Age and Gender Differences in Test Anxiety and Functional Coping

Age and gender differences in test anxiety and functional coping

(A report of project submitted to Dept. of Applied Psychology For M.A.II- Year 2010-2011)

Undertaken By:Bhakti JoshiM. A. II Counseling PsychologyDepartment of Applied Psychology

Research guide: Dr. Priscilla Paul Associate Professor,

Dept. of Applied Psychology, University of Mumbai.

1

2

DECLARATION

The work reported in this project has been completely carried out by me under the guidance of Dr. Priscilla Paul, Associate Professor, Dept.of Applied Psychology, University of Mumbai.

Observations, analysis and interpretations made in this study as well as the conclusion arrived at and included are entirely my own.

The work reported in this project is original and with the best of my knowledge has never been submitted in part/ full to any diploma, degree of University of Mumbai or any other University or institution.

Dr. Priscilla Paul Bhakti JoshiAssociate Professor, M. A.II, Dept. of Applied Psychology, CounselingUniversity of Mumbai. Psychology,

Dept. of Applied Psychology.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

3

Any activity, in the tradition of India begins with ‘GURU VANDANA’. I first seek the blessings of all the faculty members of Dept. Of Applied Psychology, who taught me during the classroom sessions, a fraction of whose wisdom I strove to absorb.

I would like to thank all the members of my Dept. Of Applied Psychology and especially our research guide Dr. Paul for providing me constant guidance.

I am deeply in gratitude with all the staff members of ‘K.E.T.’s V. G. VAZE COLLEGE and SHRIMATI SAVITRIDEVI THIRANI VIDYAMANDIR’, who gave me an opportunity and permission to visit and collect my data in their Institution and providing me feedback on various aspects of the Project work.

Last but not the least I would like to thank my parents, my friends and all those who have directly or indirectly encouraged and helped me during this project.

Thank You All!!!

INDEX

4

Sr. No. Contents Page No.

1 Abstract 6

2 Introduction 7-18

3 Literature Review 19-21

4 Methodology 22-24

5 Results And Discussion

25-36

6 Limitation/ Suggestion for Further Research

37

7 Conclusion 38

8 References 39

9 Appendix: A 41

10 Appendix: B 43

ABSTRACT

5

The purpose of this research was to determine if age and gender differences exist in test anxiety levels and functional coping for students.

Studies comparing on age and gender differences in test anxiety have been done previously by Dr. Ross as well as Hembree, 1988; McDonald, 2001; Zeidner, 1998. Research has consistently found gender differences in test anxiety (Hembree, 1988; McDonald, 2001; Zeidner, 1998), with female participants scoring higher than male participants on self-report measures of test anxiety (Ferrando, Varea, & Lorenzo, 1999; Gierl & Rogers, 1996; Hembree, 1988; Seipp & Schwarzer, 1996; Wren & Benson, 2004; Zeidner & Schleyer, 1999). However, research showing differences in functional coping across these variable have been quite a few in number.

This research aimed at studying age and gender differences in test anxiety and functional coping styles and presented findings based on a study completed at a secondary school and senior college as well as university in Mumbai. The participants in this study consisted of 60 high school students, 30 of whomWere males and 30 were females. Remaining 60 were students pursuing higher education, 30 males and 30 females.

Previous studies show that some age and gender differences exist in the amount of test anxiety experienced and coping levels. However the research study does not show any such significant difference.

INTRODUCTION

6

Some anxiety is normal during testing situations. Excessive anxiety is when it affects test performance—before, during, and after testing. Previous estimate of TEST ANXIETY of 20%-30% of school aged students is now higher.

According to the literature, many definitions of test anxiety exist (Liebert & Morris, 1967; Nicaise, 1995; Spielberger, Gonzalez, Taylor, Algaze, & Anton, 1978; Suinn, 1968). Nicaise defined test anxiety as an individual's physiological, cognitive, and behavioral responses that stimulate negative feelings about an evaluation. When an individual becomes anxious, the physiological system becomes aroused, such as the heart beating faster or the sweat glands producing more perspiration. At the same time, the individual may experience apprehension and a higher sense of inadequacy. When an individual experiences test anxiety, these physical and cognitive responses may lead to negative feelings and cognitions about testing situations (Nicaise, 1995). Suinn defined test anxiety as "an inability to think or remember, a feeling of tension, and difficulty in reading and comprehending simple sentences or directions on an examination" (p. 385). Spielberger and Vagg (1995) viewed test anxiety as a situation-specific form of trait anxiety. Trait anxiety is a stable personality characteristic, whereas state anxiety is a transitory emotional state (Spielberger et al., 1978). According to Spielberger and Vagg (1995), a test-anxious individual is more prone to react with excessive anxiety (e.g., worry, negative thoughts, tension, and physiological arousal) across evaluative situations (i.e., trait anxiety), and the test-anxious individual experiences more intense levels of state anxiety in each evaluative situation. State anxiety is viewed as the emotionality component (i.e., the physiological symptoms) of test anxiety. The high level of state anxiety experienced by the test-anxious individual in an evaluative situation then activates worry conditions stored in one's memory, and these worry conditions interfere with the test-anxious individual's performance on a test (Zeidner, 1998).

The Test Anxiety Construct

Researchers have stated that the test anxiety construct is complex, consisting of multiple dimensions (Benson, 1998; Zeidner, 1998). Dimensions proposed to be part of the current conceptualization of the test anxiety construct, based on nearly a century of research on test anxiety, include emotionality, worry, cognitive interference, and a lack of self-confidence (Hodapp, 1995) or possibly a lack of self-efficacy (see Hodapp & Benson, 1997) or social derogation (Friedman & Bendas-Jacob, 1997). Test anxiety has long been known to produce physiological arousal, which was originally termed "emotionality" (Liebert & Morris, 1967; Spielberger & Vagg, 1995). Recent studies (Joiner, Steer, Beck, Schmidt, Rudd, & Catanzaro, 1999) have named this aspect of test anxiety physiological hyper arousal. In test anxiety, physiological hyper arousal produces physical symptoms such as sweaty palms, increased heart rate, or shallow and rapid breathing when an individual prepares for and takes a test (Beidel, 1998). In addition to physiological hyper arousal, Liebert and Morris (1967) emphasized

7

worry as a key element of test anxiety. The worry component of test anxiety refers to the negative self-talk and negative cognitions an individual experiences in relation to examinations. Test-anxious children and adolescents "do not approach a task such as a test with a positive outlook or expectation of success, but with dread regarding the potential for negative evaluation or failure" (Cizek & Burg, 2005, p. 17). Hembree's (1988) meta-analysis found that the worry component may be a stronger factor in test anxiety and cause lower test performance than the emotionality component. Likewise, Stober and Pekrun (2004) believed that the worry component is directly related to lower examination performance.

The cognitive obstruction dimension is based on the work of a number of researchers (McKeachie, 1984; Swanson & Howell, 1996; Tyron, 1980; Wine, 1971). Cognitive obstruction is viewed as the degree to which test anxiety disrupts the ability of an individual to organize his or her thoughts or to concentrate on the task at hand (Hodapp, 1995).

Social humiliation refers to cognitions related to fear or worry that others will deride or disparage one's performance on a test. Friedman and Bendas-Jacob (1997) showed that "social derogation" was a salient feature of test anxiety through their factor analytic and cross-validation study.

These components represent different dimensions proposed to be part of the test anxiety construct. In addition to these debilitating test anxiety dimensions, a facilitating test anxiety dimension has also been proposed. In a classic study by Yerkes and Dodson (1908), and more recently by Alpert and Haber (1960), these researchers showed that some test anxiety actually enhances or facilitates test performance. These proposed dimensions supported by research highlight the importance of developing new measures based on a broader conceptualization of the test anxiety construct to assess test anxiety in elementary and secondary school students (Lowe, Lee, & DeRuyck, 2004).

Some common reasons for test anxiety:

• Students become anxious at the thought of taking a test and may convince themselvesthat they will fail (low self-efficacy).

• They panic because the questions on the test don't look reasonably close to what was studied in class or at home.

• Due to negative test Taking experience, a negative attitude about testing, or a combination.

• Students become more anxious due to anxiety of teachers and parents.

• These common reasons are exaggerated in students with special needs.

8

Understanding Test Anxiety:

Cognitive Aspects• WORRY

Excessive thinking about upcoming test Concerns about consequences of failure Worry that own ability as inadequate

• SELF-PREOCCUPATION

Self Talk becomes self-focused instead of Task oriented Has fewer positive self attributes

• COGNITIVE INERFERENCE

Getting caught up in thoughts that serve no purpose and interfere with processing information (e.g., spending 60% of mental energy on test, and 40% on other thoughts)

Over emphasis on time left on test Inability to leave unsolved test items

Emotionality Aspects• PHYSIOLOGICAL REACTION

Physical responses include Increased heart rate Sweaty palms Shaking Needing to urinate Cold clammy hands

Minimal signs can trigger more intense reactions

TEST ANXIETY works at 3 levels• Study or Preparation level

TEST ANXIETY affects effective & efficient use of time/strategies and overall processing of information

• Test taking level

TEST ANXIETY interferes with retrieval of information and usage of available mental energy

9

• After testing level

Leaves student feeling deflated and uncertain and affects future endeavors

Teacher Contribution to TEST ANXIETY

• Over-emphasis on competition• Significant emphasis placed on ranking of students• Unconscious connection of test results with students’ self-worth• Public display of test results• In this era, constant talk about test and its impact• Teacher’s own anxiety

Parent Contribution to TEST ANXIETY• (Unrealistic) high expectation• Low support for positive achievement• Constant emphasis on high performance• Comparison of child’s performance with others• Modeling from own anxiety

Student Contribution to TEST ANXIETY• Being unprepared

Poor study and test taking skills Procrastination and delays in getting ready

• Previous negative experiences build on itself• “Performance Goal” orientation

Prevalence Rates of Test Anxiety

The number of students who experience test anxiety has been difficult to estimate, as large-scale epidemiological studies have not been conducted to date (Zeidner, 1998). Early studies reported prevalence rates of 10% (Kondas, 1967) to 25% or 30% (Hill, 1984; Nottelmann & Hill, 1977) among elementary and secondary school students. However, more recent studies estimated that more than 33% of school-age children and adolescents experience some test anxiety (Methia, 2004). The prevalence estimates reported suggest that test anxiety has increased over time, possibly due to an increase in testing and testing requirements in U.S. schools (Casbarro, 2005; Wren & Benson, 2004). The prevalence estimates reported also suggest that test anxiety is a widespread phenomenon (Zeidner, 1998), affecting many students negatively (Casbarro, 2005; Cizek & Burg, 2005; McDonald, 2001; Swanson & Howell, 1996).

10

Negative Effects of Test Anxiety

Students with high levels of test anxiety feel tense and worried in evaluative situations (Gierl & Rogers, 1996). Test-anxious students do not perform up to their potential when they take tests (Hancock, 2001; Hembree, 1988). Test-anxious students are reported to have lower standardized achievement test scores (Everson, Millsap, & Rodriguez, 1991), and they experience more difficulty with learning new material in the classroom (Chapell et al., 2005). Poor motivation, negative self-evaluation, and concentration difficulties have been found among testanxious students (Swanson & Howell, 1996). Students with high levels of test anxiety have a higher rate of grade retention (Hembree, 1988), school dropout (Tobias, 1979), and generalized anxiety (King, Mietz, Tinney, & Ollendick, 1995). Left untreated, many of these negative effects of test anxiety are reported to increase in severity over time (Swanson & Howell, 1996).

CopingThe psychological definition of coping is the process of managing taxing circumstances, expending effort to solve personal and interpersonal problems, and seeking "to master, minimize, reduce or tolerate stress" or conflict. Coping is intimately related to the concept of cognitive appraisal and, hence, to the stress relevant person-environment transactions. Most approaches in coping research follow Folkman and Lazarus (1980, p. 223), who define coping as `the cognitive and behavioral efforts made to master, tolerate, or reduce external and internal demands and conflicts among them.'

Coping strategies

In coping with stress, people tend to use one of the three main coping strategies: appraisal-focused, problem-focused, or emotion-focused coping.

Appraisal-focused strategies occur when the person modifies the way they think, for example: employing denial, or distancing oneself from the problem. People may alter the way they think about a problem by altering their goals and values, such as by seeing the humor in a situation.

People using problem-focused strategies try to deal with the cause of their problem. They do this by finding out information on the problem and learning new skills to manage the problem.

Emotion-focused strategies involve releasing pent-up emotions, distracting oneself, managing hostile feelings, meditating, using systematic relaxation procedures, etc.

Typically, people use a mixture of all three types of coping, and coping skills will usually change over time. All these methods can prove useful, but some claim that those using problem-focused coping strategies will adjust better to life. Men

11

often prefer problem-focused coping, whereas women can often tend towards an emotion-focused response. Problem-focused coping mechanisms may allow an individual greater perceived control over their problem, while emotion-focused coping may more often lead to a reduction in perceived control. Certain individuals therefore feel that problem-focused mechanisms represent a more effective means of coping.

This definition contains the following implications. (a) Coping actions are not classifiedaccording to their effects (e.g., as reality-distorting), but according to certain characteristics of the coping process. (b) This process encompasses behavioral as well as cognitive reactions in the individual. (c) In most cases, coping consists of different single acts andis organized sequentially, forming a coping episode. In this sense, coping is often characterized by the simultaneous occurrence of different action sequences and, hence, an interconnection of coping episodes. (d) Coping actions can be distinguished by their focus on different elements of a stressful encounter (cf. Lazarus and Folkman 1984 ). They can attempt to change the person–environment realities behind negative emotions or stress (problem-focused coping). They can also relate to internal elements and try to reduce a negative emotional state, or change the appraisal of the demanding situation ( emotion-focused coping).

Resource Theories of Stress: A Bridge between Systemic and Cognitive Viewpoints

Unlike approaches discussed so far, resource theories of stress are not primarily concerned with factors that create stress, but with resources that preserve well being in the face of stressful encounters. Several social and personal constructs have been proposed, such as social support (Schwarzer and Leppin 1991), sense of coherence (Antonovsky 1979), hardiness (Kobasa 1979), self-efficacy (Bandura 1977), or optimism (Scheier and Carver 1992). Whereas self-efficacy and optimism are single protective factors, hardiness and sense of coherence represent tripartite approaches. Hardiness is an amalgam of three components: internal control, commitment, and a sense of challenge as opposed to threat. Similarly, sense of coherence consists of believing that the world is meaningful, predictable, and basically benevolent. Within the social support field, several types have been investigated, such as instrumental, informational, appraisal, and emotional support. The recently offered conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll 1989, Hobfoll et al. 1996) assumes that stress occurs in any of three contexts: when people experience loss of resources, when resources are threatened, or when people invest their resources without subsequent gain. Four categories of resources are proposed: object resources (i.e., physical objects such as home, clothing, or access to transportation), condition resources (e.g., employment, personal relationships), personal resources (e.g., skills or self-efficacy), and energy resources (means that facilitate the attainment of other resources, for example, money, credit, or knowledge).

12

Hobfoll and co-workers outlined a number of testable hypotheses (called principles) derived from basic assumptions of COR (cf. Hobfoll et al. 1996).

1. Loss of resources is the primary source of stress. This principle contradicts the fundamental assumption of approaches on critical life events (cf. Holmes and Rahe 1967) that stress occurs whenever individuals are forced to readjust themselves to situational circumstances, may these circumstances be positive (e.g., marriage) or negative (e.g., loss of a beloved person). In an empirical test of this basic principle, Hobfoll and Lilly (1993) found that only loss of resources wasrelated to distress.

2. Resources act to preserve and protect other resources. Self-esteem is an important resource that may be beneficial for other resources. Hobfoll and Leiberman ( 1987), for example, observed that women who were high in self-esteem made good use of social support when confronted with stress, whereas those who lacked self-esteem interpreted social support as an indication of personal inadequacy and, consequently, misused support.

3. Following stressful circumstances, individuals have an increasingly depleted resource pool to combat further stress. This depletion impairs individuals' capability of coping with further stress, thus resulting in a loss spiral. This process view of resource investment requires focusing on how the interplay between resources and situational demands changes over time as stressor sequences unfold. In addition, this principle shows that it is important to investigate not only the effect of resources on outcome, but also of outcome on resources.

Coping Theories

Classification of Approaches

The Lazarus model outlined above represents a specific type of coping theory. These theories may be classified according to two independent parameters: (a) trait-oriented versus state oriented, and (b) micro analytic versus macro analytic approaches (cf. Krohne 1996). Trait oriented and state-oriented research strategies have different objectives: The trait-oriented (or dispositional) strategy aims at early identification of individuals whose coping resources and tendencies are inadequate for the demands of a specific stressful encounter. An early identification of these persons will offer the opportunity for establishing a selection (or placement) procedure or a successful primary prevention program. Research that is state oriented, i.e., which centers on actual coping, has a more general objective. This research investigates the relationships between coping strategies employed by an individual and outcome variables such as self-reported or objectively registered coping efficiency, emotional reactions accompanying and following certain coping efforts, or variables of adaptation outcome (e.g., health status or test performance). This research strategy intends

13

to lay the foundation for a general modificatory program to improve coping efficacy. Micro analytic approaches focus on a large number of specific coping strategies, whereas macro analytic analysis operates at a higher level of abstraction, thus concentrating on more fundamental constructs.

S. Freud's (1926) `classic' defense mechanisms conception is an example of a state-oriented, macro analytic approach. Although Freud distinguished a multitude of defense mechanisms, in the end, he related these mechanisms to two basic forms: repression and intellectualization (see also A. Freud 1936). The trait-oriented correspondence of these basic defenses is the personality dimension repression–sensitization (Byrne 1964, Eriksen 1966). The distinction of the two basic functions of emotion-focused and problem- focused coping proposed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) represents another macroanalytic state approach. In its actual research strategy, however, the Lazarus group extended this macro analytic approach to a micro analytic strategy. In their `Ways of Coping Questionnaire' (WOCQ; cf. Folkman and Lazarus 1988, Lazarus 1991), Lazarus and co-workers distinguish eight groups of coping strategies: confrontative coping, distancing, self-controlling, seeking social support, accepting responsibility, escape-avoidance, planful problem- solving, and positive reappraisal. The problem with this conception and, as a consequence, the measurement of coping is that these categories are only loosely related to the two basic coping functions. Unlike the macro analytic, trait- oriented approach that generated a multitude of theoretical conceptions, the micro analytic, trait-oriented strategy is mostly concerned with constructing multidimensional inventories (overviews in Schwarz and Schwarz 1996). Almost all of these measurement approaches, however, lack a solid theoretical foundation (cf. Crone 1996).

Macro analytic, Trait-Oriented Coping Theories

Research on the processes by which individuals cope with stressful situations has grown Substantially over the past three decades (cf. Lazarus 1991, Zeidner and Endler 1996). Many trait-oriented approaches in this field have established two constructs central to an Understanding of cognitive responses to stress: vigilance, that is, the orientation toward Stressful aspects of an encounter, and cognitive avoidance, that is, averting attention from stress-related information (cf. Janis 1983, Krohne 1978, 1993, Roth and Cohen 1986 ). Approaches corresponding to these conceptions are repression–sensitization (Byrne 1964), monitoring-blunting (Miller 1980, 1987), or attention-rejection (Mullen and Suls 1982). With regard to the relationship between these two constructs, Byrne's approach specifies a unidimensional, bipolar structure, while Miller as well as Mullen and Suls leave this question open. Krohne, however, explicitly postulates an independent functioning of the dimensions vigilance and cognitive avoidance.

Repression–sensitization

14

The repression–sensitization construct (cf. Byrne 1964, Eriksen 1966) relates different forms of dispositional coping to one bipolar dimension. When confronted with a stressful encounter, persons located at one pole of this dimension (repressers) tend to deny or minimize the existence of stress, fail to verbalize feelings of distress, and avoid thinking about possible negative consequences of this encounter. Persons at the opposite pole (sensitizers) react to stress-related cues by way of enhanced information search, rumination, and obsessive worrying. The concept of repression–sensitization is theoretically founded in research on perceptual defense (Bruner and Postman 1947), an approach that combined psychodynamic ideas with the functionalistic behavior analysis of Brunswik ( 1947).

Monitoring and blunting

The conception of monitoring and blunting (Miller 1980, 1987) originated from the same basic assumptions formulated earlier by Eriksen ( 1966) for the repression–sensitization construct. Miller conceived both constructs as cognitive informational styles and proposed that individuals who encounter a stressful situation react with arousal according to the amount of attention they direct to the stressor. Conversely, the arousal level can be lowered, if the person succeeds in reducing the impact of aversive cues by employing avoidant cognitive strategies such as distraction, denial, or reinterpretation. However, these coping strategies, called blunting, should only be adaptive if the aversive event is uncontrollable. Examples of uncontrollable events are impending surgery or an aversive medical examination (Miller and Mangan 1983). If control is available, strategies called monitoring, i.e., seeking information about the stressor, are the more adaptive forms of coping. Although initially these strategies are associated with increased stress reactions, they enable the individual to gain control over the stressor in the long run, thus reducing the impact of the stressful situation. An example of a more controllable stressor is preparing for an academic exam.

The general relationship between a stressor's degree of controllability and the employment of monitoring or blunting strategies can be moderated by situative and personal influences. With regard to situation, the noxious stimulation may be so intense that blunting strategies, such as attentional diversion, are ineffective with respect to reducing stress-related arousal. Concerning personality, there are relatively stable individual differences in the inclination to employ blunting or monitoring coping when encountering a stressor.

15

Coping Strategies and Defense Mechanisms: Basic and Intermediate Defenses

Apart from personality traits, people also tend to develop habitual modes and methods of managing stress and coping with upsetting emotions. By and large, these habitual methods do help people to manage and defuse stressful situations they find themselves in, but they are not all equally efficient at this task. Some work better than others. While some really do succeed in helping people to manage upsetting emotion, the lesser quality methods generally end up causing more problems than they solve.

Perhaps not surprisingly, there is a relationship between people's emotional maturity and the sort of coping methods they prefer. Less emotionally mature people tend to prefer rather primitive and often inefficient coping methods , while more mature folks lean towards more sophisticated and more useful methods. The less mature methods also tend to have in common that their use is not premeditated or conscious in nature, but rather fairly reactive, not well thought out, and unconscious. As coping methods increase in maturity and sophistication, they become correspondingly more deliberate and conscious in nature, and also tend to be used more proactively, rather than simply reactively.

The study of coping methods has a long history. The topic was originally described by psychodynamic psychotherapists (including Dr. Freud) who called them defense mechanisms. The defense mechanism literature was largely focused on mental illness and the ways that various primitive mechanisms served largely to maintain serious illness rather than help reduce it. Later, more cognitively oriented researchers began a separate study of coping that focused more on mental health, and ways that mature coping methods could be taught to enhance health. Though some authors suggest that the term defense mechanisms should be reserved for describing primitive, immature coping strategies, and the term "coping methods" for more mature, useful coping efforts, it doesn't really matter what label is used to describe the different coping methods from our perspective; they are all just people's attempts at coping.

The most primitive of the defense mechanisms are considered to be primitive because they fundamentally rely on blatant misrepresentation or outright ignoring of reality in order to function. These mechanisms flourish in situations (and minds) where emotion trumps reason and impulsivity rules the day. Children use them naturally and normally, but then again, children are by definition emotionally

16

immature and not held to a higher standard as are adults. When adults use these methods on a regular basis, it is an indication that their emotional development is at some level delayed.

Denial; an outright refusal or inability to accept some aspect of reality that is troubling. For example: "this thing has not happened" when it actually has.

Splitting; a person cannot stand the thought that someone might have both good and bad aspects, so they polarize their view of that person as someone who is "all good" or "all bad". Any evidence to the contrary is ignored. For example: "My boss is evil", after being let go from work, when in reality, the boss had no choice in the matter and was acting under orders herself. Splitting functions by way of Dissociation, which is an ability people have in varying amounts to be able to wall off certain experiences and not think about them.

Projection; a person's thought or emotion about another person, place or thing is too troubling to admit, and so, that thought or emotion is attributed to originate from that other person, place or thing. For example: "He hates me", when it is actually the speaker who hates. A variation on the theme of Projection is known as "Externalization". In Externalization, you blame others for your problems rather than owning up to any role you may play in causing them.

Passive-aggression; A thought or feeling is not acceptable enough to a person to be allowed direct expression. Instead, that person behaves in an indirect manner that expresses the thought or emotion. For example: Failing to wash your hands before cooking when you normally would, and happen to be cooking for someone you don't like.

Acting out; an inability to be thoughtful about an impulse. The impulse is expressed directly without any reflection or consideration as to whether it is a good idea to do so. For example: a person attacks another person in a fit of anger without stopping to consider that this could seriously wound or disfigure that other person and/or possibly result in legal problems.

Fantasy; engaging in daydreams about how things should be, rather than doing anything about how things are. For example: Daydreaming of killing a bully, instead of taking concrete action to stop the bully from bothering you.

An intermediate level of defense mechanisms (the "neurotic" mechanisms) are defined by a more ambivalent relationship with reality. Reality is recognized here to a larger extent, even if it is put off or avoided.

17

Displacement; An unacceptable feeling or thought about a person, place or thing is redirected towards a safer target. For example, it may feel unsafe to admit anger towards a parent, but it is perfectly safe to criticize the neighborhood he or she lives in.

Isolation/Intellectualization; Overwhelming feelings or thoughts about an event are handled by isolating their meaning from the feelings accompanying the meaning, and focusing on the meaning in isolation. For example, you cope with the recent death of a parent by reading about the grieving process.

Repression; A milder form of denial; You manage uncomfortable feelings and thoughts by avoiding thinking about them. You are able to admit that you feel a certain way (unlike in denial), but you can't think of what might have led up to that feeling, and don't really want to think about it anyway.

Reaction Formation; You react to uncomfortable, unacceptable feelings or ideas that you have (but aren't quite conscious of really), by forming the opposite opinion. For example; you unconsciously hate your parent, but your experience is to the contrary; you are only aware of loving feelings for your parent.

18

LITERATURE REVIEWTo explain the observed variance in test anxiety scores, individual difference variables must be taken into account (Zeidner, 1998). Gender and age differences in test anxiety have been reported in the literature (Hembree, 1988; McDonald, 2001; Zeidner, 1998). Research has consistently found gender differences in test anxiety (Hembree, 1988; McDonald, 2001; Zeidner, 1998), with female participants scoring higher than male participants on self-report measures of test anxiety (Ferrando, Varea, & Lorenzo, 1999; Gierl & Rogers, 1996; Hembree, 1988; Seipp & Schwarzer, 1996; Wren & Benson, 2004; Zeidner & Schleyer, 1999). Seipp and Schwarzer conducted a meta-analysis on gender differences in test anxiety among 6,340 school-age students across 12 different cultures (China, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Holland, Hungary, India, Iran, Italy, Jordan, Korea, Turkey, and the United States). Cross-cultural adaptations of the Test Anxiety Inventory (TAI; Spielberger, 1980) were used in each of these independent studies. Seipp and Schwarzer found statistically significant gender differences in test anxiety in all countries except China. Girls scored statistically significantly higher than boys on the TAI, with a mean gender effect size reported of .29.

Although the pattern of gender differences reported in the test anxiety literature has been consistent, the pattern of age differences found in the test anxiety literature has been less consistent. Hembree (1988) examined test anxiety among students in Grades 2 through 12. Hembree conducted a meta-analysis of 78 studies involving 17,538 elementary and secondary school students. Hembree found that test anxiety increased in the early elementary school grades, stabilized near Grade 5, and remained constant throughout the junior high and high school years. In contrast, Wigfield and Eccles (1989) reported an increase in students' test anxiety scores in the junior high school years, and then the students' scores leveled off during the high school years. According to the literature, age and gender differences in evaluative situations do exist, and it is important to take these variables into account to explain the observed variance in students' scores on test anxiety measures (Zeidner, 1998).

Test anxiety will begin to appear in the elementary grades, continue to increase with age, and appears to peak during the college years. Unfortunately, many of the highly anxious high school students may not pursue higher education.

Test anxiety reduction findings are stronger with college students than with grade school students, but that may also be due to the fact that the college students are more ready to self-identify and seek assistance. Unfortunately, only a small portion of students seek treatment for test anxiety. Many students, especially

19

grade school students, do no wish to be identified as test anxious. Teacher referrals are very helpful in identifying students.

Elementary School and Middle School (Dr. Driscoll):This is the age that test anxiety begins to appear in many students. But it is difficult and often stigmatizing to identify students as “test anxious”, so it may be appropriate to provide the support and treatment for all students, even if they are not anxious. However, you can determine high anxious students by teacher referral or a screening instrument.

High School and Traditional Aged College Students (Dr. Ross)A very high percentage of these students have some form of test anxiety. It is estimated that up to 10% have a relatively high level of anxiety, with another 40% having a mild form. A very small percentage of these students will self-identify and refer themselves to counseling. Teacher referrals are the primary source of students for treatment. Some students self refer from campus advertisements or a listing in a class schedule.

Gender Differences in Test Anxiety• Women are said to be more sensitive and more self-conscious in evaluative

situations Women report higher anxiety from elementary school to college Cross cultural validity for women Higher on emotionality versus worry

• Maybe due to Socialization Women taught to express and acknowledge their feelings Men taught to repress or deny anxiety

Differences in research may be due to a lack of openness of men

Age Differences in Test Anxiety• Test anxiety rises from early to late elementary school stabilizing towards the

end of elementary Reaches peak point in junior high and then levels off through high school

(high school students reported to be less anxious than junior high) Similar patterns cross-culturally

• Possible Reasons Increases in demands and pressures Greater complexity of learning materials

Reducing successes Cumulative failures Increase in accuracy of self reports

20

Common Ethnic Differences in Test Anxiety• Mexican American Students

due to a heightened fear of disappointing their parents and teachers• African American Students

More likely to experience repeated academic failures Negative ethnic stereotypes (low expectations from others)

• Asian American Students Parental pressure High expectations Need more cross-cultural researchNeed more cross-cultural research

Despite mixed empirical support, a stereotypical view persists that when confronted with a stressful event, males are socialized to be more instrumental problem-solvers whereas women are socialized to be more expressive emotionally (Brody & Hall, 1993; Hamilton & Fagot, 1988; Ptacek, Smith, & Zanas, 1992). These presumed gender differences in strategies for coping with stressful events are in turn assumed to influence psychological functioning, in particular, levels of depression (Fondacaro & Moos, 1987; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978; Rosario, Shinn, Morch, & Huckabee, 1988). Although no direct causal links between gender, specific coping styles, and subsequent depression have been established, research has indicated that avoidance and some other emotion-focused coping strategies (Billings & Moos, 1984, 1985; Endler & Parker, 1990) are more often utilized by depressed individuals.

Rosario et al. (1988) discussed two theories that could account for gender differences in how individuals cope with stressful events. Socialization theory posits that women have been "socialized in a way that less adequately equips them with effective coping patterns" (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978, p. 15). According to this theory, women are taught to express their emotions more openly and to act in a more passive manner, whereas men are taught to approach situations in a more active, problem-focused, and instrumental manner (see Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Macoby & Jacklin, 1983). In contrast, role constraint theory (Rosario et al., 1988) argues that apparent gender differences in coping with stressors may be explained by gender differences in the likelihood of occupying particular social roles and the differential constraints that accompany role occupancy for women and men. Thus, socialization theory would predict that gender differences in coping strategy use would be found across situations and social roles, whereas role constraint theory would predict that if individuals occupy the same social role, gender differences in coping strategy use would disappear.

21

METHODOLOGY

ProblemTo study age and gender differences in test anxiety and functional coping

Hypothesis1. Adolescents have higher test anxiety than young adults2. Male and female do not differ on test anxiety 3. Gender and age show interaction effect4. Adolescents have lower coping than young adults5. Male and female do not differ on coping 6. Gender and age show interaction effect

Participants120 students participated in this research. Out of them 60 were school children in the age range of 13 and 15 years and 60 were college students in the age range of 20 to 23 years. Also 60 each were male and females.

Operational definition of variablesIndependent variable

IV: Age: AdolescenceYoung adults

IV: Gender:MaleFemale

Dependent variable

1. Test anxiety

2. Functional coping

Design: 2 X 2 factorial design

22

ProcedureThe subjects were divided on the basis of age and gender. On the basis of age, they were divided into two groups: Adolescence (13 to 15 yrs.) and Young Adults (20 to 23 yrs.). They were also divided into two equal groups on the basis of gender: Males and Females.

The subjects were then given Westside Test Anxiety Scale to assess the degree of test anxiety It consisted of 10 items and subjects had to rate their responses on 5-point rating scale. As they finished with first questionnaire, 5 minutes break was given.

Then they were assessed on their coping pattern with the help of Functional Dimensions of Coping Scale. In this scale, they were first asked to report about the experience of stress during their last important exam. Then they were asked to write in brief how they cope with that stress, which thoughts or actions were taken by them. Finally, they were asked to rate the helpfulness of their coping strategies on four dimensions of functional coping: Approach, Avoidance, Emotional Regulation and Reappraisal.

After subjects answered both the questionnaires, they were thanked for their sincere participation.

Tools 1. Westside test anxiety scale by Dr. Richard Driscoll (2005)

The Westside Test Anxiety Scale is a brief, ten item instrument designed to identify students with anxiety impairments who could benefit from an anxiety-reduction intervention. The scale items cover self-assessed anxiety impairment and cognitions which can impair performance. The Westside scale combines six items assessing impairment, four items on worry and dread, and no items on physiological over-arousal. The cognitive items are similar to those in the Cassady-Johnson (2001) Cognitive Test Anxiety Scale and in other familiar anxiety scales, and the impairment items are similar to those on the Alpert-Haber (1960) Debilitative Anxiety Scale.

The Westside scale thus has high face validity, in that it includes the highly relevant cognitive and impairment factors but omits the marginally relevant over-arousal factor.

23

2. Functional dimensions of coping scale by Ferguson & Cox (1997)

This scale is designed to assess not just what people do when attempting to cope with a stressful encounter (behavior), but also what the goals (functions) of their coping choices are. The functions describe what individuals believe the coping behavior is designed to achieve for them.

There are four functions assessed by this FDC scale.

1. Approach – behaviors that the person believes will allow them to deal directly with the problem.

2. Avoidance – behaviors that the person believes will allow them to ignore theexistence of the problem. 3. Emotional regulation – behaviors that the person believes will allow them to deal with the emotional consequences of the stressful encounter.

4. Reappraisal – behaviors that the person believes will allow them to readdress and reinterpret the meaning of the stressful encounter.

24

TABLE 1

Table showing mean and standard deviation of 120 subjects on Test Anxiety and Functional Coping.

N Mean Std. Deviation

TEST_ANX 120 2.4275 .6478

Approach 119 16.1933 4.0427

Avoidance 119 13.2101 4.4357

Emotional Regulation 119 11.5966 3.6087

Reappraisal 119 20.8487 5.0600

FC_TOTAL 119 61.8067 11.9073

25

Table 2

Table showing correlations among test anxiety, approach, avoidance, emotional regulation, reappraisal and functional coping as a whole.

TEST_ANX Approach Avoidance Emotional Regulation reappraisal FC_TOTAL

TEST_ANX 1.000 -.325(**) -.133 -.121 -.268(**) -.313(**)

Approach -.325(**) 1.000 .119 .317(**) .724(**) .783(**)

Avoidance -.133 .119 1.000 .264(**) .121 .545(**)

Emotional Regulation -.121 .317(**) .264(**) 1.000 .300(**) .629(**)

Reappraisal -.268(**) .724(**) .121 .300(**) 1.000 .806(**)

FC_TOTAL -.313(**) .783(**) .545(**) .629(**) .806(**) 1.000

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

26

Table 3

Tables showing mean and standard deviation of Young adults and Adolescents (males and females) on Test anxiety.

Univariate Analysis of Variance

Age SEX N Mean Std. Deviation

young adults

Female 30 2.4300 .5559

Male 30 2.6300 .6884

Total 60 2.5300 .6285

adolescents

Female 30 2.4500 .6882

Male 30 2.2000 .6074

Total 60 2.3250 .6558

Total

Female 60 2.4400 .6203

Male 60 2.4150 .6792

Total 120 2.4275 .6478

Table showing Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

AGE 1.261 1 1.261 3.102 .081

SEX 0 1 0 .046 .830

27

AGE * SEX 1.519 1 1.519 3.737 .056**

Error 47.141 116 .406

(** F value significant at 0.05 level of significance.)

Table 4

Tables showing mean and standard deviation of Young adults and Adolescents (males and females) on FC total (Functional coping total).

Univariate Analysis of Variance

Age SEX N Mean Std. Deviation

young adults

Female 30 64.9333 12.7196

Male 29 59.1379 9.7458

Total 59 62.0847 11.6312

Adolescents

Female 30 59.3333 10.5384

Male 30 63.7333 13.6000

Total 60 61.5333 12.2647

Total

Female 60 62.1333 11.9199

Male 59 61.4746 11.9876

Total 119 61.8067 11.9073

Table showing Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

AGE 7.504 1 7.504 .054 .816

28

SEX 14.479 1 14.479 .104 .747

AGE * SEX 772.933 1 772.933 5.578 .020**

Error 15935.848 115 138.573

(**F value significant at 0.05 level).

Table 5

Tables showing mean and standard deviation of Young adults and Adolescents (males and females) on Approach.

Univariate Analysis of Variance

Age SEX N Mean Std. Deviation

young adults

Female 30 17.1667 3.5339

male 29 15.2759 4.8174

Total 59 16.2373 4.2845

Adolescents

Female 30 15.6000 3.8201

male 30 16.7000 3.8160

Total 60 16.1500 3.8260

Total

Female 60 16.3833 3.7330

male 59 16.0000 4.3589

Total 119 16.1933 4.0427

Table showing Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

AGE .151 1 .151 .009 .923

29

SEX 4.650 1 4.650 .288 .593

AGE * SEX 66.513 1 66.513 4.118 .045**

Error 1857.460 115 16.152

(**F value significant at 0.05 level of significance).

Table 6

Tables showing mean and standard deviation of Young adults and Adolescents (males and females) on Avoidance.

Univariate Analysis of Variance

Age SEX N Mean Std. Deviation

young adults

female 30 13.4667 4.4313

Male 29 13.1379 4.5491

Total 59 13.3051 4.4538

adolescents

female 30 13.3667 3.7461

Male 30 12.8667 5.1175

Total 60 13.1167 4.4535

Total

female 60 13.4167 4.0684

Male 59 13.0000 4.8066

Total 119 13.2101 4.4357

Table showing Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

30

AGE 1.025 1 1.025 .051 .822

SEX 5.107 1 5.107 .254 .615

AGE * SEX .218 1 .218 .011 .917

Error 2315.348 115 20.133

(F value not significant at 0.05 level)

Table 7

Tables showing mean and standard deviation of Young adults and Adolescents (males and females) on Emotional Regulation.

Univariate Analysis of Variance

Age SEX N Mean Std. Deviation

young adults

female 30 12.2000 3.7453

male 29 11.6897 3.6066

Total 59 11.9492 3.6551

adolescents

female 30 10.6333 3.3986

male 30 11.8667 3.6647

Total 60 11.2500 3.5588

Total

female 60 11.4167 3.6327

male 59 11.7797 3.6059

Total 119 11.5966 3.6087

Table showing Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

31

AGE 14.360 1 14.360 1.104 .296

SEX 3.887 1 3.887 .299 .586

AGE * SEX 22.608 1 22.608 1.739 .190

Error 1495.440 115 13.004

(F value not significant at 0.05 level)

Table 8

Tables showing mean and standard deviation of Young adults and Adolescents (males and females) on Reappraisal.

Univariate Analysis of Variance

Age SEX N Mean Std. Deviation

young adults

female 30 22.2667 5.5082

male 29 19.0345 5.1857

Total 59 20.6780 5.5505

adolescents

female 30 19.7333 4.1683

male 30 22.3000 4.6546

Total 60 21.0167 4.5677

Total

female 60 21.0000 5.0085

male 59 20.6949 5.1503

Total 119 20.8487 5.0600

32

Table showing Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

AGE 3.986 1 3.986 .166 .685

SEX 3.293 1 3.293 .137 .712

AGE * SEX 250.044 1 250.044 10.400 .002**

Error 2764.999 115 24.043

(**F value significant at 0.05 level)

RESULTSThe obtained results support the part of the hypotheses. The mean and standard deviation (SD) were found for all the factors. The mean for test anxiety was found to be 2.43 and SD was 0.65. The mean for approach was 16.19 and SD was 4.04. The mean for avoidance was 13.21 and SD was 4.44. The mean for emotional regulation was 11.60 and SD was 3.61. The mean for reappraisal was 20.85 and SD was 5.06. The mean for FC total was 61.81 and SD was 11.91. (Table 1)

The correlation of each factor with every other factor was calculated. The correlation between test anxiety and approach was found to be 0.325. The correlation between test anxiety and reappraisal was found to be 0.268. The correlation between test anxiety and FC total was found to be 0.313. The correlation between approach and emotional regulation was 0.317. The correlation between approach and reappraisal was 0.724. The correlation between approach and FC total was 0.783. The correlation between avoidance and emotional regulation was 0.264. The correlation between avoidance and FC total was 0.545. The correlation between reappraisal and emotional regulation was 0.300. The correlation between FC total and emotional regulation was 0.629. The correlation between reappraisal and FC total was 0.806. All these correlations are significant at 0.01 level of significance (two tailed) (table 2)

The univariate ANOVA was used to analyze the significance of the obtained data. For test anxiety the F value for AGE was 3.102 and for GENDER it was .046. Both these values are insignificant at 0.05 levels. The F value for interaction between two variables was also calculated and a significant value of 3.737 was obtained. (Table 3)

33

For FC total the F value for AGE was 0.054 and for GENDER it was .104. Both these values are insignificant at 0.05 levels. The F value for interaction between two variables was also calculated and a significant value of 5.578 was obtained. (Table4)

For approach the F value for AGE was 0.009 and for GENDER it was 0.288. Both these values are insignificant at 0.05 levels. The F value for interaction between two variables was also calculated and a significant value of 4.118 was obtained. (Table 5)

For avoidance the F value for AGE was 0.051 and for GENDER it was 0.254. The F value for interaction between two variables was also calculated to be 0.011. All these values are insignificant at 0.05 levels. (Table 6)

For emotional regulation the F value for AGE was 1.104 and for GENDER it was 0.299. The F value for interaction between two variables was also calculated to be 1.739. All these values are insignificant at 0.05 levels. (Table 7)

For reappraisal the F value for AGE was 0.166 and for GENDER it was 0.137. Both these values are insignificant at 0.05 levels. The F value for interaction between two variables was also calculated and a significant value of 10.400 was obtained. (Table 8)

34

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the present research was to study age and gender differences in test anxiety and functional coping. The subjects were divided on the basis of age and gender. On the basis of age, they were divided into two groups: Adolescence (13 to 15 yrs.) and Young Adults (20 to 23 yrs.). They were also divided into two equal groups on the basis of gender: Males and Females. The subjects were given two scales assessing test anxiety and four dimensions of functional coping. And the scores were obtained.

The obtained data support part of the hypotheses. No age or gender differences found in the sample population with respect to test anxiety or functional coping.

The first hypothesis stated that adolescents have higher test anxiety than young adults. The obtained F value for test anxiety on the variable of age was 3.102 which were insignificant. This implies that there is no difference with respect to age in test anxiety. Thus the hypothesis was rejected.

The second hypothesis stated that males and females do not differ on test anxiety. The obtained F value for test anxiety on the variable on gender was 0.046 which was insignificant. This implies that the null hypothesis signifying no difference across gender is accepted.

The insignificant F value of 0.885 obtained by Levene’s test of equality of error variance tests the null hypothesis that error variance of the test anxiety is equal across the groups.

The third hypothesis stated that gender and age show interaction effect with respect to test anxiety. The F value of interaction of these two variables was

35

3.737 which as significant at 0.05 level. It validates the hypothesis. It means that the effect of AGE on test anxiety depends on the level of GENDER.

The fourth hypothesis states that adolescents have lower coping ability than young adults. The obtained insignificant F value of 0.054 does not support the hypothesis. Thus the null hypothesis of no difference in coping ability with respect to age is accepted.

The fifth hypothesis states that males and females do not differ on coping abilities. The obtained F value for functional coping on the variable of gender was 0.104 which was found to be insignificant. Thus it validates the null hypothesis which states that coping abilities are equally distributed across gender.

The sixth and last hypothesis states that age and gender show an interaction effect on coping abilities. The F value obtained was 5.578 which are significant at 0.05 levels. Thus the hypothesis of interaction effect was accepted.

The findinds of the study are not in line with previous research. ). Research has consistently found gender differences in test anxiety (Hembree, 1988; McDonald, 2001; Zeidner, 1998), with female participants scoring higher than male participants on self-report measures of test anxiety (Ferrando, Varea, & Lorenzo, 1999; Gierl & Rogers, 1996; Hembree, 1988; Seipp & Schwarzer, 1996; Wren & Benson, 2004; Zeidner & Schleyer, 1999). Although the pattern of gender differences reported in test anxiety literature has been consistent, the pattern of gender differences found has been less consistent. Some researchers found that test anxiety increased in the early school years, stabilized in adolescence and remain constant throughout the adult life in contrast some reported an increase in test anxiety in adolescence and then students’ scores leveled off during the young adult stage.

With respect to functional coping previous research has mixed empirical support showing males to be more socialized to instrumental problem solving while women to more expressive emotional problem solving. The research showing age differences in functional coping is limited.

The current study showed no significant age or gender differences in test anxiety as well as functional coping.

36

LIMITATIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

.

More extensive research with large sample size should be carried out to determine effect of age and gender on test anxiety and coping.

Sample should be inclusive of diverse population with respect to culture, socioeconomic status, societal norms etc.

Research should be carried out on same sample across different time periods.

37

CONCLUSION

The present research aimed at finding out the effect of age and gender differences on test anxiety and functional coping.

The previous research suggests that test anxiety increases with age and stabilizes after certain age. Also women tend to have higher test anxiety than men. There are some researches showing that women have better coping ability than men due to socialization process.

However the present research findings are not validating previous research findings. They show no effect of age or gender on either test anxiety or functional coping.

38

REFERENCES

Alpert, R. & Haber, R.N. (1960). Anxiety in academic achievement situations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 10, 207–215.

Cassady, J. & Johnson, R. (2001). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 270–295

Cox, T & Ferguson, E (1991). Individual difference, stress and coping. In Cooper, C and Payne, L (Eds) Personality and stress: individual differences in the stress process. Wiley & Sons: Chichester (pp 7-29)

Deffenbacher, J.L. (1980). Worry and emotionality in test anxiety. In I.G. Sarason (Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 111–124). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Driscoll, R. (2006). STARS–PAC Accelerated Anxiety Reduction: Rationale and Initial Findings. ERIC, 18 pp.

Driscoll, R., B. Holt, & L. Hunter (2005). Accelerated Desensitization and Adaptive Attitudes Interventions and Test Gains with Academic Probation Students. ERIC, 13 pp.

Ergene, T., (2003). Effective interventions on test anxiety reduction. School Psychology International, 24(3), 313-329.

Ferguson, E. & Cox, T. (1997). The functional dimensions of coping scale: theory, reliability and validity. British Journal of Health Psychology, 2 109-129

39

Ferguson, E. (2001). Personality and coping traits: A joint factor analysis. British Journal of Health Psychology, 6, 311-325

Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58 (1), 47-77.

Miller, Melanie, J. Morton, R. Driscoll &   K.A. Davis (2006). Accelerated Desensitization with Adaptive Attitudes and Test Gains with 5th Graders. ERIC, 14 pp.

Stipek, D., (2002). Motivation to Learn. Integrating Theory and Practice (4th ed.).Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Supon, V., (2004). Implementing strategies to assist test-anxious students. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(4), 292-297

40

APPENDIX: A WESTSIDE TEST ANXIETY SCALE

Rate how true each of the following is of you, from extremely or always true, to not at all or never true. Use the following 5 point scale.

5= extremely or always true

4= highly or usually true 

 3= moderately or sometimes true 

 2= slightly or seldom true  

  1= not at all or  never true 

1) The closer I am to a major exam; the harder it is for me to concentrate on the material. 

2) When I study, I worry that I will not remember the material on the exam.

3) During important exams, I think that I am doing awful or that I may fail. 

41

4) I lose focus on important exams, and I cannot remember material that I knew before the exam. 

5) I finally remember the answer to exam questions after the exam is already over. 

6) I worry so much before a major exam that I am too worn out to do my best on the exam. 

7) I feel out of sorts or not really myself when I take important exams. 

8) I find that my mind sometimes wanders when I am taking important exams

9) After an exam, I worry about whether I did well enough. 

10) I struggle with writing assignments, or avoid them as long as I can. I feel that whatever I do will not be good enough. 

42

APPENDIX: B FUNCTIONAL DIMENSIONS OF COPING (FDC) SCALE

Reporting a Stressful Event

In the space provided, please describe briefly the most stressful event that you experienced in the last three months.

43

This section concerns the behaviors you adopted in attempting to deal with the major stressor you described above. There are many different ways of dealing with stress. In the space provided below I would like you to give a brief description of those activities and/or thoughts you used in attempting to deal with the event described above.

44

We would now like you to provide ratings of these activities and/or thoughts by circling the appropriate number on the following scales.

To what extent did this/these activities

Not at all Very much so

1) Allow you to directly deal with the problem? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

2) Help you to find meaning and understand from the situation? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

3) Allow you to manage the distress and upset caused by the event? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

4) Allow you to grow and develop as a person? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

5) Help you to divert your attention away from the problem? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

6) Allow you to handle any anxiety caused by the event? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

7) Provide you with information useful in solving the problem? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

8) Allow you to deny that anything was wrong? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

9) Enable you to deal with any emotional upset caused by the event? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

10) Allow you to understand something of the nature of the problem, from which you could attempt to deal directly with it? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

11) Allow you to avoid having to dealing directly with the situation? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

12) Allow you to learn more about yourself and others? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

13) Distract you from thinking about the problem? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

14) Help you to think about the problem in a new and useful way? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

45

15) Allow you a more optimistic outlook on the future? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

16) Allow you to step back and look at the problem, in a different way, such that It seemed better? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

46