self-handicapping on sporting performance.

Self-handicapping and Motivational Climate 18

Summary and Conclusion

Theorists have highlighted the important conceptual distinction between claimed and behavioral self-handicaps (e.g., [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]). However, there has been virtually no research examining whether the two types of handicaps have different predictors. The present study provides preliminary data to reinforce the conceptual distinction between claimed and behavioral self-handicaps suggesting that environmental factors may differentially influence each type of handicap. Taken together, the present findings indicated that only behavioral self-handicap is predicted by a performance climate environment. From an applied perspective, coaches, sport psychologists, and other interventionists should promote mastery climates whenever possible, even in competition through mental skills training (e.g., goal-setting, mental imagery), in order to decrease the possibility of behavioral selfhandicapping. Although we did not find detrimental effects of behavioral self-handicapping in the present study, it is possible that future investigations that control for athletes' skill level through careful pre-testing, will find that behavioral self-handicapping is damaging to sports performance.

Author note

We extend our appreciation to Martyn Standage for his comments on a previous version of this manuscript.

Self-handicapping and Motivational Climate 25