The role of individual differences in sandbagging on selective avoidance of self-evaluative information

In the current experiment (N = 86), I evaluated the hypothesis that high and low sandbaggers differ in their preference for self-evaluative information. Results demonstrate that low sandbaggers sought accurate self-assessment information in private and in public, but high sandbaggers bypassed such information when it would be made public. These data support the notion that high sandbaggers are self-protective and tend to focus on social evaluation, while low sandbaggers seek accurate self-assessment regardless of the potential for social evaluation. Furthermore, data help to distinguish between sandbagging and self-handicapping. Discussion focuses on the motivation of sandbaggers, along with how this motivation differs from that of self-handicappers.