Despite some research showing the relation of academic contingent self-worth to academic self-handicapping, evidence for how to improve the situation is limited. To address this research gap, this experimental study (N = 560) examined whether failure mindsets moderated the association between these two variables. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions: (a) easy task, failure-is-enhancing, (b) easy task, failure-is-debilitating, (c) difficult task, failure-is-enhancing, and (d) difficult task, failure-is-debilitating conditions. The main hypotheses concerned the amount of practice (an indicator of academic self-handicapping) that the participants displayed in face of a difficult task, which suggests a high risk of failure. Results showed that among highly academically contingent students, those who were in the failure-is-enhancing condition reported less state anxiety and more task enjoyment as well as practicing more in face of anticipated failure (i.e., fewer self-handicapping behaviors) than those in the failure-is-debilitating condition. As for low contingent students, those in the failure-is-enhancing condition also practiced more when confronted with a difficult task compared with those in the failure-is-debilitating condition, whereas there were no significant differences between the failure mindset conditions for state anxiety and task enjoyment. By contrast, global self-esteem, perceived academic competence, and mindsets of intelligence did not interact with task difficulty to predict academic self-handicapping and affective responses. Taken together, these findings suggest that endorsing a failure-is-enhancing mindset may help reduce the ego threat associated with failure, thereby alleviating the problems of vulnerable self-esteem of highly contingent people.