running head: test anxiety, personality, and motivation 1 a model exploring cognitive

Running head: TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION 1

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

TEST ANXIETY, PERSONALITY, AND MOTIVATION 2

To Mom and Dad


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


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.


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


LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Bivariate Correlations and Reliability Coefficients for Personality, Goal

Orientation, and Cognitive Test Anxiety (CTA)……………………………...

73

2. Regression Coefficient Summary: Personality and Cognitive Test Anxiety

(CTA)……………………………………………………………….………...

74

3. Regression Coefficient Summary: Goal Orientation and Cognitive Test

Anxiety (CTA)……………………………………………………………......

75

4. Fit Indices for Full and Partial Mediation Model…………………………….

77


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. The Conceptual Figure Depicting the Relationships Among the Variables

Examined in the Current Study (Direct Model)…………………………...

20

2. The Conceptual Figure Depicting the Relationships Among the Mediator

and Outcome Variables Examined in the Current Study…………………..

21

3. The Conceptual Figure Depicting the Relationships the Variables

Examined in the Current Study (Fully Mediated Model) …………………

22

4. 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


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, 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


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-test-

anxious 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 test-

anxious 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


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).


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).


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


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 self-

oriented 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


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


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 well-

being (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


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 (Senecal , 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


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


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.


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.


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;


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,


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).

-


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,


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


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 (Senecal , 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


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


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 meta-

analysis 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,


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-


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


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


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 test-

anxious 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 ill-

prepared 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.


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


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; Naveh-

Benjamin, 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,


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


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 Self-

Regulation 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


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. Low-

test-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


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


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


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 “if-

then” 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 self-

regulatory 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


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 self-

esteem, 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).


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


attached to the familiar), Perfectionism (controlled versus undisciplined), Privateness (discreet

versus open), Reasoning (abstract versus concrete), Rule Consciousness (conforming versus non-

conforming), 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


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.


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


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


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


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


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, Bakermans-

Kranenburg, & 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).


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).


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


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’ goal-

directed 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


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


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


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 mastery-

oriented 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


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


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: mastery-

approach, 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 mastery-

avoidance goal (Ciani & Sheldon, 2010). Ciani and Sheldon further posited that mastery-

avoidance 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


to threat appraisal and anticipatory test anxiety (McGregor & Elliot, 2002). Similarly, mastery-

avoidance 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


(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,


& Pintrich, 1996), report less positive emotions in school (Senecal , 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 self-

evaluation 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


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,


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 achieving-

oriented 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


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).


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


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 two-

factor 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 one-

factor 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


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: self-

efficacy 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


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.


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


significant. However, Kline (2011) cautioned that large sample sizes will cause most chi-square-

base 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.


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 (Kaiser-

Meyer-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


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-


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)

Op. Con. Ext. Agr. Neur. EGO IGO CTA

Openness -- .136** .202** .166** -.081 .061 .204** -.141**

Conscientiousness -- .144** .481** -.076 .283** .155** -.146**

Extraversion -- .203** -.330** .024 .031 -.061

Agreeableness -- -.205** .253** .084 -.094*

Neuroticism -- .063 -.097* .366**

Extrinsic Goal

Orientation -- .163** .116*

Intrinsic Goal Orientation -- -.046

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,


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


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


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.


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 2 df

2/df CFI RMSEA

Fully mediated model 102.080** 3 .000 .328 .269

Partially mediated model 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


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.


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


(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-


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.


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


(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 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).

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


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

(Senecal , 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


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


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 self-

disciplined; 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)


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


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


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), 92-

98.

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.


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.


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 meta-

analytic 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.


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

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WM0-5017HCK-1&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F06%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4e902f4a43b987f62517c5b7459ebefa%20


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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier

https://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fjopy.12177


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 self-

assessed 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.


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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier

https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ijpsycho.2006.01.005


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.


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.


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.


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.


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, 302-

310. 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


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: 10.1037/0033-

2909.130.4.574.

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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.1467-

6494.1992.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.


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


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.


Peterson, J.B., Smith, K.W., & Carson, S. (2002). Openness and Extraversion are associated with

reduced latent inhibition: Replication and commentary. Personality and Individual


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 socio-

economic 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.


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.


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 high-

stakes testing. Psychology in the Schools, 50(5), 489-499.


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.


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. 3-

14). 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


Tobias, S. (1985). Test anxiety: Interference, defective skills, and cognitive capacity.

Educational Psychology, 20, 135-142.


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 self-

concept, 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, 755-

764.

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.


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: 10.1037/0021-

843X.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


Yerkes, R. M. & Dodson, J.D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-

formation. 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.


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.

running head: test anxiety, personality, and motivation 1 a model exploring cognitive

Documents