Cognition 200 (2020) 104271

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cognition
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cognit

State- and trait-math anxiety and their relation to math performance in T

children: The role of core executive functions☆
Lars Orbacha,⁎, Moritz Herzoga,b, Annemarie Fritza,b
a
Department of Psychology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
b
Centre for Education Practice Research, University of Johannesburg, South Africa

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study examines the interplay of state- and trait-math anxiety (MA) and core executive functions (CEF) on
Math anxiety math achievement in children. According to attention control theory, MA affects the CEF by triggering the
Math performance inhibition function, so that some working memory (WM) is blocked, thus reducing task processing capacity.
Executive functions However, research on the interplay between MA and CEF in children is rare, and the findings in the literature are
Working memory
inconsistent. In this paper, state- and trait-MA, math achievement, CEF (inhibition, cognitive flexibility, working
Attention
memory capacity, global index of CEF) and self-ratings of ADHD symptoms (attention deficits, hyperactivity,
impulsiveness) of 646 fourth and fifth grade students (48.1% girls) are assessed. CEF were evaluated with a
tablet-based test. The data revealed negative correlations between state-MA and math achievement for all CEF
levels and cognitive processes. However, inhibition control functioned as a moderator of the relation between
state-MA and math achievement. Children with higher inhibition abilities showed more pronounced negative
relations. No moderation effects were identified for working memory capacity and the CEF global index. The
findings highlight the importance of distinguishing between these three CEF and raise questions for future re-
search on the interplay between cognitive and affective factors as predictors of math achievement.

1. Introduction
In the recent decades research into math anxiety (MA) in young
children has intensified (Krinzinger et al., 2007; Ramirez, Gunderson,
Levine, & Beilock, 2013; Thomas & Dowker, 2000; Wu, Barth, Amin,
Malcarne, & Menon, 2012). Researchers have identified MA in the first
grades of school and further, evidence suggests that MA causes pro-
blems in numerical reasoning and number manipulation in children
(Ashcraft & Moore, 2009; Vukovic, Kieffer, Bailey, & Harari, 2013). In
general, the MA-performance link is explained by avoidance behaviour
(behavioral anxiety reaction) and by deficits in the attention control
system (effects of anxiety on working memory processes). According to
processing efficiency theory (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992) and attentional-
control theory (Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007), working
memory (WM) is impaired by anxiety reactions (Moran, 2016). When
an individual is experiencing anxiety, due to being confronted with a
math task, some of their WM capacity (WMC) is blocked, depriving
them of math task processing capacity. In particular, MA causes per-
formance-inhibiting effects by impairing the inhibition function. The
attention focus shifts from task-orientated problem solving to threat-
related stimuli (e.g. worries or external distractors), with the result that
the individual has limited WM resources for actual problem solving
(Ashcraft & Kirk, 2001; Suárez-Pellicioni, Nunez-Pena, & Colome,
2016).
Although the interplay between MA and WM is considered vitally
important to explaining the relation between math-related anxiety re-
actions and mathematical performance, both of these factors have been
studied separately, for a number of years (Passolunghi, Cargnelutti, &
Pellizzoni, 2019). Only recently, in the last few years, has more re-
search been undertaken into the reciprocal effects of anxiety and cog-
nitive factors as predictors of math performance (Table 1). The findings
for the interplay between MA, WM and math achievement however are
contrasting; this leads to two different propositions. On the basis of
research that investigated only negative relations or stronger negative
relations between MA and performance in children with higher WMC
(Ching, 2017; Ramirez, Chang, Maloney, Levine, & Beilock, 2016;
Ramirez, Gunderson, Levine, & Beilock, 2013; Vukovic, Kieffer, Bailey,
& Harari, 2013), the conclusion was advanced that children with higher
WM are more vulnerable to the performance-inhibiting effects caused
by MA. In conflict with these findings, other surveys on children

☆
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
⁎
Corresponding author at: Lehr-und Forschungsambulanz FoBu, Institut für Psychologie, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Universitätsstr 2, 45141 Essen, Germany.
E-mail address: lars.orbach@uni-due.de (L. Orbach).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104271
Received 29 July 2019; Received in revised form 16 March 2020; Accepted 18 March 2020
0010-0277/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 Table 1
Previous research on MA, working memory and math performance in children.
Math tasks Measure WM Measure MA Relation MA to WM MA-performance link: moderator WM
L. Orbach, et al.

(MA-type)

Owens, Stevenson, Norgate, & Hadwin,
2008
(n = 50; grade 7)
Witt, 2012
(n = 55; grade 5)
Vukovic, Kieffer, Bailey, & Harari,
2013
(n = 113; grade 2–3)
Ramirez, Gunderson, Levine, &
Beilock, 2013
(n = 162; grade 1–2)
Owens, Stevenson, Hadwin, & Norgate,
2014 (n = 96; 13-years-old
children (M))
Trezise & Reeve, 2014a
(n = 126; 14-year-old children)
Cognitive Abilities Test
– Digit span backward (verbal STM/
Story problems, algebra, Data
analysis
Subtest WJ-III
Wide range achievement test
Algebra tasks
Digit span backward [verbal short-
term memory1 (STM)/central
executive]
Spatial span (visuospatial WM2)
central executive3)
Letter span forward (verbal STM)
Matrices task (visuospatial STM/
WM)
Swanson Cognitive Processing
Test (visual matrix)
Digit span forward/backward
(verbal STM/central executive)
Digit span forward/backward
(verbal STM/central executive)
Spatial span (visuospatial WM)
Operation span task with
alphanumerical symbols (domain-
relevant WM)
Corsi block (visuospatial WM)
Go/No-Go task (Inhibition)
STAIC (trait- Trait-anxiety & verbal STM/central executive: no Verbal STM mediated the relation between trait
anxiety) correlation trait-anxiety & visuospatial STM/WM: anxiety and math performance
r = −0.29⁎
MARS-E MA & verbal STM/central executive: no correlation –
(statelike-MA) MA & visuospatial STM/WM: r = −0.33⁎ to −0.40⁎⁎
MASYC MA & visuospatial WM: no correlation MA & math applications (after 1 year): above-
(statelike-MA) average WM stronger negative correlation (only
significant group)
CMAQ (statelike- – Relation between MA and performance: higher
MA) WM negative relation, lower WM no relation
STAI (trait- Trait-anxiety & verbal STM/central executive: Children with higher WMC had a positive relation
anxiety) r = −0.31⁎’ to −0.45⁎⁎ between MA and trait-Anxiety, while children
Trait-anxiety & visuospatial STM/WM: r = −0.22⁎ to with lower WMC showed a negative relation
0.30⁎⁎
Faces Anxiety MA & state domain relevant WM: r = −0.19⁎ to WM-MA relation changes as a function of context
Scale (state-MA) −0.33⁎⁎ High-WM/low-MA: more stability, higher
MA & state visuospatial WM: r = −0.20⁎⁎ to −0.31⁎⁎ performance
MA & state inhibition: r = −0.21⁎⁎ to −0.22⁎⁎ High-WM/high-MA, moderate-WM/low-MA more
likely to change (to higher MA or lower WM)

2
Trezise & Reeve, 2014b
(n = 80; 14-year-old females)
Mammarella, Hill, Devine, Caviola, &
Szücs, 2015
(n = 226; grade 6–8)
Allen & Vallée-Tourangeau, 2016
(n = 59; grades 5–6)
Trezise & Reeve, 2016
(n = 133; 14-year-old children)
Ramirez, Chang, Maloney, Levine, &
Beilock, 2016
(n = 564; grade 1–2)
Algebra tasks Operation span task with
alphanumerical symbols (domain-
relevant WM4)
AC-MT 11–16 (calculation and Word span forward/backward
number comprehension tasks) (verbal STM/WM)
Matrices task (visuospatial STM/
WM)
Arithmetic tasks Digit span forward/backward
(verbal STM/central executive)
Algebra tasks Operation span task with
alphanumerical symbols (domain-
relevant WM)
Subtest WJ-III Letter span forward/backward
(verbal WM/central executive)
Unstable low-WM/high-MA: lower performance
Faces Anxiety MA & state WM problem accuracy WM: r = −0.47′⁎ High-WM/low-MA: high performance
Scale (state-MA) to −0.60⁎⁎ Medium/low WM: no performance differences
MA & state WM response time: no correlation between MA-level
MA & state WM recall: r = −0.33⁎⁎ to −0.37⁎⁎
AMAS (statelike- Group comparison: MA, DD, MA & DD, control –
MA) MA: lower verbal WM and visuospatial STM/WM than
control
No group differences: verbal STM
MARS-E MA & verbal STM/central executive: r = −0.36⁎⁎ –
(statelike-MA)
Faces Anxiety State WM & state-MA change and influence each other High-WM/low-MA: higher performance
Scale (state-MA) within a short time frame (higher state-MA → lower Low-WM/high-MA: lower performance
WMC) (lower WMC → higher state-MA)
CMAQ-R – Relation between MA and performance: higher
(statelike-MA) WM more pronounced negative relation
(continued on next page)
Cognition 200 (2020) 104271
 Table 1 (continued)

Math tasks Measure WM Measure MA Relation MA to WM MA-performance link: moderator WM

(MA-type)
L. Orbach, et al.

Passolunghi, Caviola, De Agostini,
Perin, & Mammarella, 2016
(n = 66; grade 6–8)
Ching, 2017
(n = 246; grade 2–3)
Cargnelutti, Tomasetto, & Passolunghi,
2017b
(n = 145; grade 2)
Wu et al., 2017
(n = 330; grades 2–4)
Justicia-Galiano, Martín-Puga, Linares,
& Pelegrina, 2017
(n = 167; grades 3–5)
Passolunghi, Cargnelutti, & Pellizzoni,
2019
(n = 145; grade 1)
Soltanlou et al., 2019
(n = 25; grade 5)
AC-MT 11–16 (calculation and
number comprehension tasks)
Number skill tasks
Calculation tasks
Story problem solving
Written computation
Word problems
MAT-2 (number)
WIAT-II (numerical
operations, mathematical
reasoning)
Math fluency
Math problem solving
Math teacher assessment
Arithmetical problem solving
Multiplication tasks
Word span forward (verbal STM)
Listening span (verbal WMC/
cognitive inhibition5)
Letter span forward/backward
(verbal WM/central executive)
Word span backward (verbal WM)
Digit span backward (verbal STM/
central executive)
Path dual task (visuospatial WM)
Digit span forward/backward
(verbal STM/central executive)
Counting recall (central executive)
Block recall (visuospatial STM)
Digit span backward (verbal STM/
central executive)
Word span backward (verbal WM)
Digit span backwards (verbal
STM/central executive)
Word span backward (verbal WM)
Listening span (verbal WMC/
cognitive inhibition)
Letter span (verbal WM)
Corsi block tapping (visuospatial
AMAS (statelike- Group comparison: –
MA) High MA, low MA
High MA: lower verbal STM, lower verbal WMC, lower
inhibition
MASYC MA & WM (verbal/central executive): no correlation Relation between MA and performance: higher
(statelike-MA) WM more negative relation (especially on tasks
that demand more WMC), lower WM no relation
SEMA (statelike- MA & all WM and STM: no correlation Verbal STM mediated the relation between
MA) general anxiety and math performance
SEMA (statelike- MA & verbal STM: r = −0.14⁎ WM mediated the relation between MA and
MA) MA & central executive: r = −0.18⁎⁎ to −0.11⁎ numerical operations and mathematical reasoning
MA & visuospatial STM: r = −0.21⁎⁎
AMAS (statelike- MA & WM total: r = −0.23⁎⁎ WM mediated math performance (all three
MA) domains)
MARS-R MA & verbal WMC: r = −0.17⁎ to −0.25⁎⁎ Verbal WMC/inhibition and MA interact
(statelike-MA) MA & other WM/STM: no correlation
MAQ (trait-MA) MA & visuospatial WM: r = −0.43⁎ Relation between MA and performance: average &
MA & verbal WM: no correlation low visuospatial WM negative relation, high

3
WM) visuospatial WM no relation

Note. The studies assessed WM components that are different in nature. The following definitions of the WM domains can be considered:
1
Verbal STM/WM: refers to the capacities of individuals “to retain sequences of verbal material over short periods of time” (Gathercole & Martin, 1996, p. 73).
2
Visuospatial STM/WM: refers to the short-term processing and maintenance of visuospatial information (Miyake & Shah, 1999).
3
Central executive: functions of the WM that “include the regulation of information flow within WM, the retrieval of information from other memory systems such as long-term memory, and the processing and storage
of information” (Gathercole and Baddeley, 1993, p. 5).
4
Domain-relevant WM: a modified operation span task with alphanumeric symbols.
5
Cognitive inhibition: “cognitive inhibition is the stopping or overriding of a mental process, in whole or in part, with or without intention” (MacLeod, 2007, p. 5).
⁎
p ≤ .05 (2-tailed).
⁎⁎
p ≤ .01 (2-tailed).
Cognition 200 (2020) 104271
L. Orbach, et al.
(Cargnelutti, Tomasetto, & Passolunghi, 2017b; Mammarella, Hill,
Devine, Caviola, & Szücs, 2015; Owens, Stevenson, Hadwin, & Norgate,
2014; Passolunghi, Caviola, De Agostini, Perin, & Mammarella, 2016;
Soltanlou et al., 2019; Trezise & Reeve, 2014a, 2014b, 2016) and adults
(Ashcraft & Kirk, 2001) have led to the assumption that individuals
with higher WM can better manage the negative consequences of MA.
In the light of these apparently contradictory results, it is clear that
further research on the interplay between MA, WM and math
achievement is essential. By assessing core executive functions (CEF) by
means of a tablet-based test in a large sample of fourth and fifth gra-
ders, the present research aimed to examine the possible moderating
role of CEF, and to contribute to clarifying these inconsistent research
findings. In a further step, the study also considers self-ratings of ADHD
symptoms as a measure of self-rated CEF in daily life. Within the fra-
mework of the theoretical approach of Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, and
Calvo (2007), the survey observes the interrelated roles played by MA,
self-perceptions of problems with regulating attention in daily life, and
CEF, in relation to math performance.
1.1. Operationalisations of MA in children
New findings highlight the importance of distinguishing between
operationalisations of MA, as different conceptions of MA have shown
discrete results regarding the relation of MA to math performance, in-
telligence and learning motivation in children (Orbach, Herzog, & Fritz,
2019b; Sorvo et al., 2017). The research on children has been realised
predominantly through self-reports, such as hypothetical/retrospective
questions about anxiety in math situations (e.g. mAMAS; CMAQ-R;
SEMA) or questions about fear of failure in mathematics (e.g. MAQ). In
line with Spielberger (1972), Atkinson (1964) and Heckhausen and
Heckhausen (2010) questionnaires assessing anxiety about failure in
mathematics (e.g. MAQ: “How worried are you if you have problems
with…”) focus on the relatively enduring personality trait of MA,
whereas questionnaires measuring anxiety in math-related situations
(e.g. mAMAS: “Please give each sentence a score in terms of how anxious
you would feel during each situation: Thinking about a maths test the day
before you take it”) with hypothetical/retrospective items seem to fo-
calise actual anxiety reactions. However, in light of research (Bieg,
Goetz, & Lipnevich, 2014; Bieg, Goetz, Wolter, & Hall, 2015; Goetz,
Bieg, Ludtke, Pekrun, & Hall, 2013a, 2013b; Roos et al., 2015) pro-
viding evidence of a clear discrepancy between real-time assessments
and retrospective/hypothetical self-reports of anxiety states – a phe-
nomenon called impact or intensity bias (Buehler & McFarland, 2001;
Levine, Safer, & Lench, 2006; Wilson & Gilbert, 2005) – questionnaires
about anxiety in math-related situations cannot be considered as as-
sessments of an actual emotional experience, but rather as statelike
assessments (Orbach, Herzog, & Fritz, 2019b; Robinson & Clore, 2002).
According to the state-trait-anxiety model (Spielberger, 1972), state-
MA should be classified as a temporary and math-situation-related
anxiety reaction that is associated with increased arousal of the auto-
nomic nervous system. Consequently, a more direct approach to as-
sessing state-MA is the real-time assessment, which is less subject to
bias from subjective beliefs about emotions (Bieg, 2013).
1.2. Definition of executive functions
Executive functions (EF) are regarded as an umbrella term for top-
down mental processes, which are necessary for all types of cognitive
performance (Diamond, 2006; Diamond, 2013). These cognitive abil-
ities are self-control processes that are crucial in situations where in-
tuitive or instinctive behavior is inadequate (Diamond, 2013; Miyake &
Friedman, 2012). They allow an individual to plan, solve problems, use
strategies flexibly, inhibit irrelevant impulses/information and monitor
their actions (Smith & Jonides, 1999). In the literature three core ex-
ecutive functions (CEF) are distinguished: inhibition, cognitive flex-
ibility and working memory (WM; Miyake et al., 2000; Diamond,
4
Cognition 200 (2020) 104271
2006). In accordance with Miyake et al. (2000) inhibition is the ability
to inhibit/ignore dominant, automatic or prepotent responses/in-
formation that are irrelevant to task processing. Such distractors can be
either internal or external (Diamond, 2013). WM – also called ‘updating
and monitoring’ – is the second CEF, and includes the ability to hold
information in mind or to manipulate/work with it. Individuals have to
code new information and must decide which WM contents should be
deleted (Miyake et al., 2000). Shifting, or cognitive flexibility, is the
ability to switch attention between multiple tasks or to change one's
perspective/mental set during problem solving (Miyake & Friedman,
2012). This ability is based on the WM and on inhibiting ability, and
improves at a later point of development (Diamond, 2006). Not until
adolescence are children able to solve complex shifting tasks at adults
levels (Davidson, Amso, Anderson, & Diamond, 2006). Nonetheless,
basic forms of all CEF can be observed already in the preschool years
(Garon, Bryson, & Smith, 2008).
1.3. Relation between executive function and math achievement
A large body of research presents evidence of the clear association
(r = 0.28 to 0.38) between WM domains and math performance in
children (David, 2012; Friso-van den Bos, van der Ven, Kroesbergen, &
van Luit, 2013; Peng, Namkung, Barnes, & Sun, 2016; Swanson &
Jerman, 2006). Not only does situational problem solving in math de-
pend on WM abilities, but longitudinal studies have established that
WM has an important function in the development of numerical abil-
ities (Alloway & Alloway, 2010; De Smedt et al., 2009; Gathercole,
Brown, & Pickering, 2003; Mazzocco & Thompson, 2005).
Besides performance-based assessments of CEF, rating measures are
frequently used to index CEF. One main field in which they have been
applied is in research on the attentional deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD), which is associated with impairments in several areas of CEF
(Doyle, 2006; Pennington & Ozonoff, 1996; Toplak, West, & Stanovich,
2013; Willcutt, Doyle, Nigg, Faraone, & Pennington, 2005). Teacher or
parental reports are used to evaluate the presence of behavioral pro-
blems in children's daily life caused by a lack of executive control.
Consequently, this research is based not on children, who have a clin-
ical diagnosis of ADHD in accordance with ICD or DSM, but rather on
observer ratings of executive control in children's everyday activities.
Thus, it is interesting to consider ADHD ratings in the research in re-
lation to the interplay between CEF and MA.
Studies investigating the relationship between ADHD ratings and
math achievement have demonstrated a clear negative association.
Furthermore, evidence does exist that individuals with rated attention
deficits have a stronger relation to lower math performances than do
individuals with rated hyperactivity or impulsiveness (Tosto, Momi,
Asherson, & Malki, 2015). In general, the correlation of ADHD rating
and performance based CEF measures is small to moderate
(r = 0.15–0.35; Nigg, Hinshaw, Carte, & Treuting, 1998; Willcutt et al.,
2001; Thorell & Wåhlstedt, 2006). This underscores the fact that not all
children with high observer ratings exhibit worse performances in CEF
(Nigg, Willcutt, Doyle, & Sonuga-Barke, 2005).
Up to the present time, only few studies have focused on the rela-
tions between and interplay of ADHD observer-ratings and MA in
children. Two surveys have found that being MA positive correlates
with attention problems (r = 0.18–0.19) assessed by parental report
(Wu et al., 2017; Wu, Willcutt, Escovar, & Menon, 2014). Furthermore,
in the survey by Wu et al. (2017) MA mediated the relation between
attention deficits and math achievement. It was hypothesised that
children with higher MA could strive to focus more on math tasks,
which as a consequence would decrease the negative impact of atten-
tion deficits on math achievement.
1.4. Interplay between MA, executive functions and math achievement
The results of studies on the MA-performance link in children are
L. Orbach, et al.
contradictory. Recent surveys indicate that the lack of differentiation
between operationalisations is one reason for the divergent findings
(Orbach, Herzog, & Fritz, 2019b; Sorvo et al., 2017), because stable
negative correlations were identified between state- (or statelike) MA
and math performance in children (Cargnelutti, Tomasetto, &
Passolunghi, 2017a; Caviola, Primi, Chiesi, & Mammarella, 2017;
Devine, Hill, Carey, & Szűcs, 2018; Ganley & McGraw, 2016;
Gunderson, Park, Maloney, Beilock, & Levine, 2018; Harari, Vukovic, &
Bailey, 2013; Punaro & Reeve, 2012; Ramirez, Chang, Maloney, Levine,
& Beilock, 2016; Ramirez, Gunderson, Levine, & Beilock, 2013;
Vukovic, Kieffer, Bailey, & Harari, 2013), while studies assessing trait-
MA (fear about failure in math) did not find any connection (Haase,
Júlio-Costa, Pinheiro-Chagas, Oliveira, Micheli, & Wood, 2012;
Krinzinger et al., 2007; Krinzinger, Kaufmann, & Willmes, 2009;
Thomas & Dowker, 2000; Wood et al., 2012). For several years, the
findings on fears about failure in math have led to the assumption that
the onset of the MA-performance link does not occur until secondary
school (Dowker, 2005).
The assumed cause-and-effect relationship seems to be complex, as
not all children with MA exhibit low math achievement (Devine, Hill,
Carey, & Szűcs, 2018). A well-noted phenomenon in research on MA is
the so-called “choking under pressure” effect (Beilock & Carr, 2005). In
some studies of adults (Beilock & Carr, 2005; Beilock & DeCaro, 2007;
Mattarella-Micke, Mateo, Kozak, Foster, & Beilock, 2011) and children
(Ching, 2017; Ramirez, Chang, Maloney, Levine, & Beilock, 2016;
Ramirez, Gunderson, Levine, & Beilock, 2013; Vukovic, Kieffer, Bailey,
& Harari, 2013) only those individuals with high WM abilities showed a
negative relation or had a stronger relation to math achievement than
children with lower WM abilities. One possible explanation as to why
these highly gifted individuals seem to be more affected by MA, is their
tendency to rely on elaborate and thus more WM-demanding problem-
solving strategies. Conversely, individuals with lower WM abilities stick
to rudimentary strategies, which require fewer WM resources (Ramirez,
Chang, Maloney, Levine, & Beilock, 2016). Contrasting findings, re-
vealing that individuals with lower WM abilities had a negative relation
to math performance (Owens, Stevenson, Hadwin, & Norgate, 2014;
Soltanlou et al., 2019), while children with lower WM abilities and
higher MA had a greater risk of lower math performance (Cargnelutti,
Tomasetto, & Passolunghi, 2017b; Mammarella, Hill, Devine, Caviola,
& Szücs, 2015; Passolunghi, Caviola, De Agostini, Perin, & Mammarella,
2016; Trezise & Reeve, 2014a, 2014b, 2016), provide support for the
long-predominant assumption that individuals with higher WM abilities
should be better able to cope with anxiety reactions. This hypothesis is
in line with the observation that the task processing of complex math
tasks, which are more WM-demanding, is more strongly negatively af-
fected by MA (Ashcraft & Kirk, 2001). Further findings supporting this
assumption, can be found in research on the relation between emotion
regulation and EF, in which lower EF abilities are linked to less suc-
cessful emotion regulation (Schmeichel & Demaree, 2010; Schmeichel,
Volokhov, & Demaree, 2008; White, Helfinstein, Reeb-Sutherland,
Degnan, & Fox, 2009). Other studies have discovered that strategies to
regulate emotions also rely on WM (Hofmann, Heering, Sawyer, &
Asnaani, 2009).
In consideration of the bidirectional relation between MA and math
performance (Carey, Hill, Devine, & Szücs, 2016) and the clear asso-
ciation between CEF and math performance, the hypothesis can be
advanced that children with MA are generally impaired in their CEF.
Table 1 presents the research findings on the relationships between MA,
CEF and math performance. Currently, the findings are mixed, so that
no clear evidence for a connection between CEF and MA can be iden-
tified. Even where the findings are analysed with regard to the oper-
ationalisation of MA (state, statelike, trait) and the WM components
(verbal short-term memory, visuospatial WM, inhibition), no clear and
consistent pattern become apparent. One pattern can be tentatively
advanced: that studies assessing WM with digit-related tasks, seem to
identify a negative relation more often. For general anxiety the research
5
Cognition 200 (2020) 104271
findings are more reliable. A meta-analysis by Moran (2016) across 177
samples on the interplay between general anxiety and WMC examined a
negative connection between self-reported measures of anxiety and
scores on various WMC tasks: complex (e.g. OSPAN), simple (e.g. digit)
and dynamic span (e.g. N-back) tasks.
1.5. Research questions in the present study
At present, the research is not able to explain in what way CEF
relate to MA and influence the MA-performance link in children. The
rare and inconsistent findings lead to two different propositions, whe-
ther children with higher CEF abilities are more vulnerable to the ne-
gative impacts of MA or if they are able to better cope with MA. Thus,
the main goal of the present research was to examine the reciprocal
effects of MA and CEF on math achievement. In attempts to investigate
whether MA is related to CEF impairments, the first aim was to examine
the relationship between CEF and MA (research question 1, RQ1).
Based on the conflicting findings on a possible “choking under pres-
sure” effect, the second aim was to analyse whether CEF moderate the
relationship between MA and math achievement (RQ2). Additionally,
the study investigates whether the interplay between CEF and ADHD
self-ratings influences the MA-performance link (RQ3).
The present study considers two approaches to assess CEF. In ad-
dition to a performance-based assessment of CEF, a self-report measure
of CEF in daily life activities (self-rating of ADHD) was used. Therefore,
the fourth aim of the study was to examine whether the findings differ
in relation to the two assessment approaches (RQ4). In light of research
reporting clear discrepancies (Bieg, Goetz, & Lipnevich, 2014; Orbach,
Herzog, & Fritz, 2019b; Sorvo et al., 2017) between trait dispositions,
self-reports of anxiety states in hypothetical/retrospective math situa-
tions (statelike-MA) and real-time assessments of MA (state-MA), trait-
MA (anxiety about failure in math) and state-MA (state-anxiety in a
math test situation) were studied separately in the present study. Thus
finally, the study deals with the two different operationalisation of MA
in children. Do the findings on the reciprocal effects of MA and CEF on
math achievement show discrepancies between the two oper-
ationalisations (RQ5)?
2. Material and methods
2.1. Participants
The sample consisted of 646 fourth and fifth grade students from 11
schools in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Two hundred
and ninety-one children attending fourth grade in primary school
(43.1% girls; 120.09 ± 7.21 months old) and 355 children attending
fifth grade in the Gesamtschule secondary schools (50.3% girls;
132.42 ± 7.37 months old). Given the assumption that the onset of the
MA-performance link does not occur until secondary school (Dowker,
2005), the target age group of this study consisted of primary and early
secondary school children. Both school types are comprehensive
schools for mixed abilities. In 9 of the schools, the entire grade parti-
cipated. Students with special educational needs were not included in
the study. Trained graduate students collected the data during regular
school lessons. For all children, opt-out parental consent was obtained.
2.2. Procedure
In autumn 2018, the grad students were trained in how to admin-
ister the in-class assessment, which was conducted on two consecutive
days at the end of the school term in winter 2018/19. On the first day,
state-MA was assessed immediately prior to and after the basic number
skill test. Afterwards the students rated their ADHD symptoms. On the
second day, children filled out the trait-MA questionnaire before the
class was split into groups of 10 children. In these groups the tablet-
based test for assessing CEF was conducted (Fig. 1). The tasks were
L. Orbach, et al. Cognition 200 (2020) 104271

Fig. 1. Research procedure.

completed on a 10.8″ computer tablet.
2.3. Materials
2.3.1. Trait-MA
Children's trait-MA was measured with the Mathematics Attitudes
and Anxiety Questionnaire for grades 4 and 5 (MAQ 4–5). The MAQ 4–5
(Orbach, Herzog, & Fritz, 2019a) can be used in a class setting and
assesses trait-MA (14 items) by measuring fear of failure in mathematics
in 7 different mathematical situations. The instrument is a modified
version of the MAQ by Thomas and Dowker (2000). It includes 14 items
with 4 question types and uses a 5-point Likert-type scale (0 to 4). The
reliability (internal consistency) is α = 0.83 to α = 0.92. Higher values
refer to greater intensity of trait-MA.
2.3.2. State-MA
State-anxiety in a math test situation was assessed by the state-
Mathematics Anxiety Questionnaire (state-MAQ). The instrument con-
tains a self-evaluation questionnaire for current anxiety (7 items) and a
questionnaire evaluating state-anxiety (7 items) retrospectively. Using a
4-point-Likert scale (0 to 3) children indicate whether an emotional
state applies to them currently (pre) or has done so recently (post). The
questionnaire was developed on the basis of the State Anxiety Inventory
(Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983). In order to be
suitable for young children, the items were simple, short and commonly
used formulations. The state-MAQ is evaluated in a sample of 1369
fourth and fifth graders and can be seen as a reliable and valid in-
strument. Similarly to an analysis of the STAI (Gaudry, Vagg, &
Spielberger, 1975) the state-MAQ assesses a one-dimensional construct
(Table 2). Moreover, its validity was reviewed with the trait-MAQ and
Kinder-Angst-Test-III (KAT-III). No differences between the correlation
coefficients could be identified [(trait-MA: r = 0.146 (KAT-III),
r = 0.176 (state-MAQ); z = −0.059; p = .56) (attitudes: r = −0.196
(KAT-III), r = −0.165 (state-MAQ); z = 0.611; p = .54)]. The relia-
bility (internal consistency) is α = 0.83.
In this study the children were told that in front of them lay a book
with a variety of math problems, that they would now undertake a math
test and that they should be able to solve all tasks without any time
pressure. This instruction was given immediately before the math test.
Afterwards they were instructed to rate how they felt during the math
test. To control other influential factors, the children were told verbally
and in written form to fill out the questionnaire only in the light of the
upcoming/completed math test. Other circumstances were not to be
considered. Thus, the assessment focused on state-anxiety in a basic
number skill test situation without time pressure.
2.3.3. Core executive functions
Core executive functions were measured with the tablet-based
Yellow-Red-Test (Rosas, Espinoza, & Garolera, 2020). The test evalu-
ates CEF in four tasks: inhibition, cognitive flexibility, WMC and a
global CEF task. The reliability (internal consistency) of the Yellow-
Red-Test was α = 0.80 to α = 0.86. Higher values refer to higher
abilities.
The first task (Fig. 2, top left) assessed a global measure of CEF and
was based on the ‘Hearts and Flowers’ task (Davidson, Amso, Anderson,
& Diamond, 2006). A cat or a dog was presented on the right- or left-
hand side of the screen. Participants were instructed to press the button
on the same side if the cat is presented, but to press the button on the
opposite side if the dog appears. The task procedure was rehearsed in
separate trials before the assessment proper (33 items in total) was
begun. The stimuli were presented at one-second intervals. The total
raw score was based on the sum of the individual scores allotted to each
item (1 point = correct item; 0 points = omitted item; −2
points = wrong item).

Table 2
Item analysis of state-MAQ.
Please indicate to what extent each of the following statements applies to you in this moment. Please only give answers in accordance with your feelings and
thoughts regarding the upcoming/completed math test.
Item M (SD) Item-total correlation CFA results

1. I am/was excited 1.55 (1.2) 0.60 0.73

2. I am/was nervous 1.25 (1.2) 0.67 0.79
3. I am/was worried 0.92 (1.1) 0.65 0.78
4. All I can/could think about was what might go wrong 0.86 (1.1) 0.52 0.66
5. I am/was restless 0.97 (1.1) 0.55 0.67
6. I am/was impatient 1.00 (1.1) 0.37 0.48
7. I am/was afraid 0.76 (1.1) 0.65 0.78

Note. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = 0.844; Bartlett-Sphericity-Test: χ2 (21) = 5960.80, p < .001.

6
L. Orbach, et al.
Fig. 2. Sample Yellow-Red-Test items. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
The second task (Fig. 2, top right) assessed a measure of the in-
hibition ability. A big arrow pointing in one of four possible directions
(up, down, left right) was presented at the top of the screen. Partici-
pants were instructed to press the smaller arrow in the bottom of screen
(out of three smaller arrows) that was pointing in the same direction as
the big arrow. If the big arrow were pointing down the participant was
not to press any button but was to wait until the next big arrow ap-
peared. The task included 36 items, of which 8 items were inhibition
tasks. The color of the smaller arrow pointing in the same direction as
the model can either be congruent with (1/3 of all tasks) or incongruent
to (2/3 of all tasks) the color of the model. The total raw score is based
on the sum of individual scores given for each item (1 point = correct
item; −2 points = child presses an arrow in an inhibition task; −1
points = child presses a different arrow to what which corresponds to
the model).
The third task (Fig. 2, bottom left) assessed a measure of the cog-
nitive flexibility. Similarly to the procedure of the Wisconsin Card
Sorting Test (Heaton, Chelune, Talley, Kay, & Curtiss, 1993), partici-
pants were instructed to select three out of four figures on the basis of
similarity. Four different figures (square, triangle, circle, pentagon), in
four different colors (blue, red, yellow, green) and two sizes (big, small)
were presented. The task included four rounds (each round having 12
items) of changing categorisation principles (shape → color → size →
mixed). During the task, the categorisation principle changed discreetly
without any information to that effect being given. For each item the
participants received a visual feedback, whether the item was correct or
incorrect. The child had three trials to solve one item. If they chose the
right figures in any of the three trials, the item was assessed as correct
(1 point). For each fail the child received a negative “error” point (−1
point). If the child failed each of the three trials, they received a ne-
gative “perseverative error” points (−3 points). The total raw score was
based on the sum of individuals scores, but it was combined with the
reaction time. The shorter the reaction time, the higher was the as-
sessed item score.
The last task (Fig. 2, bottom right) assessed the WMC. Participants
had to recall an increasing number of paired associations between
numbers and images, which were visually presented for 5 s. To do so
they had to push the correct number under the appropriate symbol or
figure without a time limit. The order of the symbols/figures
7
Cognition 200 (2020) 104271
occasionally changed between the presentation and recall phases. The
task comprised 27 items of increasing difficulty, a factor that was
considered in the computation of scores. The total raw score was based
on the sum of individual scores given for each item (correct item 1 to
10 = 1 point; correct item 11 to 22 = 2 points; correct item 23 to
27 = 3 points). The task had an abort criterion after three wrong re-
sponses.
2.3.4. Self-rating of executive functions in daily life (ADHD self-rating)
The Self-Rating Scale for ADHD (Döpfner & Görtz-Dorten, 2008)
from the Diagnostic System for Mental Disorders in Childhood and
Adolescence (DISYPS-KJ) measures self-evaluations of ADHD symptoms
in daily life. Children were asked to respond on a 4-point Likert-type
scale (0 to 3) as to whether a particular symptom of ADHD applied to
them (Table 3). In accordance with the diagnostic criteria of the 10th
revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and
Related Health Problems (ICD), the questionnaire includes 9 items to
assessing inattention, 7 items to assess hyperactivity and 4 items to
assess impulsiveness in daily life situations. Therefore, the instrument
evaluated the self-rated CEF in everyday activities. The reliability (in-
ternal consistency) was α = 0.88. Higher values refer to greater in-
tensity of self-rated ADHD symptoms.
2.3.5. Math achievement
A basic number skill test (Ehlert, Herzog, & Fritz, in press) was used
to assess math achievement. The 26 items of the instrument are de-
signed to assess basic math competencies in the domains of part-part-
whole concept (8 items), multiplication, division (8 items) and under-
standing of the place value system (10 items). The total score (max. 26
points) was calculated as the sum of all correct item responses. It was
expected that the children could complete all paper-pencil tasks
without time pressure. The reliability and validity of this instrument are
satisfactory (Orbach, Herzog, & Fritz, 2019b). The reliability (internal
consistency) is α = 0.87.
2.4. Data analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics
(Version 24). To investigate RQ1, Pearson's correlation analyses were
L. Orbach, et al.
utilized. In accordance with Cohen (1988), correlation values of r ≥ 0.1
were considered small, r ≥ 0.3 medium and r ≥ 0.5 large. Z-values
were computed to compare correlation coefficients. Predictors of math
achievement (RQ2) were evaluated using a multiple linear regression
model. Variable blocks (sequential regression analysis) were formed on
the basis of theoretical models (affective, cognitive, self-rating of
ADHD) to examine which predictors improved R2 significantly. To ex-
plore the interplay between MA, CEF or ADHD SR and math achieve-
ment (RQ3 and RQ4), conditional process modelling was applied using
the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013). It was tested whether the
separate variables moderated the relation between state- or trait-MA
and math achievement (model 1). Finally, a multiple mediation model
(model 6) was calculated by means of the PROCESS macro to analyse
whether the interaction between ADHD SR and CEF affected the MA-
performance link (Hayes, 2013). In line with Cohen (1994) an alpha
level of 0.05 was applied in this research.
3. Results
Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviation) for raw values
on MAQ 4–5 (trait-MA), the state-MAQ (state-MA), the basic number
skill test, Self-Rating Scale for ADHD, and the Yellow-Red-Test (CEF)
are reported in Table 4.
3.1. Relation between MA, ADHD self-rating, CEF and math achievement
Bivariate correlations among the variables are shown in Table 4. All
coefficients between state-MA and self-ratings of ADHD (r(600 to
601) = 0.12 to 0.30) and between trait-MA and self-ratings of ADHD (r
(566 to 567) = 0.09 to 0.16; p < .01 to p = .04) were significantly
greater from zero (p ≤ .001), with the highest correlation being ob-
served among state-MA and self-rating of inattention. No significant
correlations were found between both MA-types and CEF, whereas in-
attention SR (r(563) = −0.10; p = .015) and hyperactivity SR (r
(564) = −0.09; p = .042) correlated weakly negatively with WMC. All
coefficients between CEF and math achievement were significantly
positive (r(566) = 0.20 to 0.23; p ≤ .001). State-MA (r(601 to
605) = −11. to 0.27; p ≤ .01) and inattention SR (r(600) = −0.23;
p ≤ .001) correlated negatively with math achievement, while there
was no correlation between trait-MA and math achievement. The dif-
ference between state-MA pre- and post-test correlations to math
achievement was significant (z = 4.75; p < .01).
Examining the pre-test and post-test scores of state-MA is essential,
as participants responded to the same items prior and after the math
test. This approach implies the risk that the participants learned how
they want to reply. There were small correlations between state- and
trait-MA and between state-MA and math achievement, which did differ
for pre-test and post-test scores (trait-MA: z = 2.680, p = .004; math
achievement: z = 4.567, p < .001). In general, no differences between
pre- and post-test scores of state-MA were found (t(604) = 1.089,
Table 3
Sample ADHD self-rating items.
Inattention
I often have trouble holding attention on tasks or play activities
Hyperactivity
I am often leaving my seat in situations when remaining seated is expected
Impulsiveness
I am often interrupting or intruding on others (e.g., butting into conversations
or games)
Cognition 200 (2020) 104271
p = .277).
3.2. Magnitudes of influence on math achievement
To identify the magnitudes of influence of each variable on math
achievement, a multiple linear regression model was calculated with
the potential predictors being state-MA (pre + post), trait-MA, CEF and
self-ratings of ADHD (Table 5). Model 1 analyse the affective variables
state- and trait-MA. Only state-MA was a significant negative predictor
of math achievement. This model accounted for 5% of the total var-
iance. In model 2 the cognitive predictors were entered. All cognitive
variables had a significant positive impact on math achievement, while
state-MA was a negative predictor. The overall model fit was R2 = 15%.
In both models trait-MA had no significant impact on math achieve-
ment. Finally, in model 3 self-ratings of ADHD were included in the
model. In this model state-MA and self-ratings of inattention had a
negative impact. Inhibition, cognitive flexibility, the global measure of
CEF and WMC had a positive impact on math achievement. Also, self-
rating of impulsiveness was a positive predictor. In this model trait-MA
had a weakly positive impact on math achievement. The final model
accounted for 19% of variance in math achievement. The predictiveness
of the model increased significantly when the factors of model 2 and
model 3 were added to it (p < .001).
3.3. Moderation analyses of ADHD self-ratings
To test the effect of ADHD SR on the relation between MA and math
achievement, moderating regressions were calculated (Table 6). No
significant moderating effects of inattention SR and hyperactivity SR
were found. However, impulsiveness was identified as a moderator of
the relation between state-MA and math achievement. For children
with lower self-ratings of impulsiveness, a more negative relation was
examined. Similar tendencies can be observed for hyperactivity SR
(Fig. 3).
3.4. Moderation analyses of CEF
The moderation analyses (Table 7) revealed that WMC and the
global index of CEF did not function as a moderator in the relation
between state-MA and math achievement. By inserting inhibition as a
moderator to the model, a moderating effect could be identified be-
tween state-MA and math performance. Children with higher inhibition
abilities showed a more negative relation (Fig. 4). Similar tendencies
were evident for the cognitive flexibility variable. Cognitive Flexibility
functioned as a moderator between state-MA in post-tests and math
achievement. No moderation effects of CEF were found for the relation
between trait-MA and math achievement (Fig. 5).
3.5. Mediation analysis
To analyse whether the interplay between ADHD SR and CEF in-
fluences the MA-performance link, a multiple mediation model (model
6) was applied by means of the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013). On the
basis of the correlation and regression analyses, inattention SR and
0123 WMC were selected as mediators (Fig. 6). The total effect of state-MA
on math achievement was significant (BTOTAL = −0.141, SE = 0.030,
p < .001, 95%CI: −0.20; −0.08). However, the effect was reduced
when the mediators Inattention SR and WMC were added to the model
0123 (BDIRECT = −0.103, SE = 0.030, p < .001, 95%CI: −0.16; −0.04).
There was a significant indirect effect of state-MA on math achievement
through Inattention SR (BINDIRECT = −0.033, SE = 0.010, 95%CI:
−0.056; −0.015), and a significant indirect effect of state-MA on math
0123 achievement through Inattention SR and WMC (BINDIRECT = −0.004,
SE = 0.002, 95%CI: −0.009; −0.001).
8
L. Orbach, et al. Cognition 200 (2020) 104271

Table 4
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlation.
Variable M (SD) Correlations

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

1. State-MA Pre + Post 13.01 (9.3) 0.89⁎⁎ 0.93⁎⁎ 0.18⁎⁎ 0.30⁎⁎ 0.20⁎⁎ 0.16⁎⁎ −0.01 −0.04 −0.05 −0.04 −0.21⁎⁎
2. State-MA Pre 6.42 (4.6) – 0.66⁎⁎ 0.20⁎⁎ 0.29⁎⁎ 0.21⁎⁎ 0.16⁎⁎ −0.02 −0.01 −0.03 −0.03 −0.11⁎⁎
3. State-MA Post 6.60 (5.6) – – 0.11⁎⁎ 0.27⁎⁎ 0.16⁎⁎ 0.12⁎⁎ −0.01 −0.05 −0.06 −0.05 −0.27⁎⁎
4. Trait-MA 30.70 (13.4) – – – 0.16⁎⁎ 0.10⁎ 0.09⁎ 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.03
5. Inattention SR 8.78 (5.2) – – – – 0.49⁎⁎ 0.40⁎⁎ −0.01 −0.01 −0.10⁎ 0.00 −0.23⁎⁎
6. Hyperactivity SR 5.25 (4.2) – – – – – 0.65⁎⁎ 0.00 −0.02 −0.09⁎ −0.07 −0.06
7. Impulsiveness SR 3.53 (2.8) – – – – – – −0.01 −0.04 0.01 −0.10⁎ 0.01
8. Inhibition 27.06 (5.4) – – – – – – – 0.15⁎⁎ 0.12⁎⁎ 0.36⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎
9. Cognitive flexibility 15.12 (4.0) – – – – – – – – 0.18⁎⁎ 0.20⁎⁎ 0.22⁎⁎
10. WMC 10.14 (2.4) – – – – – – – – – 0.20⁎⁎ 0.20⁎⁎
11. Global CEF 23.95 (5.9) – – – – – – – – – – 0.23⁎⁎
12. Math achievement 15.72 (6.8) – – – – – – – – – – –

⁎
p ≤ .05 (2-tailed).
⁎⁎
p ≤ .01 (2-tailed).

Table 5 4. Discussion
Stepwise linear regression model of math achievement.
B SE B β p R2 ΔR2 F
According to Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, and Calvo's (2007) at-
tentional control theory, the interplay between MA and CEF is crucial to
Model 1 — MA 0.05 – 13.45 explaining the performance-inhibiting effects of MA. However, there is
State-MA −0.15 0.03 −0.22⁎⁎ ≤.001 a lack of research in children, so that the interrelationships between
(pre + post)
Trait-MA 0.04 0.02 0.08 .06
CEF and MA have been only rarely explored. Therefore, the aim of the
Model 2 — CEF 0.15⁎⁎ 0.10 15.40 present survey was to examine whether CEF moderate the relation of
State-MA −0.14 0.03 −0.20⁎⁎ ≤.001 MA to math achievement in children. In light of the research proving a
(pre + post) great state-trait-discrepancy between self-report questionnaires and
Trait-MA 0.04 0.02 0.07 .085
real-time assessments (Bieg, 2013; Goetz, Bieg, Ludtke, Pekrun, & Hall,
Inhibition 0.15 0.05 0.12⁎⁎ .005
Cognitive 0.21 0.07 0.12⁎⁎ .003 2013a, 2013b; Roos et al., 2015), separate analyses were made for both
flexibility MA-components: trait-MA (fear about failure in math) and state-MA
WMC 0.34 0.11 0.12⁎⁎ .003 (state-anxiety in a math test situation without time pressure). Con-
Global CEF 0.14 0.05 0.13⁎⁎ .004 sistently with previous research (Orbach, Herzog, & Fritz, 2019b; Sorvo
Model 3 — ADHD SR 0.19⁎⁎ 0.04 13.70
State-MA −0.12 0.03 −0.16⁎⁎ ≤.001
et al., 2017), the data reveal a clear state-trait-discrepancy, and both
(pre + post) MA-components showed disparate relations to math achievement.
Trait-MA 0.04 0.02 0.09⁎ .033 State-MA was negatively related to scores in the math test, while the
Inhibition 0.15 0.05 0.12⁎⁎ .006 trait-component of MA had no connection to math performance. Thus,
Cognitive 0.22 0.07 0.13⁎⁎ .001
the results again support the hypothesis that trait-MA (anxiety about
flexibility
WMC 0.26 0.11 0.10⁎ .022 failure in math) is more likely influenced by subjective beliefs and is
Global CEF 0.17 0.05 0.15⁎⁎ .001 discrete from the specific anxiety reaction that causes performance-in-
Inattention SR −0.28 0.06 −0.22⁎⁎ ≤.001 hibiting effects in children. In contrast to prior findings (Orbach,
Hyperactivity SR −0.01 0.08 −0.01 .899 Herzog, & Fritz, 2019b), a significant difference between pre- and post-
Impulsiveness SR 0.34 0.12 0.14⁎⁎ .006
test of state-MA ratings was observed, which could be explained by the
⁎
p ≤ .05 (2-tailed). different instructions given in the pre-test assessment (with or without
⁎⁎
p ≤ .01 (2-tailed). time pressure).
Contrary to the general assumptions of a bidirectional MA-perfor-
Table 6 mance link and the importance of cognitive predictors of math profi-
Moderated regression analysis of math achievement with the predictor state- ciency, in the performance-based assessment the data reveal no asso-
MA and the moderating variable ADHD self-rating. ciations between either MA-type and CEF scores. Children with MA had
no substantially poorer CEF scores — this was the case also for WMC
B SE B t p R2
tasks including digits. With regard to the recent evidence (Orbach,
State-MA (pre + post) × inattention 0.007 0.005 1.32 .19 0.07 Herzog, & Fritz, 2019b) that state-MA negative relates to fluid in-
State-MA (pre) × inattention 0.014 0.011 1.26 .21 0.06 telligence in the same age group, and given the stable association be-
State-MA (post) × inattention 0.009 0.009 1.07 .29 0.10
tween WM and intelligence (Conway, Kane, & Engle, 2003), this is a
Trait-MA × inattention 0.007 0.004 1.78 .08 0.06
State-MA (pre + post) × hyperactivity 0.011 0.006 1.82 .07 0.05 relevant finding. In general however, the research results on the direct
State-MA (pre) × hyperactivity 0.022 0.013 1.71 .09 0.02 relation between CEF and MA are disparate and cannot be fully ex-
State-MA (post) × hyperactivity 0.018 0.011 1.65 .10 0.08 plained by the different assessments of WM domains. Nevertheless,
Trait-MA × hyperactivity −0.004 0.005 −0.83 .41 0.01 studies using assessments with digits seem to observe a negative rela-
State-MA 0.028⁎⁎ 0.009 3.07 <.01 0.06
(pre + post) × impulsiveness
tion between MA and WM more frequently. Perchance, children's MA
State-MA (pre) × impulsiveness 0.052⁎⁎ 0.021 2.52 .01 02 causes this association (Table 1).
State-MA (post) × impulsiveness 0.046⁎⁎ 0.015 3.05 <.01 0.08 The “choking” effect has been a common assumption in research on
Trait-MA × impulsiveness −0.001 0.007 −0.20 .85 0.00 MA for more than a decade (Beilock & Carr, 2005). On the basis of
studies that investigated only negative relations or stronger negative
⁎⁎
p ≤ .01 (2-tailed).
relations between MA and math performance in children with higher

9
L. Orbach, et al. Cognition 200 (2020) 104271

Table 7
Moderated regression analysis of math achievement with the predictor MA and
the moderating variable CEF.
B SE B t p R2

State-MA (pre + post) × inhibition −0.011 0.005 −2.17 .03 0.09

State-MA (pre) × inhibition −0.020 0.012 −1.68 .01 0.07
State-MA (post) × inhibition −0.018 0.008 −2.19 .03 0.13
Trait-MA × inhibition −0.002 0.004 −0.46 .65 0.05
State-MA (pre + post) × cognitive −0.013 0.007 −1.76 .08 0.08
flexibility
State-MA (Pre) × cognitive flexibility −0.025 0.015 −1.65 .10 0.06
State-MA (post) × cognitive flexibility −0.024 0.012 −2.02 .04 0.11
Trait-MA × cognitive flexibility 0.007 0.005 1.24 .22 0.05
State-MA (pre + post) × WMC −0.007 0.012 −0.59 .56 0.08
State-MA (pre) × WMC −0.011 0.024 −0.44 .66 0.05
State-MA (post) × WMC −0.010 0.009 −1.08 .28 0.12
Trait-MA × WMC 0.013 0.009 1.55 .12 0.05
State-MA (pre + post) × global CEF −0.005 0.006 −0.97 .33 0.09

Fig. 3. Moderation graphs state-MA post-test × ADHD SR (variables are plotted at 1 SD above and below M).
State-MA (pre) × global CEF −0.011 0.011 −0.96 .34 0.07
State-MA (post) × global CEF −0.024 0.019 −1.24 .22 0.11
Trait-MA × global CEF 0.000 0.004 0.11 .91 0.06

WMC (Ching, 2017; Ramirez, Chang, Maloney, Levine, & Beilock, 2016;
Ramirez, Gunderson, Levine, & Beilock, 2013; Vukovic, Kieffer, Bailey,
& Harari, 2013), it was postulated that individuals with higher cogni-
tive abilities should be more vulnerable to the performance-inhibiting
effects caused by MA. These findings were explained by the preference
of children with high abilities to select problem-solving strategies (re-
trieval of facts from long-term memory, inhibition of conflicting re-
sponses), that rely more on WM resources and that consequently cannot
be used readily in the light of MA, due to cognitive interference (Carey,
Hill, Devine, & Szücs, 2016; Geary, Hoard, Byrd-Craven, & DeSoto,
2004; Ramirez, Chang, Maloney, Levine, & Beilock, 2016; Ramirez,
Gunderson, Levine, & Beilock, 2013). In contrast to these findings and
the “choking” assumption, other research in children has reported ne-
gative relations only in individuals with lower WM abilities (Owens,
Stevenson, Hadwin, & Norgate, 2014; Soltanlou et al., 2019), or else
found that children with lower WM abilities and higher MA had a
greater risk of achieving lower scores in math tests (Cargnelutti,
Tomasetto, & Passolunghi, 2017b; Mammarella, Hill, Devine, Caviola,
& Szücs, 2015; Passolunghi, Caviola, De Agostini, Perin, & Mammarella,
2016; Trezise & Reeve, 2014a, 2014b, 2016). These observations pro-
vided evidence for the assumption that children with higher WM abil-
ities should better manage the negative consequences of MA.
The present data reveal that in the performance-based assessment
children of all CEF levels and for all basic cognitive processes (inhibi-
tion, cognitive flexibility, WMC, global measure of CEF) seem to have
been negatively influenced by state-MA in their math performance.
Thus, children with lower CEF and higher state-MA showed the worst
scores in the math test, while children with higher CEF and lower state-
MA performed better. However, inhibition control functioned as a
moderator in the relation between all state-MA measures and math
achievement. Children with higher inhibition abilities showed a more
negative relation between anxiety and performance. Accordingly,
children with high capability to override dominant or prepotent re-
sponses that are irrelevant for task-processing, and who are able to
focus on task-relevant stimuli, thoughts or behaviour, seem to be the
most affected by state-MA. Similar observations can be made for cog-
nitive flexibility. Children with higher cognitive flexibility levels
showed more pronounced negative relations between state-MA after the
math test and math scores in the basic number skill test. Unexpectedly,
children with higher ability to switch perspectives during task proces-
sing or to respond to changing situations/tasks seemed to be slightly
more affected by the performance-inhibiting effects caused by MA. One
reason for this moderation effect could be the fact that cognitive flex-
ibility is based on inhibitory control and WM (Diamond, 2013).
The research on selection of math-problem-solving strategies in

10
L. Orbach, et al.
Fig. 4. Moderation graphs state-MA post-test × CEF (variables are plotted at 1 SD above and below M).
stressful situations contributes to a further explanation, as it demon-
strates that children's strategy choice depends on the situational context
(e.g. time pressure and/or social evaluation), on emotional conditions
(e.g. MA), task complexity and available WM (Barrouillet & Lépine,
2005; Luwel & Verschaffel, 2003; Tsui & Mazzocco, 2006; Wang &
Shah, 2014). One key finding, which was replicated for children by
Wang and Shah (2014), is that individuals with higher WM capabilities
have lower performances in pressure-evoking situations, compared to
what one would expect in consideration of their abilities and perfor-
mance in situations without any pressure (Beilock & Carr, 2005; Beilock
& DeCaro, 2007). In particular, individuals with higher WM abilities
were more impaired by pressure in more highly demanding math tasks,
than were individuals with lower WM abilities. One common explica-
tion for this ‘choking under pressure’ phenomenon lies in the in-
dividual's strategy selection. Individuals with higher abilities tend to
use high cognitive-demand strategies, while lower WM individuals rely
on simpler strategies (Barrouillet & Lépine, 2005; Geary, Hoard, Byrd-
Craven, & DeSoto, 2004). In a stressful situation higher WM individuals
cannot use their WM-demanding strategy successfully and some of
these individuals switch to simpler and less accurate strategies. Both
approaches lead to lower achievement, while individuals employing
lower WM strategy selections seem to be unaffected by emotional states
and exhibit no impairments (Beilock & DeCaro, 2007; Wang & Shah,
2014).
11
Cognition 200 (2020) 104271
In view of these findings, the moderating effect of inhibition control
could be explained by the assessment situation and by the affective
condition of the children. Children with higher abilities might be aware
of their potential in low-pressure situations. If they are confronted with
math tasks that they should be able to solve without any time pressure,
this assessment situation could nonetheless evoke pressure and anxiety,
leading to more pronounced choking effects caused by strategy choice.
Another explanation could be that children with higher inhibition
control, rely longer on more WM-demanding strategies, because their
use would inhibit signals that would otherwise lead them to change
their task-processing approach. If the moderating effect of cognitive
flexibility is not fully caused by the basic inhibition ability, one could
otherwise hypothesise that some children probably switch more quickly
to less accurate and faster strategies. For the sake of completeness, no
moderation effects of CEF were found for the relation between trait-MA
and math achievement. One possible observation here is that children
with lower cognitive flexibility or with lower WMC seem to be differ-
ently affected by higher cognitive dispositions of MA (Fig. 5), but this
requires further investigations.
Consistently with research using ADHD observer ratings as a mea-
sure of executive control in children's everyday activities, self-ratings of
general attention deficits were negatively related to their math
achievement. Also, similarly to studies by Wu et al. (2014; 2017) our
data indicate stable associations between ADHD self-ratings −
L. Orbach, et al. Cognition 200 (2020) 104271

Fig. 5. Moderation graphs trait-MA × CEF (variables are plotted at 1 SD above and below M).

Fig. 6. Multiple mediation model (unstandardized coefficients are reported).

Note. * p ≤ .05 (2-tailed) ** p ≤ .01 (2-tailed) *** p ≤ .001 (2-tailed).

12
L. Orbach, et al.
especially inattention − and MA. Possible explanations for this stable
association can be found in the theoretical frameworks of attentional
control theory (Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007), in the
transactional process model of test anxiety (Spielberger & Vagg, 1995)
and in the associations of ADHD and anxiety disorders (e.g. test anxiety;
Schatz & Rostain, 2006; Jarrett & Ollendick, 2008a, 2008b). Due to the
repeated experience of MA in math situations and the associated at-
tentional bias, the individual is frequently unable to focus on their goal
anymore, so that the goal-directed attentional system is often disturbed.
It is possible that generalisation effects lead to a broader subjective
belief that influences self-ratings of executive control in daily life.
Further evidence for the stable association between self-ratings of
ADHD and state-MA is found in the moderation analysis. Children with
higher inattention self-ratings and higher state-MA achieved the lowest
math performances, whereas children with lower self-rated inattention
and without state-MA had the best math scores.
For self-ratings of hyperactivity and impulsiveness, moderation ef-
fects appeared. Children with lower self-ratings showed more-negative
relations between state-MA and math proficiency. These findings raise
interesting questions, as self-report measures of CEF in daily life ex-
hibited strong moderation effects, compared to no moderation effects of
the performance-based WMC or the global CEF measures. One could
hypothesise that children with higher hyperactive-impulsive self-rat-
ings had a more sensitive self-perception and put more effort into
coping with situational arousal. Another explanation might be that
items of hyperactivity and impulsiveness focuses on behavioral pro-
blems, which are only weakly related to test situations. Besides, the
validity of hyperactivity and impulsiveness self-ratings on ADHD
questionnaires can be questioned for young children (cf. Döpfner &
Görtz-Dorten, 2008), given the use of items requiring self-reflection on
levels of difficult behaviour (e.g. being unable to play or take part in
leisure activities quietly). In contrast inattention items focus on pro-
blems that might be easier to self-evaluate (e.g. having trouble holding
attention on tasks or making careless mistakes in schoolwork).
Finally, the mediation analysis provides new insights into the in-
terconnections of state-MA, self-ratings of inattention and WMC. The
data reveal that besides the direct negative connection of state-MA and
math performance, there are significantly indirect paths. One indirect
path leads from the experience of state-MA to math performance
through self-rated attention problems in daily life and WMC. Thus, the
connection between state-MA and WMC was mediated by the general
inattention self-rating and WMC mediated the association between in-
attention self-rating and math performance. Children with high self-
rated inattention in daily life activities and low WMC, produced the
lowest math scores, while children with high self-rated inattention in
daily life activities had the lowest WMC. Apart from the likely case of
children with anxiety states and subjective beliefs about CEF deficits
having lower actual WMC, for children without self-rated CEF deficits,
increases in anxiety states were related to great decreases in WMC
performance. Both cases resulted in lower math performances. Another
indirect, and stronger path led from state-MA to performance through
self-rating of inattention in daily life.
These findings are in line with previous empirical evidence for the
mediating role of WMC and attentional control theory (Moran, 2016).
Furthermore, the data emphasise the importance of considering dif-
ferent paths leading from state anxiety to poorer performance. A novel
result is that many state math-anxious children seemed to have a self-
awareness of a disturbed goal-directed attentional system in various
everyday life situations, perchance caused by generalisation effects or
by lower WMC in general.
4.1. Limitations and implications
Some limitations of the applied research approach, which point to
directions for future studies, should be noted. For example, in line with
the theoretical approach of Spielberger (1972), the present research
13
Cognition 200 (2020) 104271
defined state-MA as an arousal of the autonomic nervous system,
evoked by the confrontation with a math-related stimulus (math test
situation). However, the applied paper-pencil assessment is not a direct
approach to assessing physiological arousal. To date, the assumed
convergence between paper-pencil assessments and physiological
measures of heart rate or skin conductance has rarely been investigated,
although significant correlations have been identified in some studies
(Kantor, Endler, Heslegrave, & Kocovski, 2001; Weems, Zakem, Costa,
Cannon, & Watts, 2005).
Another potential point of criticism is in possible misattributions.
The study design was not able to check for other trait influences on
state-MA, such as test-anxiety traits. It is also possible that the nervous
system arousal was affected by other internal or external stimuli.
Despite the instruction to rate the items solely in light of the upcoming
or past math test, it is questionable whether all children were able to
differentiate those stimuli that caused their arousal. The long history of
research on misattribution of arousal has provided evidence that in-
dividuals sometimes have problems with identifying the causes of their
feelings (Cotton, 1981; Izard, Kagan, & Zajonc, 1984; Payne, Hall,
Cameron, & Bishara, 2010). The use of control variables such as test
anxiety trait questionnaires or baseline assessments of state anxieties in
math-unrelated test situations, would be a promising approach in this
matter.
Analysing the pre- and post-test scores of state-MA was necessary to
examine possible rating biases, which could be caused by the similar
pre- and post-test questionnaire. Although no discrepancy between pre-
and post-test scores was found, the differences between the correlations
of state-MA pre-test and post-test to trait-MA and math performance
were significant. These findings suggest that the participants did not
learn how they want to reply to the state-questionnaire. Nevertheless, a
second version of the state-assessment would be able to reduce the risk
of rating biases.
In addition, assessing WMC with tasks that include digits could be a
problematic cognitive task for children with MA. Future studies should
compare WMC tasks with and without digits to examine this theoretical
assumption. Furthermore, research on children's selection of problem-
solving strategies in stressful math related situations would contribute
to an in-depth investigation of the performance-inhibiting effects of
MA. One key finding of this study is that children with higher inhibition
control and greater cognitive flexibility, showed more pronounced ne-
gative relations between MA and performance. Thus, future studies
concerned with the moderating effects of CEF should focus on the
strategy choices of children. This approach would allow researchers to
examine whether children with higher inhibition control are more
likely to inhibit signals that would otherwise lead them to change their
task-processing strategy to a more functional one. Another implication
for future research on the moderating effect of cognitive processes is the
assessing of state CEF in math test situations. Such studies should be
able to offer new information about the negative impacts of MA on
attentional control functions.
5. Conclusion
The present study extends the previous research findings on the
interplay between MA, CEF and math performance in children. The data
demonstrate that children of all CEF levels and for all basic cognitive
processes exhibit a negative relation between state-MA and math
achievement. However, children with higher inhibition control and
cognitive flexibility seem to be more affected by state-MA. These
findings could be explained by the individual's selection of problem-
solving strategies, and the relation between inhibition control and
cognitive flexibility. Limitations of the present research are that the
design cannot check for other impacts, such as test-anxiety, and does
not provide data for state CEF in the math test situation. In general, all
findings raise important questions for research on the reciprocal effects
of affective and cognitive factors in academic situations. Directions for
L. Orbach, et al.
further research could be to investigate the relation between state-MA,
strategy selection and inhibition control. Such studies would be able to
offer new insights into the negative impacts of MA. In conclusion, the
study has highlighted the importance of distinguishing between CEF
and both MA-types. In the light of these results, previous research
should be interpreted with due consideration of the operationalisation
of MA and assessments of WM domains.
Declarations of competing interest
None.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current
study will be available in the Mendeley data repository in case of
publication.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Lars Orbach: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Writing - original draft, Visualization. Moritz Herzog:
Conceptualization. Annemarie Fritz: Supervision, Funding acquisition.
References
Allen, M., & Vallée-Tourangeau, F. (2016). Interactivity defuses the impact of mathe-
matics anxiety in primary school children. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 14(8), 1553–1566.
Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2010). Investigating the predictive roles of working
memory and IQ in academic attainment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
106, 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.11.003.
Ashcraft, M. H., & Kirk, E. P. (2001). The relationships among working memory, math
anxiety, and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2),
224–237.
Ashcraft, M. H., & Moore, A. M. (2009). Mathematics anxiety and the affective drop in
performance. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(3), 197–205.
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Barrouillet, P., & Lépine, R. (2005). Working memory and children's use of retrieval to
solve addition problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 91(3), 183–204.
Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2005). When high-powered people fail: Working memory
and“choking under pressure”in math. Psychological Science, 16, 101–105. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00789.x.
Beilock, S. L., & DeCaro, M. S. (2007). From poor performance to success under stress:
Working memory, strategy selection, and mathematical problem solving under
pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(6),
983–998. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.6.983.
Bieg, M. (2013). Trait and state academic emotions: Two sides of the same coin? Doctoral
dissertation Germany: University of Konstanz. Retrieved from https://kops.uni-
konstanz.de/handle/123456789/25394.
Bieg, M., Goetz, T., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2014). What students think they feel differs from
what they really feel: Academic self-concept moderates the discrepancy between
students’ trait and state emotional self-reports. PLoS One, 9(3), e92563. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092563.
Bieg, M., Goetz, T., Wolter, I., & Hall, N. C. (2015). Gender stereotype endorsement
differentially predicts girls’ and boys’ trait-state discrepancy in math anxiety.
Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1404. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01404.
Buehler, R., & McFarland, C. (2001). Intensity bias in affective forecasting: The role of
temporal focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(11), 1480–1493.
Carey, E., Hill, F., Devine, A., & Szücs, D. (2016). The chicken or the egg? The direction of
the relationship between mathematics anxiety and mathematics performance.
Frontiers in Psychology, 6 Article ID 1987.
Cargnelutti, E., Tomasetto, C., & Passolunghi, M. C. (2017a). How is anxiety related to
math performance in young students? A longitudinal study of grade 2 to grade 3
children. Cognition and Emotion, 31(4), 755–764.
Cargnelutti, E., Tomasetto, C., & Passolunghi, M. C. (2017b). The interplay between af-
fective and cognitive factors in shaping early proficiency in mathematics. Trends in
Neuroscience and Education, 8–9, 28–36.
Caviola, S., Primi, C., Chiesi, F., & Mammarella, I. C. (2017). Psychometric properties of
the Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale (AMAS) in Italian primary school children.
Learning and Individual Differences, 55, 174–182.
Ching, B. H.-H. (2017). Mathematics anxiety and working memory: Longitudinal asso-
ciations with mathematical performance in Chinese children. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 51, 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.06.
006.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum
Associates.
Cohen, J. (1994). The Earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.
14
Cognition 200 (2020) 104271
Conway, A. R., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and its
relation to general intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 547–552.
Cotton, J. L. (1981). A review of research on Schachter’s theory of emotion and the
misattribution of arousal. European Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 365–397.
David, C. V. (2012). Working memory deficits in Math learning difficulties: A meta-
analysis. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 58(2), 67–84. https://doi.
org/10.1179/2047387711Y.0000000007.
Davidson, M. C., Amso, D., Anderson, L. C., & Diamond, A. (2006). Development of
cognitive control and executive functions from 4 to 13 years: Evidence from ma-
nipulations of memory, inhibition, and task switching. Neuropsychologia, 44(11),
2037–2078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.02.006.
De Smedt, B., Janssen, R., Bouwens, K., Verschaffel, L., Boets, B., & Ghesquière, P. (2009).
Working memory and individual differences in mathematics achievement: A long-
itudinal study from first to second grade. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
103, 186–201.
Devine, A., Hill, F., Carey, E., & Szűcs, D. (2018). Cognitive and emotional math problems
largely dissociate: Prevalence of developmental dyscalculia and mathematics anxiety.
Journal of Educational Psychology. 110(3), 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1037/
edu0000222.
Diamond, A. (2006). The early development of executive functions. In E. Bialystok, & F. I.
M. Craik (Eds.). Lifespan cognition: Mechanisms of change (pp. 70–95). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168.
Döpfner, M., & Görtz-Dorten, A. (2008). Diagnostik-System für Psychische Störungen im
Kindes- und Jugendalter nach ICD-10 und DSM-IV, DISYPS-II [Diagnostic system for
mental disorders in childhood and adolescence]. Bern: Huber.
Dowker, A. (2005). Individual differences in arithmetic: Implications for psychology neu-
roscience and education. Hove: Psychological Press.
Doyle, A. E. (2006). Executive functions in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 67, 21–26.
Ehlert, A., Herzog, M., & Fritz, A. (2020). Basistest mathematischer Fertigkeiten [Basic
number skill test]. Göttingen: Hogrefe (in press).
Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing effi-
ciency theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 409–434.
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive
performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7, 336–353.
Friso-van den Bos, I., van der Ven, S. H. G., Kroesbergen, E. H., & van Luit, J. E. H. (2013).
Working memory and mathematics in primary school children: A meta-analysis.
Educational Research Review, 10, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.
003.
Ganley, C. M., & McGraw, A. L. (2016). The development and validation of a revised
version of the Math Anxiety Scale for Young Children. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1181.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01181.
Garon, N., Bryson, S. E., & Smith, I. M. (2008). Executive function in preschoolers: A
review using an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 31–60.
Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Working memory and language. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Gathercole, S. E., Brown, L., & Pickering, S. J. (2003). Working memory assessments at
school entry as longitudinal predictors of National Curriculum attainment levels.
Educational and Child Psychology, 20(3), 1091–1122.
Gathercole, S. E., & Martin, A. J. (1996). Interactive processes in phonological memory. In
S. E. Gathercole (Ed.). Models of short-term memory (pp. 73–100). Hove, U.K.:
Erlbaum.
Gaudry, E., Vagg, P., & Spielberger, C. D. (1975). Validation of the state-trait distinction
in anxiety research. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10(3), 331–341.
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Byrd-Craven, J., & DeSoto, M. C. (2004). Strategy choices in
simple and complex addition: Contributions of working memory and counting
knowledge for children with mathematical disability. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 88(2), 121–151.
Goetz, T., Bieg, M., Ludtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Hall, N. C. (2013a). Do girls really ex-
perience more anxiety in mathematics? Psychological Science, 24(10), 2079–2087.
Goetz, T., Bieg, M., Ludtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Hall, N. C. (2013b). Do girls really ex-
perience more anxiety in mathematics? Psychological Science, 24(10), 2079–2087.
Gunderson, E. A., Park, D., Maloney, E. A., Beilock, S. L., & Levine, S. C. (2018).
Reciprocal relations among motivational frameworks, math anxiety, and math
achievement in early elementary school. Journal of Cognition and Development, 19(1),
21–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2017.1421538.
Haase, V. G., Júlio-Costa, A., Pinheiro-Chagas, P., Oliveira, L.d. F. S., Micheli, L. R., &
Wood, G. (2012). Math self-assessment, but not negative feelings, predicts mathe-
matics performance of elementary school children. Child Development Research, 2012.
Harari, R. R., Vukovic, R. K., & Bailey, S. P. (2013). Mathematics anxiety in young
children: An exploratory study. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81(4),
538–555.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Heaton, R. K., Chelune, G. J., Talley, J. L., Kay, G. G., & Curtiss, G. (1993). Wisconsin card
sorting test manual: Revised and expanded. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Heckhausen, J., & Heckhausen, H. (2010). Motivation und Handeln [Motivation and action].
Berlin: Springer.
Hofmann, S. G., Heering, S., Sawyer, A. T., & Asnaani, A. (2009). How to handle anxiety:
The effects of reappraisal, acceptance, and suppression strategies on anxious arousal.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47(5), 389–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.
2009.02.010.
Izard, C., Kagan, J., & Zajonc, R. B. (Eds.). (1984). Emotions, cognition and behavior.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
L. Orbach, et al.
Jarrett, M. A., & Ollendick, T. H. (2008a). A conceptual review of the comorbidity of
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and anxiety: Implications for future research
and practice. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1266–1280.
Jarrett, M. A., & Ollendick, T. H. (2008b). A conceptual review of the comorbidity of
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and anxiety: Implications for future research
and practice. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1266–1280.
Justicia-Galiano, M. J., Martín-Puga, M. E., Linares, R., & Pelegrina, S. (2017). Math
anxiety and math performance in children: The mediating roles of working memory
and math self-concept. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 573–589. https://
doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12165.
Kantor, L., Endler, N. S., Heslegrave, R. J., & Kocovski, N. L. (2001). Validating self-report
measures of state and trait anxiety against a physiological measure. Current
Psychology. 20(3), 207–215.
Krinzinger, H., Kaufmann, L., Dowker, A., Thomas, G., Graf, M., Nuerk, H. C., & Willmes,
K. (2007). Deutschsprachige Version des Fragebogens für Rechenangst (FRA) für 6-
bis 9-jährige Kinder [German version of the math anxiety questionnaire (FRA) for 6-
to 9-year-old children]. Zeitschrift für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie und Psychotherapie,
35(5), 341–351.
Krinzinger, H., Kaufmann, L., & Willmes, K. (2009). Math anxiety and math ability in
early primary school years. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(3), 206–225.
Levine, L. J., Safer, M. A., & Lench, H. C. (2006). Remembering and misremembering
emotions. In L. J. Sanna, & E. C. Chang (Eds.). Judgments over time: The interplay of
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (pp. 271–290). New York: Oxford University Press.
Luwel, K., & Verschaffel, L. (2003). Adapting strategy choices to situational factors: The
effect of time pressure on children’s numerosity judgement strategies. Psychologica
Belgica. 43, 269–295.
MacLeod, C. M. (2007). The concept of inhibition in cognition. In D. S. Gorfein, & C. N.
MacLeod (Eds.). Inhibition in cognition (pp. 3–24). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Mammarella, I. C., Hill, F., Devine, A., Caviola, S., & Szücs, D. (2015). Math anxiety and
developmental dyscalculia: A study on working memory processes. Journal of Clinical
Experimental Neuropsychology. 37, 878–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.
2015.1066759.
Mattarella-Micke, A., Mateo, J., Kozak, M. N., Foster, K., & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Choke or
thrive? The relation between salivary cortisol and math performance depends on
individual differences in working memory and math-anxiety. Emotion, 11(4),
1000–1005.
Mazzocco, M. M., & Thompson, R. E. (2005). Kindergarten predictors of math learning
disability. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 142–155. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00129.x.
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differ-
ences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 21(1), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411429458.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D.
(2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to
complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology. 41,
49–100.
Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active main-
tenance and executive control. Cambridge University Press.
Moran, T. P. (2016). Anxiety and working memory capacity: A meta-analysis and nar-
rative review. Psychological Bulletin, 142(8), 831–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/
bul0000051.
Nigg, J. T., Hinshaw, S. P., Carte, E. T., & Treuting, J. J. (1998). Neuropsychological
correlates of childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Explainable by co-
morbid disruptive behavior or reading problems? Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
107(3), 468–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.107.3.468.
Nigg, J. T., Willcutt, E. G., Doyle, A. E., & Sonuga-Barke, E. (2005). Causal heterogeneity
in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Do we need neuropsychologically im-
paired subtypes? Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1224–1230.
Orbach, L., Herzog, M., & Fritz, A. (Herzog, & Fritz, 2019a). Math anxiety during the
transition from primary to secondary school. In M. Knigge, D. Kollosche, O.
Skovsmose, R. M. J. de Souza, & M. G. Penteado (Eds.). Inclusive mathematics edu-
cation: State-of-the-art-research from Brazil and Germany. Cham: Springer.
Orbach, L., Herzog, M., & Fritz, A. (Herzog, & Fritz, 2019b). Relation of state- and trait-
math anxiety to intelligence, math achievement and learning motivation. Journal of
Numerical Cognition. 5(3), 371–399.
Owens, M., Stevenson, J., Hadwin, J. A., & Norgate, R. (2014). When does anxiety help or
hinder cognitive test performance? The role of working memory capacity. British
Journal of Psychology, 105, 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12009.
Owens, M., Stevenson, J., Norgate, R., & Hadwin, J. A. (2008). Processing efficiency
theory in children: Working memory as a mediator between trait anxiety and aca-
demic performance. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 21(4), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10615800701847823.
Passolunghi, M. C., Cargnelutti, E., & Pellizzoni, S. (2019). The relation between cognitive
and emotional factors and arithmetic problem-solving. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 100, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00042.
Passolunghi, M. C., Caviola, S., De Agostini, R., Perin, C., & Mammarella, I. C. (2016).
Mathematics anxiety, working memory, and mathematics performance in secondary-
school children. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 42. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.
00042.
Payne, B., Hall, D. L., Cameron, C., & Bishara, A. J. (2010). A process model of affect
misattribution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(10), 1397–1408. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0146167210383440.
Peng, P., Namkung, J., Barnes, M., & Sun, C. (2016). A meta-analysis of mathematics and
working memory: Moderating effects of working memory domain, type of mathe-
matics skill, and sample characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4),
15
Cognition 200 (2020) 104271
455–473. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000079.
Pennington, B. F., & Ozonoff, S. (1996). Executive functions and developmental psy-
chopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 51–87. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1469–7610.1996.tb01380.x.
Punaro, L., & Reeve, R. (2012). Relationships between 9-year-olds’ math and literacy
worries and academic abilities. Child Development Research, 2012, 11. https://doi.
org/10.1155/2012/359089.
Ramirez, G., Chang, H., Maloney, E. A., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2016). On the
relationship between math anxiety and math achievement in early elementary
school: The role of problem solving strategies. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 141, 83–100.
Ramirez, G., Gunderson, E. A., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2013). Math anxiety,
working memory, and math achievement in early elementary school. Journal of
Cognition and Development, 14(2), 187–202.
Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: Evidence for an accessibility
model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 934–960.
Roos, A.-L., Bieg, M., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Taxer, J., & Zeidner, M. (2015).
Experiencing more mathematics anxiety than expected? Contrasting trait and state
anxiety in high achieving students. High Ability Studies, 26(2), 245–258.
Rosas, R., Espinoza, V., & Garolera, M. (2020). Evidencia intercultural de un test basado en
Tablet para medir las funciones ejecutivas de niños entre 6 y 10 años: resultados pre-
liminares [Intercultural evidence of a Tablet-based test to measure executive functions of
children between 6 and 10 years old: preliminary results (CEDETi UC Papeles de
Investigación N°12). Santiago de Chile, Chile: Pontificia Universidad Católica De Chile.
http://descargas.cedeti.cl/2020/04/YELLOW-RED-INTERNACIONAL.pdf.
Schatz, D. B., & Rostain, A. L. (2006). ADHD with comorbid anxiety: A review of the
current literature. Journal of Attention Disorders, 10(2), 141–149.
Schmeichel, B. J., & Demaree, H. A. (2010). Working memory capacity and spontaneous
emotion regulation: High capacity predicts self-enhancement in response to negative
feedback. Emotion, 10(5), 739–744. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019355.
Schmeichel, B. J., Volokhov, R. N., & Demaree, H. A. (2008). Working memory capacity
and the self-regulation of emotional expression and experience. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1526–1540. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013345.
Smith, E., & Jonides, J. (1999). Storage and executive processes in the frontal lobes.
Science, 283, 1657–1661. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.283.5408.
Soltanlou, M., Artemenko, C., Dresler, T., Fallgatter, A. J., Ehlis, A.-C., & Nuerk, H.-C.
(2019). Math anxiety in combination with low visuospatial memory impairs math
learning in children. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 89.
Sorvo, R., Koponen, T., Viholainen, H., Aro, T., Räikkönen, E., Peura, P., & Aro, M.
(2017). Math anxiety and its relationship with basic arithmetic skills among primary
school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 309–327.
Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Anxiety. Current trends in theory and research. New York:
Academic Press.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual
for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists 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.
Suárez-Pellicioni, M., Nunez-Pena, M. I., & Colome, A. (2016). Math anxiety: A review of
its cognitive consequences, psychophysiological correlates, and brain bases. Cognitive,
Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 16(1), 3–22.
Swanson, H. L., & Jerman, O. (2006). Math disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the
literature. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 249–274. https://doi.org/10.3102/
00346543076002249.
Thomas, G., & Dowker, A. (2000). Mathematics anxiety and related factors in young
children. Paper presented at the British Psychological Society developmental section con-
ference, Bristol, UK.
Thorell, L. B., & Wåhlstedt, C. (2006). Executive functioning deficits in relation to
symptoms of ADHD and/or ODD in preschool children. Infant and Child Development,
15, 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.475.
Toplak, M. E., West, R. W., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Practitioner review: Do perfor-
mance-based measures and rating of executive function assess the same construct?
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jcpp.12001.
Tosto, M. G., Momi, S. K., Asherson, P., & Malki, K. (2015). A systematic review of at-
tention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and mathematical ability: Current
findings and future implications. BMC Medicine, 13, 204. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12916-015-0414-4.
Trezise, K., & Reeve, R. A. (2014a). Cognition-emotion interactions: Patterns of change
and implications for math problem solving. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(840), https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00840.
Trezise, K., & Reeve, R. A. (2014b). Working memory, worry and algebraic ability. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 121, 120–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.
12.001.
Trezise, K., & Reeve, R. A. (2016). Worry and working memory influence each other
iteratively over time. Cognition and Emotion. 30(2), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02699931.2014.1002755.
Tsui, J., & Mazzocco, M. M. (2006). Effects of math anxiety and perfectionism on timed
versus untimed math testing in mathematically gifted sixth graders. Roeper Review.
29, 132–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190709554397.
Vukovic, R. K., Kieffer, M. J., Bailey, S. P., & Harari, R. R. (2013). Mathematics anxiety in
young children: Concurrent and longitudinal associations with mathematical per-
formance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(1), 1–10.
Wang, Z., & Shah, P. (2014). The effect of pressure on high-and low-working-memory
students: An elaboration of the choking under pressure hypothesis. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12027.
L. Orbach, et al.
Weems, C. F., Zakem, A., Costa, N. M., Cannon, M. F., & Watts, S. E. (2005). Physiological
response and childhood anxiety: Association with symptoms of anxiety disorders and
cognitive bias. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 712–723.
White, L. K., Helfinstein, S. M., Reeb-Sutherland, B. C., Degnan, K. A., & Fox, N. A. (2009).
Role of attention in the regulation of fear and anxiety. Developmental Neuroscience,
31(4), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1159/000216542.
Willcutt, E. G., Doyle, A. E., Nigg, J., Faraone, S. V., & Pennington, B. F. (2005). Validity
of the executive function theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A meta-
analytic review. Biological Psychiatry, 57(11), 1336–1346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biopsych.2005.02.006.
Willcutt, E. G., Pennington, B. F., Boada, R., Ogline, J. S., Tunick, R. A., Chhabildas, N. A.,
& Olson, R. K. (2001). A comparison of the cognitive deficits in reading disability and
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110(1),
157–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.110.1.157.
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 131–134.
16
Cognition 200 (2020) 104271
Witt, M. (2012). The impact of mathematics anxiety on primary school children's working
memory. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 8(2), 263–274.
Wood, G., Pinheiro-Chagas, P., Julio-Costa, A., Micheli, L., Krinzinger, H., Kaufmann, L.,
... Haase, V. G. (2012). Math Anxiety Questionnaire: Similar latent structure in
Brazilian and German school children. Child Development Research, 2012, 10. https://
doi.org/10.1155/2012/610192.
Wu, S. S., Barth, M., Amin, H., Malcarne, V., & Menon, V. (2012). Math anxiety in second
and third graders and its relation to mathematics achievement. Frontiers in
Psychology, 3, 162. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00162.
Wu, S. S., Chen, L., Battista, C., Smith Watts, A. K., Willcutt, E. G., & Menon, V. (2017).
Distinct influences of affective and cognitive factors on children’s non-verbal and
verbal mathematical abilities. Cognition, 166, 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cognition.2017.05.016.
Wu, S. S., Willcutt, E. G., Escovar, E., & Menon, V. (2014). Mathematics achievement and
anxiety and their relation to internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 47(6), 503–514.