The Interrelationships Among Grade Point Average, The Manifest Anxiety Scale, The Test Anxiety Questionnaire, And Perceived Testing Situation Stimuli, Rationalizations, And Behavior Responses

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produoad from a microfilm copy of tha original documant. While the moat advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have bean used, the quality is heavily dependent upon tha quality of tha original submitted. Tha following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. Tha sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from tha documant photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain tha missing paga(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along d th adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round Mack mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause e blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. Whan a map, drawing or chart, etc., was pert of the material being photographed tha photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It Is customary to begin photoing at tha upper left hand comer of a largs dieet and to con tin us photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to tha understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing tha Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pegas you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Soma paps may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. AfvvX UTNVfrillJf IMCrOVINVW sooNweiZMsnMd A im A fte r, W pM qm i 4S10S t 74-23,616 WEIJOLA, Merrill Joseph, 1932- THE IKIERREIATIONSaFS AMONG GRADE POINT AVERAGE, THE MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE, THE TEST ANXIETY QUESTIONNAIRE, AND PERCEIVED TESTING SITUATION STIMULI, RATIONALIZATIONS, AND BEHAVIOR RESPONSES. University of Southern California, Ed.D., 1974 Education, psychology University Microfilms, A X E R O X Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan i THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG GRADE POINT AVERAGE, THE MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE, THE TEST ANXIETY QUESTION NAIRE, AND PERCEIVED TESTING SITUATION STIMULI, RATIONALIZATIONS, AND BEHAVIOR RESPONSES A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the School of Education University of Southern California In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education by Merrill Joseph WeiJola June 1974 This dissertation, written under the direction of the Chairman of the candidate's Guidance Committee and approved by all members of the Committee, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. Date. June, 1974 Guidance Committee CONTENTS Page LIST OP TABLES iv Chapter I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1 Statement of the Problem Justification of the Problem The Study Importance of the Study Procedures Definitions of Terms Used Assumptions Limitations and Delimitations Organization of the Remaining Chapters II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................ 17 Relevant Viewpoints of Anxiety General and Specific Anxiety Scales Anxiety Scales and External Stimuli, Rationalizations, Defenses, or Mediating CognltlonB, and Behavior Responses Anxiety Scales and Sex Differences Chapter Summary III. DESIGN OP THE STUDY.................... 47 Findings of the Factor Analysis Design Findings of the Correlation Matrix Design Findings of the Significant Differ ence Design Sample Description Instruments Administered Procedures Chapter Summary IV. REPORT OF THE FINDINGS 59 11 Chapter V. DISCUSSION OP THE FINDINGS Page 69 Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Chapter Summary VI. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................. 84 Summary Findings and Conclusions Other Conclusions and Recommendations REFERENCES.................................... 100 APPENDICES.................................... 108 APPENDIX A. The Stimuli Scale............... 110 B. The Rationalization Scale........ 117 C. Hie Behavior Scale............. 124 D. Biographical Inventory ......... 131 E. Questionnaire of Attitudes toward Three Kinds of Testing Situations . 136 111 LIST OP TABLES Table Page 1. Items and Factor Loadings for Factor I— Behavior Responses ..... ............. 6l 2. Items and Factor Loadings for Factor II-- External Stimuli ....................... 62 3. Items and Factor Loadings for Factor III— Rationalizations....................... 63 4. Intercorrelations among Six Study Variables............................. 64 5. Mean Differences between Males and Females on the Six Study Variables.............. 68 i v CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY It 1b generally accepted that anxiety is one of the critical intervening variables between what a student knows and what a student is able to tell you he knows on a test of aptitude, achievement, or performance. Yet, as impor tant as the relationship between anxiety and test perform ance is thought to be, extremely little is known about this variable. Hoch and Zubin (1950) stated that "although it is widely recognized that anxiety is the most pervasive psy chological phenomenon of our time . . . there has been little or no agreement on its definition, and very little, if any progress in its measurement [p. v]." Sixteen years later, Spellberger ( 1 9 6 6) related that "theory and research on anxiety have proliferated, but this has not led to a consistent body of empirical findings, or to a convergence among theoretical Interpretations [p. 4]." A number of other reviewers (Cattell & Scheier, 1961; Child, 1954; Oaudry A Spellberger, 1971; Martin, 1961; McReynolds, 1 9 6 8; Messlck, 1 9 6 6; Phillips, Martin, A Meyers, 1972; I. 0. Sarason, I960; Spellberger, 1966, 1972; Wine, 1971) 1 have agreed with these statements about the ambiguity in anxiety theory, measurement, and research. The above authors agreed that a central Issue in the lack of consensus about anxiety is the conceptualiza tion of anxiety as either a chronic personality character istic of the Individual, or as a transitory condition of the individual. These divergent theoretical positions have produced measures of general anxiety such as the Manifest Anxiety Scale (Taylor, 1953) and measures of specific test anxiety, e.g., the Test Anxiety Questionnaire (Mandler & S. B. Sarason, 1952). The MAS and the TAQ are among the instruments which have been used to assess the anxiety which arises in the testing situation. In the past 20 years, studies of the test anxiety phenomenon have reported a consistent finding of a moder ately low, positive relationship between the MAS and the TAQ. Correlation coefficients ranging from .35 through .59 have been reported (Cordon & S. B. Sarason, 1955; Mandler & Cowen, 1958; Reiter, 1971; Sassenrath, 1964). The positive relationship between the two scales suggested that they assessed a communallty of traits. The low magni tude of the relationship indicated that the two types of measures were not Interchangeable. Hie basis for the low magnitude, positive relationship between the MAS and the TAQ has not been demonstrated to date. 3 The overall purpose of this study was to: (l) demonstrate the basis for the moderately low, positive relationship between the MAS and the TAQ through the Inves tigation of the interrelationships among the MAS, the TAQ, and three constructed scales, i.e., the Stimuli Scale, the Rationalization Scale, and the Behavior Scale; (2) provide construct validity for the MAS and the TAQ; (3) explore the relationship between achievement and the MAS, TAQ, Stimuli Scale, Rationalization Scale, and Behavior Scale; and (4) examine the sex differences among the six study variables. Statement of the Problem The specific purpose of this study was to investi gate the interrelationships among grade point average, the MAS, the TAQ, and measures of: (l) perceived testing situation anxiety-eliciting stimuli, i.e., the Stimuli Scale, (2) perceived rationalizations which were used to reduce or mitigate against text anxiety, i.e., the Ration alization Scale, and (3) perceived behavior responses to the testing situation, i.e., the Behavior Scale. In addition, the investigator examined the sex differences among the above six study variables. Justification of the Problem 4 The HAS and the TAQ exemplified the attempts to operationalize the constructs of general anxiety and spe cific test anxiety, respectively. The MAS was constructed to measure the individual's anxiety or behavior responses, regardless of situational variables. The TAQ was devised to assess the individual's behavior responses to specific external anxiety-eliciting stimuli, i.e., three types of testa. Neither of these scales was presumed to measure the mediating properties of the individual, although there has been general agreement within the stimulus-organism- response model that the organism does mediate between external stimuli and the responses to those stimuli. Con sequently, anxiety has been operationalized as either a one-factor phenomenon, i.e., behavior responses, or as a two-factor phenomenon, i.e., external stimuli and behavior responses to those stimuli. In agreement with the heuristic stimulus-organism- response model, it has been suggested by Martin ( 1 9 6 1) and Spellberger ( 1 9 6 6) that there are three factors which define the parameters of anxiety phenomena: (l) external stimuli which elicit anxiety, (2) defenses of various kinds which are used to reduce or mitigate against anxiety, and (3) behavior responses or anxiety reactions to external stimuli. These authors further contended that to avoid 5 confusion In the study of anxiety, these factors should be differentiated from each other. The consistent finding of a low magnitude positive relationship between the MAS and the TAQ ranging from .35 through .59 (Gordon & S. B. Sarason, 1955* Mandler & Cowen, 1958; Reiter, 1971; Sassenrath, 1964) suggested an inter sect or partial overlapping between what was being measured by the MAS and what was being assessed by the TAQ. Approaching this issue theoretically, if the purported differential content of the MAS and the TAQ was considered in terms of the stimulus-organ!sm-response model and the suggestions of the above authors, then it can be hypothe sized that the basis for the positive relationship between the MAS and the TAQ is a function of both scales assessing behavior responses. Second, it can be hypothesized that the basis for the low magnitude of the relationship between the two scales is a function of the TAQ measuring, in addi tion to behavior responses, the external stimuli which elicit anxiety, and possibly the rationalizations of the individual which are used to reduce anxiety. Empirically testing these hypothesized similarities and differences between the MAS and the TAQ could poten tially demonstrate the basis for the moderately low posi tive relationship between the two scales. Further, sup ported by the logic of a three-factor view of anxiety, the Investigation of the relationships between OPA and the MAS, TAQ, Stimuli Scale, Rationalization Scale, and Behavior Scale could provide unique information about the relation ship between measures of anxiety and test performance. Finally, unique information about the interaction between sex and measures of anxiety could result from the examina tion of the differences between males and females in terms of the six variables used in the study. The Study Intent of the Study The intent of this study was fourfold: 1. To develop three valid and reliable measures of: (a) perceived testing situation anxiety-eliciting stimuli, i.e., the Stimuli Scale, (b) perceived rationalizations used to reduce or mitigate against test anxiety, i.e., the Rationalization Scale, and (c) perceived behavior responses to the testing situation, i.e., the Behavior Scale. 2. To investigate hypothesized relationships among the MAS, TAQ, Stimuli Scale, Rationalization Scale, and Behavior Scale. 3. To explore the relationships between OPA and the MAS, TAQ, Stimuli Scale, Rationalization Scale, and Behavior Scale. 7 4. To examine sex differences with regard to QPA, the MAS* TAQ, and the Stimuli, Rationalization, and Behavior Scales. Questions To Be Answered The study sought answers to the following ques tions : 1. In addition to the one-factor and two-factor theories of anxiety, was there support for a three-factor view of anxiety? 2. Is the MAS a relatively pure assessment of behavior responses and thereby not a measure of stimuli or rationalizations? 3. Is the TAQ a relatively pure assessment of stimuli and behavior responses and thereby not a measure of rationalizations? 4. Is the basis for the positive relationship between the MAS and the TAQ a function of both scales assessing behavior responses, and is the basis for the low magnitude of the relation ship between the two scales a function of the TAQ measuring, In addition to behavior responses, external stimuli, and possibly rationalizations? 5- Do differential relationships exist between OPA and the MAS, TAQ, Stimuli Scale, Rationalization Scale, and Behavior Scale? 8 6. Do males and females differ significantly with regard to OPA, the MAS, TAQ, and the Stimuli, Rationalization, or Behavior Scales? Hypotheses In order to provide a framework for this study, the following experimental hypotheses, whose directionality or nondirectionality was based on theoretical formulations or research findings, were advanced prior to the collec tion and analysis of the data: Hi1 The Items comprising the Stimuli Scale, Rationaliza tion Scale, and Behavior Scale are relatively inde pendent factors among scales (Lazarus & Averill, 1972; Martin, 1961; Spellberger, 1966, 1972). Hi2 There is a significant, low magnitude, positive relationship between the MAS and the TAQ ((Jordon & S, B. Sarason, 1955; Mandler & Cowen, 1958; Reiter, 1971; Sassenrath, 1964). Hi^ There is a significant positive relationship between the MAS and the Behavior Scale (Taylor, 1951* 1953)* Hi^ There is a significant positive relationship between the TAQ and the Behavior Scale (Mandler & S. B. Sarason, 1952). 9 Hop- There la no significant relationship between the NAS and the Stimuli Scale (Taylor, 1951* 1953). Hog There is no significant relationship between the MAS and the Rationalization Scale (Taylor, 1951, 1953). There is a significant positive relationship between the TAQ and the Stimuli Scale (Mandler & S. B. Sarason, 1952). Hig There is a significant positive relationship between the TAQ and the Rationalization Scale (Lazarus & Averill, 1972; Martin, 1961; Spellberger, 1966, 1972). Hog There are no significant relationships between OPA and the MAS, TAQ, Stimuli Scale, Rationalization Scale, or Behavior Scale (Child, 195^; Oaudry & Spellberger, 1971; McReynolds, 1 9 6 8; Phillips et al., 1972; I. 0, Sarason, i9 6 0; Spellberger, 1966, 1972). Ho10 There are no significant differences between males and females with regard to OPA, the MAS, TAQ, and the Stimuli, Rationalization, or Behavior Scales (Phillips et al., 1972; S. B. Sarason S t Oordon, 1953). Importance of the Study 10 Anxiety Is one of the central variables in both educational and counseling psychology, appearing as a fac tor In the areas of learning, motivation, performance, and psychopathology. However, if anxiety Is to serve as more than a convenient literary expression, then valid tech niques must be available for its identification and assess ment. The Importance of validating measurement techniques, and the constructs underlying those measures, are well documented in the literature on testing, measurement, and evaluation. This study was designed to explore sex differences in anxiety and the relationship between anxiety and aca demic performance; however, the primary purpose of the study was to demonstrate the basis for the consistently reported, moderately low, positive relationship between the MAS and the TAQ, The relationship between the two scales has been reported as .46 (Alpert & Haber, i 9 6 0); ,59 (Mandler & Cowen, 1958); .53 (Raphelson, 1957); .35 (Helter, 1971); .59 (Sassenrath, 1964); and .43 (Sinlk, 1956). This low magnitude, positive relationship sug gested a partial overlapping between what is being assessed by the MAS and the TAQ, and this in turn suggested an Intersect between the constructs of general anxiety and specific test anxiety. 11 The significance of this study was the conceptual inquiry into the similarities and differences between the MAS and the TAQ, and the empirical testing of hypothesized relationships among these two scales and their similarities and differences. This procedure would not only provide concurrent validation of the MAS and the TAQ, but could also provide, as suggested by Cronbach (i 9 6 0), a compara tive construct-validation of general anxiety and specific test anxiety. In the academic setting where testing and evalua tion are decisive, it was important to know if males and females differ with regard to anxiety. It was also impor tant to know the extent to which different anxiety scales were measuring the same variables and the extent to which one scale could be replaced by another In the prediction of achievement. It was considered paramount to know why different scales were assessing similar or different varia bles, what those variables were, and why one scale could or could not be replaced by another. The comparative validation of a general anxiety scale, i.e., the MAS; and a specific test anxiety scale, i.e., the TAQ, against the tripartite of testing situation stimuli, rationalizations, and behavior responses was important if, as educators, counselors, and researchers, we are desirous of understanding and manipulating this ambivalent variable. Procedures 12 The stratified random sample used In the study was drawn from classes representing required upper division education courses In one of the California state universi ties. The university is located in an urban area. A total population of approximately 900 full-time students was enrolled in the required upper division education courses. The study sample consisted of 200 students--100 males and 100 females. The five anxiety assessing Instruments used in the study, I.e., the MAS, the TAQ, the Stimuli Scale, the Rationalization Scale, and the Behavior Scale, were ran domly ordered within the battery. The battery was admin istered within one week prior to final examinations. All administrations were by the same individual. Qrade point average was obtained from official university transcripts and represented the overall average of the freshman and sophomore years. A detailed description of the development of the Stimuli Scale, Rationalization Scale, and the Behavior Scale is presented in Chapter III. Multivariate factor analysis, product-moment corre lation analysis, and significance tests between independent means were employed as statistical tools in testing the hypotheses of the study. 13 Definitions of Terms Used The following operational definitions applied to the terms used in the study: general anxiety. The total score obtained on the MAS. Specific test anxiety. The total score obtained on the TAQ. grade point average. The overall lower division academic achievement average. Perceived testing situation anxiety-eliciting stimuli. The total score obtained on the Stimuli Scale. Perceived rationalizations used to reduce or miti gate against test anxiety. The total score obtained on the Rationalization Scale. Perceived behavior responses to the testing situa tion. The total score obtained on the behavior scale. Assumptions In the study, the following basic assumptions were made: 1. It was assumed that the MAS was a valid measure of general anxiety. 14 2. It was assumed that the TAQ was a valid measure of specific test anxiety. 3. It was assumed that OPA was a valid assessment of academic performance. 4. It was assumed that the Stimuli Scale was a valid measure of perceived testing situation anxiety- eliciting Btimuli. 5. It was assumed that the Rationalization Scale was a valid measure of perceived rationalizations used to reduce or mitigate against test anxiety. 6. It was assumed that the Behavior Scale was a valid measure of perceived behavior responses to the testing situation. Limitations and Delimitations In the study, the following major limitations and delimitations were in effect: 1. All instruments used in the study, with the exception of the MAS, were considered to be research instruments and were not standardized. Information regarding the reliability and valid ity of all scaleB used in the study is presented in Chapter III. 2. Generalizability was related to the fact that the study was limited to a relatively small 15 sample of upper division students enrolled in required education courses In one metropolitan California state university. 3. Grade point average, due to Its complexity and contamination, was limited as an absolute cri terion of performance. 4. The construct of rationalizations was considered to be complex and multidimensional. Any interpretations of the findings can only be made within the confines of the above-stated limitations and delimitations. Organization of the Remaining Chapters Chapter II presents relevant viewpoints of anxiety and a selected review of studies demonstrating concurrent and construct validity of the MAS, the TAQ, and other general anxiety and specific test anxiety scaleB. Studies Investigating sex differences within general anxiety scales and specific test anxiety scales will also be presented. Chapter III provides a description of the sample, the assessment instruments, the research methodology, and the treatment of the data. Chapter IV reports the findings of the study within the framework of the stated hypotheses of the study. Chapter V offers an analysis and discussion of the findings. Chapter VI presents the summary of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations resulting from the study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE Tftls chapter presents the following four sections: (l) a coverage of relevant viewpoints of anxiety, includ ing pertinent theoretical assumptions and methodological developments; (2) a review of studies which presents data on the relationship among general and specific anxiety scales; (3) a review of studies which Investigated the relationship between anxiety scales and external stimuli, rationalizations, defenses, or mediating cognitions, and behavior responses; and (4) a review of studies which presents Information on sex differences and anxiety scales. Each of the above four sections are further sub divided into studies involving the HAS and the TAQ, and studies Involving other general and specific anxiety scales. It has been estimated that there are approximately 200 measures of anxiety, not including subscales (McReynolds, 1966). It has also been estimated that over 5000 articles or books on anxiety have been published during the past two decades (Spellberger, 1972). There fore, In view of the broad parameters of the study and the 17 18 extensive nature of the literature, this review Is chrono logically representative within the above-stated sections. Relevant Viewpoints of Anxiety This section presents a coverage of relevant views of anxiety, Including pertinent theoretical assumptions and methodological developments. A number of reviews (Cattell & Scheier, 1961; Child, 195^; Gaudry & Spellberger, 1971; Krause, 1961; Martin, 1961; McReynolds, 1 9 6 8; Messlck, 1966; Ruebush, 1963; I. Sarason, i 9 6 0; Spellberger, 1 9 6 6, 1972; Wine, 1971) are available to the reader who is interested in a more comprehensive understanding of the developments and Issues related to anxiety. Preud (1936) conceptualized anxiety as a three- attribute phenomenon: (l) a specific quality of unpleasure, (2) an efferent or discharge phenomenon, and (3) a percep tion of these two factors. Since this original tripartite definition, anxiety has undergone a metamorphosis. In mid-century, Interest In anxiety theory and research was energized through the publication of four significant works: (l) Personality and Psychotherapy (Dollars St Miller, 1950); (2) Anxiety (Hoch St Zubin, 1950); (3) The Meaning of Anxiety (May, 1950); and (4) Learning Theory and Personality Dynamics (Mowrer, 1950). Interest In operationalizing anxiety was kindled by the development of the MAS by Taylor (1951, 1953) and 19 the TAQ by Handler and S. B. Sarason (1 9 5 2). The HAS was developed specifically as an operation al measure of individual differences in emotional respon siveness (rf i ), thus reflecting drive (D) as formulated by Hull (19*13) • The basic assumption was that excitatory potential (E), which determines the strength of a given response (R), is a multiplicative function of total effec tive drive (D) and habit strength (H); thus, R = f(E) = f(DxH) (Hull, 19^3). The MAS was a general anxiety scale; it represented a wide variety of manifest behavior which could be related to a wide variety of anxiety producing situations. Under lying the construction of the HAS was the theoretical assumption that there was a relatively constant "level of internal anxiety or emotionality. . . . The Intensity of this anxiety could be ascertained by a paper-and-pencil test consisting of items describing what have been called overt or manifest symptoms of this state [Taylor, 1953* P. 2 8 5]." If Taylor (1953) was correct in proposing a general anxiety condition, then it followed that a single measure of a set of manifest anxiety responses gathered from many situations would be an adequate indicator of the presence and effect of anxiety in any situation regardless of how validly simple, complex, or neutral the situation was defined. 20 The TAQ "was specifically concerned with the Ss attitudes and experiences in a testing situation [Mandler & S. B. Sarason, 1952, p. 166]." The TAQ was a specific anxiety test; it measured the recalled intensity of cer tain behavior immediately antecedent and concomitant to taking tests. Underlying the development of the TAQ was the theoretical assumption that the items which composed an anxiety measure should be concerned with the specific situation in which the Instrument was to be used. To the extent that individuals differed with respect to anxiety arousal by different kinds of stimulus situations, it seemed appropriate that the specific anxiety test would be more adequate for verifying hypotheses about the effects of anxiety in a particular situation. Adamant about the blvarlate methods used in the general anxiety versus specific test anxiety controversy, Cattell and Scheier (1958, 1961) attempted to clarify the chaos through the use of multivariate factor analysis. Using approximately 345 unduplicated variables from 13 substudies, two anxiety factors emerged; they were labeled "trait anxiety" and "state anxiety." These factors emerged from the procedures by which they were Isolated and the variables which were associated with them. The trait factor was Interpreted as measuring stable individ ual differences in a unitary, relatively permanent 21 personality characteristic. The state factor was based on a pattern of variables that covaried over occasions of measurement, thereby defining a transitory state or condi tion of the individual which fluctuated over time. The operational definition assigned to the trait factor was the cross-sectional analysis of correlations between variables for a sample of persons on one occasion. This was identified as the R technique. The definition of the state factor was either of two techniques concerned with factoring the pattern of change. The differential R technique measured people twice on each variable, and then factored the incremental difference. The £ technique measured each variable with one person on many occasions and then factored the variation. Using the terminology of the above multivariate work, Spellberger ( 1 9 6 6) presented a model which contained two anxiety constructs, A trait and A state. Trait anxiety was seen as a predisposing cognition, and cognition was seen as precipitating state anxiety. However, Spellberger (1 9 6 6, 1 9 7 2) went on to suggest that to avoid confusion in anxiety theory and research, anxiety responses should be differentiated from the external and internal stimuli which elicit anxiety, and both of these should be distinguished from the defenses against anxiety. This three-dimensional view of anxiety was a 22 significant departure from the previously held one- and two-factor conceptions, e.g., general or specific anxiety and trait and state anxiety. The third additional factor of defenses, mediating cognitions or rationalizations was evident in three relatively recent investigations (Lazarus & Averill, 1972; I. 0. Sarason, 1972; Schachter, 1 9 6 6). Schachter (1 9 6 6) combined suggestion with arousal of the sympathetic nervous system by injections of epineph rine. This procedure produced evidence that emotional states consisted of two major factors: physiological arous al and socially determined cognitions. The individual labeled the feeling states associated with physiological arousal in terms of social interpretations that he gave to a situation or that he was given in a situation. It was concluded by I. 0. Sarason (1 9 7 2) that high test-anxious persons were characterized by acquired habits and attitudes that involved negative self-perceptions and expectations. These attitudes disposed these individuals to heightened anxiety responses and also Influenced their interpretation of events In the environment. Finally, Lazarus and Averill ( 1 9 7 2) modified a previously held view of anxiety (Lazarus & Opton, 1966) and proposed that anxiety Involves the stress stimulus, the stress response, and the cognitive and physiological proc esses that Intervened between them. These authors believed that the most critical variable for distinguishing anxiety 23 from other emotions was the cognitive mechanisms or apprais als which mediated the emotional response and the stimuli that evoked the response. General and Specific Anxiety Scales This section reviews representative studies which presented data on the relationship between the NAS and the TAQ and the relationships among other general and specific test anxiety scales. In addition, studies which have factor analyzed the MAS and the TAQ are included. The Relationship between the MAS and the TAQ---- Slnlk (1936), using l6l college males and 50 col lege females, found a significant correlation of .43 between the MAS and the TAQ. Raphelson (1957)» using a sample size of 24, reported a significant correlation of .53 between the MAS and the TAQ. Mandler and Cowen (1933) found a significant cor relation of .59 between the MAS and the TAQ In a sample of college students. Alpert and Haber (i9 6 0), In an extensive study, reported a significant correlation of .46 between the MAS and the TAQ. Sassenrath (1964) reported a significant correla tion of .59 between the MAS and the TAQ. 24 Reiter (1971)* using J 6 college males and females, found a significant correlation of .35 between the MAS and the TAQ. The Relationship among Other general and Spe cific Anxiety Scales Davids (1955) developed a four-part self-rating scale which included illness, irrational fears, Insecurity, and anxiety symptoms. Results from the study Indicated significant correlations among all measures, and a signifi cant correlation of .74 was found between the total score on the constructed scales and the MAS. Gordon and S. B. Sarason (1955) found a significant correlation of .47 between the TAQ and a 29-item Oeneral Anxiety Questionnaire. Alpert and Haber (i9 6 0) reported a significant cor relation of .64 between the TAQ and the debilitating Achievement Anxiety Test. A second significant correlation of .8 9 was found between the MAS and the Welsh Anxiety Index. A final significant negative correlation of -.48 was found between the debilitating AAT and the facilitating Achievement Anxiety Test. Cattell and Scheler ( 1 9 6 1) reported a significant correlation of .73 between the MAS and their trait factor U.I. 24. Levitt and Persky ( 1 9 6 2} reported a significant 25 correlation of .55 between the MAS and the IPAT Anxiety Scale. Hafner, Quast, Speer, and Grams (1964) studied the relationship between the Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale and the General Anxiety Scale for Children in two groups of children. *niey reported significant positive correla tions of .6 7 and .7 1 between the two scales. Geer (1 9 6 5) developed the Fear Survey Scale II. This author reported significant positive correlations of .39 between the MAS and the FSS II and .5 7 between the FSS II and the Welsh Anxiety Scale. Desroches, Kalman, and Ballard ( 1 9 6 6) reported a significant positive correlation of .5 8 between the MAS and self-ratings of nervousness. In addition, a signifi cant positive correlation of .6 5 was reported between the Affect Adjective Check List and self-ratings of nervous ness . Acker and McReynolds (1 9 6 6) reported a significant positive correlation between the MAS and a constructed anxiety self-rating scale. In addition, a significant correlation of .50 was found between the IPAT and the rating scale. Zuckerman, Persky, Echman, and Hopkins ( 1 9 6 7) reported on the relationship between the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List and measures of general anxiety. They found significant correlations of .57 and .5 2 between the MAS and general anxiety and today anxiety subscales, respectively. Significant correlations of .56 and .55 were found between the IPAT and the general and today anxiety scales. The general anxiety and the today anxiety scales were reported to correlate .65 and .55 with the WAI. Miller, Fisher, and Ladd ( 1 9 6 7) reported a signifi cant correlation of .41 between the MAS and a self-rating scale. In addition, they found a significant positive relationship of .75 between the MAS and the WAI. I. 0. Sarason, Pederson, and Nyman ( 1 9 6 8) reported a significant product-moment correlation of .93 between the TAQ and the Test Anxiety Scale. Reiter (1971) administered the MAS, TAQ, 16PF, and the Page Fantasy Scale to a college sample. Correlations among all four scales were significant. He reported sig nificant correlations of .73 and .48 between the MAS and the 16PF and the PFS, respectively. Significant correla tions of .32 and .25 were found between the TAQ and the 16PF and the PFS, respectively. The Factor Analysis of the MAS and the TAft-- O'Connor, Lorr, and Stafford (1956) used 220 col lege students in their factor analysis of the 42 anxiety items contained in the MAS. Their analysis produoed five factors: (a) chronic anxiety or worry, (b) increased physiological activity, (c) sleep disturbance, (d) personal 27 Inadequacy, and (e) motor tension. Fenz and Epstein (1965) factor analyzed the MAS and produced three factors: (a) autonomic arousal, (b) striated muscle tension, and (c) feelings of anxiety. They interpreted the results as having produced both a general and specific factor associated with striated muscle tension. Sassenrath (1964) factor analyzed the TAQ and reported seven factors: (a) confidence about individual intelligence testing, (b) perspiring, (c) confidence during course exams, (d) confidence about group intelligence test ing, (e) heartbeat about tests, (f) confidence before course exams, and (g) avoidance of intelligence testing. Llebert and Morris (1 9 6 7) undertook a factor analysis of a T-F form of the TAQ. They found two major factors. The first factor was labeled "worry," and was seen as the cognitive or intellectual concern about one's performance. The second factor was labeled "emotionality," and was defined as autonomic reactions to stress in examination situations. Anxiety Scales and External Stimuli, Rationalizations, ifof’ enses, or Mediating Cognitions, -----ai& Behavior Responses---- This section reviews studies which investigated the relationship between anxiety and external stimuli, rationalizations, defenses or mediating cognitions, and 28 behavior responses. The section is subdivided into studies involving the HAS and the TAQ and studies involving other general and specific anxiety scales. The Relationship between the Has, the TAQ, and Stimuli Handler and S. B. Sarason (1952) differentiated high and low anxious college studentb on the basis of the TAQ. The selected groups were then randomly assigned to success, failure, and neutral report groups. Qlven the Kohs Block Design and a digit symbol test, the students were told they had: (a) done well, (b) done very badly, or (c) were to go on to a second part of the test. Retested on the KBD and the digit symbol test, it was found that the mean scores on the KED were higher for the low anxiety group than for the high anxiety group. The report of suc cess or failure was found to Improve the performance of the low anxiety group, but it depressed the scores of the high anxiety group. Doris and S. B. Sarason (1955) differentiated high and low anxious students on the TAQ. The subjects were then arbitrarily failed on a number of tasks. The students then rank ordered a number of blame statements. High anxiety students blamed themselves for failures signifi cantly more than low anxiety students. Axelrod, Cowen, and Helllzer (1956) grouped 97 students into high anxious, middle anxious, and low anxious 29 on the basis of the MAS. Using the stylus maze and a five second buzzer to move from choice points, It was found that there were no significant differences among anxiety groups, in terms or errors or trials. Kamln and Clark (1957) used adult males to investi gate the relationship between the MAS, simple reaction time, and shock avoidance reaction time. It was reported that the MAS correlated negatively with both simple reac tion time and shock avoidance reaction time. The results were interpreted to mean that the inverse relationship between the MAS and the reaction times Indicated a dis organizing effect from anxiety. Hammes ( 1 9 6 1) used a multiple-choice form of the MAS, plus a word list of 12 dangerous or threatening stimuli mixed with 26 non-dangerous or non-threatening stimuli. The study sample contained 27 MAS high anxious and 27 MAS low anxious students. It was found that the high anxious students evaluated the dangerous and threat ening stimuli significantly higher than the low anxious students. Meunler and Rule (1 9 6 7) studied the confidence In Judgment of MAS high anxious and MAS low anxious students with regard to length of lines and positive, negative, and no feedback trials. It was found that the high anxious students rated their confidence in no feedback trials as low as their confidence on negative feedback 30 trials. The low anxious students expressed high confidence In no feedback trials which was comparable to the level of confidence expressed in their positive feedback trials. The Relationship between 6ther general and Specific Anxiety scales, and stimuli Oanzer ( 1 9 6 8) investigated the interaction of audi ence presence, with high and low test anxious females as separated on the TAS and on serial learning. Using an audience and no audience paradigm, It was found that high anxious females emitted significantly more task Irrelevant comments while working on the task. No audience inter action was found. I. 0. Sarason, Kestenbaum, and Smith (1972) studied TAS high and low anxiety male students, and the effects of two kinds of interviews. It was reported that a very personal Interview about testing had a detrimental effect, particularly with high anxiety students. A less personal or neutral interview had a positive effect on high anxious Btudents. There was a significant difference between types of Interview and the effect on high anxious students. Bronzaft and Epstein (1972) studied the relation ship between ordinal position and AAT scores from 701 students. The results of the study indicated that there was no significant relationship between birth order and the debilitating AAT; however, a significant positive 31 relationship was found between the facilitating AAT and the oldest child. Towle and Merrill (1972) randomly assigned 82 col lege students to random, easy-hard, and hard-easy diffi culty sequencing on a mathematics aptitude test. Using the AAT total score, no significant differences were found In anxiety level with regard to the pattern of sequencing. Doyal and Forsyth (1972) investigated the rela tionship between 234 scores of third grade students on the TASC and the scores of their teachers on the MAS. The results Indicated a significant relationship between the girls' TASC scores and their teacher's MAS scores. A non significant relationship was found between the boys' TASC scores and their teacher's MAS results. McMahon (1973) administered the School and College Ability Test and the TAS to 222 college students. (living detailed, limited, and no knowledge of the SCAT results to randomly assigned groups, It was found that measured test anxiety was significantly higher for the detailed Informa tion group. The Relationship between the MAS, the TAQ, and nationalizations, Defenses, or Mediating Cognitions Doris and S. B. Sarason (1955) Investigated the number of blame statements which were rank ordered by high and low TAQ students after they had been told they had 32 failed on a number of tasks. High anxiety students blamed themselves for failures significantly more than low anxiety students. Davids (1955) constructed a self-rating scale which included irrational fears and insecurity. A significant positive correlation of .74 was reported between the MAS and the developed scales. I. G. Sarason (1959) investigated the relationship between the MAS and the Edwards' Social Desirability Scale. A significant negative correlation of -.50 was reported, I, G. Sarason ( 1 9 6 1) studied the relationship between the MAS and the SDS for both males and females. Both correlations were significant and negative. The correlation for the males was -.49 and for females1 -.86. Mandler and Watson ( 1 9 6 6) administered a series of digit symbol tasks to high and low anxious students, as differentiated on the TAQ. A post task questionnaire included the item: How often during the testing did you find yourself thinking how well or how badly you seemed to be doing? On a 10-point scale, high anxious students had a greater occurrence of thoughts than low anxious students. Golln, Herron, Lokata, and Relneck (1967) investi gated the relationship between the MAS and the Represslon- Sensltlzatlon Scale. The R-S soale was purported to meas ure the tendency to approach or withdraw from a stressful 33 situation. A significant positive correlation of .87 was found between the two scales. pie Relationship between Other general and Specific Anxiety Scalesj and Rationalizations, Defenses, or Mediating Cognition Dixon, DeMonchaux, and Sandler (1957) factor analyzed a social anxieties scale and obtained factors labeled: (a) social timidity, (b) fear of loss of control in public, (c) fear of exhibitionism, (d) fear of revealing inferiority, and (e) a general factor. Phillips, Hindsman, and MeQuire (i9 6 0) used 7 0 9 seventh grade pupils to study the relationship between the School Anxiety Scale and various aspects of self-concept. A significant correlation of .32 was found between the SAS and dissatisfaction with self in relation to social activi ties. A significant correlation of .3 2 was reported between the SAS and dissatisfaction with self in relation to school. The SAS was also found to be associated with: (a) guilt feelings and self-criticism, (b) frustration associated with generalized aggressiveness, (c) feelings of school inadequacy associated with hostility toward school, (d) general criticalness of age mates, and (e) for boys only, lack of aggressive self-assuredness. I. D. Sarason (1961) Investigated the relationship between the TAS and the SDS for both males and females. 34 Correlations between the two scales were reported as - . 1 8 for males and -.47 for females. Lunneberg (1964) used Items from the CMAS, CMAS Lie Scale, GASC, GASC Lie Scale, TASC, and a social desir ability scale constructed with children in the fourth and sixth grades. The study found that the SD scale was sig nificantly and negatively correlated with the anxiety scales. Llebert and Morris (1967) reported that high anxious students, as assessed by the worry and emotional ity factors taken from the TAS, were found to be more prone to emit a greater amount of self-centered and inter fering responses when confronted with evaluative condi tions. Doctor and Altman ( 1 9 6 9) studied the relationship between the worry and emotionality factors found in the * TAS and responses emitted while taking examinations. The investigation reported that high anxious students gave a greater number of negative statements, e.g., "I am stupid," and "Maybe I won*t pass." Spelgler, Morris, and Llebert (1 9 6 8) used modified five-item worry and emotionality scales taken from the TAS. They reported a range of significant negative corre lations of -.43 through -.73 between the worry scale and a 10-point expectancy scale. The expectancy scale was based on the item: Indicate your best guess as to whether 35 you will do (did) as well on this test as you would like. The correlations between the emotionality scale and the expeotancy scale ranged from a nonsignificant .02 through a significant .39. I. 0. Sarason ( 1 9 6 9) studied the relationship between the TAS and the SDS in a student sample. A sig nificant negative correlation of - .2 3 was found between the two scales. Watson and Friend ( 1 9 6 9) Investigated TAS high and low anxious students and their responses to degrees of evaluative threat. They reported that the high anxious students exaggerated and personalized the threat of evalua tion significantly more than the low anxious students. The Relationship between the MAS, the frAtj, and Behavior Responses Matarazzo, Ulett, Quze, and Saslow (1954) used 101 students to Investigate the relationship between the HAS and the American Council on Education Psychological Exami nation for High School Students. The study produced a significant negative correlation of -.25 between the two measures. Davids and Erlksen (1955) Investigated the rela tionship between the MAS, college entranee exams, and OPA. Nonsignificant correlations of -.02 and .17 were found between the MAS and college entrance exams and between the MAS and OPA, respectively. 36 Schulz and Calvin (1955) attempted to replicate a significant negative finding between the MAS and the ACE. Results from the study reported a nonsignificant correla tion of .02 between the two scales. Berry and Martin (1957) studied the relationship between the TAQ and the Galvanic Skin Response. The find ings indicated a nonsignificant relationship between the TAQ and the GSR. Trapp and Klausler (1958) compared TAQ high and low anxious students with their performance on the Weschler-Bellevue Digit Span subscale, and their levels of aspiration. Performance was found not to differ between the study groups; however, after four trials, the level of aspiration became progressively lower for the high anxious students as compared to the low anxious students. Kissel and Idttlg (1962) used 48 TAQ high anxious students and 48 TAQ low anxious students and studied the difference between the groups in terms of an adjusted me am score obtained from resting and working Palmer Skin Con ductance. A significant difference of .01 was reported between high and low anxious groups with regard to the PSC. Walker and Spence (1964) studied the relationship between the MAS, the TAQ, and the Weachler Adult Intelli gence Scale Digit Span. They reported significant negative 37 correlations of -.26 and -.23 between the MAS and the DS, and between the TAQ and the DS, respectively. Brown and Femald (1 9 6 7) used a sample of 101 male students to Investigate the relationships between the MAS and a large number of measures. Among the findings, the following relationships were reported: (a) a nonsignificant correlation of .03 between the MAS and the Rorschach, (b) a nonsignificant correlation of -.05 between the MAS and the Draw A Person Test, and (c) a significant negative correlation of -.42 between the MAS and the College En trance Examination Board instrument. Qarwood, Oulora, and Kalter (1970) studied the relationship between the MAS, the TAQ, and micro-momentary facial expressions. The investigation found uniformly nonsignificant correlations between the anxiety scales and emotion as seen in facial expressions. Harper (1971) investigated four groups of upper division and graduate students to determine the relation ship between the three stimuli dimensions of the TAQ and CtPA. Anxiety about group and individual intelligence tests was found to be nonsignificantly related to cumulative QPA. Anxiety about course examinations was found to be consis tently, significantly, and negatively related to GPA. Correlations of -.47, -.2 9, -.1 8, and -.25 were reported for the four groups. 38 Boor (1972) investigated the relationship between the TAQ and examination performance, with intelligence partialed out. Significant negative relationships were found between the TAQ, the WAIS subtests, and examination grades. However, with Intelligence partialed out, the TAQ was not significantly related to examination performance. Fischer and Awrey (1973) used 72 college students to study the relationship between the MAS, the TAQ, and the Otis Intelligence Test. Results from the analysis of variance indicated a significant intelligence main effect. However, a significant interaction effect was found between the TAQ and intelligence. pie Relationship between Other general and Specific Anxiety Scales, and Behavior Responses Flescher (1 9 6 3) studied the relationship between anxiety as assessed by the QASC and the TASC and divergent thinking as measured by five divergent thinking tasks. Using sixth grade students, it was found that In general, the GASC and the TASC were unrelated to divergent thinking. Feldhusen, Denny, and Condon (1985), using GASC high and low seventh and eighth grade students, studied the relationship between anxiety, divergent thinking, and convergent thinking. In general, no significant differ ences were found between the study groups In terms of divergent or convergent thinking. 39 Clark, Veldman, and Thorpe ( 1 9 6 5) used 192 Junior high school students to Investigate the relationship between three divergent thinking Instruments and anxiety as assessed by the Holtzman Ink Blot Technique. The results of the study Indicated that high divergent think ing students scored significantly higher on the HIHP than low divergent thinking students. Doctor and Altman ( 1 9 6 9) studied the TAS worry and emotionality factors and their relationship to examination grades. Results from the study indicated that the worry scores were significantly and negatively related to exami nation performance. The emotionality factor was found to be negatively related to performance only for students who were found to be below the group median score. When the worry factor was high, the emotionality factor had no effect on examination grades. Scott and Kessler ( 1 9 6 9) investigated the relation ships among a self-rating of apprehension, the TAS, and the Palmer Sweat Index. A significant correlation of .44 was found between the TAS and the self-rating of appre hension. Nonsignificant correlations were reported between the PSI and the TAS, and the PSI and the self-rating of apprehension. Bronzaft and Epstein (1972) studied the relation ship between debilitating AAT anxiety and examination grades, with intelligence partialed out. Significant 40 negative correlations were reported between the debilitat ing AAT, two VAIS subtests, and examination performance. The AAT debilitating scale was not found to be signifi cantly correlated with intelligence when intelligence was partialed out. Anxiety Scales and Sex Differences The Relationship between the MAS, the TAQ, and Sex S. B. Sarason and Gordon (1953) reported on the findings from two studies of sex difference and the TAQ. One study used 66 males and 33 females. No significant differences were found between males and females. The second study involved 48 males and 32 females. The females were found to have significantly higher mean TAQ scores when compared to males. Bendig (1954) ueed 497 undergraduate Btudents and found no significant differences in mean MAS scores between males and females. Goodsteln and Qolberger (1955) found female MAS mean scores significantly higher than male MAS mean scores. Fenz and Epstein (1 9 6 5) investigated sex differ ences in terms of three factors obtained from the factor analysis of the MAS. Femaleb were found to be signifi cantly higher than males in terms of autonomic arousal and feelings of anxiety. No significant differences were found 41 between males and females In terms of trlated muscle tension. Biggs and Felton (1973) studied a small sample of male and female Black low achievers and attempted to Influence TAQ anxiety through a counseling curriculum. Pre- and posttesting with the TAQ resulted in no signifi cant difference between male and female change scores. The Relationship between Other deneral and Specific Anxiety Scales, and Sex Tulley (1967) investigated the relationships between sex, anxiety, and a broad spectrum of Intellectual, achievement, and personal measures. Using seventh grade students, the results obtained from 22 analysis of vari ance indicated that there were no significant interactions between sex and anxiety. Tryon, Leib, and Tryon (1973) used sixth grade students to investigate sex differences in scores on the TASC. It was reported that females were significantly higher in test anxiety than males. Vernardos and Harris (1973) administered the 16PF to a clinical population. It was found in general that females had higher measured anxiety than males. Chapter Summary 4a The chapter presented an overview of the relevant viewpoints of anxiety. A review of the relationship between general and specific test anxiety scales is Included. Incorporated in the chapter is a review of the relationship between anxiety and external stimuli, ration alization, defenses, or mediating cognitions, and behavior responses. The chapter also contains a review of informa tion on sex differences and anxiety scales. Relevant Viewpoints of Anxiety Interest in anxiety stemmed from a tripartite definition within the psychoanalytic school of thought. Anxiety, as hypothesized by Freud (1936), waB the percep tion of an uncomfortable feeling and a response to that discomfort. It was the middle of the century before other contending views were presented (Dollard & Hiller, 1950; Hoch 6 Zubin, 1950; May, 1950; Mowrer, 1950) and anxiety gained prominence as a significant variable in psychologi cal theory and research. The development of the MAS by Taylor (1951, 1953) and the TAQ by Handler and S. B. Sarason (1952) stimulated interest in operationalizing anxiety. These two scaleB, and the theory which provided the foundations for these *3 scales, led to the competing constructs of general anxiety and specific anxiety. General anxiety was seen as a one- factor phenomenon which included behavior responses or manifest anxiety symptoms, regardless of situational vari ables. Specific anxiety was viewed as a two-factor event which Included behavior responses to specific situational variables. General anxiety was considered as a chronic personality characteristic, whereas specific anxiety was acknowledged as a transitory situatlonally dependent state. In contrast with the blvarlate methods which had been used to develop the general and specific anxiety measures, Cattell and Scheier (1958, 1961)* using multi variate methods, obtained two factors which were labeled ’ ’ trait anxiety" and "state anxiety." These factors emerged from the differing procedures by which they were Isolated and by the variables which were found to be associated with them. A significant departure from the previously held one- and two-factor views of anxiety was proposed by Spellberger (1 9 6 6) and supported by other authors (Lazarus B a Averill, 1972; I. G. Sarason, 1972; Schachter, 1964, 1966). This departure consisted of a three-factor concep tion of anxiety which Included external stimuli, behavior responses, and the additional factor of defenses, rational izations, or mediating cognitions. 44 General and Specific Anxiety Scales This section reviews the literature on the rela tionship among general and specific test anxiety scales and produced the following general findings: (a) there has been a consistently reported, low magnitude, positive rela tionship between the MAS and the TAQ. This finding was found to be applicable to the relationship between other adult general and specific test anxiety scales; (b) meas ures of general anxiety were found to be more highly related to each other than they were related to specific anxiety scales; (c) assessments of specific anxiety were found to be more highly related to each other than they were related to general anxiety scales; and (d) differing assumptions and procedures underlying factor analytic investigations of anxiety scales produced different fac tors within anxiety scales. Anxiety Scales and External Stimuli, Rationalizations. Defenses, or Mediating Cognitions, and Behavlor Responses This section reviews the literature on the rela tionship between anxiety scales and external stimuli, rationalization, defenses or mediating cognitions, and behavior responses. The review produced the following general findings: (a) in the investigation of anxiety, a large number of diverse research paradigms and differing 45 stimuli! rationalizations and behavior response variables have been used in conjunction with general and specific anxiety scales! (b) the majority of studies of anxiety have Incorporated stimuli! behavior responses! and anxiety scales In their research designs. Rationalizations! defenses! or mediating cognitions have been incorporated less frequently; however, there appeared to be a trend In this direction! (c) the MAS and the TAQ, as well as other general and specific test anxiety scales, were found to be inconsistently related to the large number of differ ing stimuli contained within differing research paradigms; however, the TAQ and the other specific anxiety scales were found to be consistently related to the stimuli within the situations for which the scales were developed to assess anxiety, (d) the MAS was found to be related to rationalizations or mediating cognitions in general; in addition, the TAQ and the other specific anxiety scales were found to be consistently related to the rationaliza tions or mediating cognitions which existed between the stimuli and behavior responses contained in the specific situations for which the scales were constructed to assess anxiety, (e) the MAS, the TAQ, and other general and specific anxiety scales were found to be Inconsistently related to behavior responses in general; however, the TAQ and other specific anxiety scales were found to be 46 consistently related to the behavior responses, e.g., Intelligence, achievement, and aptitude, which were a part of the situations for which the scales were developed to measure anxiety. Anxiety Scales and Sex Differences This section reviews the studies which presented Information on sex differences and anxiety scales. The review found Inconsistencies in the findings concerned with sex differences as measured by the MAS, the TAQ, and other general and specific anxiety scales; however, It was found that females generally had higher measured anxiety as compared with the assessed anxiety of males. CHAPTER III DESIGN OP THE STUDY This chapter provides an overview of the design of the study. Information related to basic components of the study is reported. In order to clarify the coverage, the material is organized in the following major sections: (l) a description of the study sample; (2) a review of the measurement instruments administered, including Information regarding instrument construction, validity, reliability, and general useabllity; and (3) a description of the study procedures, including details regarding test administra tion, test scoring, and statistical procedures. Sample Description A random sample of upper division students from a major California state university enrolled in required education courses was used in the study. The university is a metropolitan commuter institution, offering under graduate and graduate degrees. A student population of approximately 900 was enrolled in required education courses. These students were registered in a total of 47 classes. A stratified 47 48 random selection of seven classes was used In the study. The number of students used In the study sample was 200. The sample represented a wide variety of academic majors and a wide age range. Sex was equally represented In the sample. There were 100 males and 100 females. Instruments Administered Stimuli, Rationalization, and Behavior Scales Developing the scales from obtained observations of critical testing situation stimuli, behavior responses, and rationalizations. The three scales were constructed from student observations and descriptions of critical testing situation stimuli, behavior responses, and ration alizations . A sample of 700 student respondents provided the initial data for the construction of the scales. This sample was selected on the basis of a random sample of course and class standing. It represents the total popu lation of 28j000 full- and part-time students enrolled In the Btudy university. In a one week period Just prior to midterm exami nations > a data gathering Instrument called the Critical Incidence Questionnaire or the CIQ was administered to eight randomly selected lower division courses, 14 randomly 49 selected upper division courses, and three randomly selected graduate courses. One hour of regular class time was used to obtain responses to the CIQ. The CIQ was developed along the lineB of the theory and method of Flanagan's Critical Incident Technique (1954). This technique consisted of a set of procedures for collecting direct observations of human behavior . . . having special significance and meeting a sys tematically defined criteria . . . for analyzing and synthesizing such observations into a number of rela tionships that can be tested under more controlled conditions [1954, p. 327). The CIQ was designed, after numerous pilot studies, to elicit observations of perceived testing situation stimuli, behavior responses to those stimuli, and rationalizations used to mitigate those stimulus-response interactions. Discrete parts of these observations were then used as potential items for the construction of the three scales. The content of the CIQ used to obtain the observa tions comprising the potential items in the Stimuli, Rationalization, and Behavior Scales, is presented below in abbreviated form: Think of a recent time when you observed a particu larly vivid example of a college student, a person you know well, or yourself, dealing with a difficult testing situation. 1. Describe specifically the basic elements of the particular testing situation, e.g., what critical things do you feel the person confronted in the testing situation which may have made him or her anxious? 50 2. Describe in detail exactly what the person did, how the person behaved, acted, felt, and so forth. 3. Was the person's behavior effective or ineffective in dealing with the situation? Describe explicitly and in detail why the person's behavior was effec tive or ineffective? Developing potential scale items. The student CIQ observations of critical stimuli, behavior responses and rationalizations were independently reduced to potential scale items by one evaluator. An example of this procedure was a student observer who described the basic elements in the testing situation: "A student was taking a final exami nation which wasn't in his major field, and he needed a 'B' grade in order to keep from being disqualified. The professor was hostile to the student and the student couldn't get the professor to be sympathetic." The poten tial stimuli items from this observation were: (a) final examination; (b) examination which could disqualify a student; (c) a hostile professor; (d) a non-responslve professor; and (e) an unsympathetic professor. This evaluation and reduction procedure produced 176 potential stimuli items, 164 potential behavior items, and 98 potential rationalization items. To insure that the single evaluator was reliably reducing the observa tions to potential items, 10 CIQ’s were evaluated by two other trained evaluators. The evaluations were identical in all cases. To determine if the sample observations had exhausted the possible observations within the population, a frequency count of new potential Items per additional 100 CIQ's was maintained* It was found that after 400 CIQ's had been evaluated, each additional 100 CIQ's pro duced only one or two additional new items. Finalizing the items and constructing the three scales. The 50 Items which comprised the final form of each of the three scales were obtained through the use of two complementary procedures. The first procedure con sisted of asking 50 randomly selected students to select from each of the three groups of potential Items the 50 Items which: (a) "provoke the most anxiety in you," (b) "happen most frequently," and (c) "with which you most agree." These abbreviated question stems refer to the stimuli items, behavior items, and rationalization items, respectively. The second procedure consisted of asking 12 professional psychologists from the university counsel ing center to sort the total 438 potential items, written on individual cards, into four categories: stimuli, behav ior, rationalizations, and unable to sort. Frequencies of selection by students and sorting by psychologists were maintained for each of the potential items. The 50 items Included in the final form of each of the three scales were items which were selected 50 out of 50 times by the 52 students and were accurately sorted 12 out of 12 times by the psychologists. The 50 final Items relating to each of the three scales were randomly assigned to order within the final form of the Stimuli Scale (Appendix A), Rationalization Scale (Appendix B), and Behavior Scale (Appendix C). Stimuli, rationalization, and behavior scale val idity. The validation of the Stimuli, Rationalization, and Behavior Scales was Incorporated in the design of the study; therefore, the results of the study, presented in Chapter IV, should either provide support for, or detract from, the validity of the three scales. Stimuli, rationalization, and behavior scale reliability. Test-retest reliability was not ascertained for the three scales; however, odd-even and split half reliability of the combined three scales was found to be .95 and .94 for the study sample. Manifest Anxiety Scale The MAS, presented under the title of the Biograph ical Inventory (Appendix D), was developed as an opera tional measure of individual differences In emotional responsiveness (re), thus reflecting drive (D) as formu lated by Hull (1943). The author of the MAS considered anxiety to be a "relatively constant level of Internal . . . 53 emotionality" (Taylor, 1953* P- 285)* and therefore, the MAS was devised to measure "what has been called overt or manifest symptoms of this state" (Taylor, 1953* P* 2 8 5). Essentially, the 50 Items of the MAS assessed the presence or absence of anxiety reactions, e.g., perspiration, feel ing of uneasiness, and so forth. Within the Biographical Inventory, the 5 0 manifest anxiety itemB were presented with 40 buffer items which were uniformly classified by judges as not indicative of anxiety. The buffer items represented the L and K subscales taken from the MMPI. MAS validity. The MAS was constructed of items taken from the MMPI and was initially validated by clini cal Judgment; however, the validation of an instrument purported to measure an abstract construct such as general anxiety has been an unending process. Validation has been based on numerous accumulative studies which indicated that the instrument predicted behavior in a hypothesized direction. The review of literature presented in Chapter II supported the contention that the MAS was validly meas uring a relatively chronic type of anxiety. This is a validation study; the results of the study, reported in Chapter IV, should either support or detract from this contention. MAS reliability. The test-retest reliability of the MAS has been reported to be between .8 1 and .9 6 54 (Kendall, 1954; Taylor, 1953). Odd-even reliability of the MAS has been reported to be .84 (Fenz & Epstein, 1 9 6 5). Test Anxiety Questionnaire The TAQ, presented under the title of a Question naire on Attitudes toward Three Kinds of Testing Situations (Appendix E), was a 35-item "questionnaire which is spe cifically concerned with the Ss' attitudes and experiences in a testing situation" (Mandler & S. B. Sarason, 1952, p. 166). The authors of the TAQ devised the scale to measure the recalled intensity of certain behaviors and feelings immediately antecedent to and concomitant with taking intelligence tests, course examinations, and en trance examinations. It essentially assessed the inter action between testing stimuli, i.e., three kinds of tests, and behavior responses to those stimuli, e.g., perspira tion, feeling of uneasiness, and so forth. TAQ validity. The TAQ was originally validated by observer ratings of subjects1 molar behavior in a testing situation. Again, the validity of a specific test anxiety scale has been based upon its ability to predict hypothe sized behavior in a relatively consistent manner. The review of literature presented in Chapter II supported the contention that the TAQ was validly measuring the anxiety which arises in the testing situation. The results 55 of the present study, set forth in Chapter IV, should either support or detract from this contention. TAQ reliability. The test-retest reliability of the TAQ has been reported to be .91 (Mandler & Cowen, 1958) and .82 (Alpert & Haber, i9 6 0). The split-half reliability of the TAQ has been reported to be .91 (Handler & Cowen, 1958). Procedures Administration In order to Increase the reliability of response and to reduce the effects of fatigue and "position effect," the five instruments used in the study were ordered in 15 different sequences within the battery. The battery of five instruments was administered in a one hour period within one week prior to final exami nations. All administrations were done by one individual, and no instructions were provided the respondents other than those provided as an introduction to each of the five Instruments. The time required for completion of the bat tery of five scale ranged from 30 minutes to 1 hour. Statistical Methods In order to clarify the presentation of the sta tistical procedures used In this study, they are presented 56 as they applied to the study hypotheses stated In Chapter I. Hypothesis 1. The Independence of the Stimuli Scale, Rationalization Scale, and Behavior Scale was explored through the use of factor analysis as a hypothesis testing method. It was hypothesized that three relatively Independent factors should emerge from the factor analysis of the 150 Items comprising the three scales. Therefore, using the B4D72X program, the 150 Items were orthogonally rotated to produce three factors. The data were not normalized. Hypotheses 2-8. The relationships between the MAS, the TAQ, and the Independent Stimuli, Rationalization, and Behavior Scales were investigated through the use of product-moment correlational analyses. The directional hypotheses utilized one-talled tests of significance with (p < .005) interpreted as significant. The null hypotheses used two-tailed tests of significance (p < .01). Hypothesis 9. The null hypothesis of no signifi cant relationship between OPA and the MAS, TAQ, Stimuli Scale, Rationalization Scale, or Behavior Scale was Investigated through the use of the product-moment corre lational analysis. Coefficients (p < .01) were Interpreted as significant. 57 Hypothesis 10. The differences between males and females In terms of the six study variables were explored through the use of the test of significant differences between Independent means. Results (p < .01) were Inter preted as significant. Chapter Summary The chapter presented an overview of the Btudy. Information relating to the sample, the measurement Instru ments, and procedures is covered. An extensive descrip tion of the development of the Stimuli, Rationalization, and Behavior Scales is presented. Sample Description The sample consisted of 200 upper division stu dents from a metropolitan state university. A wide range of academic majors and age was contained in the sample. Sex was equally represented. Instruments Administered The methods used In the development of the Stimuli Scale, Rationalization Scale, and Behavior Scale provide an Indication of the content validity of the three scales. Estimates of validity of the scales will be provided In the findings of this study. The reliability of the bat tery containing the three scales was considered to be satisfactory. 58 The review of literature in Chapter II provided indications of satisfactory validity for the MAS and the TAQ. Additional comparative construct validity should be provided from the findings of the study. The reported reliability of the MAS and the TAQ was considered satis factory. Procedures The five scales used in the study were reliably administered in a one hour period within one week prior to final examinations. The effects of fatigue, "position effect," and administrator interaction were controlled. The use of factor analysis as a method of hypothe sis testing was utilized for determining the Independence of the Stimuli, Rationalization, and Behavior Scales. Product-moment correlation analysis was used to investi gate the interrelationship among GPA, BAAS, TAQ, Stimuli Scale, Rationalization Scale, and Behavior Scale. The t _ test for significant differences between Independent means was used to explore the difference between males and females with regard to the six study variables. CHAPTER IV REPORT OP THE FINDINGS This chapter presents a report of the findings related to the 10 hypotheses stated In Chapter I. The findings from the statistical procedures are presented as they apply to each of the individual hypotheses. Hypothe ses stated as directional utilized a one-tailed test of significance. Coefficients with levels of significance (p < .005) are reported as significant. Hypotheses stated as null or nondlrectional utilized a two-tailed test of significance. Results with significance levels (p < .01) are reported as significant. Findings of the Factor Analysis Design The Items comprising the Stimuli Scale, Rational Izatlon Scale, and Behavior Scale are relatively Independent factors among scales. The hypothesis was accepted. The findings from the factor analysis of the 150 Items comprising the Stim uli Scale, Rationalization Scale, and Behavior Scale pro duced three factors. Ifoere was no basic overlap of Items 59 60 between factors or scales. The three factors represent the Behavior Scale, Stimuli Scale, and Rationalization Scale In order of size. The first factor (Table l) contains 46 items, all of which represent the Behavior Scale. The items included in the first factor all had factor loadings of .40 or above. The second factor (Table 2) contains 36 items, all of which represent the Stimuli Scale. The items Included in the second factor all had factor loadings of .40 or above. The third factor (Table 3) contains all items, all of which represent the Rationalization Scale. The items Included in the third factor all had factor loadings of .40 or above. Findings of the Correlation Matrix Design Hi 2 There is a significant, low magnitude, positive relationship between the HAS and the TAQ. The hypothesis was accepted. The findings (Table 4) Indicated a significant positive correlation of .57 between the MAS and the TAQ. The coefficient of determina tion of 32.49 Indicated a low magnitude of the relation ship between the MAS and the TAQ. 61 UBU 1 r i M A M D F A C T O R L O A D IN G S F O R F A C T O R I — B E H A V IO R H O W Itaa Lqi41a| s i . Faal ta*iiut«4 .6b 5»- Aaooyunoa -56 5*. tWMlOtt t l l l l t B t i .bb 55- Fm I Ilk* nut Log thnu# test .bb 56. llowat down thinking •56 57- lull ihalB vhll* writing •5* 5*. Phobia to think .69 59. Nit raally at up id .TO 60. k m d -65 61. •tot* of panie .6b t t . Think donatory tbinga about agrMlf -TO 65- ttarry a (root 1m 1 .6b 6b. (1Fi1jd( out loud •55 65. Jtoaawtaant toward, altuottoo -67 66. Inooagtlnto tbouihta ratbar than elaar flowing Ida** •65 67- Buttarflaa In atn— nh .61 66. Look of sMtMtntia* •T O 69. Owaaty pa It .b6 70. look of ootfidm* •75 71. Inability to orpoln inawara • T » 7 * . Safaatad attltuda •TO 75- Forgot aoat of what I know .67 76. N*U*| of fitlpi* .60 75- Loan of alaap •56 76. Oonfualoa ■77 77. Faal Uka you Juat want to gat it star with .66 79- Fait wary unaeHortabla •79 6 0 . Foot t i W l .bl 6l. Flaying narvoualy with paanl1 .57 65. Zrrltatloo with ywwiatf .6b 86. Ottar dlaballaf .61 65. Foaling of dapi-aaaloa •76 66. ■oatllity toward t*id*r .56 66. laiMd futitloM owr and owar without iudint«*IW .69 69. Uhaatiaflod .60 90. PlMoinpaMt .76 91. Faal awry hot and «ia .66 90- Kaap irlOlif that tha toot m i d ha ovar •TO 95. TWnaanaaa la aoak oat ahouUan •99 96. .16 95- Owaaa a l o t .66 96. I k a l f iu a t r a t lo a .60 97. Rarwaaa •TO 96. H a m la aunt .66 99. O ouU M t th in k •7 9 1 0 0 . N ta t wont b lan k •65 TABLE 2 ITEMS A*D FAOTJR IA W 1 H0S FOB FACTOR I I —EXTWMAL STIMULI 29. Tasting ' A * * 0 students, i*a finish first nr* allowed to talk nod disturb th* sInvar students .61 IlOB 4. T»ti taan tlxrt is too ouch nntarlal to rand aod analyse .4} 6. lb* first ana* fcoo s tanchar vho doesn't giv* gluts to l- his tast type and/or eontant 7> A proflolancy tast, tbnt if you foil you will ba required w to taka * raaadlal oourss 9- Buiprla* taats or quits** .45 11. Dttnl^t tan paper asalgnaant* .46 U. Taking a tast for ikieb you nr* sot praparad .90 13- Taacfaar* vbo do not ooosldar posalbla parsooal orlsls .66 14. A scheduled two hour tast that 1* picked up on*-ha If hour *orly, without asplaaatloa 17* Vasts taare oae nlotaks asks* all th* following nspons** vroos .96 16. A tasting nxa whan paopla an saatad alhow to albov .4 0 19- Ttst* taan th* astarlal you an baiac taatad an is fna contradictory aouroaa 20. TOsts of trivial fasts .46 21. And tast* vban you hava a spaelflo anount of tins in which to ooaplata th* tast 23. foorly oonposad tast question* .60 24. Tnklns a tast whan a fallow studant Is s«"'<"| at your papsr .40 .96 26. Whan ooa tast datanlnas tbs total eoursa grad* .99 27. Twaobara who won't sirs aaka-up axaalnatloas if you alas th* ins .43 29. fasts than ooa qua*tIon is nskad sod that is th* satin end* .40 32. Teachars who Infon th* elass that a high p*ro*ntag* will fall th* tast 33* A taataar ho is a notoriously hard gradar .97 34. TWats whan tha tast (round rulaa an change* on th* day of th* taat .63 33* An lmlavast tast aftar Mich study has hsan by u th* tanahar *** 36. fast* whan you hava no prior Idas of taat will bs on th* tast .61 37. taan you an told tha tast would oovsr only notarial slaaa tha last tast, but you find that tha tast Includes nntarlal .90 fron bafor* tha last taat 36. A tast that asks for spsalfla fast* whan tha tanahar said it would ,, ha a tast of general knowledge 39< Tin c hars tao look ovar your aheuldar as you taka aa mmm .43 40. Dlstnatloa by th* taatasr during tha taat .91 41. her dinatlana for aaawurlag the tast .99 40. A taataar tao dlanspasta and da rids a atudaaha .93 43. Atalguously wordad qua atIona .99 Ho reports of tast nsults, or delayed report* of taat nsuits ,93 49. Itst* that an not npn aantntlva of th* nntarlal tautat .93 46. A taataar that tails you a toot Is Just a quis, whan you know it Is nnlly • slhww aaanlaatloa 47. A tasting non that Is too warn .43 A tast taan th* grad* would nnlly offset your grad* point avwmgs .96 49. taking a tast fna s taataar ttat la hoetllo to you .97 90. T*na her* who lnfora th* a Ins* that so studant will gat an "A” grads .90 .94 63 TABU 3 rSMB AHD FACTOR LOADINGS FOR FACTOR III— RATIORALIZATIOMB Item Loading IOC. You can't do veil on mat testa because there la Just too such material to cover .ka 103. There are more important personal things to be concerned about than tests .*2 105. Tests don't measure what you have learned .*6 XU. You don't retain facts from testa, only things taught In class are retained .ko 112. Testing In general has little to do with, or relevance to, a meaningful personal existence .56 115- Oh veil, vtoo cares about testing anyway .ka 155. It Is ridiculous to compete for a meaningless grade 136. A class that is not relevant doesn't warrant studying or doing veil on the test •*5 139- You don't generally feel bad about tests because you know your Intelligence has other assets not determined by a test .1*1 Ik2. You can't do veil on a test when you are losing control of yourself 1*3. Ikifair tests oause you not to study .ko 64 TABLE 4 IHOEBOOKRBIAT IONS AMDHG SIX STUDY VARIABLES (N = 200) Variables MAS TAQ SS BB BS GPA MASa .57* . 38** .13 • 55* .0 2 TAQb .46* .24* .53* -.03 SS° . 2 8* .43* - .1 2 RSd .26* -.19** BS® QPAf -.2 0** Mean 1 6 ,0 1 1 8 6 .1 4 2 6 3 .7 2 211.73 203.74 2 .6 6 SD 8 .3 2 3 9 .6 3 40.31 22.30 53-61 .50 ®Manifest Anxiety Scale. bTeet Anxiety Questionnaire. cStimuli Scale. ^Rationalization Scale. ® Behavior Scale. f Grade Point Average. *P < .005 for one-tailed test of significance. **p < .01 for tvo-tailed test of significance. 65 There Is a significant positive relationship between the MAS and the Behavior Scale. The hypothesis was accepted. The findings (Table 4) Indicated a significant positive correlation of .54 between the MAS and the Behavior Scale. Hi4 There Is a significant positive relationship between the TAQ and the Behavior Scale. The hypothesis was accepted. The findings (Table 4) indicated a significant positive correlation of .53 between the TAQ and the Behavior Scale. There Is no significant relationship between the MAS and the Stimuli Scale. The hypothesis was rejected. The findings (Table 4) indicated a significant positive correlation of .37 between the MAS and the Stimuli Scale. Ho6 There is no significant relationship between the MAS and the Rationalization Scale. The hypothesis was accepted. The findings (Table 4) indicated a nonsignificant positive correlation of .1 3 between the MAS and the Rationalization Scale. 66 There Is a significant positive relationship between the TAQ and the Stimuli Scale. The hypothesis was accepted. The findings (Table 4) Indicated a significant positive correlation of .45 between the TAQ and the Stimuli Scale. m 8 There is a significant positive relationship between the TAQ and the Rationalization Scale. The hypothesis was accepted. The findings (Table 4) indicated a significant positive correlation of .24 between the TAQ and the Rationalization Scale. There are no significant relationships between GPA and the MAS, TAQ, Stimuli Scale, Rationaliza tion Scale, or Behavior Scale. In terms of the five possible relationships, the hypothesis was accepted in three relationships and rejected in two relationships. The findings (Table 4) indicated: (a) a nonsignificant positive correlation of .02 between GPA and the HAS, (b) a nonsignificant negative correlation of -.03 between GPA and the TAQ, (c) a nonsignificant negative correlation of -.12 between GPA and the Stimuli Scale, (d) a significant negative correlation of -.19 between GPA and the Rationalization Scale, and (e) a sig- 67 nifleant negative correlation of -.20 between GPA and the Behavior Scale. Findings of the Significant Difference Design Ho10 There are no significant differences between males and females with regard to QPA, the MAS, TAQ, and the Stimuli, Rationalization, or Behavior Scales. In terms of the six possible differences, the hypothesis was rejected on four variables and accepted on two variables. The findings (Table 5) indicated: (a) a significant difference between males and females with regard to the MAS, (b) a significant difference between males and females with regard to the TAQ, (c) a signifi cant difference between males and females with regard to the Stimuli Scale, (d) a significant difference between males and females with regard to the Behavior Scale, (e) no significant difference between males and females with regard to the Rationalization Scale, and (f) no signifi cant difference between males and females with regard to GPA. 68 TABLE 5 MSAN DIFFERENCES ffilVEBN MALES ADD FEMAIES ON THE SIX STUD* VARIABLES Variables Males (N-100) Females (N-IOO) t Mean SD Mean SD MASa 13.58 7.32 18.65 8.48 4.72* TAQb 175.40 i»o.43 196.86 35-75 3.98* SS° 252.15 43.66 275.32 33.03 4.21* RSd 214.10 21.63 209.54 22.84 1.51 BS® 109.22 52.73 217.1*0 51.01 3.85* GPAf 2.84 •51 2.83 •53 .76 aManifest Anxiety Scale. bText Anxiety Questionnaire. CStimuli Scale. ^Rationalization Scale. £ Behavior Scale. f Grade Point Average. *p < .01. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION OP THE FINDINGS This chapter provides a discussion of the findings as they respond to the questions presented in Chapter I, and for which answers were sought in the study. The ques- tion responses derived from the findings include: (l) a response to the questions and a general statement of the findings; (2) a statement, where possible, of the rela tionships between the study findings and the general find ings from the review of literature in Chapter II; (3) a response to the questions in terms of the study, as stated in Chapter I; and (4) additional hypotheses derived from the findings and an explanation, where possible, for the derivation of the hypotheses. Question 1 In addition to the one-factor and two-factor theories of anxiety, is there support for a three-factor view of anxiety? The findings from the factor analysis of the 150 items comprising the constructed Stimuli, Rationalization, and Behavior Scales supported a three-factor view of anxiety. The analysis found no overlap of items among 69 70 scales and produced two large Independent factors which consisted of the Items from the Behavior Scale and the Stimuli Scale, respectively. In addition, an Independent factor made up of a small number of items contained In the Hatlonallzatlon Scale was found. These findings were consistent with presented theories of anxiety, which Included external stimuli, rationalizations, defenses or mediating cognition, and behavior responses (Lazarus & Averill, 1972; I. G, Sarason, 1972; Schachter, 1964, 1966; Speilberger, 1 9 6 6). It was found within the parameters of this study that perceived testing situation anxiety-ellciting stimuli and perceived behavior responses were variables of consid erable Importance In the study of anxiety. In addition, perceived rationalizations used to reduce or mitigate against test anxiety were also found to be a variable which required consideration In the study of anxiety. It Is hypothesized that the perceived rationaliza tions which were used to reduce or mitigate against test anxiety could be grouped Into either feeling, limbic sys tem, or mldbraln rationalizations; or thinking, cortical, or cognitive rationalizations. The content of the rationalizations In Items 103# 112, and 115 were compared with Items 106, llU, and 125. The first three Items were found to be associated with 71 anxiety (Table 2), and the second three Items were not found to be associated with anxiety (Appendix B). Item 103: Item 112: "There are more important personal things to be concerned about than tests." "Testing in general has little to do with, or relevance to, a meaningful personal existence." Item 115: "Oh well, who cares about testing anyway"? Item 106: Item 114: Item 125: "A little anxiety helps you get geared up for a test." "You can fail a test if you're immature about it." "You fail tests because you don't study." It seemed reasonable to group these rationaliza tions into either feeling rationalizations or thinking rationalizations, respectively. The data we ^ inconclusive as to whether feeling and thinking rationalizations were discrete phenomena, or whether a continuum existed between the extremes of feeling and thinking rationalizations, or between feeling and thinking rationalizers. Question 2 Is the HAS a relatively pure assessment of behavior responses and thereby not a measure of stimuli or rationalizations? The findings from the zero order correlations between the MAS and the Stimuli, Rationalization, and 72 Behavior Scales suggested a negative response to the question. It was found that the MAS, as expected, was significantly and positively related to the Behavior Scale; however, the MAS was also found to be significantly, posi tively, and unexpectedly related to the Stimuli Scale. There was no significant relationship between the MAS and the Rationalization Scale. The finding of a significant positive relationship between the MAS and the Behavior Scale was consistent with the findings from the review of the literature, which indi cated a consistent reported relationship between the MAS and behavior responses in general. The finding of a sig nificant positive relationship between the MAS and the Stimuli Scale added to the Inconsistency found In the literature regarding the inconsistent relationship between the MAS and external stimuli. The finding of a nonsignifi cant relationship between the MAS and the Rationalization Scale was consistent with the findings from the literature, which Indicated that the MAS was related to mediating cognitions In general; however, the MAS was not found to be related to specific situation rationalizations. It was found within the confines of this study that the MAS was not a relatively pure assessment of perceived behavior responses to the testing situation. It was also found that the MAS was measuring perceived testing situa tion anxlety-ellcltlng stimuli although It did not assess 73 perceived rationalizations used to reduce or mitigate against text anxiety. It is hypothesized that behavior responses or "overt or manifest symptoms of ... a relatively constant level of internal . . . emotionality [Taylor, 1953, P. 285]" do not exist in a vacuum or come to existence in a vacuum. It is possible that administering the MAS in a battery of test anxiety scales could have produced the finding of a significant relationship between the MAS and the Stimuli Scale. It is also possible that the organism, when not provided with a specific stimulus, generates internal stimuli from recollections or remlnescences. It is also hypothesized that unless the organism is presented with a specific stimulus, rationalization Is clouded. The rationalizations between behavior responses and original stimuli have been either mlsremembered or forgotten. When a specific stimulus was provided, e.g., in the TAQ, the Stimuli Scale, the Rationalization Scale, and the Behavior Scale, the organism had sufficient data input for clear feeling or thinking rationalization. Question 3 Is the TAQ a relatively pure assessment of stimuli and behavior responses and thereby not a measure of rationalizations? 74 The findings from the first-order correlations between the TAQ and the Stimuli, Rationalization, and Behavior Scales called for a negative response to the question. It was found that the TAQ, as expected, was significantly and positively related to the Stimuli Scale and the Behavior Scale. In addition, the TAQ was found to be significantly, positively, and expectedly related to the Rationalization Scale. The finding of a significant positive relationship between the TAQ and the Stimuli and Behavior Scales was consistent with the findings from the review of literature which Indicated a consistently reported relationship between the TAQ and external stimuli and behavior responses within the testing situation. The finding of a significant relationship between the TAQ and the Rationalization Scale was consistent with the findings from the review of litera ture which indicated that the TAQ and other specific test anxiety scales were found to be consistently related to the rationalizations or mediating cognitions within the testing situation. It was found, within the parameters of this inves tigation, that the TAQ was not a relatively pure assessment of perceived testing situation anxiety-eliciting stimuli and perceived behavior responses to the testing situation. The TAQ was also found to be measuring perceived rational izations used to reduce or mitigate against test anxiety. 75 It Is again hypothesized that the organism does in fact mediate between stimuli and behavior responses via a feeling and/or thinking rationalization system. This seems particularly probable when the organism is presented with a specific stimulus. Question 4 Is the basis for the positive relationship between the MAS and the TAQ a function of both scales assessing behavior responses, and is the basis for the low magnitude of the relationship between the two scales a function of the TAQ measuring, in addition to behavior responses, external stimuli, and possibly rationalizations? The findings from the product-moment correlations between the MAS, the TAQ, and the criterion Stimuli, Rationalization, and Behavior Scales, Indicated a negative response to the question. It was found, expectedly, that there was a low magnitude, positive relationship between the MAS and the TAQ. It was also found, unexpectedly, that both the MAS and the TAQ were significantly and posi tively related to the Stimuli Scale and the Behavior Scalea In addition, it was found that the TAQ was significantly and positively related to the Rationalization Scale. T h e finding of a moderately low, positive rela tionship between the MAS and the TAQ was consistent with the summary findings from the review of literature, which Indicated a consistently reported low magnitude, positive 76 relationship between the two scales. The findings that the HAS was related to both the Stimuli Scale and the Behavior Scale, and that the TAQ was related to the Stimuli, Rationalization, and Behavior Scales, were consistent with the findings of the review of literature. The consistency between these findings and the literature findings was explored previously In this chapter. It was found, within the limits of this study, that the basis for the positive relationship between the MAS and the TAQ was a function of both scales assessing perceived testing situation anxiety-eliciting stimuli and perceived behavior responses to the testing situation. It was also found that the basis for the low magnitude of the relationship between the MAS and the TAQ was a function of the TAQ assessing perceived rationalizations used to reduce or mitigate against text anxiety. Question 5 Do differential relationships exist between GPA and the MAS, TAQ, Stimuli Scale, Rational ization Scale, and Behavior Scale? The findings from the first-order correlations between the dependent GPA and the five Independent vari ables Indicated an affirmative response to the question. It was found that GPA was not significantly related to the MAS, TAQ, or Stimuli Scale; In addition the dependent GPA 77 was found to be significantly and inversely related to the Rationalization Scale and the Behavior Scale. The finding of a nonsignificant relationship between GPA and the MAS added to the inconsistency in the findings within the literature, which suggested that the MAS had been inconsistently related to achievement criteria. The finding of a nonsignificant relationship between GPA and TAQ, is inconsistent with the findings of the review of literature, which Indicated that the TAQ and other specific text anxiety scales had been consistently related to intel ligence, achievement, and aptitude criteria. The findings that GPA was not related to the Stimuli Scale, yet was Inversely related to the Rationalization and Behavior Scales, were not confirmed or invalidated within the review of literature. Prior to this study, independent scales of perceived testing situation anxiety-eliciting stimuli, perceived rationalizations used to reduce or mitigate against test anxiety, and perceived behavior responses to the testing situation, had not been developed or utilized in a research paradigm; therefore, no litera ture was available for review. It was found, within the parameters of this study, that GPA was not related to the MAS, the TAQ, or perceived testing situation anxlety-elloltlng stimuli. It was also found that GPA was significantly and negatively related to perceived rationalizations used to reduce or mitigate 78 against test anxiety and to perceived behavior responses to the testing situation. It Is hypothesized that the Inconsistency In find ings relating anxiety to performance was a function of the uncontrolled variance stemming from the perceived rational izations which were used to reduce or mitigate against teBt anxiety. Second, it is hypothesized that if the stimulus presented to the organism is clear and specific, the organ ism will contend with the stimulus within or between its rationalization and response systems. It Is not the stimu lus per se, but the clarity of the stimulus and the une- quivlcal perception of the stimulus which accounts for the facilitating or debilitating effects of anxiety. Third, it is hypothesized that thinking rationali zations are inversely related to debilitating anxiety and positively related to facilitating anxiety. Feeling rationalizations are Inversely related to facilitating anxiety and positively related to debilitating anxiety. Finally, it is hypothesized that the greater amount of thinking rationalization, the higher the performance level; and observely, the greater amount of feeling rationalization, the lower the performance level. 79 Question 6 Do males and females differ significantly with regard to GPA, the MAS, TAQ, Stimuli Scale, Rationalization Scale, and Behavior Scale? The findings from the test of significant differ ences between independent means called for an affirmative answer to the question. It was found that the mean score for males and females differed significantly with regard to the MAS, the TAQ, and the Stimuli and Behavior Scales. In all instances, the females were higher in measured anxiety than males. There were no significant differences found between the mean scores of males and females with regard to GPA or the Rationalization Scale. The findings of significant differences between males and females in terms of the MAS, the TAQ, and the Stimuli and Behavior Scales were consistent with the sum mary of findings from the review of literature which indi cated that females have been generally found to be higher In measured anxiety when compared to males. 'Hie finding of no significant differences between males and females in terms of GPA and the Rationalization Scale was not con firmed or Invalidated by the findings within the review of literature. Sex differences with regard to GPA were not reviewed due to the relatively minor function accorded this Interaction within the total study design. Sex dlf- 80 ferences with regard to the Rationalization Scale were not reviewed. Prior to this study, an Independent scale assess ing perceived rationalizations used to reduce or mitigate against anxiety had not been developed or utilized In the study of anxiety or performance. It was found, within the confines of this Investi gation, that females, when compared to males, had signifi cantly greater anxiety as measured by the MAS and the TAQ. In addition, females had greater anxiety in terms of per ceived testing situation anxiety-eliciting stimuli and perceived behavior responses to the testing situation. Females did not have significantly greater anxiety in terms of GPA, nor did they have significantly greater anxiety In terms of perceived rationalizations used to reduce or mitigate against test anxiety. It 1b hypothesized that the nonsignificant differ ence between males and females with regard to the GPA mean scores and the mean scores on the Rationalization Scale could have occurred by chance. In addition, the lack of sex differences on GPA could be attributable to the limited range of GPA. Assuming that the data were not contaminated, It is hypothesized that males and females could rationalize Identically or differently in terms of feeling and think ing rationalizations. Either alternative is possible in 81 order to produce identical mean scoreB on the Rationaliza tion Scale. Chapter Summary The chapter provided a discussion of the findings as they responded to the questions presented in Chapter I and for which answers were sought in the study. Chapter coverage involves answers to the questions in terms of the findings of the study and in relationship to the review of literature. Additional hypotheses derived from the study findings are also presented. The investigation findings supported a three-factor view of anxiety which included rationalizations as well as stimuli and behavior responses. It was proposed, through an investigation and comparison of the items contained in the Rationalization Scale, that rationalizations can be classified as either feeling rationalizations or thinking rationalizations. It was found that the HAS was not a pure assessment of behavior responses, but was actually a measure of per ceived testing situation anxiety-eliciting stimuli and perceived behavior responses to the testing situation. It was found that the TAQ was not only a pure meas ure of stimuli and behavior responses, but was also assess ing perceived rationalizations used to reduce or mitigate against test anxiety. 82 It was found that the basis for the positive, low magnitude relationship between the MAS and the TAQ was a function of both scales assessing perceived testing situa tion anxiety-eliciting stimuli and perceived behavior responses to the testing situation; however, only the TAQ was found to measure the perceived rationalizations used to reduce or mitigate against test anxiety. The findings from the study indicated that OPA had a limited range and that OPA was not significantly related to the MAS, the TAQ, or the Stimuli Scale. The OPA was found to be significantly and inversely related to the Rationalization and Behavior Scales. It was proposed that the inconsistency in the find ings relating anxiety to performance was a function of the uncontrolled variance stemming from the perceived rational izations which were used to reduce or mitigate against test anxiety. Second, it was proposed that regardless of the stimuli, the organism will contend with It If the stimuli was clearly presented and unequivocally perceived by the organism. Third, it was proposed that the variables of clarity of presentation and unambiguous perception could account for the facilitating and debilitating effects of anxiety. Finally, it was proposed that thinking and feel ing rationalizations were related to performance level and debilitating and facilitating anxiety in predictable ways. The greater the amount of thinking rationalization, the higher the facilitating effects of anxiety and the higher the level of performance; the greater the amount of feeling rationalization, the higher the debilitating effects of anxiety and the lower the performance. It was found that females had significantly greater anxiety than males as measured by the MAS, the TAQ, and the Stimuli and Behavior Scales. A suspected chance or deBign error was presented with regard to the nonsignificant dif ferences found between males and females on GPA and the Rationalization Scale. It was proposed, given valid data, that males and females could rationalize Identically or differently and still obtain identical mean scores on the Rationalization Scale. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter provides a coverage of the complete study. The coverage is presented as follows: (l) a sum mary section which Includes an overview of the problem, the sample, the measurement Instruments, and the study design, (2) a findings and conclusion section which Includes the findings related to each of the 10 study hypotheses, and the conclusions which follow from those findings, and ( 3) an other conclusions and related recom mendations section which Includes further development of the conclusions from the study and recommendations which are related to those conclusions. Summary The Problem Anxiety has long been considered a critical vari able in various aspects of psychology and education. The relationship of anxiety to performance In the testing situation has been and still Is open to question. The Importance of the area Is apparent from the large number 84 85 of scales developed to assess this variable and the com paratively large amount of literature and empirical studies dealing with the area of anxiety. The need to resolve the ambiguity in the theory and measurement of anxiety has been noted by many authors. A moderately low, positive relationship between the MAS and the TAQ has been consistently reported as ranging from .35 (Reiter, 1971) to .50 (Mandler & Cowen, 1 9 5 8). In an attempt to demonstrate the basis for the low magnitude, positive relationship between general anxiety scales and specific test anxiety scales, the study systematically in vestigated the interrelationships among OPA, the MAS, the TAQ, and constructed scales of perceived testing situation anxiety-eliciting stimuli, perceived rationalizations used to reduce or mitigate against anxiety, and perceived behav ior responses to the testing situation. In addition, the study was designed to explore sex differences within the six study variables. The intent of the study, which pro vided a framework for the 10 study hypotheses, involved four major sections: (l) to develop valid and reliable measures of perceived testing situation stimuli (Stimuli Scale), rationalizations (Rationalization Scale), and behavior responses (Behavior Scale); (2) to investigate hypothesized relationships among the MAS, TAQ, Stimuli Scale, Rationalization Scale, and Behavior Scale; (3) to 86 explore the relationships between GPA and the MAS, TAQ, Stimuli Scale, Rationalization Scale, and Behavior Scale; and (4) to explore sex differences with regard to GPA, the MAS, TAQ, Stimuli Scale, Rationalization Scale, and Behav ior Scale. The Sample The stratified random sample used in the study was drawn from classes representing required upper division education courses in a major California state university. The university was located in an urban area. A total popu lation of approximately 900 full-time students was enrolled in the required courses. The study sample consisted of 200 students, 100 males and 100 females. A wide range of aca demic majors and age was represented. The Measurement Instruments The Instrument designed to measure the construct of general anxiety was the MAS. The TAQ was the scale used to measure the construct of specific test anxiety. The Stim uli, Rationalization, and Behavior Scales were constructed to assess the perceived testing situation anxlety-ellcltlng stimuli, the perceived rationalizations which were used to reduce or mitigate against anxiety, and the perceived behavior response to the testing situation. GPA was obtained from official university tran- 87 scripts and represents the overall average of the freshman and sophomore years. The Study Design The Stimuli, Rationalization, and Behavior Scales were developed using a modification of Flanagan's Critical Incident Technique (195^)* After numerous pilot studies, a Critical Incidence Questionnaire was constructed which elicited observations of perceived testing situation stim uli , behavior responses to those stimuli, and rationaliza tions used to mitigate those stimulus-response interactions. The CIQ was completed by a large number of competent stu dent observers. Discrete parts of these observations were used to construct the three scales. The finalized items were obtained through two complementary procedures; the frequency of selection and ranking by students and the frequency of accurate sorting by professional psychologists. The MAS, TAQ, Stimuli Scale, Rationalization Scale, and Behavior Scale were randomly ordered within a test battery. The battery was administered by the investigator to the study sample within one week prior to the Fall 1972 final examinations. Independence among the items contained in the three constructed scales was ascertained through the use of multivariate factor analysis. The interrelationships among OPA, the MAS, TAQ, Stimuli Scale, Rationalization Scale, 88 and Behavior Scale were determined through the use of product-moment correlational analysis. The significance test between Independent means was employed as a statisti cal tool for determining the differences between males and females In terms of the six study variables. Findings and Conclusions The findings and conclusions covered In this sec tion relate to the 10 study hypotheses set forth in Chapter 1. Specific conclusions based on the data related to the hypotheses are included. The directional hypotheses util ized the one-tailed test of significance. Findings with significance levels (p < . 0 0 5) are reported as significant. The null hypotheses used the two-tailed test of signifi cance. Results with significance levels (p < .01) are reported as significant. The Items comprising the Stimuli Scale, Rational ization Scale, and Behavior Scale are relatively Independent factors among scales. Findings. The hypothesis of Independence among the three scales was accepted. There was no overlap of Items among scales. Two large and one smaller factor were Identified. The factors Identified and ordered by size were behavior responses, external stimuli, and rationaliza tions. The factors contained 46 Items from the Behavior Scale, 33 Items from the Stimuli Scale, and 11 items from the Rationalization Scale, respectively. All Items had factor loadings of .40 or above. Conclusions. The findings of the study indicated that the phenomena of test anxiety minimally Includes three discernible and Independent factors, I.e., stimuli, ration alizations, and behavior responses. There Is a significant, low magnitude, positive relationship between the MAS and the TAQ. Findings. The directional hypothesis of a low magnitude, positive relationship between the MAS and the TAQ was accepted. A significant correlation of .57 was found between the two variables. Conclusions. The finding of a significant posi tive relationship between the MAS and the TAQ suggested that there are assessing commonality of traits; however, the low magnitude of the relationship suggests that the two instruments are not interchangeable. Riere is a significant positive relationship between the MAS and the Behavior Scale. Findings. The directional hypothesis of a signifi cant positive relationship between the MAS and the Behavior 90 Scale was accepted. A significant correlation of .54 was found between the two variables. Conclusions. The finding of a significant positive relationship between the MAS and the Behavior suggested that the MAS was validly assessing perceived behavior responses to the testing situation. Hi4 There Is a significant positive relationship between the TAQ and the Behavior Scale. Findings. The directional hypothesis of a signifi cant positive relationship between the TAQ and the Behavior Scale was accepted. A significant correlation of .53 vras found between the two variables. Conclusions. The finding of a significant positive relationship between the TAQ and the Behavior Scale sug gested that the TAQ was validly assessing perceived behav ior responses to the testing situation. There Is no significant relationship between the MAS and the Stimuli Scale. Findings. The hypothesis of no significant rela tionship between the MAS and the Stimuli Scale was rejected. A significant positive correlation of .37 was found between the two variables. 91 Conclusions. The finding of a significant positive relationship between the MAS and the Stimuli Scale sug gested that the MAS was validly assessing perceived testing situation anxiety-eliciting stimuli. H°6 There is no significant relationship between the MAS and the Rationalization Scale. Findings. The hypothesis of no significant rela tionship between the MAS and the Rationalization Scale was accepted. A nonsignificant positive correlation of .13 was found between the two variables. Conclusions. The finding of a nonsignificant positive relationship between the MAS and the Rationaliza tion Scale suggested that the MAS was not validly assessing perceived rationalizations used to reduce or mitigate against test anxiety. There Is a significant positive relationship between the TAQ and the Stimuli Scale. Findings. The directional hypothesis of a slgnlfl cant positive relationship between the TAQ and the Stimuli Scale was aocepted. A significant correlation of ,45 was found between the two variables. 92 Conclusions. The finding of a significant positive relationship between the TAQ and the Stimuli Scale sug gested that the TAQ was validly assessing the perceived testing situation anxiety-eliciting stimuli. There is a significant positive relationship between the TAQ and the Rationalization Scale. Findings. The directional hypothesis of a signifi cant positive relationship between the TAQ and the Ration alization Scale was accepted. A significant correlation of .24 was found between the two variables. Conclusions. The finding of a significant positive relationship between the TAQ and the Rationalization Scale suggested that the TAQ was validly assessing the perceived rationalizations used to reduce or mitigate against test anxiety. There are no significant relationships between OPA and the MAS* TAQ, Stimuli Scale, Rationaliza tion Scale, or Behavior Scale. Findings. With regard to the five possible rela tionships, the null hypothesis was accepted in three rela tionships and rejected in two of the possible relation ships. There were no significant relationships between 93 OPA and the MAS, TAQ, or Stimuli Scale. Nonsignificant correlations of . 0 2, -.0 3# and - .1 2 were found for the respective interactions. Significant negative relation ships were found between OPA and the Rationalization and Behavior Scales. Significant negative correlations of -.19 and - . 2 0 were found for the respective relationships. Conclusions. The findings suggested that given a limited OPA criteria plus the high probability of contami nation of the criteria, perceived rationalizations used to reduce or mitigate against test anxiety were found to be predictors of OPA. Perceived behavior responses to the testing situation were also found to predict OPA. The MAS and the TAQ were not predictors of OPA, nor were the per ceived testing situation anxiety-eliciting stimuli. Ho10 There are no significant differences between males and females with regard to OPA, the MAS, TAQ, and the Stimuli, Rationalization, or Behavior Scales. Findings. With regard to the six possible differ ences, the null hypothesis was rejected on four variables and accepted on two variables. Males and females were found to differ significantly on the variables of MAS, TAQ, Stimuli Scale, and Behavior Scale. No significant differ ences were found between males and females on the OPA or Rationalization Scale variables. 94 Conclusions. The findings suggested that females are significantly more anxious as measured by the MAS and the TAQ. In addition, females were found to be signifi cantly more anxious with regard to perceived testing situa tion anxiety-eliciting stimuli and with regard to perceived behavior responses to testing situations. No significant differences were found with regard to QPA, and males and females were not found to differ significantly in terns of their perceived rationalizations used to reduce or mitigate against test anxiety. Other Conclusions and Recommendations This section contains additional conclusions from the investigation. In addition, recommendations developed from the investigations and conclusions are Included. 1. The study findings provided empirical evidence to support the contention of Martin (1 9 6 1) and Speilberger (1966) that three distinct factors define the parameters of the anxiety phenomenon. In agreement with the stimulus-organlsm-response model, the organism's rationalizations were found to be actively involved with anxiety. The in dividual was seen as not merely a percelver of stimuli nor as a passive respondent to stimuli. It iras hypothesized that two either discrete or continuous rationalization systems are used by the organism* and thus the organism rationalizes with either a feeling* limbic, or mldbraln sys tem; or with a thinking* cortical, or cognitive system. These propositions should be empirically tested, and future studies of anxiety should be cognizant of the role of the organism's rational ization systems within the construct of anxiety. The investigation provided empirical evidence that the basis for the positive relationship between the MAS and the TAQ was a function of both scales assessing perceived testing situation anxiety- eliciting stimuli and perceived behavior responses to the testing situation. Evidence was also pro vided that the basis for the low magnitude of the relationship between the two scales was a function of the TAQ measuring the organism's perceived rationalizations used to reduce or mitigate against test anxiety. Again* future investiga tions should randomize or control for the inter action of the organism's rationalization systems. Within the parameters of the study, there was empirical evidence that the MAS was not a rela tively pure measure of behavior responses or manifest anxiety. The MAS was also assessing per ceived testing situation anxiety-eliciting stimuli. Although randomly ordered within the study test battery, it was hypothesized that this finding was produced by administering the MAS within a battery of test anxiety scales. It was also hypothesized that behavior responses do not exist in a vacuum and that the organism generates In ternal stimuli from misremembered or forgotten recollections and reminiscences when not provided with a clearly specified stimuli. These contend ing propositions should be empirically tested, and until they are clarified, investigators of anxiety should be cautious in assuming that the MAS is a pure measure of behavior responses or manifest anxiety. The findings of the Investigation produced empiri cal evidence that the TAQ was not a relatively pure measure of behavior responses and the stimuli which elicit those responses. The TAQ was also assessing the perceived rationalizations used to reduce or mitigate against text anxiety. It was hypothesized that when stimuli are unamblquously presented and unequivocally understood by the organism, the organism has sufficient data input to provide for clear rationalization. It was also hypothesized that when the stimuli are not clearly presented or understood, primitive feeling rationalization takes precedence over thinking rationalization. Investigators of teat anxiety should be cautious In assuming that the TAQ is a pure measure of behavior responses and the stim uli which elicit those responses. In addition, educators, counselors, and researchers should be aware of the possible interaction among clarity of stimulus presentation, unambiguous perception and understanding of the stimuli by the organism, and the organism's feeling and thinking rational ization systems. Findings from the study rendered empirical evi dence that OPA is significantly and negatively related to perceived rationalizations used to reduce or mitigate against test anxiety, and perceived behavior responses to the testing situation* QPA was not found to be related to the MAS, TAQ, or perceived testing situation anxiety eliciting stimuli. It was hypothesized that the greater amount of feeling rationaliza tion, the lower the performance level, and obversely, the greater amount of thinking rationalization, the higher the performance level. TOie findings suggested that stimuli per se do not account for high and low performance. The Investigation findings showed empirically that females were significantly more anxious than males, as measured by the HAS and the TAQ. Females were also found to have higher mean scores in terms of perceived testing situation anxiety-eliciting stimuli and perceived behavior responses to the testing situation. No significant differences were found between males and females in terms of (JPA and perceived rationalizations used to reduce or mitigate against test anxiety. Within the confines of the study, the data were Inconclusive as to whether males and females rationalize dif ferently or identically. Both alternatives were possible in order to produce similar mean CtPA's and Rationalization Scale scores. The interaction of sex, differing rationalization systems, and per formance should be considered in future studies of anxiety. BS£$ W M $ $ M REFERENCES Acker, M., & MeReynolds, P. On the assessment of anxiety: III. By self-ratings. Psychological Reports, 1966, 1£ , 251- 25^ . Alpert, R., f t Haber, R. N. Anxiety In academic achieve ment situations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy chology, i9 6 0, 6 1, £67-215. Axelrod, H. S., Cowen, E. L., f t Heilizer, F. The corre lates of manifest anxiety In stylus maze learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1956, £1, 131-138. Bendig, A. W. Age, sex, and the manifest anxiety test. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1954, 18, 16. Berry, J. L., f t Martin, B. GSR reactivity as a function of anxiety Instructions and sex. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957* £4* 9-12. Biggs, B. E., f t Felton, G. S. Reducing test anxiety of collegiate Black low achievers in an academic setting. Journal of Negro Education, 1973# 42(1), 54-57. Boor, M. Relationship of text anxiety and academic per formance when controlled for intelligence. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1972, 2 8(2), 171-172. Bronzaft, A. L., & Epstein, G. F. Test anxiety, sex and ordinal position. Journal of Social Psychology, 1972, 81(1)* 155-156. ----------------------- Brown, L. B., St Fernald, L. D. Questionnaire anxiety. Psychological Reports, 1967, 21(2), 5 3 7- 5^0. Cattell, R. B., & Scheler, I. H. The nature of anxiety: A review of thirteen multivariate analyses comprising 8l4 variables. Psychological Reports, 1958, 351- Cattell, R. B., f t Scheler, I. H. The meaning and measure ment of anxiety. New York: Ronald PressT 1961. 100 101 Child* I. L. Personality. Annual Review of Psychology* 1954, £* 149-170. Clark* C. M., Veldman, D. J.* & Thorpe, J. S. Convergent and divergent thinking abilities of talented adoles cents, Journal of Educational Psychology, 1 9 6 5, 56* 157-1 6 3 * Cronbach* L. J. Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper & Row, l$ 6o. Davids* A. Relations among several objective measures of anxiety under different conditions of motivation. Journal of Consulting Psychology* 1955* 1£> 27 5-2 7 9. Davids, A.* & Eriksen, C. W. The relationship of manifest anxiety to association* productivity and intellectual attainment. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1955* 1£, 2 1 9-2 2 2. Desroches, H. F., Kaiman* B. D., & Ballard, H. T. A note on the use of a simple measure of nervousness. Journal of Clinical Psychology* 1 966* 22, 429-430. Dixon, J. J., DeMonchaux* C,* & Sandler* J. Patterns of anxiety: An analysis of social anxieties. British Journal of Medical Psychology* 1957* ^0* 107-112. Doctor* R. M,, & Altman, F. Worry and emotionality as components of test anxiety: Replication and further data. Psychological Reports* 1 969, 24* 563-568. Do Hard, J., S c Miller* N. E. Personality and psycho therapy. New York: MeCraw-Hi11* 1950. Doris, J.* A Sarason, S. B. Test anxiety and blame assignment in a failure situation. Journal of Abnor mal and Social Psychology* 1955* 50* 335-338. Doyal, 0. T., & Forsyth, R. A. The relationship between teacher and student anxiety levels. Journal of Experi mental Education* 1972, 41(2), 23-26. Feldhusen, J. F., Denny, T., 8 c Condon* C. F. Anxiety, divergent thinking, and achievement. Journal of Edu cational Psychology. 1965* 5§.* 40-45. Fenz, W. E.* A Epstein* S. Manifest anxiety: Unifactorial or multifactorial composition. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1965, 20, 773-780. 102 Fischer, D. G., f t Awrey, A. Manifest anxiety, test anxiety and Intelligence In concept formation. Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, o9(l)> 153-154. Flanagan, J. C. The critical Incident technique. Psycho logical Bulletin, 1954, £1, 327-358. Flescher, I. Anxiety and achievement of Intellectually gifted and creatively gifted children. Journal of Psychology, 1 9 6 3, 5 6, 2 5 1-2 6 8. Freud, S. The problem of anxiety. New York: Norton, 1936. Ganzer, V. J. Effects of audience presence and test anxi ety on learning and retention In a serial learning situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol ogy, 1 9 6 8, 6‘ , ’ 247-25F.-------- ----------------- Garwood, R., Gulora, A. Z., f t Kalter, N. Manifest anxiety and perception of micromomentary expression. Compre- hensive Psychiatry, 1970, 11(6), 576-580. Gaudry, E., f t Speilberger, C. D. Anxiety and educational achievement. Sidney: Wiley, I97I. Geer, F. The development of a scale to measure fear. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1 9 6 5, 2 . , 45-53. Golln, S., Herron, E. W., Lokata, R., & Relneck, L. Factor analytic study of the manifest anxiety, extra version, and represslon-sensltlzatlon scales. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1 9 6 7, 564-569. Goodstein, L. D., f t Goldberger, L. Manifest anxiety and Rorschach performance In a chronic patient population. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1955* 1£, 338-344. Gordon, E. M., f t Sarason, S. B. The relationship between "test anxiety" and "other anxieties." Journal of Personality, 1955, 2£, 317-323. Hafner, A. J., Quast, W., Speer, 0. C., f t Grams, A. Children's anxiety scales in relation to self, paren tal, and psychiatric ratings of anxiety. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1964, 28, 555-558. Hamnes, J. A. Manifest anxiety and perception of environ mental threat. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1 9 6 1, 1£, 25-26. 103 Harper, P. B. Specific anxiety theory and the Mandler- Sarason test anxiety questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1971, 31(4;, loil-iom. Hoch, P. H., & Zubin, J. (Eds.) Anxiety. New York: Grune St Stratton, 1950. Hull, C. L. Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton, 19^3. Ramin, L. J., & Clark, J. W. The Taylor scale and reaction time. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 11, 2 1 2 ^ Kendall, E. The validity of Taylor's manifest anxiety scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1954, 18, 429-432. Kissel, S., & Littig, L. W. Test anxiety and skin conduct ance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 6£, 276^ 2 7 3 :-------------------- Krause, M. S. The measurement of transitory anxiety. Psy chological Review, 1961, 6 8, 1 7 8-1 8 9. Lazarus, R. S., St Averill, J. R. Emotion and cognition: With special reference to anxiety. In C. D. Spell- berger (Ed.), Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research. Vol. II. New York: Academic Press, 1 9 7 2. Lazarus, R. S., & Opton, E. M. The study of psychological stress: A summary of theoretical formulations and experimental findings. In C. D. Spellberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1 9 6 6. Levitt, E. E., St Persky, H. Experimental evidence for the validity of the IPAT anxiety scale. Journal of Clini cal Psychology. 1962, 18, 458-461. Llebert, R. M., St Morris, L. W. Cognitive and emotional components of text anxiety: A distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 975- Lunneberg, P. Relations among social desirability, achievement and anxiety measures in children. Child Development, 1964, 169-1 8 2. Handler, 0., & Cowen, J. E. Test anxiety questionnaires. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1958, 22, 226-229. 104 Mandler, 0., f t Sarason, S. B. A study of anxiety and learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1952, 41, 16F-I7T.------------ *---- Mandler, G., f t Watson, D. L. Anxiety and the Interruption of behavior. In C. D. Spellberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1966. Martin, B. The assessment of anxiety by physiological measures. Psychological Bulletin, 1961, 5 8, 234-255. Matarazzo, J. D., Ulett, 0. A., Guze, S. B., & Saslow, G. The relationship between anxiety level and several measures of intelligence. Journal of Consulting Psy chology, 1954, 1 8, 201-205. May, R. The meaning of anxiety. New York: Ronald Press, 1950. McMahon, M. P. Effects of knowledge on ability test results on academic performance and test anxiety. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1973, 20(3), 247-249. MeReynolds, P. The assessment of anxiety: A survey of available measures. In P. MeReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment. Vol. I. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books, 1 9 6 8. Messlck, S. Personality measurement and college perform ance. In A. Anastas! (Ed.), Testing problems in per spective. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1 9 6 6. Meunler, C., A t Rule, B. 0. Anxiety and confidence in con formity. Journal of Personality. 1 9 6 7* 498-504. Miller, N. B., Fisher, W. P., f t Ladd, C. E. Psychometric and rated anxiety. Psychological Reports, 1 9 6 7, 20, 707-710. Mowrer, 0. H. Learning theory and personality dynamics. New York: Ronald Press, 1950. O'Connor, J. P., Lorr, M., f t Stafford, J. W. Some patterns of manifest anxiety. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1956, 12, 160-163. Phillips, B. N., Hlndsman, E., f t McGuire, C. Factors associated with anxiety and their relations to the school achievement of adolescents. Psychological Reports, i9 6 0, £, 365-372. 105 Phillips, B. N., Martin, R. P. & Meyers, J. Interventions in relation to anxiety in school. In C. D. Speilberger (Ed.), Anxiety; Current trends In theory and research. Vol. Ill New York: Academic Press, 1972. Raphelson, A. C. The relationships among imaginative, direct verbal, and physiological measures of anxiety in an achievement situation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957# £4, 13-lb. Ray, W. J., & Katahn, M. The relationship of anxiety to locus of control. Psychological Reports, 1968, 23(3, Pt. 2), 1196. Reiter, H. The relationship among four measures of anxiety. Psychological Reports, 1971# 28(3), 761-762. Ruebush, B. K. Anxiety. In H. W. Stevenson, J. Kagan, & C. Spiker (Eds.), Child psychology, 62nd N.S.S.E. yearbook, 1963, pp. 4b0-51o. Sarason, I. 0. Intellectual and personality correlates of test anxiety. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol ogy:, 1959, 52, 272-275.--------- ---------- ---- Sarason, I. G. Empirical findings and theoretical problems in the use of anxiety scales. Psychological Bulletin, I960, ££, 403-^15. Sarason, I. G. Characteristics of three measures of anxi ety. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1961, 1£, 196-197. Sarason, I. G. Birth order, test anxiety, and learning. Journal of Personality. 1969, 3X* 171-177. Sarason, I. G. Experimental approaches to test anxiety: Attention and uses of information. In C. D. Speil berger (Ed.), Anxiety: Current trends In theory and research. Vol. II. New York: Academia Press, 1972, Sarason, S. B., & Gordon, E. M. The test anxiety question naire: Scoring norms. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1953, 48, 447-448. Sarason, I. G., Kestenbaum, J. M., & Smith, D. H. Test anxiety and the effects of being interviewed. Journal of Personality, 1972, 40(2), 242-249. 106 Sarason, I. 0., Pederson, A. M., & Nyman, B. Test anxiety and the observation of models. Journal of Personality. 1968, & 493-511. Sassenrath, J. M. A factor analysis of the rating scale Items on the test anxiety questionnaire. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1964, 2 8, 371-377. Schachter, S. The interaction of cognitive and physiologi cal determinants of emotional state. In C. D. Speil berger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior. New York: Academic PresB, 1966. Schulz, R. E., & Calvin, D. C. A failure to replicate the findings of a negative correlation between manifest anxiety and ACE scores. Journal of Consulting Psychol ogy, 1955, 12, 223-224. Scott, S. B., & Kessler, M. An attempt to relate test anxiety and the Palmer sweat index. Psychonomic Sci ence, 1 9 6 9, 2Jz(2), 9 0-9 1. Slnlk, D. Two anxiety scales correlated and examined for sex differences. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1956. 12, 394-395. Speilberger, C. D. Theory and research on anxiety. In C. D. Speilberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior. New York: Academic Press, 19657 Speilberger, C. D. Current trends in theory and research on anxiety. In C. D. Speilberger (Ed.), Anxiety 1 Current trends in theory and research. Vol. I. New York: Academic Press, 1^7^. Splegler, M. D., Morris, L. W., & Hebert, R. M. Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: Temporal factors. Psychological Reports. 1 9 6 8, 22(l), 451-456. Taylor, J. A. The relationship of anxiety to conditioned eyelid response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1951, 41, 81-82. ------------------------4 Taylor, J. A. A personality scale of manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1953, 48, 2 8 5-2 9 0. 107 Towle, N. J., & Merrill, P. F. Effects of anxiety type and Item difficulty sequencing on mathematics aptitude test performance. Computer Assisted Instruction Technical Memorandum, 1972, 16, 1-32. Trapp, E. P., & Klausler, P. H. Test anxiety level and goal setting behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychol ogy, 1958, 22, 31-3^. Tryon, W. W., Leib, W., & Tryon, 0. Test anxiety as a function of academic achievement, grade level, and sex in ghetto elementary school children. Proceedings of the 8lst Annual Convention of the American Ps cal Association, 1973, 6, 523-524. {Abstract Tulley, J. E, An Investigation of the relationship of sex and anxiety to intellectual, achievement and personal characteristics of seventh grade students. ^Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Califomi a) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 19^7• No. 67-10075. Vernardos, M. 0., & Harris, M. B. Reducing test anxiety In a clinical population: A comparison of relaxation training, test orientation, and a therapeutic inter view. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 1973, 16(3), 137-145. Walker, R. E., & Spence, J. T. The relationship between digit span and anxiety. Journal of Consulting Psychol ogy, 1964, 2 8, 220-223. Watson, E., & Friend, R. Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol ogy:, 1969, 448-457.------ -------------- ---- Wine, J. Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological Bulletin, 1971, Z£, 92-104. Zuckerman, M., Persky, H., Echman, K., & Hopkins, T. R. A multitrait-multimethod approach to traits ( o p states) of anxiety, depression, and hostility. Journal of Projective Techniques of Personality Assessment, 1967, 21,39-4». A»tiibie *» APPENDIX A THE STIMULI SCALE 109 3D-TAS-150 IMTRUCTI0M8 The f o llo w in g p a g ee c o n t a in • H o t o f 50 o o u r e e e o f o tr o o o o r a n x ie t y o t o m t n g from t o o t in g o r th o t o o t in g o l t u a t i o n . Thoy oro d ir o e t q u o t a tio n ! fr o n f a llo w o tu d e n te ab ou t th ln g o th a t u p oot and b o th o r th a n a b o u t ex a m in a tio n * o r to o tin g * Tou a r o aek ed t o road oach o f th a 50 oou rcoa o f a t r o o t o r a n x i e t y , and l n d l e a t a th o dagroo t o w h ich th a y b o th e r , u p o o t. o r p rovok e a n x ie t y in y o u . Tou a r e t o ln d le a t a th e d agroo th a t ea c h o f th e a e oourcoa o f o t r o o o o r a n x ie t y p rovok e a n x ie t y in you* by p la c in g a checkm ark in on e o f th e oovan p o o a lb le re ep o n o e op aceo a lo n g th a l i n o b etw eon th a wordo " a n x ie ty p rovok in g" and "not a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g ." ( 1 ) I f th a oou rca o f o tr o o o o r a n x ie t y i s v a ry a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g , you w ould p la c e you r ch ock nark in a ap ace n e a r e r to th a wordo " a n x ie ty p r o v o k in g ." PWU A n x ie ty p r o v o k in g : I i g o t a n x lo ty p r o v o k in g (2 ) I f th o o o u rca o f o tr e o n o r a n x ie t y l a n o t v a r y a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g , you w ould p la c e y o u r ch ec k n ark in a ap ace n e a r e r t o th a wordo "not a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g .'' A n x ie ty p r o v o k in g * i X t j Hot o n x la ty p r o v o k in g (3 ) I f th e oou rca o f e t r e e a o r a n x lo ty i o k in d o f a n x ie t y p ro v o k in g and k in d o f n o t a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g , you w ould p la c e y o u r ch ock nark n e a r e r to th e c e n t e r o f th e l i n e b etw een th e wordo " a n x ie ty p ro v o k in g " and " n ot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g ." A n x lo ty p ro v o k in g i_ H ot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g (A) Tou nay p la c e y o u r ch eck nark i n any o f th e 7 o p a c e o , d ep en d ing upon y o u r own p e r o n e a l f e e l l n g a . 0 C o p y rig h t 1 * 7 1 , b y M e r r ill J . H e lj e la A l l R ig h to R e o o r v e d Ill 3D-TAS-S1 1 . T n t i w here v e r b a tim t e x t book i m m n a r t r e q u ir e d . A n x ie ty sr o u o k ln a t 7 l < t j l4 1 3 t g t 1 ‘ * 0 t Pr o w ll ill« 2 . T a a ti w here SOX o f th a co u r se | » d « c o m i fr o a th a a x a n i A n x ie ty orovofclw nt_ _- t . t . * 4 t 3 l 2 > ______ * I**t Pro,w W ,l< 3 . T e sta o f r o ta n an ory o n ly i A n x ie ty provofclw at T t < t ^ l4 l 3 > a t 1 l 1,06 * n x l# tT Pr a v o k in * 4 . T a a ta where t h e r e ia to o Mich n o t a r ia l t o read and a n a ly s e . A n x lo ty o r o v o h ln a i ^ ^ i ^ i * 3 * 2 * 1 * * * o t n x ^ * ^ r p r o v o k in g 5. Taata that w i l l put you out of school or a deal rad progran i f f a i l e d . A n x ie ty p r o v o k ln a t j < g l 5 t A t 3 t 3 I 1 t ^ *B* 1* t3r ’,ro v ® kim * 1 . Tha f i r s t e x e n fr o n a te a c h e r who d o e s n 't g iv e c lu a a t o h la t e s t ty p e a n d /o r c o n t e n t . A n x ie ty s r o v o k ln g i t t l l t **•* p r o v o k in g 7 . A p r o f ic i e n c y t e s t , t h a t I f you f a l l , you w i l l ba r e q u ir e d t o ta k a a rone d i a l cow r o e . A n x ie ty o r s v o k lo x i Mot a n s la t y p r o v o k in g I . W alking in t o e l s e a , unaware t h a t a t e a t haa b ean s c h e d u le d . A n x lo ty orovw k ln n i * • * « • * * •» » p r o v o k in g 9 . S u rp rlo a t o o t s o r q n l s e s . A n x ie ty o r o v o k lo n i i i ■ ■ t ^ t t i » Mat a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g 1 0 . W h en a l l y o u r c l a a e titan s a r e sc h e d u le d on e r i g h t a f t e r th a o t h e r . A n x ie ty o r o v o k ln x i t t t t i t t Mat a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g 1 1 . O v e r sig h t t a r n p ap er a o a ig n a a n ta . A n x ie ty o r o v o k in a t i i t i i t i N at o n x la ty p r o v o k in g 112 30-TA6-S2 1 2 . T ak in g a t e s t f o r w h ich you a r e n o t p rep a re d . A n x ie ty p rovok in g* » ^ * ______ i ^ ^ ^ * * Mot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g 1 ) . T on eh ere who d o n o t c o n e id e r p o s s ib le p e r e o n e l c r i e l s . A n x ie ty p rovok in g* t ^ i i______ * ^ i ^ i ^ t Mot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g 1 4 . A sc h e d u le d tw o -h o u r t e s t th a t I s p ic k e d up o n e - h a lf h ou r e a r l y , w ith o u t e x p la n a tio n . A n x ie ty p ro v o k in g i ^ i i ^ i ^ ^ i ^ i Mot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g 1 5 . A t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n w here h ig h g ra d es a r e s t r e s s e d . A n x ie ty p rovok in g*______ *______ t_ _ _ _ _ _ _ i______ t_____ *_ _ _ _ _ _ * * Mot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g ~ 1 A 5 4 1 2 1 1 6 . D is t r a c t i n g n o le e frow o u t s id e th e t e s t i n g ro o n . A n x ie ty p rovok in g* * * ^ ^_ _ *______ * 2 ' 1 * Mot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g 1 7 . T e s t e w here on e n la t s k e aak ee a l l th e f o llo w in g r e s p o n s e s w ron g. A n x ie ty p rovok in g* ' _ * . * . * . 1 _ 1 . * Mot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g 1 6 . A t e s t i n g roon w h ere p e o p le a r e s e a te d elb o w t o e lb e w . A n x ie ty p rovok in g* * 0 t a u d l t ! r p r o v o k in g 1 6 . T e s te w here th e n o t a r i a l you a r e b e in g t e s t e d on l a ir o n c o n t r a d ic t o r y s o u r c e s . A n x ie ty p r o v o k in g i 7 t < 1 5 l 4 l J 1 g * 1 l "** p to v o k ln g 2 0 . T e s ta o f t r i v i a l f a c t a . A n x ie ty p rovok in g* Met a a x le c y p r o v o k in g 2 1 . l i n e d t e a t s w here you h ave a s p e c i f i c ana e a t o f t i n e l a w h ich t o c o l l a t e th a t o s t . A n x ie ty a r o v o k ln a t Mot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g 2 2 . S e e in g a s tu d e n t tu r n l a h i s e x a n when you a r e o n ly h a l f f i n i s h e d . A n x ie ty ara v o k ln a * i * * ' y ' | ‘ j ' **"* P 113 30-TAS-S3 2 3 . F o e r ly e o a p M td t n t q u e s t io n s . A n x ie ty p r o v o k in g ! i 7 t_______i_____ 5“ * _i Hot a u x in ty p r o v o k in g 3 2 2 4 . T a k in g s t o s t whoa • f o llo w s tu d e n t i s lo o k in g a t y o u r p s p o r . A n x lo ty p r o v o k ln g t t i i t t t i Hot o n x la ty p r o v o k in g 2 3 . T o o tin g whan o tu d a n to who f i n i s h f i r s t a r e a llo w e d t o t a l k and d i s t o r t th a slo w e r s t u d e n t s . t i ( i i j t Hot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g A n x ie ty p r o v o k in g ! 2 6 . When on e t e s t d e te r m in e s th e t o t a l c o u r s e g r a d e . A n x ie ty p r o v o k ln g t t i t t t t i Hot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g 2 7 . T e a ch er s who w o n 't g iv e make-up e x a m in a tio n s I f you m is s th a exam . A n x ie ty p r o v o k ln g t t t t i i t i Hot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g _t_______t ^______ 2 $ . V erb a l r e s p o n s e t e s t e w here th e te a c h e r a sk s q u e s t io n s td ilc h you v e r b a lly answ er In c l a s s . A a x la ty p ro v o k in g i_ i Hot o n x la ty p r o v o k in g 2 9 . T e s t s w here o n e q u e s tio n la a sk ed end th a t i s th e e n t i r e g r a d e . A n x ie ty e r o v e k ln n i _ a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g 3 0 . Wien th e t i n s I s I n s u f f i c i e n t t o f i n i s h th o t e s t . Hot e a x l e t y p r o v o k in g t 3 1 . T e sta w h ere a l l A n x lo ty p r o v o k in g ! t i______ i i "I 5” 3 4 tow ers a r e somewhat c o r r e c t . !___ !____ I__ t____ I__ t A n x lo ty p r o v o k in g t Hot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g 3 2 . T e a eh a rs w hs In form th e c l a s s t h a t a h ig h p e r c e n ta g e w i l l f a l l t b s t e s t . A n x ie ty s r o v o k ln s i i i i i i i t H et a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g 33* A t e a c h e r who i s s n o t o r io u s ly bard g r a d e r . A n x ie ty p r o v o k ln g t i t i i i i i H ot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g 7 * 3 4 3 2 1 114 30-TAS-S4 M . T « « t i w h tr* th * t s s t ground r u l « ora changed on th a day o f th a t n a t . A n x ie ty p r o v o k ln g t t t i 7 5 t Not a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g 1 5 . An I r r e le v a n t t a a t a f t e r au ch stu d y haa b een a u g g ea ted by th e ta a e h o r . A n x ie ty orovO k ln n : i i t i t i t H ot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g N . T e a ta w here you h ave n o p r io r Id ea o f w hat w i l l b e on th o t e a t . A n x ie ty p r o v o k in g t_ t t T " * t H ot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g 1 7 . Whan you a r e t o l d th a t a a t w ould c o v e r o n ly n o t a r i a l a ln c e t h e l a a t t e a t , b u t y ou f in d t h a t th a t e a t I n c lu d e e n o t a r i a l fr o n b e f o r e th a l a a t t a a t . A n x ie ty p ro v o k in g :______ t______ i t i t i t H ot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g 1 8 . A t e a t th a t aek a f o r a p a e l f l c f a c t a when th e te a c h e r e a ld i t w ould b e a t e a t o f g e n e r a l k n o w led g e. A n x ie ty p r o v o k in g t_ 3 9 . T ea ch ere who lo o k o v e r y o u r a h o u ld e r aa you ta k e A n x ie ty p r o v o k in g i i i t t t ___i ___: _^__ ^ _ 4 0 . D is t r a c t i o n b y t h e te a c h e r d u r in g th e t e a t . A n x ie ty n r o v o k ln x i t ^ i i ^ 4 1 . P oor d l r e c t lo n e f o r a n ew erln g t h e t e a t . A n x ie ty a r o v o k la a i < t i i i i H ot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g t H ot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g H ot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g i H at a n x lo ty p r o v o k in g 4 3 . A te a e b o r v h e d ls r e o p e c t a and d e r ld e e a tw d a n ta . A n x ie ty n r o v o k ln x i i t i i__ 4 3 , A n b lg v o u a ly w orded g u e s t lo n e . A n x ie ty n r o v o k ln x i i t i i i t H ot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g ~T 1 “ i H ot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g 4 4 . Ho r e p o r ta o f t e a t r e e w lt a , o r d e la y e d r e p o r ta o f t e a t r e e w lt a . A n x ie ty p ro v o k in g :______ :_______i______ i______ i______ i______ t______ i H ot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g t i l l * * 3 4 115 3D -T A S-I} 4 5 . T a i t i t h a t i n n e t r e p r e s e n t e d * * e f th e n o t a r ia l ta u g h t. A a x ia ty t w w f c l m t t t i i * t i h o t a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g _!____ I _ 4 6 . A te a c h e r th a t t e l l s you a t e a t l a J u a t a g u t s , Phan you know I t la r e a l l y a a l d - t e r n a x e e ln a t i o n . A n x ie ty s r o v o k ln s t i t t t i t i N et a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g 4 7 . A t a s t i n g r o o e t h a t l a t o e M i a . A n x ie ty n r o v o k ln a i i i r t t Mot a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g 4 f . A t e s t w here t h e grad * w ould r e a l l y a f f e c t y o u r grad p o in t a v e r a g e . A n x ie ty p ro v o k in g i_ T i t —I— i Not a n x ie t y p r o v o k in g 4 9 . T ak in g a t e s t f r o n a t e a c h e r t h a t l a h o s t i l e t o yon A n x ie ty o r o v o k ln a i i i i_ j j i___: 4 j i Not anxiety provoking 1 SO. T e a c h e r s who i n f o m t h e c l a s s t h a t n o s tu d e n t w i l l g e t an "A" g r a d e . A n x ie ty o r o v o k ln a i i t t i i i i Not a n x ie t y p r e v o k in g APPENDIX B THE RATIONALIZATION SCALE 116 3D-TAS-150 nrmucnoM The fo llo w in g p agae c o n ta in a H a t o f e t a t e a e n t s about t a s t in g and th a t o o t in g s i t u a t i o n s . They a r t d ir e c t q u o ta tio n s fr o n fa llo w s tu d e n ts about e x a m in a tio n s l a g a n a ta l. Tou a ra ask ed t o raad aach o f th a 50 a ta ta a a n ta and ln d le a t a th a dagraa to which you agraa o r d is a g r e e w ith each s ta te m e n t. You ara t o I n d ic a te th a dagraa t o w hich you agraa o r d is a g r e e w ith th e s t e t e a e n t , by p la c in g a check aarfc In one o f th a se v e n p o s s ib le r e sp o n se s p a c e s a lo n g th a l i n e betw een tha words "Agree" and " D isa g ree ." (1 ) I f you s t r o n g ly a g r e e w ith th e a ta ta a a n t, you w ould p la c e you r ch eck nark i n a apace n ea re r th e word A g r e e ." EXAM PLE A g re e> i X t ? : t » i D isa g r e e (2 ) I f you s t r o n g ly d is a g r e e w ith th e a t a ta a a n t, you would p la c e y e a r ch eck nark In a ap ace n e a r e r th e word ^ ‘D isa g r e e ." nuffu A greet t i i i t i K i D isa g r e e (3 ) I f you k in d o f a g r e e and k ind o f d is a g r e e , you would p la c e you r ch eck aarfc in a ap ace n e a r e r th e c e n t e r o f th e l i n e betw een th e words "Agree" and " D isa g r e e ." m m A greet i i ! I i t i i D isa g r ee ( 4 ) Tou may p la c e you r ch eck nark l a any o f th e 7 s p a c e s , d ep en d in g upon y e a r awn p e r s o n a l f e e l i n g s . 0 C ep rlg h t 1 * 7 1 , by M e r r ill J . U e ij e la A l l k i ^ t s l o s e read 117 3D-TAD-B1 101. 102. 1 0 3 . 1 0 4 . 1 0 3 . 100. 1 0 7 . 100. 1 0 9 . 110. 111. Tou d o n 't l o o m s p y t h ln g w o rth w h ile fr o n t a k in g a t o s t . A arooi i i i i t : i D lsa g r o o Tou c a n 't do w a ll on n o a t t o a to b e c a u se t h e r e l a j u s t t o o Mteh n a t o r l a l t o A atoot i i i i i i i D is a g r e e Thoro a r o n oro lu p a r ta n t p e r s o n a l t h in g s t o bo co n c o m o d a b o u t th a n t a s t s . A groot i i______ i______ i______ i______ t i D la a g ro o _ t ______ i _ Xt l a f o o l i s h t o w orry ab ou t a t a a t t h a t w anta s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s f r o n a g r o a t an oun t o f r e a d in g . A gree t_ i______ t i i D la a g ro o T e sta d o n 't n e a a u r e w hat you h a v e le a r n e d . Aaroei _ 1 _ * _ 1 . 1 . 1 _ 1 . 1 D1**ir*4 A l i t t l e a n x ie t y h o lp e you g a t g ea r ed up f o r a t o s t . A aroei D lsa g r o o I f you h a v e a good background l a a s u b j e c t you a r e n o t n erv o u s a t onn e t i n e . A a r o e i i t s i i i i D lsa g r o o To b e h o s t i l e tow ard a p o o r ly node t e s t l a n o t e f f e c t i v e a s I t w o n 't do any good anyw ay. A a ro e i i t i i i t i D lsa g r o o to n s t e a c h e r s a r e c o e p l e t e l y Io n o v a b le to th a f a c t th a t p e r s o n a l c r i s i s c o u ld e f f e c t t e s t s c o r e s . A g reet _i D is a g r e e Xt i s s t u p id t o s t a y up a l l n ig h t and e r n e f o r a n e x o n , th e n f o r g o t I t a l l a f t e r th a t e s t . i i t ___t 4 t i i Dlaagroo 2 1 A g r e e t_ T ee d o n 't r e t a i n f a c t s f r e e t a s t s . o n ly t h in g s ta u g h t l a c l a s s a t e r e t a in e d . 119 30-TAS-12 1 1 2 . T r a c in g In g a n a r s l hnn l l c t l n t o do w it h , o r r s la v a n c t o , • o s a n ln g f u l p a r s o n a l a a is t a a c a . A|tn D is a g r e e 1 1 1 . A gro d o l a on ? o r a c o s e I s n ' t la p o r t a n t , th a c o n r s s g r s d o I s th o la p o r t a n t t h in g . A araai : _ > . 1 D lsa g r a e 1 1 4 . You e s n f a l l a c s a c I f y o u 'r e lo n a tu r e a b o u t I t . Atrrai ^ : ____ * 5 i 4 i j i 1 i i * ********* 1 1 5 . Oh w a l l , who c a r e s a b o u t t a s t i n g anywayT A aront D la a g ro a 1 1 4 . I t ' s a ln o a t im p o s s ib le n o t Co haws a n a g a c lv a s t t l c u d a tow ard a p o o r ly c o n s t r u e ta d t o s t . As ran i D la a g ro a 1 1 7 . Thara n e v e r s c a n s t o b a anough t l n a t o e o o p la t a an a x a n la a t l e o . A araai 1 D is a g r e e l i t . In g e n e r a l, t a k in g t a s t a a r a o p p r a a slu a o c c a s io n s . A aroni _ 1 _ * _ 1 . i D la a g ro a 11 9 . Why w orry* you can a lw a y s ta k a cha c o u r s a a g a in I f you f a l l th a C a s ts . A araai D is a g r e e 1 2 0 . Xt I s b a s t t o a v o id t h in k in g o f th a p r a ssu r a e f t a s t i n g . A araai D la a g ro a 1 2 1 . Xf n e a t o f th a c l a s s dona p o o r ly on a t o o t you d o n 't f a a l s o bad I f yaw da p o o r ly . A araai t ' l t t t * H s a g r o a 1 2 2 . Auyana ca n p a ss a v a l i d l y c a o a t r o s ta d t a a t . 120 30-TAS-R3 1 2 3 , Ton M y i i Mil p la y a lo n g w ith th a g a M whan you hava a bad t a a t i a g s i t u a t i o n , A aroni 7 l t l 5 l4 t 3 * 2 t 1 l 1 2 4 . Anyon* can paaa neat toata given by an nacallont eanchor. A a ra a i i < i i » i » D la a g ro a 1 2 3 . Tou f a l l t o a t a b acau aa you d o n 't a tu d y . A araai i ^ i ^ i ^ i D la a g ro a 1 2 4 . I t l a b o a t t o la u g h and ahrug o f f t a a ta bocau ao you c a n 't c o n t r o l th a o u tc o n n . A araai 1 2 7 . On a ta k a horn t a a t a n y th in g you can do o r hava t o do t o g a t a good g ra d a l a o k . A araai 0 1 * * , r * * 128. If you don't do Mil on ono part of a toot, you My do Mil on anothar part. A araai t i t i i ^i i D la a g ro a 1 2 9 . I t l a b o a t t o d rop a c la a a o r ta k a an I n c o M lo t a If th a t a a t a a m p o o r . A a ra a i i i t i i i > D la a g ro a 1 3 0 . I f you fall an naan. Mat atudanta would agraa that It waa probably bacauaa tha taat waa poor. W aaA T M i i ^ i i i i ^ i ^ I A graa 1 3 1 . No Mttar how calm y ou a r a n o n a a lly , th a r a a r a com o m m w h ich w i l l nab a yon a nnrvoua wrack* A araai 1 3 2 . If a t anchor wanta to up not you with an axaadMtlon thara l a nothing you cm do about It. A araai i i_______ i i i i i D la a g ro a T ~ 8 3 4 3 ~ ~ i ~ 1 1 3 3 . D u w a a a a i and a a b lv a la n e o In a ta a c h a r la a v a a you a p p ra h a n a lv a a b o u t y o u r 121 30-TAS-K4 1 ) 4 . Mo u t t « r h ev good y o u do In u o r a l r e p o r t you a lw a y s g a t a p o o r g r a d * . A g r a a i t t f t t i t D la a g ro a 1 3 3 . I t l a r i d ic u l o u s t o c o a p a ta f o r a a a a n in g la s s g r a d a . A g r a a i i i t t t t t D la a g ra a 1 M . A c l a a s t h a t l a o o t r a la v a o t d o a a n 't w a rra n t a tu d y ln g o r d o in g w a ll on th a t a a t . A araai D la a * rM 1 3 7 . O v s r - r s a c t lo n l a w a rra n ta d I f th a t e a c h e r 's a t t l t u d a and t a a ta ara h a d . A a ra a i D la a g ra a 1 3 8 . Tow b acoaa wary eo n fu a a d ab ou t a t a a t whan you d o n 't know w hat l a a a p o cta d o f y o u . A araai t i : _ _ _ ! i ^ i ^ i D la a g ra a 1 3 9 . You d o n 't g a n a r a lly f o a l bad a b o u t t a a t a b aeau aa you know y o u r l n t a l l l g a a e a h a s o th o r a a a a to n o t d a ta r n ln a d by a t a a t . A araai D la a g ra a 1 4 0 . L aarn t o b a a a t l a f l o d w ith know ladga o f Job w a ll dona r a g a r d la a * o f y o u r t a a t g r a d a . A araai 1 4 1 . Tow f o a l b o c ta r whan y o u r e la a o a a ta a a g ra a t h a t th a ta a c h a r and h i s t a a t a a r a A a ra a i D la a g ra a 1 4 2 . You c a n ' t d o w a l l on a t a a t ufcca you a ra l o o s i n g c o n t r o l o f y a u r a a lf . A araai D^M * l a * 1 4 3 . D a fa lr t a a t a c a u sa you n a t t o otw d y. A a ra a i D la a g ra a 1 4 4 . Tow c a n ' t d a w a ll an a t a c t i f th e ta a c h a r d o a a n 't h a lp and n a p la I n . A a ra a i j 1 ^ 1 ^ 1 ^ 1 j 1 1 ^ » D la a g ra a 1 4 3 . I f yaw a r a f a u l l t a r w ith th a ty p o o f t a a t* yaw g a t n o ra c o n f id a n t . A araai i t * t 1 _ 1 _ ■ * 122 3D -TAS-U 1 U . i f you c m s to p w o rry in g about a c o a t , you ora a b la t o c o o c o n tr a to b a t t a r . A tr o o i t t « 147. If you havon't atudlod during tha aowaator, It la too lata to got upaot and cron f o r a toot. A aroot _ 1 , 1 _ * , 1 - 1 - 1 . 1 * * • • • * • • 141. You nuot alwaya work wndar praaaura or you won't atudy for taata* A aroot i i i t i t i D laagraa 1 4 9 . Taka to a ta w ith a g r a in o f a a l t , t o a c a r t w o rry in g w i l l r u in y o u . A aroot i i i i i i t D laagroa 1 5 0 . I f you d id n 't ton aa up fr o u t la a praaaura you c o u ld do b o tt o r on t o a t a . A araai i t i t t i i D laagraa 1 f t ' • H j ' ^ ' U . j ? ^1 K-tAA-150 Tha Mlwl*| HIM CMMli i list •( SO binds at bahawiera sr fealiags that has* happened at H m talc by other itHwu U response ta testing «r tha feasting sltaatlaas. They ara direct aaetatlaas (na («11m student* abowc thair bahsrlor nl faallaga stalls Imlnl la aaaalaaclaaa. Taa ara astand ta nil as eh af tha 30 kills *( baherler m! faallaga Ml ladlesta tha dsfroo ta shlcH they haosoa ar Haas boon fait by yaw. Taa are ta ladles ta tha dagra* to which each of tha 30 kinds af behavior Ml faallaga happen ar bass baaa (ale by yew, by placing a chack aark alaag tha llaa > a tea as tha wards "lappaae ar baaa (alt" sad "Doesn't hsppaa ar aat baaa (alt." <1) K tha bahavlar ar (sal lags hsppaa ar bass baaa fait sarr a (taa by yaw, la tba taatlag situation, yaw saw Id pises yaer cbaak aark aaarar tha wards ^appaaa ar baaa fait." (2} If tha bataavisr ar faallaga hsppaa ar haws baaa (alt ears InfreasentlT by yaw, la tba taatlag altwatlaa. yaw wowld piaea yawr cheek aarta aaarar tha wards (alt." ar baaa (alti i t t ■ tit t — x — s — x— 3 — f — r~ i*t hsppaa ar aat baaa fait ») HLitttn- betweaa tha If tba bataavlar ar faallaga klad af heeaan ar hasa baaa (alt sad hind af i ar baaa fait, yew would place yawr chack aark aaarar tha alddla af tha llaa a saris "Msppsas ar baaa (alt" sad "Daasn't hapya sad aat baaa fait." ar baaa faiti t tit t t t 7--1--1-- X--J--1 -- (l) Taa aap plaaa yawr ataaek aarta la any af tha T t Doesn't happaa ar aat baaa (alt ® c a w r l » t 1971, by N a rr tll J. NUJaia A ll K l^ t s gaaarwil 125 n. vmi iwiniiri. W k«M fait. t t t . I I I I n s i i x r~ *t hiwi« »r ftit 51. flit S3, frtll lmehlee ar I i i t h "* f c *"" f>lt 't hlMN M fait fait H> Tm *1n kofafcl. 53. fMl Ilka i m U < | tkn — k taat. ar kaaa f a i t i t t i i i t i J 1 5 ? J I I •* ■t f a it (alt H. n wrt faaa tblaktaa ptaaaaaaa. ar kaaa fait. y ^ ^ ^ ^ g ^—« 't kappaa ar aat kaaa (alt S3, faafa akaka afclla «rttl*|. ar kaaa (alt i't kappaa ar aat kaaa (alt. M. BaakU ta tklak itnMM. ar kaaa fait. i't kappaa ar aat kaaa fait S t. f a i t n a l l r a t ^ r ll. ar kaaa fait. i t _ i i_ » ■ » J I I I I x i't fcappaa ar aat kaaa (alt ar kaaa (alt. I I I t t I I — i — i — j — j — x — r~ i ' t ( a lt #1. Stata a# paaia. ar kaaa (alt. t t i t i t t kaaaa't f a 3 4 3 S 1 I I ! I I M la la is is is is is ( i I r If Is I s I I | ll I I I * I I I i I - i . , ... , ... - f - . t . i * 1 - 5 H f :i -f 1 < H I t-f ! A 2 • * •f -f' { •i \ * f i ! I I [ f •• M { ! i S i i ! -r i i * * i t f t { i i ! f f i K I f f f t • * f ! i ! f I i I I iMMfUu tho u g h t a r a t b a r t h a a t laar floulag Uaaa { f I ! IS IS IS IS 1 i 1« 1 i 1« SI f ? M f I N f» H I ► * N ftp n i f f • & 1 h ; { i { i i j i H i i H ' ■f •f j i ! f S i I i i r r i i K ? * r f * i •f f f f i i ! i i 126 127 IMW'M 7}. hrpt Mat af what 1 taar. layyaaa ar h«aa tain T ,> I1 I4 IJ II '1 I *»» — •* *•* ^ ,#1* 7*. P m lla a a t fa tlg a a . ■ayyaaa ar kaaa f a i n y 1 t 1 ? 1 1 ; 1 f 1 1 "■■■a** >»W«« •» * • » W * - 7S. Laaa a f alaay. ■ayyaaa ar kaaa f a i n T ‘ . l 3 l 4 l ^ l I 1 l t ° —***** b*w ‘' •* **** * •“ 7k. Oaafaalaa. —rr~~~ ar kaaa f a i n T l t * 1 , 4 l 3 l a * 1l Pa**" >t N f ” •* “ * 77. 7aal ltk a t w J«at waat ta gat I t aaaa w ith , layyaaa ar kaaa f a i n ? 1 t 1 ^ 1 4 * } 1 a * a 1 p** — ** h ,w — “ *at kaaa f a it ft. Caa^atictaa f aa l l ag. hffMt ar kaaa f a lt t l t l 1 l 4 t j l 1 * a — 1 t *, l l ' t lM» |i ar aat kaaa fa U 79. M l vary a t a a f t r u k U . ■ayyaaa ar kaaa f a lt i T l t t ^ * ^ l 1 l a , 1 ‘ 1 1 "W ar aat kaaa f a it 90. Vaat tayyiag. ■aaoaaa ar kaaa f a i n ^ 1 i ^ t ^ t i ^ t ^.. t Paaaa’t kayyaa ar aat kaaa f a i t •1 . tla y ta g aarvaaaly with y a a a ll. ■ayyaaa ar kaaa f a i n Daaaa’t bayyaa ar aat kaaa f a it ■ayyaaa ar kaaa f a i n ^ i t i ^ i t ^ i Baaaa't kayyaa ar aat kaaa f a it 91. I r r lts U a a a tth yaaraalf. ■ayyaaa ar kaaa f a i n i » » i ) i i Oaaaa't kayyaa ar aat kaaa f a it 7 * 1 4 3 1 1 128 M. Vtur UtWllil. h i t ■ t hit IS. r<tll«| af h pnniii. (•lti t l l i I t I — 7 Z J J S J 1“ D H W't l l ^ f l M M ta« hit M. httlllQ ar kwt ftlti 1 ^ 1 ^ * 4 * J ' i~ * 1 ' IT. DmIn far tehtati kaaala4#a »f latt nnIu. ar haaa falti ^ 1 ^ 1 1 ^__i_ ^ ^ i Baaaa't hippaa K ^ Vaaa ( a lt fait M. »a wit aaaatlaaa rat uf rat wlthaat Mriarataailag. ' • 1 *' 7 ' I ' ' j — j * ' j ' “ * * i' t fait M. Baaatlafla*. faltt t 1 t 1 1 > 1 —1 — i — s — i — 1 — i — r* (ait ft. falti t 1 1 t 1 t 1 — J Z J 2 J 1- - - 1— (alt tl. Vaal w t hat aal falti ■ 1 1 t 1 1 ■ —7 — z — s — z — j — i — r~ > ' t fait t l . Kaaa wlahiaa that tha taat aaall ha f i l l i't (alt M. Ta f*I>t 7 ' Z ' 1 Z- ' - l 1 T-'— r-' *t M. Maaaatai (alt t • 1 t t t 1 t r » 9 « s 1 i » ' t f a it 129 M. • r haw f a lt i N w i ' t ( • I t M . N i l ( m t n t l n . t t M i l ' t fa f f — *r M t k«M f a it •r kaaa f a lt i i i t t t t 7 -----1 -----!-----1 -----J -----1 — i't f a it M. tfdn t o mu. • t teM f a i t «. - j - 1—^ 1 1 j 1 ^ f a it f a l t t i t i i i ■ i t o a ' t ™j— i — ! — i — j— i — r~ f a i t IM. tttei m m ktofc. it t M (alt i t i i i > t t Omm * t “ 7---1---S---1---1 ---S---1- ( • I t APPENDIX D BIOGRAPHICAL INVENTORY 130 biographical invektort The i t i t m o t i i n t h i s q M i t l m n a i r t r e p r e s e n t e x p e r i e n c e s , w ays o f d a l x t h i n g s , o r b a l l c f i o r p r e f e r e n c e s t h a t a r a t r u e o f sot** p a o p ia b u t a r a n o t t m a o f o t h e r s . Raad a a ch a t a t a n a n t and d a c id a v h a th a r o r n o t I t l a t r u a w it h r e s p e c t . t o y o u r s e l f . I f S t t a t r u a o r m o s tly t r u a . c l r e l a th a T w h ich f o llo w s th a a t a t an a n t . I f th a a t a t a n a n t la n o t u s u a ll y tr u a o r n o t tr u e a t a l l . c l r e l a th a F w h ich f o llo w a th a a t a t a n a n t . Anawar th a a t a t a a n n t a s c a r a f u l l y and h o n a a t ly a a you c a n . Thara a r a no c o r r e c t o r w rong a n s w e r s . Ue a r a ln ta r a a t a d In th a way y o u work an d l a th a t h in g s y o u b e llo w s . R ausu b ar: C i r c l e th a T i f th a a ta ta n a n t l a tr u a o r n o a t l y t r u a ; c i r c l e t h e F i f th a a t a ta n a n t l a f a l a a o r m o s tly f a l s a . Bo s u r a t o c i r c l e o n e , and o n ly an a* ” aaaw ar f o r a a ch i t a n . 1 . I an o f t e n s i c k t o n y a to n a e h . T (1 ) F (2 ) 2 . I t h in k a c r e s t n an y p e o o le e x a g g e r a t e t h a l r m is f o r t u n e s l a o r d e r t o g a in th a sy n p a th y and h e lp o f o t h e r s . T (1 ) p ( 2 ) 2 . X do n o t t i r o q u i c k l y . T (1 ) p <2> A. I h a v e had w ary few q u a r r e ls w it h n a n b a rs o f a y f a m ily . T (1 ) f C2) 5 . X a a a b o u t a s nerw ouo a s o t h e r p a o p ia . T ( 1 ) F ( 2 ) * . X w ou ld r a t h e r w in th a n l o s e l a a g a a a . T <1> F ( 2 ) 7 . X haw s w ary few h e a d a c h e s . T (1 ) F C2> t . X w o rry o w sr n o o a y and b u s in e s s T CD r C2> 9 . X w ork wndar a g r o a t d a a l o f s t r a i n . T U > r C2> 1 0 . X t h in k a a a r ly a n y o n e w ou ld t a l l a 11a t o k eep o u t o f t r o u b l e . T CD P ( 2 ) 1 1 . X c a n n o t k e e p a y m ind on o n e t h in g . T C l) r (2) 1 2 . X do n o t I lk a aw aryon e 1 knew* T CD p C2) 1 3 . 1 hawa d ia r r h e a ( " t h e r u n s" ) o n e s a n o a th a r m ore. T C l) P ( 2 ) 1 4 . X a n a g a i n s t g i v i n g a a n a y t a b e g g a r s . T C l) P ( 2 ) 1 5 . 1 f r e q u e n t ly n e t l e e n y band sh a k e s whan I t r y t o da s a n e t h i n g . T C l) P ( 2 ) 1 * . X f in d I t h ard t a make t a l k whan I n e a t n a n p e e p la . T C l) p < 2) 1 7 . X b lu s h a s o f t e n s o o t h e r s . T C l) p ( 2 ) IB . O nes I n a w h i l e I p u t a f f u n t i l t o n s tro w w h a t X a u g h t t a da t o d a y . T ( 1 ) p C l) 1 9 . X hawa n ig h tm a r e s ew a ry few n i g h t s . T C l) p C l) 131 132 2 0 . P eo p le o f t e n 4 1 i i n « l i i t a a . T (1 ) P- ( 2 ) 2 1 . I w orry q u it# a b i t o w r p o u l U t t r o u b le s . T ( 1 ) P (2 ) 2 2 . I t aakaa aa in p a t ie n t to hava p aop ia ask ay a d v ic e o r o th e r w is e in te r r u p t aa whan I aa w orking on a o a a th ln g la p o r t a n t , T ( 1 ) P (2 ) 2 ) . t p r a c t i c a l l y a a v a r b lu s h . T ( 1 ) V (2 ) 2 4 . X I lk a t o know aoaa Im portant p aop ia bacauaa I t wOkes a a f a a l la p o r t a n t . T ( 1 ) P ( 2 ) 2 5 . X a a o f t e n a f r a id th a t X aa g o in g to b lu s h . T ( 1 ) P (2 ) 2 4 . I t tak a a a l o t o f argu aon t t o co n v in c e a o s t p aop ia o f th a t r u t h , T ( 1 ) P (2 ) 2 7 . My bands and f a s t ara u s u a lly warn anough. T ( 1 ) P (2 ) 2 1 . X o f ta n f in d a y a a lf w orryin g ab ou t a o a a th ln g . T (1 ) P (2 ) 2 9 . I sw eat vary a n a lly even on c o o l d a y s. T ( 1 ) P (2 ) 3 0 . My t a b le aannera a ra n o t g u lt a aa good a t bona aa when X aa o u t in coupany. t ( 1 ) P (2 ) 3 1 . Whan aab arraaaad I o f ta n break ou t In a sw eat w hich l a v a ry an n o y in g . T ( 1 ) P (2 ) 3 2 . X fin d I t hard t o a a t a s id e a ta s k th a t X hava u n d er ta k en , ev en f o r a a b o r t t l a a . I ( 1 ) P ( 2 ) 33. X do n o t o f ta n n o t ic e ay h e a r t pounding and I s a ld o n a a a b o rt o f b r e a th . T ( 1 ) P (2 ) 3 4 . Xt uahaa no u n co m fo rta b le t o p u t on a s t u n t a t a p a r ty a w e whan o th e r s ara d o in g tha sa a a s o r t o f t h in g . T ( 1 ) P (2 ) 3 5 . X f a a l hungry a l a o s t a l l th a t l a a . T ( 1 ) P (2 ) 3 4 . Xf I c o u ld g o t i n t o a a o v ie w ith o u t p a y in g and b e su ra I was n o t se e n 1 w ould p rob ab ly do I t . T (1 ) P ( 2 ) 3 7 . O fton ny b ow els d o n 't nova fo r s e v e r a l days a t a t in e * T ( 1 ) P ( 2 ) 3 4 , i t t i n e s I f a a l l i k e sw e a r in g . T ( 1 ) P (2 ) 3 9 . X hava a g r e a t d e a l o f sto n a c h t r o u b le . T ( 1 ) P ( 2 ) 4 0 . A t t in e a I an f u l l o f e n e r g y . T ( 1 ) P ( 2 ) 4 1 . At t in e a I l o s e s lo o p o v e r w orry. T ( 1 ) P ( 2 ) 4 2 . I d o n o t road e v e r y e d i t o r i a l l a tha newspape r e v e r y d a y . T ( 1 ) P ( 2 ) 4 3 . My s le e p la r e s t l e a s and d is tu r b e d . T ( 1 ) P (2 ) 4 4 . C r it le lo n a r s c o ld in g h u r ts no t e r r i b l y . T ( 1 ) P ( 2 ) 133 4 9 . X o f t e n d r e a a a k m t t h in g s X d o n 't lif c s t o t o l l o t b o r p e o p le . T u > r ( 2 ) U . 1 h e r e o f t e n C o lt t h a t X f i c t d s o n ea y d i f f i c u l t i e s X c o u ld u o t o v e r s e a s th o u . T <1> r ( 2 ) 4 7 . X s u s u l l y s w h s t r e s s e d . I ( 1 ) r CD U . lo n e t i n o e whom X s u n e t f o o l i n g w e l l I o a e r o o o . t ( 1 ) r ( 2 ) 4 * . Ify f o o l l e g s o n h u r t c o o l e r th e n o o s t p e o p le . T ( 1 ) p (2> 9 0 . I o f t e n t h ic k " I w ish 1 w ore s c h i l d a g a in ." t ( 1 ) r CD 9 1 . I w is h 1 c o u ld bo u happy o s o t h e r s . T ( 1 ) F CD 9 2 . O fte n I c a n ' t u n d e r sta n d why X h a v e boon s o c r o s s en d g r o u c h y . T ( 1 ) F CD 9 3 . X o a u s u a l l y c o l a and n o t e a s i l y « e e e t . T u > F C2) 9 4 . X c r y e a s i l y . T (1 ) F CD 9 9 . X c e r t a i n l y f o o l u s e l e s s a t t i n e s . T ( ! ) F CD 9 4 . X f e e l a n x io u s a b o u t a o a a th ln g o r s e a s o n s a l a o s t a l l t h e t i a e . T ( 1 ) F CD 9 7 . A t t l a s s X f a a l l i k e o n a s h la g t h i n g s . T ( 1 ) F CD 9 4 . X a a h ap p y a s s t o f t h e t in s * T ( 1 ) F C2) 9 9 . O eca i n a u h l l a I Isu g h a t a d i r t y jo k e * T a) F CD 4 0 . I t a a k a o an a a r v o u s t o h a r e t o u n i t . T Cl> F C2> 4 1 . A t p e r i o d s m f a la d s e e a a t o w ork n o r e a l o e l y th a n u s u a l. T u > F CD 4 2 . A t t i n e s X a n s o r e s t l e s s t h a t X ca n n o t s i t i n a c h a i r f o r u s r y lo n g . T a» F a) 4 3 . H o st p e o p le w i l l u s e so n o u h a t u n f a ir n aan s t o g a in p r o f i t o r a n a d v a n ta g e r a t h e r th a n t o l o s e . T C l) F CD 4 4 . 1 s e a t i n e s I b a c o n s s o e x c i t e d t h a t X f in d I t h ard t o g a t t o s l e e p . T CD F CD 4 9 . 1 4 s n o t a lw a y s t e l l tb a t e n t h . T C l) F CD 4 4 . A t t i n e a X h e r e b een w o r r ie d b eyon d r e a a o a a b o u t s o n s t h in g t h a t r e a l l y d id n o t n a t t e r . T C D F CD 4 7 . X h a v e o f t e n n o t p e o p le who w are su p p o se d t e b e e n p e r t e u h e w e r e n o b e t t e r th a n 1 . T CD F CD 4 i . I d o n e t h ew s a s unuy f e a r s a s w g f r i e n d s . T CD F CD 4 9 . H a t e t h e r s t h in k o f a s d o s e n e t b a th e r a n . T CD F CD 134 TO. I hava k M n ■ f r t l d o f t h in g s o r p a o p ia t h o t Z know c o u ld n o t h u r t n o . T ( 1 ) r (2 ) 71. 1 g o t an gry l o a t l a M . T ( I ) F ( 2 ) 7 2 . X f l a g I t h ard t o hoop n y a la d on a ta a k o r a 3o h . T ( 1 ) F ( 2 ) 73. 1 hava n o v o r f a i t b o t t o r i n m y w holo l& fa th a n 1 g o m m . T ( 1 ) F ( 2 ) 7 4 . I a a a o r a n a if - c o n s c io u s th an k m c p e o p le . T (1 ) F ( 2 ) 7 3 . I I lk a t o l o t p a o p ia know whara X o ta a g o a t h ln g o . T ( 1 ) F ( 2 ) 7 6 . I oa th o k in g o f p a rso n who ta k a s th in g s h a r g . t ( 1 ) F ( 2 ) 7 7 . 1 g o o s lp a l l t t l o a t t l a o a . T ( 1 ) F (2 ) 7 $ . 1 a a a wary n e r v o u s p a ra o a . T (1 ) F <2> 7 3 . Whan l a a grou p o f p a o p ia I hava tr o u b lo th in k in g o f th o r ig h t th in g s t o t a l k a b o u t. T (1 ) F ( 2 ) 8 0 . U f a i s o f t a n a s t r a t a on a a . T (1 ) F (2 ) 8 1 . I g o t n ag a a a l l y a a g g a t e v a r I t s o o n . t (1> F ( 2 ) 8 2 . At t la o a X th in k I a a n o goog a t a l l . T (1 ) F ( 2 ) 8 3 . Onca In a w h lla X th in k o f t h in g s t o o b ag t o t a lk a b o u t. r « ) F ( 2 ) 8 4 . X a a n o t a t a l l c o n f id a n t a f a y a a l f . t ( i ) F ( 2 ) 8 3 . X h ava p a r lo g s In w hich I f a a l u o u a u a lly c h s a r f u l w ith o u t any s p a e l a l r a a a o n . T ( i> F ( 2 ) 8 8 . At t la o a X f o a l t h a t X a a g o in g t o c r a c k u p . T a) F ( 2 ) 8 7 . At t la a a a y th o u g h ts h ava ra ca g ahead f a c t o r tb a a X a o u lg sp ook th a n . T a) F ( 2 ) 8 8 . X d o n 't I lk a t o f a c e a d i f f i c u l t y o r a a k e a a la p o r ta n t d e c i s i o n . T a) F <2) 8 9 . S o n a tin a s a t e l e c t i o n s I v o ta f o r n aa a b o u t whan X kaow v e r y l l t t l o . T ( i ) F <2) 9 0 . X a a v e r y c o n f id a n t o f a p o e l f . T ( i ) F ( 2 ) APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE ON ATTITUDES TOWARD THREE KINDS OF TESTING SITUATIONS 135 QUESTIONNAIRE ON ATTITUDES TOWARD THREE KINDS OF TESTING SITUATIONS T h is q o e a t lo o n a lr e l i d u l t m d to (lir a you an o p p o r tu n ity t o I n d lc o t o how M l w hat you f o o l l o n i a r l t o th r a o t y p s s o f t o o t in g s i t u a t i o n s ! a ) th o group l a t o i l i g c n c o o r a p tit u d e t o o t , su c h aa th o s o you to o k upon o n tr o u c o t o c o l l e g e , H) th a c o u r a t e n a u ln a t lo u . c ) th a in d i v id u a l ( f a c e - t o - f a c e ) ty p o o f i n t e l l i g e n c e t a a t . Ooa o f th a o a lu raaoon o f o r c o n s t r u c t in g t h in q u a o tlo n c ta lr a lo th o f a c t t h a t v a r y l l t t l o l a known a b o u t p e o p le s* fa a lin g a toward tha ta k in g o f v a r lo u a k in d a o f t o a t a . W o can a se u n e ch a t p a o p ia d i f f a r In tha d agraa t o w h ich th a y ara a f f e c t e d b y th a f a c t th a t th a y a ra g o in g to tak a a ta a t o r by th a f a c t t h a t th a y hava t akao a t a a t . What vu a r c p a r t i c u l a r l y in ta r a a ta d in Kara la how w id e ly p a o p ia d i f f a r i n t h a lr o p in io n s o f and r a a c tlo n o t o th a v a r io u s k in d s o f t a s t i n g s i t u a t i o n s . Tho v a lu a o f t h i s q u e s t io n n a ir e w i l l in la r g o p a r t dapond on how fra n k you a ra i n s t a t i n g you r o p in i o n s , f a a lin g a and a t t i t u d e s . H a a d la ss to a a v . y o u r anowara t o th a a u a s tlo n s w i l l ba k an t s t r i c t l y c o n f id e n t ia l! " t h e y w i l l under n o c lr c u n o ta n e a a bo n a d s known t o any in s t r u c t o r o r o f f i c i a l o f th a U n i v e r s it y . M a a r a r e q u e s tin g y o u t o g iv e y o u r n a n o , e l a a a , a t e . , o n ly b acau aa i t n ay ba n e c e s s a r y f o r r e s e a r c h p u r p o s e s . la c h a f you h a s ta k e n a c o u r s e ex a m in a tio n and a group i n t e l l i g e n c e o r a p t lt u d a t a a t , b u t n o t a l l o f you h a v e ta k en an I n d iv id u a l I n t e l l i g e n c e t o o t . T h ose o f yon N w h a v e n o t ta k en auch a t a a t ara r e q u e s te d to answ er th e r a la v a n t q u e s tio n s l a t a m o o f how you th in k you w ould r e a c t t o th o u . W e w ant t o know what you t h in k y o u r a t t lt w d a a and f a a lin g a tow ard ta k in g su ch a t e s t w ould b e and n o t what you t h in k th a y o u g h t t a b a . T hosa who hava ta k en an in d iv id u a l I n t e l l i g e n c e t o o t w i l l , o f c o u r s e , an sw er th a q u e s t io n s in t a r n s o f w hat th a y a c t u a lly e x p e r ie n c e d . Tor oach q u e s tio n th a r a i a a l i n e o r a c a la oa th e anda o f w h ich a r a s ta te m e n ts a f o p p o sin g f a a lin g a o r a t t l t u d a e . In th a u id d le o f th a l i n e you w i l l f in d flic k e r th a word “M id p o in t1 1 o r a p h r a s e , b o th o f w h ich ara In te n d ed t o r e f l e c t a f e e l i n g o r a t t i t u d e w h ich i s in -h a tw een th a s t a t e n a n t s o f o p p o sin g f a a lin g a d e s c r ib e d a b o v e . Tou a r e r e q u ir e d t o p u t a n ark (X) on t h a t p o in t on th e l i n o w h ich you th in k b o a t i n d i c a t e s tb a s t r e n g t h o f y o u r f e e l i n g o r a t t i t u d e ab ou t th a p a r t ic u la r q u e s t io n . The m id p o in t i s o n ly fo r ro u r a u ld a n c e . Do n o t h e s i t a t e to put a nark on any p o in t on tn a l i n o aa Iona a s t h a t nark r e f l e c t s th a s t r e n g t h o l r o a r f e e l i n e o r a t t i t u d e . I f you hava any q u e s t io n s a t t h la t i n s , p le e e e a sk th a p e r s o n v h e h as pa s s e d o u t th e o v a w ln a tio n s . TttHtK ARZ NO "CATCH" QUIRT ION* IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. FLEAS K HAD IACN QUIRT ION ANN UCN SCALE VERT CAREFULLY. THERE I I NO TIME L2NEI. 136 137 THE MIDPOINT IS ONLY FOR TOUt GUIDANCE. DO NOT HESITATE TO PUT A HARE (X) ON ANY POINT ON THE LINE AS LONG AS THAT HARE REFLECTS THE STRENGTH OF YOUR FEEL INC OR ATTITUDE. SECTION I The f o llo w in g q u e s t i o n s r o l a t o t o y o u r a t t i t u d e tow ard and e x p e r ie n c e w it h grou p i n t a l l l g a n c a o r a p t lt u d a t a a t a . By group l n t a l l i g a n c a t a a t a wo r a f o r t o t a a t a w h ich a r a a d m in is t e r e d t o s e v e r a l I n d iv id u a ls a t a t i n a . Thaaa t a a t a c o n t a in d i f f a r a n t t y p e s o f lt a n a and a r a u s u a ll y p a p er and p e n c i l t a a t a w it h anaw ara r e q u ir in g e i t h e r f l l l - l n a o r c h o lc e a o f s e v e r a l p o a a ib la a n a w a ra . S co ro a on t h o s e t a a t a a r a g iv e n w it h r e f e r e n c e t o th a a la n d in g o f th a I n d iv id u a l w it h in tb a grou p t o o t e d o r w it h in s p e c i f i c a g e and e d u c a t io n a l n o r e o . Tha C o lla g e E n tran ca B oard t a a t a w h ich you h ava ta k e n r e p r e s e n t t h i s ty p e o f t a a t . P le a s e t r y t o r s u s o b e r how y o u u s u a ll y r e a c t e d tow ard t h e s e t o a t a and how you f e l t w h i le t a k in g t h e e . 1 , How v a lu a b le do y o u c h in k grou p i n t e l l i g e n c e t e a t s a r e l e d e te r m in in g a p e r s o n 's a b i l i t y ? V ery v a lu a b le V a lu a b le in so n s r e a p e c t a and V a lu e l e a s v a l u e l e s s i n o t h e r s 2 . Do y o u th in k t h a t grou p , i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t a s h o u ld ba u se d n o r e w id e ly th e n a t p r e s e n t t o c l a s s i f y s t u d e n t s ! S h ou ld b e uead S h ou ld b e u sed aa a t p r e s e n t S h o u ld b e w e e d lo n e w id e ly n o r e w id e ly 1 . Would you b e w i l l i n g t o o ta k e y o u r c o n tin u a n c e in c o l l e g e on th e o u t c o n e o f a grou p i n t e l l i g e n c e t e a t w h ich haa p r e v io u s ly p r e d ic t e d a u c c e a a i n a h i g h l y r e l i a b l e f a s h i o n . V ery w i l l i n g U n c e r ta in N et w i l l i n g A . I f y o u know t h a t y o u a r a g o in g t o ta k e a group i n t e l l i g e n c e t e a t . how d o y e n f e e l b e fo r e h a n d ? P e e l v e r y u n c o n fid a n t M id p o in t P e e l v e r y c o n f id e n t S . A f t e r y ou h a v e ta k e n a g rou p I n t e l l i g e n c e t e a t , how c o n f id e n t d o y o u f e e l t h a t y o n h a v e dona y o u r b e e t ? P e e l v e r y u o e a u fld e a t M id p o in t P e e l v e r y c o n f id a n t * . When y e n a r e t a k in g a grou p i n t e l l i g e n c e t e a t , t a w h at e x t a n t d o y o n r e n e t l e o a l f e e l i n g s I n t e r f e r e w it h o r lo w e r y o n r p erform an ce? n o t i n t e r f e r e a t a l l M id p o in t I n t e r f e r e a g r e e t d e a l 138 TMI MIDPOINT IS OMIT FOR TOUR GUIDANCE. DO NOT HESITATE TO TUT A MASK 00 ON ANT POINT ON THE LINE AS LONG AS THAT MAM REFLECTS THE STRENGTH OP TOUR FEEL INC OR ATTITUDE. 7 , l > f o » c a k in g • group I n t e l l i g e n c e t e a t , t o w hat e x t a n t a r a y o u aw are o f aa " n M t iy " f e e l i n g ? A a v e r y ou ch awe r e o f i t M id p oin t Aa n o t aw are o f I t a t a i l S . W h ile t a k in g a g ro u p I n t e l l i g e n c e t a a t t o w hat e x t e n t do 701 * e x p e r ie n c e an a c c e l e r a t e d h e a r t b e a t f H e a r tb e a t d e e s t M id p o in t H e a r tb e a t n o t i c e a b l y a c c e l e r a t e a t a l l a c c e l e r a t e d I . S o fo r e t a k in g a grou p I n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t t o w hat e x t a n t do y o u e x p e r ie n c e an a c c e l e r a t e d h e a r tb e a t ? H e a r tb e a t d e e e n o t M id p o in t H e a r tb e a t n o t i c e a b l y a c c e l e r a t e a t a l l a c c e l e r a t e d 1 0 . W h ile t a k in g a grou p i n t e l l i g e n c e t e a t t o w h at e x t e n t do y o u w orry? W o r ry a l e t M id p o in t M arry n e t a t a l l 1 1 . B e fo r e t a k in g a grou p i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t t o w hat e x t e n t do y o u w o r r y ! M erry a l o t M id p o in t Worry n e t a t a l l 1 1 . W h ile t a k in g a grou p I n t e l l i g e n c e t e a t t o a b a c e x t e n t do y o u p a ra p lre T P e r s p ir e n o t a t a l l M id p o in t P e r s p ir e a l e t 1 1 . B e fo r e t a k in g a grou p i n t e l l i g e n c e t o s t t o w hat e x t e n t do y o u p e r s p ir e ? P e r s p i r e n e t a t a l l M id p o in t P e r s p ir e a l e t 1 4 . In c o o pa r ia o n w ith o t h e r s t u d e n t s hew o f t e n do y o u t h in k o f w ays o f a v o id in g a grou p i n t e l l l g e n c o t e a t ? Lena o f t e n th a n e t h e r s t u d e n t s Aa o f t e n aa o t h e r Mere o f t e n th a n o t h e r s t u d e n t s s t u d s e t a 139 THE MIDPOINT II ONLY FOR YOUR GUIDANCE. DO NOT HESITATE TO PUT A MARK (X) ON AMY POINT ON THE LINE AS LO^C AS THAT MARX REFLECTS THE STRENGTH OP YOUR PEELING OR ATTITUDE. IS* Ta w h at e x t a n t do y o u f a a l t h a t p our p erfo rm a n ce a n th o e e l l e i a e n tr a n c e t a a t a waa a f f e c t e d bp p ou r e n o t lo n a l f e e l I n g e a t th a tln e T A f ( a c t e d a g n a t d a a l M id p o in t Nat a f f e c t e d a t a l l MCTTON IX The f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e t o p ou r a t t i t u d e tow ard I n d iv id u a l I n t e l l i g e n c e t e a t a and p ou r e x p e r ie n c e w ith t h e n , Sp I n d iv id u a l I n t e l l i g e n c e t a a t a we r e f e r t a t a a t a w h ich a r e a d n ln la t e r e d t o on e I n d iv id u a l a t a t i n e bp an e x a n ln e r . T h ea e t a a t a c o n t a in d i f f e r e n t ty p e a o f l t e n a and th u a p r e a e n t a v a r i e t y o f t a a k e . T h oee ta a k a ca n b e b o th v e r b a l en d n a n l p u l a t l v e , I . e . v e r b a l o r w r i t t e n anawara t o q u e a tlo n e a r n a n lp u la t io n o f o b j e c t a eu ch aa l a I n v o lv e d In p u a a le a , f o m b o a r d e , e t c . Eaanpl a a o f t e a t a o f t h i s tp p e w ou ld bo t h e S ta n fo r d - B ln e t t e a t and Che W e c h e le r - ie lle v u e t e a t . P la a a e t r y t o r e n e n b e r how y o u h ava u o u a lly r e a c t e d tow ard th a a a t e a t a o r how y o u w ou ld e x p e c t t o r e a c t t o t h e n , 16* Have y o u e v e r ta k e n an y in d i v i d u a l I n t e l l i g e n c e t e a c a t Y ea No ( C i r c l e t h a a p p r o p r ia t e a n a w e r ). IP p o u r anaw er t o t h e a b o v e q u e s t io n l a YES, i n d i c a t e i n t h e q w a a tlo a a b e lo w how pou do o r d id r e a c t t o I n d iv id u a l i n t e l l i g e n c e t e e t e . IP y o u r anaw er t o t h e a b o v e q u e s t io n l a NO, i n d i c a t e In t h e f o llo w in g q u e a tlo n e bow pou t h in k pou w ou ld r e a c t t o o r f e e l a b o u t I n d iv id u a l i n t e l l i g e n c e t a a t a . 1 7 . When p en a r e t a k in g an in d i v i d u a l I n t e l l i g e n c e t e a t , t a w hat e x t e n t da ( o r w o u ld ) p ou r e n o t l o n a l f a a l i n g a I n t e r f e r e w it h y o u r p e r fo m a a c e T Would n o t i n t e r f e r e M id p o in t Would i n t e r f e r e a g r o a t w it h i t a t a l l d e a l I S . I f y o u knew t h a t y o u a r e g o in g t o ta k e a a in d i v i d u a l i n t e l l i g e n c e t e a t , hew do y o u f e e l ( o r e x p e c t t h a t p ou w ou ld f e e l ) b e fo r e h a n d ! Would f e e l v e r y M id p o in t Would f e e l v e r y u a c e a f ld e a t e e n f ld a n t IV . W h ile y o u a r e t a k in g a n i n d i v id u a l i n t e l l i g e n c e t e a t , how e e n f ld a n t d o yew f e e l ( o r e x p e c t t h a t y o u w ou ld f o a l ) t h a t y o u a r e d o in g y o n r b e e t f Would f e e l v e r y u n e e n f ld e n t M id p o in t W ould f e e l v e r y c o n f id e n t 140 THE MIDPOINT IS OMLT TOR TOUR CUIHANCE. DO NOT HESITATE TO PUT A MARK (X) OH ANT POINT OH THE LINE AS LO(iC AS THAT HARK REFLECTS THE STRENGTH OF TOUR FEEL INC OR ATTITUDE. 2 0 , A f t a r y o u h a n ta k e n an i n d i v i d u a l i n t e l l i g e n c e t a a t , how c o n f id a n t do you f a a l ( o r e x p e c t t h a t y o u w ou ld f a a l ) t h a t you h ava dona y o u r b e a t t Would f a a l w ary M id p o in t W ould f a a l v a r y t a tc o a fid e a t e o n f id M t 2 1 , H afora ta k ln R an I n d iv id u a l in t a l l l R a n e a t a a t , t o w hat o u ta n t a r a you ( o r w ou ld y o u b a ) a v a r a o f an "unaaay" f a e l l n g f Aa n o t aw ara o f M id p o in t Aa v a r y a a c h a v a r a i t a t a l l o f i t 2 2 . H afora t a k in g an i n d i v id u a l i n t e l l i g e n c e t o o t t o w hat e x t a n t do you ( o r w o u ld y o u e x p e r ie n c e an a c c e l e r a t e d h e a r t b e a t t H e a r tb e a t d o e e n o t M id p o in t H e a r tb e a t n o t i c e a b l y a c c e l e r a t e a t a l l a c c e l e r a t e d 2 1 . W h ile t a k in g an I n d iv id u a l I n t e l l i g e n c e t e a t t o w hat e x t a n t do y o u (w o u ld y o u ) e x p e r ie n c e an a c c e l e r a t e d h e a r t b e a t ! H e a r tb e a t d o e e n o t M id p o in t H e a r tb e a t n o t i c e a b l y a c c e l e r a t e a t a l l a c c e l e r a t e d 2 4 . H afora t a k in g a n i n d i v i d u a l i n t e l l i g e n c e t a a t t o w h at e x t a n t do you (w o u ld y o u ) Worry a l o t M id p o in t W orry n o t a t a l l 2 3 . W h ile t a k in g an i n d i v i d u a l i n t e l l i g e n c e t e a t t o w h a t e x t a n t d o y o u (w o u ld y o u ) w o r r y ! W orry a l o t M id p o in t W orry n o t a t a l l 2 d . H a fo ra t a k in g a a in d i v i d u a l i n t e l l i g e n c e t e a t t o w h at a x t e u t do you (w ou ld y o u ) p e r e p lr o ! M ould n o t p e r e p lr e M id p o in t Would p e r o p ir a a l o t 2 7 . W h ile t a k in g an in d i v i d u a l i n t e l l i g e n c e t a a t t o N u t e x t a n t do y o u (w o u ld y o u ) p e r o p ir a f Would n o t p e r o p ir a M id p o in t W ould p e r o p ir e a l o t 141 THE MIDPOINT IS ONLY FOK TOUR GUIDANCE. DO NOT HESITATE TO PUT A HARK (X) OH ANT POINT ON THE LINE AS LONC AS THAT MARK REFLECTS THE STRENGTH OP TOUR PEELINC OR ATTITUDE. 2 t . In e o a p a r la o n t o o th o r a t u d o n t o . how o f t o o do you (w ou ld y o u ) t h la k o f w ays o f • v o id i n g t a k in g an in d i v i d u a l i n t a l l i g o n c o t o a c f Mora o f c a n th a n Aa o f t a n aa L oaa o f t a n th a n o t h a r a tn d a n ta o t h a r a tu d o n to o t h a r atw dan t a SECTION 111 Tho f o llo w in g q M i t l o n * r a l a t o t o y o u r a t t i t u d a tow ard and a x p a r ia a c a w it h c o u r s e 'e x a m in a t io n . lie r a f a r t o n a jo r e x a m in a t io n s , au eh a a a id - t e r m s and f i n a l a , i n a l l c o u r a a a . n o t a p a c i f i e a l l y in any on a c o u r s e . T ry t o r e p r e s e n t y o u r u a u a l f a a lin g a and a t t l t u d a a to w a rd th a a a e x a m in a tio n * i n g a n a r a l, n o t to w a rd any a p a c i f i c a n a m in a tio n y o u h ava ta k a n . We r a a l i a a t h a t th a c o a p a r a t lv a aa a a o r d i f f i c u l t y o f a p a r t i c u l a r c o u r a a and y o u r a t t i t u d a tow ard th a s u b j e c t m a tta r o f th o c o u r a a n ay i n f l u e n c e y o u r a t t i t u d a tow ard th a e x a m in a tio n s : h o w e v e r , u e w ou ld I lk a y o u t o t r y t o a x p ra a a y o u r f a a lin g a tow ard c o u r a a e x a m in a tio n s g e n e r a l l y . R ananhar t h a t y o u r anawara t o th a a a q u e s t lo n e w i l l n o t ba a v a i l a b l e a t any t l a a , t o any o f y o u r in a t r u e t o r a o r t o an y o f f i c i a l o f th a U n i v e r s i t y . 2 f . i a f o r a t a k in g a c o u r a a a a a w ln a tio n , t o w h a t o x t o n t a r a y o u a v a r a o f a n "unaaay" f o a lla g T An n o t a w are M id p o in t An v a r y n uch o f i t a t a l l aw are o f i t 3 0 . Whan y o u a r a t a k in g a c o u r a a e x a m in a tio n , t o w hat o x t o n t d o you f o a l t h a t y o u r • n o t i o n a l r e a c t io n s i n t e r f e r e w it h o r lo w e r y o u r p o r f o m a a o a f Da a c t i n t e r f e r e M id p o in t I n t e r f e r e a g r o a t w it h i t a t a l l d u a l S I . I f y o u know t h a t y o u a r a g o in g t o ta k a a c o u r a a e x a m in a tio n , how d o y o u f o o l b o fo r o h e n d t F o a l v a r y M id p o in t P o o l v a r y u n o o u fid a n t a o n f id o o t 3 2 . A f t e r y o u hava ta k e n a c o u r s e a r a m in a tio n , how c o n f id a n t do y o u f o o l t h a t y o u h a v a d on e y o u r b o a t? P o o l v a r y M id p o in t P o o l v a r y • a u f ld o n t 142 THE MIDPOINT IS ONLY POE YOUR GUIDANCE. DO NOT HESITATE TO PUT A HARK (X) ON ANY POINT ON THE LINE AS LONG AS THAT HARK REELECTS THE STRENGTH OF YOUR PEELING OR ATTITUDE. 3 3 . W hile ta k in g • c o u r s e o x a n in a tio n , to u h s t e x ta n t No you e x p e r ie n c e an a c c e le r a te d h e a r t b e a t f H eartb eat d o es n o t M idpoint H eartb eat n o t ic e a b ly a c c e le r a t e a t a l l a c c e le r a te d 3 4 . R elo re ta k in g a c o u r s e e x a e ln a t lo n , to what e x t e n t do yon e x p e r ie n c e an a c c e le r a te d h e a r tb e a t 1 H eartb eat doee n o t M idp oin t H eartb eat n o t ic e a b ly a e c e la r e t e a t a l l a c c e le r a t e d 3 5 . W hile ta k in g a c o u r s e e x a e ln a t lo n , to what e x t e n t do you w orryt Horry e l o t M idpoint Worry n o t a t a l l 3 4 . H afora ta k in g a cou raa e x a e ln a tlo n to what e x t e n t do you w orry! Horry a l o t M idpoint WOrry n o t a t a l l 3 7 . W hile ta k in g a c o u r s e a n a n ln a tlo n , t o what e x t e n t do you p e r e p ir o f N ever p e r s p ir e M idpoint P e r s p ir e a l o t S t . b e fo r e ta k in g a co u ra a e x a m in a tio n , t e w hat e x ta n t do you p e r e p ir o f N ever p e r s p ir e M idp oin t P er o p ira a l o t S t . When In you r o p in io n , you f e e l w e l l p rep ared f o r a c o u r s e e x a e ln a t lo n , bow da y e a u s u a lly f o a l j u s t b e f o r e th a e x a u ia a tle u f Confidant M idpoint

Asset Metadata

Creator Weijola, Merrill Joseph (author)

Core Title The Interrelationships Among Grade Point Average, The Manifest Anxiety Scale, The Test Anxiety Questionnaire, And Perceived Testing Situation Stimuli, Rationalizations, And Behavior Responses

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Metfessel, Newton S. (committee chair), Ofman, William V. (committee member), Theimer, William C., Jr. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-725673

Unique identifier UC11356504

Identifier 7423616.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-725673 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7423616.pdf

Dmrecord 725673

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Weijola, Merrill Joseph

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