Running head: TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
A Model Exploring Cognitive Test Anxiety: Personality and Goal Orientation
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
BY
ATHENA MANIYA L. DACANAY
DR. JERRELL CASSADY - ADVISOR
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
MUNCIE, INDIANA
MAY 2016
1
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
To Mom and Dad
2
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
3
Abstract
Personality traits and goal orientation have been reported to have associations with test anxiety.
However, the mediation role of goal orientation between the Big Five personality traits and
cognitive test anxiety (CTA) needs further exploration. Based on data from 458 university
students, regression and mediation analyses were conducted to test associations between five
personality factors (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism),
two types of goal orientations (extrinsic and intrinsic), and CTA. Direct negative relationships
were found between two personality factors (Openness and Conscientiousness) and CTA. Direct
positive associations were found between Neuroticism and Extrinsic Goal Orientation (EGO)
and CTA. Examination of model fit indices revealed a partially mediated model examining the
relationships among personality variables, goal orientation, and cognitive test anxiety was the
only model with acceptable fit indices. Overall, 18.7% of the variance in cognitive test anxiety
could be attributed to personality when mediated by goal orientation. Results suggested that
students who reported being more extrinsically motivated were identified with more
conscientious traits had higher cognitive test anxiety levels.
Keywords: cognitive test anxiety, personality, goal orientation
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
4
Acknowledgements
I am grateful for the contributions of those who made this dissertation possible. I would
like to thank Drs. Eric Pierson, Kristin Perrone-McGovern, and Katherine Denker for your
constructive criticism and flexibility in making yourselves available despite your busy schedules.
I particularly want to thank Drs. Jerrell Cassady and Eric Pierson for sharing their data set which
was used in this study. I especially want to thank Dr. Jerrell Cassady. You are the best
chairperson for whom one could ever wish. Your wit- and humor-filled guidance these past few
years made this behemoth less of a beast. Thank you for expertly and very patiently dealing with
the anxieties that went along with completing this project. Your sustained support is undoubtedly
the reason I have a finished document.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
5
Table of Contents
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………..........................3
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………….........4
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………............5
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………..................6
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………….................7
Chapter I…………………………………………………………………………..........................8
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..........8
Test Anxiety……………………………………………………………………………..........8
Personality…………………………………………………………………...........................12
Goal Orientation………………………………………………………………………..........14
Cognitive Test Anxiety, Personality, and Goal Orientation………………............................18
Current Study…………………………………………………………………………….......19
Chapter II………………………………………………………………………….......................24
Literature Review………………………………………………………………………….......24
Test Anxiety……………………………………………………………………………........26
Personality…………………………………………………………………...…………........37
Personality and Test Anxiety …...…………………………………………..…………........47
Achievement Motivation…………………………………………………….…………........51
Goal Orientation and Test Anxiety………………………………………….…………........59
Goal Orientation and Personality………………………………………………………........61
Chapter III………………………………………………………………………….....................65
Participants……………………………………………………………………….....................65
Measures………………………………………………………………………........................65
Procedure……….……………………………………………………………...........................68
Statistical Analysis………………………………………………………………….................69
Chapter IV……………………………………………………………………….........................71
Results..…………………………………………………………………..................................71
Common Method Variance……………………………………………………………............71
Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations………………………………………...........71
Regression Analysis……………………………………………………………………...........74
Mediational Analysis………………………………………………………..…………............75
Chapter V………………………………………………………………………...........................79
Discussion……………………………………………………………………….......................79
Overview………………………………………………………………………………............79
Personality and Cognitive Test Anxiety…………………………………….…………............79
Goal Orientation and Personality………………………………………………………...........81
Goal Orientation and Cognitive Test Anxiety…………………………………………............82
Goal Orientation Mediating the Personality-CTA Relationship…………….…………...........84
Limitations and Future Directions…………………………………………..…………............87
References……………………………………………………………………….........................89
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
6
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1.
Bivariate Correlations and Reliability Coefficients for Personality, Goal
Orientation, and Cognitive Test Anxiety (CTA)……………………………...
2.
Regression Coefficient Summary: Personality and Cognitive Test Anxiety
(CTA)……………………………………………………………….………...
74
Regression Coefficient Summary: Goal Orientation and Cognitive Test
Anxiety (CTA)……………………………………………………………......
75
Fit Indices for Full and Partial Mediation Model…………………………….
77
3.
4.
73
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
Page
The Conceptual Figure Depicting the Relationships Among the Variables
Examined in the Current Study (Direct Model)…………………………...
20
The Conceptual Figure Depicting the Relationships Among the Mediator
and Outcome Variables Examined in the Current Study…………………..
21
The Conceptual Figure Depicting the Relationships the Variables
Examined in the Current Study (Fully Mediated Model) …………………
22
The Conceptual Figure Depicting the Relationships the Variables
Examined in the Current Study (Partially Mediated Model) ……………...
22
5.
Standardized Regression Estimates for the Fully Mediated Model………..
76
6.
Standardized Regression Estimates for the Partially Mediated Model……
78
2.
3.
4.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
8
CHAPTER 1
A Model Exploring Cognitive Test Anxiety: Personality and Goal Orientation
In a study conducted 20 years ago by Seiffge-Krenke (1995), test anxiety, along with the
pressure to get better marks and the anxiety of receiving poor grades, was identified as the stress
factors most often cited by children and adolescents. To date, test anxiety is very common.
Putwain and Daly (2014) estimated the prevalence of test anxiety among secondary school
students (N=2435) at 16.4%, with the proportion significantly higher in female students than in
male students. Furthermore, there is concern that prevalence rates may be increasing due to the
importance placed on the function of standardized measures of performance in making critical
decisions in schools (Lowe, Grumbein, & Radd, 2011). Students reported significantly higher
cognitive and physiological symptoms of test anxiety in high-stakes testing compared to
classroom testing (von der Embse & Hasson, 2012; Segool, Carlson, Goforh, von der Embse, &
Barterian, 2013).
Previous studies have established an inverse relationship between test anxiety and
performance (Cassady & Johnson, 2002; Lang & Lang, 2010, Rana & Mahmood, 2010; Schunk,
Pintrich, & Meece, 2008; Zeidner & Matthews, 2005.) Test anxiety can be highly disabling
(Herzer, Wendt, & Hamm, 2014) and has been described as the most disruptive variable in
learning (Enright, Baldo, & Wykes, 2000). Students who report high levels of test anxiety are
more likely to perform poorly on tests and achievement measures, have difficulty with school
truancy, be prone to higher rates of drop out (Cortina, 2008), and experience academic failure
(Ramirez & Beilock, 2011).
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
9
Test anxiety, operationally defined, is a mindset that involves negative self-perceptions
and expectations which significantly influence the manner individuals interpret and respond to an
evaluative situation (Spielberger, 1972). It has cognitive, affective, and behavioral features
which prevent the individual from presenting his or her real performance (Zeidner, 1998). The
test anxiety construct first was described by Mandler and Sarason (1952) who identified two
kinds of opposite and incompatible drives invoked by testing situations, task-directed drives and
learned anxiety drives. Task-relevant efforts stimulate behaviors to complete the task to reduce
anxiety while self-directed, task-irrelevant responses evoke implicit attempts to leave the testing
situation (Mandler & Sarason, 1952). People with low levels of anxiety attend more effectively
to task-directed behaviors that then enhance achievement while those with high levels of anxiety
are more likely to engage in task-irrelevant thoughts and behaviors that impair performance
(Mandler & Sarason 1952; Sarason, Pierce, & Sarason, 1996; Spielberger, 2013) This early work
led to the creation of the Test Anxiety Questionnaire (TAQ; Sarason & Mandler, 1952), which
included only a debilitating scale and inferred the presence of one drive meant the absence of the
other.
Alpert and Haber (1960) later proposed a bi-dimensional theory, relabeling the drives that
lead to task-irrelevant and task-directed behaviors as debilitating and facilitating anxieties. They
also authored a self-report instrument, the Anxiety Achievement Test with both facilitating
(AAT+) and debilitating (AAT-) subscales. However, the development of understanding the test
anxiety construct continued to grow beyond the measurement instruments available at the time.
The next major advancement in the field was offered by Liebert and Morris (1967), who
illustrated that responses to the TAQ illustrated two primary components or factors of test
anxiety. The first component was emotionality which referred to the physical and physiological
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
10
reactions to test situations, such as excessive sweating, headaches, elevated heart rate and
nervousness. Worry, identified as the second factor, is comprised of the cognitive and
psychological facets of test anxiety (Liebert &Morris, 1967) which are primarily focused on the
consequences of failure. Research has consistently showed that worry had a stronger negative
correlation with performance outcomes than the emotionality component (Cassady & Johnson,
2002; Deffenbacher, 1978; Hembree, 1988; Liebert & Morris, 1970; Wine, 1971; Zeidner, 1990).
In the 1980's, researchers devoted greater levels of attention to interference models of test
anxiety. Interference models propose that test anxiety disturbs the recall of prior learning which
consequently leads to reduced performance. Tobias (1979) hypothesized there are three points
when anxiety has the largest effect on students learning, preprocessing, processing, and
postprocessing. He proposed that anxiety can impact learning by interfering with the level of
input that a student can register and understand. Wine’s (1971, 1982) cognitive-attentional theory
of test anxiety states the damaging influence of test anxiety was because of test-anxious
individuals dividing their attention between personal variables and task-related variables. This
divided attention leads to a reduced ability to allocate to the task at hand. In contrast, non-testanxious individuals can then focus most of their attention on the task itself. During the
processing period, the resources of working memory are exceeded, subsequently making
learning ineffective (Tobias, 1979; Naveh-Benjamin, McKeachie, &Lin, 1987; Naveh-Benjamin,
1991). Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) is a viable framework for examining how this operates in
the instructional context, which proposes that extraneous processing load will limit the overall
processing success (Sweller, 1994). In a sample scenario following this framework, a testanxious learner may divide attention among the task, somatic concerns (e.g., heart racing,
excessive sweating), and negative self-references –limiting the overall potential to process
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
11
content effectively. The last stage where anxiety impacts instruction is called the postprocessing
stage. When retrieving content that has been previously mastered, there is interference in recall
during the test or performance event (Eysenck, 1992; Naveh-Benjamin, 1991; Tobias, 1979). The
postprocessing form of interference is seen in students who say that they have studied diligently,
but seem to be unable to recall information that they have studied when taking the test (Tobias,
1979).
An alternative cognitive deficit model of test anxiety proposed that degraded test scores
obtained by students with high levels of test anxiety were attributable to inadequate study habits,
or to deficient test-taking skills (Tobias, 1985). This study skills deficit orientation attempts to
identify the impact of test anxiety through two pathways. First, individuals with poor study skills
will often recognize that they are ill-prepared for a test and subsequently develop elevated levels
of anxiety during the test session. Second, students with skill deficits for studying as well as test
taking do poorly in both evaluative and nonevaluative situations simply due to inabilities to
encode and organize new information (Birenbaum, 2013; Birjandi & Alemi, 2010; Sansgiry &
Sail, 2006; Tobias, 1985; Paulman & Kennelly, 1984; Zeidner, 1998).
Another test anxiety model, the Transactional Process Model, was proposed by
Spielberger and Vagg in 1995. The Transactional Process Model mainly identifies worry and
emotionality as the two components that comprise the test anxiety experience. According to this
model, test anxiety is evoked as a result of the dynamic interaction between a tendency to have
high evaluative traits and exposure to a stressful evaluative situation, which results in perceived
threat and subsequent high-test anxiety. The transactional process model considers both
dispositional and situational factors as contributors to perceptions of threat and anxiety during
test taking (Spielberger & Vagg, 1995).
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
12
The various test anxiety theories collectively provide a multidimensional view of test
anxiety: each one is addressing key cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of test
anxiety. At present, focusing on the cognitive facet would be more beneficial to explore because
of its stronger negative relationship with performance outcomes (Cassady & Johnson, 2002; Deci
& Ryan, 1990; Lang & Lang, 2010; Rana & Mahmood, 2010; Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008;
Zeidner & Matthews, 2005). Additional research is needed to investigate cognitive test anxiety
with respect to its dynamic relationship with possible antecedents, such as personality and
motivation.
Personality
According to Hancock (2001), personal variables can result in test anxiety. Personality is
important in the study of test anxiety because it may influence the way stressful events are
perceived and appraised (Matthews, 2000). Individuals with high levels of anxiety process
information in a manner that prepares them from potential failure (Eysenk, 1992). They are
likely to use a great deal of their cognitive resources (Lawson, 2006) scanning the evaluative
situation for possible signs of threat (Eysenk, 1992), to a point of identifying danger even when it
may not exist.
In the study of personality, the Big Five factors have been described as the five
dimensions of personality that are used to describe human personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
The Big Five personalities are Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion,
Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. An extensive number of studies have explored how the Big
Five personality traits are related to test anxiety (Chamorro-Premuzic, Ahmetoglu, and Furnham,
2008; Das Gupta and Dutta, 2012; Kumaran & Kadhiravan, 2015; Lim & Ortiz-Bance, 2013;
Liu, Meng, & Xu, 2006; Piedmont 1995).
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
13
Common trait descriptors of Openness are original, imaginative, creative curious,
adventurous. People who identify as being open to experience tend to accept and respect novel
encounters and desire to explore and understand concepts that are unfamiliar to them. Individuals
who report being open to experience would vigorously pursue challenge and have patterns of
thoughts and behaviors aligned with low cognitive test anxiety levels (Chamorro-Premuzic,
2011; Howard, Medina & Howard, 1996).
According to John and Srivastava (1999), Conscientiousness depicts differences in the
degrees of orderliness, perseverance, and the incentive to use goal-directed behavior. Individuals
who are high in Conscientiousness are described as organized, reliable, and ambitious. Studies
have shown that Conscientiousness is negatively related to test anxiety (Kumaran & Kadhiravan,
2015; Lim & Ortiz-Bance, 2013; Piedmont, 1995; Zellars, Perrewe, Hochwarter, & Anderson,
2006).
Neuroticism, on the other hand, describes individual differences in susceptibility to
psychological distress and skewed understanding and reasoning which often lead to
maladjustment and maladaptive behavior (Heller, Watson, & Ilies, 2004). Individuals high in
Neuroticism are described as anxious, tense, emotionally unstable and reactive, and insecure.
These traits of individuals with emotional instability are positively associated with test anxiety
(Chamorro-Premuzic, Ahmetoglu, & Furnham, 2008; Das Gupta & Dutta, 2012; Kumaran &
Kadhiravan, 2015; Liu, Meng, & Xu, 2006).
Only Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were consistently correlated with test anxiety
across personality-CTA relationship studies (Chamorro-Premuzic, Ahmetoglu, and Furnham,
2008; Das Gupta and Dutta, 2012; Kumaran & Kadhiravan, 2015; Lim & Ortiz-Bance, 2013;
Liu, Meng, & Xu, 2006; Piedmont, 1995). However, studies that examined the relationship of
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
14
Extraversion, Openness, and Agreeableness to test anxiety showed inconsistent correlations. The
repeated illustration of Conscientiousness and Neuroticism as key factors to understanding test
anxiety is similar to a broad body of research focused on perfectionism – which is a common
characteristic of students with test anxiety (Matthew & Zeidner, 2005; Sarason, 1980).
Perfectionists are individuals who measure self-worth with success and efficiency, exert effort to
achieve unrealistic goals, set high personal standards, pay attention to small details, and invest a
lot of time into their work – which are key components of Conscientiousness and Neuroticism
(Burns, 1980; Sherry, Hewitt, Sherry, Flett & Graham, 2010). In addition to the classic selforiented perfectionist viewpoint, where the learner develops unrealistically high expectations for
herself, there is also a dimension of social-oriented perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). This
primarily maladaptive perfectionistic profile (Stoeber, Feast & Hayward, 2009)) differs from the
potentially positive outcomes of self-oriented perfectionism by having a focus on meeting
externally-developed goals or standards (Zeidner & Matthews, 2005).
Goal Orientation
Another important factor to consider in the study of test anxiety is motivation. Depending
on which psychological or psychosocial processes are tapped, motivational variables may
strengthen or weaken individual behavior (Marín, Infante, & Troyano, 2001). Goal orientation,
in particular, is important in the study of test anxiety because students assess the testing situation
in relation to his or her goals (Schutz, Quijada, de Vries, & Lynde, 2011). Test anxiety is a
reaction to actual or potential failure, triggered by the implication of perceived incompetence or
threat to the self that can devalue the individual’s identity (Wentzel & Wigfield, 2009).
Contemporary achievement motivation theorists have focused on behaviors involved in
the development and display of aptitude and proficiency. Individuals may aspire to show high
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
15
competence or may strive to avoid incompetence in achievement contexts (Smith, Duda, Allen,
& Hall, 2002). The earliest achievement motivation conceptualizations explicitly incorporated
this approach-avoidance distinction (Atkinson, 1957; McClelland, 1951). In 1951, McClelland
proposed the existence of at least two kinds of achievement motivation, one of which is primarily
concerned with the avoidance of failure and the other one being more oriented around attaining
success. According to Atkinson’s (1964) classical achievement motivation theory, when a
person’s motive to achieve success is stronger than the motive to avoid failure, it results in
behaviors which approach the task at hand. However, if the motive to avoid failure is stronger
than the motive to achieve success, then the result will be avoidance behavior. Students who
engage in failure-avoidance will most likely display poor study skills (i.e., procrastination,
underachievement, poor time management, lack of organization).
Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) cognitive-relational theory relies heavily on the concept of
cognitive appraisal of the parameters of the stressors (i.e., threatening elements in any given
situation) and the resources – internal and external – that are available to cope with those
stressors. People assess whether a given situation or task poses a threat to them based on their
appraisal of these parameters. Next, they identify the extent to which a response in the situation
is likely to exacerbate or mitigate the perceived threats. Anxiety ensues in this model when they
perceive their resources as inadequate to overcome the stressors, leaving escape or avoidance as
viable alternatives to minimize exposure to the stress-provoking task or stimulus.
The Self-Determination Theory (SDT), was originated by Edward Deci and Richard
Ryan in 1985. SDT defines intrinsic and varied extrinsic sources of motivation, and the
respective roles they play in the cognitive and social development of individuals. If the
individual's autonomy, competence, and relatedness are upheld and supported, high-quality
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
16
forms of motivation and voluntary involvement are promoted (Ryan & Deci, 2000). According
to SDT, motivation is multidimensional in nature (Deci & Ryan, 2000) encompassing three
global types of motivation: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation (Deci &
Ryan, 1985, 2000, 2008). Of the three, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are the two most
commonly explored types of motivated academic behavior (Cokley, 2003).
A number of studies have consistently demonstrated the advantages of intrinsic
motivation in the context of learning. Intrinsically motivated students tend to have higher
academic achievement (Areepattamannil & Freeman, 2008; Areepattamannil, Freeman, &
Klinger, 2011), higher intellectual performance (Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004), higher self-esteem
(Deci & Ryan, 1995), greater persistence (Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006), less academic
anxiety (Gottfried, 1990), enhanced deep or conceptual learning (Ames and Archer, 1988);
Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Soenens, Matos, & Lacante, 2004), enhanced cognitive flexibility
and engagement (McGraw and McCullers, 1979), and enhanced subjective/psychological wellbeing (Burton, Lydon, D’Alessandro, & Koetner, 2006; Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, & Kasser, 2004).
Thus, intrinsic motivation is related to more positive academic and psychological outcomes
(Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barsh, 2004). Additionally, studies indicated that intrinsic
motivation is undermined when self-perceived autonomy is negated by socially controlling
events, such as evaluation (Harackiewicz, Manderlink, & Sansone, 1984). For example, being
closely watched or surveilled under certain circumstances, is linked to performance evaluation
and attempts to compel individuals to comply with rules or standards (Lepper & Greene, 1975).
In contrast, extrinsic motivation, refers to behaviors that are determined by means which
are commonly externally regulated, such as rewards and constraints. For example, a student who
performs a task to satisfy external demands (e.g., material or monetary incentives) or social
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
17
contingency is externally regulated. Extrinsic motivation may also appear controlled by internal
reward or punishment contingencies, such as guilt, shame or obligation (Areepattamannil,
Freeman, & Klinger, 2011). For example, an individual strives to excel academically because he
or she does not want to shame his or her family. In the academic setting, students who are
extrinsically motivated are more likely to have lower academic achievement (Areepattamannil,
Freeman, & Klinger, 2011; Becker, McElvany, & Kortenbruck, 2010; Lepper, Corpus, &
Iyengar, 2005) and engage in surface level learning (Biggs, 1991). Furthermore, extrinsically
motivated students experience greater anxiety (Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996), have less positive
emotions in school (Sénécal , Koestner, & Vallerland, 1995), and have a poorer ability to cope
with failures (Deci and Ryan, 2000). In addition, Tallis, Eysenck, and Matthews (1991) state that
worriers potentially have elevated evidence requirements - they must know the perfect answer to
the problem or they do not respond at all. A study by Stoeber, Feast, and Hayward (2009) found
that socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP) is a maladaptive form of perfectionism associated
with higher anxiety for exams and with extrinsic motivation for studying. Masson, Hoyois,
Cadot, Nahama, Petit, & Anseau (2004) related extrinsic motivation to SPP, which they defined
as having expectancies imposed by others, significantly lessening the perception of being in
control, that tend to lead to anxiety, feelings of failure, and helplessness (Carter, Guan, Maples,
Williamson, & Miller, 2015). Alternatively, self-oriented perfectionism (SOP) involves adhering
to self-imposed unrealistic standards, coupled with rigorous self-evaluation and an inability to
accept flawed outcomes, in pursuit of subject mastery (Stoeber, Feast, & Hayward, 2009).
Stoeber, Feast, and Hayward (2009) indicated these characteristic of SOP function similarly to
extrinsic motivation. As such, there are conditions through which both intrinsic and extrinsic
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
18
motivational goal orientations have been connected to the development of test anxiety for
learners with at-risk personality characteristics.
Cognitive Test Anxiety, Personality, and Goal Orientation
Various theoretical models of test anxiety provide important insights into how test
anxiety affects performance. Additional research is needed to investigate the cognitive facet of
test anxiety and its dynamic relationship with possible antecedents, such as personality and
motivation. This study is focused on how two specific factors might affect cognitive test anxiety
- personality and goal orientation. The studies on the nature of test anxiety show that personality
is a crucial variable because it may influence the way stressful events are perceived and
appraised (Matthews, Deary, & Whiteman, 2003). By examining the relationship between
personality and test anxiety, it may be possible to identify the personality traits that have strong
and significant correlations with test anxiety. On the other hand, motivation is an internal state
that activates, directs, and sustains behavior (McInerney & McInerney, 2006). According to
Schutz, Quijada, de Vries, and Lynde, (2011), students assess the testing situation in relation to
his or her goals. Test-anxious students performed poorly and were less motivated when exposed
to highly evaluative classrooms than their less anxious counterparts. (Hancock, 2001). These
statements then raise the question of what type of goal orientation do test anxious students hold
that leads to undesirable behaviors of poor performance and motivation.
These variables in this investigation were included for two main reasons. First, the
evidence suggests that goal orientation and personality measures are related to levels of cognitive
test anxiety. It would be useful to supplement evidence about these relations in the understanding
of cognitive test anxiety. Second, of more importance, this study attempts to add to the growing
literature on the possible mediating effect of goal orientation on cognitive test anxiety, which
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
19
subsequently, could suppress the detrimental effects of cognitive test anxiety on academic
performance.
Current Study
Although many researchers have reported relationships among test anxiety, personality,
and goal orientation, there is an absence of research that has examined the relationships of these
domains of learner personality and motivation working in unison to impact cognitive test
anxiety. The current study has three primary purposes. First, to identify the relationships among
the Big Five personality measures (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness,
Neuroticism) and cognitive test anxiety. Second, explore whether achievement goal orientations
predict levels of cognitive test anxiety. Third, examine a possible mediating or moderating effect
of achievement goal orientation on the relationship between the Big Five personality measures
and cognitive test anxiety. Implications for future research and potential intervention strategies
will be proposed.
Research Question 1
Do the Big Five personality measures predict students’ reported levels of cognitive test anxiety?
To examine the consistency with prior research, a direct prediction model using the Big 5
Personality measures will be used to determine if a predictive relationship between personality
and cognitive test anxiety (CTA) can be detected. The standard null hypothesis would declare
that Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism do not
effectively predict variations in CTA (see Figure 1 for graphic depiction). Based on the prior
research, the following hypotheses will be directly tested:
a. H1: Openness and Conscientiousness will have a significant negative relationship with
CTA.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
20
b. H2: Neuroticism will have a significant positive relationship with CTA;
c. H3: Extraversion and Agreeableness will not be related with CTA.
Figure 1. The conceptual figure depicting the relationships among the variables examined in the
current study. (Direct Model)
Research Question 2
Do learners’ achievement goal orientations predict reported levels of cognitive test anxiety?
To evaluate the consistency with prior research, a direct prediction model using achievement
goal orientation measures will be used to determine if a predictive relationship between goal
orientation and cognitive test anxiety (CTA) can be detected. The standard null hypothesis would
declare that intrinsic goal orientation does not effectively predict variations in CTA (see Figure 2
for graphic depiction). Based on the prior research, the following hypotheses will be directly
tested:
a. H4: Extrinsic goal orientation will have a significant positive relationship with
cognitive test anxiety;
b. H5: Intrinsic goal orientation will have a significant negative relationship with
cognitive test anxiety.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
21
Figure 2. The conceptual figure depicting the relationships among the mediator and outcome
variables examined in the current study.
Research Question 3
Do achievement goal orientations serve as mediation variables in the relationships among
personality measures and cognitive test anxiety?
To investigate the mediational role of achievement goal orientation in the personality-CTA
relationship, a mediation analysis will be conducted to determine whether a partial or full
meditation model best fits the data. The standard null hypothesis would declare that achievement
goal orientations will not mediate the relationships among personality measures and cognitive
test anxiety (see Figures 3 and 4 for graphic depiction). Based on the prior research, the
following hypotheses will be directly tested:
a. H6: High extrinsic goal orientation will partially mediate the relationships among
cognitive test anxiety and Openness and Conscientiousness;
b. H7: High extrinsic goal orientation will fully mediate the relationship between
cognitive test anxiety and Neuroticism;
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
22
c. High intrinsic goal orientation will not mediate the personality-cognitive test anxiety
relationship.
Figure 3. The conceptual figure depicting the relationships among the variables examined in the
current study. (Fully Mediated Model)
Maximum evidence for mediation, also called full mediation, would occur if the inclusion
of the mediation variable (extrinsic goal orientation) affects the relationship of the independent
variable (Openness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism) and dependent variable (cognitive test
anxiety), such that the association becomes non-significant at the final step in the analysis.
Figure 4.The conceptual figure depicting the relationships among the variables examined in the
current study. (Partially Mediated Model)
Partial mediation maintains that the mediating variable (extrinsic goal orientation)
accounts for some of the relationship between the independent variable (Openness,
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
23
Conscientiousness, Neuroticism) and dependent variable (cognitive test anxiety). Partial
mediation implies that there is not only a significant relationship between the mediator (extrinsic
goal orientation) and the dependent variable (cognitive test anxiety). But also some direct
relationship between the independent (Openness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism) and
dependent variables (cognitive test anxiety).
-
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
24
CHAPTER II
Research on test anxiety primarily is focused on its impact on performance measures.
Previous studies have established an inverse relationship between test anxiety and performance
(Cassady & Johnson, 2002; Lang & Lang, 2010, Rana & Mahmood, 2010; Schunk, Pintrich &
Meece, 2008; Zeidner & Matthews, 2005.) Test anxiety can be highly disabling (Herzer, Wendt,
& Hamm, 2014) and has been described as the most significant disruptive variable in learning
(Enright, Baldo, & Wykes, 2000). Students who report high levels of test anxiety are more likely
to perform poorly on tests and achievement measures, have difficulty with school truancy, be
prone to higher rates of drop out (Cortina, 2008), and experience academic failure (Ramirez &
Beilock, 2011). A study conducted in 1988 by Hembree, which was the main meta-analysis
conducted on test anxiety at that time, identified that high levels of test anxiety have been
negatively correlated with IQ, aptitude, certain areas of academic achievement (i.e., reading,
math, natural sciences, English, foreign language, psychology, and mechanical knowledge),
problem solving, memory, and grades. He also identified gender, ethnicity, birth order, student
status (at risk vs. passing), and testing conditions (ego-involving high stress conditions and test
perceptions) as factors impacting test anxiety affecting students in early grade levels through
graduate school.
The term personality describes differences between individuals in behavior, thought and
affect. Personality traits and mechanisms influences our actions, interactions, choices of social
environment, feelings, how we view ourselves, what goals to pursue and our reactions to
circumstances – including stress. Pursuant to the current investigation, personality can impact all
aspects of a person’s identification of stress and response to those stressors. Broadly defined,
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
25
stress is an adaptive reaction of living organisms in response to perceived internal or external
threats to homeostasis (Lecic-Tosevski, Vukovic, & Stepanovic, 2011). Stress develops from the
interaction between an individual and his subjective and objective perception of threats in his
environment. Resilience and vulnerability to stressors as well as the intensity of stress response
are influenced by personality.
Personality is important in the study of test anxiety because it may influence the way
stressful events are perceived and appraised (Matthews, 2000). By examining the relationship
between personality and test anxiety, it may be possible to identify the personality traits that have
strong and significant correlations with test anxiety under different evaluative conditions.
Identifying the ways personality traits interact with situational variables will aid in the type of
interventions that are best suited for each personality type.
Another important factor to consider in the study of test anxiety is motivation. Depending
on which psychological or psychosocial processes are tapped, motivational variables may
strengthen or weaken individual behavior (Marín, Infante, & Troyano, 2001). Goal orientation,
in particular, is important in the study of test anxiety because students assess the testing situation
in relation to his or her goals (Schutz, Quijada, de Vries, & Lynde, 2011).
Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation are the two primary types of motivated
academic behavior (Cokley, 2003). Extrinsic motivation refers to behaviors that are determined
by means which are commonly externally regulated, such as rewards and constraints. For
example, a student who performs a task to satisfy external demands (e.g., material or monetary
incentives) or social contingency is externally regulated. Extrinsic motivation may also appear as
that are controlled by internal reward or punishment contingencies, such as guilt, shame, or
obligation. For example, an individual strives to excel academically because he or she does not
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
26
want to shame his or her family. Numerous studies on the effects of extrinsic motivation on
learning outcomes have been documented. Students who are extrinsically motivated are more
likely to have lower academic achievement (Becker, McElvany, & Kortenbruck, 2010; Lepper,
Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005) and engage in surface level learning (Biggs, 1991). Furthermore,
extrinsically motivated students experience greater anxiety (Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996), have
less positive emotions in school (Sénécal , Koestner, & Vallerland, 1995), and have a poorer
ability to cope with failures (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Thus, intrinsic motivation, is related to more
positive academic and psychological outcomes than extrinsic motivation (Reeve, Jang, Carrell,
Jeon, & Barsh, 2004). Additionally, studies indicated that intrinsic motivation is undermined
when self-perceived autonomy is negated by socially controlling events, such as evaluation
(Harackiewicz, Manderlink, & Sansone, 1984). For example, being closely watched or surveilled
under certain circumstances, is linked to performance evaluation and attempts to compel
individuals to comply with rules or standards (Lepper & Greene, 1975).
Test Anxiety
The first theory on test anxiety offered by Mandler and Sarason (1952) states that
situational stimuli (such as an indication that the person is being judged or a statement of
expected performance) could lead to inferior performance and task-irrelevant responses in tests
or achievement contexts for anxiety-prone individuals. In contrast, Mandler and Sarason’s
(1952) model also proposed that individuals without a predisposition toward anxiety faced with
similar pressures would benefit from these external pressures.
Alpert & Haber (1960) expanded upon this line of thinking, drawing a distinction of the
fluid relationship between facilitating and debilitating aspects of test anxiety. Similar to Mandler
and Sarason (1952), they posited that it was possible anxiety not only inhibits performance but
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
27
that it may also stimulate or motivate it. Anxiety is facilitative when the learner is motivated to
overcome the new task because the individual views it as a challenge rather than a threat (Scovel,
1991). However, when anxiety levels are too high, it becomes debilitating. Debilitating anxiety
motivates the individual to adopt avoidance behavior, be it avoidance of learning new tasks or
avoidance of the current task (Scovel, 1991). This phenomenon was classically described by the
Yerkes-Dodson Law. The Yerkes-Dodson Law suggests a curvilinear association between
arousal and performance. Graphically, it is represented by an inverted U-shaped curve. This
representation shows that too little arousal produces minimum performance; moderate arousal
enhances performance to its optimal level at the peak of the curve; but beyond that, too much
arousal will again hinder performance (Deffenbacher, 1983; McNally, 2003; Yerkes & Dodson,
1908). What constitutes as little, moderate, or too much arousal varies for each individual.
State vs. Trait
Another extension of Mandler and Sarason’s (1952) model was attention to the
distinction between the state and trait components of test anxiety (Spielberger & Vagg, 1972),
which is also consistent with general anxiety diagnoses and theories of personality. State test
anxiety refers to a transitory condition of anxiety experienced during a perceived stressful
evaluation setting. Trait test anxiety refers to relatively stable differences in the frequency and
intensity with which individuals experience state test anxiety. While test anxiety was often
discussed as a “state” construct, growing attention was given to the view that only those with
pervasive test anxiety symptoms (i.e., trait test anxiety) are likely to be impacted seriously by the
state aspect (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 2002). All individuals are likely to encounter state aspects
of anxiety – but those with higher trait test anxiety are more likely to have the state anxiety reach
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
28
debilitative levels; whereas those with low trait test anxiety are more likely to benefit from the
activation of appropriate levels of stressors.
However, the additive model of test anxiety asserts that only when the additive nature of
state and trait anxiety reach the individual’s critical level does anxiety become debilitative rather
than facilitative (Zohar, 1998). This means that performance significantly declines only when a
specific evaluative situation activates the state test anxiety factor of an individual with trait test
anxiety. Zohar (1998) listed low self-confidence for the task-at-hand, high levels of perceived
threat from the exam, or the cognizance of the lack of preparedness for the exam as possible
situational factors which may activate the state test anxiety factor.
Emotionality and Worry
While the state-trait distinction and attention to debilitative and facilitative aspects of test
anxiety provide insight into the broad perspective of a student’s test anxiety experience, Liebert
and Morris’ (1967) work on a two-factor view of test anxiety has been the most influential and
pervasive model of test anxiety in early research. According to Liebert and Morris (1967), there
were two primary types of test anxiety which they referred to as worry and emotionality. A metaanalysis by Hembree (1988) confirmed by factor analysis that worry and emotionality are likely
the only two factors of test anxiety. Briefly stated, the worry component represents maladaptive
thoughts, such as self-criticism or apprehension about the consequences of failure, and these
cognitions have been shown to undermine performance, presumably by diverting attention from
task demands and interfering with retrieval processes (Deffenbacher, 1980; Sarason, 1972; Wine
1971).
The emotionality component represents one's perceptions and interpretations of the
physiological elements (e.g., sweating, rapid heartbeat) and affective states (e.g., nervousness,
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
29
tension) of the anxiety experience. These responses have been shown to have little, if any,
deleterious effect on performance (Deffenbacher, 1980; Morris, Davis, & Hutchings, 1981). In
1978, Sarason developed The Reaction to Tests measure. It was the first instrument designed to
examine four (4) different cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: tension, worry,
test-irrelevant thinking, and bodily reactions.
Most research on test anxiety in the last three decades has been driven by the
conceptualizations of state-trait or Liebert & Morris’ (1967) views of a multifactor model of test
anxiety. However, while most researchers adhere to these predominant underlying views of test
anxiety, there are wide variations in explanation for the primary causes for test anxiety in
learners, as well as the means by which test anxiety impacts the learners’ experiences. The
following primary orientations for test anxiety provide context for interpreting test anxiety in
learners in standard academic settings.
Learning-Testing Cycle
The traditional orientation toward test anxiety focused on the state-dependent cues related
to evaluative situations as the central issue for test anxiety, promoting explicit attention toward
the testing event itself as the critical point for test anxiety. However, contemporary views of test
anxiety have highlighted the importance of examining thoughts and behaviors during the three
phases in the learning–testing cycle: test preparation, test performance, and test reflection
(Cassady, 2004; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1992).
Test Preparation Phase. Test anxiety manifests during the test preparation stage in
several ways. Everson, Smodlaka, and Tobias (1995) showed that individuals with high-test
anxiety levels have deficits in encoding and storage processes, lack a deeper understanding of
reading materials, have poor study skills (Culler & Holohan, 1980), and are inadequate at self-
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
30
monitoring during the test preparation phase (Covington, 1992). Poor self-regulation can lead to
an overestimation or underestimation of their level of preparedness for exams which in turn can
lead to either a false sense of security during the test preparation stage (Winne & Jamieson-Noel,
2002) or to adopting performance-avoidance goals (McGregor & Elliot, 2002) that often
manifest as procrastination (Cassady & Johnson, 2002). In addition, Naveh-Benjamin,
McKeachie, Lin, and Hollinger (1987) found that high test anxiety levels correlated with
inadequate skills for developing conceptual representations of core content, interference in the
working memory’s articulatory processing loop while in the test preparation phase (Ikeda,
Iwanaga, & Seiwa, 1996), and a tendency of perceiving tests as threatening events (Schwarzer &
Jerusalem, 1992). Interestingly, cross-cultural analyses among women in Kuwait and the U.S.
revealed a significantly lower occurrence of perceived test threat (Cassady, Mohammed, &
Mathieu, 2004). The authors believe that levels of perceived test threats are significantly lower in
collectivist cultures and in societies where success is guaranteed to all citizens (Cassady,
Mohammed, & Mathieu, 2004).
In this phase, the brunt of test anxiety’s impact is in the failure to adequately encode,
organize, and store content (Mueller, 1980; Naveh-Benjamin, 1991). Consequently, a limited
bank of effectively organized conceptual cues will be all that is available during the test
performance phase (Bar-tal, Raviv, & Spitzer, 1999).
Test Performance Phase. The test performance phase refers to the time period during
which the student completes the examination. Cognitive test anxiety impacts the performance
phase in several ways. First, poor preparatory processes (i.e., study skills) can significantly affect
performance because of the limited amount of stored conceptual cues (Covington & Omelich,
1987; Naveh- Benjamin, 1991). Second, if the problem is not due to an inadequate preparatory
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
31
process, the issue shifts to retrieval failures (Naveh-Benjamin, McKeachie, Lin, & Hollinger,
(198, 1981) because of the shallow understanding of the material (e.g., memorization). The lack
of synthesis and analysis of concepts causes students to be indecisive due to the lack of
confidence in knowing what they know (Bar-tal, Raviv, & Spitzer, 1999). The feeling of
uncertainty is magnified when faced with multiple choice test formats because all the given
choices may seem correct to an individual with high test anxiety. Additionally, skewed views of
the test and anticipation of the level of difficulty of the exam often prompt self-deprecating
thoughts, interference, distractibility (e.g., task-irrelevant thinking), where task-irrelevant cues
become the attentional focus or task-relevant cues are rendered ineffective (Cassady, 2004;
Schutz & Davis, 2000; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1992).
Test Reflection Phase. In the final phase, the test reflection phase, test anxiety impacts
how one perceives and behaves in future test-related situations due to how one attributes success
or failure. Higher levels of anxiety accompany ratings of externalized attributions for success
(e.g., “I did well because the test was easy”) or lack of ability as a causative agent to failure (e.g.,
“I’m not smart enough.”) (Bandalos, Yates, & Thorndike, 1995). However, individuals who
attribute failure to the lack of effort generally were found to have lower levels of test anxiety.
According to Elliot & McGregor (1999), internalized attribution for success or failure which is
centered on one’s ability will influence future efforts to avoid failure or approach success.
A cycle then develops when students with attributions that have the locus of control
externalized, a feeling of learned helplessness. The student then becomes more disengaged from
academic tasks, increasing the chances of failure (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 2002). Due to the lack
of a distinct transition point from the reflection phase to the next test’s preparation phase, it is
important to be mindful of a student’s affect during this time frame. The longer students fixate
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
32
on negative affect produced by their attributions, the less likely they are to successfully prepare
for an upcoming examination (Covington, 1985).
Study-Skills Deficit Model
One of the most enduring views for test anxiety has been classically referred to as a
study-skills deficit model, which argues that anxious students are essentially deficient in a wide
variety of study and test-taking skills. A study by Culler and Houlahan (1980) contradicted the
then common stereotype of the high test anxious student who knows the subject matter but
forgets (or is unable to access) the studied concepts at test time. They found that high testanxious students who had developed and exercised better study skills did better academically
than those with poor study habits. High anxious students often compensated for their poor study
skills by increasing study time. Their findings suggest that at least part of the academic
performance decrement may be due to less knowledge of the relevant material as a function of
differential study skills. The noted skills deficits include problems with encoding, rehearsal,
organization, and retrieval of information prior to and during tests.
The study skills deficit orientation attempts to identify the impact of test anxiety through
two pathways. First, individuals with poor study skills will often recognize that they are illprepared for a test and subsequently develop elevated levels of anxiety during the test session.
Second, as demonstrated by Paulman and Kennelly (1984), students with study skill and test
taking skill deficits do poorly in both evaluative and non-evaluative situations simply due to
inabilities to encode and organize new information.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
33
Cognitive-Attentional Model
Another recent model is the cognitive-attentional model. This model states that anxiety
divides attention between task-relevant and task-irrelevant thoughts, which leads to disturbed
recall of prior learning (Wine, 1971). Once the task-irrelevant thoughts interfere with the ability
to focus on the test, performance on the test is lowered.
Tobias (1979) proposed a model examining the general negative effects of anxiety on
learning from instruction consistent with the cognitive-attentional perspective. Similar to the
perspective of the Learning-Testing cycle work summarized above, Tobias hypothesized there
are three points when anxiety has the largest effect on students learning. The first point is during
preprocessing, where anxiety can impact learning by interfering with the level of input that a
student can register and understand. The student divides attention between the task, somatic
concerns (e.g., heart racing, excessive sweating) and negative self-references. The less the
student is able to process, the less can be later recalled for further processing. Cognitive Load
Theory (CLT) states that if the resources of working memory are exceeded then learning will be
ineffective. One of CLT’s basic principles is that working memory has a limited capacity on the
amount of information it can hold and number of ways it can manipulate that information at a
given time (Sweller, 1994; Van Gerven & Pascal, 2003). A second principle of CLT is that new
information can only be encoded into long term memory if the working memory is actively
engaged in the comprehension and processing of instructional material (Cooper, 1998; Sweller,
1994). Therefore, during difficult tasks, it is crucial that an individual is able to use his or her
working memory efficiently (Van Gerven & Pascal, 2003), if not, then learning will be
ineffective. Having the stimuli reheard or reviewed, such as by video or audio playback, may
help negate this effect of test anxiety (Tobias, 1979). Anxiety may also impact instruction during
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
34
the processing of input stage where the level of difficulty, reliance on memory, and organization
of the task will likely have the strongest effect on learning (Naveh-Benjamin, 1991; NavehBenjamin, McKeachie, &Lin, 1987; Tobias, 1979). The difference between high- and low-test
anxious students becomes more pronounced as difficulty of content increases. Instruction which
requires students to rely on short or intermediate term memory is harder for anxious students
than when they need to recall long term memory information (Tobias, 1979). Achievement will
improve if the amount of memory recall required is reduced and if prior instructional material is
available for reference. A third way to reduce the negative effects of student anxiety relates to
the organization of the task. Studies show that well-organized material helps anxious students
achieve a better organization of input (Tobias, 1979).
The last stage where anxiety impacts instruction is called the postprocessing stage. When
retrieving content that has been previously mastered, there is interference in recalling that
material during tests (Tobias, 1979). The postprocessing form of interference is seen in students
who say that they have studied diligently, but seem to be unable to recall information that they
have studied when taking the test (Tobias, 1979). Although these three points have been
consistent with prior studies, more research into these predictions would help clarify the
interaction of anxiety due to instructional methods.
Whitaker Sena, Lowe, and Lee (2007) studied predictors of test anxiety on elementary
and secondary school students with learning disabilities. Their results indicated that learning
disabilities predicted higher Cognitive Obstruction/ Inattention and Worry scores and lower
scores on Performance Enhancement/ Facilitation Anxiety scale and lie scale compared to
students with high test anxiety but without a learning disability. Items on the Cognitive
Obstruction/ Inattention and Worry subscales describe excessive nervousness, irrational worries,
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
35
and negative thoughts associated with the test taking process. Items on the Performance
Enhancement/ Facilitation Anxiety scale describe slight feelings of nervousness experienced
before or during the test taking process which are believed to enhance one’s performance on the
test. The Lie scale is a validity index that describes ideal socially acceptable test behavior. The
lower performance enhancement scores imply that they are resigned and have become accepting
of their failures and incompetencies. Whitaker Sena et al.’s results are congruent with previous
studies that cognitive interference was the most powerful predictor of test anxiety for students
with a learning disabilities. Another study revealed that students with learning disabilities were
more test anxious than students without learning disabilities (Bryan, Sonnefeld, and Grabowski,
1983).
Associations between adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism, four types of goal
orientations, cognitive test anxiety, and word list performance and GPA as indicators of
academic performance of 134 university students were studied by Eum and Rice (2011). Overall,
they found that nearly half of the variance in cognitive test anxiety was attributable to gender,
goal orientations, and perfectionism. Consistent with current literature, the authors found that
cognitive test anxiety was inversely associated with both GPA and word list performance. An
additional finding was that cognitive test anxiety was positively associated with dysfunctional
perfectionism and avoidance goal orientations (Eum & Rice, 2011).
Transactional Process Model
The Transactional Process Model mainly identifies worry and emotionality as the two
components that comprise the test anxiety experience. According to this model, test anxiety is
evoked as a result of the dynamic interaction between a tendency to have high evaluative traits
and exposure to a stressful evaluative situation, which results in perceived threat and resultant
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
36
high test anxiety. The transactional process model proposes that both disposition and situation
factors contribute to perceptions of threat and resultant anxiety during test taking (Spielberger &
Vagg, 1995). In other words, the extent to which an assessment is perceived as threatening
depends on the interaction between the features of the assessment contexts (e.g., test value, test
format) interact with the individual differences in trait test anxiety. This process of appraisal
repeats itself throughout the assessment period. So, if a highly test anxious individual encounters
any difficulties, be it with question interpretation, information retrieval, response choice, or
formulation of a response, it can result in an assessment being negatively reevaluated or seen as
more threatening. Consequently, an increase in perceived threat, in turn, likely would lead to
spiked levels of worry and anxiety. Inversely, less challenges encountered during any portion of
the assessment process can result in decreased perception of threat.
Self-Regulation Model
Incorporating views of both study skills deficits and cognitive-attentional models, a SelfRegulation Model for explaining test anxiety and performance outcomes was proposed by Carver
and Scheier (1990). This model is based on the assumption that intentional goal-directed
behavior displays the functional characteristics of a feedback control system (Carver & Scheier,
1990). According to Carver & Scheier (1990), people establish goals and standards for
themselves which they use as reference points in guiding and monitoring their behaviors. Present
behaviors are continuously sensed and brought to mind and then compared against situational
salient reference values and goals. Any observed discrepancies encountered between current
behaviors or states and salient reference values or behavioral standards are handled by adjusting
behavior in the direction of reference values or behavioral standards. Anxiety enters the model
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
37
when there is a major discrepancy between current behaviors and the processes required to
achieve desired goals (Carver & Scheier, 1990).
The self-regulation model proposes that evaluative pressure makes everyone anxious.
The difference lies in how individuals respond to the arousal and the situation as a whole. Lowtest-anxious individuals retain confidence of being able to perform well despite the anxiety,
whereas high-test-anxious persons are doubtful of being able to perform (Carver, 1996).
Furthermore, in highly evaluative circumstances test anxious persons tend to focus on avoiding
the experience of anxiety rather than on performing well (Carver et al., 1993). A major claim of
the model is that the impact of test anxiety on performance depends on the person’s expectancy
of being able to cope with the exam and carry out the expectancies and actions associated with
the test at hand. Thus, individuals with test anxiety who have favorable expectancies even when
highly anxious and self-focused, remained engaged in the task and actually performed better
(Carver, 1996).
Personality
Determining the precise set of variables that predict patterns of students’ behaviors and
their relationship to academic achievement has been a constant objective of researchers.
Personality has been identified as one of the determining factors on how people learn (Myers,
McCauley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998), an influential variable in their response to different
educational methods or learning settings (Myers et al., 1998), a component that affects success at
work or in school (Hogan & Hogan, 1989; Day & Silverman, 1989), and a variable that can
differentiate high- and low-anxious students (Lufi, Okasha, & Cohen, 2004). An interactive
model proposed by Mayer and Salovey (1955) stated that both intelligence and personality
comprise are important predictors of academic performance. Certain personality traits can either
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
38
facilitate or debilitate the use of one’s abilities (Busato, Prins, Elshout, & Hamaker, 1999;
Eysenck, 1981; Furnham, 1992). Lufi, Okasha, and Cohen (2004) found that personality,
particularly the measure of College Maladjustment (MT) on the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory (MMPI-2), differentiated high and low test anxious learners. Clinically,
“high MT scores among college students is indicative of individuals who are pessimistic,
anxious, worried, and who tend to procrastinate and somatize. In contrast, those who score low
on MT are described as reliable positive thinkers who are free of emotional discomfort (Graham,
1990). Over the years, numerous theorists have attempted to study personality. Biological
theories, behavioral theories, psychodynamic theories, humanist theories, social cognitive and
trait theories have been proposed to explain personality and its relation to academic performance
and test anxiety.
Most personality theorists make a distinction between personality traits and personality
states (Spielberger, 1983). Personality traits are enduring patterns of thoughts, feelings and
behaviors that remain stable and consistent across situations. Personality traits then are more
reliable in differentiating among individuals by predicting likely patterns of acting and reacting
that are used to characterize them (McCrae & Costa, 1999). On the other hand, McCrae and
Costa (1999) define personality states as more transient reactions to circumstances and often are
heavily influenced by environmental factors. They are momentary emotional reactions to internal
and/or external triggers which also involve physical, behavioral, cognitive and psychological
reactions. For instance, certain conditions such as test anxiety can increase the level of
experienced anxiety beyond the trait level for a non-anxious person to have increased levels of
anxiety.
Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
39
Trait theories of personality imply personality is biologically based, (Corr & Perkins,
2006; Fowles, 2006), whereas theories such as Bandura’s (1977) Social Learning Theory also
emphasize the role of nurture and environmental influence, viewing personality as having both
state and trait characteristics.
In Bandura’s (1999) social cognitive theory, he added the perspective of human agency,
or people acting as agents over themselves. Bandura (1999) described four core features
(intentionality, forethought, self-reactiveness, and self-regulation) which indicated individuals
had more control over their lives – particularly with self-regulation. In his theory, Bandura also
highlighted the importance self-efficacy or the belief of having the ability to achieve a certain
task or goal. Bandura (1999) stated:
“In the agentic sociocognitive view, people are self-organizing, proactive,
self-reflecting, and self-regulating, not just reactive beings shaped and
shepherded by external events. People have the power to influence their
own actions to produce certain results. The capacity to exercise control
over one’s thought processes, motivation, affect, and action operates
through mechanisms of personal agency. (p.2)”
Social cognitive theory explains psychosocial functioning in terms of the functional
dependence between events. The triadic reciprocal causation model is comprised of internal
personal factors in the form of cognitive, affective, and biological events; behavioral patterns;
and environmental events. Internal personal factors, behavior, and the environment influence one
another bi-directionally (Bandura, 1986). In this study of cognitive test anxiety, the three
determinants that influence one another are goal orientation (behavior), personality (internal
personal factor), and evaluative situation (environment).
Mischel’s Cognitive-Affective Model
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
40
Another behavioral and cognitive theorist influential in the field of personality research is
Walter Mischel. He theorized that an individual’s behavior is influenced by the specific attributes
of a given situation and the manner in which the individual perceives the situation. Mischel and
Shoda (1995) suggested that personality signatures are formed by a consistent pattern of “ifthen” behaviors. In other words, if x situation occurs, then y behavior may result. For example,
one should avoid saying, “he is an anxious person,” and instead say, “He is an anxious person
when he knows he is being evaluated.”
Mischel and Shoda (1999) emphasized that an individual’s values and expectancies must
be considered in predicting a person’s behavior and personality. Mischel and Shoda (1999)
identified five person variables that contribute to the conditions of a specific situation. These five
variables – competencies, cognitive strategies, expectancies, subjective values, and selfregulatory systems – are used in predicting a person’s behavior. Competencies refer to an
individual’s intellectual capabilities and social skills. Cognitive strategies are the different
perceptions of a specific event. For example, tests may be a threat for an individual with high test
anxiety but may be perceived as a challenge for someone with low test anxiety. Expectancies are
the anticipated results of different behaviors that are realized by the person in his mind, such as
failing an exam. Subjective values are the respective worth or significance of each possible
outcome of various behaviors. Lastly, self-regulatory systems are the groups of rules and
standards that people adapt in order to regulate their behavior.
Eysenck’s Taxonomy
Eysenck (1975) developed the Hierarchical Model of Personality based on traits that had
a psychophysiological foundation that he believed were highly heritable. The three main traits
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
41
that met these criteria according to Eysenck (1975) were Extraversion-Introversion (E),
Neuroticism-Emotional stability (N), and Psychoticism (P) or what is more familiarly referred to
as PEN. Eysenck (1975) uniquely associated physiological functions to each trait: Extraversion
with the central nervous system reactivity, Neuroticism with the degree of lability of the
autonomic nervous system, and Psychoticism with the testosterone levels and MAO levels (a
neurotransmitter inhibitor).
He described extroverts as typically liking parties, having many friends, and seemingly
requiring the need to be around people to interact with. He stated they have high activity levels,
and easy going. In contrast, introverts like to spend more time alone, tend to be more serious,
prefer routines and predictability, and prefer to pursue quiet activities (Eysenck, 1975).
Neuroticism (N) consisted of the following traits: anxious, irritable, guilty, tense, lacking selfesteem, and moody. The higher scorers on Neuroticism tend to be worriers. They have been
described to typically be anxious, have low moods, have problems regulating sleep, and
experience somatization (Weinstock & Whisman, 2006). In addition, individuals who have high
Neuroticism scores have overactivity on the negative emotions, making the high-N scorers more
susceptible to emotional arousal than a low-N scorer. In addition, high-N individuals also have
more difficulty regulating their emotions during and after an emotionally arousing event. In
comparison, low-N scorers are characterized as being even-tempered and more able to regulate
emotions during stressful events. These individuals also more easily return to their normal selves
quickly after an upsetting event (Maltby, Wood, Day, Kon, Colley, & Linley, 2008).
The third trait in Eysenck’s taxonomy is psychoticism (P). Individuals who are high on P
are described as aggressive, impulsive, creative, and at times, antisocial. These are individuals
who lack the ability to empathize or see a perspective other than his or her own (Eysenck, 1975).
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
42
The PEN model has contributed to the study of personality several ways (Eysenck, 1997;
Stelmack, 1997). First, it is a model that combines both descriptors of personality and its causal
aspects (Eysenck, 1997; Stelmack, 1997). Second, the comprehensive description of the PEN
model is easily observable through the four hierarchical levels and the clear distinction among
those levels (Stelmack, 1997). The four-tiered hierarchical structure of Eysenck’s system
identified super traits (P, E, N) at the top, followed by narrower traits at the second level,
subsumed by habitual acts in the third level, and at the lowest level of the hierarchical structure
are the specific acts. Third, its experimental approach to the study of personality makes the
model more testable (Stelmack, 1997). Although experiments may not uniformly support the
PEN model (Anderson & Revelle, 1994), overall, the PEN model has contributed to the
advancement of the study of personality by calling attention of the importance of a scientific
approach to personality.
Cattell’s Taxonomy
Raymond Catell’s goal was to identify and measure the basic units of personality. In
1946, Cattell identified what he referred to as surface and source traits. Surface traits represent
clusters of correlated variables and source traits represent the underlying structure of the
personality. Cattell considered source traits much more important in understanding personality
than surface traits (Hall& Lindzey, 1978). Catell’s pioneering work began with 4,500 trait terms
which he reduced to 35 variables. Through factor analytic techniques, Catell identified source
traits from these 35 variables, which then became the primary basis for the 16 Personality Factor
Model (16 PF Model): Abstractedness (imaginative versus practical), Apprehension (worried
versus confident), Dominance (forceful versus submissive), Emotional Stability ( calm versus
high strung), Liveliness (spontaneous versus restrained), Openness to Change (flexible versus
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
43
attached to the familiar), Perfectionism (controlled versus undisciplined), Privateness (discreet
versus open), Reasoning (abstract versus concrete), Rule Consciousness (conforming versus nonconforming), Self-Reliance (self-sufficient versus dependent), Sensitivity (tender-hearted versus
tough-minded), Social Boldness (uninhibited versus shy) Tension (impatient versus relaxed)
Vigilance (suspicious versus trusting), and Warmth (outgoing versus reserved).
Cattell’s hierarchical structure is based on the idea that all traits are intercorrelated in the
real world (Catell & Mead, 1989). Due to the natural intercorrelation of the basic 16PF primary
researchers, through factor analysis found that these primary traits consistently amalgamated into
five broad dimensions. (Ashton, 1998; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). Catell’s pioneering work was
used as a basis by Fiske (1949) to construct a simpler description of personality. Fiske’s factor
structures resemble what we now know as the Big Five. These five factors were reanalyzed by
Tupes and Christal (1961). In every analysis, Tupes and Christal (1961) found five recurrent
factors. These five factors, Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and
Neuroticism, derived from Catell’s original 35 variables, were consistently replicated by Norman
(1963), Borgatta (1964), and Digman and Takemoto-Chock (1981), this five-factor structure.
More recently, a similar set of Big Five factors has been rediscovered by other researchers (Costa
and McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1990).
Five-Factor Model of Personality
The Big Five was originally derived in the 1970's by two independent research teams –
Paul Costa and Robert McCrae (at the National Institutes of Health), and Warren Norman (at the
University of Michigan) and Lewis Goldberg (at the University of Oregon). The two teams
arrived at the same conclusion: most human personality traits can be reduced to five broad
dimensions of personality, across language and culture. In their respective studies, five
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
44
dimensions emerged from their analyses of the data. In current practice “Big Five” is often used
interchangeably with the term Five-Factor Model (FFM). However, there are differences
between the two empirically related yet conceptually distinct models, the Big Five and the FFM
(John &Srivastava, 1999). The Big Five is based on a lexical hypothesis, meaning individual
differences that are most salient and socially relevant will come to be encoded as terms in the
natural language. On the other hand, the FFM is based on theoretical constructs, that is, traits are
situated in a comprehensive model of genetic and environmental causes and contexts. Goldberg’s
Big Five is comprised of Surgency, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and
Intellect. McCrae and Costa (1999) list Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness,
Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (OCEAN) as factors of FFM. One of the strengths
of the FFM is its ability to capture the commonalities among the numerous existing systems of
personality traits (John & Srivastava, 1999). By offering a standard nomenclature, the FFM
provides a viable model for facilitating the communication of empirical findings among
researchers interested in studying personality traits. For this study, McCrae and Costa’s OCEAN
model is used.
Openness. Atkinson, Atkinson, Smith, Bem, and Nolen-Hoeksema (2009) describe
Openness to experience (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious) as possessing traits of
curiosity, creativity, being imaginative, and having a willingness to explore the unfamiliar and
consider new ideas and opportunities. Atkinson et al. identified one possible cause lies in
individual differences in processing information. Individuals who are high on Openness are
receptive to receiving information from a variety of sources, while those who are low on
Openness have a more constricted view of their environment, possibly relying heavily on past
experiences to interpret their environment.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
45
Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. easy going/careless) was
described as having a tendency to be organized and dependable, to show self-discipline, to act
dutifully, to aim for achievement, and to prefer planned rather than spontaneous behavior. They
also avoid breaking rules. These traits have been shown to result in desirable life outcomes such
as a higher GPA, greater job satisfaction and security, higher grade point average, and more
positive and committed social relationships (Langford, 2003). Two key characteristics have been
identified as to why highly conscientious individuals succeed in the work domain. According to
Lee, Kelly, and Edwards (2006), highly conscientious individuals do not procrastinate and they
are exceptionally industrious, organized, and diligent (Lund, Tamnes, Moestue, Buss, &
Vollrath, 2007).
Extraversion. Extraversion (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved), on the other hand
is described as having high energy, being sociable, garrulous, and assertive, and feed off the
energy of others. Extraverts also have a greater impact on their social environment, often
asserting themselves and assuming leadership roles. Social attention has been identified as the
cardinal feature of Extraversion by Ashton, Lee and Paunonen (2002). They gain energy from
engaging in social interaction. Those who are low on Extraversion are called introverts. Not to be
confused with shyness, introverts tend to be quiet, reserved, and less involved in social situations
(Martin, 2014). They are not afraid of social situations. These individuals simply prefer to spend
time alone and do not need as much social stimulation (Hammick & Lee, 2014).
Agreeableness. Agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. analytical/detached) is
described as having the tendency to be trusting, helpful, compassionate and cooperative.
Individuals low on Agreeableness are more suspicious, more aggressive, and antagonistic toward
others. It is also a measure of whether a person is well-tempered or not. Individuals who are high
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
46
on Agreeableness possess traits such as kind, generous, fair, selflessness, sympathetic, courteous,
gentle, tolerant, and good-natured (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1992) Hogan (1996) likened
Agreeableness to likeability.
Neuroticism. Neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident) is defined as having
the tendency to easily experience unpleasant emotions (e.g., fear, sadness, embarrassment,
disgust, anger, anxiety, depression, vulnerability).Neuroticism also refers to the degree of
emotional stability and impulse control. Individuals who score low on Neuroticism are usually
calm and even-tempered, someone who can be referred to as an emotionally intelligent person. A
person characterized as emotionally intelligent is aware of and able to recognize the potential
consequences of his or her various emotional states. Consequently, the individual is able to
regulate and control his or her emotions. Schneiderjan and Kim (2005) found a strong correlation
between emotional stability and academic success in a web-based business course.
Personality and Test Anxiety
Social cognitive theory explains psychosocial functioning in terms of the functional
dependence between events or what is called triadic reciprocal causation (Bandura, 1986).
Reciprocal causality happens when internal personal factors in the form of cognitive, affective
and biological events; behavioral patterns; and environmental events have bi-directional
influences on one another (Bandura, 1986). In this study of cognitive test anxiety, the three
determinants that influence one another are goal orientation (behavior), personality (internal
personal factor), and evaluative situation (environment).
Part of the social mechanism that contributes to test anxiety is modeling or observational
learning during childhood. Test anxiety can develop through vicarious reinforcement or learning
by observing the behavior of others. For example, an individual with high test anxiety will have
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
47
lower self-efficacy – prompting feelings of helplessness over the ability to influence the process
and outcomes of evaluative events (Schunk, 1991). As a result, the individual then believes on a
cognitive level that any efforts to succeed on any tests are ineffective. So, when other cognitive
obstructions and distractions occur during the test, individuals with high test anxiety would likely
quickly give up, especially when initial efforts prove unsuccessful in overcoming their worries.
Personality factors impact recourses and mechanisms in confronting tension and anxiety.
Studies have found that the Big Five personality measures are significantly correlated with test
anxiety. A study by Chamorro-Premuzic, Ahmetoglu and Furnham (2008) (N=388) of university
students from the US and UK showed that there was a strong direct path from Neuroticism to test
anxiety. Furthermore, the relationship between core self-evaluations (CSE) and test anxiety was
fully accounted for by personality traits (Chamorro-Premuzic, Ahmetoglu, & Furnham, 2008).
The following paragraphs list studies that specifically have linked Openness, Conscientiousness,
Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism to test anxiety.
Openness: Studies examining the relationship between Openness and test anxiety have
found that open-minded individuals use a wider set of strategies and learning techniques,
including critical evaluation, in-depth analysis, and flexibility (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011).
Kumaran and Kadhiravan’s (2015) study of 133 ninth graders using the Friedben Test Anxiety
Scale (Friedman & Bendas-Jacob, 1997) and the Big Five Locator (Howard, Medina & Howard,
1996) found Openness to experience had a significant negative association with the tenseness
component of test anxiety.
Conscientiousness: Research on Conscientiousness and test anxiety found that
conscientious people have a tendency to carry out tasks in a careful manner until their
completion (Tross, Harper, Osher, & Kneidinger, 2000). An important part of Conscientiousness
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
48
involves the ability to adapt to goals that are set by others (Hough & Schneider, 1996). This
aspect of Conscientiousness is important in academic achievement as the goals (i.e., tests, grades,
other forms of assessments) are set by other people. Conscientiousness has been positively
related to problem-focused coping skills (Zellars, Perrewe, Hochwarter, & Anderson, 2006).
Skills associated with Conscientiousness such as self-discipline, organization, and need for
achievement help prevent self-imposed strains associated with poor time management and lack
of organization. Based on the study-skills deficit model of test anxiety we could presume that test
anxious students are unlikely characterized as conscientious. Kumaran and Kadhiravan (2015)
found significant negative association between Conscientiousness and the cognitive obstruction
and tenseness components of test anxiety. Similarly, Piedmont (1995) concluded that this
personality domain was relevant to test anxiety and Lim and Ortiz-Bance (2013) stated that
Conscientiousness was inversely a significant predictor of the occurrence of test anxiety.
Extraversion: Studies on Extraversion and test anxiety found introverts had higher test
anxiety levels. Individuals who are extroverted tend to be sociable, assertive, and have positive
emotionality – traits which are not associated with anxiety. Arousal theory which states that the
resting level of cortical arousal for introverts is higher (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). This denotes
that introverts tend to avoid arousing stimuli, while extroverts tend to seek them. A study by Liu,
Meng, and Xu (2006) took 538 senior high school students and examined the relationship of test
anxiety, personality, and self-esteem using the Test Anxiety Scale (TAS), Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire (EPQ), and Self-Esteem Scale (SES). They found that test anxiety levels were
higher in students who were introverted. The Extraversion or Introversion (E) score was
indirectly proportional to test anxiety. The prevalence of test anxiety in introverted students was
higher than in extroverted students. Other studies had similar findings of Extraversion having a
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
49
negative association with test anxiety but not at a significant level (Kumaran & Kadhiravan,
2015).
Agreeableness: There is limited research on the relationship between Agreeableness and
test anxiety. Studies which look at personality and test anxiety largely do not identify a
significant relationship between Agreeableness and test anxiety. Agreeable people may often be
high-performing individuals due to their willingness to adapt to and understand their
environment (Mkoji & Sikalieh, 2012). Lim and Ortiz-Bance (2013), found Agreeableness
predicted the occurrence of test anxiety in Filipino high school students. Similarly, Kumaran and
Kadhiravan (2015) found significant negative association between Agreeableness and the social
derogation component of test anxiety.
Neuroticism: Literature on the relationship between Neuroticism and test anxiety
consistently finds that this personality trait has the strongest association with CTA. Neuroticism
is associated with traits wherein individuals have bias towards negative stimuli, their attention
initially directed towards threatening stimuli (Bar-Haim, Lamy, Pergamin, BakermansKranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2007), overestimate negative outcomes (Eysenck & Derakshan,
1997), and perceive ambiguous stimuli as threatening (Calvo & Castillo, 2001). Liu, Meng, and
Xu (2006) using the Test Anxiety Scale (TAS), Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) and
Self-Esteem Scale (SES) found that test anxiety levels were higher in students who were
emotionally unstable, with apparent psychoticism or low self-esteem. Psychoticism (P) and
Neuroticism (N) in students with test anxiety was significantly higher than their non-test anxious
counterparts. They found that the prevalence of test anxiety in students with unstable emotion
(81.4%) and in students with apparent psychoticism (84.1%) were also higher than in individuals
with stable emotion and without psychoticism (41.0%) (Liu, Meng, & Xu, 2006).
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
50
In 2012, Das Gupta and Dutta examined whether personality and behavioral factors were
associated with test anxiety among school-aged students (N=143). The Reactive-Proactive
Aggression Questionnaire, Test Anxiety Inventory, Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Scale,
and Junior Eysenck Personality Questionnaire were used to assess reactive and proactive
aggression, test anxiety, emotional intelligence, and personality dimensions. Results showed that
reactive aggression, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism were significantly positively correlated with
test anxiety, whereas emotional intelligence was significantly negatively correlated with it.
Similarly, Lim and Ortiz-Bance (2013) found Neuroticism predicted the occurrence of test
anxiety in Filipino high school students. Furthermore, Kumaran and Kadhiravan’s (2015) study
of 133 ninth graders using the Big Five Locator supported findings that negative emotionality is
positively related with all three dimensions (social derogation, cognitive obstruction, tenseness)
of test anxiety as measured by the Friedben Test Anxiety Scale.
Achievement Motivation
Motivation is an internal state that activates, directs, and sustains behavior (McInerney &
McInerney, 2006). All students are influenced by motivation. Everyone has a need to achieve
and a fear of failure, but these vary from person to person and from situation to situation.
Individuals with need to achieve have high attitude toward success and work hard to ensure they
are successful (Atkinson, 1974). They participate in the activity either for the sake of learning or
improving their ability or with expectation of reward (Eskeles-Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried,
1998). On the other hand, fear of failure predisposes some students to have little desire to
accomplish a certain goal (Atkinson, 1999) - they avoid failure at all costs. When students think
they have low ability, to avoid failure and protect their self-worth, they may actually decrease
effort (Alderman, 1999) or choose not to have a goal or even attempt the task (Atkinson 1974).
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
51
One of the studies conducted by Abu-Bakar, Tarmizi, Mahyuddin, Elias, Luan, and
Ayub, (2010) on 1484 local university students who were majors in education, science,
humanities, and agriculture/ technical/ engineering showed that there was a significant positive
relationship between student's attitude and academic achievement. In addition, Mahyuddin,
Elias, and Noordin (2009) found a low but significant positive correlation between students’
academic motivation and academic achievement.
Komarraju, Karau, Schmeck, and Avdic (2011) also supported this link in a study of 308
undergraduate students who reported their college Grade Point Average (GPA) and completed
the Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) and the Academic Motivations Scale (AMS). The result
showed that intrinsic motivation was the strongest predictor of GPA when mediated by
Conscientiousness (Komarraju et al., 2011). Additionally, a study by Law, Elliot, and Murayama
(2012) found that performance-approach goals were correlated with high effort, high persistence,
high level of aspiration, and high academic performance. The same study concluded that
performance-avoidance goals correlated with disorganized study strategies, high test anxiety, low
academic performance, and low intrinsic motivation.
Furthermore, studies focused on intrinsic motivation have found that children who have
well developed intrinsic motivation are more likely than others to demonstrate strong conceptual
learning, improved memory, positive affect while doing homework (Foiland, 2011), improved
psychological well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2008), high overall academic achievement (Froiland,
Oros, Smith, & Hirchert, 2012; Gottfried, 1990). Studies have also shown that students with
higher intrinsic motivation at the beginning of the semester displayed more persistence
throughout the year and were less likely to drop out of school (Hardre & Reeve, 2003).
Achievement Motivation Theory
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
52
According to Atkinson’s (1964) classical achievement motivation theory, when a
person’s motive to achieve success is stronger than his motive to avoid failure the result of the
conflict is to approach the task at hand. However, if the motive to avoid failure is stronger than
the motive to achieve success, then the result will be avoidance behavior. High-test anxious
individuals are predicted to be more motivated to avoid failure than they are to approach success
(Zeidner & Matthews, 2005). Students who engage in failure-avoidance will most likely display
poor study skills which lead to procrastination, underachievement, poor time management, lack
of organization. In contrast, an underlying motive to achieve may influence the achievement
goals (i.e., challenging oneself) and behaviors of individuals.
Self-Determination Theory
Self-Determination Theory is a theory of motivation that aims to explain individuals’ goaldirected behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The theory proposes three universal
and innate psychological needs - competence, autonomy or freedom of choice, and psychological
relatedness. Competence is defined as a subjective belief in one’s ability to perform well in a
task. Perceived autonomy or freedom of choice is when individuals engage in an activity on their
own free will, not because they feel pressured by other people (e.g., teacher, parent, coach) or
external factors such as expectations. Psychological relatedness is that sense of shared
experience and meaningful relationships. Individuals, therefore are motivated by activities which
allow them to form and enjoy good relationships. People feel motivated by activities which allow
them to satisfy those three needs. The Self-Determination Theory (SDT) proposes and
distinguishes between different reasons as to why individuals are compelled to act. SDT is
multidimensional, and does not view motivation merely as a dichotomy (i.e., intrinsic and
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
53
extrinsic motivation). SDT proposes that behavioral regulation towards a task can be driven
intrinsically, extrinsically, or with amotivation.
Intrinsic motivation corresponds to the highest level of self-determination (Deci & Ryan,
1985). It is when individual tasks are carried out mainly for the satisfaction of completing the
activity and from merely participating in the activity. Individuals with intrinsic motivation are
also characterized by their desire to experience adventure and novelty, constant strive for
excellence or improvement, and finding purpose or meaning in what one is doing (McInerney &
McInerney, 2010). Furthermore, the SDT proposes three forms of intrinsic motivation:
motivation for knowledge (i.e., understanding a newly introduced concept in a classroom setting,
motivation for accomplishment (i.e., earning a Ph.D. for the pleasure of reaching a new personal
objective), and for experiencing stimulation (i.e., engaging in a competition to experience a burst
of adrenalin). Students who are intrinsically motivated are more likely to persist and try novel
ideas in order to achieve the goals they have set for themselves (Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci,
2006).
Extrinsic motivation is experienced when engaging in an activity because it is a means to
an end. It is the motive that keeps individuals working on a task through the application of
external rewards (Ryan & Deci, 2000), therefore, once the prompts, external rewards or
punishments were removed, an individual will unlikely continue with the activity (Biggs, 1991).
In addition, extrinsic motivation often makes once compare his or her performance in
comparison to others. Three types of extrinsic motivation were proposed by Deci & Ryan (1985;
1991): external regulation, introjected regulation, and identified regulation. The lowest level of
self-determination is external regulation. This happens when the source of control is external to
the individual. Introjected regulation happens when the individual only has partially internalized
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
54
previous external pressure. Lastly, the identified regulation involves an individual’s recognition
and acceptance of the value and importance of a behavior, followed by the integration of the
value and importance as though it had always been part of the self (Burton, Lydon,
D’Alessandro, & Koetner, 2006). For example, a student may not like to pursue graduate studies
but may decide to go because he or she feels that a graduate degree is important to enter the job
market in the field of psychology. However, extrinsic motivation can backfire for students who
do not consider the extrinsic motivator equivalent (too demanding or not enough of a reward) to
the time and effort invested. Lepper, Corpus, and Iyengar (2005) found the effects of prolonged
extrinsic motivation may lead to a reduction in one’s sense of competence and a subsequent loss
of interest in the task.
Lastly, Deci and Ryan (1985) identified a third motivational set, amotivation, which
refers to the relative absence of motivation. Amotivated individuals are neither intrinsically nor
extrinsically motivated – they do not perceive contingencies between outcomes and their own
actions (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Amotivated individuals experience feelings of incompetence and
they perceive their behaviors are caused by external influences and factors. Abramson, Seligman
and Teasdale (1978) likened this final form of motivation to the concept of learned helplessness.
Amotivation towards test performance may result in a person not doing well on a test, which
subsequently lowers their grades, and then possibly dropping their studies.
Achievement Goals
Goal orientation theory is a social-cognitive theory of achievement motivation which
originated in the early 20th century. The focus of goal orientation theory is on examining what
determines or influences the level of participation and individual exerts when accomplishing
academic work. Nicholls (1975) posited the most important factor of achievement motivation
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
55
was how an individual chose to define success. He had two conceptions of success, task
involvement and ego involvement. Task involvement is when one compares his or her current
performance to past performance. Ego involvement happens when an individual compares his or
her current performance to that of others. A different approach in studying achievement
motivation was taken by Dweck. She and her colleagues explored achievement motivation from
a developmental perspective (Dweck & Elliot, 1983; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Dweck’s (1986)
research findings showed that when children came upon difficult tasks, they would make
negative comments about the task or their ability. The children would also use maladaptive
strategies, such as failing to establish reasonable goals or maintaining effort to accomplish those
goals. Eventually, the children develop feelings of helplessness. Dweck (1986) postulated that
children who approach a task in pursuit of mastery held learning goals. These children seek
challenges and persist despite of obstacles. In contrast, children who approach a task to gain
favorable judgements of their competence or avoid negative judgements from others regarding
their competence held performance goals. These children avoid challenges and falter or have low
persistence in the face of difficulty.
A recent cognitive-dynamic conceptualization of achievement goals view competence
from two dimensions – definition and valence (Maehr & Nicholls, 1980). The definition
dimension forms the basis of what distinguishes mastery from performance. Mastery orientation
is competence relative to an intrapersonal or absolute standard. Individuals who are masteryoriented are interested in self-improvement, becoming skilled at or proficient in the task at hand,
and tend to compare their current level of achievement to their prior personal achievement.
Mastery goals correspond to intrinsic interests in personal learning, which arguably are similar to
intrinsic motivation. On the contrary, performance orientation is competence relative to a normal
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
56
standard. Individuals who are performance-oriented use other people’s achievements as points of
comparison and are interested in outperforming others and competition. Comparatively,
individuals who pursue performance goals similarly are extrinsically motivated because the
emphasis is on achieving goals external to the self.
Dykman (1998) proposed that one’s goal orientation determines the manner in which an
individual appraises and interprets events. Inversely, when people with learning goals encounter
stressful situations, they seek to better themselves by learning from the experience (Baer, Grant,
& Dweck, 2008). Similarly, when dealing with negative feedback, these individuals tend to use
constructive strategies such as increasing effort, seeking help, and being open to information
about their mistakes (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). In contrast, when people with performance goals
encounter stressful situations, they seek to avoid evidence of low ability because they associate
this with low self-worth (Grant & Dweck, 2003). When dealing with negative feedback, they
tend to use defensive strategies such as withdrawing effort, making excuses, and altogether
avoiding what they perceive to be difficult tasks (Urdan, Ryan, Anderman, & Gheen, 2002).
Thus, mastery goal oriented individuals are less likely to experience the debilitating
consequences often associated with performance-goals.
They are facilitative of intrinsic motivation because they foster perceptions of challenge,
encourage task involvement, and support self-determination (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996).
Performance goals, on the other hand, undermine intrinsic motivation. It does this by increasing
anxiety, disrupting concentration, dividing attention between task-relevant and irrelevant
thoughts, and intensifying perceptions of threat (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996).
The other fundamental dimension of competence is valence. Valence forms the basis of
distinction between approach and avoidance goals (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). Competence
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
57
focused on a positive or desirable possibility (i.e., success) evoke approach behavioral
predispositions. Competence focused on a negative or undesirable possibility (i.e., failure) evoke
avoidance behavioral dispositions.
Combining the two dimensions, a 2 x 2 achievement goal framework emerges: masteryapproach, master-avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals (Elliot &
McGregor, 2001). Individuals with mastery-approach goals are likely to choose tasks which
maximize opportunities for learning and seek out challenges. Those with performance-approach
goals are likely to choose tasks which maximize opportunities to show competence. Individuals
with performance-avoidance goals are focused on avoiding tasks that would make them look
incompetent or below par when compared to others. Those with mastery-avoidance goals are
likely to focus on striving not to stagnate or not to lose prior skills and abilities. However, due to
its ambiguity and counterintuitive nature, more recent studies have eliminated the masteryavoidance goal (Ciani & Sheldon, 2010). Ciani and Sheldon further posited that masteryavoidance goals may be uncommon and that high ratings may indicate misinterpretation of the
item rather than actual avoidance goals.
Achievement goals are presumed to guide students’ behaviors, cognitions, and affect in
an academic setting (Ames, 1992). It could be potential explanatory variables of students’ coping
with an evaluation, such as an exam. In an academic setting, mastery-approach goals were
unrelated to test anxiety (Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999). Surprisingly, although achievement
was low for performance-approach students (Siberis, 2005), performance-approach goals also
were unrelated to anticipatory test anxiety (Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999). On the other hand,
individuals who have performance-avoidance goals engage in surface processing and are often
disorganized (Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999). Performance-avoidance goals have been linked
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
58
to threat appraisal and anticipatory test anxiety (McGregor & Elliot, 2002). Similarly, masteryavoidance goals are related to anticipatory test anxiety and disorganization in exam preparation
(McGregor & Elliot, 2002). In 2010, Putwain, Woods and Symes, investigated the relationship
between test anxiety, achievement goals and perceived academic competence, parental pressure/
support, and teachers’ achievement goals (N=175). Putwain, Woods, and Symes (2010) found
results revealed student mastery-avoidance goals, parental pressure, perceived academic
competence, and teacher’s performance-avoidance goals were related to worry and tension
(Putwain, Wood, & Symes, 2010).
Goal Orientation and Test Anxiety
Tracy (1993) observed that whatever we accomplish is determined by the way we think
and use our mind. Studies have shown that people with limited self-beliefs (Simon, 1988) and
low self-efficacy (Alderman, 1999) often lack confidence, are negative and pessimistic and they
expect to fail. Since exam results are decisive for educational and occupational careers today, test
anxiety remains an important variable in basic research into cognitions and emotion (Dutke &
Stober, 2001) as well as achievement motivation (Elliot& McGregor, 1999), playing major role
for student's academic self-concept and career advancement (Pekrun, Gotz, Titz, & Perry, 2002;
Stober & Pekrun, 2004). High test anxiety has also been observed to be significantly associated
with low achievement motivation (Sud, 2001).
Smith, Arnkoff, and Wright (1990) posited that test anxiety was related to psychological
variables including self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Smith, Arnkoff, and Wright’s (1990)
findings suggested that cognitive processes, social learning factors, and academic skills are
important factors in test anxiety; however, using hierarchical regression analyses, motivation
emerged as the single most important factor contributing to test anxiety. A study by Bembenutty
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
59
(2009) supported their findings that extrinsic motivation was a positive and significant predictor
of test anxiety. Furthermore, Bembenutty (2009) concluded that patients with clinical levels of
text anxiety clearly differ with regard to their learning and achievement motivation from students
with normal levels of test anxiety. Highly test-anxious individuals are motivated to protect their
egos and self-esteem and tend to avoid failures. Performance-avoidance goals in relation to test
anxiety have been linked to loss of intrinsic motivation (Elliot, 1999). Therefore, it was
recommended to design interventions for test anxiety which focus on changing dysfunctional
motivational dispositions and to increase attention on internal reference standards (Herzer,
Wendt, & Hamm, 2014).
In a 2011 study by Urhahne, Chao, Florineth, Luttenberger, and Paechter, the researchers
examined the consequences of students’ mathematical performance potential. Results showed
that students whose potentials were underestimated expressed more test anxiety and did not
perceive themselves to be as academically capable as overestimated students. Contrary to
previous studies, Rastegar, Akbarzadeh, and Heidari (2012) identified that test anxious persons
have low intrinsic and extrinsic motivation but had high levels of amotivation. Results showing
test anxiety positively correlating with amotivation were supported by Saravanan, Kingston, and
Gin (2014) when studying 154 first year undergraduate medical students. However, in both
studies, they concluded that test anxiety was a significant predictor of amotivation, not
amotivation predicting test anxiety.
Numerous studies have documented general deleterious effects of extrinsic motivation on
learning outcomes. Students who are extrinsically motivated are more likely to have lower
academic achievement (Becker, McElvany, & Kortenbruck, 2010; Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar,
2005) and to engage in surface learning (Biggs, 1991), experience greater anxiety (Wolters, Yu,
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
60
& Pintrich, 1996), report less positive emotions in school (Sénécal , Koestner, & Vallerland,
1995), and have a poorer ability to cope with failures (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Interestingly, test
anxiety studies have resulted in similar outcomes. In addition, Tallis, Eysenck, and Matthews
(1991) state that worriers potentially have elevated evidence requirements - they must know the
perfect answer to the problem or they do not respond at all. These findings were supported by
Einat (2000) who claimed that debilitating test anxiety is caused by having high personal
standards and still expecting maximum levels of success but are exceedingly apprehensive that
they cannot meet their own standards, which is characteristic of perfectionism (Zeidner &
Matthews, 2005). A study by Stoeber, Feast and Hayward (2009) found that socially prescribed
perfectionism (SPP) is a maladaptive form of perfectionism associated with higher anxiety in
exams and being driven by extrinsic motivation when studying. SPP as defined by Masson,
Hoyois, Cadot, Nahama, Petit, & Anseau (2004) is the subjective belief that exaggerated
expectancies of others are imposed, thereby uncontrollable. This perceived loss of control then
leads to anxiety, feelings of failure, and feelings of helplessness, which they indicated
corresponded to extrinsic motivation (Masson et al., 2004). They defined SOP as perfectionism
that involves adhering to self-imposed unrealistic standards, coupled with rigorous selfevaluation and an inability to accept flawed outcomes, in pursuit of subject mastery Similarly,
self-oriented perfectionism (SOP) was associated with intrinsic motivation for studying and with
both higher and lower anxiety in exams (Stoeber, Feast, & Hayward, 2009).
Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, and Barsh, (2004) concluded that student motivation is of high
quality when primarily based on intrinsic, integrated and identified regulations, and is of poor
quality when based on external and introjected regulations. Thus, intrinsic motivation, unlike
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
61
extrinsic motivation, is related to more positive academic and psychological outcomes (e.g., test
anxiety) (Reeve et al., 2004).
Goal Orientation and Personality
The relationship between state test anxiety and personality states may be best explained
using the framework of approach and avoidance orientation. The primal tendency for organisms
to approach positive stimuli and avoid negative stimuli is fundamental to understanding behavior
and motivation (Elliot, 2006; Gray, 1991). Personality states are expected to shift depending
upon which orientation functions as motivation. Approach orientation motives are consistent
with Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Openness (Carver & White, 1994;
Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Read, Monroe, Brownstein, Yang, Chopra, & Miller, 2010). Events
driven by mastery or learning goals should be linked to Openness and Conscientiousness
(McCrae & Costa, 1998). While avoidance orientation motivated experiences often result in
Neuroticism or emotional instability (De Young, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007; McCrae & Costa,
1987).
A study by Law, Elliot, and Murayama (2012) found that performance-approach goals
were correlated with high effort, high persistence, high levels of aspiration, and high academic
performance. On the contrary, performance-avoidance goals correlated with disorganized study
strategies, high test anxiety, low academic performance, and low intrinsic motivation (Law,
Elliot, Murayama, 2012). Another study examining the relationship between the Big Five and a
two-factor model of achievement motivation (N=777) found that Conscientiousness, Openness,
and Extraversion were positively associated with intrinsic achievement motivation, whereas
Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism were positively related to extrinsic
achievement motivation (Hart, Stasson, Mahoney, & Story,2007). In the same study,
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
62
Agreeableness was also found to be negatively associated with extrinsic achievement motivation.
Conscientiousness was both positively and negatively related to both intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation (Hart et al., 2007). More recently, Komarraju et al. (2011) investigated the effects of
Big Five personality traits on 217 college students’ motivational states and academic
performance. As a result, they found that Conscientiousness and Openness were positively
related to intrinsic motivation; Conscientiousness and Extraversion explained variance in
extrinsic motivation (Watanabe & Kanazawa, 2009).
Common trait descriptors of Openness are original, imaginative, creative curious,
adventurous. In addition, people who are high on Openness tend to accept and respect new
experiences and desire to explore and understand things that are unfamiliar to them. It then can
be assumed that they would vigorously pursue challenge and have patterns of thoughts and
behaviors aligned with intrinsically motivated individuals.
Conscientiousness is frequently associated with being achievement-oriented,
hardworking, meticulous, careful, thorough, responsible, organized, scrupulous, and persevering.
According to Barick and Mount (1991), achievement and self-determination are major
components of Conscientiousness, thus making it reasonable to assume that this personality
factor can also have a direct effect on intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, in a study (N=113) by
Carbonneau, Vallerand and Lafreniere (2012) the curious personality style (which may be
likened to Openness) was a significant predictor of intrinsic motivation to know, the achievingoriented personality (which may be likened to Conscientiousness) significantly predicted
intrinsic motivation toward accomplishment, and sensation-oriented personality (which has
similar characteristics with Extraversion) significantly predicted intrinsic motivation to
experience stimulation. A study by Masson et al. (2004) looked at the relationship between
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
63
perfectionism and motivation (i.e., intrinsic and extrinsic). The Multidimentional Perfectionism
Scale was used to distinguish Self-Oriented Perfectionism (SOP), Socially Prescribed
Perfectionism (SPP), and Perfectionism Oriented to Others (POO). They defined SOP as
perfectionism which involves self-imposed unrealistic standards with an inability to accept faults
in order to know and master a subject, which they stated corresponded to intrinsic motivation.
SPP as defined by Masson et al. (2004) is the exaggerated expectancies of others which are
subjectively believed as imposed and uncontrollable leading to anxiety, feelings of failure or
helplessness, which they indicated corresponded to extrinsic motivation. They described POO as
having unrealistic demands and expectations from significant others. They viewed test anxiety as
a defense mechanism to ward off negative self-evaluation. Test anxiety was seen as a
manifestation of perceived incompetence, particularly in females (Masson et al., 2004). Masson
et al.’s (2004) findings supported Conscientiousness as having a positive relationship with
intrinsic motivation and Neuroticism having a positive relationship with extrinsic motivation.
This findings were supported by cross-sectional studies on the relationship between
perfectionism and the Big Five personality traits (Enns and Cox, 2002; Molnar, Reker, Culp,
Sadava, & DeCourville, 2006).
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
64
CHAPTER III
Participants
The data used in the study were collected from participants recruited through a research
participant pool in the Department of Educational Psychology at Ball State University. This
research pool draws from a variety of courses and participation in the research pool is one of
several options required to meet a course requirement. The students in the research pool
traditionally are predominantly Caucasian and female.
For the current study, the initial sample consisted of 500 students (81.2% female and 18%
male). Excluding graduate students and removing participants with missing data (listwise
deletion), the final sample consisted of 458 students (81.2% female and 18% male) of whom
8.1% were freshmen, 32.3% were sophomores, 33.8.0% were juniors, and 25.8% were seniors.
Student grade point average (GPA) mean was 3.20 (SD=0.52). Their mean age was 20.77
(SD=2.70), and 83.8% were 22 or younger. Self-reported race categories were consistent with
the university population: 90% Caucasian, 4.4% African-American, 2% Hispanic, and 1% Asian
Pacific Islander. The remaining members (approximately 2% of the sample) identified as
multiracial, “other” or declined to respond.
Measures
Cognitive Test Anxiety Scale – Revised Short Form. The Cognitive Test
Anxiety Scale-Short Form (CTA-SF) is a modification of the original Cognitive Test Anxiety
Scale (CTAS) developed by Cassady and Johnson (2002). While the CTAS was demonstrated to
be a reliable and valid measure of cognitive test anxiety (Cassady, 2001; 2004), analyses
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
65
conducted during a cross-cultural validation study in the United States and Argentina of the
CTAS revealed that the use of reverse-coding on the original scale produced an unintended twofactor model representing cognitive test anxiety and a construct they termed as test confidence
(Furlan, Cassady, & Perez, 2009).
The Cognitive Test Anxiety Scale-Revised (CTAR) was created to overcome the issues
with the reverse-coded items as well as expand the scale to more effectively review all three
phases in the Learning-Testing Cycle (Cassady & Finch, 2014). In the process of that scale
validation, the short-form version used in this study was also explored (Cassady & Finch, 2014).
The short form scale is composed of seventeen items that are common to both the original CTAS
and the CTAR. Results of exploratory factor analyses revealed eight (8) items as potential
detractors from a unitary measure represented primarily by the first factor in the EFA.
Confirmatory factor analysis used two proposed models: two-factor with 24 items, and onefactor with 17 items. The overall model fit statistics revealed both the one- and two-factor
solutions were viable with the fit for the one-factor model being slightly better than that of the
two-factor model. Overall scale reliability for the reduced single-factor 17-item scale revealed a
strong internal consistency value of .96 (Cassady & Finch, 2014).
Participant responses to the CTA-SF are completed with a 4-point Likert-type response
that includes the following response options : 1 – “Not typical of me”; 2 – “Somewhat typical of
me”; 3 – “Quite typical of me ”; 4 – “ Very typical of me”. The score range obtainable by any
respondent to the CTA-SF falls between 7 and 68.
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. The Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) was designed to assess motivation orientations and learning
strategies of college students enrolled in a course. The Motivated Strategies for Learning
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
66
Questionnaire (MSLQ) is an 81-iteminstrument developed by Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and
McKeachie (1991). It is divided into two broad sections, motivation and learning strategies. The
motivation section consists of six subscales, and the learning strategies has nine. Students rate
themselves on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all true of me) to 7 (very true of me).
According to the MSLQ manual, the original MSLQ validation study, Pintrich et al.
(1991) used scores from 356 midwestern college students to assess the survey. They reported
internal reliability alphas for the subscales ranging from .52 to .93. Pintrich et al. based the
motivation scales on a socio-cognitive model of motivation with three main domains: expectancy
(belief that one can successfully accomplish a task); value (the reason one engages in a task); and
affect (the emotional aspects of learning). The MSLQ contains two expectancy domains: selfefficacy for learning and performance (confidence that one’s abilities are sufficient to succeed,
α=.93), and control of learning beliefs (belief that outcomes depend on effort and ability rather
than external factors, α=.68). The three value domains are intrinsic orientation (studying for the
purpose of mastery, α=.74), extrinsic goal orientation (studying for grades and approval, α=.62),
and task value beliefs (studying because the course content will be useful, α=.90). Test anxiety is
the only affect domain. For the purposes of this study, two of the motivation value subscales
were used. Specifically, student responses to the intrinsic goal orientation (items 1, 16, 22, and
24) and extrinsic goal orientation (items 7, 11, 13, 30) were included.
Big Five Inventory. Oliver John (1991) constructed a 44-item self-report instrument that
measures the Big Five dimensions: Openness (10 items, e.g. “I am someone who has an active
imagination”), Extraversion (8 items, e.g. “I see myself as someone who is talkative”),
Neuroticism (8 items, e.g. “I see myself as someone who gets nervous easily”), Agreeableness (9
items, e.g. “I am someone who has a forgiving nature”), and Conscientiousness (9 items, e.g. “I
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
67
am someone who perseveres until the task is finished”). Students rate themselves on a five-point
Likert scale from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). In U.S. and Canadian samples, the
alpha reliabilities of the BFI scales typically range from.75 to .90 and average above.80; .81 for
Openness, .88 for Extraversion, .79 for Neuroticism, .79 for Agreeableness, and .82 for
Conscientiousness. The BFI has significant convergent and divergent relations with other Big
Five measures (John & Srivastava, 1999).
Procedure
All data collection from participants occurred in a manner consistent with procedures
approved the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). Data collection occurred online and
participants were prompted to read and digitally sign an informed consent document. Participants
were informed that they could take breaks whenever they wish and could withdraw from the
study at any time and for any reason. Only after agreeing to the conditions of the study were
students allowed to proceed to the materials. Students were first prompted to provide
demographic data including age, gender, ethnicity, undergraduate level, and cumulative
university GPA. Subsequently, participants completed the following self-report instruments in
the same order: the Cognitive Test Anxiety Scale- Revised Short Form (CTAR-SF; Cassady &
Finch, 2015), Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich, 1988), and the
Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue & Kentle, 1991). Participants were also given additional
measures as part of a larger study that are not under investigation in the present study.
Participants received 1 research participation credit for their educational psychology course, and
most students completed all study materials within 35-40 minutes.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
68
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive analysis was used to describe the basic features of the data (i.e.,
demographics). Preliminary analyses of the correlation of personality factors, goal orientation
measures, and cognitive test anxiety were conducted. Regression analyses and mediation
analyses were conducted to examine the major research questions. The Harman’s single-factor
test was performed to test the presence of common method effect. All the variables were entered
into an exploratory factor analysis, using principal axis analysis with varimax rotation to
determine the number of factors that are necessary to account for the variance in the variables. If
a substantial amount of common method variance is present, either (a) a single factor will
emerge from the factor analysis, or (b) one general factor will account for the majority of the
covariance among the variables (Martin,& Noorderhaven, 2006; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003). To test the level of internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha was computed for
each measure (Cronbach, 1951).
For the primary analyses, regression analysis was performed in order to generate an
equation to describe the statistical relationship between the predictor variables, personality and
goal orientation, and the response variable, CTA. Predictor variables that were found to have a
meaningful and significant standardized regression weight in this analysis were maintained in
the primary SEM mediation analysis because it met the first criterion for mediation analysis,
indicating a relationship with the outcome variable. Finally, common fit indices (i.e., chi-square
test statistics [2], chi-square by degrees of freedom [2/df], Bentler Comparative Fit Index
[CFI], and root mean square error of approximations [RMSEA]) were examined to see the fit of
the hypothesized partial and fully mediated models. The following values were used as
guidelines to determine good model-data fit. First, 2 and 2/df test is not statistically
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
69
significant. However, Kline (2011) cautioned that large sample sizes will cause most chi-squarebase statistics to almost always report a statistically significant difference between the observed
data and model expectations. This will lead the researcher to erroneously conclude that it is a
poor fit between observed data and model expectations regardless of the true situation (Kline,
2011). Second, CFI values that approach 1 indicate acceptable fit. CFI is not too sensitive to
sample size (Fan, Thompson, and Wang, 1999). RMSEA values indicate better model fit when
results are closer to zero and higher values indicate worse fit. Browne and Cudeck (1992) state
RMSEA≤ .05 indicates close approximate fit, .05>RMSEA<.08 suggest reasonable error of
approximation, and RMSEA ≥ .1 suggests poor fit.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
70
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Common Method Variance
A potential weakness of research such as this, where all data were collected using the
same method (self-reports in this case) is that of common method variance, a systematic error
that may distort relationships and coefficents (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
One diagnostic test that can be used to identify the presence of a common method variance is the
Harman single factor test. Items are entered into a principal axis factoring and the presence of a
general factor accounting for a large portion of covariance may indicate the presence of
systematic error related to a common method (Podsakoff et al., 2003). When all BFI, MSLQ, and
CTA-SF items were entered into a principal axis factoring with a varimax rotation (KaiserMeyer-Olkin (KMO) =.584), three factors were extracted with eigenvalues greater than 1.0,
rather than a single factor. The three factors together accounted for 33.84% of the total variance;
the first factor accounted for 18.67% of the variance. This finding would suggest that common
method variance was not producing a systematic error in this research.
Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for personality, goal orientation, and
cognitive test anxiety are reported in Table 1. Previous research has demonstrated that the Big
Five Inventory (BFI) includes item content relevant to the Trait Descriptive Adjectives (TDA;
Goldberg, 1992), the 40-item mini marker version of the TDA (Saucier, 1994), and the NEO
Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Results from confirmatory factor
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
71
analyses conducted by John, Naumann and Soto (2008) indicated that BFI and TDA showed the
strongest overall convergence, followed by BFI and NEO-FFI, and TDA and NEO-FFI showing
the weakest overall convergence. The BFI achieved equivalence with the TDA for Extraversion
and Openness with NEO-FFI for Agreeableness and Neuroticism, and converged well with both
TDA and NEO-FFI for Conscientiousness. Results from confirmatory factor analyses conducted
by Pintrich et al. (2003) indicated that the MSLQ showed reasonable factor validity. In addition,
the means for extrinsic goal orientation and intrinsic goal orientation (showed significant
predictive validity with final grades (Pintrich et al., 1993). During the development of the
original CTAS, it was compared with the Sarason (1984) Reactions to Tests, Spielberger’s Test
Anxiety Inventory (1980) and Benson’s Revised Test Anxiety scale (Benson, Moulin-Julian,
Schwartzer, Seipp, & El-Zahhar, 1992). Cassady and Johnson (2002) identified high correlations
between all test anxiety scales and determined that the Cognitive Test Anxiety scale was measure
the same basic construct as the existing scales. To test the level of internal consistency - that is
how closely related a set of items function as a group - Cronbach’s alpha was computed for each
measure (Cronbach, 1951). Cronbach’s alpha determines the average correlation of items in a
survey instrument to gauge its reliability with 0.70 as the accepted cutoff value for being
acceptable (Streiner & Norman, 1989). The alpha coefficient of BFI’s openness is 0.75, BFI’s
conscientiousness is 0.70, BFI’s extraversion is 0.87, BFI’s agreeableness is 0.74, BFI’s
neuroticism is 0.81, MLSQ’s extrinsic goal orientation is 0.63, MLSQ’s intrinsic goal orientation
is 0.61, and CTA-SF is 0.96. By this criteria the CTA-SF and BFI showed high reliability, while
the MSLQ measures were below the considered acceptable range. In addition to computing the
alpha coefficient of reliability, the dimensionality of the scale was also investigated using Dillon-
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
72
Goldstein’s rho. Composite reliability values of BFI’s Openness, MSLQ’s extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation, and CTA-SF were all above the suggested value of 0.7.
Table 1
Bivariate Correlations and Reliability Coefficients for Personality, Goal Orientation, and
Cognitive Test Anxiety (CTA)
Openness
Op.
Con.
Ext.
Agr.
Neur.
EGO
IGO
CTA
--
.136**
.202**
.166**
-.081
.061
.204**
-.141**
--
.144**
.481**
-.076
.283**
.155**
-.146**
--
.203**
-.330**
.024
.031
-.061
--
-.205**
.253**
.084
-.094*
--
.063
-.097*
.366**
--
.163**
.116*
--
-.046
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
Extrinsic Goal
Orientation
Intrinsic Goal Orientation
Cognitive Test Anxiety
Cronbach’s 
-0.75
0.70
0.87
0.74
0.81
0.63
0.61
0.96
Note. *p < .05. ** p < .01.
As seen in Table 1 strong significant positive correlation was observed between
conscientiousness and agreeableness and a moderate significant positive correlation between
cognitive test anxiety and neuroticism. Weak, but significant, positive correlations were
observed between openness and conscientiousness, openness and intrinsic motivation, openness
and conscientiousness, openness and agreeableness, conscientiousness and extraversion,
conscientiousness and extrinsic motivation, conscientiousness and intrinsic motivation,
cognitive test anxiety and agreeableness, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, agreeableness and
extrinsic motivation, and cognitive test anxiety and extrinsic motivation (See Table 1). Weak,
but significant, inverse correlations were reported between neuroticism and intrinsic motivation,
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
73
neuroticism and agreeableness, cognitive test anxiety and openness, cognitive test anxiety and
agreeableness, cognitive test anxiety and conscientiousness, and cognitive test anxiety and
intrinsic motivation. The relationship between extraversion and neuroticism was inversely
moderately significant (See Table 1). As expected, significant inverse relationships were
reported between personality, with the exception of neuroticism, and CTA. Also consistent with
predictions, a significant positive relationship was reported between extrinsic motivation and
cognitive test anxiety (see Table 1).
Table 2
Regression Coefficient Summary: Personality and Cognitive Test Anxiety (CTA)
B
t
P
Openness
-.132
-3.063
.002
Conscientiousness
-.127
-2.651
.008
Extraversion
.107
2.357
.019
Agreeableness
.040
.804
.422
Neuroticism
.388
8.691
.000
Regression Analysis
Regression analysis was performed in order to generate an equation to describe the
statistical relationship between personality variables and the response variable, CTA. Predictor
variables that are found to have a meaningful and significant standardized regression weight in
this analysis will be maintained in the primary analysis because it will meet the first criterion for
mediation analysis, indicating a relationship with the outcome variable. As demonstrated in
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
74
Table 2, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism were significant at the p<.01 level. The
beta weight for extraversion combined with (a) no statistically significant correlation with
cognitive test anxiety and (b) no prior research supporting the inclusion precluded keeping that
variable in the model. Similarly, agreeableness was omitted from the final analysis as no direct
relationship was observed between this predictor variable and CTA.
A second regression analysis was conducted to examine the predictive strength of the
two motivation variables, examining the second requirement for the proposed mediational
analysis. As illustrated in Table 3, only extrinsic goal orientation met the level of expectation
needed to be retained in the next phase of the analysis.
Table 3
Regression Coefficient Summary: Goal Orientation and Cognitive Test Anxiety (CTA)
B
t
p
Extrinsic Goal Orientation
.131
2.886
.004
Intrinsic Goal Orientation
-.070
-1.534
.126
Mediational Analysis
The main aim of this study was to establish whether goal orientations played a mediating
role in the CTA-personality relationship. Variables were selected for meditational analysis
using Baron and Kenney’s (1986) preconditions that significant relationships should be
observed between predictor, outcome and mediator variables. Based on regression analysis, the
predictor variables, openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism and mediator
variables, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation and between mediator variable, intrinsic motivation
and the outcome variable, CTA. The meditational analysis proceeded using personality
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
75
measures openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism as predictor variables,
extrinsic motivation as the meditational variable, and CTA as the outcome variable. Three
structural equation models were tested: a direct (non-mediational) model in which paths were
specified separately from personality to CTA (Model 1), a fully mediated model in which paths
were specified from personality to CTA through goal orientation (Model 2) and a partially
mediated model in which there were paths specified from personality to CTA through goal
orientation (Model 3).
The next step in testing the hypothesis for a mediated relationship was to examine both
partial and fully mediated models of regression. In the full mediation model (see Figure 5), the
three personality variables (Openness, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism) were modeled to
predict cognitive test anxiety level only through extrinsic goal orientation. This model tests the
proposition that all of the variance explained by the personality variables can be accounted for
by extrinsic goal orientation (EGO) – that is, EGO fully mediates the relationship between the
personality variables and CTA. Examination of model fit indices (Table 4) demonstrate that the
model had poor fit. As such, this model was determined to be a poor solution for the data.
Figure 5. Standardized regression estimates for the fully mediated model.
The next step was to test the partial mediation model, which predicts that only a portion
of the CTA variance explained by the personality variables can be accounted for by EGO.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
76
Analyses reported in Table 4 indicate that only the partial mediation model showed acceptable
fit indices (RMSEA≤.08; CFI≥0.95) and thus is the accepted final model.
Table 4
Fit Indices for Full and Partial Mediation Models
Models
Fully mediated model
Partially mediated model
2
df
2/df
CFI
RMSEA
102.080**
3
.000
.328
.269
3.424
2
.180
.99
.039
Note. *p < .05. **p < .01.
The partially mediated model is diagrammed in Figure 6 accounting for 18.7% of
variance in CTA results. As expected, a significant positive relationship was observed between
extrinsic motivation and CTA (ß=.13, p<.001) and neuroticism and CTA (ß=.34, p<.001).
Consistent with the hypotheses significant negative relationships were shown between openness
and CTA (ß=-.10, p<.001) and conscientiousness and CTA (ß=-.13, p<.001). Contrary to what
was hypothesized, a positive correlation was observed between conscientiousness and extrinsic
motivation (ß=.22, p<.001). The standardized indirect effects of conscientiousness on CTA was
.02. The standardized direct effects of conscientiousness on CTA was -.13.The standardized
total effect of conscientiousness on CTA was (.02) + (-.13) = -.11. As predicted, CTA levels
decrease when attention is focused solely on the effects of conscientiousness on CTA that is not
mediated by goal orientation. However, this model tests the proposition that part of the variance
explained by the personality variables can be accounted for by extrinsic goal orientation (EGO).
This analysis suggests that extrinsic goal orientation does indeed mediate the relationship
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
77
between conscientiousness and CTA. This means students with traits of conscientiousness who
report higher levels of CTA and also report being more extrinsically motivated tend to hold
higher levels of CTA.
Figure 6. Standardized regression estimates for the partially mediated model.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
78
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Overview
The principal aim of this study was to examine the relationships
among personality
variables, goal orientation, and cognitive test anxiety. Specifically, the goal of the study was to
extend prior research by examining these three broad dimensions simultaneously, bridging the
gap in literature that previously has failed to examine the potential mediating influence of goal
orientation on the relationships among personality characteristics, goal orientations, and test
anxiety, as well as examine the potential for goal orientations as a mediator. Collectively, the
results largely supported prior research regarding the simplified relationships among the
personality variables, goal orientation, and cognitive test anxiety. However, the primary
contribution of this research comes in the findings in the mediation analyses. Specifically, the
findings confirmed that a partial mediation model was the best fit to the data, with extrinsic goal
orientation serving to mediate the relationship between Conscientiousness and cognitive test
anxiety. The outcome of this mediation model illustrates the errors that may arise in drawing
conclusions from research examining related variables in isolation.
Personality and Cognitive Test Anxiety
Personality factors impact recourses and mechanisms in confronting tension and anxiety.
Studies have found that the Big Five personality measures significantly correlated with test
anxiety. Consistent with prior studies with the Big Five personality traits, this study illustrated in
a simple regression analysis significant relationships between specific personality traits
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
79
(Openness, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism) and cognitive test anxiety. While some studies
have identified potential relationships among Extraversion and Agreeableness (Liu, Meng & Xu,
2006), the results of the regression analysis did not find that those variables provided significant
meaning to the prediction of cognitive test anxiety when considered alongside the stronger
personality predictor variables. Individuals who are extroverted tend to be sociable, assertive,
and have positive emotionality – traits which are not generally associated with anxiety. Various
studies have shown a link between high quality relationships characterized by warmth, trust,
mutual acceptance, and low degrees of conflict (Baker, Grant, & Morlock, 2008) and various
positive outcomes (Ringeisen & Buchwald, 2008), such as lower levels of emotional distress
(Resnick et al., 1997). These are traits associated with Agreeableness and may be one possibility
for it not to have a significant association with cognitive test anxiety.
As expected, the results of the study supported prior research identifying Neuroticism
having a significant positive relationship with cognitive test anxiety (Chamorro-Premuzic,
Ahmetoglu, & Furnham, 2008; Das Gupta & Dutta, 2012; Kumaran & Kadhiravan, 2015; Liu,
Meng, & Xu, 2006). Neuroticism is associated with traits of being biased towards negative
stimuli, having attention initially directed towards threatening stimuli (Bar-Haim et al., 2007),
overestimating negative outcomes (Eysenck & Derakshan, 1997), and perceiving ambiguous
stimuli as threatening (Calvo & Castillo, 2001). This means individuals who are emotionally
unstable are vulnerable to cognitive test anxiety (Matthews & MacLeod, 2005).
In this study, Openness was also found to provide predictive utility in identifying levels
of cognitive test anxiety in undergraduate learners. This finding is consistent with previous
studies that found Openness has a negative relationship with cognitive test anxiety. Open-minded
individuals use a wider set of strategies and learning techniques, including critical evaluation, in-
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
80
depth analysis, and flexibility (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011; Howard, Medina & Howard, 1996).
As such, individuals who are more open to experience may analyze and interpret the testing
situation in a manner that is more consistent with views of “challenge” rather than “threat,”
which may reduce the manifestation of cognitive test anxiety (Kumaran and Kadhiravan, 2015).
Finally, Conscientiousness was found to provide a significant, negative predictive path to
cognitive test anxiety in the simple regression model, confirming other studies with similar
analytic strategies. The interpretation of this effect in the literature has been based on the
observation that characteristics associated with Conscientiousness (i.e., self-discipline,
organization, need for achievement) help prevent test anxiety by reducing self-imposed strains
associated with poor time management and lack of organization (Kumaran & Kadhiravan, 2015;
Lim & Ortiz-Bance, 2013; Piedmont, 1995; Zellars, Perrewe, Hochwarter, & Anderson, 2006).
Consequently, students who are conscientious were viewed as more likely to have habits and
skills that are protective toward developing high levels of test anxiety. However, as identified
later, this perspective is a limited view and misrepresents the complex relationship between
personality characteristics and test anxiety by overlooking individuals’ motivational orientations.
Goal Orientation and Personality
This study was developed to test the hypothesis that the theoretical framework of intrinsic
and extrinsic goal orientations may prove useful for understanding the relationships among test
anxiety and personality. The basic organismic tendency to approach positive stimuli and avoid
negative stimuli has long served as a principle for models of motivation, emotion, and behavior
(Elliot, 2006). Current findings support much of what has been found before, however, this
researcher attempted to look at a more complex model than simple correlations.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
81
In this study, Conscientiousness was the only personality measure that was correlated
with intrinsic motivation, which is consistent with prior research on the two constructs (Barick &
Mount, 1991; Carbonneau, Vallerand & Lafreniere, 2012; Law, Elliot, & Murayama, 2012;
McCrae & Costa, 1998). Openness, Extraversion, and Agreeableness did not have a significant
association to intrinsic goal orientation. This finding opposed Komarraju, Karau, Schmeck and
Avdic’s (2011) findings that Openness and Extraversion were positively associated with intrinsic
motivation.
While the findings did not mirror prior studies with the relationships among select
personality variables and intrinsic goal orientation, there was greater consistency with prior
research when reviewing the extrinsic goal orientation. Consistent with prior work, Openness,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness were all found to have positive associations with extrinsic
goal orientation (e.g., Hart et al, 2007; Watanabe & Kanazawa, 2009). Hough and Schneider’s
(1996) interpretation of the connection between Conscientiousness and extrinsic goal orientation
centered on the tendency for individuals to adopt goals set by others. This aspect of
Conscientiousness is common in academic settings as many explicit goals (i.e., tests, grades,
standardized assessments) are externally established by teachers, parents, or institutional bodies
but are consistently identified to learners.
Goal Orientation and Cognitive Test Anxiety
Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation are the two primary types of motivated
academic behavior (Cokley, 2003). Reeve et al. (2004) concluded that student motivation is of
high quality when primarily based on intrinsic, integrated and identified regulations, and is of
poor quality when based on external and introjected regulations. Thus, intrinsic motivation,
unlike extrinsic motivation, is related to more positive academic and psychological outcomes
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
82
(Reeve et al., 2004). A number of studies have demonstrated the innumerable advantages of
intrinsic motivation in the context of learning. Intrinsically motivated students tend to have
higher academic achievement (Areepattamannil & Freeman, 2008), higher intellectual
performance (Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004), higher self-esteem (Deci & Ryan, 1995), greater
persistence (Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006), less academic anxiety (Gottfried, 1990),
likelihood to increase effort or engage in remedial actions when faced with failure (Dweck
1975), enhanced deep or conceptual learning (Ames & Archer, 1988; Vansteenkiste, Simons,
Lens, Soenens, Matos, & Lacante, 2004), enhanced cognitive flexibility and engagement
(McGraw and McCullers, 1979), and enhanced subjective/psychological well-being (Burton,
Lydon, D’Alessandro, & Koetner, 2006; Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, & Kasser, 2004). Undoubtedly,
intrinsic motivation significantly contributes to successful academic performance (Gottfried et
al., 2008). Additionally, studies indicated that intrinsic motivation is undermined when selfperceived autonomy is negated by socially controlling events, such as evaluation (Harackiewicz,
Manderlink, & Sansone, 1984). For example, being closely watched or surveilled under certain
circumstances, is linked to performance evaluation and attempts to compel individuals to comply
with rules or standards (Lepper & Greene, 1975).
On the other hand, Deci and Ryan (1985) define extrinsic motivation, which is commonly
externally regulated, as behavior that is determined through means external to the individual. In
other words, rewards and constraints regulate these behaviors. Extrinsic motivation may also
appear as behaviors that are controlled in part by internal reward or punishment contingencies,
such as guilt, shame or obligation (Areepattamannil, Freeman, & Klinger, 2011). For example,
an individual strives to excel academically because he or she does not want to shame his or her
family. Numerous studies have documented the effects of extrinsic motivation on learning
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
83
outcomes. Students who are extrinsically motivated are more likely to have lower academic
achievement (Becker, McElvany, & Kortenbruck, 2010; Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005) and
to engage in surface learning (Biggs, 1991). Furthermore, extrinsically motivated students
experience greater anxiety (Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996), less positive emotions in school
(Sénécal , Koestner, & Vallerland, 1995), and have a poorer ability to cope with failures (Deci
and Ryan, 2000).
This study confirmed prior research that identified extrinsic motivation as a positive and
significant predictor of test anxiety (Bembenutty, 2009; Einat, 2000; Elliot, 1999; Herzer,
Wendt, & Hamm, 2014). Individuals who tend to be driven to meet external goals or goals set by
others are more likely to hold high levels of cognitive test anxiety. The critical point with this
relationship is to illustrate that merely having high expectations is not the risk factor for anxiety
detected in this study, rather it is the source of the goal.
There was no significant relationship with intrinsic goal orientation in this study,
supporting prior research – however because the current study did not include a measure of
amotivation, it was not possible to support or contradict studies illustrating test anxious learners
tend toward a state of amotivation rather than intrinsic orientation (Rastegar, Akbarzadeh, &
Heidari, 2012; Saravanana, Kinston & Gin, 2014).
Goal Orientation Mediating the Personality-Cognitive Test Anxiety Relationship
The mediational analysis in this study looked at the potential role of extrinsic goal
orientation as a mediator for the relationships observed between three personality variables
(Openness, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism) and cognitive test anxiety. While the initial
intention was to examine both intrinsic and extrinsic goal orientations as mediators, intrinsic goal
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
84
orientation was not related to the other variables, thereby failing to meet the assumptions for
inclusion in a mediation investigation.
Consistent with Hart et al. (2007) and Watanabe and Kanazawa’s (2009) research
findings of this current study indicate that motivation is an important factor in predicting CTA –
albeit not the single most important one contributing to test anxiety (Smith et al., 1990). The
evidence in this study illustrates that one way motivation influences test anxiety is through
mediating the effect of overarching personality constructs. In the partial mediation analysis,
Openness and Conscientiousness were illustrated to essentially maintain their direct effect on
cognitive test anxiety, with small mediational effects noted for both variables with extrinsic goal
orientation. However, the mediating effect of extrinsic goal orientation on the influence of
Conscientiousness on test anxiety is a significant contribution to this study and the field.
That is, the results of this study illustrate that prior research on the relationship between
Conscientiousness and test anxiety may be providing an incomplete representation of these
constructs. The negative direct path from Conscientiousness to CTA is small but significant
when extrinsic goal orientation is mediating. This is consistent with prior research indicating
students possessing characteristics associated with Conscientiousness (i.e., self-discipline,
organization, need for achievement) were viewed as more likely to have habits and skills that are
protective toward developing high levels of test anxiety (Kumaran & Kadhiravan, 2015; Lim &
Ortiz-Bance, 2013; Piedmont, 1995; Zellars, Perrewe, Hochwarter, & Anderson, 2006).
However, interestingly and unexpectedly, there is also a significant positive path from
Conscientiousness to extrinsic goal orientation, which is a positive predictor of CTA. This is
explained as individuals with high levels of Conscientiousness – when accompanied by a
tendency to maintain an extrinsic goal orientation – tend to have high levels of cognitive test
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
85
anxiety. In contrast, individuals with high levels of Conscientiousness accompanied by low
levels of extrinsic goal orientation do not experience cognitive test anxiety. This finding
reemphasizes the critical point that merely having high expectations is not the risk factor for
anxiety detected in this study, rather it is the source of the goal. Consistent with studies
suggesting that the increase in levels of test anxiety is attributable to the type of motivation that
is driven by external contingencies (Bembenutty, 2009; Einat, 2000; Herzer, Wendt, & Hamm,
2014; Putwain & Best, 2012), this finding shows that the source of the goal determines whether
they will be test anxious, but particularly for conscientious individuals.
The present study illustrates the complex nature of the relationship between
Conscientiousness and cognitive test anxiety. Findings clearly indicate the importance of
extrinsic goal orientation as a predictor of cognitive test anxiety. This indicates that
conscientious individuals who tend to be driven to “please others” or meet goals set by others
may engage in more behaviors that increase levels of cognitive test anxiety. This study supports
the notion that Conscientiousness may not always be good for well-being (Carter, Guan, Maples,
Williamson, & Miller, 2015). Conscientious individuals are organized, dutiful, and selfdisciplined; however, these individuals also engage in obsessive-compulsive behavior,
experience greater negative affect (Fayard, Roberts, Robins, & Watson, 2012), react more poorly
to negative performance feedback (Cianci, Klein, & Seijt, 2010), have a tendency to set high
goals for themselves, strive to meet high goals set by others, and possess high levels of
motivation. Given the strong motivational and achievement orientation of this personality
disposition, high levels of Conscientiousness may be a liability under evaluative conditions when
driven by extrinsic motivation (e.g., obligation). Two possible mechanisms for the effect of
Conscientiousness, when driven by extrinsic motivation, on cognitive test anxiety are: (1)
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
86
viewing failure as more threatening because achievement is a more central life goal; and (2)
subjectively believing that the exaggerated expectancies of others are imposed, subsequently
experiencing loss of control, thereby leading to anxiety.
Limitations and Future Directions
Several limitations are noted in this study. A primary limitation to the current study is
based on the volunteer population from whom the data were collected. Second, intrinsic
motivation was studied as a unidimensional concept instead of a tripartite model (IM to know,
IM toward accomplishment, IM to experience) as proposed by Vallerand, Blais, Brier, &
Pelletier (1989). Third, cognitive test anxiety was only tested as a general concept, not evaluated
during each of the three phases of the learning-testing cycle. Lastly, tests, rating scales, and
inventories can possibly change the events that a researcher is attempting to measure. Since test
anxiety research often involves the administration of such measures, reactivity becomes a
concern.
The findings of this study provide limited insights toward potential interventions aiming
to decrease levels of test anxiety, which in turn may support test-related beliefs and behaviors as
well as achievement for test anxious students. Motivation orientated interventions would benefit
from specifically addressing the type of goal orientation being harnessed by educators or parents
(less extrinsic motivation). Supporting the study outcomes of Maehr and Zusho (2009) and
Wigfield and Cambria (2010), challenging students in a way that steers them to develop mastery
approach goals (intrinsic motivation) and deemphasizing performance approach goals (extrinsic
motivation) should be facilitated in classrooms. On a systemic level, results of this study support
previous research that admonish the importance placed on the function of statewide standardized
test results, or high-stakes testing. In general, “high stakes” means that test scores are used to
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
87
make important decisions about students, educators, schools, or districts, most commonly for the
purpose of accountability. Prior research findings stated, by attaching rewards and punishments
to tests scores, students reported significantly more overall test anxiety in relation to high-stakes
testing versus classroom testing and also reported significantly more cognitive and physiological
symptoms of test anxiety in relation to high-stakes testing (von der Embse & Hasson, 2012;
Segool, Carlson, Goforth, von der Embse, Barterian, 2013). This study adds to the test anxiety
literature by demonstrating that students experience heightened anxiety in response to extrinsic
motivation associated with testing situations.
The findings of this study also point to possibilities for further research. First, follow-up
research should further investigate the possibility of a distinction between participants with
moderate and high levels of cognitive test anxiety. In the present study, the mean CTA scores
were within the average range of possible scores. Future research could improve upon this design
and confirm this interpretation by obtaining a sample of individuals with high levels of cognitive
test anxiety. Also, future work with a sample including primary learners with high levels of
reported cognitive test anxiety would help identify the importance of examining the relationships
among personality and goal orientation when examining test anxiety. Additionally, a more
reliable and valid measure of goal orientation would be valuable in follow-up studies. The
MSLQ had low internal consistency in this and related studies, and also fails to include the
construct of amotivation. Related to this, identifying scales that focus more directly on
performance and mastery goals instead of extrinsic and intrinsic may help link this work to more
contemporary models of motivation. Furthermore, the results of this study illustrate the impact of
meditational analyses on simple effects predicting cognitive test anxiety. There are several
additional variables that may very serve to mediate predictive relationships in the literature that
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
88
bear attention. It would also be interesting to extend this research to examine not only
meditational effects but also the utility of motivation as a moderating variable.
References
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., & Teasdale, J.D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans:
Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1), 49-74.
Abu-Bakar, K., Tarmizi, R.A., Mahyuddin, R., Elias, H., Luan, W.S., Ayub, A.F. (2010).
Relationships between university students’ achievement motivation, attitude, and
academic performance in Malaysia. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2),
4906-4910.
Alpert, R. & Haber, R. N. (1960). Anxiety in academic achievement situations. Journal
of Abnormal Social Psychology, 61, 207-215.
Amabile, T.M., Dejong, W., & Lepper, M.R. (1976). Effects of externally imposed deadlines on
subsequent intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(1), 9298.
Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom climate. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece
(Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327-348). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies
and motivation process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260-267.
Areepattamannil, S., & Freeman, J.G. (2008). Academic achievement, academic self-concept,
and academic motivation of immigrant adolescents in the Greater Toronto Area
secondary schools. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 700-743.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
89
Areepattamannil, S., Freeman, J.G., & Klinger, D. (2011). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation, and academic achievement among Indian adolescents in Canada and India.
Social Psychology of Education, 14(3), 427-439.
Ashton, M.C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 19, 289-303.
Ashton, M.C., Lee, K., & Paunonen, S.V. (2002). What is the central feature of extraversion?
Social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
83, 245-252.
Assor, A., & Connell, J P. (1992). The validity of students’ self-reports as measures of
performance affecting self-appraisals. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student
perceptions in the classroom (pp. 25-47). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological
Review, 64, 359-372.
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Atkinson, J.W. (1974). Strength of motivation and efficiency of performance. In J. W. Atkinson
& J. O. Raynor (Eds.), Motivation and achievement. Washington, DC: V. H. Winston.
Atkinson, R.L., Atkinson, R.C., Smith, E.E., Bem, D.J., & Nolen-Hoekesema, S. (2000).
Hilgard’s Introduction to Psychology (13th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College
Publishers.
Baer, A. R., Grant, H., & Dweck, C. (2008). Personal goals predict the impact of
distress. Stanford University.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
90
Baker, J. A., Grant, S., & Morlock, L. (2008). The teacher-student relationship as a
developmental context for children with internalizing or externalizing behavior problems.
School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 3–15.
Bandalos, D.L., Yates, K., & Thorndike-Christ, T. (1995). The effects of math-self-concept,
perceived self-efficacy, and attributions for success and failure on test anxiety. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 87(4), 611-624.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Eds.),
Handbook of personality (pp. 154-196). New York: Guilford Publications.
Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., van IJzendoorn, M.H.
(2007). Threat related attentional bias in anxious and non-anxious individuals: A metaanalytic study. Psychology Bulletin, 133(1), 1-24.
Bar-tal, Y., Raviv, A., & Spitzer, A. (1999). The need and ability to achieve cognitive
structuring: Individual differences that moderate the effect of stress on information
processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 33-51.
Barenbaum, N. B., & Winter, D. G. (2008). History of modern personality theory and research.
In O.P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and
research (pp. 3-26). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Barick, M R. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A metaanalysis.
Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
91
Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation
as predictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102(4), 773-785.
Bembenutty, H. (2009). Test anxiety and academic delay of gratification. College Student
Journal, 43(1), 10-12.
Benson, J., Moulin-Julian, M., Schwartzer, C., Seipp, B., & El-Zahhar, N. (1992). Cross
validation of a revised test anxiety scale using multi-national samples. In K.A. Hagtvet
and T.B. Johnsen (Eds.), Advances in Test Anxiety Research (Vol. 4, pp. 55-68). Lisse,
The Netherlands: Swetts & Zeitlinger.
Biggs, J.B. (1991). Teaching for better learning. Legal Education Review, 2(1), 133.
Birenbaum, M. (2013). Conditions that support formative assessment: Assessment for Learning
(AfL) in teacher preparation programs. Bimat Dium, 51, 6-12.
Birenbaum, M. (2007). Assessment and instruction preferences and their relationship with test
anxiety and learning strategies. Higher Education, 53, 749-768.
Birjandi, P., & Alemi, M. (2010). The impact of test anxiety on test performance among Iranian
EFL learners. BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence & Neuroscience, 1(4),
44-58.
Blunch, N. (2008). Introduction to structural equation modelling using SPSS and AMOS.
London: Sage.
Borgatta, E. (1964). The structure of personality characteristics. Behavioral Science, 9(1), 8-17.
Boyce, C.J., Wood, A.M., & Brown, G.D.A. (2010). The dark side of conscientiousness:
Conscientious people experience greater drops in life satisfaction following
unemployment. Journal of Research in Personality, doi: 0.1016/j.jrp.2010.05.001
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
92
Burns, D. (1980). The perfectionist’s script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, November, 34-52.
Burton, K.D., Lydon, J.E., D’Alessandro, D.U., & Koestner, R. (2006). The differential effects
of intrinsic and identified motivation on well-being and performance: Prospective,
experimental, and implicit approaches to self-determination theory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 750-762.
Busato, V.V., Prins, F.J., Elshout, J.J., & Hamaker, C. (1999). The relation between learning
styles, the big five personality traits, and achievement motivation in higher education.
Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 129-140.
Byrne, B M. (2010). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications
and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.
Calvo, M.G., & Castillo, M.D. (2001). Selective interpretation in anxiety: Uncertainty for
threatening events. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 299-320.
Carbonneau, N., Vallerand, R.J., & Lafreniere, M. (2012). Toward a tripartite model of intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Personality, 80(5), 1147-1178.
Carter, N L., Guan, L., Maples, J. L., Williamson, R. L., & Miller, J. D. (2015). The downsides
of extreme conscientiousness for psychological wellbeing: The role of obsessive
compulsive tendencies. Journal of Personality. doi:10.1111/jopy.12177
Carver, C.S., Pozo, C., Harris, S.D., Noriega, V., Scheier, M.F., Robinson, D.S., Ketcham, A.S,
Moffat, F.L. Jr., & Clark, K.C. (1993). How coping mediates the effect of optimism on
distress: A study of women with early stage breast cancer. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 65, 375-390.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A
control-process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19-35.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
93
Carver, C.S. (1996). Goal engagement and the human experience. In R.S. Wyer Jr. (Ed.),
Advances in social cognition, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cassady, J. C. (2001). The stability of undergraduate students' cognitive test anxiety levels.
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(20), 1-8.
Cassady, J. C. (2004). The influence of cognitive test anxiety across the learning-testing cycle.
Learning and Instruction, 14(6), 569-592.
Cassady, J.C., & Finch, W.H. (2014). Confirming the factor structure of the Cognitive Test
Anxiety Scale: Comparing the utility of three solutions. Educational Assessment Journal,
19, 229-242.
Cassady, J.C. & Johnson, R.E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(1), 270-295.
Cassady, J.C, Mohammed, A., & Mathieu, L. (2004). Cross-cultural differences in test
perceptions: Women in Kuwait and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 35, 713-718.
Cattell, R.B. (1946). Personality structure and measurement. II. The determination and utility of
trait modality. British Journal of Psychology, 36, 159-174.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Ahmetoglu, G., & Furnham, A. (2008). Little more than personality:
Dispositional determinants of test anxiety (the big five, core self-evaluations and selfassessed intelligence). Learning and Individual Differences, 18(2), 258-263.
Cianci, A.M., Klein, H.J., & Seijt, G.H. (2010). The effect of negative feedback on tension and
subsequent performance: The main and interactive effects of goal content and
conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 618-630.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
94
Ciani, K. & Sheldon, K. (2010). Evaluating the mastery-avoidance goal construct: A study of
elite college baseball players. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11(2), 127-132.
Cokley, K. (2003). What do we know about the motivation of African American students?
Challenging the intellectual myth. Harvard Educational Review, 73, 524-558.
Cooper, G. (1998). Research into Cognitive Load Theory and instructional design at UNSW.
From: http://dwb4.unl.edu/Diss/Cooper/UNSW.htm
Corr, P. J. & Perkins, A. M. (2006). The role of theory in the psychophysiology of personality:
From Ivan Pavlov to Jeffrey Gray. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 62(3),
367–376. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2006.01.005
Cortina, L.M. (2008). Unseen injustice; Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 33, 55-7.
Costa, P.T.,Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and
NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Covington, M.V. (1985). Strategic thinking and the fear of failure. In J. W. Segal, S.F. Chipman,
& R. Glaser (Eds.). Thinking and learning skills (pp. 389-416).
Covington, M.V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school
reform. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Covington, M.V., & Omelich. C.L. (1987). “I knew it cold before the exam”: A test of the
anxiety-blockage hypothesis Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 393-400.
Culler, R.E., & Houlahan, C.J. (1980). Test anxiety and academic performance: The effects of
student related behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 16-26.
Cury, F., Elliot, A. J., Da Fonseca, D., & Moller, A. C. (2006). The Social-Cognitive
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
95
Model of Achievement Motivation and the 2 x 2 Achievement Goal Framework. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 666–679.
Das Gupta, S., & Dutta, S. (2012). Personality and behavioural factors associated with
test-anxiety among schools students in Kolkata. Journal of Humanities and Social
Science, 2(5), 15-20.
Day, D., & Silverman, S. (1989). Personality and job performance: Evidence of incremental
validity. Personnel Psychology, 42, 25-36.
Deci, E.L., & Cascio, W.F. (1972). Changes in intrinsic motivation as a function of negative
feedback and threats. Paper presented at the Eastern Psychological Association
Convention, April.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York, NY: Plenum.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In
R. D. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Perspectives on Motivation
(pp.237-288). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. Kernis
(Ed.). Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31-49). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being
across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49, 14-23.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
96
Deffenbacher, K. A. (1983). The influence of arousal on reliability of testimony. In S. M. A.
Lloyd-Bostock & B. R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence (pp. 235–251).
Chichester, England: Wiley.
Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model. Annual
Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440. Doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221
Digman, J.M., & Takemotot-Chock, N.K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality:
re-analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies. Multiple Behavior
Research, 16, 149-170.
Dweck, C. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned
helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, (4), 674-685.
Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10),
1040-1048.
Dweck, C. (1989). Motivation. In A. Lesgold & R. Glaser (Eds.), Foundations for a psychology
of education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dweck, C., & Elliott, E.S. (1983). Achievement motivation, In E.M. Hetherington (Ed.),
Socialization, personality, and social development. New York, NY: Wiley.
Dweck, C., & Leggett, E.I. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Elliot, A.J., & McGregor, H.A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and
avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4),
628-644.
Elliot, A.J., & McGregor, H.A. (2001). A 2x2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501-519.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
97
Eman, S., Dogar, I.A., Khalid, M., & Haider, N. (2012). Gender differences in test anxiety and
examination stress. Journal of Pakistan Psychiatric Society, 9(2), 85-90.
von der Embse, N. & Hasson, R. (2012). Test anxiety and high-stakes testing performance
between school settings: Implications for educators. Preventing School Failure:
Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 56(3), 180-187.
Enns, M.W., & Cox, B.J. (2002). The nature and assessment of perfectionism: A critical
analysis. In G.L. Flett and P.L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and
treatment (pp. 33-62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Eum, K. & Rice, K.G. (2011). Test anxiety, perfectionism, goal orientation, and academic
performance. Anxiety Stress Coping, 24(2), 167-178.
Eysenck, H.J. (1981). General features of the model. In The Neuropsychology of Individual
Differences (pp. 151-207). London: Academic. Eysenck, M.W. (1992). Anxiety: The
cognitive perspective. Hove, England: Erlbaum.
Eysenck, M.W. (1997). Anxiety and cognition: A unified theory. Hove, England: Psychology
Press.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
(Junior and Adult). Kent, UK: Hodder & Stoughton.
Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, M.W. (1985). Extraversion, arousal, and performance. In Personality
and Individual Differences: A Natural Science Approach (pp. 237-288). London: Plenum.
Fayard, J.V., Roberts, B.W., Robins, R.W., & Watson, D. (2012). Uncovering the affective core
of conscientiousness: The role of self-conscious emotions.Journal of Personality, 80(1),
1-32.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
98
Fowles, D. (2006). Chapter 2: Jeffrey Gray's contributions to theories of anxiety, personality, and
psychopathology". In T. Canli (Ed.). Biology of personality and individual differences.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Friedman, I. & Bendas-Jacob, O. (1997). Measuring perceived test anxiety in adolescents: A
self-report scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(6), 1035-1046.
Froiland, J.M. (2011). Parental autonomy support and student learning goals: A preliminary
examination of an intrinsic motivation intervention. Child and Youth Care Forum, 40(2),
135-149.
Froiland, J.M., Oros, E., Smith,L., & Hirchert,T. (2012). Intrinsic motivation to learn: The nexus
between psychological health and academic success. Contemporary School Psychology,
16(1), 91-100.
Furlan, L.A., Cassady, J.C., & Perez, E.R. (2009). Adapting the Cognitive Test Anxiety Scale for
use with Argentinean university students. International Journal of Testing, 9(1), 3-19.
Furnham, A. (1992). Personality and learning style: A study of three instruments. Personality
and Individual Differences, 13, 429-438.
Goldberg, L.R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
Gottfried, A.E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525-538.
Gottfried, A.E., & Gottfried, A.W. (2004). Toward the development of a conceptualization of
gifted motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 121-132.
Graham, J.R. (1990). MMPI-2 Assessing Personality and Psychopathology. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
99
Hancock, D.R. (2001). Effects of test anxiety and evaluative threat on student’s achievement and
motivation. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(5), 284-290.
Hall, C.S., & Lindzey, G. (1978). Theories of Personality. New York, NY: Wiley.
Hammick, J.K. & Lee, M.J. (2014). Do shy people feel less communication apprehension
online? The effects of virtual reality on the relationship between personality
characteristics and communication outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 302310. Doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.046
Harackiewicz J.M, Manderlink, G., & Sansone. C. (1984). Reqarding pinball wizardry: Effects
of evaluation and cue value on intrinsic interest. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47, 287-300.
Hardre, P.L., & Reeve, J. (2003). A motivational model of rural students’ intentions to persist in
versus drop out of high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 375-392.
Hart, J.W., Stasson, M.F., Mahoney, J.M., & Story, P. (2007). The Big Five and achievement
motivation: Exploring the relationship between personality and a two-factor model of
motivation. Individual Differences Research, 5(4), 267-274.
Heller D., Watson D., & Ilies R. (2004). The role of person versus situation in life satisfaction: A
critical examination. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4), 574–600. doi: 10.1037/00332909.130.4.574.
Hembree, R., (1988). Correlates, causes, effects and treatment of test anxiety. Review of
Educational Research, 58(1), 47-77.
Herzer, F., Wendt, J., & Hamm, A. (2014). Discriminating clinical from nonclinical
manifestations of test anxiety: A validation study. Behavior Therapy, 45(1), 222-231.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
100
Hogan, T. (1996). A psychoanalytic perspective on the five-factor model of personality. In J.S.
Wiggins (Ed.), The Five-Factor Model of Personality (pp. 163-179). New York, NY:
Guildford Press.
Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1989). How to measure employee reliability. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74(2), 273-279.
Hough, L.M. & Schneider, R.J. (1996). Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in
organizations. In K.R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in
organizations (pp. 31-88). San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Howard, P.J., Medina, P.L., & Howard, J.M. (1996). The big-five locator: A quick assessment
tool for consultants and trainers. In J.W. Pfeiffer (Ed.). The 1996 Annual (pp. 1-310). San
Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.
Ikeda,M., Iwanaga,M., & Seiwa, H. (1996). Test anxiety and working memory system.
Perception Motor Skills 82(3), 1223-1231.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory--Versions 4a and
54. Berkeley, CA.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big-Five trait
taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W.Robins, &
L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114-158). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
John, O.P. & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical Perspectives. In L. Pervin and O.P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:
Theory and research (pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford Press.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
101
Kumaran, S., & Kadhiravan, S. (2015). Personality and test anxiety of school students.
International Journal of Education and Psychological Research, 4(2), 9-13.
Kaplan, A. & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation
theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 141–184.
Komarraju, M., Karau S.J., Schmeck, R.R., & Avdic, A. (2011). The Big Five personality traits,
learning styles, and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 51,
472-477.
Lang, J. W., & Lang, J. (2010). Priming competence diminishes the link between cognitive test
anxiety and test performance: Implications for the interpretation of test scores.
Psychological Science, 21, 811-819.
Law, W., Elliot, A.J., & Murayama, K. (2012). Perceived competence moderates the relationship
between performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 104(3), 806-819.
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York, NY: Springer.
Lecic-Tosevski, D., Vukovic, O., & Stepanovic, J. (2011). Stress and personality. Psychiatrriki,
22(4), 290-297.
Lee, D., Kelly, K., & Edwards, J.K. (2006). A closer look at the relationships among trait
procrastination, neuroticism, and conscientiousness. Personality and Individual
Differences, 40, 27-37.
Lepper, M.R., & Greene, D. (1975). Turning play into work: Effects of adult surveillance and
extrinsic rewards on childrens’ intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 31(3), 479-486.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
102
Lepper, M.R., Corpus, J.H., & Iyengar, S.S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational
orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97, 184-196.
Liebert, R.M., & Morris, L.W. (1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: A
distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20, 975-978.
Lim, R.P., & Ortiz-Bance, L. (2013). Personality traits as predictors of test anxiety level of
students with learning difficulties. The Trinitian Researcher, 5(1).
Liu, J.T., Meng, X.P., & Xu, Q.Z. (2006). The relationship between test anxiety and personality,
self-esteem in grade one senior high students. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi, 40(1),
50-52.
Lowe, P. A., Grumbein, M. J., & Raad, J. M. (2011). Examination of the psychometric properties
of the Test Anxiety Scale for Elementary Students (TAS-E) scores. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 503-514. doi:0734282910395894.
Lufi, D., Okasha, S., & Cohen., A. (2004). Test anxiety and its effect on the personality of
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 176-184.
Lund, O.C.H., Tamnes, C.K., Mostue, C., Buss, D.M., & Vollrath, M. (2007). Tactics of
hierarchy negotiation. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 25-44.
Maehr, M. L. & Zusho, A. (2009). Achievement goal theory: The past, present, and future. In K.
R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation in school (pp. 77-104). New
York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
103
Mahyuddin, H., Elias, H., & Noordin, N. (2009). Emotional intelligence, achievement
motivation and academic achievement among students in the public and private higher
institutions. The International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities, and
Nations, 9(4), 135-144.
Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Day, L., Kon, T.W.H., Colley, A., & Linley, P.A. (2008). Personality
predictors of levels of forgiveness two and a half years after the transgression. Journal of
Research in Personality, 42(4), 1088-1094.
Mandler, G. & Sarason, S. B. (1952). A study of anxiety and learning. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 47, 166-173.
Marín, M., Infante, E. & Troyano, Y. (2001). Personality and academic productivity in the
university student. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 3 (29),
299-306.
Masson, A. M., Hoyois, P., Cadot, M., Nahama, V., Petit, F., & Anseau, M. (2004).Girls are
more successful than boys at the university: Gender group differences in models
integrating motivational and aggressive components correlated with test anxiety.
Encephale-Revuew de Psychiatrie Clinique Biologique et Therapeutique, 30, 1, 1-15.
Matthews, G., Deary, I.J., & Whiteman, M.C. (2003). Personality traits (2nd ed.). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Matthews, A., & MacLeod, C. (2005). Cognitive vulnerability to emotional disorders. Annual
Review of Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 167-195.
Mayer, J.D., & Salovey, P. (1955). Emotional intelligence and the construction and regulation of
feelings. Applied and Preventative Psychology, 4, 197-208.
McClelland, D.C. (1951). Personality. New York, NY: Sloane.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
104
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992), An introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its
applications, Journal of Personality, 60(1), 175–215. doi: 10.1111/j.14676494.1992.tb00970
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L.A. Pervin & O.P.
John (Eds.), Handbook of personality (pp. 139-153). New York, NY: Guilford.
McNally, R.J. (2003). Psychological mechanisms in acute response to trauma. Biological
Psychiatry, 53(1), 779–788.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive–affective system theory of personality:
Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality
structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1999). Integrating dispositions and processing dynamics
within a unified theory of personality: The cognitive–affective personality system. In L.
A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 197–
218). New York: Guilford.
Molnar, D.S., Reker, D.L., Culp, N.A., Sadava, S.W., & DeCourville, N.H. (2006). A mediate
model of perfectionism, affect, and physical health. Journal of Research in Personality,
40, 482-500.
Morris, L.W., & Liebert, R.M. (1970). Relationship of cognitive and emotional components of
test anxiety to physiological arousal and academic performance. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 35,(3), 332-337.
Mueller, J.H. (1980). Test anxiety and the encoding and retrieval of information. In I.G. Sarason
(Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 63-86). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
105
Myers, I.B., McCauley, M.H., Quenk, N.L., & Hammer, A.L. (1998). MBTI manual: A guide to
the use of thee Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (3rd Ed.) Palo Alo, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Naveh-Benjamin, M. (1991). A comparison of training programs intended for different types of
test-anxious students: Further support for an information-processing model. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 83(1), 134-139.
Naveh-Benjamin, M, McKeachie, W.J, & Lin, Y G. (1987). Two types of test-anxious students:
Support for an information processing model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1),
131-136.
Naveh-Benjamin, M, McKeachie, W.J, Lin, Y G., & Hollinger, D. (1981). Test anxiety: Deficits
in information processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 816-824.
Nicholls. J.G. (1975). Causal attributions and other achievement related cognitions: Effects of
task outcome, attainment value, and sex. Journal of Personality and social Psychology,
31, 379-389.
Norman, W. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor
structure in peer nomination personality ratings. The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 66(6), 574-583.
Paulman, R.G., & Kenelly, K.J. (1984). Test anxiety and ineffective test taking: Different names,
same construct. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 279-288.
Paunonen, S.V., & Ashton, M.C. (2001). Big Five and facets and the prediction of behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524-539.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
106
Peterson, J.B., Smith, K.W., & Carson, S. (2002). Openness and Extraversion are associated with
reduced latent inhibition: Replication and commentary. Personality and Individual
Differences, 33, 1137-1147.
Piedmont, R. (1995). Another look at fear of success, fear of failure, and test anxiety: A
motivational analysis using the five-factor model. Sex Roles, 32, 139-158.
Pintrich, P R. (2000). The role of goals orientation in self-regulated learning. In P.R. Pintrich &
M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Theory research and applications
(pp.451- 502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., Podsakoff, N.P., MacKenzie, S.B., & Lee, J. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Putwain, D W. (2008). Test anxiety and GCSE performance: The effect of gender and socioeconomic background. Educational Psychology in Practice, 24(4), 319-334. Doi:
10.108/02667360802488765
Putwain, D W. & Daly, A. (2014). Test anxiety prevalence and gender differences in a sample of
English secondary school students. Educational Studies, 40(5), 554-570.
Putwain, D.W, Woods, K.A & Symes, W. (2010). Personal and situational predictors of test
anxiety of students in post-compulsory education. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80(1), 137-160.
Ramirez, G. & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Writing about testing worries boosts exam performance in
the classroom. Science, 331, 211-213.
Rana, R A., & Mahmood, N. (2010). The relationship between test anxiety and academic
achievement. Bulletin of Education and Research, 32(2), 63-74.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
107
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S. & Barsh, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by
increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147-169.
Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P.S., Blum, R.W., Bauman, K.E., Harris, K.M., Jones, J., Tabor, J.,
Beuhring, T., Sieving, R.E., Shew, M, Ireland, M., Bearinger, LH, & Udry, J.R. (1997).
Children’s needs III. Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Medical Association,
278(1), 823 – 832.
Ringeisen, T., & Buchwald, P. (2008). It matters who you turn to: The relational self-construal
and communal coping. In P. Buchwald, T. Ringeisen, & M. W. Eysenck (Eds.), Stress
and anxiety: Application to life span development and health promotion (pp. 75 – 86).
Berlin, Germany: Logos.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2008). A self-determination theory approach to psychotherapy: The
motivational basis for effective change. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 186-193.
Sansgiry, S. S., & Sail, K. (2006). Effect of students’ perceptions of course load on test
anxiety. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70, 1-6.
Sarason, I., Pierce, G., & Sarason, B. (Eds.). (1996). Cognitive interference: Theories, methods,
and findings. New York, NY: Routledge.
Schneiderjan,M.J & Kim, E.B. (2005). Relationship of student undergraduate underachievement
and personality characteristics in a total web-based environment: An empirical study.
Journal of Innovative Education,3(2), 205-221.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
108
Schutz, P.A., Quijada, P.D., de Vries, S., & Lynde, M. (2011). Emotion in educational context.
In S. Jarvela (Ed.), Social and emotional aspects of learning (pp. 64-69). Oxford:
Elsevier.
Schutz, P.A., & Davis, H.A. (2000). Emotion and self-regulation during test taking. Educational
Psychologist, 35, 243-256.
Schunk, D. H, Pintrich, P. R & Meece, J L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Schwarzer, R. (1984). Worry and emotionality as separate components in test anxiety. Applied
Psychology, 33(2), 205-220.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1992). Advances in anxiety theory: a cognitive process
approach. In K. A. Hagtvet, & T. B. Johnsen (Eds.), Advances in test anxiety research
(pp. 2–31). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swetts & Zeitlinger.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (2002). The concept of self-efficacy. In M. Jerusalem & D. Hopf
(Eds.). Self-efficacy and motivation processes in educational institutions (pp. 28-53).
Weinheim.
Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the
anxiety research. Language Learning, 28(1), 129-142.
Scovel, T. (1991). The effect of affect on Foreign language learning: A review of the anxiety
research. In E.K. Horwitz & D.J. Young (Eds.), Language Anxiety: From Theory and
Research to Classroom Implications (pp. 15-24). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Segool, N., Carlson, J., Goforth, A, von der Embse, N, & Barterian, J. (2013). Heightened test
anxiety among young children: Elementary school students’ anxious responses to highstakes testing. Psychology in the Schools, 50(5), 489-499.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
109
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1995). Stress, coping, and relationships in adolescence. Mahwah, NJ:
Earlbaum.
Senecal, C., Koestner, R. & Vallerland R.J. (1995). Self-regulation and academic procrastination.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 135(5), 607-619.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004). The independent effects of goal
contents and motives on well-being: It’s both what you pursue and why you pursue it.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 475–486.
Sherry, S.B., Hewitt, P.L., Sherry, D.L., Flett, G. L., & Graham, A.R. (2010). Perfectionism
dimensions and research productivity in psychology professors: Implications for
understanding the (mal)adaptiveness of perfectionism. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, 42, 273-283.
Spielberger, C.D. (1972). Current trends on theory and research in anxiety. In C.D. Spielberger
(Ed.), Anxiety, current trends in theory and research. New York and London: Academic
Press.
Spielberger, C.D. (1975). The measurement of state and trait anxiety: Conceptual and
methodological issues. In L. Levi (Ed.), Emotions: Their parameters and measurement
(pp. 713-725). New York, NY: The Raven Press.
Spielberger, C.D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Menlo Park,
CA: Mind Garden.
Spielberger, C. D. (2013). Anxiety and behavior. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Science.
Spielberger, C.D., & Sydeman, S.J. (1994). Anxiety. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
human intelligence (pp. 102-105). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
110
Spielberger, C.D. (1972). Anxiety as an emotional state. In C.D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety:
Current Trends in Theory and Research (pp. 23-49). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Spielberger, C.D., & Vagg, P.R. (1995). Test anxiety: A Transactional Process Model. In C.D.
Spielberger & P.R. Vagg (Eds.), Test Anxiety: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 314). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Stelmack, R.M. (1997). Toward a paradigm in personality: Comment on Eysenck’s (1997) view.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1238-1241.
Stoeber, J., Feast, A. R., & Hayward J. A. (2009). Self-oriented and socially prescribed
perfectionism: Differential relationships with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and test
anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 423 – 428.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.014
Streiner, D.L. & Norman, G.R. (1989). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their
development and use. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive Load Theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning
and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5.
Tallis, F., Eysenck, M., & Matthews, A. (1991). Elevated evidence requirements and worry.
Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 21-27.
Tobias, S. (1979). Anxiety research in educational psychology. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71, 573-582.
Tobias, S. (1985). Test anxiety: Interference, defective skills, and cognitive capacity.
Educational Psychology, 20, 135-142.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
111
Tross, S.A., Haper, J.P. Osher, L.W. & Kneidinger, L.M. (2000). Not just the usual cast of
characteristics: Using personality to predict college performance and retention. Journal of
College Student Development, 41, 323-334.
Tupes, E.C., & Christal, R.E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (USAF
ASD Tech. Rep. No. 61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: U.S. Air Force.
Urdan, R., Ryan, A.M., Anderman, E.M., & Gheen, M.H. (2002). Goals, goal structures,
and avoidance behaviors. In C. Midgley (Eds.). Goals, goal structures, and
patterns of adaptive learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Urhahne, D., Chao, S., Florineth, M.L., Luttenberger, S., & Paechter, M. (2011). Academic selfconcept, learning motivation, test anxiety of the underestimated student. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 161-177. doi: 1:1348/000709910X504500
Vallerland, R.J., Blais, M.R., Brier, N.M, & Pelletier, L.G. (1989). Construction et validation de
l'Ehelle de motivation en education (Construction and validation of the motivation in
education scale). Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 21(1), 323-349.
Van Gerven & Pascal, W.M. (2003). The efficiency of multimedia learning into old age. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(4), 489-505.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., Matos, L., & Lacante, M. (2004). “Less is
sometimes more”: Goal –content matters. Journal of Educational Psychology 96, 755764.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E.L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in
Self-Determination Theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation.
Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19-31.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
112
Watanabe, S & Kanazawa, Y. (2009). A test of a personality-based view of intrinsic motivation.
Japanese Journal of Administrative Science, 22(2), 117-130.
Weinstock, L. M., & Whisman, M. A. (2006). Neuroticism as a common feature of the
depressive and anxiety disorders: A test of the revised integrative hierarchical model in a
national sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 68-74. doi: 10.1037/0021843X.115.1.68
Whitaker Sena, J. D, Lowe, P. A, & Lee, S W. (2007). Significant predictors of test anxiety
among students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
40(4), 360-376.
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and
interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes.
Developmental Review, 30(1), 1-35.
Wine, J. (1971). Test Anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 92-104.
Wine, J. (1982). Evaluation Anxiety: A cognitive-attentional construct. In H.W. Krohne and L.
Laux (Eds.). Achievement, stress, and anxiety (pp. 207-219). Washington, DC:
Hemisphere.
Wolters, C.A., Yu, S.L., & Pintrich, P.R. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and
students’ motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual
Differences, 8, 211-238.
Yerkes, R. M. & Dodson, J.D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habitformation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18(1), 459-482.
Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION
113
Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2005). Evaluation anxiety: Current theory and research. In A. J.
Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (Chapter 9, pp.
141-163). New York: Guilford Press.
Zellars, K.L., Perrewe, P.L., Hochwarter, W.A., & Anderson, K.S. (2006). The interactive effects
of positive affect and conscientiousness on strain. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 11(3), 281-289.
Zohar, D. (1998). An additive model of test anxiety: Role of exam-specific expectation. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 90, 330-340.