Why People Sometimes Sabotage Their Own Success and What New Research Reveals About Self-Handicapping
Self-handicapping is one of those human behaviors that looks irrational on the surface but turns out to be surprisingly strategic once you dig deeper. Think about staying out late the night before a major exam, preparing for a presentation at the last possible moment, or intentionally adding difficulty to a task you care about. Psychologists describe all of these behaviors as self-handicapping—the act of creating obstacles to your own success in advance.
A recent study by Yang Xiang, a psychology Ph.D. candidate at Harvard University, along with Samuel J. Gershman of Harvard and Tobias Gerstenberg of Stanford University, takes a fresh and highly analytical look at why people do this and when it actually makes sense. Their work introduces a new signaling theory of self-handicapping, offering a formal, mathematical explanation for a behavior that has puzzled psychologists for decades.
What Self-Handicapping Really Is
At its core, self-handicapping is about reputation management. When people create an obstacle before performing a task, they are shaping how others interpret the outcome. If they succeed despite the handicap, they may appear especially competent. If they fail, the failure can be blamed on the obstacle rather than a lack of ability.
Previous research has often framed self-handicapping as a personality trait. Many studies relied on questionnaires designed to measure how prone someone is to making excuses or setting themselves up for failure. While useful, this approach left a big gap: it did not fully explain why the same person might self-handicap in one situation but not in another.
The new research argues that self-handicapping is not just about personality. Instead, it can be a rational and calculated decision, depending on the situation and the audience.
A New Model That Focuses on Social Reasoning
Xiang and her co-authors developed a formal model grounded in signaling theory, a framework often used in economics and evolutionary biology to explain how people communicate hidden qualities, like competence, through observable actions.
In this case, self-handicapping is treated as a signal. People are assumed to think carefully about:
- Their own level of competence
- The likelihood of success or failure
- How others will interpret their choices and outcomes
This reasoning is recursive, meaning people think about what others think, and even what others think about their thinking. According to the model, self-handicapping must be decided before the task begins, based on expectations rather than results.
How the Experiments Were Set Up
To test their theory, the researchers designed two experiments modeled after a quiz show format. Across both experiments, participants moved through three rounds.
In the first round, around 200 participants observed a group of players answering 20 general knowledge questions. To pass, players needed at least eight correct answers. Some players were evaluated on all 20 questions, while others were judged on a random subset of 10, which served as the experimental version of self-handicapping.
In the second round, the observers became players themselves. Before answering questions, they were given a choice: be judged on all 20 questions or on a random subset of 10. Choosing the subset meant deliberately limiting the information observers would see, effectively self-handicapping.
In the final round, participants re-evaluated the original players from Round 1. This time, however, they were more aware of how self-handicapping works. Importantly, exact scores were never revealed. Observers only knew whether someone passed or failed and whether self-handicapping had been involved.
What the Findings Show
The results strongly supported the signaling theory. Self-handicapping occurred most often among people who were least likely to fail or least likely to succeed. In other words, individuals at the extremes of competence were the most strategic about using self-handicapping.
Observers drew clear inferences from these choices. Seeing someone self-handicap signaled that the person was likely either very competent or very incompetent. Not self-handicapping, on the other hand, suggested a more average level of ability.
When outcomes were considered, the pattern became even clearer:
- Self-handicappers who passed were rated as the most competent.
- Self-handicapping reduced the negative impact of failure, protecting perceived competence.
- Observers who had experience self-handicapping themselves were more likely to interpret others’ behavior as intentional and strategic.
However, the final round revealed an important twist. More sophisticated observers were less forgiving of self-handicappers who failed, suggesting that once people understand the strategy, its effectiveness weakens.
Differences Between the Two Experiments
A subtle but important difference emerged between the two experiments. In the first experiment, participants were instructed to maximize perceived competence. In the second, they were told to maximize success.
When success was emphasized, self-handicapping dropped significantly. Even so, participants with very high or very low competence still used the tactic more than others. This shows that simply encouraging people to focus on success is not enough to eliminate self-handicapping entirely.
Why This Matters for Education
Self-handicapping has long been linked to negative academic outcomes, including lower motivation, declining performance, and reduced self-esteem over time. While the behavior may offer short-term reputational benefits, it often undermines long-term learning.
The researchers suggest that educational environments can reduce harmful self-handicapping by shifting focus away from rankings and comparisons. Emphasizing individual progress, learning goals, and task alignment with a student’s actual skill level may reduce the incentive to self-handicap.
Extra Context: Self-Handicapping Beyond the Lab
Outside the classroom, self-handicapping appears in workplaces, sports, and creative fields. Athletes may downplay preparation before a competition. Professionals may mention lack of sleep before an important presentation. In many cases, the goal is the same: protect one’s image under uncertainty.
Psychologists have also linked self-handicapping to anxiety and perfectionism. When the fear of failure is high, creating an excuse can feel safer than risking an unqualified loss.
A Clearer Picture of a Common Behavior
By formalizing the cognitive logic behind self-handicapping, this study moves the conversation beyond personality labels. It shows that self-handicapping can be strategic, predictable, and socially informed, even if it carries long-term costs.
Understanding this behavior more clearly opens the door to better interventions, especially in educational settings where learning, not reputation, should be the priority.
Research paper: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106288
