Academic self‐handicapping: Relationships with learning specific and general self‐perceptions and academic performance over time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Academic self-handicapping (ASH) tendencies, strategies students employ that increase their chances of failure on assessments while protecting self-esteem, are correlated with classroom goal structures and to learners' general self-perceptions and learning strategies. In particular, greater ASH is related to poorer academic performance but has yet to be examined with respect to learners' performance across a series of tests. AIMS: This research was designed to examine the relationship between students' ASH tendencies and their self-concept clarity, learning strategies, and performance on a series of tests in a university course. SAMPLE: A total of 209 (153 female; 56 male) Canadian university psychology students participated in this study. METHODS: Participants' ASH tendencies, self-concept clarity, approaches to learning, and self-regulatory learning strategies were assessed along with expected grades and hours of study in the course from which they were recruited. Finally, students' grades were obtained for the three tests for the course from which they were recruited. RESULTS: Students reporting greater self-handicapping tendencies reported lower self-concept clarity, lower academic self-efficacy, greater test anxiety, more superficial learning strategies, and scored lower on all tests in the course. The relationships of ASH scores and learner variables with performance varied across the three performance indices. In particular, ASH scores were more strongly related to second and third tests, and prior performances were accounted for. ASH scores accounted for a relatively small but significant proportion of variance for all three tests. CONCLUSIONS: These results showed that ASH is a unique contributing factor in student performance outcomes, and may be particularly important after students complete the initial assessment in a course.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".