- Email: [email protected]
Developing and piloting a dot-probe measure of attentional bias for test anxiety
Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 478–482
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Learning and Individual Differences j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l i n d i f
Developing and piloting a dot-probe measure of attentional bias for test anxiety David W. Putwain a,⁎, Hannah C. Langdale a, Kevin A. Woods b, Laura J. Nicholson a a b
Department of Social and Psychological Sciences, Edge Hill University, St. Helen's Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire, L39 4QP, United Kingdom School of Education, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 8 September 2010 Received in revised form 2 February 2011 Accepted 5 February 2011 Keywords: Test anxiety Performance-evaluation threat Attentional bias
a b s t r a c t Attentional bias is a key area of research in the clinical and trait anxiety literature. In test anxiety research, however, protocols and measures have yet to be reported. Accordingly, we describe the development of a dotprobe measure of attentional bias for test anxiety. This measure was piloted on a sample of undergraduate students who completed a short, timed, cognitive ability test under high and low performance-evaluation threat conditions. As expected, highly test anxious persons reported an attentional bias towards threat stimuli under the high performance-evaluation threat condition only, consistent with a switch from an avoidant to a vigilant mode of processing. Under the low performance-evaluation threat condition, both high and low test anxious persons showed a bias away from threat stimuli. These findings suggest that test anxiety, like clinical and high trait anxiety is also characterised by attentional bias where a disproportionate amount of attentional resource is directed towards corresponding threat (i.e. test-related) stimuli. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The aim of this pilot study was to develop and test a dot-probe measure of attentional bias for test anxiety. Recent developments in the clinical and individual differences literature suggest that persons with high trait anxiety or a clinical anxiety disorder display an attentional bias towards threat stimuli (for reviews see Bar-Haim, Lamy, Pergamin, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2007; Cisler & Koster, 2010; Mathews & MacLeod, 2002). These findings have critical implications for understanding the cognitive origins of anxiety (e.g., MacLeod, Rutherford, Campbell, Ebsworthy, & Holker, 2002) as well as providing the impetus for new interventions through attentional training (e.g., Dandeneau & Baldwin, 2009; See, MacLeod & Bridle, 2009). The test anxiety literature has somewhat lagged behind these developments and it has yet to be established whether test anxiety, like clinical and high trait anxiety, is also characterised by an attentional bias towards corresponding threat stimuli. Before more complex issues can be addressed regarding the causal role of attentional bias in test anxiety or the exact mechanism(s) responsible for producing attentional bias (e.g., vigilance vs. disengagement) we argue that it is first necessary to provide preliminary evidence for the central claim that test anxiety is also characterised by an attentional bias towards threat stimuli. Accordingly, we adapted a protocol designed for measuring attentional bias in trait anxiety (MacLeod et al., 2002; See et al., 2009) by making stimuli specific to test anxiety, and examined its effects in a single experimental
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 44 1695 584498; fax: + 44 1695 579997. E-mail address: [email protected] (D.W. Putwain). 1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.02.002
paradigm where participants were asked to complete a short cognitive ability test under high or low performance-evaluation threat conditions. 1.1. The test anxiety construct Test anxiety refers to a situation-specific form of anxiety, where a person has a greater or lesser tendency to appraise performanceevaluative situations as threatening and subsequently develop a heightened degree of anxiety (Spielberger & Vagg, 1995). It is widely considered to have distinct cognitive, affective-physiological and behavioural characteristics (Zeidner & Mathews, 2005). The cognitive component, and in particular worrisome thoughts, is typically regarded as the defining component of test anxiety (e.g., Sarason, 1988; Zeidner & Mathews, 2005) due to the negative impact of worry cognitions on performance in examinations, cognitive tasks and other forms of assessment (e.g., Chapell et al., 2005; Putwain, 2008). 1.2. Attentional bias Attentional bias refers to the process whereby a disproportionate amount of attentional resource is allocated towards the processing of threat rather than neutral stimuli and/or ambiguous stimuli are processed as threatening. Evidence from modified dot-probe and emotional Stroop tasks suggest that both clinical and high trait anxiety are characterised by an attentional bias, especially when under high stress conditions (e.g., Bar-Haim et al., 2007; Cisler & Koster, 2010; Mathews & MacLeod, 2002). There are good reasons to believe that the attentional bias demonstrated in clinical and trait anxiety will also be present in test anxiety. The central role of
D.W. Putwain et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 478–482
worrisome cognitions in test anxiety, along with the performance interfering nature of these cognitions, is consistent with the allocation of attentional resources towards the processing of threat stimuli. There is also evidence that attentional bias can be content-specific in clinical anxiety (Asmundson & Stein, 1994; Hope, Rapee, Heimberg, & Dombeck, 1990) and that high test anxious persons show an interpretive bias towards congruent threat related stimuli (Calvo, Eysenck, & Castillo, 1997). Furthermore, the type of task-focusing processes (e.g., reading directions and checking answers) reported by highly test anxious students are indicative of attentional bias (Schutz, Davis, & Schwanenflugel, 2002) and under performance-evaluation threat conditions, test anxious persons become more easily distracted when attempting to focus attentional resources (Keogh & French, 2001). In this pilot work we extend the clinical and trait anxiety literature by investigating whether attentional bias towards threat stimuli would also be present in persons high in trait test anxiety under a performance-evaluative threat condition concerning a cognitive ability test. 1.3. Aim of the present study The aim of this pilot study was to extend the existing literature by developing a dot-probe task designed to measure attentional bias in test anxiety. We adapted an existing dot-probe measure of attentional bias used for trait anxiety by MacLeod et al. (2002) and See et al. (2009). In this type of task, pairs of words (one threat and one neutral) are presented simultaneously before being replaced with a probe appearing with equal regularity behind one of the words. A faster response to probes appearing behind threat words is considered to be indicative of attentional bias towards threat. In the version of the measure used here, all threat words were made specific to test anxiety. Since test anxiety is experienced in relation to performanceevaluation situations the dot-probe measure was administered following a short cognitive ability test to provide a test in relation to which anxiety could be experienced. The saliency of performanceevaluation was manipulated by testing participants under high or low performance-evaluation threat conditions. We anticipated that highly trait test anxious persons would show an attentional bias to threatrelevant stimuli (concerning tests, evaluation and failure) but only under the high performance-evaluation threat condition. 2. Method 2.1. Participants A total of N = 80 undergraduate participants, 26 males and 54 females, volunteered for this study aged 18–50 years (M = 24.51, SD = 8.75) and did not receive any course credits for participating. Participants provided consent but were not informed of the study aims until all tasks were completed. Although retrospective withdrawal was offered to all participants, none took up this offer. 2.1.1. Measures Trait test anxiety, the general tendency to perceive performanceevaluative situations as threatening, was measured using the Revised Test Anxiety Questionnaire (RTA). On this twenty item self-report questionnaire (originally designed by Benson, Moulin-Julian, Schwarzer, Seipp, & El-Zahhar, 1992), participants respond to statements (e.g. ‘During exams I feel very tense’) on a four-point scale (1 = never, 4 = always). Analyses proceeded using a total score (Cronbach's α = .90). Attentional bias in test anxiety was measured by adapting the protocol reported by MacLeod et al. (2002) and See et al. (2009). SuperLab software was programmed to present a fixation cue (+++) in the centre of the screen for 500 ms after which the screen was
479
cleared for a 500 ms interval and replaced with a word pair, consisting of one threat word with one neutral word, for 500 ms. Word pairs were presented one above the other in Arial font size 14, 3 cm apart. Whether a threat or neutral word was presented at the top was randomly chosen. Threat words were based on those used in a number of previous studies (Keogh & French, 2001; Lawson, 2006; MacLeod & Mathews, 1988). In order to ensure that our test anxiety threat words covered as broad a range as possible of the test anxiety domain, it was necessary to use some two word combinations (e.g., exam paper) and in one case a three word combination (letting myself down). Although it is unusual to find two and three word combinations used as stimuli in dot-probe measures they are, in principle, no more complex or lengthy to read in a short space of time than a single word made up of multiple syllables. In order to ensure comparability between neutral and threat stimuli, we paired with words (or word combinations) on the frequency of usage (Kučera & Francis, 1967) and number of syllables present in the threat word(s) rather than on the more usual procedure employed in dot-probe tasks of matching stimuli on frequency of usage and word length. A total of thirty-seven threat words and thirty-seven neutral words were assessed by five highly test anxious undergraduate volunteers (RTA scores above the 66th percentile) not included in the main sample on a five point scale (1 = not threatening to someone who was test anxious, 5 = highly threatening to someone who was test anxious). Thirty threat words with a median score of ≥4 and all thirty-seven neutral words with a median score of 1 were retained for creating word pairs (see Appendix A). Ninety-six unique word pairs were created, so although some threat words were used more than once these were paired with a new neutral word on each occasion they were used. After word pairs were presented the screen was cleared and replaced immediately by a probe in the prior position of either the neutral or threat word on an equal number of occasions (on 48 occasions it followed the threat word and on 48 occasions it followed the neutral word) decided randomly at the outset but presented in the same sequence for each participant (see Appendix B). An exemplar sequence of events is shown in Fig. 1. Although it is possible that order effects may occur with a fixed random order presentation they will be distributed equally between threat and neutral words and between the position of threat and neutral words above or below the fixation cue. Probes were either left or right arrows (left and right pointing with equal regularity) again decided randomly at the outset, but presented in the same sequence for each participant. Participants were instructed to press the Z key in response to a left arrow key and the M key in response to a right arrow and reaction times measured for responses to threat and neutral words. Following the participant's response, the screen was cleared and after a 500 ms interval the sequence as repeated again for the next word pair, starting with the fixation cue as described above. Responses of ≤200 ms and ≥2000 ms were considered anomalous, due to response errors, and removed from the dataset. An index of attentional bias was calculated based on See et al.'s (2009) rationale. Subtracting the reaction times for neutral words from the reactions times for threat words will indicate whether participants were responding faster to probes replacing threat words relative to probes replacing neutral words. A negative score would indicate a faster response time to threat words relative to neutral words and an attentional bias towards threat stimuli. A score of 0 would indicate no attentional bias. A positive score would indicate a slower response time to threat words relative to neutral words and a bias away from test anxiety threat words. 2.1.2. Design A between participants design was used with two independent variables: performance-evaluation threat and test anxiety. Performance-evaluation threat was manipulated by randomly allocating participants to either a high or low performance-evaluation threat
480
D.W. Putwain et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 478–482
(a) Presentation of the fixation cue for 500ms, followed by a 500ms interval
(b) Presentation of word pairs above and below fixation cue for 500ms
of trait anxiety. No significant differences, t(78) = 0.23, p = .82, were reported between RTA responses from participants allocated to the high performance-evaluation threat condition (M = 46.47, SD = 11.54) and the low performance-evaluation threat condition (M = 45.89, SD = 11.16) indicating that the performance-evaluation threat manipulation was not confounded with the allocation of participants into groups of high and low test anxiety. 2.1.3. Procedure Participants were randomly allocated to either the high or low performance-evaluation threat condition, provided with the appropriate instructions, given sets D and E from the Raven's cognitive ability test (Raven et al., 2004) and allowed a maximum of 5 min to complete the test. After 5 min, participants were stopped even if they had not completed sets D and E and asked to complete the attentional bias measure on a personal computer and complete the RTA scale. Lastly, participants were debriefed. 3. Results
(c) Presentation of probe replacing the neutral word, followed by participants response
Fig. 1. An exemplar sequence of events in the modified dot probe protocol (not reproduced to scale).
condition (using instructions adapted from Calvo et al., 1997). To lend the study a degree of mundane realism related to the performanceevaluation threat manipulation, participants were given a non-verbal cognitive ability task (with a five minute time limit), comprising sets D and E of the Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven, Raven, & Court, 2004). In the high performance-evaluation threat condition, participants were instructed that: (i) the aim of the project was to measure cognitive ability, (ii) the task relates to levels of intelligence and can be used to predict degree outcome, and (iii) results will be evaluated by members of the departmental teaching staff and compared with the results of other students. After participants had completed the study they were informed of the true nature of the study and offered the opportunity to withdraw their data. In the low performanceevaluation threat condition, participants were instructed that the aim of the study was to measure an individual's reaction time, that reaction time was unrelated to academic ability, and that results would not be compared to those of other students. Test anxiety was a quasi-manipulated variable in which RTA scores were categorised into groups of low (n = 16) and high worry (n = 15) at ±1SD. We preferred this method of dichotomising test anxiety as evidence suggests that it may only be groups of persons high in trait measures who respond to mild and moderate threat stimuli (Mogg et al., 2000; Wilson & MacLeod, 2003). Although median split method would have retained a larger sample, groups of high and moderate test anxiety would have been confounded. We consider this reduced sample size sufficient for pilot work. The index of attentional bias was treated as the dependent variable. An independent t test was conducted to rule out the possibility that the performance-evaluation threat instructions primed participants' responses to the RTA measure
A two-way between participants ANOVA was conducted with performance-evaluation threat and test anxiety as the independent variables and the index of attentional bias (the reaction time for probes replacing threat words was subtracted from the reaction time from threat words) as the dependent variable. A significant main effect was reported for test anxiety: F(1, 27) = 4.50, p = .04, η2p = .12 where highly test anxious participants responded more quickly to threat words than low test anxious participants (see Table 1). A main effect approaching significance was reported for performanceevaluation threat: F(1, 27) = 3.76, p = .06, η2p = .12 where participants in the high performance-evaluation threat condition responded more quickly to threat words than those in the low performance-evaluation threat condition. A significant interaction was reported (see Fig. 2): F(1, 27) = 4.64, p = .04, η2p = .15 where a simple effects analysis revealed that there was no significant difference (F = 0.02, p = .89) in low trait test anxious participants' responses to test anxiety threat words relative to neutral words depending on whether they were in the high or low performance-evaluation threat condition. High trait test anxious participants, however, responded significantly more quickly (F = 8.64, p = .007) towards test anxiety threat words in the high performance-evaluation threat condition than in the low performance-evaluation threat condition. 4. Discussion The aim of this study was to develop a dot-probe measure of attentional bias for use with test anxiety and pilot the measure in relation to a cognitive ability task under high and low performanceevaluation thereat conditions. Results supported the prediction that high trait test anxious persons would show an attentional bias
Table 1 Attentional bias scores (in ms) of participants under high and low performanceevaluation threat conditions.
High performance-evaluation threat Low performance-evaluation threat Not by condition
High trait test anxiety
Low trait test anxiety
Overall
M
SE
M
SE
M
SE
− 23.00
10.07
19.14
10.77
− 1.00
7.38
21.00
10.77
18.78
9.50
18.69
7.18
− 1.93
7.37
19.98
7.18
D.W. Putwain et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 478–482
481
of attentional bias in the performance interfering effects of test anxiety and the potential for attentional bias modification as a potential intervention for test anxiety. Appendix A. Threat and neutral words used in the measure of attentional bias
Fig. 2. The interaction between worry and ego threat on attentional bias.
towards threat stimuli, but only under a high performance-evaluation threat condition. These findings provide evidence that test anxiety, like clinical and high trait anxiety, is characterised by an attentional bias towards threat stimuli. Test anxious persons do not maintain this vigilant state of processing under all conditions however, as attentional bias was only demonstrated in a situation in which performance-evaluation concerns were made salient. Corresponding real-life situations may include being provided with notice of a forthcoming examination or the instructions provided by an examination paper and would seemingly be difficult to avoid in relation to high-stake examinations. Although these findings do suggest that a congruent situation is required to switch to a vigilant mode of processing, this does not discount the possibility that the findings reported here may also be the result of a difficulty in disengaging from threat stimuli. It is important to replicate these findings, but a useful follow-up step would be to establish whether attentional bias in test anxiety is a feature of enhanced vigilance to threat or difficulty in disengaging. Koster, Crombez, Verschuere, and de Houwer (2004) suggest modifications to dot probe measures to allow for this type of analysis. One limitation of our study concerns the ecological validity of our findings. One could question the extent to which our manipulation sufficiently replicates the degree of performance-evaluation threat a student may encounter in an actual high-stakes examination and future research may wish to establish attentional bias in a real-life setting using a modified dot-probe task. Although such a project may be cumbersome to design, both practically and ethically, there would be great benefit, both theoretical and substantive, to demonstrate that test anxious persons show an attentional bias towards threat stimuli in the context of a real high-stakes test or examination. Despite these limitations we believe this study makes a useful contribution to the extant literature. The measure of attentional bias we have developed showed the pattern of the results predicted from research examining attentional bias in trait and clinical anxiety. Since protocols for measuring attentional bias in test anxiety are rarely found in the literature, we believe that the measure presented here makes a useful methodological contribution to the literature and may assist the development of future work which may wish to examine attentional bias in test anxiety. In particular the finding that test anxiety is related to attentional bias can open the way for research examining the causal status of attentional bias in test anxiety, the role
Threat words: Grade, SATs*, Fail, Test, Mark, Study, Hurry, Coursework, Marking, Failure, Cramming, Exam, Incorrect, Going blank, Assessment, Revision, Wrong answer, Frustration, Studying, Timed exam, Multiple choice, Exam paper, Exam worry, GCSE*, Exam question, Exam panic, Exam result, Letting myself down, Invigilator, Incorrect answer. Neutral words: Grass, Cup, Room, Chair, Tree, Floor, Cushion, Oven, Liquid, Jumper, Picture, Digit, Forest, Carpet, Basket, Table, Newspaper, Elephant, Studio, Frequency, Handwriting, Collection, History, Telephone, Property, Creation, Triangle, Diagonal, Television, Definition, Kilometre, Activity, Advertisement, Radiator, Electricity, Abbreviation, Personality. *For international readers, Standard Assessment Tests (SATs) refer to tests taken in the final year of primary school in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (Year 6: aged 10/11 years) and the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) to the school leaving qualification taken in the final year of secondary schooling in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (Year 11: aged 15/16 years). Appendix B. Word pairs with presentation position (threat word above or below fixation cue) and probe direction randomised
Order
Top word
Bottom word
Probe replaces
Probe direction
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Forest Creation Exam Exam worry Frustration Exam paper Mark Carpet Studying Electricity Frequency Picture Room Floor Marking Cushion Activity Going blank Assessment GCSE Incorrect answer Frustration Multiple choice Creation Triangle Definition Test Activity Personality Exam paper Timed exam Incorrect Digit Table Cup Letting myself down Abbreviation
Forest Going blank Oven definition Frustration Exam paper Mark Coursework Newspaper Letting myself down Timed exam Picture Room Fail Oven Marking Exam result Elephant Assessment GCSE Incorrect answer Collection Diagonal Studying Triangle Definition Floor Activity Personality Exam paper Timed exam Incorrect Digit Failure Cup Personality
R R L L L R L L L R
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Failure Going blank Oven Definition History Advertisement Tree Coursework Newspaper Letting myself down Timed exam Hurry Mark Fail Oven Marking Exam result Elephant Studio Diagonal Electricity Collection Diagonal Studying Revision Exam panic Floor Exam paper Incorrect answer Television Telephone Frequency Cramming Failure Fail Personality
L L L L R L R R R L R R L R R R R R L R R L L L R L
Incorrect answer
Abbreviation
R
37
(continued on next page)
482
D.W. Putwain et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 478–482
Appendix (continued) B (continued)
References
Order
Top word
Bottom word
Probe replaces
Probe direction
38 39
Electricity Abbreviation
Invigilator Abbreviation
L L
40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Handwriting Digit Jumper Elephant Assessment Newspaper Picture Coursework Exam result Invigilator Grade Grade Liquid SATs Exam question Incorrect Exam Going blank Test Revision GCSE Wrong answer Television Property Abbreviation Television Wrong answer Failure Room Forest Telephone Mark Study Cramming Handwriting Liquid Exam panic Fail Jumper Revision Multiple choice Television Picture Cup Definition Advertisement Coursework Grade Table Exam question Exam result Incorrect Grass Fail Grass Cushion Radiator
Invigilator Letting myself down Studying Marking Marking Wrong answer Elephant Assessment Cramming Jumper Kilometre Personality Chair Tree Coursework Floor Definition Newspaper Jumper Triangle Chair Collection Kilometre Handwriting Exam question Timed exam Invigilator Multiple choice Studio Picture Grade Exam Frustration Chair Carpet Basket Going blank Study Diagonal Grass Hurry Frequency Advertisement Exam worry Study SATs GCSE Exam panic Basket Grass Hurry Activity Radiator Property SATs Tree Test Study Multiple choice
Studying Digit Jumper Elephant Elephant Newspaper Cramming Jumper Exam result Invigilator Grade Grade Liquid SATs Exam question Newspaper Jumper Triangle Test Revision Kilometre Handwriting Television Timed exam Invigilator Multiple choice Wrong answer Picture Room Forest Telephone Mark Carpet Cramming Going blank Study Diagonal Fail Hurry Frequency Multiple choice Television Study SATs GCSE Exam panic Basket Grade Hurry Exam question Radiator Incorrect SATs Tree Grass Cushion Radiator
L R R L R L L R R L R R L R L R L L R L L L R R R L L L L L L L R R R L L R R L L R R R R L R L R L R R R R R R R
Asmundson, G. J. G., & Stein, M. B. (1994). Selective processing of social threat in patients with generalized social phobia: Evaluation using a dot-probe paradigm. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 8, 107−117, doi:10.1016/0887-6185(94)90009-4. 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 meta-analytic study. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 1−24, doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.1. Benson, J., Moulin-Julian, M., Schwarzer, C., Seipp, B., & El-Zahhar, N. (1992). Cross validation of a revised test anxiety scale using multi-national samples. In K. A. Hagvet & T. B. Johnsen (Eds.), Advances in test anxiety research, Vol. 7. (pp. 62−83) Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Calvo, M. G., Eysenck, M. W., & Castillo, M. D. (1997). Interpretation bias in test anxiety: The time course of predictive inferences. Cognition and Emotion, 11, 43−64, doi: 10.1080/026999397380023. Chapell, M. S., Blanding, Z. B., Silverstein, M. E., Takahashi, M., Newman, B., Gubi, A., et al. (2005). Test anxiety and academic performance in undergraduate and graduate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 268−274, doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.268. Cisler, J. M., & Koster, E. H. W. (2010). Mechanisms of attentional biases towards threat in anxiety disorders: An integrative review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 203−216, doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.003. Dandeneau, S. D., & Baldwin, M. W. (2009). The buffering effects of rejection-inhibition attentional on training on social and performance threat among adult students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 42−50, doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.05.004. Hope, D. A., Rapee, R. M., Heimberg, R. G., & Dombeck, M. J. (1990). Representations of the self in social phobia: Vulnerability to social threat. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 177−189, doi:10.1007/BF01176208. Koster, E. H. W., Crombez, G., Verschuere, B., & de Houwer, J. (2004). Selective attention to threat in the dot probe paradigm: Differentiating vigilance and difficulty to disengage. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 1183−1192, doi:10.1016/j. brat.2003.08.001. Keogh, E., & French, C. C. (2001). test anxiety, evaluative stress and susceptibility to distraction from threat. European Journal of Personality, 15, 123−141, doi:10.1002/per.400. Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, MA: Brown University press. Lawson, D.J. (2006) Test anxiety: A test of attentional bias. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67 (9-B), 5412. MacLeod, C., & Mathews, A. (1988). Anxiety and the allocation of attention to threat. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 40, 653−670, doi:10.1080/14640748808402292. MacLeod, C., Rutherford, E., Campbell, L., Ebsworthy, G., & Holker, L. (2002). Selective attention and emotional vulnerability: Assessing the causal basis of their association through the experimental manipulation of attentional bias. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 107−123, doi:10.1037//0021-843X.111.1.107. Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (2002). Induced processing biases have causal effects on anxiety. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 331−354, doi:10.1080/02699930143000518. Mogg, K., McNamara, J., Powys, M., Rawlinson, H., Seiffer, A., & Bradley, B. P. (2000). Selective attention to threat: A test of two cognitive models of anxiety. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 375−399, doi:10.1080/026999300378888. Putwain, D. W. (2008). Test anxiety and academic performance in KS4. Educational Psychology in Practice, 24, 319−334, doi:10.1080/02667360802488765. Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2004). Standard progressive matrices. Oxford: OPP. Sarason, I. G. (1988). Anxiety, self-preoccupation and attention. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 1, 3−8, doi:10.1080/10615808808248215. Schutz, P. A., Davis, H. A., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2002). Organisation of concepts relevant to examinations and their regulation during test taking. Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 316−342, doi:10.1080/00220970209599511. See, J., MacLeod, C., & Bridle, R. (2009). The reduction of anxiety vulnerability through the modification of attentional bias: A real-world study using a home based cognitive bias modification procedure. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118, 65−75, doi:10.1037/a0014377. Spielberger, C. D., & Vagg, P. R. (1995). Test anxiety: A transactional process model. In C. D. Speilberger & P. R. Vagg (Eds.), Test anxiety: Theory, assessment and treatment (pp. 3−14). Bristol: Taylor & Frances. Wilson, E., & MacLeod, C. (2003). Contrasting two accounts of anxiety-linked attentional bias: Selective attention to varying levels of stimulus threat intensity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 212−218, doi:10.1037/0021-843X.112.2.212. Zeidner, M., & Mathews, G. (2005). Evaluation anxiety. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 141−163). London: Guildford Press.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Learning and Individual Differences j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l i n d i f
Developing and piloting a dot-probe measure of attentional bias for test anxiety David W. Putwain a,⁎, Hannah C. Langdale a, Kevin A. Woods b, Laura J. Nicholson a a b
Department of Social and Psychological Sciences, Edge Hill University, St. Helen's Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire, L39 4QP, United Kingdom School of Education, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 8 September 2010 Received in revised form 2 February 2011 Accepted 5 February 2011 Keywords: Test anxiety Performance-evaluation threat Attentional bias
a b s t r a c t Attentional bias is a key area of research in the clinical and trait anxiety literature. In test anxiety research, however, protocols and measures have yet to be reported. Accordingly, we describe the development of a dotprobe measure of attentional bias for test anxiety. This measure was piloted on a sample of undergraduate students who completed a short, timed, cognitive ability test under high and low performance-evaluation threat conditions. As expected, highly test anxious persons reported an attentional bias towards threat stimuli under the high performance-evaluation threat condition only, consistent with a switch from an avoidant to a vigilant mode of processing. Under the low performance-evaluation threat condition, both high and low test anxious persons showed a bias away from threat stimuli. These findings suggest that test anxiety, like clinical and high trait anxiety is also characterised by attentional bias where a disproportionate amount of attentional resource is directed towards corresponding threat (i.e. test-related) stimuli. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The aim of this pilot study was to develop and test a dot-probe measure of attentional bias for test anxiety. Recent developments in the clinical and individual differences literature suggest that persons with high trait anxiety or a clinical anxiety disorder display an attentional bias towards threat stimuli (for reviews see Bar-Haim, Lamy, Pergamin, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2007; Cisler & Koster, 2010; Mathews & MacLeod, 2002). These findings have critical implications for understanding the cognitive origins of anxiety (e.g., MacLeod, Rutherford, Campbell, Ebsworthy, & Holker, 2002) as well as providing the impetus for new interventions through attentional training (e.g., Dandeneau & Baldwin, 2009; See, MacLeod & Bridle, 2009). The test anxiety literature has somewhat lagged behind these developments and it has yet to be established whether test anxiety, like clinical and high trait anxiety, is also characterised by an attentional bias towards corresponding threat stimuli. Before more complex issues can be addressed regarding the causal role of attentional bias in test anxiety or the exact mechanism(s) responsible for producing attentional bias (e.g., vigilance vs. disengagement) we argue that it is first necessary to provide preliminary evidence for the central claim that test anxiety is also characterised by an attentional bias towards threat stimuli. Accordingly, we adapted a protocol designed for measuring attentional bias in trait anxiety (MacLeod et al., 2002; See et al., 2009) by making stimuli specific to test anxiety, and examined its effects in a single experimental
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 44 1695 584498; fax: + 44 1695 579997. E-mail address: [email protected] (D.W. Putwain). 1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.02.002
paradigm where participants were asked to complete a short cognitive ability test under high or low performance-evaluation threat conditions. 1.1. The test anxiety construct Test anxiety refers to a situation-specific form of anxiety, where a person has a greater or lesser tendency to appraise performanceevaluative situations as threatening and subsequently develop a heightened degree of anxiety (Spielberger & Vagg, 1995). It is widely considered to have distinct cognitive, affective-physiological and behavioural characteristics (Zeidner & Mathews, 2005). The cognitive component, and in particular worrisome thoughts, is typically regarded as the defining component of test anxiety (e.g., Sarason, 1988; Zeidner & Mathews, 2005) due to the negative impact of worry cognitions on performance in examinations, cognitive tasks and other forms of assessment (e.g., Chapell et al., 2005; Putwain, 2008). 1.2. Attentional bias Attentional bias refers to the process whereby a disproportionate amount of attentional resource is allocated towards the processing of threat rather than neutral stimuli and/or ambiguous stimuli are processed as threatening. Evidence from modified dot-probe and emotional Stroop tasks suggest that both clinical and high trait anxiety are characterised by an attentional bias, especially when under high stress conditions (e.g., Bar-Haim et al., 2007; Cisler & Koster, 2010; Mathews & MacLeod, 2002). There are good reasons to believe that the attentional bias demonstrated in clinical and trait anxiety will also be present in test anxiety. The central role of
D.W. Putwain et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 478–482
worrisome cognitions in test anxiety, along with the performance interfering nature of these cognitions, is consistent with the allocation of attentional resources towards the processing of threat stimuli. There is also evidence that attentional bias can be content-specific in clinical anxiety (Asmundson & Stein, 1994; Hope, Rapee, Heimberg, & Dombeck, 1990) and that high test anxious persons show an interpretive bias towards congruent threat related stimuli (Calvo, Eysenck, & Castillo, 1997). Furthermore, the type of task-focusing processes (e.g., reading directions and checking answers) reported by highly test anxious students are indicative of attentional bias (Schutz, Davis, & Schwanenflugel, 2002) and under performance-evaluation threat conditions, test anxious persons become more easily distracted when attempting to focus attentional resources (Keogh & French, 2001). In this pilot work we extend the clinical and trait anxiety literature by investigating whether attentional bias towards threat stimuli would also be present in persons high in trait test anxiety under a performance-evaluative threat condition concerning a cognitive ability test. 1.3. Aim of the present study The aim of this pilot study was to extend the existing literature by developing a dot-probe task designed to measure attentional bias in test anxiety. We adapted an existing dot-probe measure of attentional bias used for trait anxiety by MacLeod et al. (2002) and See et al. (2009). In this type of task, pairs of words (one threat and one neutral) are presented simultaneously before being replaced with a probe appearing with equal regularity behind one of the words. A faster response to probes appearing behind threat words is considered to be indicative of attentional bias towards threat. In the version of the measure used here, all threat words were made specific to test anxiety. Since test anxiety is experienced in relation to performanceevaluation situations the dot-probe measure was administered following a short cognitive ability test to provide a test in relation to which anxiety could be experienced. The saliency of performanceevaluation was manipulated by testing participants under high or low performance-evaluation threat conditions. We anticipated that highly trait test anxious persons would show an attentional bias to threatrelevant stimuli (concerning tests, evaluation and failure) but only under the high performance-evaluation threat condition. 2. Method 2.1. Participants A total of N = 80 undergraduate participants, 26 males and 54 females, volunteered for this study aged 18–50 years (M = 24.51, SD = 8.75) and did not receive any course credits for participating. Participants provided consent but were not informed of the study aims until all tasks were completed. Although retrospective withdrawal was offered to all participants, none took up this offer. 2.1.1. Measures Trait test anxiety, the general tendency to perceive performanceevaluative situations as threatening, was measured using the Revised Test Anxiety Questionnaire (RTA). On this twenty item self-report questionnaire (originally designed by Benson, Moulin-Julian, Schwarzer, Seipp, & El-Zahhar, 1992), participants respond to statements (e.g. ‘During exams I feel very tense’) on a four-point scale (1 = never, 4 = always). Analyses proceeded using a total score (Cronbach's α = .90). Attentional bias in test anxiety was measured by adapting the protocol reported by MacLeod et al. (2002) and See et al. (2009). SuperLab software was programmed to present a fixation cue (+++) in the centre of the screen for 500 ms after which the screen was
479
cleared for a 500 ms interval and replaced with a word pair, consisting of one threat word with one neutral word, for 500 ms. Word pairs were presented one above the other in Arial font size 14, 3 cm apart. Whether a threat or neutral word was presented at the top was randomly chosen. Threat words were based on those used in a number of previous studies (Keogh & French, 2001; Lawson, 2006; MacLeod & Mathews, 1988). In order to ensure that our test anxiety threat words covered as broad a range as possible of the test anxiety domain, it was necessary to use some two word combinations (e.g., exam paper) and in one case a three word combination (letting myself down). Although it is unusual to find two and three word combinations used as stimuli in dot-probe measures they are, in principle, no more complex or lengthy to read in a short space of time than a single word made up of multiple syllables. In order to ensure comparability between neutral and threat stimuli, we paired with words (or word combinations) on the frequency of usage (Kučera & Francis, 1967) and number of syllables present in the threat word(s) rather than on the more usual procedure employed in dot-probe tasks of matching stimuli on frequency of usage and word length. A total of thirty-seven threat words and thirty-seven neutral words were assessed by five highly test anxious undergraduate volunteers (RTA scores above the 66th percentile) not included in the main sample on a five point scale (1 = not threatening to someone who was test anxious, 5 = highly threatening to someone who was test anxious). Thirty threat words with a median score of ≥4 and all thirty-seven neutral words with a median score of 1 were retained for creating word pairs (see Appendix A). Ninety-six unique word pairs were created, so although some threat words were used more than once these were paired with a new neutral word on each occasion they were used. After word pairs were presented the screen was cleared and replaced immediately by a probe in the prior position of either the neutral or threat word on an equal number of occasions (on 48 occasions it followed the threat word and on 48 occasions it followed the neutral word) decided randomly at the outset but presented in the same sequence for each participant (see Appendix B). An exemplar sequence of events is shown in Fig. 1. Although it is possible that order effects may occur with a fixed random order presentation they will be distributed equally between threat and neutral words and between the position of threat and neutral words above or below the fixation cue. Probes were either left or right arrows (left and right pointing with equal regularity) again decided randomly at the outset, but presented in the same sequence for each participant. Participants were instructed to press the Z key in response to a left arrow key and the M key in response to a right arrow and reaction times measured for responses to threat and neutral words. Following the participant's response, the screen was cleared and after a 500 ms interval the sequence as repeated again for the next word pair, starting with the fixation cue as described above. Responses of ≤200 ms and ≥2000 ms were considered anomalous, due to response errors, and removed from the dataset. An index of attentional bias was calculated based on See et al.'s (2009) rationale. Subtracting the reaction times for neutral words from the reactions times for threat words will indicate whether participants were responding faster to probes replacing threat words relative to probes replacing neutral words. A negative score would indicate a faster response time to threat words relative to neutral words and an attentional bias towards threat stimuli. A score of 0 would indicate no attentional bias. A positive score would indicate a slower response time to threat words relative to neutral words and a bias away from test anxiety threat words. 2.1.2. Design A between participants design was used with two independent variables: performance-evaluation threat and test anxiety. Performance-evaluation threat was manipulated by randomly allocating participants to either a high or low performance-evaluation threat
480
D.W. Putwain et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 478–482
(a) Presentation of the fixation cue for 500ms, followed by a 500ms interval
(b) Presentation of word pairs above and below fixation cue for 500ms
of trait anxiety. No significant differences, t(78) = 0.23, p = .82, were reported between RTA responses from participants allocated to the high performance-evaluation threat condition (M = 46.47, SD = 11.54) and the low performance-evaluation threat condition (M = 45.89, SD = 11.16) indicating that the performance-evaluation threat manipulation was not confounded with the allocation of participants into groups of high and low test anxiety. 2.1.3. Procedure Participants were randomly allocated to either the high or low performance-evaluation threat condition, provided with the appropriate instructions, given sets D and E from the Raven's cognitive ability test (Raven et al., 2004) and allowed a maximum of 5 min to complete the test. After 5 min, participants were stopped even if they had not completed sets D and E and asked to complete the attentional bias measure on a personal computer and complete the RTA scale. Lastly, participants were debriefed. 3. Results
(c) Presentation of probe replacing the neutral word, followed by participants response
Fig. 1. An exemplar sequence of events in the modified dot probe protocol (not reproduced to scale).
condition (using instructions adapted from Calvo et al., 1997). To lend the study a degree of mundane realism related to the performanceevaluation threat manipulation, participants were given a non-verbal cognitive ability task (with a five minute time limit), comprising sets D and E of the Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven, Raven, & Court, 2004). In the high performance-evaluation threat condition, participants were instructed that: (i) the aim of the project was to measure cognitive ability, (ii) the task relates to levels of intelligence and can be used to predict degree outcome, and (iii) results will be evaluated by members of the departmental teaching staff and compared with the results of other students. After participants had completed the study they were informed of the true nature of the study and offered the opportunity to withdraw their data. In the low performanceevaluation threat condition, participants were instructed that the aim of the study was to measure an individual's reaction time, that reaction time was unrelated to academic ability, and that results would not be compared to those of other students. Test anxiety was a quasi-manipulated variable in which RTA scores were categorised into groups of low (n = 16) and high worry (n = 15) at ±1SD. We preferred this method of dichotomising test anxiety as evidence suggests that it may only be groups of persons high in trait measures who respond to mild and moderate threat stimuli (Mogg et al., 2000; Wilson & MacLeod, 2003). Although median split method would have retained a larger sample, groups of high and moderate test anxiety would have been confounded. We consider this reduced sample size sufficient for pilot work. The index of attentional bias was treated as the dependent variable. An independent t test was conducted to rule out the possibility that the performance-evaluation threat instructions primed participants' responses to the RTA measure
A two-way between participants ANOVA was conducted with performance-evaluation threat and test anxiety as the independent variables and the index of attentional bias (the reaction time for probes replacing threat words was subtracted from the reaction time from threat words) as the dependent variable. A significant main effect was reported for test anxiety: F(1, 27) = 4.50, p = .04, η2p = .12 where highly test anxious participants responded more quickly to threat words than low test anxious participants (see Table 1). A main effect approaching significance was reported for performanceevaluation threat: F(1, 27) = 3.76, p = .06, η2p = .12 where participants in the high performance-evaluation threat condition responded more quickly to threat words than those in the low performance-evaluation threat condition. A significant interaction was reported (see Fig. 2): F(1, 27) = 4.64, p = .04, η2p = .15 where a simple effects analysis revealed that there was no significant difference (F = 0.02, p = .89) in low trait test anxious participants' responses to test anxiety threat words relative to neutral words depending on whether they were in the high or low performance-evaluation threat condition. High trait test anxious participants, however, responded significantly more quickly (F = 8.64, p = .007) towards test anxiety threat words in the high performance-evaluation threat condition than in the low performance-evaluation threat condition. 4. Discussion The aim of this study was to develop a dot-probe measure of attentional bias for use with test anxiety and pilot the measure in relation to a cognitive ability task under high and low performanceevaluation thereat conditions. Results supported the prediction that high trait test anxious persons would show an attentional bias
Table 1 Attentional bias scores (in ms) of participants under high and low performanceevaluation threat conditions.
High performance-evaluation threat Low performance-evaluation threat Not by condition
High trait test anxiety
Low trait test anxiety
Overall
M
SE
M
SE
M
SE
− 23.00
10.07
19.14
10.77
− 1.00
7.38
21.00
10.77
18.78
9.50
18.69
7.18
− 1.93
7.37
19.98
7.18
D.W. Putwain et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 478–482
481
of attentional bias in the performance interfering effects of test anxiety and the potential for attentional bias modification as a potential intervention for test anxiety. Appendix A. Threat and neutral words used in the measure of attentional bias
Fig. 2. The interaction between worry and ego threat on attentional bias.
towards threat stimuli, but only under a high performance-evaluation threat condition. These findings provide evidence that test anxiety, like clinical and high trait anxiety, is characterised by an attentional bias towards threat stimuli. Test anxious persons do not maintain this vigilant state of processing under all conditions however, as attentional bias was only demonstrated in a situation in which performance-evaluation concerns were made salient. Corresponding real-life situations may include being provided with notice of a forthcoming examination or the instructions provided by an examination paper and would seemingly be difficult to avoid in relation to high-stake examinations. Although these findings do suggest that a congruent situation is required to switch to a vigilant mode of processing, this does not discount the possibility that the findings reported here may also be the result of a difficulty in disengaging from threat stimuli. It is important to replicate these findings, but a useful follow-up step would be to establish whether attentional bias in test anxiety is a feature of enhanced vigilance to threat or difficulty in disengaging. Koster, Crombez, Verschuere, and de Houwer (2004) suggest modifications to dot probe measures to allow for this type of analysis. One limitation of our study concerns the ecological validity of our findings. One could question the extent to which our manipulation sufficiently replicates the degree of performance-evaluation threat a student may encounter in an actual high-stakes examination and future research may wish to establish attentional bias in a real-life setting using a modified dot-probe task. Although such a project may be cumbersome to design, both practically and ethically, there would be great benefit, both theoretical and substantive, to demonstrate that test anxious persons show an attentional bias towards threat stimuli in the context of a real high-stakes test or examination. Despite these limitations we believe this study makes a useful contribution to the extant literature. The measure of attentional bias we have developed showed the pattern of the results predicted from research examining attentional bias in trait and clinical anxiety. Since protocols for measuring attentional bias in test anxiety are rarely found in the literature, we believe that the measure presented here makes a useful methodological contribution to the literature and may assist the development of future work which may wish to examine attentional bias in test anxiety. In particular the finding that test anxiety is related to attentional bias can open the way for research examining the causal status of attentional bias in test anxiety, the role
Threat words: Grade, SATs*, Fail, Test, Mark, Study, Hurry, Coursework, Marking, Failure, Cramming, Exam, Incorrect, Going blank, Assessment, Revision, Wrong answer, Frustration, Studying, Timed exam, Multiple choice, Exam paper, Exam worry, GCSE*, Exam question, Exam panic, Exam result, Letting myself down, Invigilator, Incorrect answer. Neutral words: Grass, Cup, Room, Chair, Tree, Floor, Cushion, Oven, Liquid, Jumper, Picture, Digit, Forest, Carpet, Basket, Table, Newspaper, Elephant, Studio, Frequency, Handwriting, Collection, History, Telephone, Property, Creation, Triangle, Diagonal, Television, Definition, Kilometre, Activity, Advertisement, Radiator, Electricity, Abbreviation, Personality. *For international readers, Standard Assessment Tests (SATs) refer to tests taken in the final year of primary school in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (Year 6: aged 10/11 years) and the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) to the school leaving qualification taken in the final year of secondary schooling in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (Year 11: aged 15/16 years). Appendix B. Word pairs with presentation position (threat word above or below fixation cue) and probe direction randomised
Order
Top word
Bottom word
Probe replaces
Probe direction
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Forest Creation Exam Exam worry Frustration Exam paper Mark Carpet Studying Electricity Frequency Picture Room Floor Marking Cushion Activity Going blank Assessment GCSE Incorrect answer Frustration Multiple choice Creation Triangle Definition Test Activity Personality Exam paper Timed exam Incorrect Digit Table Cup Letting myself down Abbreviation
Forest Going blank Oven definition Frustration Exam paper Mark Coursework Newspaper Letting myself down Timed exam Picture Room Fail Oven Marking Exam result Elephant Assessment GCSE Incorrect answer Collection Diagonal Studying Triangle Definition Floor Activity Personality Exam paper Timed exam Incorrect Digit Failure Cup Personality
R R L L L R L L L R
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Failure Going blank Oven Definition History Advertisement Tree Coursework Newspaper Letting myself down Timed exam Hurry Mark Fail Oven Marking Exam result Elephant Studio Diagonal Electricity Collection Diagonal Studying Revision Exam panic Floor Exam paper Incorrect answer Television Telephone Frequency Cramming Failure Fail Personality
L L L L R L R R R L R R L R R R R R L R R L L L R L
Incorrect answer
Abbreviation
R
37
(continued on next page)
482
D.W. Putwain et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 478–482
Appendix (continued) B (continued)
References
Order
Top word
Bottom word
Probe replaces
Probe direction
38 39
Electricity Abbreviation
Invigilator Abbreviation
L L
40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Handwriting Digit Jumper Elephant Assessment Newspaper Picture Coursework Exam result Invigilator Grade Grade Liquid SATs Exam question Incorrect Exam Going blank Test Revision GCSE Wrong answer Television Property Abbreviation Television Wrong answer Failure Room Forest Telephone Mark Study Cramming Handwriting Liquid Exam panic Fail Jumper Revision Multiple choice Television Picture Cup Definition Advertisement Coursework Grade Table Exam question Exam result Incorrect Grass Fail Grass Cushion Radiator
Invigilator Letting myself down Studying Marking Marking Wrong answer Elephant Assessment Cramming Jumper Kilometre Personality Chair Tree Coursework Floor Definition Newspaper Jumper Triangle Chair Collection Kilometre Handwriting Exam question Timed exam Invigilator Multiple choice Studio Picture Grade Exam Frustration Chair Carpet Basket Going blank Study Diagonal Grass Hurry Frequency Advertisement Exam worry Study SATs GCSE Exam panic Basket Grass Hurry Activity Radiator Property SATs Tree Test Study Multiple choice
Studying Digit Jumper Elephant Elephant Newspaper Cramming Jumper Exam result Invigilator Grade Grade Liquid SATs Exam question Newspaper Jumper Triangle Test Revision Kilometre Handwriting Television Timed exam Invigilator Multiple choice Wrong answer Picture Room Forest Telephone Mark Carpet Cramming Going blank Study Diagonal Fail Hurry Frequency Multiple choice Television Study SATs GCSE Exam panic Basket Grade Hurry Exam question Radiator Incorrect SATs Tree Grass Cushion Radiator
L R R L R L L R R L R R L R L R L L R L L L R R R L L L L L L L R R R L L R R L L R R R R L R L R L R R R R R R R
Asmundson, G. J. G., & Stein, M. B. (1994). Selective processing of social threat in patients with generalized social phobia: Evaluation using a dot-probe paradigm. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 8, 107−117, doi:10.1016/0887-6185(94)90009-4. 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 meta-analytic study. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 1−24, doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.1. Benson, J., Moulin-Julian, M., Schwarzer, C., Seipp, B., & El-Zahhar, N. (1992). Cross validation of a revised test anxiety scale using multi-national samples. In K. A. Hagvet & T. B. Johnsen (Eds.), Advances in test anxiety research, Vol. 7. (pp. 62−83) Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Calvo, M. G., Eysenck, M. W., & Castillo, M. D. (1997). Interpretation bias in test anxiety: The time course of predictive inferences. Cognition and Emotion, 11, 43−64, doi: 10.1080/026999397380023. Chapell, M. S., Blanding, Z. B., Silverstein, M. E., Takahashi, M., Newman, B., Gubi, A., et al. (2005). Test anxiety and academic performance in undergraduate and graduate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 268−274, doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.268. Cisler, J. M., & Koster, E. H. W. (2010). Mechanisms of attentional biases towards threat in anxiety disorders: An integrative review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 203−216, doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.003. Dandeneau, S. D., & Baldwin, M. W. (2009). The buffering effects of rejection-inhibition attentional on training on social and performance threat among adult students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 42−50, doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.05.004. Hope, D. A., Rapee, R. M., Heimberg, R. G., & Dombeck, M. J. (1990). Representations of the self in social phobia: Vulnerability to social threat. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 177−189, doi:10.1007/BF01176208. Koster, E. H. W., Crombez, G., Verschuere, B., & de Houwer, J. (2004). Selective attention to threat in the dot probe paradigm: Differentiating vigilance and difficulty to disengage. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 1183−1192, doi:10.1016/j. brat.2003.08.001. Keogh, E., & French, C. C. (2001). test anxiety, evaluative stress and susceptibility to distraction from threat. European Journal of Personality, 15, 123−141, doi:10.1002/per.400. Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, MA: Brown University press. Lawson, D.J. (2006) Test anxiety: A test of attentional bias. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67 (9-B), 5412. MacLeod, C., & Mathews, A. (1988). Anxiety and the allocation of attention to threat. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 40, 653−670, doi:10.1080/14640748808402292. MacLeod, C., Rutherford, E., Campbell, L., Ebsworthy, G., & Holker, L. (2002). Selective attention and emotional vulnerability: Assessing the causal basis of their association through the experimental manipulation of attentional bias. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 107−123, doi:10.1037//0021-843X.111.1.107. Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (2002). Induced processing biases have causal effects on anxiety. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 331−354, doi:10.1080/02699930143000518. Mogg, K., McNamara, J., Powys, M., Rawlinson, H., Seiffer, A., & Bradley, B. P. (2000). Selective attention to threat: A test of two cognitive models of anxiety. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 375−399, doi:10.1080/026999300378888. Putwain, D. W. (2008). Test anxiety and academic performance in KS4. Educational Psychology in Practice, 24, 319−334, doi:10.1080/02667360802488765. Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2004). Standard progressive matrices. Oxford: OPP. Sarason, I. G. (1988). Anxiety, self-preoccupation and attention. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 1, 3−8, doi:10.1080/10615808808248215. Schutz, P. A., Davis, H. A., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2002). Organisation of concepts relevant to examinations and their regulation during test taking. Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 316−342, doi:10.1080/00220970209599511. See, J., MacLeod, C., & Bridle, R. (2009). The reduction of anxiety vulnerability through the modification of attentional bias: A real-world study using a home based cognitive bias modification procedure. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118, 65−75, doi:10.1037/a0014377. Spielberger, C. D., & Vagg, P. R. (1995). Test anxiety: A transactional process model. In C. D. Speilberger & P. R. Vagg (Eds.), Test anxiety: Theory, assessment and treatment (pp. 3−14). Bristol: Taylor & Frances. Wilson, E., & MacLeod, C. (2003). Contrasting two accounts of anxiety-linked attentional bias: Selective attention to varying levels of stimulus threat intensity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 212−218, doi:10.1037/0021-843X.112.2.212. Zeidner, M., & Mathews, G. (2005). Evaluation anxiety. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 141−163). London: Guildford Press.