Cited by 210Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessPsychological Testing and Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On the self-serving function of an academic wooden leg: Test anxiety as a self-handicapping strategy.

Smith, Timothy W., Snyder, C. R., Handelsman, Mitchell M.·1982·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

The present study investigated the hypothesis that psychological symptoms may serve a self-protective function by providing an alternative explanation for potential failure in evaluating situations. It was hypothesized that highly test-anxious subjects would report anxiety symptoms in a pattern that reflected strategic presentation of symptoms; more specifically, it was predicted that greater reported anxiety should result when anxiety was a viable explanation for poor performance on an intelligence test and that lower reported anxiety should result when anxiety was not a viable explanation for poor performance. Analysis of state measures of self-reported anxiety supported these predictions. Further analysis indicated that when anxiety was not a viable explanation for poor test performance, high test-anxiety subjects reported reduced effort as an alternative self-protective strategy. These results are discussed in terms of traditional models of symptoms as self-protective strategies, current social psychological models of symptoms, and in reference to recent theory and research about the nature and treatment of test anxiety.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.42.2.314

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Individuals report more test anxiety when it can serve as an excuse for subsequent failure than when it cannot.

    “Thus, individuals report more test anxiety when it can serve as an excuse for subsequent failure than when it cannot.”

    From The Causes and Consequences of a Need for Self-Esteem: A Terror Management Theory (1986) · cites this paper as Smith et al., 1982

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Smith, T. W., Snyder, C. R., & Handelsman, M. M.
Affiliations
University of Kansas (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
1982
Volume
42
Issue
2
Pages
314-321
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2045359291
Cited by
210
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
9.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
test anxiety, self-handicapping, self-protection strategies, self-serving bias, intelligence test performance, presenting symptoms, state anxiety
MeSH terms
Achievement, Anxiety, Defense Mechanisms, Female, Humans, Set, Psychology, Test Anxiety Scale

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review