University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The effects of a group meditation technique upon degree of test anxiety and level of digit-letter retention in high school students

(USC Thesis Other)

The effects of a group meditation technique upon degree of test anxiety and level of digit-letter retention in high school students

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE EFFECTS OF A GROUP MEDITATION TECHNIQUE UPON DEGREE
OF TEST ANXIETY AND LEVEL OF DIGIT-LETTER RETENTION
IN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
by
Jerome Lewis
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Education)
June 1977
UMI Number: DP24216
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publishing
UMI DP24216
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
U N IV E R S IT Y O F S O U T H E R N C A L IF O R N IA
TH E G R A D U A T E S C H O O L
U N IV E R S IT Y P ARK
LOS A N G E L E S , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, w ritten by
Jerome Lewis
under the direction of h..?:.^. Dissertation C o m
mittee, and approved by a ll its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Graduate
School, in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t of requirements of
the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
D ate
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Chairman
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my
loving and wonderful wife and daughter. This study became
a way of life, a journey, for the three of us. Gomon,
j my wife, endured the entire rite of passage without a
I
! complaint, a whimper, continually offering emotional and
moral support. My daughter Caron grew up believing that
every Daddy had to go away at night and on the weekends,
leaving her behind, in order to write his mysterious
"dishertation.1 1 The path was long and frequently encum-
!
! bered with obstacles, but in the end the three of us made
| ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to the members
I
of my dissertation committee for their assistance and
generous support throughout the study:
j My dissertation committee:
i
| Dr. James P. Magary
i
Dr. Frank H. Fox
Dr. Daniel W. Kee
There are many other people who have helped contrib
ute to this present project and deserve special appreci-
i
i ation: my parents, sister, relatives, and good friends
' Norty and Sandy Giffis, who gave me the strength--usually
| when most needed--to continue.
!
j I also wish to express my thanks to Ken Rogers and
»
■ Alan Stahl who were willing to put up with my irregular
| work schedule in sympathy with the completion of this
i
! study.
i
There would not have been a dissertation without the
| participation of the students and the cooperation of
1 Mr. Hubbard, the principal. A special thanks to all
i
i those who were so helpful at Glendora High School.
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES.............................. vi
Chapter
'I. THE PROBLEM....................... 1
Background of the Problem
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Importance of the Study
Research Question
Research Hypothesis
Conceptual Assumptions
Definition of Terms
Delimitations
Organization of the Remainder
of the Study
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE............. . 11
Introduction
Conceptual and Experimental Background
Experimental Precedents
Summary
III. METHODOLOGY....................... 29
Background of the Present Investigation
Subject Selection and Classification
Research Design and Statistical Analyses
Treatment Conditions
Instrumentation
Test Conditions
Methodological Assumptions
Limitations
CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
XV. FINDINGS, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION .. U5
Findings
Interpretation and Discussion
Summary
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 90
Summary
Conclusions
Recommendations
REFERENCES......................................... 99
APPENDICES........................................J.08
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Mean Number of Anxious Responses and
Standard Deviations for Pre-MAACL • • i |8
2. Summary of Analysis of Variance for
Anxious Responses on Pre-MAACL . • . 1^9
3. Mean Number of Digit-Letter Series
Recalls and Standard Deviations
for Pre-DLS........................... 51
Summary of Analysis of Variance for
Digit-Letter Series Recalls on
Pre-DLS............................... 52
5* Mean Number of Anxious Responses and
Standard Deviations for Post-MAACL • 5U
6. Adjusted Mean Number of Anxious
Responses for Post-MAACL ............ 55
7. Summary of Analysis of Covariance
for Post-MAACL Adjusted Means . . . . 5&
8. Mean Number of Digit-Letter Series
Recalls and Standard Deviations
for Post-DLS ................... 58
9. Adjusted Mean Number of Digit-Letter
Series Recalls for Post-DLS .......... 59
10. Summary of Analysis of Covariance for
Post-DLS Adjusted Means ....... 60
11. Mean Number of Forward Digit-Letter
Series Recalls and Standard
Deviations for Pre-DLS .............. 62
__Vlj
LIST OP TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
12. Mean Number of Forward Digit-Letter
Series Recalls and Standard
Deviations for Post-DLS ............. 63
13. Adjusted Mean Number of Forward Digit-
Letter Series Recalls for Post-DLS. 6i|
1 i+. Summary of Analysis of Covariance for
Forward Post-DLS Adjusted Means . . 65
15• Mean Number of Backward Digit-Letter
Series Recalls and Standard
Deviations for Pre-DLS ............. 66
16. Mean Number of Backward Digit-Letter
Series Recalls and Standard
Deviations for Post-DLS ........... 6?
17* Adjusted Mean Number of Backward
Digit-Letter Series Recalls for
Post-DLS . .......... 68
18. Summary of Analysis of Covariance for
Backward Post-DLS Adjusted Means . 69
19* Mean Number of Non-Anxious Responses
and Standard Deviations for Pre-TAS 72
20. Summary of Analysis of Variance for
Non-Anxious Responses on Pre-TAS . 73
21. Mean Number of Non-Anxious Responses
and Standard Deviations for Post-
T A S................................ 7U
22. Adjusted Mean Number of Non-Anxious
Responses for Post-TAS ........... 75
23* Summary of Analysis of Covariance
for Post-TAS Adjusted Means • • • • 76
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
I
Background of the Problem
I A student throughout his schooling is continually
i
confronted with tests and evaluative situations. It was
not so long ago that educators believed that intellectual
i
I ability was the primary and essential factor in influ
encing a student1s performance on tests. Only in the last
! three decades has it become apparent that cognitive fac-
i
■ tors alone cannot adequately account for all the differ-
j ences that exist between students on exams. Research has
j attempted to ferret out the non-cognitive factors, such as
i
i
j personality and environmental variables, that might influ-
j ence academic performance.
! One of the non-intellectual factors which has
attracted considerable investigation is test anxiety.
: While numerous approaches have been tried in attempting to
diminish test anxiety, only a handful have met with
varying success. These successful approaches, however,
i
have required extensive training and have been based on
J questionable theoretical underpinnings (Wilkins, 1971).
Statement of the Problem
Research has repeatedly demonstrated that tension
1 resulting from tests has a significant negative effect
upon test performance. Eysenck and Rachman (1965) esti-
i
i mated that as many as 20 percent of students experienced
j
l
1 much anxiety concerning tests. It has been found that
I
| this anxiety leads to failure in the university setting
| (Alpert and Haber, I960; Suinn, 1968) and that highly
I
, anxious test takers (HAs) receive lower grades and have
higher attrition rates than lowly anxious test takers
(LAs) of equivalent intellectual ability (Paul, 1968;
| Spielberger, 1962).
I
j There has been extensive evidence demonstrating
| that test anxiety can interfere with learning (Spielberger
i
! 1966). Anxiety has been shown to have a debilitating
| effect on complex learning (Lucas, 1952; Montague, 1953)>
j paired associate learning (Stevenson and Odom, 1965)>
I concept learning (Denny, 1966; Forbes, 1969), incidental
| learning (Gorusch and Spielberger, 1966), and problem-
i
solving situations (Harleston, 1962).
i
' Systematic desensitization and cognitive instruction
have proven to be two of the most successful therapies for
test anxiety. The application and effectiveness of these
approaches, which will be discussed in the following
chapter, have been repeatedly called into question.
I A therapeutic tool which is yet in the rudimentary
stage of investigation is meditation. It has been hy-
i
pothesized that meditation uses the principle of attention
i
deployment (Pellitier, 1974) which is common both to sys
tematic desensitization and cognitive instructional
I
i
I techniques, as well as the principle of reciprocal in-
| hibition which is alleged to be operating in systematic
! desensitization (Wolpe, 1958)* Because meditation in-
j
corporates these principles and is easy to learn and to
apply, it could well prove to be an effective and effi-
i
i
i cient method for relieving test anxiety.
i
! Purpose of the Study
; This study was designed to generate data which
would assist in determining the degree to which an inhale-
1, exhale meditative technique--as practiced by test anxious
high school students just prior to encountering threat
ening testing conditions— could alleviate the deleterious
effects of test anxiety. The investigation also tried to
i
| ascertain the level of retention by these same subjects on
j a digit-letter test after practicing this technique. The
j results from this group were compared with those from a
simulated treatment control group and a non-treatment
control group.
Rather than attempting to find a cure, the study
: sought to determine if meditation was an effective
palliative that could be used to prevent test anxiety
and its harmful effects.
j Importance of the Study
| It has been established that test anxiety is a
, severe problem that detrimentally affects certain indi-
i
j viduals1 performance in test-like and evaluative situ
ations. Almost every member of our competitive society
has at one time or another experienced a test-like situ-
I
, ation. One's life and future can be easily determined by
| his performance on certain tests. If an individual's per-
I
| formance is hampered by test anxiety, it may not provide
| a valid indication of his abilities. An effective
; antidote to this problem is needed.
Broad and, as yet, unsupported claims have been
made for the therapeutic effects of meditation. Methodo
logically, it is advisable to explore these claims by
; selecting a limited area of study such as test anxiety
i
I which has been repeatedly identified as a valid construct,
i
( is relatively easy to define operationally, facile to
work with under controlled conditions and therefore amen
able to replication. If meditation does significantly
diminish test anxiety, then it may also prove to be useful
1 in future studies that attempt to relieve other forms of
I
|anxiety.
1 Research Question
The central question of this research study was as
jfollows: To what extent, if any, did the practice of an
i inhale-exhale meditation technique--after a short-term
!
meditation training program— have on the immediate level
i
|of test anxiety and digit-letter retention for test
janxious high school students tested under threatening
|instructional conditions as compared with similar students
i
|who either practiced a simulated-raeditation technique or
i
practiced no technique at all?
t
i
i
( Research Hypothesis
i
I On the basis of expectations derived from current
i
^findings on test anxiety theory, as detailed in the next
|chapter, the following research hypothesis was formulated:
|The results of a test of anxiety, as measured by the
iMultiple Affective Adjective Check List (MAACL) and an
author-constructed digit-letter retention test (DLS), would
be less and greater, respectively, for test anxious high
school students who practiced an inhale-exhale meditative
j technique just prior to taking the tests under threatening1
instructional conditions than for either of two comparison;
i
groups: a simulated-treatment control group and a non
treatment control group.
I Additional groups of low-anxious students tested
1 I
under threatening test conditions, and high and low !
I
anxious students tested under neutral instructional
conditions were included in the study in order to confirm >
that test anxiety theory was operative--the theory which
forms the basis for this present investigation.
i
I Conceptual Assumptions
i
j The following conceptual assumptions underlay this
investigation:
1. The students employed in this investigation
had reached a level of maturity sufficient
: to adequately learn the inhale-exhale
j meditative technique.
i
i 2. The students were capable of learning the
i
j meditative technique within a group setting
| in a brief period of training.
| 3. The theory of test anxiety presented by
; I. G. Sarason which forms the conceptual
i
framework of this study and is discussed
i
! fully in the following chapter, is a
< functional and reliable theory,
i
1|. The cognitive interpretation of test anxiety
theory, which will also be reviewed in the
following chapter, provides a viable
I conceptual explication for the psychological
aspects of test anxiety.
| 5. Meditation utilizes the principles of
attentional training and reciprocal
i
I inhibition,
j 6. The concept of test anxiety, as measured
| by the MAACL and the concept of digit-
j letter retention as measured by an author-
constructed test, portrays two essential
f
| dimensions of test anxiety.
i
Definition of Terms
| --------------------
The following definitions were considered necessary
to understand the study:
Attention deployment--the ability to shift and
! focus one's awareness either to internal or to external
j
stimuli.
j Digit-letter retention test--an author-constructed
! test purporting to measure the ability to recall auditory
sequences of numbers and letters and make mental
|
i manipulations.
Field dependence-independence- - an indi vi dual * s
perceptual style and his ability to separate an item from
its embedding context and to perceive in an active ana
lytical manner (independence) or in a passive and global
| manner (dependence).
Meditation--a technique whereby the subject focuses
; and maintains his attention on a target stimulus which
i
is either internal or external, and attempts to suspend
the normal flow of meandering thought.
Secondary organization--the ability to organize
items into catagories based on commonly shared attributes
and to apply these categories to new items.
State anxiety--the immediate transitory emotional
experience characterized by feelings of apprehension and
tension and arousal of the autonomic nervous system.
Test anxiety--a state of physiological, emotional,
and cognitive uneasiness experienced by an individual
/
under a test-like or evaluative situation.
Trait anxiety--stable individual differences in
proneness to feelings of apprehension and tension and
arousal of the autonomic nervous system.
Trait test anxiety--a proneness for eliciting
anxiety under evaluative situations.
Transcendental Meditation--a system of meditation
iin which the subject sits with his eyes closed passively
focusing inwardly on a repeated sound.
Delimitations
| The following delimitations narrow the focus and
■ generalizability of this investigation:
I 1. Only subjects who were regularly enrolled
! in coeducational physical education classes
i
in the Spring session of the 1976 school
i
I
| year participated.
i
2. The subjects ranged in chronological age
from lij..5 to 18.5 years, and comprised
1
i the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grades
i
| of Glendora High School.
1
j 3. All subjects used in the study were English-
1
speaking students who came from neighborhoods
1
i in the lower-middle to upper-middle socio-
i
j economic status range.
! i j . . Generalizations about the effect of a
!
I
j meditational training program only apply
to the program designed for this study.
Organization of the Remainder
of the Study
!
In Chapter II the theoretical framework underlying
1
j test anxiety is delineated, along with a review and
j critique of selected treatments of test anxiety, and a
theoretical explanation of meditation as a potential
therapy.
In Chapter III the methodology of the study is
i
! discussed: (1) the selection of the sample, (2) the
research design and control procedures, (3) procedure
for collecting, processing and analyzing the data,
| ( i j . ) methodological assumptions, and (5) limitations of
j the study.
t
| Chapter IV describes the findings of the study
t
j and offers a discussion and analysis of the results.
i
! The final chapter, V, summarizes the findings,
i conclusions, and recommendations.
i
i CHAPTER II
I
i
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
! Introduction
I ------------------------------------
, This chapter presents the theoretical and
i experimental basis upon which this investigation
i
I on the use of meditation in test anxiety and digit
I
; retention rests. The theory of test anxiety is
i
presented first and serves as a point of reference
i
I
for the remainder of the investigation. Selected
| empirical studies are then cited in discussing and
| critiquing two successful treatments of test anxiety.
! A third section delineates the theoretical basis
for the meditative process. The final section
! reviews studies that have investigated the relation-
i
i
' ship among meditation, test anxiety and cognitive
I
i
i skills. These studies are discussed from the
i
[
| standpoint of their applicability to the problem
i
I that is the subject of this investigation.
Conceptual and Experimental Background
Test Anxiety Theory
Test anxiety theory was originated by Mandler and
S. B. Sarason (1952) over twenty years ago. A large
t
number of studies have been conducted investigating the
'difference between HA and LA persons on cognitive tasks
I under varying conditions. It has been established that
'LAs typically perform more skillfully than HAs on various
I types of ability tests (Philips, 1972; I. G. Sarason,
]
'i960), particularly when under stressful, evaluative
’ 'ego-involving” conditions (Cox, 1966; Ganzer, 1968;
Harleston, 1962; Nicholson, 1956; Paul & Eriksen, 1961+;
!I. G. Sarason, 1956; I. G. Sarason & Palola, I960;
1Spielberger & Smith, 1966).
j Wine (1971) succinctly summed up the findings of
'test anxiety theory:
I The results of studies varying instructional con
ditions have generally reported an interaction
j between level of test anxiety and evaluation
I emphasis: (a) Highly test-anxious subjects perform
j more poorly following highly evaluative "ego-involving1
1 instructions while the reverse is true for low-test-
anxious subjects. (b) Following highly evaluative
instructions, low-test-anxious subjects perform
! better than high-test-anxious subjects; following
! non-evaluative instructions, high-test-anxious
i subjects perform better than low. (c) Following
minimal task instructions, high and low-test-anxious
subjects perform at about equivalent levels, inter-
! mediate between their performances in the highly
i , evaluation and nonevaluative conditions, (p. 96)
i The nature of the task (type of task, its complexity
difficulty, familiarity), independent of the instructional
conditions, will exert an influence over performance
(I. G. Sarason & Palola, I960; Spielberger & I. G.
I
j Sarason, 1975)• More recently, social learning variables
such as the personal characteristics of the experimenter
in the study (I. G. Sarason, 1972), audience presence
! (Cox, 1966), and modeling effects (I. G. Sarason,
! Pederson & Nyman, 1968; Spielberger & I. G. Sarason,
1
1975) have been found to play a part in test anxiety.
j Social factors, task characteristics, and instructional
i
1 conditions are then the basic variables that influence
i
' test anxiety.
1
i
Systematic Desensitization and Test Anxiety
1
i In recent years there has been an increase in
i
therapeutic studies that have attempted to eliminate
or diminish test anxiety and its consequences. Many
! therapies have been explored: behavior modification,
1
j counseling, desensitization, implosion, modeling,
1
I
j autogenic training, relaxation training, automated
! programs, and cognitive instructions.
I
; Systematic desensitization has been used in
, the majority of treatment applications of test anxiety.
! In 1956 Joseph Wolpe proposed a new approach to treat
! conditioned anxiety. The subject is trained in deep
muscle relaxation and then instructed while relaxed to
visualize a progressively stressful set of stimuli
called an 1 1 anxiety hierarchy." It is assumed that
relaxation and the process of imagining counter anxiety
at the autonomic level, eliciting parasympathetic
responsiveness which is antagonistic to and inhibits
the sympathetic responsiveness of anxiety. This counter ;
! conditioning of anxiety which Wolpe labeled "reciprocal
! inhibition" allows the subject to approach a fear
I situation with reduced or no anxiety. Anxiety is con-
j sidered to be a learned emotional problem. Desensiti-
j zation assumes that test anxiety differs only in degrees
! from other phobias.
| Up until a number of years ago all published
j accounts of the treatment of test anxiety dealt with
| variations of systematic desensitization techniques:
I
! group interaction and desensitization (Cohen, 1969);
i
automated group desensitization (Donner & Guerney,
1969); standardized hierarchies (Emery & Krumboltz,
| 1967); a comparison between desensitization and relaxation
(Johnson & Sechrest, 1968); group therapy and desensiti
zation (Katahn, Stronger, & Cherry, 1966); vicarious
| desensitization by videotape (Mann & Rosenthal, 1969);
and a comparison of group and individual desensitization
(Suinn, 1968).
Continued research has established the general
effectiveness of desensitization as a treatment for test
anxiety (Allen, 1972), both as individual and group
treatment (Cohen, 1969; Donner & Guerney, 1969; Suinn,
1968) .
Criticism of Systematic Desensitization Theory
While desensitization has proven to be an effective
therapeutic approach to test anxiety, there are numerous
studies that have attacked its theoretical underpinnings.
The precise mechanism for change involved in desensiti
zation has not been identified with certainty, but it
appears that the "attentional training” inherent in the
procedure— rather than reciprocal inhibition and emotional
counter-conditioning--is critical for therapeutic success.
Several authors have attributed the success of desensiti
zation to this attentional training and attention
deployment.
A number of studies cast * serious doubt upon
Wolpe1s claim that the effects of desensitization are
mediated at the autonomic level. Wilkins (1971)> in
his critique of desensitization theory, quotes several
experiments that evidence no significant difference in
I the physiological level between pre- and post-conditions
or between experimental and control groups. In a later
study, Connor (197^) confirmed Wilkins1 findings and
demonstrated that while desensitization alters autonomic
| responses to anxiety conditions, it does not affect
i
autonomic level changes.
While deep muscle relaxation does not appear
to cause reciprocal inhibition at the autonomic level,
i
can it be considered an effective mechanism for change
i
| in the desensitization procedure? Cooke (1966) and
Ritter (1968) reported success in using physical activity
during training as opposed to relaxation. And Wolpin
i
j and Raines (1966) demonstrated successful reduction of
i
fear in a group of subjects who imagined hierarchy scenes
i
i without relaxation instructions, and with another group
i
! who tensed their muscles while imagining. Furthermore,
! Davison (1966) demonstrated that muscle relaxation and
i
j anxiety are not mutually exclusive since anxiety can be
j produced under chemically induced muscle relaxation. It
| appears as if relaxation is not a needed component in
I
I desensitization.
i
A standardized anxiety hierarchy does not seem
I to be essential for therapeutic success. Emery and
| Krumboltz (1967) clearly showed that an individualized
j hierarchy works as effectively as a standardized
| hierarchy. Wilson and Smith (1968) reported that the
use of free association scenes also led to favorable
treatment.
Wilkins (1971) maintained that instructed
i
j imagination is the only essential aspect of the
desensitization procedure. Both Wilkins (1971)# and
Marshall, Strawbridge and Keltner (1972) have suggested
that attentional training in the instructed imagination
is the crucial variable in desensitization. During
imagination the subject learns to shift his attention
i
i away from the threatening stimuli to non-provoking
i
: stimuli such as the feeling of relaxation in his
t
| peripheral muscles. Wilkins hypothesized that the
| success of modeling may be due to a shift in attention
! from the subjectfs own pessimistically imagined behavior
, to a more constructive behavior. In support of this
hypothesis, Bandura (1969) has argued that anxiety
: reactions are not conditioned emotionally— as Itfolpe
j theorizes--but are generated cognitively by thoughts
| and images in the threatening situation.
j Meichenbaum (1972), using a modified desensitization
j procedure, has demonstrated the importance of attention.
; He trained one group to relax and then to systematically
i
1 attend to non-anxious cues through the use of internal
speech. This technique of attentional training proved
I more effective and had greater generalizability to
untrained phobic situations than did desensitization.
The attentional training in desensitization appears to
i be the critical variable in therapeutic success.
I
i
! Cognitive Theory of Test Anxiety
! Concomitant with the attentional interpretation
i of desensitization by Wilkins and Marshall, et al., a
: specific attentional theory of test anxiety has been
j developed by Wine (1971) and I, G. Sarason (1975)•
j According to Sarason, HA individuals are habitually
, prone to emit self-centered thoughts when confronted
i
, with an evaluative situation (Ganzer, 1968; Marlett &
i
j Watson, 1968). LA individuals have been shown to make
less self-deprecatory interfering responses than HA
1
i individuals (Doris & S. B . Sarason, 1955; Mandler &
i
! Watson, 1966). Recent evidence suggests that cognitive
j events have a more negative influence than emotionality
I on test results. Morris and Leibert (1970) reported in
1
1
i two studies, in which partial correlations were deter-
I
mined between emotionality (autonomic arousal) and worry
| scores on the Liebert-Morris scale (1967), that final
| exam scores were more significant and negatively
correlated with pretest worry scores than emotionality,
! which were not significant.
There are also a number of studies that demonstrate
that HA persons are very responsive to social cues such
as conformity pressures (Meunier & Rule, 1967), persuasion
(Janis, 1955), modeling cues (I. G. Sarason et al, 1968).
j Because of these self-centered, interfering responses,
and poor cue utilization, HA individuals become easily
1
■ distracted from the task at hand.
■ West, Lee and Anderson (1969), and Wachtel (1968)
I
j have shown that HA subjects attend to fewer task cues
!
• than LA subjects. Easterbrook (1959), in a review of
J literature dealing with the relation between emotion
j and attention, evidenced in repeated studies that as
i
; emotion increases cue utilization decreases. He claimed
i
| that there was an optimum level of cue utilization which
I would help to explain the curvilinear relationship between
| performance and test anxiety.
1
Egeth (1967), in a critique of literature on
; attention, has established that attention can be
I
] selectively directed based on instructions, motives,
I
I
| and attitudes.
1
I
I Cognitive Treatment of Test Anxiety
1
| Wine (1970) and Meichenbaum (1972) have conducted
1 research that has successfully redirected the subject's
i
! attention away from these maladaptive and self-preoccupied
iresponses to task-oriented stimuli. Wine, through the
use of explanation, videotaped modeling of actors,
intensive training on inhibiting irrelevant self-oriented
i responses and focusing attention to task-oriented stimuli
i
I
I reduced the degree of self-reported anxiety and increased
(the level of performance on several tasks.
| Meichenbaum also carried out research on improving
| attentional control, but he used a more systematic
! cognitive approach. His procedure consisted first of
i
insight training about the subjects1 own negative self
statements, then imagery rehearsal of both coping and
f
i mastery behaviors, deep breathing, and, most importantly,
i
j of self-instructions that encouraged paying attention to
l
’ the task rather than self-centered thoughts. Results
1 showed that this approach was more effective than desen-
i
j sitization in reducing test anxiety, on an analog test,
; and on grade point average. Though both the Wine and
, Meichenbaum studies lacked parsimony, in using an assort-
j ment of techniques, and required intensive and extensive
| training, they do have important implications for the
| relief of test anxiety.
i
; Conceptual Interpretation of the Meditative Process
I Meditation is one of the current treatments of
test anxiety. It has been noted in the literature for
I inducing both physiological and mental calmness, and
i
improving attention span and concentration. There are
a number of studies that support the contention that
meditation utilizes both reciprocal inhibition (similar
| to that allegedly attributed to desensitization) and
I
attentional training (similar to that used in cognitive
treatments of test anxiety and propounded to be used in
i
j desensitization). It is suggested that meditation may be
| an efficient and parsimonious treatment of test anxiety
| because it incorporates these techniques and is a simple,
| short, and inexpensive approach. Also, because meditation
| does not train to a specific situation, unlike desensiti
zation (Bandura, Blanchard & Ritter, 1969; Meichenbaum,
1972), it may have broad application,
i In one of the early studies on the physiological
I effects of meditation, practitioners of Transcendental
I Meditation (TM) were able to decrease their heart rate
i
and oxygen consumption, and the electroencephalograph
t record showed specific changes in certain frequencies
| (Wallace, 1970). Allison (1970) also demonstrated a
decrease in heart rate and respiratory rate with the
use of TM. Wallace and Benson (1972) clearly showed
; that during meditation the subjects’ metabolic rate
i
i markedly decreased.
I This hypometabolic state has been referred to,
by Gelhorn and Keily (1972), and Benson, Beary, and Carol
(197U)» the trophotropic response which is associated
with parasympathetic responsiveness and relaxation. The
ergotropic system is the counterpart of the trophotropic
| system (both are found in the hypothalamus) and is ,
!
associated with sympathetic responsiveness and emotional j
' excitation. Hess (1957) hypothesized that the tropho
tropic system is a protective system against stress and
excitation. Both Benson and Gelhorn have shown that
' there is a shift from ergotropic dominance to tropho-
i I
j tropic dominance under meditation. Whereas desensitization
! has only been able to demonstrate peripheral level changes,
contrary to its theory, meditation has been able to
i
| demonstrate reciprocal inhibition at the autonomic level.
On a psychological level, meditation can be seen
| as a two-fold method of attentional training. First, it
j improves the practitioner1s concentration, training him
j
to fix his attention firmly and for increasingly pro-
i
tracted periods of time on the task at hand, as he does
with the target stimulus while meditating. Linden (1972)
i
| noted that meditation consists both of a "figural
attention" that focuses on a given object, and a passive
"ground attention" that periodically scans inwardly for j
i t
i verification that figural attention is being maintained. 1
I
; This continued monitoring of one *s attention, this
i strengthened concentration, could carry over to a follow-
up task such as a test, as in the case of this investi
gation, that the subjects are designed to execute im
mediately after meditating.
I
i Second, it could be hypothesized that the resulting 1
sense of calm created by meditation provides the prac- !
' titioner with a new dominant set of proprioceptive
f
stimuli. This new set of stimuli, in the case of the
HA individual, could be less alarming and distracting
than his habitual self-deprecatory thoughts and allow
j
; him to pay better attention in successfully completing
i
| a given test.
i
I !
! |
I Experimental Precedents
I
j The subject of meditation is a relatively recent
• topic of investigation. The scientific literature is in
an inchoate stage with a paucity of studies having been
conducted. These studies have been basically exploratory
with the preponderance being quasi-experimental, correla-
i tional, ex post facto, and generally suffering from a
: lack of experimental control. A number of internal
| weaknesses typically run through these studies: Hawthorne
i
I Effect, volunteerism, poor simulation of control con-
i
ditions with experimental conditions, careless as-
i
| sumptions, a perfunctory attempt at minimizing
extraneous variables.
The Relationship between Meditation and Attention
There is a dearth of studies that have examined
the relationship between meditation and attention. Linden
I
!(1972) demonstrated that third-grade children who meditated
'became significantly more field independent than non-
I
jmeditating children. He suggested that the meditators
!succeeded at the given task because meditation taught
Jthem to focus their attention and to disregard distracting
stimuli. Pelletier (197U) studied the relationship
between attention deployment and meditation with the
use of three field independent tests and also found that
|the experimental group became significantly more field
i
|independent. Both studies indicate that the "enduring”
i
|perceptual style of field independence can be altered by
meditation.
j
The Relationship between Meditation and Cognitive Skills
Miskiraan (1973) experimented with secondary organi
zation, the ability to organize items into categories.
|Meditators were found to do better than non-meditators on
i
both random-ordered and categorically-ordered lists, and
i to outperform the non-meditators on delayed recall.
[Because the subjects were required to complete a filler
| task in a restricted time period, test anxiety may have
inadvertently been introduced into the study. The subjects
were randomly assigned in this study, however, so that the
results lend indirect support to the hypothesis that
i meditation can help diminish test anxiety.
i |
The Relationship between Meditation and Anxiety
i A number of studies have investigated the effect
; meditation has on general anxiety. Keeping in mind that
i
| the studies generally suffered from a number of experi-
| mental weaknesses, they consistently demonstrated that
| meditation (in a majority of the cases, TM was used)
| helped to diminish state anxiety (Davies, 1971+J Shapiro,
! 1971+; Stern, 1971+) * Schecter (1975) reported that
i
i
| secondary school children improved significantly in
!
; intellectual performance when meditating, as measured by
1 the Raven Progressive Matrices, and significantly de-
i
| creased in anxiety as measured by the Attitudes toward
l
| Specific Situations Test. Ferguson and G-owan (1971+)
i went one step further, evidencing that anxiety decreased
in direct proportion to the number of months subjects
had spent meditating,
j Glueck and Stroebel (1975) demonstrated the
pragmatic value of meditation. Psychiatric patients
! who practiced meditation manifested decreased anxiety,
exhibited less pathology and were significantly more 1
improved at time of discharge than a matched comparison
group of non-meditators.
Nidich, Seeman, and Seibert (1973)» experimenting
r with the relationship between meditation and state
: i
anxiety, found that meditators significantly decreased i
i
i
j their anxiety as compared with non-meditators. These
| findings may have been contaminated, however, because
[
| the subjects were allowed to volunteer to be in either
I the meditation or non-meditation groups. The HA subjects,
i
| for example, may have systematically chosen the non-
I meditation group.
i
j The dissertation by Linden (1972) has the most
| direct bearing on this investigation because it experi-
i
mented with the relationship between meditation, test
I anxiety, and the cognitive skill of reading achievement.
i
; Linden, working with disadvantaged third-graders,
! employed three different group conditions: a meditation
j group, a guidance group which was information oriented,
I and a non-treatment control group. The training period
; lasted for eighteen weeks.
j
| The meditation group decreased significantly more
! in test anxiety on the posttest, as measured by the |
I
| Children1s Embedded Figures Test, than the other groups.
i i
i
; There was no significant difference found, however,
among the groups in improved reading ability as determined 1
by the Metropolitan Achievement Test Primary II Battery.
The study suffered from a number of weaknesses:
(1) the investigator appeared to bias the results by ,
i
encouraging the meditators and paying special attention ■
to them; (2) subjects whose birthdays came before the end I
I 1
, I
: of the experiment were required to take the posttest
i
| early; (3) the investigator did not differentiate between
| HA and LA subjects and this may have confounded the test
i
| results. Though the study had a number of weaknesses, it
i «
was heuristically valuable, indicating that long-term
i
; practice of meditation may help diminish test anxiety.
| Summary 1
I
| In reviewing the literature, it became apparent
i that only a limited number of studies have dealt with the
i
relationship of meditation to either test anxiety or
; cognitive skills, such as digit-letter retention. Those
I
that have, have done so tangentially, typically under
poorly controlled conditions. Any findings at this time
are tentative and are in need of further investigation
and replication.
It is also of interest to note that the literature
i
| was barren of any studies that investigated the effective-
| ness that short-term meditative training— rather than
[long-term practice— might have. The available studies
were basically concerned with structural change, with
altering trait anxiety, rather than with the immediate
iabatement of state anxiety as in this investigation.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
i
i
i
; This chapter discusses the research methodology,
I and experimental procedures employed in the study. The
sections of this chapter consider: (a) background of the
present investigation; (b) the subject selection and
classification; (c) the research design and statistical
i
analysis; (d) the treatment conditions for the experimental
group and two accompanying control groups; (e) instru-
i
| mentation; (f) test conditions; (g) methodological
i
| assumptions; and (h) limitations of the study.
Background of the Present Investigation
Pilot studies were undertaken in order to examine
j various design elements needed in the investigation.
Since there was neither a systematic program for teaching,
j the meditative technique, nor a functional retention
■ test that applied to this investigation, it became
i
i necessary to develop them. The pilot studies also served
; to refine the overall training and testing procedures,
jand to establish a functional time schedule for carrying
|out the investigation. These resulting improvements were
incorporated into their relevant sections in this chapter.
i
I Subject Selection and Classification
| The 205 subjects used in this investigation were
'tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grade students enrolled in
jthe regular fifth period coeducational physical education
1
classes in Glendora High School, Glendora, California from
|May 21 through June 8, 1976. The economic status for the
|subjects generally ranged from middle to upper-middle
i class. Their ethnic background was predominantly
Caucasian, with the other races making up less than
iof the sample. In order to overcome the criticism of
volunteerism common to earlier studies, all subjects in
1
1 attendance were requested to participate in the investi-
i
|gation. Those who preferred not to participate or failed
j to cooperate were excluded from the study. Subjects were
j assigned to one of twelve groups in the following manner:
1
' 1. Each student who attended class on any of
1
■ three separate days was administered a Test
; Anxiety Scale (TAS). The test was given for
three days in order to obtain a large
sampling. The results were used to segregate
the upper third of the population (the HAs)
from the lower third (the LAs).
2. The HA and LA groups were then stratified on
the basis of sex and randomly assigned to one
of three training conditions: a meditation
group, a siraulated-meditation group, or a
i
non-treatment control group.
i
i
' 3* Each of the three subgroups were further
J divided into two smaller groups based on
j written instructional conditions. The
subjects were randomly assigned either to
a neutral or to a threatening instructional
i
! condition which was administered before
i
| taking the pre- and posttests.
All classifications were made prior to the pretest.
Because of a certain amount of attrition during the study,
| the number of students for whom data could be obtained was
j seven subjects per each of the twelve groups.
!
! Research Design and Statistical Analysis
i
A modified 3x2x2 pretest-posttest control group
; design (Campbell & Stanley, 1963* P* ^3) involving the use
: of one experimental group and twb comparison groups was
i
| employed. This design was selected as the most flexible
I
; and appropriate experimental model. It allowed for strict
i
! controls and the ability to verify that all the
|assumptions made concerning anxiety test theory were
operative.
The independent variables were the treatment, the
iinstruction, and the anxiety conditions. The dependent
I
i *
ivariables consisted of the total number of anxious responses
on the MAACL, the total number of digit-letter series 1
recalled on the DLS and the total number of non-anxious
1 responses on the TAS. While three-way analysis of
l
jvariance was employed on the pretests and pre-TAS results,
!three-way analysis of covariance was used on the post-
itests and post-TAS findings (with the pretest means
]
t
|scores serving as the covariate on the posttests) in
|order to control for any pretest effect (Kerlinger, 19&U,
i
PP* 337-338)• On the pretests, the Tukey HSD procedure
was used for any significant main effects and a test of
simple main effects for any significant interaction. The
test of least significant differences was used for
decomposing any significant main effects found on the
'posttest analyses.
Treatment Conditions
As indicated above, there were three different
i
treatment conditions: an experimental group trained in
a meditative technique, a control group trained in a
simulated-meditative-technique, and a non-treatment
j control group participating only in the pre- and post
tests. Both training groups were termed "relaxation
groups" in order to eliminate any halo effect due to
jnaming. The training period consisted of three. 25-
;minute sessions for both groups and extended over a two-
'week period because of irregular school scheduling at
;semester end. Each group was trained during the same
i
ischool period, alternating between the first and second
half of the period from session to session.
i
i
| The meditation and simulated-meditation training
consisted of two parts. The first, a hand-clenching
exercise, was identical for both groups. The subject
was requested to extend his arms forward while seated
; and to pretend slowly and methodically to squeeze a
jgrapefruit in each hand till all the juice ran out, and
|then slowly to open his hand. This practice served as
a warm-up exercise inducing the subject to settle and
slow down, and begin to concentrate on a given task.
The second part of the training differed for the
two groups. The meditation subject was required to shut
■ his eyes while seated in a comfortable position and place
i one hand on his stomach, noting the rise and fall of the
, stomach as it was filled with air and then expelled. If
| the subject!s mind wandered, he was instructed to pay
!
: attention to where it wandered and gently bring it back
to his stomach, the target stimulus.
This particular meditative technique was selected
for a number of reasons. A technique was needed that was
j simple and easy to learn in a short period of time. It
i
! had to be a method that the subjects were unfamiliar with
i
and barren of any mystical and religious ritual so as not
i
j to create a halo effect. The inhale-exhale technique
[
j met all these requirements and was most appropriate for
j the present study.
i
| Instead of learning the attentional training of the
meditative group, the simulated meditative subject was
instructed to sit in a relaxed position with his eyes
i
closed and to "let go* 1 and allow his mind to wander
freely. This deemphasis on the monitoring of one *s
i
attention--or "ground attention"--was the only essential
difference between the two groups in their training and
practice.
Both groups followed the exact training schedule,
i
; concentrating on the hand-clenching exercise the first
i
:day, the meditative and simulated-meditative training
! the second, and practicing the hand-clenching exercise
: and the relaxation exercise in tandem till they appeared
to master them on the final day.
I Instrumentation
The following psychometric instruments were used in
the investigation:
1. The Sarason Test Anxiety Scale (I, G. Sarason,
j 1972, p. 3&k)• A paper and pencil, true-false, 37-item
questionnaire. The TAS (see Appendix A) asks the subject
to report on his reactions to a variety of testing
1 situations, thus attempting to determine if the subject
i
habitually worries about examinations and reflects trait
test anxiety.
i The TAS grew out of an early test, the TAQ (Mandler
! and S. B. Sarason, 1952, p. 166), a rating scale format
j designed to measure self-orienting responses typically
i
! experienced before and during test-taking. This was
i
: followed by an early version of the TAS written by
1
I. G. Sarason (1958) in which he rewrote 21 questions
t
j from the TAQ in true-false form. The TAQ and TAS are
i highly correlated with a product moment correlation of
.93 (I. G. Sarason et al., 1968). In the most current
version of the TAS--the one used in this study--I. G.
I Sarason rewrote all the 37 items from the TAQ.
1
1
j A test anxiety scale was selected rather than a
i
1 general anxiety scale because the former has demonstrated
| more accuracy than the latter in predicting changes in
j state anxiety under test-like situations (Spielberger
I & I. G. Sarason, 1975). The TAS was specifically selected
because it is a well-designed test which has repeatedly
been shown to have strong construct validity in a myriad
of studies (Wine, 1973) ar*d corresponds with the
theoretical stance of this investigation. It was
constructed specifically for high school students and
i
; was therefore most suitable for the subjects used in
i
this study.
The TAS was employed primarily to identify the
upper and lower thirds of the sample population in trait
test anxiety. It was also used in the post-test for
i
• exploratory purposes, to determine if any change had
i
t
| occurred in this trait during the experimental period.
t
| The test was scored by totaling the number of non-
i
i anxious responses the subject made. A high TAS score
i
indicated low trait test anxiety and a low score, high
test anxiety. A subject could score anywhere from 0—
37 on the test.
2. The Multiple Affective Adjective Check List
f
] (see Appendix B). A paper and pencil checklist of fifty-
: eight adjectives describing day-to-day changes in three
| affects: anxiety, depression, and hostility. This test
I
■ incorporated an earlier Affect Adjective Check List
j (AACL) (Zuckerman, I960) which consisted of twenty-one
; items reflecting state anxiety--the essential items
I needed for this study--with thirty-seven "hostile1 1 and
"depression" terms from the Zuckerman Multiple Affective
Adjective Check List (ZMAACL) (Zuckerman, Lubin, Vogel &
Valerius, 19^2+) • The extra terms from the ZMAACL were
included in order to conceal the purpose of the test and
to prevent any reactive measurement.
i
j The AACL is presently the most widely used instru-
i
j ment for assessing the subjective component of anxiety
| states (Spielberger & I. G. Sarason, 1975) and its
l
.
usefulness has been repeatedly demonstrated in the
literature (Zuckerman & Lubin, 1968). The internal
j
| reliability of state anxiety as measured by the AACL,
; Kuder-Richardson Formula 20, was found to be .85
i
i
; (Zuckerman, i960). Two studies working with the
ZMAACL had direct relevance to this investigation,
demonstrating a relationship between higher test grades
i
| and lower state anxiety. In one study by Zuckerman
j ( i 9 6 0 ) , he demonstrated that state anxiety increased
! significantly on test days, and that students who
received higher grades on the examinations had lower
1
j anxiety scores than students who received lower grades.
| In a follow-up study, Zuckerman and Biase (1962) were
! able to evidence a relationship between change in AACL
1 scores and expectation of failure or exam worry.
The MAACL was administered in both the pre- and
j posttest and took approximately five minutes to complete.
! The subjects were instructed to check off only those items
that described how they felt ”now-today.M The subject
received one point for each anxiety word he checked and
| another point for each word indicating non-anxiety that
he failed to check for a total possible score of twenty-
one points. In other words, a high score denoted high
i
; state anxiety and a low score, low anxiety.
! 3. The Digit-Letter Span Retention Test. This
1
1
j paper and pencil test (see Appendix C) was constructed
| by,the investigator and was patterned after the Digit
' Span Subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale. After
; a number of pilot studies, the following procedures were
| used in administering the test:
j a. For control reasons, a cassette tape was
| designated as the means for executing the DLS.
1
j b. The test was administered as a group test in
; order to accommodate limitations on time.
c. The test was made up of a series of digits
and letters that extended from 3 to 9 items.
The length of the series was presented in
j random order. One series at a time was read
off followed by a short delay for writing down
the series. The use of both digits and letters
38
and random presentation of length of series
i
was employed in order to increase the variability,
of test scores.
d. The test was made up of 18 series. It was |
I
| originally designed to include 30 series but
; 1
( was shortened during the pretest due to a lack j
1
of time. Identical series were used in both
1
the pre- and posttests. The test took i
1
approximately 15 minutes to administer. !
e. The series were divided in two parts with the
!
J first part requiring the listener to write down |
the series in the same order read off and the ,
1
j second, in the reverse order. j
l ■
: f. One point could be scored for each series if
1
| each of the items in the series was written in
j its correct order. If an item was misplaced or
1
forgotten, no score was received.
Low scores on the Wechsler Digit Span have frequently
I
ibeen interpreted by clinical psychologists as indicating
| 1
I anxiety (Kitzinger & Blumberg, 1951)* A number of studies 1
1
!demonstrated that decrements in digit span performance
iwere associated with increases in anxiety (Griffith,
1
!195^J Moldawsky & Moldawsky, 1952; Pyke & Agnew, 1963;
|Walker & Spence, 195U)* A study conducted by Hodges
1
|and I. G. Spielberger (1966) had direct bearing on this
current investigation. Undergraduate students were
exposed to a stressful (failure-feedback) or non-stressful
(success-feedback) condition while working with Digit
Span. It was found that there was a significant decrement
i
in Digit Span retention for those who reported a high
level of state anxiety as measured by the AACL. The
; study also demonstrated that high trait anxiety subjects
j when exposed to a stressful experimental situation tend
to exhibit high-levels of state anxiety and to do more
poorly on Digit Span than did the low state anxiety
j subjects under the same threatening conditions.
! i j . . Instruction Questionnaire. A one-question test
i
j drawn up by the author asking if the subjects practiced
! their assigned relaxation technique (see Appendix D).
This was used as a simple subjective report: if a subject
• answered that he did not practice his assigned technique,
his test results were omitted from the investigation.
I
Test Conditions
This investigation was composed of both a pre- and
posttest, as indicated earlier. The pretest consisted
of three parts: general instructions, the DLS, and
MAACL. Each student received a packet with the written
i
| instructions on the first page— incorporating the neutral
. or threatening instructional conditions (see Appendices
E and F)--and two answer sheets.
In order to eliminate any order effect from the
test taking, the testing went as follows: first, half
the group took the MAACL while the other half waited;
: second, all subjects took the DLS together, and last,
the other half who did not take the MAACL originally
i
completed it while the other half waited.
! All pretesting was conducted in the same class
period and was accomplished by having half of the twelve
groups take the pretest the first part of the period and
i
j the other half the last part.
The make-up of the posttest was the same as the
j pretest except that two additional tests were included at
I
! the end of the battery: the Instruction Questionnaire
' and the TAS.
!
j The posttest, like the pretest, was completed with-
| in one school period. In order to accommodate all the
| students and to maintain strict controls, two rooms were
| used. The testing conditions were identical for both
I
| rooms. One room started--and completed— the posttest
i
| 15 minutes earlier than the other in order to enable the
I investigator to initiate the testing in both rooms. An
I
* aid was used in each of the rooms to help maintain order
<
I and insure that the written instructions were carried
j >
! out correctly. As a means of controlling for order
1 ;
_________________________________________________________________________ UJL
effect, subjects who had taken the pretest the first part
! of the hour were assigned to take the posttest the last
i
part.
Both treatment groups were equally represented in
j the two rooms and were instructed to go to their assigned
rooms earlier than the non-treatment control group in
; order first to practice their relaxation technique for
i
; ten minutes. Directions on how to carry out the technique
j (see Appendices G and H) were explicated on the first
i
j page of a posttest packet. At the end of the practice,
the non-treatment control groups were brought over to
I their assigned room and joined with the training groups
I
i in completing the posttest.
i
i
| Methodological Assumptions
i The following methodological assumptions were made:
I
| 1. The research design, control methods, subject
j selection procedures, data collection and analyses were
i
appropriate to the investigation.
' 2. The reliability and validity of the test instru-
i
raent were appropriate to the intent of the investigation.
; 3. The subjects in this study were representative
1 of the population from which they were selected, within
; the scope of the delimitations offered in Chapter I.
i j . . The varied instructional conditions invoked
I differential responses based on the subjects1 level of
trait test anxiety.
5. The subjects in the experimental and control
groups were similar, receiving comparable pretest results
I
i 6. The quality and length of instruction were
sufficient for adequately learning the meditative
technique.
7* The subjects correctly executed their assigned
j relaxation technique preceding the posttest.
| 8. There were no special effects caused by the
1
j simulated-meditative technique during either training
I or practice that might have altered the test results
1
! for this group.
9* The data of this investigation were fairly and
j accurately obtained, recorded and analyzed.
j
! Limitations
i _
! The following limitations appeared to exist during
i
| the investigation:
1
j 1. Reactive effects to testing and to the know-
| ledge by the non-treatment control group that the other
i
! groups had gone through a training period while they
1
had not, could not be determined. Analysis of co-
j variance attempted to control for this.
! 2. Results attributed to the experimental group
were limited to the training program and the technique
used in this study.
3. The .individual attitudinal differences by the
subjects during the study had an indeterminable affect.
1
’ i|. Generalizations to other students should be
confined to those of the same socio-economic and ethnic
j
1 strata as those used in this study.
I
! 5« Possible effects due to the sequencing of
training and testing among groups could not be determined.
1
| 6. Although the total number of subjects used in
i
I
j this investigation was adequate for the analysis
; procedures employed, a larger sample would have allowed
for greater disparity between the HA and LA groups on
; trait test anxiety, increasing the strength of any
[ conclusions.
I
1 7. Any generalizations made., based on the analysis,
1
1
i were confined to the extent to which assumptions under
lying the experimental procedures had been met.
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter the results of the investigation are
presented and interpreted within the context of the main
t
jresearch hypothesis. Possible explanations to account
jfor the various findings are discussed together with
|suggestions for alternative investigative approaches.
i Findings
Predictions Relative to Test Anxiety Theory
Test anxiety theory formed the conceptual basis
jfor this study. Any discussion concerning the major
jhypothesis must first determine if the theory was
I operative during the investigation. A distinct pattern
i
I ^
;of results should have occurred on both the pre- and post-
; tests.
i
While it was expected, according to the theory,
i
that a possible difference would be found for the main
i
effect of instruction on the pre-MAACL--with the threat
groups demonstrating higher anxiety than the neutral
i
;groups--none was expected for the main effect of anxiety.
A significant interaction was predicted between the
anxiety and instruction conditions (AB) on the pre-MAACL
with the threat HA groups expected to be higher in state
anxiety than the neutral HA groups, and the threat LA
!
j groups higher than the neutral LA groups.
On the pre-DLS a possible differential effect was
i
i
* expected for the main effect of anxiety, but not for
i the main instruction effect. The HAs were expected to
i
i
I do poorer than the LAs in digit-letter retention. A
t
i
! significant AB interaction was anticipated, with the
| neutral HA groups scoring higher than the threat HA
i
groups, and the threat LA groups scoring higher than
the neutral LA groups.
i The .05 level of significance was applied in
I
! all statistical tests. Both analysis of variance
and observation, comparing the composite group means,
j
j were employed in the pre-MAACL and pre-DLS in order to
i
| verify the predicted pattern of results.
I Posttest results were analyzed through the use of
analysis of covariance--pwith the pretest results serving
J
| as the covariate. Analysis of covariance was employed
i in order to control for any initial differences between
i
the groups and for any pretest effect.
Results on the post-MAACL and post-DLS were
i|6J
jexpected to be similar to those predicted for the pretests.
The possibility of finding a significant main effect for
the instruction condition on the post-MAACL and for the
'anxiety condition on the post-DLS were somewhat diminished
i
ibecause of the potential effect hypothesized for the
meditative technique. A significant interaction was
anticipated on both posttests. An inspection of the
i
non-treatment cell means was expected to reveal the same
I
comparisons as those predicted for the composite group
jmeans on the interactions: the threat HA cell mean would
|be higher than that for the neutral HA group on the post-
;MAACL and lower on the post-DLS; the threat LA cell mean
i
jwould be moderately higher than that for the neutral LA
i
j g r o u p on both the post-MAACL and the post-DLS. Analysis
l
|of the separate backward post-DLS scores was expected to
i
reveal the same trend as that for the total DLS scores
i
|(the combined forward and backward scores).
i
t
i
♦
Findings Relative to Test Anxiety Theory
; Findings on the pretests did not generally correspond
! with those predicted from test anxiety theory. While the
main effect of anxiety on the pre-MAACL was found to be
'significant with an F ratio of 12.65 (p < .01) (Tables 1
and 2)--with the HA groups (9*28) having demonstrated
higher state anxiety than the LA groups (6.19)--the main
1
TABLE 1
MEAN NUMBER OP ANXIOUS RESPONSES AND
STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR PRE-MAACL
Treatment Condition
1
Group Non-Treat. Simul. Medlt.
Low Anxietya
Threat Instr,
(7.00)d
5-19
(6.281
3.20°
(6.57)
1.81
6.62
Neutral Instr.
(6.28)
2.81
(1+. 28)
3.11+
(6.71)
3-1+5
5.
76
j
High Anxiety
Threat Instr.
(11.iU)e
U-71+
(8.1U)
2.73
(6.1 4. 2)
1+.75
8.
57
Neutral Instr.
(10.85)
3-71
(8.1U)
1+.51
(11.00)
5.85
10.00
8.82
6.71
7.68
7-Ik
! Note.
i ^ow Anxiety groups had a composite mean score
: of 6,19.
V *
i Numbers in parentheses indicate the mean scores.
! c
: Numbers without parentheses indicate the standard
! deviations.
I
< j
High Anxiety groups had a composite mean score
of 9.28.
eHigh mean scores indicate high state anxiety and
low scores, low anxiety.
i
i
! _________________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
FOR ANXIOUS RESPONSES ON PRE-MAACL
Source
SS df MS F
1 ......— - * ---------------------'
I
1 Anxiety (A)
201.19 1
201.19 12.65
Instruction (B)
1.71
1
1.71
.10
Treatment (C)
i
62.31 2
31.15 1.96
AB
27.14-2 1
27.1*2 1.72
AC 18.88 2
9.1*1* .59
BC
U5.92 2 22.96 1.1*1*
ABC
11*. 21 2 7.10
•Uit-
Error
111*1*. 56 72
15.89
Total
1516.22
83
18.26
: Note.
instruction effect was not found to be significant. No
significant AB interaction was revealed on the pre-MAACL
and inspection of the marginals (Table 1) showed that ■
the neutral HA groups (10.00) were higher than the threat 1
I
HA groups (8.57) in state anxiety and that the threat i
LA groups (6.62) exhibited a higher composite mean score
than the neutral LA groups (5*76).
The pre-DLS (Tables 3 and i|) revealed ambiguous
results that also tended to contradict the theory.
While no significant effect was found for the anxiety
condition, one was found for the instruction condition
(p < .05) with, the threat instruction groups (9•97)
demonstrating greater digit-letter retention than the
neutral groups (8.66). A significant AB interaction
was found with an P ratio of 6.57 (p < .05) and a test
of simple main effects indicated that the neutral HA
groups (7• i+7) did poorer in retention than either the
threat HA (10.i|7) or the neutral LA groups (9*85).
i
The adjusted post-MAACL findings were generally .
i
supportive of the theory (Tables $, 6 and J)i (a)
analysis of the adjusted post-MAACL revealed that no
significant main effect existed for the anxiety condition,
i
but did for the instruction condition (p < .01) (Tables
i
6 and 7), with the threat instruction groups (8.25)
5 o '
TABLE 3
MEAN NUMBER OF DIGIT-LETTER SERIES
RECALLS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR PRE-DLS
i
1
Treatment Condition
1
! Group Non-Treat. Simul. Medit.
I
! Low Anxiety
i
| Threat Instr.
(10.71)&
3-63 ‘t:*?
(9.28)
1.1+9
9.1+7
! Neutral Instr.
i
(10.11+)
3.80
(10.28)
1.25
(9.11+)
3-23
9.85
i
j
I High Anxiety
i
Threat Instr.c
(12.11+)
2. 3k
(10.1+2)
2.07
(8.85)
1+.37
10.1+7
d
Neutral Instr
(8.11+)
2.26
(6.Ik)
3.18
(8.11+)®
2.96
7.1+7
10.28 8.82 8.85
9.32
aNumbers in parentheses indicate the mean score.
^Numbers without parentheses indicate the standard
deviations.
cThreat instruction groups had a composite mean
score of 9.97.
^Neutral instruction groups had a composite mean
score of 8.66.
eHigh mean scores indicate high digit-letter retention
and low scores, low retention.
TABLE 4
l SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
\ FOR DIGIT-LETTER SERIES RECALLS ON FRE-DLS
I
I
1
; Source SS df MS F 1
I
j Anxiety (A)
10.01 1 10.01
1.09
f
1 Instruction (B)
1
36.01 1 36.01
3.9k#
| Treatment (C)
i
39-07 2
19-53 2.13
' AB
60.01 1 60.01
6.57*
AC
2.16 2 1.08 .11
BC
12.16 2 6.08 • 66
ABC
27-16 2 13.58
1.1*8
Error
657-70 72
9-13
Total
8UU-31 83 10.17
I Not©.
TABLE i j . (Continued )
TEST OP SIMPLE MAIN EFFECTS (AB)
b at a^
1.51 1 1.51 .17
b at a^ 232.82 1 232.82 25.50*
a at b,
1
10.50 I 10.50 1.15
a at b^ 59.1*7 1 59.1*7 6.51*
Bl B B2
Threat Instruction Weutral Instruction
A-. LA
9.1*7 1
9.85
A
a2 HA
10.1*7
7.1+7
I Note.
**£ < «°5.
1
1
53
TABLE 5
I MEAN NUMBER OF ANXIOUS RESPONSES AND
; STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR POST-MAACL
: i
i
i
i i
Treatment Condition
1
Group Non-Treat. Siraul. Medit.
Low Anxiety
Threat Instr.
Neutral Instr.
(6-28)a
2.43
(7.42)
2.07
(7.00)
4.616
(5.28)
2.49
(8.85)
5.01
(6.42)
3-25
7.38
6.37
High Anxiety
Threat Instr.c
Neutral Instr.
(11.28)
5.58
(7-7l)e
3.14
(8.85)
4*74
(3.85)
3-23
(6.85)
3.38
(6.28)
5.15
9.00
5-95
T V T - h f s
8.17 6.25
7.10 7.17
aNumbers in parentheses indicate the mean scores.
Numbers without parentheses indicate the standard
deviations.
cThreat instruction groups had a composite mean
score of 8.19*
j
Neutral instruction groups had a composite mean
score of 6.16.
eHigh mean scores indicate high state anxiety and
low scores, low anxiety.
TABLE 6
I ADJUSTED MEAN NUMBER OP ANXIOUS
; RESPONSES FOR POST-MAACL
i
Treatment Condition
1
| Croup Non-Treat. Simul. Medit.
i
Low Anxiety
Threat Instr*a
6.57
7-56 9.31
(7-81)
Neutral Instr.^ 7.99
6.61 6.82
(7.1U)
■
High Anxiety
Threat Instr. 9.99c 6.70 7-36
(8.68)
Neutral Instr. 6.52
3.70 5.02 (5-08)
(7.77)
(6.61*)
(7.13)
7.18
Note.
aThreat-instruction groups had a composite mean
score of 8.25*
Neutral instruction groups had a composite mean
score of 6.11.
cHigh mean scores indicate high state anxiety and
low scores, low anxiety.
I
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OP ANALYSIS OP COVARIANCE
FOR
t
POST-MAACL ADJUSTED MEANS
1
Source SS df MS F
| Covariatea <212.72 1 212.72
Anxiety (A) 6.58 1 6.58 .50
1
j Instruction (B)
95.54
1
95.54 7.19*
1 Treatment (C) 16.61 2 8.30 .63
AB
1
44.97
1
44.97
3.38**
AC 27.86 2
13.93 1.05
BC 14.18 2 7.09
.53
ABC
25.25
2 12.62
.95
Error
943.51 71 13.29
Total
1390.31 83
16.75
Note.
I — ..............
The covariate is the pre-MAACL mean scores.
I % < .01.
i < .07.
demonstrating more state anxiety than the neutral in
struction groups (6.11); (b) though the AB interaction
was not significant at .05 level (Table 7)> it did
| approach significance (p < .07); (c) an inspection of
; the marginals (Table 6) indicated that the composite
mean score for the threat HA groups (8.68) was moderately
| higher than that for the neutral HA groups (5*08) and
i
| the threat LA group mean (7-dl) was higher than the
neutral LA group mean (7*lU); and (d), a comparison of
non-treatment group means revealed that the threat HA
i
I instruction group (9.99) was higher than the neutral
i
I HA group (6.52) and that the neutral LA group (7*99)
I
| was higher than the threat LA group (6.57)(Table 6).
1 There were no significant main effects or inter-
j actions revealed for the adjusted post-DLS scores at
| the .05 level of significance (Tables 8, 9 and 10).
1
| The AB interaction had an F ratio of 3.29 and approached
1
| significance at the .07 level, with the threat HA groups
i
(9.56) (Table 9) doing poorer than the neutral HA groups
t
| (10.7$) and the threat LA groups (IO.I4 .I) doing better
; than the neutral LA groups (9.U8). An inspection of
| the non-treatment groups showed that the threat HA cell
1
| mean (9*72) was lower in retention than the neutral HA
I cell mean (10.12) and that the threat LA cell mean (ll.ij.5)
I
TABLE 8
! MEAN NUMBER OP DIGIT-LETTER SERIES RECALLS AND
STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR POST-DLS
I
I
Treatment Condition
Group Non-Treat Simul. Medit. 1
Low Anxiety
1
1
Threat Instr.
4-75
Neutral Instr.
(8.713 (10.1+2)
1+.95 2.29
(10.28)° (9.28)
2.8?...3.03 ..
10.52 !
9.85
High Anxiety
1
Threat Instr. i 'Iq*
Neutral Instr. ^"ll^
(10.71)
2.75
(9.71)
3-51*
(8.71)
3.03
(9.1+2)
2.93
10.38
9.1+7
10.85
Note.
9.85
9.1+8
10.06
8.
Numbers in parentheses indicate the mean scores.
I d
Numbers without parentheses indicate standard
deviations*
High mean scores indicate high digit-letter retention
and low scores, low retention.
TABLE 9
ADJUSTED MEAN NUMBER OF DIGIT-LETTER 1
SERIES RECALLS FOR POST-DLS j
r
Treatment Condition
Group Non-Treat. Simul • Medit.
------------ ..
Low Anxiety
Threat Instr.
Neutral Instr.
.
11. U5
9.1*2
9.3k
9.60
io.l*5
9.1*1
(10.1*1)
(9.1*8)
High Anxiety
Threat Instr.
Neutral Instr.
9.72
10.12
9.93
11.95s
9.01*
10.26
- (9.56)
(10.78)
(10.18) (10.21) (9.79)
10.86
'Note.
i
®High mean scores indicate high digit-letter retention
and low scores, low retention.
TABLE 10
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF
COVARIANCE FOR POST-DLS ADJUSTED MEANS
f
j Source
SS df
MS F
Covariatea
370.61 1 370.61
i
Anxiety (A)
CO
•
1
.78 .11
I Instruction (B)
i
.13 1
.13
.02
Treatment (C)
3.1+6 2
1.73 .25
AB
22. Sk 1
22.51+ 3.29*
AC
16.1+6 2
8.23 1.20
BC
13-33
2 6.66
.97
ABC
.1+0 2 .20
.03
Error
1+86.62
71 6.85
Total
912+.69
83 11.02
Note.
am.
The covanate is the pre-DLS mean scores.
*E < .07.
I was higher than the neutral LA cell mean (9.1|2).
In order to investigate the supposition by Kitzinger
and Bluraberg (195>1) that backward regurgitation of
i digits--rather than the combination of both forward
!
|and backward regurgitation— is most easily impaired by
i
(high state anxiety, it was necessary to undertake analysis
iof covariance on the separate backward DLS scores. The
i
forward scores were also analyzed for exploratory sake,
jAs indicated on Tables 11 through 18, there was no
significant F ratio found for any of the main effects
|or interactions for either the forward or backward
i
I adjusted scores.
i
t
■Findings Relative to Major Hypothesis
Three-way analysis of covariance was performed--
using the pretest scores as the covariate--to test the
research hypothesis that high test anxious subjects who
practiced the inhale-exhale meditative technique
immediately before taking an anxiety and digit-letter
|retention test, under threatening instructional
conditions, would receive higher retention scores and
;lower anxiety scores than either the threat HA simulation
j
or threat HA non-treatment groups. As indicated on
Tables 5 through 10, no F ratios were found to be
TABLE 11
MEAN NUMBER OF FORWARD DIGIT-LETTER
SERIES RECALLS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
FOR PRE-DLS
i
I Treatment Condition
. Group Non-Treat. Simul. Medit.
»
i
Low Anxiety
Threat Instr.
(6.86)a
2.12
(6.571
1.90
(6.14)
1.57
6..52
j Neutral Instr.
(5.71)
1.25
(6.43)
1.27
(6.43)
2.37
6,
.19
t
High Anxiety
1
Threat Instr.
i
(7 • 71)u
1.11
(7.15)
1.46
(5.71)
2.43
6 86
1 Neutral Instr.
(5-43)
1.99
(4-57)
2.44
(5.00)
1.63
5<
.00
6.43
6.18 5.82 6,
>lk
aNurabers in parentheses indicate mean scores.
y.
Numbers without parentheses indicate standard
deviations.
°High mean scores indicate high digit-letter retention
and low scores, low retention.
TABLE 12
MEAN NUMBER OP FORWARD DIGIT-LETTER
SERIES RECALLS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
FOR POST-DLS
i I
Treatment Condition
1
j Group Non-Treat. Simul. Medit.
j Low Anxiety
Threat Instr.
Neutral Instr.
(6.86)a
1.77
(5.71)
1.80
(6.1* 3i
2.07
(6.1*3)
1.13
(6.57)
1.27
(6.0 )
1.83
6.62
6.01*
High Anxiety
Threat Instr.
Neutral Instr.
(6.57)
1.27
(5.86)
1.86
(6.86)c
1.21
(6.1*3)
1.99
(5.86)
1.86
(5.86)
1.95
6.1*3
6.05
6.25 6.51* 6.07
6.28
i
! Note.
i .............
aNumbers in parentheses indicate mean scores.
Numbers without parentheses indicate standard
deviations.
cHigh mean scores indicate high digit-letter retention
and low scores, low retention.
63-
TABLE 13
ADJUSTED MEAN NUMBER OF FORWARD
DIGIT-LETTER SERIES RECALLS
FOR POST-DLS
Treatment Condition
j Group
Non-Treat. Simul. Medit.
i
| Low Anxiety
Threat Instr. 6.68 6.32 6.57
(6.52)
i
Neutral Instr. 5.82 6.36
5.93 (6.0l|)
1
High Anxiety
Threat Instr. 6.17
6.60
5.97 (6.25)
Neutral Instr. 6.0i| 6.83a
6.15 (6.3k)
Note.
(6.18)
(6.53)
(6.16) 6.29
High mean scores indicate
high digit--letter rentention
and low scores, low retention.
TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE
FOR FORWARD POST-DLS ADJUSTED ' •
MEANS
Source SS df MS f
Covariatea
20.1*1 1 20.1*1
Anxiety (A)
.00 1 .00 .00
Instruction (B)
.89 1
.89
• 33
Treatment (C) 2.1*6 2 1.23
.1+5
AB
1.69 1
1.69 .62
AC
1.1*0 2 .70 .26
BC
1.37
2
.69 .25
ABC
.1*1 2 .20 .08
Error
192.53 71 2.71
Total
221.11*
83 2.66
■ Note.
am.
The covanate is the forward pre-DLS mean scores.
TABLE 1$
MEAN NUMBER OP BACKWARD DIGIT-LETTER
SERIES RECALLS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
FOR PRE-DLS
Treatment Condition
Group Non-Treat. Simul. Medit.
Low Anxiety
i
! Threat Instr.
(3.71)a
1.70
<3-l*3i
.98*
(3.U*)
1.57
3.1*3
i
Neutral Instr.
i
(3.00)
.82
(3-86)
.90
(2.71)
1.50
3.19
High Anxiety
Threat Instr.
(i+.29)C
1.98
(3-1*3)
.98
(2.1*3)
1.90
3.38
Neutral Instr.
(2.71)
.76
(1-57)
.98
(3-11*)
1.77
2.1*7
Note.
3-43 3.07
2.86 3.12
Q ,
Numbers in parentheses indicate mean scores.
I d
Numbers without parentheses indicate standard
deviations.
High mean scores indicate high digit-letter retention
and low scores, low retention.
TABLE 16
I
MEAN NUMBER OP BACKWARD DIGIT-LETTER j
SERIES RECALLS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
FOR POST-DLS I
Treatment Condition
Group Non-Treat. Simul. Medit.
Low Anxiety
Threat Instr.
Neutral Instr.
(5.i4)a
2.61
(4.00)
2.00
(4.141
1.57
(3.86)
2.54
(3.86)
1.35
(3.29)
1.70
U-38
3-72
High Anxiety
Threat Instr.
Neutral Instr.
(5.1I+)8-
1.21
(3-29)
1.11
(3.85)
2.12
(3-lU)
I.46
(2.86)
1.57
(3.57)
1.51
3-95
3.34
U* 39 3-75
Note.
aNurabers in parentheses indicate mean
Numbers without parentheses indicate
3-40
scores.
standard
3.85
deviations.
cHigh mean scores indicate high digit-letter retention
and low scores, low retention.
I
TABLE 17
! ADJUSTED MEAN NUMBER OF BACKWARD !
DIGIT-LETTER SERIES RECALLS ;
FOR POST-DLS t
i
i :
Treatment Condition
Group Non-Treat. Siraul. Medit.
Low Anxiety
Threat Instr,
U-85a 3.99 3-85 (I*.23)
Neutral Instr. U.06 3-U9 3-U9
(3.68)
High Anxiety
Threat Instr. 3-70 3.20 (3.82)
Neutral Instr.
3-U 9
3.92 3-56 (3-66)
Note.
(I+.25) (3.78) (3-53)
3.85
^igh mean scores indicate high digit-letter retention
and low scores, low retention.
i
TABLE 18
SUMMARY OP ANALYSIS OP
COVARIANCE FOR BACKWARD
POST-DLS ADJUSTED MEANS
i
1 Source
SS
d f
MS
p
Covariatea
57.67 1
57.67 20.81
Anxiety (A)
i
.91+ 1
.91+
•31+
‘instruction (B)
2.5 6 1
2.56
.92
J Treatment (C)
7.13
2
3-57
1.28
I ab
i
.75 1
.75
C \ ]
•
1 AC
i
.90 2
• U 5 .16
BC
1
3.1+0 2
O
D -
a
H
.61
ABC
1.17 2
vn
C D
.21
Error
196.78
71
2.77
Total
270.99
83
3-27 :
i Note.
j
The covariate Is the backward pre-DLS mean scores.
i significant at the .05 level either for the main treat
ment effect or for any of the first-and second-order
interactions as they pertained to the meditative technique.
Also, there were no significant main effects or inter-
: actions found in analyzing the separate adjusted forward
and backward DLS scores (Tables II4 . and 18).
If it can be assumed that the mean from the threat
1
HA meditation group would have been similar to that of
! the threat HA non-treatment group had they not practiced
the meditative technique, then two important trends
, were detected on the adjusted post-MAACL (Table 6):
i
! (a) while the threat HA non-treatment group had a 9*99
I adjusted mean score, the HA meditation group had a mean
1
score of 7.36 in the direction of the neutral HA
I meditation group (5«02)y indicating a possible decrease
r
| in anxiety due to the meditative treatment; and (b),
j while the mean was higher for the threat LA meditation
1
I group (9.31) than the threat LA non-treatment group (6.57)*
F
| the threat HA meditation group was lower in anxiety (7*36)
1
j than the threat HA non-treatment group (9.99)? indicating
| that the meditative technique may have helped diminish anx
iety in the threat HA meditation group and increased it
i
; in the threat LA meditation group.
j Inspection of the adjusted cell means on the
j post-DLS (Table 9) did not demonstrate any support for
the major hypothesis: (a) the threat HA meditation
group (9.01+) did poorer than the threat HA non-treatment
I group (9.72); (b) the HA threat meditation cell was
i
j lower than any other adjusted cell indicating that the
inhale-exhale meditative technique was of no help in
i
: improving retention; (c) further examination of the
^ cells tended to demonstrate that the meditative technique
I
j may have inhibited retention--both the threat LA
; meditation group (10.1+5) and the threat HA meditation
group (9.01+) did poorer than their comparable non
treatment groups (11.1+5 and 9.72, respectively).
Inspection of the separate forward and backward scores
were no more supportive of the hypothesis^(Tables 11--18).
Findings Concerning the TAS
Three-way analysis of variance and covariance
were also employed on the TAS scores (see Tables 19--
23). Analysis of variance on the pretest disclosed
that a differential effect existed for the anxiety
i
' condition,— with an F ratio 1+39.88 (p <.00l)--as
expected. There were no other significant main effects
! or interactions.
Analysis of covariance for adjusted posttest
scores revealed that a significant F ratio of 3*57
TABLE 19
MEAN NUMBER OP NON-ANXIOUS RESPONSES
AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR PRE-TAS
Treatment Condition
1 Group
i
Non-Treat. Simul. Medit.
1 --- 1
1 Low Anxiety8 -
j Threat Instr.
(21*.85)
3-07
(27.1U)
2.91
(26.11*)
3.89
26.01*
Neutral Instr.
(27.71)
3.09
(21*.71)
1*. 68
(25.71)
I*. 31
26.01*
High Anxiety
Threat Instr.
(8.28)c
2.13
(1S : y *
(11.11*)
3.71
9.95
Neutral Instr.
(9.85)
2.1*7
(10.71)
3.51*
(11.57)®
2.57
10.71
Note •
17.67 18.25
18.61* l8.19
^ow Anxiety groups had a composite mean score of 26.01;.
High Anxiety groups had a composite mean score of
10.33.
cNumbers in parentheses indicate mean scores. j
i
j
Numbers without parentheses indicate standard
deviations.
eHigh mean scores indicate low trait test anxiety and |
low scores, high anxiety. j
i
i
7.2 J
TABLE 20
SUMMARY OP ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE
FOR NON-ANXIOUS RESPONSES ON PRE-TAS
| Source SS df MS P
Anxiety (A) 5185.71 1
5185.71
l j . 39.88’
Instruction (B) 3.01+ 1 3.01+
.25
Treatment (C) 13.16 2 6.58
.55
AB 3.01+ 1 3.0U .25
AC 25.78 2 12.89 1.09
BC
39.31
2 19.65 1.66
ABC 11+. 02 2 7.01
.59
Error 8I+8.78 72 11.78
Total
6132.87 83 73.89
Note.
*£ < .001
i
i
TABLE 21
MEAN NUMBER OP NON-ANXIOUS RESPONSES
AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR POST-TAS
Treatment Condition
Group Non-Treat. Simul. Medit.
1
Low Anxiety
\
Threat Instr.
Neutral Instr.
(24-42)®
7.04
(28.00)
3.10
(28.28*
3-5U
(26.14)
3.81+
(21+.57)
7.09
(23.00)
1+.39
25.76 j
25.71
High Anxiety
Threat Instr.
Neutral Instr.
(8.85)
4-67
(9.14)
2.51+
(12.28)
1.97
(15.71)°
7.1+3
(12.71)
3-59
(12.71)
1+.1+6
11.28
12.52
Note.
17.60 20.60 18.24 18. «2
aNumbers in parentheses indicate the mean scores.
Numbers without parentheses indicate the standard
deviations.
cHigh mean scores indicate low trait test anxiety and
low scores high anxiety.
I
TABLE 22
ADJUSTED MEAN NUMBER OF NON-ANXIOUS
RESPONSES FOR POST-TAS
Treatment Condition
Group
Non-Treat. Simul• Medit.
Low Anxiety
Threat Instr.
Neutral Instr.
19.91a
21.55
22.21
21.72
19.18
17.90
(20.1+3)
(20.39)
High Anxiety
Threat Instr.
Neutral Instr.
15.57
11+.79
17.55
20.78
17.1+9
17.20
(16.87)
(17.59)
17-956
20.57b 17.9l+u
18.82
| Note.
^igh adjusted mean scores indicate low trait test
anxiety and low scores, high anxiety.
^The composite means for the simulated-meditating^
groups was significantly lower in trait test anxiety
than either the non-treatment or meditative groups
at the .05 level.
75-
TABLE 23
1 SUMMARY OP ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE
FOR POST-TAS ADJUSTED MEANS
1
Source SS df MS P
I
3 .
j Covariates 1*535-08 1 1+535.08
j Anxiety (A)
15.06 1 15.06
G O
•
! Instruction (B)
1
2.01+ 1 2.01+ .11
Treatment (C)
127.1+5
2 63.72
3.57*
AB
2.95
1
2.95 .17
AC 63.81 2
31.91 1.79
BC 16.62 2 8.31
• U7
ABC 32.61+ 2 16.32
• 91
Error 1269.22
71
17.88
Total
6061+. 25
83
73-06
Note.
&
The covariate is the pre-TAS mean scores.
*e < .05.
76
(p < .05) existed for the treatment condition (Table 23).
i
A test of least significant differences disclosed that
| while the non-treatment (17*95) and meditative groups
I
| (17*9U) were approximately equivalent in their composite
( group means, the simulation groups (20.57) differed ^
( significantly from both of them, demonstrating considerably
| less test anxiety:(Table 22).
♦
| Interpretation and Discussion
|
I Examination of the Results Concerning Test Anxiety Theory
i
The experimental design of this investigation
i
1 was based on test anxiety theory. Any discussion
: concerning the major hypothesis must first demonstrate
<
; that the theory was in effect. While the theory failed
i
j to be upheld by the data on the pretest, it tended to
I be supported by the posttest results. Verification
i
j that the theory was operative during the posttest was
1 the most essential concern of the study because the
! posttests were directly involved in determining the
i
j effectiveness of the meditative technique. Interest
I in the general efficacy of the theory and the pretest
findings were of secondary importance. Even if the
. pretest results demonstrated that test anxiety theory
| was in effect, it would not lessen the concern for the
! posttest results.
The pretest results contradicted the expected
results: (a) the variable of anxiety, rather than
that of instruction, was found to have a significant
main effect on the pre-MAACL (Tables 1 and 2); (b) the
i pre-DLS results (Tables 3 and 1+) demonstrated that a
significant instruction effect existed rather than that
i
: expected for the anxiety effect--with the threat
i
jinstruction groups demonstrating more, instead of less,
jdigit-letter retention than the neutral groups; (c) there
| was no significant AB interaction found on the pre-MAACL
| (Table 2); (d) a significant interaction was revealed on
' the pre-DLS, but in the opposite of that predicted. In
general, there was no pattern of support for the theory.
; Analysis of the adjusted posttest results tended
■ to consistently support the theory: (a) on the adjusted
I
post-MAACL (Tables 6 and 7) the instruction variable
was found to have a significant main effect, with the
threat groups demonstrated more anxiety than the
]neutral groups; (b) the AB interaction for both the
; MAACL and DLS approached significance at the .07 level
; (Tables 7 and 10) and the overall pattern of adjusted
i
I composite means for the threat HA, neutral HA, threat
! LA and neutral LA groups consistently demonstrated that
!the theory was in effect; and (c), inspection of the
non-treatment controls tended to confirm that test anxiety
theory was operative on the adjusted post-MAACL (Table 6).
While a number of cell means did not follow the
predicted results--e.g., the threat LA non-treatment
jgroup (6.57) should have been higher than the neutral j
LA non-treatment group (7*99) on the adjusted post-MAACL j
j
’(Table 6)--the overall results tended to demonstrate
1
j that test anxiety theory was in effect on the posttest.
Assuming that this central premise was satisfied
bn the posttest, the investigation on the major hypothesis
j was undertaken. While the pretest results appeared to
contradict test anxiety theory, they did not take away
from the posttest findings. The question exists, however,
1
j as to why the results were ambiguous between the pre- and
f
iposttests.
i
i
Explanations for the Ambiguous Results Concerning Test
Anxiety Theory
The inconsistent findings between the pre- and
posttests for test anxiety theory were interpreted as
being due to: (a) the failure to meet several methodo
logical assumptions in Chapter III; and (b) the possible
effects generated by certain uncontrolled variables, some
I
| of which were cited as potential limitations in Chapter IIL
1 1
I 1
! The following section discusses possible reasons for the j
[ contradictory findings.
A. Possible Differences on the MAAGL Due to the
Presence of General Anxiety during the Pretest
The investigator observed a high level of anxiety
i
| during the administration of the pretest as evidenced
| by the inordinate amount of concern and questioning
i
i about the tests by the subjects. This general anxiety
| may explain why there was no AB interaction observed
on the pre-MAACL, but was on the post-MAACL. The
general anxiety may have been of such strength that it
i obscured any effect caused by the subtler instruction
i
, conditions. Both the threat and neutral HA groups may
i
| have experienced an equivalent amount of anxiety on the
! pretest. By posttest time the subjects could have
j adjusted to the test conditions with a resulting decrease
! in general anxiety. The instructional conditions would
i
5 then have been able to manifest their differential
effect.
I The test conditions, such as the characteristics
i
i
| of the experimenter and the nature of the task, as
i
| discussed in Chapter II, appear to be crucial factors
1
i
| in dealing with the HAs. Having allowed the subjects
more time to become familiar with the investigator would
seem to have lead to more stable test results on the
pre- and posttests.
B. Possible Differences Due to Random Error
The most plausible explanation for the enigmatic
results on the DLS is that random error occurred on the i
i
' pretest for the neutral HA simulated-meditation group. |
1 This cell ended up with the largest adjusted cell mean
on the posttest indicating the greatest change from pretest
I to posttest.
i
I C. Possible Differences Due to a Curvilinear Relation-
,
| ship between Anxiety and Digit-Letter Retention
A possible explanation for the inconsistent DLS
findings, but one that contradicts both the explanation
| above for the MAACL findings and test anxiety theory,
is that a U-shaped relationship existed between anxiety
! and digit-letter retention. Three different levels of
j anxiety could have been present during the study: (1) a
i
maximal level--the combination of general anxiety on the
pretest with that caused by the threat condition; (2) a
moderate level--general anxiety on the pretest with the
| neutral condition, or the posttest threat condition minus
i I
; the general anxiety of the pretest; (3) a minimal level--
! the posttest neutral condition without the general
t
anxiety of the pretest. While it is unlikely, it may 1
have been the case that both the maximal and minimal
| levels could have facilitated retention, while the moderate1
level inhibited it, !
^• Possible Differences in Potential Outcomes Due to
i
Lack of Adequate Development of the DLS i
I The DLS may have required greater refinement than j
j that accomplished during the pilot studies. It should
i
| have been tested and developed solely using subjects
similar to those employed in the actual study, i.e.,
HA high school students. The pilot studies used subjects
from varying age ranges. In order to obtain accurate
I
I results on the DLS, it may be necessary to test subjects
| on an individual basis as the preponderance of. other
I
studies have done.
While the literature generally supports the
contention that digit span is easily impaired by anxiety-
l
j arousing conditions, it has not been indisputably
I established. There are studies by Walker and Spence
i
j (196I|.) which have failed to demonstrate that digit span
i
| can be deleteriously affected by anxiety-arousing
1 conditions. More research is needed in investigating
; the relationships between anxiety and cognitive skills.
E. Possible Differences in Potential Outcomes Due to
I Lack of Adequate Development of the Instruction
i '
Conditions
i
________________________________________________________82 j
I As with the DLS, the instruction conditions may
i
have required greater refinement than that accomplished
during the pilot studies. The instruction conditions
;could have been more effective on the posttest than the
i
pretest because of different test conditions. The post-
i
i
test generally went smoother than the pretestj the subjects
i !
were given more time to complete the posttest than the pre-
itest; two rooms were used in the posttest while one was
used on the pretest. The instruction conditions should
have been robust enough to work effectively under these
jvarying conditions.
i
! F. Possible Differences in Potential Outcome Due to
i ■ 111
1 Limited Cell Size
i
Each of the cells in the study ended up with seven
(subjects. This limited cell size reduced the power of
i
jthe statistical tests. A larger number of subjects would
[have effectuated a significant F ratio for the AB inter-
I
(action on the adjusted post-MAACL and post-DLS.
i
1 Possible Differences in Potential Outcome Due to
Limited Sample Size
i
| One possible reason for the lack of statistical
I
(support was that the limited sample size--restricted to
I students from only one class period--and the relatively
<
|large number of groups and individuals required for the
i
. 8.3
experimental design, made it necessary to employ the
bottom third of the TAS sample as the HAs. By using
thirty-three per cent of the population instead of
fifteen or twenty per cent, the HA trait may have been
; diluted, affecting the test results. Subjects more
distinctly HA might have demonstrated greater test
!
j anxiety.
i
i
I H. Possible Differences in Potential Outcome Due to
Sole Dependence on TAS Scores
Another possible weakness that may have altered
i
i the test results was the assumption that high trait test
i
anxious scores on the TAS were indicative and equivalent
to high state anxiety during the investigation. As
Spielberger (1975) points out, being high in trait
! anxiety does not guarantee that one;will be high in
state anxiety during testing. It may have been more
precise to compare high scores on the MAACL with DLS
I test results. Different cell/means on the post-MAACL--
i
! e.g., the neutral HA simulation group--indicated that
MAACL scores were not always consistent with what would
be predicted based on TAS scores (Table 6).
I
I
i
! Examination of the Results Concerning the Major Hypothesis
i
| Based on the assumption that test anxiety theory
was in effect on the posttest, an examination of the
i results pertaining to the major hypothesis proceeded*
Analysis of the test results gave minimal support
to the major hypothesis that the meditative technique
was significantly more effective than the other two
; approaches in diminishing test anxiety and improving
digit-letter retention. There were no significant main
I
effects or interactions found as they pertained to the
i
j meditative technique on either the adjusted post-MAACL
or post-DLS (Tables 7 and 10).
Results on the adjusted means scores for the post-
j MAACL were somewhat more favorable than those for the
post-DLS. While there were no significant interactions
| demonstrated for the meditative technique on the MAACL,
t
j an examination of the individual cell means for the threat
: HA groups demonstrated a steady decrement in state anxiety
|
with the threat HA meditation group having a moderately
lower score than the other two threat HA groups (Table 6).
It should be noted that the Linden study (1972),
as discussed in Chapter II, had results somewhat similar
, to those found for this investigation. Children who
j practiced meditation--different from the one in this
study--were able to demonstrate an abatement in test
i
anxiety, but with no concomitant improvement in the
j cognitive skill of reading.
Despite the limited findings on the adjusted
I post-MAACL, a decision was made because of the lack of
statistically significant findings not to reject the
null hypothesis. There are several possible explanations
for this lack of significant findings, as discussed below.
i
! Explanations the Lack of Support Concerning the
! Research Hypothesis
; The general lack of support for the central
| research hypothesis was interpreted as being due to:
i
(a) the attempt at utilizing too many relatively
untested variables; (b) the abbreviated training
jperiod and meditative practice; and (c), to several
i
j weaknesses that were attributed earlier to the
j ambiguous results concerning test anxiety theory,
jThese weaknesses, as well as a number of others, can
| be briefly summarized below: (1) limited cell size
i
| reduced the power of the statistical tests; (2) the
employment of the bottom third of the sample population
may have diluted the HA trait, affecting the test
results; (3) it has not been demonstrated conclusively
] in the literature that threat instructions impair digit
i
retention in HAs--the process may involve highly complex
interactions; (i+) it may also be the case that while
i
' ' the inhale-exhale technique may be helpful in diminishing
| test anxiety, it may not be beneficial in enhancing
I digit span retention; and (5>) the test results may have
been due to random error as indicated by anomalous result
in a number of adjusted cell means.
Two other weaknesses need a more thorough
, explication:
A. Possible Differences in Potential Outcome Arising
I
1 from an Abbreviated Training Period and Meditative
| Practice
The training period may not have been of sufficient
duration for the subjects to learn'adequately the medi
tative technique. Also, the ten-minute meditative
I practice just prior to the posttest, may not have been
I long enough to effectuate any demonstrable change in
j behavior as measured by the testing instruments. It
t
i would be of interest in a future investigation to carry
I
!
! out a longitudinal study on the length of training and
i
: duration of meditative session needed in order to effect
: positive results. Scores on the DLS could be used as
the criterion for measuring this effectiveness.
!
I B• Possible Differences in Potential Outcome Arising
from the Attempt at Utilizing Too Many Untested
Variables
The investigation may have suffered from attempting
| to accomplish too many objectives at one time. Firstly,
I it may have been advisable to use a method of meditation
j that has been confirmed to be effective in other studies,
rather than the untested one used in this study. Secondly
it may have been premature to use assignees rather than
| volunteers in the study. The lack of cooperation and
i
motivation by some of the subjects may have greatly
<
: altered the results. College-age volunteers might have
j generated different findings.
Explanations for the Unexpected Results on the Post-TAS
The findings that were least expected were those
pertaining to the simulated-meditation group on the
I
! adjusted post-TAS. There are several explanations for
I
j the significant decrease in trait test anxiety for this
| group.
I
i
A. Possible Differences Due to Weaknesses in the
Validity of the TAS
; The simulated meditative subjects may have been
| convinced of the effectiveness of the simulated
| technique. This belief may have altered their responses
on the TAS. If this were the case, then the validity of
the TAS may be called into question. A systematic
I investigation of the TAS may possibly be needed.
■ B* Possible Difference Due to Random Assignment
I Another viewpoint is that the findings may have
I
|
been the result of a weakness in the random assignment
of the subjects. Inspection of both the pre-MAACL and
the adjusted post-MAACL (Tables 1 and 6), indicated
!
| that the simulation groups had lower composite mean
s
scores than the other groups--thought they were not
i
1 found to be significantly lower. These findings tend
I
! to indicate that the post-TAS finding concerning the
i
! simulation technique may have been due to a weakness
I
I in random assignment.
| «
| Data analyses demonstrated that while test anxiety
| thepry was not operative during the pretest, it did appear
i
i
to be generally in effect on the posttest. Based on this
i
1 assumption, the major hypothesis of the study was
| examined. The inhale-exhale meditative technique was
j
i
I found not to be significantly different than the other
i
comparative approaches in diminishing test anxiety and
: improving digit-letter retention. A number of possible
i
i
weaknesses appeared to exist in the study. These
: weaknesses, plus the lack of conclusive support for the
: operativeness of test anxiety theory in the study made it
: difficult to draw any clear conclusions concerning the
| effectiveness of the meditative technique.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
! Purpose
It has become apparent to investigators in the last
three decades, with the increased research in the area of
1 testing, that non-cognitive factors can have a significant
| influence on test performance. One non-intellectual
| factor that has drawn considerable attention is test
»
| anxiety. The purpose of this study was to compare the
i
I results of an inhale-exhale meditative technique with
! those obtained from the employment of either of two other
j
approaches--a simulated meditation technique and no
j technique at all--in the abatement of test anxiety and
j
: in the enhancement of digit-letter retention. The need
for an effective and efficient antidote in alleviating
i
j the deleterious effects of test anxiety has both practical
i
I and theoretical importance for the field of educational
' psychology.
I Hypothesis
Within the theoretical framework of test anxiety
theory, the following major research hypothesis was
formulated: The results for test anxious high school
|students tested under threatening instructional conditions
on both a test of anxiety as measured by the MAACL and a
digit-letter span retention test measured by the DLS would
be less and greater, respectively, for those who practiced
i
|an inhale-exhale meditation technique just prior to taking
these tests than would the results of either of two com
parison control groups (a simulated treatment group and
a non-treatment group)•
i
|Conceptual and Experimental Background
| I. G. Sarason’s test anxiety theory was selected
las the conceptual framework within which the experimental
!
'design of this investigation was based. A review of the
literature discussed the essential aspects of this theory,
j The two successful approaches to test anxiety--
i
I systematic desensitization and cognitive instruction--
Jwere critiqued and it was hypothesized that meditation
iemploys the principle of attention deployment which is
|common to both these treatments, plus the principle of
;reciprocal inhibition which is alleged to operate in
i
systematic desensitization. The final section of the
review of the literature discussed empirical studies that
have investigated the relationship among test anxiety,
cognitive skills, and meditation.
Methodology
! After the HA and LA subjects were segregated from
' the sample population, based on TAS scores, they were
; stratified by sex and randomly assigned to one of three
i
1 treatment conditions: a meditation group, a simulated-
i
meditation group, or a non-treatment group. Each of the
three was further divided into two subgroups assigned to
either a threatening or neutral instructional condition.
j ■
' The treatment groups, after first participating in
\ a pretest, were trained in their assigned techniques and
j then required to practice them immediately before taking
| a posttest. The posttest consisted of the two exams from
i
| the pretest— the MAACL and DLS--plus two additional
j tests--the Instructional Questionnaire and the TAS.
!
I Three-way analysis of variance was carried out on
the pretests, and post hoc comparisons of significant
1 differences were achieved through the use of Tukey's
i
HSD procedures. A test of simple main effects was
applied in analyzing any significant interactions.
. The posttests were analyzed through the use of
I analysis of covariance with the pretest scores serving
as the covariate. Any significant main effects were de
composed through the use of the test of least significant
differences. The .05 level of significance was employed
for all statistical tests in the investigation.
Findings
The following results were found:
1. Analyses were undertaken to determine if
test anxiety theory was operative during the
study and inconsistent findings were revealed:
a. On the pre-MAACL a difference was found
for the anxiety condition with the HAs
demonstrating higher state anxiety than
the LAs (p < .01).
b. A difference was found on the pre-DLS
for the instruction condition (p < .05)
with the neutral instruction groups doing
significantly poorer in digit-letter
retention than the threat instruction groups.
c. There was a significant interaction
demonstrated for the pre-DLS between the
anxiety and instruction conditions (p < .05).
A test of simple main effects revealed that
the neutral instruction HA groups did
significantly poorer on the DLS than either
the threat HA groups or the neutral LA groups.
d. Analysis of covariance of the adjusted
post-MAACL means revealed that the instruction
condition had a significant F ratio (p < .01)
with the threat instruction groups demonstrating
higher state anxiety than the neutral in
struction groups.
e. Taking into account that the study was
basically exploratory and that a more lenient
alpha level of .10 rather than .05 could have
been acceptable, the F ratios found for the
anxiety-instruction interaction on the post-
DLS and post-MAACL of .07 were noteworthy.
f. Analyses of the separate forward and back
ward DLS scores revealed no significant main
effects or interactions. Provided that test
anxiety did exist during the posttests, back
ward regurgitation was found to be no more
affected by anxiety than the combined forward
and backward regurgitation.
An examination of the individual cells
on the adjusted posttests, combined with the
above findings, lead the investigator to
assume that test anxiety theory was generally
in effect on the posttest,
2. There were no significant P ratios found
for any of the main treatment effects or
for any of the first- and second-order
interactions as they pertained to the
meditative technique.
3. Analysis of the pre- and post-TAS revealed:
a. A significant main effect for anxiety
on the pre-TAS (p < .001).
b. A significant F ratio was found for
the treatment condition on the adjusted
post-TAS (p < .05)• A test of least
significant differences disclosed that
while the non-treatment and meditation
groups were equivalent in their composite
group means, the simulation group differed
significantly from both of them, demonstrating
considerably less test anxiety.
Conclusion
The major research hypothesis was not found to be
statistically significant. The practice of an inhale-
exhale meditative technique by HA students just prior
to encountering threatening instructional conditions
-95
was found to be no more effective than a simulated medi
tative technique or no technique at all in diminishing
test anxiety and improving digit-letter retention.
I It is difficult to draw any clear-cut conclusions I
I
, concerning the use of the inhale-exhale meditative
!
technique because; (1) several possible weaknesses i
I
)
j appeared to exist in the study; (2) a number of previously ■
I untested variables were used--any of which may have
confounded the test results; (3) the major theoretical j
; assumption--test anxiety theory was not shown with
I certainty to be operating; (I 4 .) there were some indications
j
j that the meditative technique might be helpful in
| diminishing test anxiety.
- Recommendations
1 — ......... — ............— —
j The study appeared to contain several potential
! weaknesses. Certain modifications are recommended before
1
j undertaking a replication: (a) better preparation with
■ extended pilot studies working with subjects similar to
those used in the actual investigation for refining the
1
DLS, instructional conditions and the overall experimental
i
procedures; (b) minimization of untested variables by
employing college-age volunteers and a method of
1
1 meditation that had been previously used in earlier !
i
I studies; (c) the use of a larger sample population to '
| insure more definite selection of HA subjects; (d) a
longer training period with extended meditative practice
prior to posttesting; (e) alleviation of general anxiety
on the pretest by allowing time for the subjects to
| become familiar with the investigator and to ask any
i
questions; (f) careful selection of test instruments
i
with the possible use of the MAACL for monitoring the
i
; effectiveness of differential instructions in arousing
state anxiety.
There are several relevant suggestions for needed
! future research: (a) a longitudinal investigation
i
j systematically studying the optimal length of training
1 needed in the inhale-exhale meditative technique in
!
I
' order to facilitate the abatement of test anxiety;
I (b) inquiry into the efficacy of the simulated meditative
j technique; (c) an experimental determination of the
iparticular cognitive skills most affected by test
• anxiety--including digit-letter retention; (d) systematic
; investigation of the validity and reliability of the TAS
i
j and AACL; (e) a thorough inquiry into test anxiety theory
j and the differential effects various social, instructional
i and task variables have upon test anxiety and test
; performance.
< Regardless of the lack of significant findings in
i
| the present investigation, the necessity for further
study in this area is imperative. As long as there is
a need for accurate measurement of a student*s abilities
in the classroom, there will be a concomitant need to
eliminate the problem of test anxiety.
9 . 8
REFERENCES !
i
i
Allen, G. J, The behavioral treatment of test anxiety:
: recent research and future trends. Behavior
i Therapy. 1972, J, 253-262.
i
; Allison, J. Respiratory changes during the practice of the
technique of Transcendental Meditation, Lancet, 1970,
i 7651, 833-83!+. • I
j Alpert, R. , & Haber, R. N. Anxiety in academic achievement
i situations. Journal of Abnormal and Social
, Psychology. 1966, 12, 366-391+.
I
I Bandura, A. Principles of behavior modification.
; New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969.
i
j Bandura, A., Blanchard, E., & Ritter, B. The relative
I efficacy of desensitization and modeling treatment
i approaches for inducing effective, behavioral and
attitudinal changes. Journal of Personality and
1 Social Psychology, 1969, lji, 173-199.
Benson, H., Beary, J. F., & Carol, M. P. The relaxation
response. Psychiatry, 1971+, 37, 37-i+6.
'Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. D. Experimental and quasi-
experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1973-
Cohen, R. The effects of group interaction and progressive
hierarchy presentation on desensitization of test
anxiety. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1969, 7, '
15-26.
Connor, W. H. Effects of brief relaxation training on
autonomic response to anxiety-evoking stimuli.
Psychophysiology, 197U, ii (5)* 591-599.
i Cooke, G. The efficacy of two desensitization procedures:
An analogue study. Behavior Research & Therapy,
1966, y,, 99-109.
Cox, P. N. Some effects of test anxiety and presence or
absence of other persons on boys’ performance on a
repetitive motor task. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 1966, J, 100-112.
i
I Davies, John. The Transcendental Meditation program and
progressive relaxation: Comparative effects on
! trait anxiety and self-actualization. In D. W.
Orme-Johnson, J. T. Farrow & L. H. Domash (Eds.),
; Scientific Research on Transcendental Meditation:
Collected Papers. (Vol. 1). Los Angeles, MIU Press,
! in pre s s.
i
Davison, G. C. Anxiety under total curarization:
implications for the role of muscular relaxation
in the desensitization of neurotic fears. Journal
of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1966, li+3, 1+1+3-1 4 - 1 +6.
Denny, J. P. Effects of anxiety and intelligence on
concept formation. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1966, J2, 596-602.
Donner, L., & Guerney, B. G. Jr. Automated group desen
sitization for test anxiety. Behavior Research
I and Therapy, 1969, 7, 1-13*
i
| Doris, J., & Sarason, S. B. Test anxiety and blame
! assignment in a failure situation. J ournal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 19557""j[2> 335-338.
j Easterbrook, J. A. The effect on cue utilization and the
! organization of behavior. Psychological Review,
19l9, 66, 183-201. ----------------
i Egeth, H. Selective attention. Psychological Bulletin,
! 1967, 1, 1+1-57.
I Emery, J. R., & Krumboltz, J. D. Standard versus
individualized hierarchies in desensitization to
reduce test anxiety. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1967, l|l> 201+-209.
I Eysenck, J. J., & Rachman, S. The causes and cures of '
neurosis. London: Routledge, Kegan, and Paul, 1965.|
Ferguson, P. C., & Gowan, J. C. Psychological findings on !
Transcendental Meditation. In D. W. Orme-Johnson,
J. T. Farrow & L. H. Domash (Eds.), Scientific
i Research on Transcendental Meditation: Collected
Papers^ (Vol. 1). Los Angeles, MIU Press, in !
press.
1 i
Forbes, D. ¥. An experimental study of the effect of
\ threat and anxiety on concept formation. Paper
; presented at AERA, 19&9.
i
! Ganzer, V. J. Effects of audience presence and test
1 anxiety on learning and retention in a serial j
; learning situation. Journal of Personality and
j Social Psychology, 1968, 8, 191j.-199. j
j Gelhorn, E., & Kiely, ¥. F. Mystical states of J
I consciousness: neurophysiological and clinical
I aspects. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,
I 1972, 1^. (fe), 399-405.
: Glueck, C. G., & Stroebel, C. F. Biofeedback and
meditation in the treatment of psychiatric illnesses.
In D. W. Orme-Johnson, J. T. Farrow, & L. H. Domash
■ (Eds.), Scientific Research on Transcendental
I Meditation: Collected Papers. Tvol. IJ. Los
Angeles, MIU Press, in press.
! Gorusch, R. L., & Spielberger, C. D. Anxiety, threat,
and awareness in verbal conditioning. J ournal
of Personality, 1966, 336-3^7.
: Griffiths, V. S. The effects of experimentally induced
anxiety on certain subtests on the Wechsler-Bellevue.
! Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
| Kentucky, 1956.
| Harleston, B. ¥. Test anxiety and performance in problem
solving situations. Journal of Personality, 1962,
I 30, 557-573.
! Hess, ¥. R. Functional organization of the diencephalon. ■
1 ;
: Hjelle, L. A. Transcendental meditation and psychological ,
' health. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 197U, 39,
623-628. —
(Hodges, W. P., & Spielberger, C. D. The effects of threat 1
of shock on heart rate for subjects who differ in
manifest anxiety and fear of shock. Psychophysiology,
1966, 2, 287-291+.
Janis, I. L. Anxiety indices related to susceptibility to ‘
persuasion. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 19#, SI, 553-55T.
(Johnson, S. M., & Sechrest, L. Comparison of desensiti- ;
zation and progressive relaxation in treating test i
! anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical !
Psychology, 196.8, 32, 280-286.
jKatahn, M., Stronger*, S. , & Cherry, N. Group counseling
and behavior therapy with test-anxious college
students. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1966,
^0, 544-549.
Kerlinger, P. N. Foundations of behavioral research
(2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1964.
Kitzinger, H., & Blumberg, E. Supplementary guide for
administering and scoring the Wechsler-Bellevue
Intelligence Scale (Form 1). Psychological
Monographs, 19519 2, 11.
Liebert, R. N., & Morris, L. W. Cognitive and emotional
components of test anxiety: A distinction and some
initial data. Psychological Reports, 1967* 20,
1
1 975-978.
Linden, W. The relation between the practicing of
meditation by school children and their levels of
field dependence--independence, test anxiety and
reading achievement. (Doctoral dissertation,
New York University, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1972, 1798~ (University
Microfilms No. 72-26604).
Lucas, J. D. The interactive effects of anxiety, failure,
and intra-serial duplication. American Journal of
Psychology, 1952, 6£, 59-66.
Mandler, G., & Sarason, S. B. A study of anxiety and
1earning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1952, 47, 228-229.
Mandler, G., & Watson, D. L. Anxiety and interruption of ;
behavior. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and ;
Behavior. New York: Academic Press, 19&6.
Mann, J., & Rosenthal, T. L. Vicarious and direct counter
conditioning of test anxiety through individual and
group desensitization. Behavior Research and Therapy^
' 1969, 7, 359-317.
1 1
1 Marlett, N. J., & Watson, D. Test anxiety and immediate 1
or delayed feedback in a test-like avoidance task,
f Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968,
I 8, 200-203.
Marshall, W. L., Strawbridge, H. , & Keltner, H. The role
of mental relaxation in experimental desensitization.;
Behavioral Research and Therapy, 1972, 10, 355-366.
Meichenbaum, D. Cognitive modification of test anxious ;
college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinicall
Psychology» 1972, JO, 370-3*10. ;
Meunier, C., & Rule, B. G. Anxiety, confidence and con- ,
formity. Journal of Personality, 1967, U98-50I 4 . .
Miskiman, D. E. The effect of the Transcendental Medita- :
tion program on the organization of thinking and
| recall (secondary organization). In D. W. Orme-
| Johnson, J. T. Farrow & L. H. Domash (Eds.),
' Scientific Research on Transcendental Meditation:
Collected Papers. (Vol. 1). Los Angeles, MIU Press,
in press.
Moldawsky, S., & Moldawsky, P. C. Digit span as an
anxiety indicator. Journal of Consulting Psychology,1
1952, 16, 115-118.
Montague, E. The role of anxiety in serial rote learning. ;
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953, 91-95*
jMorris, L. W., & Liebert, R. M. Relationship of cognitive ;
I and emotional components of test anxiety to physio- j
I logical arousal and academic performance. Journal
! of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970,
: 332-337* 1
Nicholson, W. M. The influence of anxiety upon learning:
interference or drive increment? Journal of j
1 Personality, 1958, 26, 303-311* j
103J
I Nidich, S., Seeman, W. , & Seibert, M. Influence of the 1
Transcendental Meditation program on state anxiety.
In D. W. Orme-Johnson, J. T. Farrow, & L. H. Domash \
(Eds.), Scientific Research on Transcendental j
Meditation: Collected Papers. “(Vol. 1). Los Angeles, 1
MIU Press, in press.
j
Paul G. L. A two year follow-up of systematic desensiti- !
zation in therapy groups. Journal of Abnormal j
Psychology, 1968, X2, 119-130. j
'Paul, G. L. , & Ericksen, C. W. Effects of test anxiety on
i * real-life* examinations. Journal of Personality,
i 1 9 6 U , J 2 , 4 8 0 - U 9 4 .
; j
1 Pelletier, K. R. Influences of Transcendental Meditation
! upon autokinetic perception. Perceptual and Motor !
| Skills, 197k» 39* IO3I-IO3I+.
!
|Philips, B. N. Anxiety and school related achievement: 1
A selective review and synthesis of the psychological
literature. In G. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety:
Current Trends in Theory and Research. (Vol. 2).
New York: Academic Press, 1972.
Pyke, S., & Agnew, N. Digit span performance as a function
of noxious stimulation. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 1963, 2J, 281.
Ritter, B. The group desensitization of children*s snake
phobias using vicarious and contact desensitization
procedures. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1968, 6,
1-6.
Sarason, I. G. Effect of anxiety, motivational in
structions and failure on serial learning. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 1956, J?l, 256-260. .
Sarason, I. G. The effects of anxiety, reassurance, and
j meaningfullness of material to be learned in verbal
1 learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1956* :
I 56, 1*72-1*77.
Sarason, I. G. Empirical findings and theoretical
j problems in the use of anxiety scales. Psychological
I Bulletin, I960, JgJ, 1*03-1*15. I
I
Sarason, I. G. Personality: An Objective Approach. |
(2nd ed.). New York: Wiley, 1972.
ISarason, I. G. Test anxiety, attention, and the general
problem of anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger & I. G.
Sarason (Eds.), Stress and Anxiety. (Vol. 1).
Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1975*
Sarason, I. G., & Palola, E. G. The relationship of test
and general anxiety, difficulty of task, and
experimental instructions to performance. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, I960, 59» 185-191.
j
Sarason, I. G., Pederson, A. M., & Nyman, B. A. Test
anxiety and the observation of models. Journal of
; Personality, 1968, j$6, fy93-5ll*
i
Schecter, H. The Transcendental Meditation program in
the classroom: A psychological evaluation. In
D. W. Orme-Johnson, J. T. Farrow & L. H. Domash
(Eds.), Scientific Research on Transcendental
Meditation: Collected Papers^ (Vol. 1). Los
' Angeles, MIU Press, in press.
I
| Shapiro, J. The relationship of the Transcendental
I Meditation program to self-actualization and
negative personality characteristics. In D. W.
Orme-Johnson, J. T. Farrow & L. H. Domash (Eds.),
Scientific Research on Transcendental Meditation:
Collected Papers. (Vol. I). Los Angeles, MIU Press,
in press.
Spielberger, C. D. The effects of manifest anxiety on
j the academic achievement of college students.
Mental Hygiene, 1962, 66, lj.20-ij.26.
i
Spielberger, C. D. Theory and research on anxiety. In
C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and Behavior. New
York: Academic Press, 19*66.
Spielberger, C. D., & Sarason, I. G. Stress and Anxiety,
j (Vol. I). Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1975*
! Spielberger, C. D., & Smith, L, H. Anxiety stress, and
1 serial-position effects in serial-verbal learning.
! Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 72,
Stern, Maureen. The effects of the Transcendental
Meditation program on trait anxiety. In D. W.
Orrae-Johnson, J. T. Farrow & L. H. Domash (Eds.),
Scientific Research on Transcendental Meditation;
Collected Papers^ (Vol. l)i Los Angeles, MIU Press,
m press.
Stevenson, H. W. , & Odom, R. P. The relation of anxiety
to children1s performance on learning and problem
solving tasks. Child Development, 1965* J6, 1003-
1012.
Suinn, R. M. The desensitization of test-anxiety by
group and individual treatment. Behavior Research
and Therapy, 1968, 6, 385-387.
Wachtel, P. L. Anxiety, attention and coping with threat.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, i960, 72* 137-11*3*
Walker, R. E., & Spence, J. T. Relationship between digit
span and anxiety. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
1961*, 28, 220-223.
Wallace, R. K. Physiological effects of transcendental
meditation. Science, 1970, 167* 1751-175U.
Wallace, K. K. & Benson, H. The physiology of meditation.
Scientific American, 1972, 226, (2), 81*-90.
West, C. K., Lee, J. F., & Anderson, T. H. The influence
of test anxiety on the selection of relevant from
irrelevant information. The Journal of Educational
Research, 1969* §2* 51-52.
Wilkins, W. Desensitization: social and cognitive
factors underlying the effectiveness of Wolpe's
procedure. Psychological Bulletin, 1971* 76 (5)*
1971.
Wilson, H. & Smith, F. J. Counterconditioning therapy
using free association: A pilot study. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 1968, 72* U7U-U78*
Wine, J. Investigations of an attentional interpretation
of test anxiety. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Waterloo, 1970.
106j
Wine, J, Test anxiety and direction of attention.
Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 76 (2), 92-101+.
Wolpe, J. Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition.
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 195^.
Wolpin, M., & Raines, J. Visual imagery, expected roles
and extinction as possible factors in reducing fear
and avoidance behavior. Behavior Research & Therapy,
1966, I j . , 25-37. !
Zuckerman, M. The development of an affect adjective
check list for the measurement of anxiety. J ournal
of Consulting Psychology, I960, 2i j . , 1+57-1+62.
Zuckerman, M., & Biase, D. V. Replication and further
data on the Affect Adjective Check List measure
of anxiety. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
1962, 26, 291.
Zuckerman, M., Lubin, B., & Valerius, E. Measurement of
experimentally induced effects. J ournal of
Consulting Psychology, 1961+, 28, 1+16-1+25.
Zuckerman, M. , & Lubin, B. Bibliography for the Multiple
Affective Adjective Check List. San Diego,
California: Educational and Industrial Testing
Service, 1968.
APPENDIX A:
SARASON TEST ANXIETY SCALE
j
NAME AGE SEX (M) (F)
' PHONE GRADE
{ .■ ■ ■ !■ H ...................... I I I ■ ■ » ■ — — — —. ■ M „ I ■ »■ ■ ■ ■ I'-..... '
I
iNAME OP ENGLISH TEACHER THIS SEMESTER
, r- "l_r “
• WHICH PERIOD DO YOU TAKE ENGLISH?
j - '■»— I ' I ■ H ill! — i. .. .
I
| Put a circle around the letter < f T! f if the answer to
! the statement is true. Put a circle around the letter
j t t Ff l if the answer is false.
T P 1. While taking an important exam I find myself
thinking of how much brighter the other students
are than I am.
T F 2. If I were to take an intelligence test, I would
worry a great deal before taking it.
T F
3-
If I knew I was going to take an intelligence
test, I would feel confident and relaxed
beforehand.
T F
U-
While taking an important examination, I
perspire a great deal.
T F
5-
During course examinations I find myself
thinking of things unrelated to the actual
course material.
T F 6. I get to feeling very panicky when I have to
take a surprise exam.
T F
7.
During tests I find myself thinking of the
consequences of failing.
T F 8. After important tests I am frequently so tense
that my stomach gets upset.
T F 9.
I freeze up on things like intelligence tests
and final exams.
T F 10. Getting a good grade on one test doesn*t seem
to increase my confidence on the second.
SARASON TEST ANXIETY SCALE (Continued)
NAME
T F 11.
T F 12.
i
' T F
13.
T
l
F lif.
; T
i
F
15.
i
1 T
F 16.
jT F
17.
T F H
00
•
T F 19.
r j * i
i
I
p
20.
T F 21.
T F 22.
iT
1
F
23-
i
T F
•
-4-
OJ
T F 25.
T
:
F 26.
T F
•
OJ
T F 28.
T F. 29.
T F
. •
o
T F
31.
T F 32.
I sometimes feel my heart beating very fast
during important tests.
After taking a test I always feel I could have
done better than I actually did.
I usually get depressed after taking a test.
I have an uneasy, upset feeling before taking
a final examination.
When taking a test ray emotional feelings do not
interfere with my performance.
During a course examination I frequently get so
nervous that I forget facts I really know.
I seem to defeat myself while working on
important tests.
The harder I work at taking a test or studying
for one, the more confused I get.
As soon as an exam is over I try to stop
worrying about it, but I just canft.
During exams I sometimes wonder if 1*11 ever
get through college.
I would rather write a paper than take an
examination for my grade in a course.
I wish examinations did not bother me so much.
I think I could do much better on tests if I
could take them alone and not feel pressured
by a time 1imi t.
Thinking about the grade I may get in a course
interferes with my studying and my performance
on tests.
If examinations could be done away with I think
I would actually learn more.
On exams, I take the attitude, "If I don’t know
it now, there*s no point worrying about it."
I really don*t see why some people get so upset
about tests.
Thoughts of doing poorly interfere with my
performance on tests.
I don’t study any harder for final exams than
for the rest of my course work.
Even when I’m well prepared for a test, I feel
very anxious about it.
I don’t enjoy eating before an important test.
Before an important examination I find my hands
or arms trembling.
109,
SARASON TEST ANXIETY SCALE (Continued)
NAME
T P 33. I seldom feel the need for ’ ’cramming” before
an exam.
T P 34- The University ought to recognize that some
students are more nervous than others about
tests and that this affects their performance.
T F 35* It seems to me that examination periods ought
not to be made the tense situations which they
are.
T P 36. I start feeling very uneasy just before getting
a paper back.
T P 37. I dread courses where the professor has the
habit of giving ’ ’pop” quizzes.
I APPENDIX B:
MULTIPLE AFFECTIVE ADJECTIVE CHECK LIST
On this sheet you will find words which describe
different kinds of moods and feelings. Check off the space
1 beside the words which describe how you feel now— today.
Some of the words may sound alike, but I want you j
to check all the words that describe your feelings. ;
; Please begin answering the questions and work 1
j rapidly. When you are done, place your pencils down on
I the desk.
!
1__affectionate 20__frank 39__polite
2__afraid 21__furious I 4 .O__pleasant
3__aggressive 22__frightened l\l__reckless
4__amiable 23__glad i j .2__sad
5__annoyed 21+__good-natured
1+3__shy
6__bitter 25__hopeless I 4 . I 4 . __secure
7__cautious 26__happy U5__shaky
8__c aim 27__incensed I 4 . 6__stormy
9__c ompl aining 28__interested i j . 7__steady
10__cheerful 29__kindly J L j . 8 __sullen
11__contented 30__joyful I 4 . 9__tame
12__cooperative 31__low 50__timid
13__cruel 32__loving 51__tense
l i | .__devoted 33__mad 52__terrified
15__desperate 3U merry 5 3__thoughtful
16__discouraged 35__obliging 51+__unhappy
17__energetic 36__nervous 55__warm
18__enraged 37__patient 56__upset
19__fearful 38__panicky 5 7_willful
5 8_worrying
APPENDIX G:
DIGIT-LETTER SPAN RETENTION TEST
Forward
A B C D E
f F
G H I
1 2
7 3
( givei^ EXAM]3LE)
2
1 +
K 6
3
X
5
1
b
C L
b
8 K
■
5
8
b
A 2 H
9
6
5
X w Y
7 3
7
w u 8
5 3
X
7
L
8
9
1 z
7
Y c
5
9 2
1 +
X
9
L
1
7
¥
3
10 8 H
1 U
G 9 !
11 K A
! 7
0 1 ¥ 6
12
13
11+
15
16
Backward
17 U 5
1
(GIVEI EXAMPLE)
18 C
. . . 5
L
1
19 Z H 9 7
20 K
9
X 1 W
b
21 0 C 8 H ¥
7 3
22 ¥ 6 H
5
C
23 A Z L 5 3
8
21+
H
i f
5 Y 1 A
9 7
25 Z A c
b
6 H K
i
112j
APPENDIX D:
INSTRUCTION QUESTIONNAIRE
Before taking the tests, did you do the relaxation method?
APPENDIX E:
NEUTRAL INSTRUCTIONS
| There will be two short questionnaires given. One
I
1 questionnaire will be the Emotion Questionnaire which
will ask questions on how each of the group members feel
today, right now. The other questionnaire will be the
i
i Number-Letter Questionnaire. The Number-Letter
I
| Questionnaire simply asks the group members to remember
i
I certain numbers and letters.
I would appreciate your cooperation on both of
i
j these questionnaires. The questionnaires are part of
| my thesis and ray graduation depends on getting accurate
i group results.
! - Thank you for your help.
APPENDIX P:
THREAT INSTRUCTIONS
There will be two tests given. One test will be
i
,the Emotion Test which will measure how you feel today,
right now. The other test will be the Number-Letter
Span Retention Test. The Number-Letter Span Retention Test
!
i determines how well you remember numbers and is a direct
i
! measure of your intelligence. It is a test that is taken
I
i from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale. Research indicates
j that this is one of the best single measures of intel-
i
i
! ligence because it measures a number of different mental
, abilities. It has been found that it accurately predicts
i both high school and college grade point averages, as
well as future success in a career.
Please try to do the best you can on the Number-
jLetter Span Retention Test so that your score on this
i
i test can accurately reflect your intelligence. Your
i
; score on the Number Test will be compared with the scores
of the other students in the group.
i
j Please turn to the next page for further
instructions.
APPENDIX G:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR MEDITATIVE TECHNIQUE
Please begin the stomach method. You will do the
method for approximately ten minutes. Make'sure to do it
correctly by first squeezing your hands twice to settle
down, sitting up straight with one hand on your stomach,
I
paying attention to it as it moves up and down. If your
I
mind wanders, pay attention to where it wanders,
j Please feel free to ask me any questions before
beginning the stomach method.
APPENDIX H:
I INSTRUCTIONS FOR SIMULATED-MEDITATIVE TECHNIQUE
I
Please begin the let-go-relaxation method. You
! will do the method for approximately ten minutes. Make
!
; sure you do the let-go-relaxation method correctly by
i
first squeezing your hands twice to settle down, sitting
up straight and placing both hands on your lap, letting
your mind go and just relaxing.
I Please feel free to ask me any questions before
|
beginning the let-go-relaxation method.
11.7J

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Toward a humanistic-existential rehabilitation psychology: A study of the congruence of the principles of rehabilitation psychology with the tenets of the humanistic-existential approach in psychology

PDF

The effects of meditation on general anxiety, test anxiety, and non-verbal intelligence

PDF

The effects of test anxiety level, feedback, and socioeconomic strata upon programmed reading

PDF

The relationship of cognitive styles and academic majors with university-level academic achievement

PDF

The differential effectiveness of three cognitive coping strategies on examination performance and test anxiety

PDF

An experimental study of the effect of two different verbal meditational methods upon concept attainment of disadvantaged kindergarten pupils

PDF

A study of the effects of group assertion training on anxiety, depression, self-concept and assertiveness in heroin addicts

PDF

Change in sex-role orientation as a function of brief marital therapy

PDF

The effect of group therapy on anxiety, somatic symptoms, and marital communication among primiparous married couples

PDF

The effect of invalidation of individual constructs on self-reported anxiety and physiological arousal: A test of George A. Kelly's anxiety hypothesis

PDF

An experimental study in the effects of varying types of peer group interaction upon growth in principled moral judgment of college students

PDF

Videotape focused feedback techniques in marathon group therapy: Effects on self-actualization and psychopathology

PDF

The psychological and behavioral effects of group counseling and megavitamin treatment in a school setting with handicapped children

PDF

The effects of advance organizer format and learner personality in the learning and retention of verbal material

PDF

The effects of typographic cuing on retention

PDF

The effects of guided daydream experiences on level of self-esteem and depression in alcoholics

PDF

The relationship of sex and ethnicity to anxiety, self-concept, and creativity among continuation high school students

PDF

A diagnostic study of certain scholastic factors in the success or non-success of engineering students

PDF

The effects of a manual-guided cognitive intervention program upon substance abusers

PDF

A study of the effects of tutoring upon alienation as measured by an original scale

Asset Metadata

Creator Lewis, Jerome (author)

Core Title The effects of a group meditation technique upon degree of test anxiety and level of digit-letter retention in high school students

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c26-461848

Unique identifier UC11246958

Identifier usctheses-c26-461848 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP24216.pdf

Dmrecord 461848

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lewis, Jerome

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA