Test anxiety and academic self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive task performance

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Test anxiety and academic self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive task performance
Physical Description:
vii, 114 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Lax, Ruth Laurie, 1952-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Test anxiety   ( lcsh )
Educational psychology   ( lcsh )
Clinical Psychology thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Clinical Psychology -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1982.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 104-113.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Ruth Laurie Lax.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000334437
oclc - 09384681
notis - ABW4077
System ID:
AA00002183:00001

Full Text



fl..


TEST ANXIETY
AS PREDICTORS


AND ACADEMIC
OF COGNITIVE


SELF-EFFICACY
TASK PERFORMANCE


RUTH


LAURIE


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY


OF FLORIDA


































This


dedicated


ssertation


my parents,


Judith


and


Melvin


Lax.

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S


would


Nathan


like


. Perry,


thank


Jr.,


dissertation


providing


committee


support


chairman,


guidance


this


year,


graciously


taking


over


as chairman,


short


notice,


when


former


chairman,


Wiley


Rasbury,


obtained


a new


position


Michigan.


also


greatly


appre-


ciate


time


tha t


Dr. Rasbury


into


formulation


planning


was


stages


invaluable.


this


dissertation.


dissertation


committee,


His assistance


Walter


Cunningham,


Suzanne


Bennett


Johnson,


Dr. Hugh


. Davis,


Jr.,


Sandra


Damico


, provided


many


instructive


comments


, advice,


support.


am especially


grateful


many


hours


that


Randy


Carter


spent


with


reviewing


statistical


analyses,


providing


psychological


support


when


computer


programs


began


grow


rapidly


in number.


He always


made


himself


available,


even


when


schedule


was


extremely


tight,


which

the f


it almost


our


always


undergraduate


was.


students


am also


who


deeply


helped


grate-


me with


data


collection


coding.


was


a mammoth


task;










that


Registrar,


Robert


Fullington,


staff


, put


into


obtaining


aptitude


scores


me.


would


also


like


thank


Gary


Rushakoff,


a special


friend,


who


Apple


psychological


taught


Microcomputer.


support have been


outs


technical


text-editing


assi


invaluable


stance


over


past


a half


years.


Warren


Rice


was


a great


source


support.


allowed


use


Apple


Microcomputer


to write


this


dissertation.


He also


helped


make


work


environment


at the


Gainesville


V.A.


Medical


Center


very


conducive


speedy


completion


dissertation.


Finally,


would


like


express


my gratitude


family,


who


have


persevered


with


provided


support


throughout


entire


graduate


career.


It would


have


been


difficult


without


them.

















TABLE


OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


ABSTRACT


CHAPTER


INTRODUCTION


S S S 51


Cognitive


Emoti


ona


Concomitants


Test


Anxiety


atment


Studies


elf-effi


cacy


Theo


METHOD


Subj
Proc


ects
edure


Statisti


cal Analys


S S S SS S68


THREE

FOUR


RESULTS .

DISCUSSION .


APPENDICES


ANAGRAMS


TASK


INTERCORRELATION


MATRIX


ON THE


INDEPENDENT


AND


DEPENDENT


VARIABLES


FOR


MAIN


SAMPLE


(n=162)


INTERCORRELATION


AND


DEPENDENT


MATRIX


VARIABLES


ON THE


FOR


INDEPENDENT


TOTAL


SAMPLE


REFERENCES


BIOGRAPHICAL


SKETCH


S *


Page

















Abstract


Graduate
in Partial


of Dissertation


Council


Fulfillment


Degree


Doctor


Presented


University


Florida


he Requirements
of Philosophy


TEST


ANXIETY


AND


ACADEMIC


SELF-EFFICACY


AS PREDICTORS


OF COGNITIVE


TASK


PERFORMANCE


Ruth


Laurie


Lax


August


Chairman:


Major


Nathan


Department:


Perry,


Clinical


Jr.

Psychology


This


study


assessed


effectiveness


test


anxiety,


academic


self-efficacy,


aptitude


as predictors


cognitive


task


performance


under


neutral,


evaluative,


reassuring


task


instructions.


was


hypothe


sized


that


although


test


anxiety


been


found


to predict


cognitive


task


tions,

would


performance


under


variables


enhance


prediction.


reassuring


academic


was


neutral


task


self-efficacy


theorized


that


condi-


aptitude


a person


academic


self-efficacy,


or their


beli


their


ability


cope


with


or master


academic


situations,


would










cognitive


task


performance


beyond


knowledge


a person


level


sized


test


that


anxiety,


aptitude


alone.


would


In addition,


account


was


a significant


hypothe-


amount


variance


cognitive task


performance.


was


found


that


test


anxiety


predict


cognitive


task


performance,


as measured


an anagrams


task,


final


grade


General


Psychology.


However,


test


anxiety


predicted


rather t

efficacy


performance


han


under


differentially,


predicted


cognitive


task


instructional


as predicted.


task


Academic


performance,


conditions,


self-


in inter-


action


with


test


anxiety,


anagrams


task,


alone.


Aptitude


scores


predicted


grade


performance


but


anagram


task


performance.


results


were


considered


speculative,


because


predictor


variables


only


accounted


a small


percentage


variance


task


performance.


findings


were


discussed


terms


methodological


improvements


academic


self-efficacy


measure,


terms


of other


possible


relevant


predictor


variables.

















CHAPTER


INTRODUCTION


It has


been


generally


found


that


there


is a correla-


tion


between


aptitude


measures


(e.g.


I.Q.


measures,


Scholastic

elementary,


Aptitude


Test)


secondary,


and


academic


college


performance


populations


(Plant


Richardson,


1958;


Fishman


Pasanella,


1960;


Lavin,


1965;


Conry

1969;


Plant,


Cronbach,


1965;

1970;


Dudek,


Goldberg,


McClelland,


1973


Lester,

). The


Harris


correlations


tend


to be


somewhat


higher


elementary


high


school


years,


than


college


or older


populations


(Brody


Brody,

between


1976).


aptitude


lower


correlations


grades


in college


for

and


relationship


other


select


populations,


are


most


restricted


range


of aptitude


test


scores


found


these


populations.


While


aptitude


measures


account


a large


proportion


variance


in cognitive


performance,


other


factors


are


considered


important,


especially


populations


exhibiting


a narrow


range


of aptitude


scores.


These


factors


generally


fall


into


domains


of "personality"


"coanitive


style


or motivational


factors.


... .


most


v&











individuals


perform


most


poorly


on cognitive


tasks


under


conditions


evaluation


of high


evaluative


minimal.


stress,


reverse


optimally


tends


to be


when


true


test-anxious


individuals


(Mandler


Sarason,


1952


Sarason,

Eriksen,


Mandler

1964;


Craighill,


Russell


Sarason,


Ganzer,


1965;


1968;


Sarason,


Paul

1958,


1959,


1961).


Wher


eas


test


anxiety


been


found


to be


related


popular


to a cognitive


explanation


performance


cause


decrement,


this


historically


decrement


performance


been


autonomic


reactivity


or what


Liebert


Morris


research


(1967)


suggested


have


that


termed


"emotionality."


cognitive


components


Recent


test


anxiety,


rather


than


autonomic


reactivity,


have


greater


predictive validity


regard


to cognitive


performance


under


stressful


evaluative


circumstances


(Neale


Katahn,


1968;


Sarason


Stoops,


1978;


Deff


enbacher,


1978;


Dusek,


Mergler,


Kermis


1976


Denney,


1980).


These


cognitive


components


include


worry


over


performance


, and


comparison


with


how


well


others


are


doing.


rumination


over


alternatives.


being


preoccupi


ed with


such


things


feelings


inadequacy


, anticipation


punishment.


.oss of


status


-b .


esteem


uiiu











While


earlier


definitions


test


anxiety


empha-


sized


a common


denominator


"anxiety,


or emotional


autonomic


reactivity


(Wine,


1971) ,


this


common


denominator


does


appear


to capture


most


outstanding


differences


between


persons


who


score


at extremes


test


anxiety


measures. T

of cognitive


thrust


cognitive


hese


differences


structures


current


(Wine,


test


interpretations


appear


1980).


anxi


test


There


research


anxiety.


This


nature

change


toward


disserta-


tion


study


examines


relationship


test


anxiety


other

more


cognitive process

specifically, the


variables

cognitive


an effort


processes


to delineate


underlying


performance


decrement


test


anxi


ety.


Test


anxiety


research


initially


focused


(Sarason,


1961)


on emotional

relationship


reactivity


test


anxiety


mediating

academic


variable


performance.


the

More


recent


research


suggested


that


test


anxiety


strong


cognitive


component,


as well.


It has


been


proposed


that


this


cognitive


component


accounts


much


varlanc

review

factors


task


examines


test


performance


(Wine,


contribution


anxiety,


as both


1980).


This


cognitive


relate


to cognit


literature

emotional

ive task


performance.


Experimental


studies


will


be discussed


from


q0ryry 1


I v~rsP


nf rpsparch.


which


bear


uoon


this


;I rP ;1S


.


.











relevant


an understanding


relative


contribution


of cognitive


emotional


components,


test


anxiety.


Treatment


studies


have


utilized


either


cognitive,


emotionality


reduction


approaches


, or combinations


these


approaches,


to attempt


to alleviate


tes t


anxiety.


An examination


effectiveness


these


various


treatment


modaliti


will


provide


information


underlying


mediating


variable s


test


anxiety.


Cognitive
Concomitants


Emotional
Test Anxiety


"Direction


Attention"


Hypothesis


Wine


theory


1980,


test


1971)


developed


"evaluational"


a cognitive-attentional


anxiety,


"direction


of attention"


hypothesis.


proposed


that


performance


differences


high


test-anxious


individuals


reflect


basic


differences


their


task


atten-


tion


during


evaluative


tasks.


The


high


test-anxious


individual


self-preoccupied


hypothesized


worry


to divide


task


cues.


attention


between


test-anxious


individual


presumably


focused


more


fully


task-











thinking.


There


a significant


amount


evidence


from


experimental


that


treatment


a cognitive-attentional


literature


approach


which


test


suggests


anxiety


important


in understanding


construct,


perhaps


more ;so


than


traditional


autonomic


arousal


interpretation


test


anxiety


(Wine,


1971;


Sarason,


1975;


Denney,


1980).


Worry-Emotionality


Distinction


A closely


related


theoretical


development


to Wine


(1971)


"direction


Emotionality


attention"


distinction


hypothesis,


developed


Liebert


the

and


Worry-

Morris


(1967).


These


authors


have


analyzed


test


anxiety


into


components


Worry


which


focusing


attention


on concerns


about


performance,


consequences


negative


self-evaluation,


evaluation


one


s ability


relative


to others


, and,


Emotionality,


which


refers


affective-physiological


experience


generated


from


increased


there fore


autonomic


, takes


arousal


form


Interfering


of heightened


test


worry


anxiety,


and/or


emotionality.


Two


separate


self-report


scales


have


been


developed


measure


the


Worry


and


Emotionality


components


test











Inventory


Test


Anxiety


(Osterhouse,


1972).


Worry


items


include


not


feeling


confident


about


performance,


worrying


a great


deal,


thinking


much


brighter


others


are,


thinking


about


consequences


failure,


eling


as prepared


as possible.


Emotionality


items


include


so nervous


cannot


remember


facts,


heart


beating


faster,


upset


stomach


, d)


uneasy,


upset


feeling,


feeling


anxiety.


Worry


Emotionality


scores


Worry-Emotionality


Inventory


have


been


related


to performance


expectations


regarding


examinations,


actual


examination


performance


Several


studies


have


shown


that


Worry


was


invers


related


to performance


expectations


of college


high


school


students


Liebert


taking


Morris,


ssroom


1967


exams


Morris


ctor


Liebert,


Altman,


1970).


1969;


Perfor-


mance


expectancy


was


measured


having


subj


ects


assess


how well


Whereas


expec


they


Worry


stations


expected


was


to perform


consistently


, Emotionality


was


on a particular


related


inversely


test.


to performance


related


rformance


expectations


some


samples


(Doctor


Altman,


1969;


Morris


Liebert


, 1970;


egler,


Morris,


Liebert,


1968) ,


unrelated


others


(Liebert


Morris,


1967;


Morri


Liebert,


1970;


Spiegler


Morris


Liebert,


1Q9C~IR


Tn ~11


l~ ..s


n rn


I I I I I I II "


s amnl1 A S


MnrrT i


1111


f-.I


i ii


I











A similar


pattern


exists


relation


Worry


Emotionality


to actual


performance


on exams.


Morris


and


Liebert


(1970


reported


that


in a college


sample,


Worry,


but


Emotionality,


formed


a significant


inverse


relation-


ship


with


test


performance,


and


Worry-performance


relationship


was


stronger


than


Emotionality-performance


relationship


high


school


sample


, however,


both


Worry


Emotionality


were


inverse


related


to performance,


and

both


the

age


strengths

samples,


relationships


Worry


Emotionality


were


differ.


significantly


correlated


with


each


other,


consequently


shared


considerable


variance.


Partial


correlation


analyses


revealed,


however,


that


both


samples,


when


common


variance


between


Worry


Emotionality


was


controlled,


Worry


was


negatively


correlated


with


test


grades,


whereas


Emotionality


was


longer


significantly


related


test


performan


In five

Deffenbacher


Morris


unpublished

(1980)


Liebert


studies

found re


(1970)


involving


sults


college


simil


college

ar to t


sample.


students,


hose


Worry


was


consistently


negatively


related


exam


performance,


while


Emotional ty


related


on some


occasions


on others.


Again,
aF. an4-e..


partial


correlations


n; Wn44nF


T.7Cr


demonstrated

nTr4-4a1 1cr


that

nI- _-


when

Wnr rvT\


the

rnnti nnrii


ce.











significantly


correlated


with


performance.


This


suggests


that


when


common


variance


removed,


Worry,


but


Emotionality,


significantly


negatively


correlated


with


performance


on college


exams.


Deffenbacher


(1977)


also investigated


relation-


ship


of Worry


and


Emotionality


to performance


Miller


Analogies


Test


(MAT),


test


which


is important


because


is used


graduate


admissions,


but


which


little


preparation


possible


there


no specific


knowledge


that


some


people


have


access


over


others,


in regard


to performance


task).


Deffenbacher


found


that


both


Worry


Emotionality


MAT.


When


were


partial


negatively


correlations


related

were ca


to performance


Iculated,


previous


studies,


only


Worry


continued


to form


significant


relationship


with


performance


MAT.


Further


analysis


revealed


a complex


relationship


among


Worry


, Emotionality


, and


performance.


Worry


was


broadly


related


to performance.


Subjects


high


on Worry


solved


fewer


analogies


than


subjects


on Worry.


effects


Emotionality


varied


with


Worry


level.


At low


levels


Worry,


Emotionality


was


unrelated


to performance,


high


levels


Worry,


high


Emotionality


was


debilitative.


That


, the


negative


ects


of Emotionality


were


nested


rn1; 4-1 4


4-a lrha aC


Wtnrr -t


iah 1P


Wnrrv


cinn tr ibuted


r3n rr~


I











Morris


Liebert


(1969)


employed


Worry


Emotionality


a design


which


manipulated


level


stress


through


obvious


non-obvious


timing


and


difficulty


items


timed


subtests


Wechsler


Adult


Intelligence


Scale.


Worry


level


was


found


to interact


with


timing


difficulty


level.


Subjects


were


high


on Worry


performed


better


untimed


than


timed


condition.


reverse


was


true


subjects


on Worry.


They


performed


better


timed


condition.


difficulty


or timing


Emotionality


conditions


evel


was


interact


unrelated


with


per-


formance


this


study.


Finally,


Morris


Perez


(1972)


found


that


Worry,


Emotionality,


was


significantly


negatively


related


reading


test


performance.


Interestingly,


although


correlation


was


significant,


Emotionality


was


positively


correlated


with


performance.


appears


that


a fairly


consistent


pattern


results


from


emerges


Worry


correlated


research


Emotionality


are


(correlations


Worry


component


Liebert


significantly


range


which


from


consistently


Morris


consi


.76).


forms


group.


stently


However,


a nega-


tive

test


relationship

performance,


with

not


performance

Emotionality.


expectations


actual


findings


4-4~~~ -% 4n 4-f ir rnI n Un I


man r


SiF~t


Emotion-


,t


n


FmnL: Alla 1; Cir


---


n .


ara


.











Therefore,


expectancies


both


performance


, Emotionality


is not


measures


performance


as consistently


related


to outcome


measures


, as Worry


As Morris


Liebert


(1970)


point


failure


to find


consistent


differences


Emotionality,


among


performance


stress


level


expectancy


groups


groups.


, may


These


reflect


studies


a generally


used


high


actual


examinations


tasks


to rate


expectancy


against.


This


situation


have


provided


subjects


with


greater


stress


than


less familiar


tasks


lesser


importance.


high


stress


level


tasks


these


studies


may


have


obscured


differences


among


expectancy


levels,


ch might


have


been


seen


with


less immediately


relevant


tasks.


It is


also


conceivable


that


autonomic


symptoms


are


only


attends


subject


relevant


them.


attends


to performance


That


to his


affective


extent


Worry


that


level


reaction.


subject


high,


Worry


present,


affective


reaction


is not


attended


Thus


Emotionality


would


only


be related


to performance


under


high


Worry


levels.


Emotionality


variable


Morris


Liebert


(1969,


1970)


studies


refers


to self-report


of affective


reac-


tivity.


It is


important


examine


relationship


between


S S


I ~I


m











self-report


emotional


anxious


arousal,


arousal,


performance


physiological


measures,


indices


in high


test-anxious


subjects.


Holroyd


et al.


(1978)


study


found


that


high


test-anxious


individuals


performed


more


poorly


reported


higher


levels


anxious


arousal


worry


in an analog


testing


situation,


than


test- anxious


individuals.


This


consistent


with


previous


findings.


During


testing


situation,


actual


autonomic


arousal


was


monitored


continuously.


Interes


tingly


results


from


these


measures


indicated


that


obtained


differ


ences


performance


were


accompanied


corresponding


difference


autonomic


reactivity.


High


t-anxious


individuals


manife


sted


virtually


identical


tonic


phasic


electrodermal


activity


heart


rate


responses.


Only


heart


rate


variability,


which


appeared


to reflect


differences


cognitive


attentional


responses


test-


anxious


groups,


successfully


differentiated


high


test-anxious


individuals.


The results


lend


further


support


to the


theory


that


cognitive


performance


defi


cits


high


test-anxious


subjects


are


not


a result


of maladaptive


levels


autonomic


arousal.


Rather,


appears


that


test


anxiety


more


accurately


conceptualized


as a cognitive-


attentional


phenomenon,


as has


been


proposed


Wine


(1971).











Attention


to Task


Cues


an effort


to identify


cognitive-attentional


factors


related


to test


anxiety,


a group


of researchers


is examining


utilization


task


cues


high


test-anxious


subjects


purpose


research


assess


whether


high


test-anxious


subjects


diff


erentially


attend


task-relevant


stimuli.


Quality


performance


on a


task


depends


extent


to which


task-relevant


stimuli


are


attended


to and


utilized.


If relevant


stimuli


are


attended


then


performance


will


be impaired.


Current


research


area


test


anxiety


task


cue


utilization


been


generated


from


earlier


motiva-


tional


or drive


theory


of Tolman


(1948).


influence


motivation

(1948).


on cue


He listed


utilization


strong


was


recognized


motivational


Tolman


conditions"


as one


of several


causes


formation


narrow


cognitive


maps


in animals


humans.


Bartlett


(1950)


introduced


concept


"range


cues


utilized"


examine


effects


of motivation


culminated


task


performance.


an influential


paper


The

by E


early


research


terbrook


(1959).


main


point


of the Easterbrook


paper


1959)


was


that


"when


dire


action


of behavior is


constant,


increase


in drive











analysis


that


drive


either


facilitate


or inhibit


performance,


depending


importance


peripheral


cues


successful


performance.


Although


there


been


much


research


to indicate


generated


that


in this


test


area,


anxiety


initial


related


studies


to narrowed


seem


cue


utilization.


Interestingly,


test-anxious


subjects


appear

than h


to be


igh


more


affected


test-anxious


subj


ects.


presence


added


rformance


task

the


cues

low


test-anxious


person


facilitated


more


addition


relevant


cues,


and


debilitated


more


addition


irrele-


vant


cues.


That


performance


test-anxious


subjects


reflects


a wider


range


task


cue


utilization,


accordance


with


terbrook


hypothe


Wine,


1980).


West,


Lee,


Ander


son


(1969)


tested


children


who


scored


high


or low


on the


Test


Anxiety


Scale


Children


(Sarason,


Davidson,


Lighthall,


Waite,


Ruebush,


1960)


with


forty


arithmetic


"story"


problems


constructed


such


a way


that


some


contained


additional


irrelevant


information.


Although


highly


level


test-anxious


performance


subjects


overall


than


showed


a slightly


less


poorer


test-anxious


group,


their


performance


was


not


hindered


addition


of irrelevant


information.


The


test


-anxious


subj


ects


performed


more


efficiently


unembellished


items


than


fnnas


J!* -A- .5- .5-


elevant


cues.


Geen


(1976)


found


-L .L -1


I rll











task


required


subject


to remember


which


a set


several


stimuli


was


one


designated


correct


on each


trials.


two


conditions,


additional


cues


were


added


task.


task.


one


other


case,

case,


the

the


cues

cues


aided

were i


solution


relevant


potentially


distracting


task


solution.


High


test-anxious


subjects


were


helped


ess


addition


relevant


information


than


test-anxious


subjects.


They


were


also


less


hindered


their


recall,


insertion


irrelevant


information.


In both


cases


, subjects


who


scored


high


test


anxiety,


behaved


they


were


ess


affected


additional


cues


than


those


test


anxiety.


This


finding


consis


tent


with


an assumption


a restricted


range


cue


utilization.


Whatever


underlying


mechanism


narrowed


cue


utilization,


this


restriction


cue


use


appears


repre


sent


a shift


in attentional


bias


priorities


high


test-anxious


subj


ects.


Wine


1980)


Geen


(1980)


propose


that


"primary


task"


high


test-anxious


situation


task


subject


in terms


toward


assigned


of diversion


self.


Concentration


task.


attention


Wine


away


attention


describes


from


inwardly


toward


self


draws


attention


away


from


task-related


stimuli.


Hamilton


(1975)


proposed


an interesting


model


~4-4-an 4- I-t


rol maIQ/


-r, Wi nI


Shvnnnth~sis


a











capacity
task. TI


attention


either


selective


tion


left


ie person


over
may


to external,


narrowing
attention


to a small


demands


respond


paying


task-related


the a
or by


number


rea


focused


restricting


less


inputs,


for
atten-


of foci.


(Hamilton,


1975,


These


cue


utilization


studies


support


proposition


that


high


test-anxious


person


does


attend


to relevant


task


cues,


as much


test-anxious


person.


Further


res


earch


will


necessary


to d


determine


whether


attention


high


test-anxious


person


is diverted


to internal


concerns.


cue


utilization


research


does


support


view


that


cognitive


factors


are


relevant


an understanding


construct


test


anxiety.


This


should


prove


to be


a fruitful


area


research


furthering


understanding


cognitive


processing


test-anxious


populations.


Social-Evaluative


Variables


While


attentive


high


test-anxious


task-relevant


cues,


subject


may


may


more


be entirely


attentive


social-evaluative


cues


than


test-anxious


subject


Wine,


1980


Dusek


, 1980).


There


some


evidence


to support


this


notion


in experimental


modeling


research.


Most


this


r ra ar a r n n^ a- h o I


~srs r~r


colleagues


rCL Cld ~ r nk


kaan


SI


n


n = _











test


anxiety


vigilance


may


with


contribute


regard


to increased


to possibly


helpful


cues


test-anxious


environment
individuals


S. because


are


more


high


insecure


than
more
cues


other persons
interested a


behavior
(Sarason


strange
s and a


, they ma
nd active


situations


attitudes


from


et al., 1968,


be relatively
n attending to
nd in "borrowing"
models.


496-


497)


an initial


effects


associates.


study,


modeling


There


Sarason


test


was


et al.


anxiety


a significant


(1968)


studied


on learning


anxiety


paired


conditions


intera


action.


high


middle


test


anxiety


groups


demon-


stated


superior


performance


task,


situations


where


subjects


could


observe


models


learning


lists.


Subsequent


studies


explored


effects


of character-


istics


to models


models


, on


' problem-solving


cognitive


behaviors


performance


feedback


high


test-anxious


subjects.


Sarason


(1973a)


subjects


solve


difficult


anagrams


under


one


of several


experimental


modeling


conditions.


group


observed


a model


silently


solve


sample


problems.


Another r


observed


a model


describing


manipula-


tion


letters


while


solving


anagrams.


third


group


observed


a model


comment


on principles


underlying


success-


solution


no-model


anagrams


control


while


condition


working.


While


There


overall,


was

Slow


also a

test-


anxious


subj


ects


performed


better


than


high


test-anxious











condition


which


model


stated


problem-solving


principles.


Although


not


clear


why


task


performance


high


test-anxious


subje


is generally


inferior


test-anxious


subject


in part,


because


actual


or assumed


paucity


task-relevant


responses.


modeling


situation


which


provided


cognitive


strategies


may


have


given


high


test-anxious


subjects


enough


information


that


they


were


confident


enough


to become


ess


self-


preoccupied,


more


able


to guide


their


own


task-relevant


behavior.


While


these


studies


suggest


that


observation


a model


be beneficial


test-anxious


subject,


other


studies


which


have


examined


ects


exposure


models


who


succeed,


fail,


or are


self-derogatory


are


some-


what


more


difficult


to interpret.


Sarason


1972)


investigated


whether


persons


differing


test


anxiety


would


respond


differentially


to a neutral


model


vs.


a model


is self-


derogatory


regarding


performance.


was


expected


that


the opportunity


to observe


a model


would


have


a facilitative


effect


on all


subjects,


espec


ially


those


high


test


anxiety.


However


was


expe


cted


that


the high


test-anxious


group


would


show


this


facilitative


to a 1


esser


extent


under


condition


involving


self


-derogatory


model.


While


4-I---a.s-'- 1 C.-.414~ rr


CA nf


A~l


c~nun


Alt~H rl 11


mn~


t.t r~ n


1


^-











self-derogatory


model


evaluated


condition


derogated


an authority


herself


figure


observation


performance


to be a failure.


that


while


been


There


might


be a difference


between


observing


someone


who


self-


debasing


thinks


he is


failing


, vs.


someone


who


told


an authority


that


he has


failed


Consequently,


another


experiment


was


conducted


including


success


failure


conditions


determined


an authority


figure.


There


was


test


anxiety


treatment


interaction.


condition


which


model


fail


(given


success


feedback


authority),


anxious


subjects


' performance


was


superior


that


of a middle


test


anxiety


group.


failure


condition


failed


an authority


figure)


high


test-


anxious


group


performed


at a significantly


lowe r


level


than


high


test


anxiety


group


that


was


exposed


nonfailing


model.


test


anxi


group


performed


better


under


failed


mod


condition


than


non-failed


model


condition.


results


experiments


suggest


that


someone


observing


who


someone


is declared


derogating


himself


an authority


. observing


figure


to be


failure


can


have


very


different


effects


on performance


high


test-anxious


subject.


self-derogatory


condition


authority-failure


condition


were


both


apparently


mr~4-, TfZ+ infl i*~ Ut


fPqt -anxi nus


subi


ects.


mhC; tt~C; nn


I rir i(i


I l l


q











observation


of failure


feedback


a much


more


negative


effect,


this


group,


than


observation


a self-


derogatory


model.


Sarason


suggests


that


observing


someone


who


dissatisfied


with


himself


(se If-derogatory


condition),


convincing


an ob


server,


since


there


may


no objective


basis


self-debasing


reaction.


However,


observation


of a negative


authority


figure


is much


more


convincing,


certainly


would


affect


evaluational


anxiety


high


test-anxious


subject.


Another


explana-


tion


lack


of detrimental


impact


self-derogatory


model


lies


the construct


"coping


model,


" described


Meichenbaum


(1972).


self-debasing


model


have


been


seen


high


test-anxious


subject


someone


who


exper-


ces


problems


similar


those


subject,


actively


copes


with


overcomes


those


difficult


es.


Failure


eedback


, however,


is clearcut


evidence


a failure


coping


whether


efforts
*


a coping


(Wine,

model w


1980)


ras,


Sarason


fact,


1975)


facilitative


examined


cogni-


tive


task


performance.


Subj


ects


were


exposed


to a mod


admitted


experiencing


anxiety


described


ways


coping


with


or to


one


who


only


admitted


anxiety,


versus


a model


who


admit


anxiety.


Exposure


self-disclosing


coping


mod


was


highly


facilitative


S S C -


I ___, 1L,,,


-IIE-YIIIIA


I











attention-directing


performance


cognitive


test-anxious


strategies,


persons.


is beneficial


Performance


also


enhanced


there


evidence


that


model


successfully


coping


with


worry


tension


associated


with


test


anxiety.


observation


models


performing


tasks


does


seem


to have


powerful


effects


subsequent


task


performance


of high


test-anxious


subjects.


social-


evaluative


problem-


solving


information


can


have


either


itive


or negative


effects


depending


on the


characteristics


modeling


situation.


These


studies


suggest


that


high


test-anxious


subject


attend


cues


task


situation


other


than


immediate


task


cues


Social-evaluative


feedback


appears


to influence


cognitive


task


performance


high


test-


anxious


subject.


This


further


evidence


a cognitive-


attentional


component


test


anxiety.


Treatment


Studies


an effort


to further


examine


contribution


cognitive


emotional


factors


test


anxiety,


treatment


research


test


anxiety


will


be examined.


Treatment


approaches











effects


these


approaches


on both


cognitive


task


perfor-


mance and


self-report


test


anxiety.


Systematic


Desensitization


Most


early


treatment


literature


assumed


emotional


reactivity


to be


major


character


stic


test


anxiety


As


such


, much


early


treatment


literature


focused on systematic

simple demonstrations


desensiti


zation,


efficacy


progressing


systematic


from

desensi-


tization


(Katahn,


Stronger,


Cherry,


1966;


Garlington


Cotler


, 1968;


Paul,


1964)


through


systematic


manipulations


of the


desensitization


process


Freeling


Shemberg,


1970).


Systematic


desen


sitization


treatment


test


anxiety


basically


involves


pairing


deep


muscle


relax-


ation


with


instructed


imagination


aversive


scenes,


inhibit


autonomic


arousal


provide


a new


response,


to be conditioned


to previously


anxiety-arousing


stimuli.


tematic


desensiti


zation


procedure


followed


general


outline


used


Paul


1966)


one


earliest


demon-


stations


this


treatment


text


anxiety.


Studies


compared


individually-designed


vs.


standardized


desen


siti-


nation


hierarchies


Emery &


Krumboltz,


1967), s


ystema tic











Guerney,


1969) ,


and


other


variations


presenting


systematic


desensitization


treatment


(Aponte


Aponte,


1971;


Feeling


Shemberg,


1970


Suinn,


1968).


In general,


these


studies


have


found


that


systematic


desensitization


ec-


tive


alleviating


test


anxiety


when


self-report


measures


anxiety


level


are


used


as outcome


criteria.


However,


effects


sensitization


on academic


performance


are


quite


in grade


as consistent.


point


Some


average


studies


treated


demonstrate


groups


an increase


compared


control

1969; J


Cherry,


groups


ohnson


1966)


(Aponte


Secrest,


Others


Aponte,


1968;


showed


1971;


Donner


Katahn,


no increment


Guerney,


Strenger,


in academic


performance


Garlington


Cotler,


1968;


Emery


Krumboltz,


1967)


or did


use


performance


measures


as outcome


criteria


(Freeling


Shemberg,


1970;


Suinn,


1968) .


Allen


(1972)


states


fact


that


desensitization


studies


control


effects


of non-specific


therapeutic


factors,


which


might


enhance


treatment


benefits


some


studies


others.


These


non-specific


factors


include


heightened


subj


expectancy,


use


only


one


therapist,


use


first


semester


shmen


(have not yet


adapted


college


routine


may


interpret


their


stress


test


anxie


ty),


lack


appropriate


control


groups


waiting


list


control


arouo).


a .











in self-report


anxiety


level.


However,


an emotionality-


oriented


treatment


approach


be sufficient


con-


sistently


alter


poor


performance


under


academically-evaluative


conditions.


More


extensive,


methodologically-sound


research


effects


of systematic


desensitization


treatments


cognitive


performance,


is required,


to make


more


definitive


statements.


Self-Control


Treatment


Techniques


Denney


1980)


reviewed


a series


self-control


treatment


studi


es.


He orders


studies


on a continuum


on which


one


extreme


represents


approaches


focused


solely


on emotionality


reduction,


other


extreme


represents


approaches


emphasizing


totally


cognitive


approach.


labels


three


basic


types


studies


reviewed


are


following


applied


relaxation,


self-control


training


techniques,


cognitive


coping


technique


es.


one


moves


from


treatment


approaches


relying


heavily


on emotionality


reduction


(applied


relaxation)


more


cognitively


ented


treatments


(self-control


training


cognitive


coping),


there


incr


easing


emphasis


on in-vivo


application


training


(training


actual


anxiety-provoking


setting),


guided










client


can


effectively


apply


toward


management


reduction


test


anxiety


when


arises


in real


life


situations.


The more


cognitively-oriented


treatment


approaches


attend


rather


to thoughts,


than


worries


alleviation


negative


emotional


self-statements,


arousal.


Applied


Relaxation


Techniques


Applied


examples


relaxation


self-control


techniques


proce


dures


constitute


simplest


reduction


anxiety.


The procedures


classified


as applied


relaxation


techniques


share


three


common


features


These


procedures


introduce

advocate


ed with


a self-control


Goldfried


(1971).


rational

Clients


similar


are


usually


informed


that


purpose


treatment


to provide


them


with


skills


actively


coping


with


anxiety.


They


are


told


that


the relaxation


training


they


receive


method


helping


them


to bring


response


relaxation


under


voluntary


control


Further,


they


are


told


, that


with


greater


proficiency


at inducing


relaxation


they


will


able


to apply


relaxation


to reduce


feelings


of anxiety


stressful


situations


second


encountered


feature


outside


applied


treatment.


relaxation


techniques











for

have


inducing

been de


relaxation,


veloped,


although


supplementing


numerous


other


relaxation


wit


approaches

h biofeed-


back-assistance


(Romano


Cabianca,


1978


cue-controll


relaxation


(Russell


Sipich,


1973) ,


imag


exerci


ses


(Samuels

3) The


Samuels,


third


1975


feature


other


applied


supplementary


relaxation


exercises.


techniques


involves


training


application


of relaxation


within


stressful


settings


encountered


outside


treatment.


Typically,


these


studies,


the clients


are


merely


instructed


to begin


applying


relaxation


outside


treatment.


Self-control


Training


Techniques


Self-control


training


techniques


include


three


main


features


found


applied


relaxation


techniques.


However,


addition,


self-


control


training


techniques


include


guided


rehearsal,


which


introduced


after


relaxation


induction


training.


During


guided


rehearsal,


clients


are


confronted


with


some


type


of stressful


stimulus


presented


within


consultative


setting.


Usually


stressful


stimuli


are


evoked


use


imagery.


Thus,


there


is greater


personal


involvement


in cognitive


approach


es.











Cognitive


Coping


Techniques


Cognitive


cognitively


with


coping


-oriented


an additional


some


tive


cases


techniques


approaches,


repertoire


instead


feature


which


attempt


coping


relaxation


cognitive


coping


are


most


to provide


skills


skills.


techniques


clients


beyond,


distinc-


is some


form


of cognitive


restructuring.


Cognitive


restructuring


three


basic


objectives


Clients


are


persuaded


that


beliefs


that


they


ente


rtain


while


confronting


certain


situations


affect


emotional


reactions


they


have


these


situations,


They


are,


next,


encouraged


to identify


particular


negative


self-


statements


that


they


make


when


confronting


a stressful


situation,


Clients


are


helped


to formulate


positive


rational


self-statements


which


will


replace


attenuate


negative


their


stress


self-statements


evaluative


thereby


situation.


As discussed


earlier


in regard


to the systematic


desensitization


studies,


most


appli


relaxation


studies


(Russell,


Stratoudakis,


1976;


Miller,


March


June


etti,


, 1975;


McGlynn,


Russe


Wise,


Patterson,


1977;


Chiang-Liang,


Denney,


1976)


found


that


this


treatment


approach


demonstrated


test-anxiety.


same


changes


on self-report


generalization


could


measures


be applie











Deffenbacher


cognitive


Parks,


coping


1979;


techniques


Denney


Rupert,


(Meichenbaum,


1977),


1972;


Holroyd


1976;


Lavigne,


1974;


Wine,


1970;


Goldfried,


Linehan,


Smith,


1978).


treatment


Analyses


strategies


comparative


on cognitive


impact


performance


demon


these


states


quite


different


findings.


Only


one


out


three


of the


applied


relaxation


studies


resulted


in cognitive


performance


improvement.


was


found


that


four


eight


self-control


training


mance


studies


measures,


reviewed,


whereas


revealed


five


improvements


seve n


on perfor-


cognitive-coping


technique


studies


measures.


demonstrated


Thus,


cognitive


improvements


coping


in these


techniques,


types


which


incorporate


some


form


of cognitive


restructuring,


are


observed


to have


a higher


rate


success


than


self-control


training


or applied


relaxation


hniques,


terms


performance


improvement.


Both


Meichenbaum


(1972)


Holroyd


1976)


compared


cognitive


coping


treatment


approaches


directly


with


systematic


desensitization,


Meichenbaum'


which


"cognitiv


is an arousal r

e modification"


educationn

treatment


technique.

t procedure


combined


an insight-oriented


therapy


which


was


designed


make


test-anxious


subjects


aware


their


anxiety-engendering


thoughts,


with


a modified


desensitization


procedure


an~~~~n1 r~~~~naA = ~~~~Inn% fn- n.a. -nn hr h nA aln I;an


Cn


;Inv; a5~~


bmn 1 h~lL~;I


kntrr


~m~n


JT1











that


cognitive


modification


group


was


most


effective


significantly


reducing


test


anxiety


as ass


essed


test


performance


obtained


an analogue


test


situation,


self-


report


anxiety


immediately


after


treatment


one-month


follow-up,


grade


point


average.


There


was


ess


consistent,


general


improvement


desensitiza-


tion


treatment


group,


who


appear


ed significantly


more


improved


than


waiting


list


controls.


Holroyd


Meichenbaum


(1976)

(1972)


study

study


is actually a f

. Meichenbaum'


sollow-up

s results


study

are


somewhat


difficult


to interpret


because


cognitive


modification


treatment


actually


a combination


cognitive

"coping"


treatment


imagery)


(the


use


of self-statements


an emotional


arousal


treatment


cognitive

(the


use


of relaxation).


It is


clear


whether


positive


results


cognitive


modification


treatment


are


primarily


cognitive


or the


combination


aspects,


arousal


treatment


reduction


forms.


aspects,


Holroyd


sought


to separate


these


individual


treatment


components.


He compared


combined


effectiveness


arousal-cognitive


cognitive,


treatments


arousal


test


reduction,


anxiety.


cognitive


test-anxious


therapy


client


focu


s task


exclusively


-irrelevant


on eliminating


ruminations


.m4-4- f;nn+- nn~ fnii


rl i pnt s


were


taught


to emit


incom-


fn rrl e


I ilr











was


traditional


group


systematic


desensitization


paradigm


(Paul,


1966).


combined


treatment


focused


both


eliminating


test-anxious


client


task- irrelevant


ruminations


task


focus,


and


reducing


their


emotional


arousal.


There


was


also


a pseudotherapy


control


group


included


study,


assess


degree


of improvement


attributed


to nonspecific


treatment


effects.


results


demonstrated


that


cognitive


therapy


approach

treatment


was


significantly


approaches.


more


effective


treatment


gains


than

were


the other

seen in both


laboratory


performance


average.


measures


test


an analog


Only


significantly


test


cognitive


better


results


anxiety


(self-report),


situation,


therapy


than


approach


grade


test


point


demonstrated


pseudotherapy


control


procedure.


systematic


desensitization


group,


combined


produced


situation


treatment


similar


(digit


group,


outcomes,


symbol


and


pseudotherapy


except


test


performance),


analog


groups


test


where


combined


treatment


approach


was


superior


systematic


desensitization


pseudotherapy


approach.


results


suggest


that


while


systematic


desensitization


an effective


treatment


test


anxiety,


may


no more


ective


than


an equally


convincing


treatment


ritual


other


sort.


~~I r -. II) *I


rocan 1 *


tr* nm hi n a


annrn-rhb


a rP


s nm PW1 RI -


typ;ltmpnt


1 r **-











being


less


effective


than


cognitive


or systematic


desensi-


tization


treatments


alone


(Meichenbaum,


Gilmore,


Fedoravicius,


1971) ,


or more


effective


than


systematic


desensitization


alone


(Meichenbaum,


1972).


Holroyd


(1976)


suggests


that


results


obtained


with


combined


treatments


be influenced


procedural


variables


such


length


treatments,


order


treatments


specific


treatments


which


are


combined.


There


have


been


other


cognitive


coping


approaches


which


have


proven


to be successful


improving


academic


performance


reducing


self-report


test


anxiety.


Recently,


Harris


Johnson


1980)


have


compared


a unique


covert


modeling


approach,


to a self-control


desen


sitization


treatment,


a study-skills


training


group


(with


covert


modeling


group


and


the desensitization


group


receiving


some


study


skills


training,


as well).


Harris


Johnson


(1980)


hypothesized


to benefit

performing


more

the


that


an individual


from a modeling

behavior is the


would


procedure,

individual


be likely


himself


model

There-


fore


they


developed


treatment


in which


individual


utilizes


own


highly


personalized


images


self-competency


stressful


situations


cope


with


test


anxiety.


These


images


are


taken


from


life


situations


other


than


test-taking,


in which

nlavina


individual


in a music


recital


operates


successfully


or runnincr


a radio


for

show.


example


After











from


test-taking


situation.


This


procedure


allows


individual


to utilize


a standardized


Harris


"coping


Johnson


own


skills


found,


resources,


" package


similar


rather


imposed


to previous


than


upon


studies


having


him.


comparing


cognitive


approaches


to desensitization,


that


covert


modeling


procedure


was


superior


to both


self-control


desensiti


zation paradigm and


study-skills


training


group.


individualized


cover t


modeling


procedure


combined


with


study


skills


training


significantly


reduced


test-anxiety,


assessed


significantly


several

increased


self-report

academic D


measures.


performance,


It also

as assessed


grade


point


average.


self-control


desensitization


treatment


was


also


effective


reducing


self-reported


test


anxiety,


but


was


successful


improving


academic


per-


formance.


Subjects


study


skills


training


group


a small,


but


nonsignificant


increase


in grade


point


average,


show


reduction


in test-anxiety


on all


anxiety


measures.


Although


study


skills


training


procedure


presumably


prevented


a decrement


in academic


performance,


was


not


effective


in either


reducing


test-


anxiety


or significantly


increasing


grade


point


average.


Harris


Johnson


(1980)


study


clearly


indicates


that


a cognitive


coping


approach


treatment


in which


positive


- n .....~~~~ nfn 1 n 4-r nan 4-4t ir n;r o -,nr vnr n


0mlnm


rr n rr a I: Ilh


: Mr( ~~ M1I


rr rr An 1 a rr L n











treatment


also


serves


to highlight


individual


own


areas


competence.


Reinforcement


a sense


of mastery


appears


to be


a more


active


treatment


than


muscular


relaxation


Harris


(1980)


investigated


concept


individualized


coping


imagery


In more


detail


in a follow-up


study.


was


interested


effectiveness


different


imagery


instruc-


tion


Harris


procedures


compared


treatment


individualized


test


coping


anxiety.


imagery


Specifically


treatment


based


on non-academic


experiences


of competence


success


individualized


coping


imagery


treatment


based


on academic


experiences


competence


success.


Since


images


competence


utilized


Harris


Johnson


(1980)


study


were


non-academic


instruction


in coping


nature,

images


Harris

based


hypothesized

on previous a


that


academic


success


experiences


might


prove


even


more


effective


reducing


In addition

effective


test


anxiety


Harris


relaxation


improving


wanted


training


assess

would


academic


extent


enhance


performance.


to which

overall


treatment


ectiveness


individualized


coping


imagery


techniques.


Consequently,


she compared


four


treatment


techniques


non-academic


individualized


coping


imagery


with


relaxation


training,


non-academic


individual


t'lii nr r


1 m. cnarrty


144 -hnriil-


r0=1 ava i*-4 nn


tr n i na -


_31 I


academic r











relaxation


individualized


coping


imagery


group


without

control


relaxation


group


wer e


academic


significantly

c performance


different


(grade


from


point


average)


at post-test.


Pre-test


to post-test


treatment


changes


grade


point


average


were


significant


both


non-academic


imagery


groups


.05)


approached


significance


academic


coping


imagery


group


with


relaxation


.089).


academic


coping


imagery


treatment


without


relaxation


show


a significant


pre- treatment


to post-treatment


improvement


grade


point


average.


All


variations


individualized


coping


imagery


manifested


significant


decreases


test


anxiety


on self-report


measures.


apparent


from


results


this


study,


that


type


imagery


treatment


performance


instruction


effectiveness,


improvement.


used


treatment


particularly


academic


a bearing


in regard


imagery


to academic


condition


without


relaxation


proved


to enhance


treatment


effective-


ness.


Harris


(1980)


hypothesized


that the academic


coping


imagery

procedure


treatment

e because


without

academic


relaxation


images


was


were


a less


likely


effective


to elicit


fear


avoidance


rather


than


images


feelings


competence


these


subjects,


since


academic


experiences


are


so closely


linked


test-taking


situation.


Con-


-~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -I -- -I..* ,re .


I~'.~.~


I I. I. 'I


I


C











have


allowed


subjects


to be


more


comfortable


about


academic


imagery,


since


relaxation


training


been


hypothesized


to reduce


distracting


thoughts


physiolog-


ical


imagery


responses


with


(Lang,


relaxation


1979) .


Hence,


treatment


was


academic


more


coping


efficacious


than


non-relaxation


group,


desensitization


hierarchy


was


completed


more


efficiently.


relaxation


component


significantly


effectiveness


non-academic


individualized


coping


imagery


paradigm,


presumably


because


subjects


were


initially


more


able


to visualize


non-academic


imagery


without


fear


or avoidance.


Harri


s (1980)


study


Harris


Johnson


(1980)


study


highlight


findings


previous


research,


that


while


both


emotionality


cognitively-oriented


treatments


are


effective


improving


self-report


test


anxiety,


cognitive


treatment


approaches


multimodal


approaches


whi


ch alleviate


cognitive


performance


deficits


test-anxious


person.


Further-


more


, the


Harris


(1980)


study


indicates


that


multimodal


approaches


necessary,


if a powerful


cognitive


coping


model


applie


such


non-academic


individualized


coping


imagery


paradigm


utilized


in that


study.











General


Conclusions


While


most


early


research


area


test


anxiety


was


focused


upon


debilitating


effects


test


anxiety


(Wine,


1971),


current


research


has begun


to investi-


gate


contribution


cognitive


affective


variables


understanding


construct


test


anxiety.


Research


in the


areas


task


cue


utilization,


social-evaluative


cues,


worry-emotionality


distinction,


treatment


approaches


to test

appear


anxiety,


to be


demonstrated


operative


that


relations


cognitive

ip between


factors

test


anxiety


cognitive


task


performance


in evaluative


situations.


High


test-anxious


subjects


appear


to be


less


attentive


task


cues


more


attentive


to social-evalua-


tive


cues.


Cognitive


treatment


approaches


which


address


negative


self-statements,


task-irrelevant


attentional


patterns,


or negative


imagery


test-anxious


individual


appear


to enhance


task


performance.


While


these


studies


have


anxie


suggested


are


that


related


cognitive


to cognitive


concomitants


task


test


performance,


description


a very


spec


global


ific


evel.


cognitive


That


concomitants


high


remains


test-anxious


individual


considered


to be negatively


self-preoccupied,


test-anxious


person


is presumably


k-oriented











as more


fully


understand


test


anxiety


as a cognitive


construct,


we need


to investigate


extent


to which


test


anxiety


related


to specific


cognitive-mediational


variables.


Self-Efficacy


Theory


cognitive-mediational


variable


which


been


examined primarily


relation


to phobic


behavior,


variable


originally


self-efficacy.


conceptualized


term


Bandura


"self-efficacy"


1977)


was


as a mastery


expectancy


variable


which


could


be a powerful


predi


ctor


current

change


basic


level


following


premise


behavior, a

therapeutic


theory


s well


as a predictor


intervention.


that


In fact,


client


behavior

the


s efficacy


expectations


are


central


to behavior


change.


theory


pro-


poses


that


expectations


of personal


effi


cacy


"determine


whether


coping


behavior


will


be initiated,


much


effort


will


expanded,


long


will


sus


tainted


face


obstacles


aversive


circumstance


s" (Bandura,


1977,


191).


Through


experiences


of mastery


provided


via


various


thera-


peutic


modes,


there


enhancement


self-efficacy











gain


corrective


experiences


that


reinforce


their


sense


self-efficacy


(Bandura,


1977).


When


individuals


cease


their


coping


efforts


prematurely,


they


retain


their


debilitating


expectations


thus,


choice


fears


presumed


of behavioral


efinit


to affect


settings


ely.


coping


and


Perceived


efforts,


activities.


self-efficacy


as well


Bandura


(1977)


emphasizes


that


expect


station


sole


deter-


minant


behavior.


Expectation


of mastery,


alone,


will


produce


desired


performance


component


capabilities


are


lacking.


In addition,


there


are


many


tasks


people


can


do successfully,


which


are


performed,


because


adequate


incentives


are


not


present


However,


given


appropriate


skills


adequate


incentives,


efficacy


expectations


are


seen


Bandura


colleagues


(Bandura


Adams,


1977


Bandura,


Adams,


Beyer


, 1977),


as a major


deter-


minant


of people


s choice


of activity


employment


their


coping


efforts,


their


persistence


coping


effort


when


dealing


with


stressful


situations.


In Bandura


theoretical


analysis


, expectations


self-efficacy


are


based


on four


sources


information:


performance


accomplishments,


vicarious


experience


, 3)


verbal


persuasion,


emotional


arousal.


Bandura


(1977)


predicted


that


therapeutic


interventions


employing


enactive


- t I


, I _


t I











interpretive


treatments


desensitization).


Bandura,


or emotional


Adams,


arousal


Beyer


(relaxation,


(1977)


des

shi


signed an

p between


compare


experiment


self-efficacy

effectiveness


test

and


hypothesized


behavioral


enactive


relation-


change,


vicarious


exper-


ience


in enhancing


efficacy


expectations.


Severely


snake-


phobic


subjects


were


ass


signed


to a part


cipant


modeling


condition,


traditional


modeling


condition,


or a no-


treatment


control


group.


magnitude


subj


ects


self-efficacy


was


assesse


d by


giving


each


subject


a list


of the


tasks


used


on a behavioral


avoidance


pretest


(related


to approaching


a snake).


subjects


were


asked


to rate


tasks


they


expected


to perform


successfully.


stre


ngth


self-efficacy


was


asses


asking


each


subject


to rate


expectancy


success


each


task


terms


of a 100


point


scale


divided


into


intervals.


generality


of self-effi


cacv


was


ass


essed


asking


subjects


to rate


level


(magnitude)


and


strength


their


expectations


with


regard


to successfully


carrying


same


behavioral


task


with


an unfamiliar


snake.


results


supported


hypotheses


that


partic


ipant


modeling


technique,


with


performance


mastery


component,


instilled


high


est,


strongest,


most


generalized


afF4 t-nn~~~v a nr a r. an .4 nrA n' rn0 1n r ie 4rn4mn4


nFC; ~3 ~~t


Fh t 1 hGld rl


tf; a 3r; nrr a


Crr r a 3 CM an C


tnn


r-%.Fy











that


behavior.


self-efficacy


As a further


accurately


extension


predict


theory,


future


Bandura


Adams


(1977)


examined


role


of reducing


emotional


arousal


through


desensitization,


on self


-efficacy.


results


arousal


supported


through


hypotheses


desensitization


that


would


eliminating


enhance


emotional


subjects'


levels


self-efficacy.


was


also


found


that


level


self-efficacy


varne


d for


each


subject,


that


higher


stronger


level


self


-effi


cacy


induced


treatment


, the


greater


reduction


in avoidance


behavior.


level


self-efficacy


closely


corresponded


to approach


behavior,


and


accurately


predicted


subsequent


behavior


similar


dissimilar


tasks.


summary,


Bandura


Adams


(1977)


Bandura,


Adams,


Beyer


(1977)


demon-


strated


that


successes


reported


varying


techniques


of enactive


performance)


mastery,


vicarious


experience,


desen


sitization


can


readily


adequately


have


explained


also demonstrated


through


that


self-efficacy


level


theory.


efficacy


They


estab-


lished


intervention


significantly


affects


therapeutic


success


in overcoming


fearful


avoidant


behavior.


res


ults


suggest


that


efficacy


actually


a better


predictor


of future


behavior,


than


is past


behavior.


It is


more


--











1977,


Bandura,


Adams,


Hardy,


Howell


in press).


seems


likely


that


level


self-efficacy


might


prove


an exce


llent


predictor


of academic


success


and


career


choice.


Extending


Bandura


s res


ults


achievement


situation,


one


would


assume


that


students


with


levels


academic


self-efficacy


would


fear


avoid


subj


ects


extracurricular


outside


their


activities


repertoire


which


of coping


they


skills.


believed

These


lay

students


might


res


trict


themselves


to academic


programs


perceived


as requiring


lesser


abilities.


They


might


choose


careers


which


are


lower


in socio-


economic


career


status.


They


would


be predicted


to have


poorer


academic


per-


formance


school


Lalonde


(1979


extended


Bandura


s (1977)


theory


investigating


achievement-ori


relationship


ente


between


d behavior.


self


hypothesis


-efficacy


that


expectations


of self-efficacy


would


play


a major


role


poor

rest


grades,


ricted


res


career


tricted

r choice


future

(lower


academic

socio-


expectations,


economic


career


choice)


test


hypotheses


linking


academic


perfor-


mance,


as well


efficacy ex

to academic


academic


pectations,


career


a measure


achievement-oriented


expectations,


of self-efficacy


situations


pertaining


was











Beyer


asking


(1977)


subjects


research.


to rate


This


their


simplified


efficacy


method


expectations


successfully


completing


certain


tasks


was


effective


snake


phobics.


However,


was


so easy


to determine


efficacy


expectations


achievement


situations,


since


subjects


do not


have


a particular


identifiable


tasks


which


indicate


level


their


avoidance


behavior.


Lalonde


(1979) ,


therefore,


investigated


self-efficacy,


related


to achievement


behavior


, by


three


stages


research:


development


a paper


and


pencil


self-report


measure


academic


self-efficacy,


establishment


discriminant


and


convergent


validities


, 3)


undertaking


of a validational


experimental


study.


In order


to develop


items


Measure


Academic


Self


-Efficacy


(MASE),


Bandura


s self-efficacy


theory


research


were


carefully


examined


as background


data


defining


behavioral


characteristics


strongly


weakly


efficacious


people.


To define


as clearly


possible


behavioral


corre


latest


self


-efficacy,


twenty

staff)


judge

were


(graduate


given


psycho logy


a written


students


definition


effica


teaching

cy as well


theor


etical


statements


empirical


results


Bandura


colleagues.


judges


were


asked











classroom


behavior


ensure


that


generality


students


' academic


self-e


fficacy


was


assessed


(the


extent


to which


feelings


effi


cacy


generalize


various


academic


situations).


Bandura


(1977)


stated


that


efficacy


expec-


tancies


varied


along


three


dimensions


magnitude,


generality,


and


strength,


that


an adequate


analy


S'S


of expectancy


must


include


three


dimensions.


Efficacy


strength


generality


were


asse


ssed


employing


a five-


point


response


scale,


tapping


a wide


variety


academic


activities


behaviors.


Magnitude


of efficacy


was


more


difficult


assess


achievement-oriented


situations,


lend


since


themselves


performance


task


achievement


to rank

s relate


situations


ordering


to snakes.


do not


difficulty,

Thus, a mIT


as easily


as do


lagni tude


component


was


included


this


scale.


A reliable


scale


was


deve loped


from


an initial


item


pool


items.


final


form


Measure


Academic


Self-Efficacy


items)


(MASE)


a Hoyt


1941)


estimate


internal


reliability


scale


homog


eneity


.95,


a standard


error


measurement


t-retest


reliability


MASE


was


ove r


a one


month


period.


Convergent


discriminant


validity


MASE


was


assessed


with


a number


measures.


was


predicted


that


-I,-1 .- T1a nnCIO 17


iMsi or


tail-


nrrrP


nt-P ft


nhYlr~l


bth~ll


4m r











inte


llectual


achievement


(Intellectual


Achievement


Respon-


sibility


Questionnaire)


Crandall


, Katkovsky,


Crandall,


1965) ,


career


aspirations


expectations


coded


socioeconomic


self-concept


status


(Piers


post


-Harri


high


school


Children


career


s Self


plans,


-Concept


Scale)


ers


, 1969)


was


also


hypothesized


that


self


-efficacy


would


correlate


negatively


with


social


anxiety


social


Avoidance


stress


Scal


Watson


Friend,


1969


test


anxiety


(Test


Anxiety


Scal


, Sarason,


1958)


Finally,


an experiment


was


designed


to behaviorally


validate


MASE


testing


hypotheses


derived


from


self-


efficacy


theory


anagrams


task


was


designed


test


hypoth


eses


that


highly-efficacious


high


school


students


would


persist


longer


an anagrams


task


than


would


ess-


efficacious


students


highly-


efficacious


students


would


persi


st longer


face


of failure


than


would


ess-


effi


cacious


students


forced


failure


experienced


earlier


in the


anagrams


task


would


have


a greater


ect


on le


SS-


efficacious


students


, than


would


failure


experienced


later


These


hypotheses


were


based


on hypothe


ses


from


self


-efficacy


theory


which


state


that


highly


self


-efficacious


people


will


ers


longer


ected


at overcoming


failure,


whereas


difficulties


ess


are


self-efficacious


less


persons


are


more


ected


-,


early


experiences


of failure.


Persis-


w


w --











total


anagrams


number


anagrams


returned


proportion


anagrams


skipped,


working


until


forced


to stop


, willing-


ness to

working


return

(if f


to skipped


orced


anagrams,


to finish


prematurely


willingness

y). Failure


to keep

was


defined


terms


of the


early


vs.


late


presentation


of hard


anagrams.


anagrams


That is, an


presented


early


before


failure


medium


experience


easy


hard


anagrams.


late


failure


experience


hard


anagrams


presented


following


presentation


of medium


easy


anagrams.


terms


convergent


discriminant


validity


analyses,

predicted,


the M

with


ASE


correlated


grade


point


moderately


average,


scholast


positively,

ic aptitude,


willingness


to accept


responsibility


itive


intellectual


achievement,


self-concept.


terms


of discriminant


validity


MASE


correlated


moderately


negatively


with


social


and


test


anxiety.


This


dicted


from


self-


efficacy


theory


that


Bandura


(1977)


views


anxiety


efficacy


antithetical.


cannot


be anxious


about


one'


ability


efficacious


at the


same


time.


stronger


efficacy


expectations,


greater


reduction


anxiety


avoidance


behavior.


The

between


hypotheses

academic se


concerning


if-efficacy


proposed

career e


relationship


expectations,


f-*-1 blf r 0 r in l3


Sr'h nri1


ni anc


ciinnnrfsa


i ch~r


jj n n


~rtPYP


n


N











In addition,


with


effects


verbal


intelligence


removed,

positive


academic

predictor


efficacy


grad


scores

e point


remained

average


but

post-


secondary


school


plans.


Analyses


experimental


task


results


failed


support t


correlate


hypo the


with


that


sistence


academic


self-efficacy


an anagrams


task,


would


except


one


instance.


This


was


variable


willingness,


part


subjects


forced


to finish


early,


to return


to skipped


anagrams.


More


highly-efficacious


subjects


indicated


this


willingness.


terms


of overall


performance,


highly-


efficacious


subjects


correctly


solved


more


hard


anagrams


esis


than


concerning


the less-efficacious


effects


subjects


of encountering


failure


hypoth-

earlier


on in


task


was


supported.


Also,


interaction


effects


efficacy


experimental


condition


were


found,


indicating


that less-effica


cious


subjects


were


not,


general,


more


affected


failure


than


high-efficacious


subjects


as hypothesized.


summary


, the


data


sugge


that,


terms


internal


consistency


test-retest


reliability,


MASE


reliable

validity


provide


instrument.

correlations


suDDOrt


The

with


... ....


convergent


other


construct


discriminant


self-report


validity


instruments,


e MASE.










self-efficacy,


task


difficulty,


persistence.


A number


of explanations


were


provided


post-hoc


these


results.


most


cogent


explanation


appears


to be


that


duration


time


quately


provided


measure


task


persistence.


was


A large


sufficient


proportion


to ade-


(71%)


subjects


were


forced


to finish


prematurely


minute


time


limit


This


suggests


that


40 minutes


may


have


been


sufficient


time


to discriminate


between


high- and


low-effica


students


terms


task


persistence.


However,


study


find


that


highly-efficacious


subjects


performed


better


hard


anagrams


than


efficacious


subjects,


exhibited


more


willingness


to return


to unfini


shed


(skipped


anagrams.


Overall,


results


study


provide


tentative


support


aspects


Bandura


(1977)


theory


of self-


efficacy.


Correlations


between


MASE


scores,


other


self-


report


indices,


teacher


ratings,


indicated


that


academically


highly-efficacious


students


are


more


willing


to accept


responsibility


their


academic


successes


than


failures.


Bandura


1977)


stated


that


self-efficacy


was


enhanced


as res


ulting


only

from


when

their


subjects


own


viewed


ability,


their


rather


successes


than


function


of contextual


factor s


such


as chance,


luck,


ease


task.


Following


this


reasoning,


was


also











MASE


also


correlated


positively


with


grade


point


average,


formal


post-secondary education plans,


plans


to enroll


a degree-granting


institution,


career


expectations


with


higher


career


socio-economic


possibilities


indices


(according


presented


to a ranking


subjects).


Finally,


with


verbal


intelligence


factor


removed,


MASE


correlated


at a low,


but


positive


level


with


grade


point


average


post


sec


ondary


school


plans.


These


res


ults


suggest


that


mastery


expectancy


variable


self


-efficacy


relevant


to prediction


of academic


success


planning.


res


ults


also


relate


work


McCl


elland


(1973),


Tait


(1973) ,


Taylor


(1964),


who


found


that


non-intellec-


tual


factors


play


a role


academic


vocational


success.


Since


academic


self-efficacy


an expectancy


variable,


important


to distingui


sh it


from


other


expectancy


variables.


Maier


Rotter


Seligman


s (1966)


(1976


locus


learned


of control


theory


helplessness


s theory


seen


somewhat


analogous


to Bandura


s (1977)


self-


efficacy


theory


Measure


Academic


Self-Efficacy.


Locus


measure


of control


outcome


learned


expectancies,


help


essness,


rather


than


however,


mastery


both


expec-


tancies


Rotter


theory


concerned


with


a person'


belief


that


outcomes


are


determined


either


one


s own


RC~~~~~~*iln flnq rnf0 ilq g ll


(inf n-rna


nr hv


tnr~pe


~ ~ f 1' on s


nrlfci~a


I











outcomes


are


internally


controlled,


may


feel


a sense


efficacy,


they


believe


that


they


lack


skills


required


to perform


activity.


Maier


Seligman


s (1976)


theory


learned


helplessness,


Hopelessness


Scale


(Beck


et al.,


1974)


resemble


concept


self-


efficacy,


are


differ-


from


self-efficacy


MASE.


Learned


helplessness


also


an outcome


expectancy


variable.


It states


that


when


people


cannot


what


happens


them,


they


become


apathetic


or "learned


helpless"


stop


trying


cope


(Lalonde,


1979)


People


may


give


trying


because


they


lack


a sense


efficacy


in achieving


required


performances,


or they


may


give


trying


because


they


expect


their


efforts


to produce


no results


in an unresponsive


or punishing


environment.


To change


efficacy-based


futility


requires


development


a sense


personal


effectiveness.


change


outcome-based


futility


requires


changing


social


environment


competencies


that


they


people


already


are


rewarded


possess.


Bandura


using


suggests


that


considering


both


effi


cacy


outcome


expec


tancies


would


produce


best


prediction


of behavior


(Lalonde,


1979).


concept


achievement


motivation


developed


I1QCQII


- 1 -


M..' al 1 n4l-fL


*nhor


M~~lhll


~1


--A-


n3n


c-irn











issue


concern


over


competition


with


a standard


excellence


, and


concern


with


success


or failure


in an


academic


task.


A subject


may


describe


either


positive


negative


feelings


towar d


achievement


achievement


motive

Thus,


index,


high


and


need


still


score


achievement


high


ers


need

any


achievement.


concerns


regarding


achievement,


including


fear


failure,


or disappointment


at lack


success.


absence


achievement


concerns


indicates


achievement


motivation.


conceptualization


academic


self-efficacy,


high

tion


self-efficacy


toward


achievement


seen


terms


situations.


a positive


That


orienta-


person


a mastery


expectancy


in achievement


situations.


Low


self-efficacy


is concerned


with


achievement


failure,


that


person


perceives


a lack


personal


coping


skills


achievement


situation.


Concern


over


competitive


situations


and


academic


failure


would,


therefore,


fall


into


domain


self-efficacy.


Those


who


are


indifferent


to achievement


situations


would


fall


into


category


self-e


fficacy.


These


two


concepts


achievement


motivation,


academic


self-efficacy,


thus,


appear


to differ


theoretical


level.


They


also differ


methodologically,


that


achievement


motivation


-a~~~~ ~ ~ ~ -k A ntr.n r lE S l *f


V's1;


a nrniective


AFln


1 m ~ ~P TV


Y-LIU~J


kr











themes.


This


a radi


call


different


methodology


from


that


proposed


Lalonde


(1979


assessing


academic


self-


efficacy.


research


strongly


and


suggested


treatment


that


literature


cognitive


test


concomitants


anxiety


test


anxiety


are


important


in predicting


performance


in evaluative


situations.


Although


emotional


arousal


factors


appear


to be related


to self-report


test


anxiety,


these


factors


apparently


are


less


predictive


performance


differences


high


test-anxious


individuals.


At this


point,


cognitive


factors


which


underlie


test


anxiety


have


only


been


generally


identified.


In order


more


adequately


understand


cognitive


concomitants


test


anxiety,


necessary


to identify


specific


cognitive


variables


which


mediate


observed


performance


differences.


Bandura


proposed


a cognitive-mediating


variable,


self-efficacy,


which


appears


to predict


extent


to which


individuals


approach


or avoid


task


situations.


This


variable


also


have


relevance


understanding


cognitive


factors


underlying


test


anxiety.


Lalonde


s study


(1979


begun


to delineate


role


academic


self-efficacy


as a relevant


variable


prediction


academic


success


career


planning.











their


academic


successes,


have


career


expectations


future


plans


associated


with


greater


socio-economic


academic


achievement.


In her


study,


Lalonde


also


found


that


test


anxiety,


as measured


Test


Anxiety


Scale,


correlated


correlation


these


study


indicate'


variables,


extends


.36 with

ed some


but


work


academic s

overlapping


identity.


Lalonde,


elf-efficacy.


variance


This


examining


This


across


sertation


rela-


tionship


test


anxi


academic


self-efficacy


predictors


task


performance,


under


various


conditions.


It is


cognitive


proposed


that


concomitant


self-efficacy


test


anxiety.


is a relevant


appears


reflect


some


core


problems


test-anxious


individual


academically-evaluative


situation.


Wine


(1971)


others


(Sarason,


1975;


Meichenbaum,


1972)


have


hypothesized,


test-anxious


person


demonstrates


a performance


decrement


evaluative


situation,


because


he fails


to focus


relevant


parts


task.


Instead


he ruminates


on his


perceived


incompetence


test


situation.


Since


concept


of academic


self-efficacy


deals


with


a person'


belief


that


he has


does


not


have)


coping


skills


to master


academic


situations,


appears


that


academic


self-efficacy


is certainly


related,


nnrin* anr+-n 1


1 atra7 -


Ir trr -A-v


ac nen -f


test


anxiety


m


L-


j Ft ^-











may,


thus,


provide


some


further


information


about


modus


operandi


test-anxious


individual.


This


role


dissertation


of academic


study


self-e


an attempt


fficacy


to delineate


relates


multidimensional


construct


test


anxiety.


study


determines,


via


a multivariate


predictor


model,


extent


to which


a measure


of academic


self-efficacy,


oper-


ationalized


academic


anxiety.


as a performance


situations,


Furthermore,


mastery


related


it determines


expectancy

a measure


whether


variable


test


these


variables


jointly


singly


can


predict


task


performance


under


evaluative,


reassuring,


neutral


task


conditions.


This


study


thus,


an attempt


to establish


whether


self-


efficacy


extent


is a cognitive


to which


concomitant


there


test


non-overlapping


anxiety,


variance


across


these


variables,


in predi


cting


to cognitive


performance.


It also


determines


extent


to which


both


variables


predict


performance


under


evaluatively-stressful


conditions,


the extent to


which


this


prediction


generalizes


to non-stressful


question


conditions.


That


of whether these variables


addr


are


esses


generalized


predictors


of academic


performance,


or only


relevant


under


evaluatively-


stressful


nmto n


academic


task


40c4-


conditions.


rain nil C ~ flV1 04-1 ciiria -


tohi rh


1,r I


~nui PSt~


rPtrl nlle










related


to performance


differences


in high


test-anxious


subje


cts.


Many


studies


manipulated


instructional


conditions,


while


holding


task


demands


constant


(Sarason,


1972).


These


studies


have


generally


involved


comparisons


"ego- involving"


instructions--


these


instructions


inform


subject


that


task


performance


level


capabilities


reflective


minimal


task


intellectual


instructions--instructions


which


specifically


directions


address


solving


cognitive


an anagrams


task


task);


reassur-


ance


instructions--instructions


which


reassure


subj


ect


that


task


performance


will


be used


to evaluate


him.


Frequently,


under


this


last


condition,


subject


told


that


performance


anonymous,


only


important


that


examiner


can


examine


average


group


performance


data


(Wine,


1971;


Sarason,


1958;


Sarason


Gan


zer,


1962,


1963;


Russell


Sarason,


1965


Ganzer,


1968).


Highly


t-anxious


subjects


tend


to perform


more


poorly


following


highly


evaluative


"ego- involving"


instru


actions,


than


following


reassuring


"anonymous"


instructions.


reverse


tends


to be


true


test-anxious


subjects.


Following


highly


evaluative


instructions,


test-anxious


subjects


perform


better


than


high


test-anxious


subjects.


However,


following


reassuring


"anonymous"


instructions,


high










or minimal


task


instruction


condition,


effects


test


anxiety


task


performance,


are


wiped


out.


High


test-anxious


intermediate


subjects


between


their


perform


at equivalent


performances


levels,

highly-


evaluative


and


reassuring


conditions.


Thus,


these


particular


studies


indicate


that


tes t


anxi


appears


to be a relevant


variable


cognitive


task


performance,


task instructions


create


an evaluative


situation,


opposite


evaluative


situation


, that


, a reassuring


situation,


where


individual


performances


not


count.


However,


task


instructions


are


neutral,


minus


evaluative


component,


high


test-anxious


subjects


perform


at equivalent


levels


on a cognitive


task.


There


is only


one


study


whi


ch has


examined


self-efficacy


relation


task


conditions.


This


behavioral


validation


study,


from


Lalonde


(1979)


dissertation.


This


study


manipulate


task


instructions


manner


above.


described


In other


test


words,


anxi


subjects


studies


were


described


presented


with


instructions


varying


amount


of evaluative


emphasis o

to develop


n performance.


a failure


experience


study

e, by


did,

prese


however,

nting su


attempt


objects


with

were


anagrams

presented


varying


to subjects


degrees


in various


difficultyy

orders:


Anagrams

hard.











failure


than less-efficacious


students.


Presumably,


condition


with


hard


anagrams


presented


first


would


produce

early f


most


failure.


difficult


results


task


situation


indicated


providing


that,


terms


persistence,


the less-efficacious


students


were


more


affected


failure


experimental


experiences.


conditions,


However,


highly-effi


over


cacious


all

students


solved


more


hard


anagrams


Thus,


creation


a "forced"


failure


experience


differentially


affect


low- and


high-efficacy


students.


In conclu-


sion,


this


study


suggests


that


task


difficulty


might


differ-


entially


affect


performance


high


self-


efficacious


produced


students,


pres


but


entation


a forced


of hard


failure


anagrams


experience


early


task


will


differentially


affect


performance


groups


of subjects.


strength


results


this


study


are


somewhat


diminished


fact


that


easy


and


medium


anagram


sets


were


extremely


easy


both


groups,


thus


reducing


discriminative


power


anagram


variable.


terms


proportions


anagrams


solved,


100%


of all


of the


easy


medium


anagrams


were


solved


both


groups.


Unfortunately,


this


study


is not


comparable


~n~r O+~ a4-ia 1CC t~1iini-im~ni nii REc 1-n dr


1 nclf-reii+-i nnc\

~Cii~;ae


tirh; ~h


f~ct


fcre~


Invi8 C~f











Lalonde


study


regarding


differential


performance


highly-efficacious


and less-efficacious


students


under


varying


evaluative


conditions.


data


suggest,


however,


that


there


be overall


cognitive


performance


differences


between


low- and


high-efficacy


students,


but


specific


failure


experiences


will


differentially


performance


groups.


Hypothe


ses


regarding


differential


performance


vs.


high-e


fficacious


students


can


be generated


from


Bandura


expected


that


theory.


there


From


would


Bandura


an over


s theory, it i

11 performance


difference


on an academically-related


cognitive


task,


however,


manipulation


evaluative


vs.


non-evaluative


instructions


would


produce


differential


performance


results,


such


that


effects


efficacy


variable


would


only


be significant


under


one


or the


other


condition.


There


are


several


aspects


of Bandura


theory


which


would


suggest


that


an experimental


manipulation


would


produce


to Bandura


differential


s theory,


results.


expectations


First


all,


personal


effi


according


cacy


are


derived


from


four


sources


information:


performance


accomplishments,


vicarious


experience,


verbal


persuasion,


biological


data


(Bandura,


1977)


more


dependable


F~xa~r~ n t ~S


Snnlrne


effi cacv


infnrmai nn -


ar rea tP r


1 _I 1r


I 1 T-


I J 1











could


considered


persuasion.


to fall


subject


into

led,


the

via


category


suggestion,


verbal

to believe


that


problem-solving


task,


example


anagrams


task


use


d in the


test


anxiety


studies,


a measure


intelligence


or ability.


Thus,


subject


presumably


becomes


persuasion


ego-involved.


According


a relatively


poor


to Bandura


source


(1977) ,


providing


verbal


change


perceived


self


-efficacy.


Efficacy


expectations


induced


verbal


persuasion


are


likely


to be weaker


than


those


arising


from


one'


own


accompli


shments.


This


fact


that


verbal


persuasions


do not


provide


an "authentic


experiential


base"


beliefs


(Bandura,


1977,


198).


If subjects


already


have


a long


history


of failure


cope


with


academically-evaluative


situations,


expectations


induced


suggestion


are


likely


to dramatically


alter


performance


provided


in a positive


individual


or negative


a long


direction.


history


Thus,


failure


success


at academically-related


imposition


a bri


laboratory


manipulation


unlikely


to reduce


greatly


increase


relationship


self-efficacy


performance.


task


conditions


suggest


an academically-


difficult


task,


regardless


of whether


instructions


are


neutral,


reassuring,


or evaluative,


perceived


self


compe-


4-on~~~~~~rn r; a -~m 3-A r n rFrnmnr


rj; 11


rnl~Carl


Ca


Canna











total


pattern


strongly


experiences

efficacious


in which the

person, after


failures

efficacy


occur.

expec-


stations


are


developed


through


repeated


success,


negative


reduced


impact


(Bandura,


instructions


are


of occasional


1977).


unlikely


failures


same


to induce


likely


token,


feelings


to be


,"te su n


coping


mastery


in a person


with


poor


self-efficacy


long


standing,


academic


situations.


Thus,


variable


of academic


self-efficacy,


task


instructions


are


likely


to signifi-


cantly


reduce


increase


relationship


between


self-


efficacy


cognitive


task


performance.


In the


present


study,


test


anxiety


self-efficacy


are


both


used


to predict


performance


under


evaluative,


neutral,


reassuring


task


ins


tructions.


According


research


findings


discussed


above


in regard


test


anxi


theoretical


issues


presented


terms


self-efficacy,


test


anxiety


will


interact


with


instruc-


tional


condition


when


predicting


performance


on a


cognitive


interact


task.


with


is expec


instructional


that


self-efficacy


condition


when


will


predicting


performance


on a cognitive


task


It is expected


that


test


anxiety


will


account


a significant


amount


variance


in performance


under


evaluative


reassuring


* Sr~Lwrr~


3 a ~; '


^ ^


snnhtrnC


V r-


rrrr~


nn


I-











on a cognitive


task


regardless


task


instructions


presented


to the


subj


ect.


If this


differential


prediction


test


anxiety


academic


self


-efficacy


supported,


this


suggests


that


these


are


different,


but


overlapping


dimensions,


performance,


which


beyond


facilitate


knowledge


prediction


of ability


cognitive


level.


cognitive


task


which


was


presented


subjects


was


a series


anagrams.


This


laboratory


analog


task


was


chosen


because


been


shown


to be


a sensitive


measure


of cognitive


task


performance


differences


related


test


anxiety


under


evaluative


reassuring


instructional


conditions


(Sarason


Stoops,


1978;


Sarason,


1972;


Russell


Sarason,


1965).


In addition,


final


grades


each


subjects


their


General


Psychology


class


were


obtained,


see


whether


test


anxiety


self


-efficacy


would


also


predict


to a cognitive


performance


measure


which


meaning


side


of the


laboratory


chology


measure


was


because


setting.


chosen


was


final


external


one


grade


cognitive


performance


General


performance


measures


which


subjects


would


have


in common.


Even


though


subjects


were


same


sections,


there


was


some


similarity


type


of materials


level


of difficulty


nrss~nt sSI


.1n 1


ii i rr


p~fe


erih ~


nth rs r


rrr~~aa


~nltr E~


|











final


grade


General


Psychology


was


readily


available


use


investigator.


hypotheses


proposed


this


study,


given


existing


literature


theory,


were


following:


Academic


self-efficacy


would


be moderately


negatively


correlated


with


test


anxiety.


Test

under


anxiety


would


evaluative


predict


anagram


reassuring


tas


performance

k instructions,


but


not


as eff


actively


under


neutral


instructions,


in accordance


Self-efficacy


under


with


would


evaluative,


test


predict


neutral,


anxiety


anagram


literature.


performance


reassuring


task


instructions,


in accordance


with


Bandura'


theory


Cognitive


ability


level,


as means


ured


an aptitude


test,


would


account


a significant


amount


variance


predicting


to cognitive


task


performance,


provided


there


were


suffi


cient


variation


in aptitude


scores.


range


aptitude


scores


was


reduced,


then


predictive


power


cognitive


ability


would


be reduced,


well.


Test


anxiety,


self-efficacy,


aptitud e


scores,


would


Psychology,


be predictive


as measured


of performance


subject


General


s final


















CHAPTER


TWO


METHOD


Subjects


subjects


were


undergraduate


students


enrolled


introductory


psychology


course


sec


tions


(PSY


2013)


University


Florida


during


Fall


Semester,


1981.


They


were


required


to participate


in experimental


studies


in order


to complete


their


course


requirement.


Procedure


subjects


signed


experimental


sessions,


which


were


held


one


week


apart.


They


were


required


complete


both


sessions


in order


receive


credit


participation


study.


Those


subjects


who


completed


both


sessions


were


included


study


(n=234 .


inves


tigator


was


assisted


data


collection


sessions


four


undergraduate


psyc


hology


majors


, who


administered


niipqth-i nnnsi r


iir1'1 nir


Ifi ,rf*


Efla f


i nn s


cnnndnntf~i


!" | rj


T~T


r Kr| ,











During


initial


testing


session,


subjects


received


Test Anxiety


Scale


Measure


Academic


Self


-Efficacy


The


Test


Anxi


Scal


, developed


Sarason


(1972) ,


iSa


item


scale


frequently


used


assess


test


anxiety.


true/fal


test,


yields


one


total


score


Test


-retest


reliabiliti


over


.80 have


been


reported


interval


several


weeks


Sarason, 1978)


on a sample


female


undergraduates.


Wagaman,


Cormi


Cormier


(1975)


reported


test


-retest


reliability


coefficient


This


test


been


utilized


identify


high


and


test-anxious


individual


most


research


conducted


Sarason


colleagues


(Sarason,


1968,


1972


, 1973a,


1975;


Sarason,


Pederson,


Nyman,


1968;


Sarason


Stoops


, 1978).


It has


been


used


many


other


rese


arch


studies


area


test


anxie


(Wine,


1971;


Spielberger,


Anton,


Bedell,


1976;


Wine,


1980)


subj


ects


were


also


admini


stereo


Measure


Academi


Self


-Efficacy


(MASE)


developed


Lalonde


(1979)


a 64


item


test


designed


assess


self-efficacy


in academic


situations


The


Hoyt


estimate


internal


consistency


reliability


test


was


found


to be


.95,


while


test-retest


reliability,


over


a one


month


period,


t~~~~ina~Er -IrC ri-I U1n*gnii n


a CacnTnl


MBS'I;1


wLI


I rilu


ill nn-l


*I no


w r


Sr i r











response


were


controlled


having


equal


numbers


negatively


infrequency


positively


items


worded


scale.


items,


Social


inclusion


desirability


a response


was


controlled


employing


Jackson


s (1966)


stringent


correlated


social


item


more


selection


highly


desirability


procedure.


with


scale


Only


efficacy


were


included


those


scale


in the


items


than


final


which


with


scale.


MASE


contains


a Likert-type


format.


subjects


were


required


assess


their


response


to each


item


on a


five


point


scale,


ranging


from


"never


or rarely


true"


to "almost


always


or always


true.


This


test


took


approxi-


mately


10-15


minutes


to complete,


entire


initial


testing


session


took


approximately


30 minutes.


At the


time


initial


ting


session,


subjects


also


gave


their


written


permit


ssion


to release


inve


stigator,


their


verbal


quantitative Scholastic


Aptitude


Test


scores


and


final


grades


in PSY


2013


(Intro-


ductory


Psychology).


Scholastic


Aptitude


Test


(SAT)


scores


were


obtained


from


Regi


star


s office,


grades


were


obtained


from


individual


instructors.


end of


initial


ting


session,


subjects


were


told


to return


an additional


testing


sess


ion,


one


week


later.


S th 1tnr


4-At *4-* n I


F; n~t


cr ~m: ~ :


nCrrC: n*r


nnnA


Ilrnn


c


1











several


Sarason,


test


1973a,


anxiety

1973b;


studies

Russell,


(Sarason,


Sarason,


Stoops,


1965;


1978;


Crager,


1959).


Sargent


series


anagrams


cons


anagrams


which


are


divided


into


three


difficulty


levels


easy,


medium,


hard


Prior


beginning


actual


dissertation


study,


a pilot


study


been


conducted,


to select


anagrams which

challenge, yet


of performance.


would

not s


be difficult


o difficult


In order


enough


to present


as to provide


assess


level


no range


of difficulty


Sargent


(1940)


anagrams


this


college


population,


52 subjects


were


administered


of Sargent


s anagrams.


They


were


given


unlimited


time


to complete


anagrams;


however,


they


were


assesse


d for


amount


time


took


to complete


13 most


difficult


anagrams.


This


was


done


order


to provide


an estimate


an appropriate


time


limit


presentation


anagrams


eventually


selected.


percentage


of subj


ects


solving


each


anagram


correctly


was


computed.


was


found


that,


this


pilot


sample,


not

most


of Sargent


"most

most


difficult.


difficult"

difficult a


anagrams


.nagrams


were


this


sample


were


solved


to 69%


the sample.


Eight


- t -- -


II


Lt


L


-Y- 1.----


r urr\


*











completion


of Sargent'


s "hard"


anagrams.


was


found


that


they


took


a mean


time


43 minutes


to complete


these


anagrams.


After


this


initial


pilot


study


was


completed,


additional

31 subjects


pilot

were


study

given


was

all


conducted.


aspects


For

the


this


full


study,


ssertation


study,


including


both


stionnaire


sess


(first


sess


ion)


experimental


ses


sion


(second


sess


ion)


purpose


second


pilot


study


was


to essentially


experimental


material


instructions,


time


limits


to be


used


full


dissertation


study


actual


was


dissertation


following


study,


manner.


Prior


second


session


second


sess


ion,


subjects


were


randomly


ass


signed


one


three


experimental


conditions


neutral


, reassuring


, or evaluative


instructions.


When


they


attended


second


session


they


were


task


taken


under


to separate


one


rooms


three


given


instructional


anagrams


conditions.


instructions


were


administered


undergraduate


assis-


tants.


Condition


one,


"neutral"


instructional


condition,


involved


following


instructions


(adapted


from


Russell


Sarason,


1965).


These


instructions


were


read


aloud


- -- 1~ 2 -- -- -











This
probl
give
anagr
mixed
ingfu
from
words


part


em-s
you
am i
up,
i wo
each
. S


answers
column.
the back


have


olvin
to so


saw
and
rd.
anag
olve


the
g t
lyve
ord
you
Onl
ram
the


on the
If you
s of th


minutes


pr
n
e


experiment


ask.
are
with
r tas
y one
, and
anag
oblem
eeds
answe


to sol


The p
called
the 1
k is t
word
they
rams,
Sheet
cratch
r shee
ve the


involves


robl
Sana
ette
o ma
can
are
and
s in
pap


ts.


ems


gr
rs
ke
be
al
wr
t
er
Y


a
will


ams. An
all
a mean-
made
1 common
ite the
he answer
, use
ou will


anagram


task.


subjects


"evaluative"


condition


received


same


basic


instructions


given


subjects


"neutral"


condition,


plus


an added


evaluative


component:


This


problem
give yo
anagram
mixed u
ingful
from ea
words.
answers
column.
backs o
are a m
abstrac
above a
student
particu
difficu
You wil
task.


part


'u
L
PU
p
w
W
.C


experiment


solvin
to so
is a w
, and
ord.
h anag


Solve
on the
If yo
the a
asure
terms
erage
have
ar ana
ty, so
have


g tas
lve a
ord w
your
Only
ram,
the a
prob
u nee
answer
of th
. Hi
intel
been
grams
you
45 mi


k.
re c
ith
task
one
and
nagr
lem
d sc
she
e ab
ch s


The
all
the
is
wor
the
ams
she


ch
ch


ligenc
found
quick
should
nutes


involves


problem
ed anag
letter
to mak
d can b
y are a
, and w
ets in
ch pape
SThes


to
Sst
,nd
sol
and
yve
sol


ms


th
ude
mos
ve
wi
lit
ve


will


ams. An
all
a mean-
made
1 common
ite the
he answer
, use the
anagrams
ink in
nts of
t college
these
th little
tle trouble.
the anagram


subjects


"reassuring"


condition


were


also


given


same


basic


instructions


as subjects


"neutral"


r


I











This


part


problem-


experiment


solving


task.


involves


problems


will


give


you


anagram


to solve


a word


are


called


with


anagrams.
letters all


mixed


word.


your
Only


anagram,
Solve th


problem


task
one w


they


or


anagrams,


s to
d can


are


and


sheets


make


a meaningful


be made
common


write


answer


from


each


words.
answers
column.


you


need


answer


anagrams


scratch


sheets


before


paper,


Most


, or have


use
you


backs


have


worked


probably
n them.


seen


These


they
books
not f
some
this
will


anagrams


are


harder


work


than


or magazines.


min


sh all


happens
find th


45 minutes


same


most
Cons


them,


anagrams
, don't


very


worry


anagrams


to solve


way,
, have


equently,


you


however,
seen in
you may


may


find


difficult.


about


easy.


one


will


have


anagrams


anagrams


anagrams


task


success fully


was


complex


scored


ted.


total


As shown


number


above,


subjects


were


given


minutes


to solve


anagrams


task.


time


limit


was


selected


from


second


pilot


study


discussed


previously


that


study,


subjects


been


given


minutes


to solve


anagrams,


although


there


was


an acceptable


range


of performance,


some


anagrams


were


solved


only


of the


very


subj


subj


ects,


ects


"ELSAUX"


"E IVARR"


was


was


solved


solved


only


the subjects


In general,


these


thirteen


words


appeared


slightly


the original


more

pilot


difficult

group.


ese


Therefore


subjects


than


actual


U
a- a an .5.. .5.- a 4.- -- -I- 1~ -4- J-1- -- -


~,,!3,3


Lt


,L., 3..


L


.,,,~,


,,


A


,,,


L











Statistical


Anal


analy


ses


were


conducted


using


Statistical


Analysis


stem


SAS)


(Helwig,


Council,


1979)


packaged


programs


multiple


regress


analy


ses.


primary


programs


utilized


were


GLM


(general


linear


mode


Stepwise


(stepwise


regression).


Prior


regress


analy


ses


being


conducted,


was


necessary


to randomly


select


subj


ects


a main


sample


a validation


sample.


Out


subjects,


there


were


21 subjects


were


missing


data


independent


variables

or self-e


either


fficacy


aptitude

scores.


scores


Most


test


these


anxiety

subjects


scores,

were


missing


scores


various


reasons


(foreign


students,


junior


college


transfers,


etc.) .


Four


subj ects


were


missing


test


anxiety


or self efficacy


scores,


to lack


of comply


etion


stionnaires


These


21 subje


were


generally


excluded


from


regression


analy


ses


, although


their


scores


were


include


in means


analy


ses


Pearson


R correlations.


An additional


three


subj


ects


were


included


anagram


analy


ses


, but


exc


luded


grade


analy


ses


because


they


have


grades


2013


(Intro-


ductory


Psychology)


course


remaining


subjects


were


randomly


selected











randomization


was


accomplished


computer,


using


a random


seed


procedure


from


system


(Helwig


Council,


1979).


The initial


analy


ses


involved


testing


original


proposed


dependent


models


, one


variable,


anagram


one


performance


grade


performance


dependent


variable.


After


ese


models


were


tested,


stepwise


regre


ssion


was


conducted


to establish


best


models


both


grade


anagram.


These


analyses


included


variables


from


original


proposed


models


as well


one


additional


acting


with


because


international


self-efficacy.


was


hypothesized


variable,


This


that


test


variable


test


anxi


was


anxiety


inter-


included


might


interact


with


self-efficacy


predicting


performance


dependent


measures,


it might


enhance


model


beyond


the original


proposed


linear


variables.


Finally,


analyses


variance


were


conducted


establish


whether


this


study


would


replicate


findings


of previous


studies


which


employed


similar


manipulations


test


anxiety


instructions,


yet


utilized


an anal


variance


model


rather


than


a linear


regression


model


data


analyses.


















CHAPTER


THREE


RESULTS


Descriptive


statistics


were


calculated


continuous


variables


study


test


anxi


ety,


self-


efficacy,

quantitati


Scholastic A

ve combined,


Latitude


Test


verbal


(SAT)

alone,


verbal


quantitative


alone,


grade,


anagram


Table


In addition,


Pearson


r corre


lation


matri


ces


were


calculated


on all


quantitative


variables


, for


combined


main


validation


sample


n=213


(Table


As hypothesis


zed,


test


anxiety


correlated


moderately


negatively


with


self-efficacy,


.0001)


Initially,


multiple


regrets


sion


analy


ses


were


conducted


both


grade


anagram


dependent


variables.


initial


model


include


group


instructional


condition),


test a

tative


anxiety


anxiety,


SATQ)


, group


self-efficacy,


interactions

self-efficacy


verbal

between

, group


(SATV), S

group and

and SATV,


quanti-


test

and


group


SATQ


initial


analysis


, using


anagram


dependent


TPW Vh al-^^ a


#alllt;


r' n~: nnC n~


tt~r; ~klnE


Ck~C


I


tnn


r







7).












0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
*I-4 p-I
0) a) 0 0 ci
U) U> ci 0 N r-4
H (N N N
.0

$4
'U
00 g g g
.44 0 0
C r4r4
di CIU 0 0 H 0
-H> ~-D en
ri (N (N
ci
Q4
U,
0
Fe
C '00
(U $4-H 0 (N H a) 0
w en ci (N
Ii rem S S S
C C-H N N (N N en
ci 0> C" a) a)
'0 4,0)
C
H U)
ci 0
C
iU H
C H N (N 0
5.4 Eu S S S S
o (1) tO 0 0 a) en -.
H N (N
LA U]
(5) 0)
o H
ri
44 0)
(I) V
--a (N (N '.0 '0 a)
44 Z en ci H H ci 44
ri ri ri -4
44 -1-i
U)

U
-ri U) -H
4-) > 4-i
0.1 -H U]
-H >1 4-' Eu
$4 >1 U Eu H
o 44 0 44 0
CO C) C) U v-I -H
C) H ri H Eu ~I.J C)
o .0 X '4-4 .0 C U)
Eu C '4-i S-i 'U
r1 U) II
$4 I > 01 $4 C)
44 4-' I I Fe H
























a)
Ca)
ore

Go"
SI.'
00"
A
cow
Ow
r-4-r-I
(U
.,.4rd
etc
C',
WV
4J*n
o#Q
0
002
Uc
4-JO)
a)
4C
*r144
a)
Ott,
'do
rUm
WV
010)
4-'
O
0
COH
CC'4
Oh


'-40
a)
WO)
$4-

'U
r-4U2
'-4
"cm
('I


4-1(/2
0)
Lw"
we'
CJ2H
"C


a)
X '0
CO
9 -rP
M -
0) CL
04.'


lr14











self-efficacy


.05)


SATV


.02)


, SATQ


.03) .


main


effect


group


instructional


condition


was


not


significant,


neither


were


interaction


ects


test


anxiety


group,


self


-efficacy


group,


SATV


group,


SATQ


group.


r2 for


this


model


was


.14.


same


process


ting


original


proposed


model


was


also carried


grade


variable.


model


tested


included


five


main


variables


group,


test


anxiety,


self-efficacy


, SATV,


SATQ


, as well


interaction


group


with


other


four


variables.


In this


initial


model,


none


variables


reached


significance


.05)


level


or better.


this


model


was


.13.


Validation


analy


ses


were


conducted


both


anagram


model


grade


model.


For


anagram


model,


observed


scores


validation


sample


(n=51)


were


correlated


with


their


expected


scores


Based


regression


equation


generated


from


main


sample.


Pearson


r correlation


was


.12,


which


was


signi


ficant


indicating


that


results


with


this


sample


of n=162


be stable


when


this


model


replicated


with


other


samples


of equivalent


size.


Validation


analyses


were


also


conducted


grade


wtn~alr. H aa r'y a A a a ra r rT -^ no tr 4A-.4 a Inn 1


mn rl a 1


aka


hkEd m~d~


~ ~mn 1 n


ah rd ~


rnr


tno











Pearson


r correlation


was


.34,


which


was


significant


level


of probability.


This


model


did


replicate


validation


sample.


Additional


analyses


were


also


conducted


with


reduced


models


both


grade


anagram


including


main


effects


only).


In both


anagram


grade


models,


main


effects


group


interaction


group


with


other


variables


were


eliminated


from


models.


tests


were


conducted,


comparing


grade


reduced


anagram,


models


results


full


were


models.


significant,


both


indi-


eating


that


presence


group


main


effects


group


interactions


not


significantly


enhance


models.


Hence,


they


were


removed


from


additional


analyses.


Since


values


both


anagram


model


grade


model


were


relatively


low,


and .13,


respectively,


appeared


that


initial


propo


sed variables


accounted


only


a relatively


small


proportion


variance


performance.


It appeared


likely


that


other


variables


might


account


Other


more


variables


variance


currently


provide


model


better


might


models.


correlate


more


highly


with


anagram


grade


performance.


appeared


appropriate,


after


testing


initial


models,


build


a better


model


through


stepwise


regression


n~~~~~~~~~~m tnC nnAa -a t ,-.atynar 4 r


ram--


n rh ~n~rr rh


ck n


hF


hf


I7CI











between


variables.


Since


text


anxiety


self-efficacy


were


hypothesized


to jointly


predict


cognitive


task


per-


formance,


was


additionally


hypoth


esized


that


interaction


test


anxiety


self-efficacy


might


predict


cognitive


performance


more


effectively


than


test


anxiety


self-efficacy


operating


within


model


linear


fashion.


In this


stepwise


proc


edure


main


effect


variables


were


included,


i.e. ,


test


anxiety,


self-efficacy,


SATV,


SATQ.


anxiety


In addition,


self-efficacy


interaction


TESTSE)


was


test


included


model,


as discussed


above.


In order


to estimate


"best"


model,


was


necessary


use


available


data.


Hence,


main


stepwise


this


sample


regression


case,


validation


was


subjects


run


were


sample


were


complete


included


merged,


sample.


stepwise


analysis


grade,


subjects


were


included


stepwis e


analysis


anagram.


A stepwise


regression


analyst


complete


sample


was


conducted


anagram


dependent


variable


(n=213).


stepwise


analysis


yielded


variables


as significant


predictors


anagram


task


performance.


These


variables


were


test anxiety,


interaction


test


anxiety


with












this


model


was


.04.


overall


F value


was


210)


=4.54,


.01.


stepwise


regression


analysis


grade


on a


sample


n=210


three


subj ects


main


sample


have


grade


data),


variables


were


significant


predictors


grade


performance.


These


variables


were


test


anxiety


SATQ.


model


was


=.07.


The overall


value


this


model


was


207)


.74,


.0006


Test


anxiety


was


a significant


predi


ctor


variable


.02,


SATQ


was


significant


Validation


analy


ses


were


conducted


stepwise


regression


model


developed


from


complete


sample


(one


grades,


one


anagram)


First,


model


anagram


were


grade


used


developed


a standard


multiple


full


stepwise


regression


regression,


performed


main


samples


Then


these


models


were


validated


smaller


validation


sample


samples


were


merged


final


regression


res


ults


are


reported.


anagram


model


(test


anxiety


TESTSE


predi


ctors


main


sample


was


validated


validation


sample


correlation


between


the expected


score


observed


score


was


r=.ll


, which


was


non-s


significant.


validation


sample


was


combined


with


main


sample,


--


.9 -n m .- -


~rr~lrn:a


t nla~


9


I


I


mt


-











same


analyses


described


above


anagram


were


also


done


with


grade


dependent


variable.


stepwise

grade pe


regression


rformance


found


was


test


that


anxiety


best

SATQ.


model

The


predicting

standard


regress


procedure


(GLM)


was


used


to analyse


this


model


main


sample.


This


model


was


then


validated


cross-validation


sample.


expected


value


grade


was


correlated


with


observed


value,


validation


sample,


Pearson


r was


found


to be


which


was


significant


.03.


Hence,


this


model


was


validated.


validation


sample


was


then


combined


with


main


sample,


and


a multiple


regression


analysis


was


formed


combined


sample


211) .


results


yielded


an r2


.07.


Test


anxi


contributed


significantly


to the


model,


with


a probability


.03.


SATQ


also


contributed


significantly


mod


with


a probability


.02.


In addition,


several


analy


ses


of variance


were


conducted


on smaller


to determine


whether


results


this


study


would


replicate


previous


test


anxiety


studies


which


employed


an analysis


variance


in statistical


analyses.


first


analysis


variance


examined


instruction


variable


, group,


test


anxiety,


in a 3


. S


* S


nfl ~ .4--- -S -d~ l -t I-* n4 AA ,-


- n ,


r=.30,


~~lt~: A I1L~


m: r3 rl 1


mn~Al


)d A II A n


* I


Illk











condition.


test


anxiety


classification,


high


test-anxious


subjects


were


drawn


from


upper


lower


score


distribution.


score


ranges


three


Test


Anxiety


Scale


groups


were


high


test


anxiety,


anxiety,


21-37,


0-10.


middle


These


test


cutoff


anxiety,


scores


11-20,


corresponded


test


almost


identically


those


used


Sarason


(1972).


In this


analysis


variance


with


group


test


anxiety


independent


variables ,


anagram


performance


dependent


variable,


overall


F value


was


significant,


there


were


no significant


main


effects


or interactions,


although


group


main


effect


approached


significance


.07).


same


analysis


variance


was


also


conducted


grade


dependent


variable.


In this


analysis


overall


value


was


significant,


218)


.03)


There


was


a signifi-


cant


main


effect


test


anxiety


.01).


Further


analyses


compare


were

e the


conducted with

individual tes


Duncan


anxiety


s Multiple


means.


Range

The r


Test


results


indicated


that


high test anxiety


group


received


signifi-


cantly


lower


grades


.05)


than


middle


test


anxiety


groups


, but


these


groups


significantly


differ


from


each


other.


nfl~~h AA~ n1a rii tmA r


r~nneiiint~rd


~n~lt~~; d


W;IC


tl~Y1


n











anxiety


groups


with


same


cutoff


scores


as above.


self-efficacy


measure,


subjects


were


classified


into


high


and


self-efficacy


groups,


were


upper


and


lower


score


stribution.


remaining


subjects


were


classified


into


middle


self-efficacy


groups.


score


ranges


three


self-efficacy


groups


were


follows


high


self-efficacy,


or greater,


middle


self-efficacy


, 222-261,


self-efficacy,


lower.

with a


Again,


inagram


as in

the


previous


dependent


analysis


variable,


variance


overall


value


was


significant,


and


there


were


no significant


main


effects


interactions.


When


grade


was


used


dependent


variable,


overall


F value


was


significant;


however,


there


was


a significant


main


effect


tes t


anxiety


.01)


Duncan


s Multiple


Range


Test


indicated


again


that


lower


high


grades


test-anxious


than


middle


group


received


significantly


test-anxious


group


.05).


















CHAPTER


FOUR


DISCUSSION


Test


anxiety


self-efficacy


correlated


significantly


a moderate


negative


relationship.


correlation


was


very


similar


correlation


coefficient


found


Lalonde


dissertation


study,


r=-


(Lalonde,


1979).


These


results


indicate


that


test


anxiety


self-efficacy


are


moderately


related,


identical


constructs.


In the


initial


model,


with


anagram


dependent


variable,


test


anxiety,


self-efficacy,


verbal,


quantitative,


However,


were


significant


instructional


condition


predictors


(evaluative,


of performance.


reassuring,


neutral)


was


neither


significant


as a main


effect,


nor


interaction


with


other


variables.


Therefore,


hypothesis


that


test


anxiety


would


interact


with


task


instructions,


was


supported


data.


was


predicted


that


self-efficacy


would


interact


with


instructions,


this


was


supported


these


results.


was


also


hypothesized


that


test


anxiety,


self-


efficacy,


verbal,


quantitative,


would


predict











Validation


anal


yses


conducted


on both


original


anagram


both.


grade


original


models


yielded


anagram


model,


different


based


res


on 162


ults


subjects,


cross-validate,


indicating


that


results


this


model


be stable


when


replicated


with


a comparably


sized


sample.


However,


if the


data


from


main


sample


are


merged


with


data


from


validation


sample,


resultant


regression


model,


based


on 213


subjects,


prove


to be stable.


Validation


analyses


conducted


original


grade


model


indicated


that


this


original


model


validate


smaller


validation


sample.


This


result


indicates


that


this


model


would


be stable


replicated


in another


sample.


main


results


study,


based


on the stepwise


regression


with


anagram


dependent


variable,


indicated


that


tes t


anxiety,


interaction


test


anxiety


with


self-efficacy,

performance.


were

Test


both si

anxiety,


.gnificant


a main


predictors

effect, r


anagram


elated


negatively


to performance.


stepwise


regression


analysis


grades,


test


anxiety


SATQ


were


found


to be significant


predictors


of grades


received


introductory


psychology


course.


fact


that


test


anxiety


interact


with


instructional


i a nntrarv


s.vtra lo


,


~n nrl ~ f i nn


1~1


I L











instructional


manipulation


indicated


inconclusive


results.


Some


studies


have


found


a main


effect


test


anxiety,


with


high


test-anxious


subjects


doing


more


poorly


than


test-anxious


subjects,


but


test


anxiety


instruction


interaction


Sarason, Mandler,


Craighill,


1952


Mandler


Sarason,


1965).


Sarason,

Although


Crager,


test


1959;


anxiety


Russell


instruction


interaction


has been


found


some


researchers,


an unequivocal


finding.


It could


be speculated


that


current


study


find


test


anxiety


instruction


interaction


because


method


data


analysis.


previous


studies


utilized


tical


an analysis


analysis,


of variance


classifying


ANOVA)


subjects


model


into


in statis-


high


test


anxiety


groups


median


split)


or three


test


anxiety


groups


low,


middle,


high).


current


study


treated


data


continuous


form


analyzed


data


within


multiple


regression


framework.


In order


answer


this


question,


the data


from


this


study


were


analyzed


ANOVA


model


to make


analyses


more


comparable


previous


studies.


analysis


of variance


test


anxiety


instruc-


tions,


with


anagram


dependent


variable


found


- 2 2 .C I -- -- ~ n -n


i-I, nr


nn a; nni P4 t-mn


mt, *L


TiT











type


of instruction,


as related


to anagrami


performance.


On the


other


hand,


there


was


a significant


relationship


between


test


anxiety


grade


performance,


with


high


t-anxious


subjects


doing


significantly


more


poorly


than


middle


or low


test-anxious


subjects


their


general


psychol-


course.


When


analyses


were


conducted


using


test


anxiety,


self-efficacy,


instructions


as independent


variables


ANOVA


neither


significant


model,


anagram


similar


analysis


overall,


results


nor


grade


were


grade


analysis


obtained.


analysis


found


that


Although


were


test


anxiety


was


grade


analyses


significantly


analy


that


ses


test


related


replicated


anxiety


to grade


findings


a negative


performance.


regression


relationship


school


performance.


These


analyses


also


confirmed


previous


test


anxiety


studies


which


have


found


that


test


anxiety


a negative


effect


on cognitive


task


performance


(Wine,


1971) .


With


anagram


dependent


variable,


however,


no significant


results


were


found.


This


study


replicate


those


previous


test


anxiety


studi


which


found


test


Sarason,


anxiety


1973b)


instruction


however, it


interaction


replicate


(Sarason,


those


1961;


studies


which


found


a ge


neral


negative


relationship


between


test


anxiety


performance


(Russell


Sarason,


1965;


Crager,


, nr n


a a- 4 -- n'-4 -..-.... -'*l~. f % U* ~ 'tn


CI 112*: CI FIL~


~IIILYI~L1


~~lyl


A


^ fa











interaction.


It also


appears


from


these


ANOVA


analyses,


that


test


grade


anxiety.


measure


This


more


sensitive


fortunately


effects


case,


because


anagram


grade


task


is a meaningful


ANOVA


a contrived


measure


with


analyses


laboratory


performance


anagram


measure,


school.


task


replicate


findings


from


multiple


regression


model,


that


test


anxiety


self-efficacy


interact


to predict


performance.


is possible


that


results


replicate


because


effect


small,


ANOVA


analysis


not


sens


itive


enough


to pick


this


relation-


ship.


Cohen


(1968)


proposed


that


linear


regression


analyses


increase


size


of statistical


effects


over


ANOVA


models


36%.


Although


there


are


major


limitations


interpre-


stations


to be made


from


regression


analyses


anagram


performance,


model,


given


some


amount


culative


variance


tentative


accounted


interpretations


can


be made


from


finding


an interaction


between


test


anxiety


self-efficacy


Although


only


tentative


finding,


this


interaction


is rather


interesting


worth


discussing.


interaction


between


test


anxiety


self-


efficacy


can


be analyze


ed by


breaking


into


subs


ec-


U -a -1 at. a aII e -- -A--a


__Y *


- cc ~ ~


n!


rrru


LL


L











effect


test-anxiety.


In order


interpret


these


effects,


one


takes


original


regression


equation


total


sample


(n=213


, setting


equation


zero,


one


can


compare


effect


a one


unit


change


test-anxiety


with


anxiety


no change


test-anxiety,


on performance.


Similarly,


assess


one


effect


can


test


compare


effect


a one


unit


change


self-efficacy


with


change


self-efficacy,


assess


effect


of self-


efficacy


on performance.


test


anxiety


effect


was


found,


as follows:


A
Ani


=7.6518-


.2375


TA)+


.0012


TA*SE)


.6518-


A A
Anl-An2=-


SE=.2375/


.2375(TA+1)+. 0012((TA+1)*(SE)


.2375+. 0012(


.0012


SE=197


(TA=


test-anxiety,


SE=self-efficacy


n=expected


anagram


score)


one


unit


change


test


anxiety


score


is expected


corres


pond


to a change


in anagram


score


.2375


.0012


(self-efficacy).


one


solves


equation


(setting


equation


to zero),


it is


found


that


at a self-e


cacy


score


test


anxiety


no eff


ect.


When


self-


efficacy


scores


exceed


, then


effect


test


anxiety











These


results


suggest


that


two


persons


with


high


self-efficacy,


one


relatively


higher


test


anxiety,


then


that


person


will


have


better


anagram


performance.


Conversely,


subjects


with


self-efficacy,


one


higher


tes t


anxiety


relative


other,


then


anagram


performance


person


is expect


magnitude


to be lower


expected


diff


than


other


erence


will


nec


essarily


depend


actual


placement


self-


efficacy


scores


within


distribution.


Test


anxiety


can,


therefore,


effect


have


either


depending


a relatively


level


positive


self-efficac


or negative

y. At higher


levels


self-efficacy,


test


anxiety


a positive


effect,


at lower


levels


of self-efficacy,


test


anxiety


negative


effect.


These


results


suggest


that


when


a person


high


self-efficacy,


i.e.,


a strong


beli


their


ability


persist


to master


academic


situations,


then


worry


they


experience


regarding


tests


other


evaluative


situations


facilitative


of performance.


other


hand,


a person


self-efficacy,


or believes


that


they


lack


coping


skills


to master


academic


situations,


then


their


worry


preoccupation


regarding


testing


situations


is likely


to be debilitating


to performance.


less


SC0 1 f-off A mr4 ii


- --- .1--


nar nn l ILa t *ri 0~J ~ ~


tacf


nLlrl!nne


~rlrr~~r~


I


I











depending


upon


person


s general


expectancies


regarding


their


ability


to successfully


cope


with


academic


tasks.


Although


general


trend


literature


been


to perceive


test


anxiety


as debilitative,


theorists


related


areas


have


suggested


that


"worry"


can


have


positive


aspects.


Janis


(1958)


has discussed


"work


worrying"


as a means


dealing


effectively


with


a challenging


reality


mobilizing


approaching


situation.


strategies


difficult


Worry


can


ahead


be utilized


time,


situation.


to help


Janis


as a means


solve


theorized


that


when


worry


involved


experienced


mental


cognitions


rehearsal


expectations,


adaptively,


which

which


person


produces

function


becomes


reality-based

as a source o


hope


reassurance.


course


, worry


can


also


become


debilitative.


Marmor


1958)


makes


a distinction


between


"realistic"


"neurotic"


worrying.


He describes


reali


stic


worry


defensive


function


purpose


which


to deal


either


with


to ward


painful


an anticipated


consequences


real


one


trauma


already


experienced.


" He


theor


izes


that


when


this


realistic


worry


successful,


mental


activity


involved


leads


to action


mastery


engage


of the


"neurotic


threat


situation.


worry,


these


However,


people


some


are


people


unable


achi iv7


" I nn Pr


m~sf PI*V II t











which


clinically
ation)--or


problem


given
place


identical
labeled


else


with


what


as obsessional


effort


to deal


an intellectual


up entirely, and
to the emotional


regress
level,


is usually


rumin-


with


level


takes


in which


anxiety,
feature.


that


bound
The


or unbound,


clinical


an anxiety


picture


state,


the
may


phobia,


dominant


then


or a


conversion


1958,


hysteria.


(Marmor,


in Janis,


. 377)


Although


the clinical


state


Marmor


is describing


might


more


extreme


than


that


test-anxious


college


student,


description


"realistic"


"neuroti


worry


appears


to be somewhat


analogous


way


test


anxiety


might


operate,


either


an adaptive


or maladaptive


fashion.


In 1960,


Alpert


Haber


conceived


idea


that


test


anxiety


could


have


both


debilitative


cilitative


components.


They


developed


a scale,


Achievement


Anxi


Test


(AAT) ,


which


attempted


measure


facilitative


debilitative


Facilitating


test


Anxi


anxiety.


test


Scale,


consisted


Debilitating


Anxiety


Scale.


Facilitating


Anxiety


Scale


correlated


positively


with


academic


rformance


grade


point


average


Debilitating


Anxiety


Scale


correlated


negative


with


academic


performance.


Using


multiple


corre


lations


pre-


di ct


performance,


Alpert


Haber


(1960)


found


that


using


both


the plus


minus


sca


together


enhanced


performance











investigator'


s a


prior


conceptualization


test


anxiety


as a linear


a negative


dimension,


fashion.


res


affecting


ults


performance


current


solely


study


suggest


that


test


anxiety


may


a more


complex


dimension,


interacting


with


another


cognitive-mediational


variable,


self


-efficacy,


to affect


performance


either


positive


negative


ways.


These


results


suggest


that


a highly


self-efficacious


person,


some


maladapti


cognitive

ve effects


processes


test


may


occur


anxiety,


which


counteract


channel


person


into


productive,


positive,


self-referential


thinking.


This


positive


thinking


may


then


serve


as a motivator


adaptive


performance.


In individuals


with


self-efficacy,


degree


test


anxiety


increases,


negative


effect


test


anxiety


on performance


becomes


greater.


Therefore,


combined


effects


self-efficacy


test


anxiety


on cognitive


processes


are


presumed


to be maladaptive


in nature,


leading


to decreased


performance.


Although


several


interpretations


have


been


generated


regarding the interaction


test


anxiety


self-efficacy,


must


be remembered


that


above


interpretations


relate


to only


international


effect.


also


necessary


to interpret


effect


of self-efficacy


on performance,


4- 'v.4a S fl j t~%t' n4- rt aFCar,4 4anv e4.~ n,, n-I


CaE: nn


:nCn


aFCnnC


ak; a


an nhtr ~C











change


self-efficacy,


on anagram


performance


(the


algebra


abbreviated


this


case


A
Anl=7.6518-

Anl-An2=0.0


.2375 (TA)+0.0012 (TA) (SE)


012(TA)


Self-Efficacy


effect=0


.0012


This


result


can


be interpreted


saying


that


there


is a


positive


effect


of self-efficacy


on anagram


performance,


this


effect


increases


with


increasing


test


anxiety.


Self-efficacy


a greater


effect


on performance


at higher


levels

of test


test


anxiety.


anxiety, an

For some


a lesser


reason,


effect


self


at lower


-efficacy


levels


appears


interact


more


strongly


with


test


anxiety


predicting


performance,


at high


at higher


levels


levels


test anxiety,


test


a person


anxiety.


is more


Perhaps,


self-


focused


concerned


with


well


they


are


going


perform.


Self-referential


thought


may,


therefore,


have


greater


bearing


on performance


these


individual


Consequently


, it


is more


cruc


account


their


level


of self


-effi


cacy.


At lower


levels


test


anxiety,


person


invested


in how


well


they


will


task,


so it does


t matter


what


they


believe


they


can


on academic


tasks


There


may


more


a ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L A.-- ---a I1 .C Iba. 5-a Aa1.


of a discrepancy
a a3 ^


L1 1: Y


,,,,,, 1


,L,,.s











variables


may


more


significant


predictors


of performance,


case


test-anxious


persons.


Al though


these


results


are


quite


interesting,


they


must


remain


highly


speculative


small


amount


variance

residuals


accounted


earlier


* this

models


model.

had s


pattern


suggested


that


other


variables

results.


might


Perhaps


systemati


other


cally


cognitive


accounting


factors,


currently


this


Other


model,


are


variables,


important


as persi


predicting


stence


task


task,


performance.


or how


much


subject


cared


about


his performance,


or the


quantity


have


negative


self-


a stronger


statements


made


on performance


subjects


than


those


variables


systematically


measured


this


study.


Harris


Johnson


(1980)


Harris


(1980


research


cited


earlier


suggests


that


mental


imagery


an important


factor


effects


test


on performance.


anxiety-evoking


Harris


situations,


high


test-anxious


individuals


tend


to have


negative


imagery,


which


vivid


persistent


When


Harris


(1980)


trained


subjects


to vi


suali


images


of competence


based


previous


personal


success


experience


individuals


manif


ested


a reduction


test


anxie


improved


a a a


such


effect


(1980)


anxiety


found that under


,,











An additional


self-efficacy


relationship


limiting


predictor


these


factor


model


variables


test


finding


anagram


anxiety/


that


performance


replicate


grade


analy


ses.


final


regression


model


grade


yielded


test


anxiety


SATQ


significant

an addition


predictors.

1 dependent


rationale


variable


was


for

see


using

if t


grade


variables


selected


to predict


anagram


performance,


a laboratory


analog


task,


would


academic


generalize


setting.


self-efficacy


does


to a meaningful


From these

not predict


results,

grade p


measure


in an


appears


performance ,


that

although


test


anxiety


does.


This


suggests


that


particular


model


generated


generalize


to predict


this


anagram


external


performance


measure


does


entirely


achievement.


Test


anxiety


related


to performance


in both


circumstances


however,


tes t


anxiety


effect


different


under


each


circumstance.


relation


ship


between


test


anxiety


anagram


performance


nonlinear


(positive


under


some


circumstances


negative


under


others).


relationship


test


anxiety


to grade


performance


is negative.


more


test


anxiety


a person


, the


more


likely


it will


have


debilitating


measure


effect


on performance.


of performance,


test


Thus,


anxiety


with


appears


grade


to have


- .


,,


-










situation,


creating


"evaluative"


situational


cues,


elicits


those


effects


predicted


test


anxiety


under


"evaluative"


conditions.


In addition,


as might


expected,


aptitude


scores


appear


to have


a strong


effect


prediction


grades.


this


case


, SATQ


significantly


predicts


grades


General


Psychology.


It is unclear


self-efficacy


predictive


anagram


performance


predictive


grades.


Additional


studies


will


necessary


answer


this


question.


finding


that


"best"


predictor


model


anagram


performance


identical


"best"


model


grade


performance,


anagram


does


model.


totally


suggest


negate


that


results


either


found


model


limited


generalizability,


or that


external


measure,


itself,


have


been


adequate


to bring


potential


effects


test


anxiety


self-efficacy.


From


a methodo-


logical


pers


pective,


both


grade


measure


anagram


measure


some


limitations.


anagram


measure


only


used


anagrams


previous


studies


(the


typical


which


may


number


have


anagrams


limited


used


sensitivity


measure.


In addition,


grade


measure,


final


grade


General


Psychology


only


a potential


eight


data


points,


also


possibly


limiting


sensitivity


of this


measure.