See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247496732

Anxiety and academic performance: A meta-analysis of findings

Article · June 1991

DOI: 10.1080/08917779108248762

CITATIONS READS

301 699

1 author:

Bettina Seipp
Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya
4 PUBLICATIONS   328 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bettina Seipp on 18 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Anxiety Research

ISSN: 0891-7779 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gasc19

Anxiety and academic performance: A meta-

analysis of findings

Bettina Seipp

To cite this article: Bettina Seipp (1991) Anxiety and academic performance: A meta-analysis of
findings, Anxiety Research, 4:1, 27-41, DOI: 10.1080/08917779108248762

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08917779108248762

Published online: 29 May 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1123

View related articles

Citing articles: 141 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gasc19

Download by: [Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund] Date: 11 December 2017, At: 04:01

 Anxiety Research, 1991, Vol. 4, pp. 27-41 1991 Harwood Academic Publishers GmbH
Reprints available directly from the publisher Printed in the United Kingdom
Photocopying permitted by license only

ANXIETY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE: A

META-ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
BETI’INA SEIPP
University of Diisseldorf
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund] at 04:01 11 December 2017

(Received 25 October 1990)

The strength of the relationship between anxiety and performance vanes from study to study with
correlations from extreme negative to positive values. In order to reveal the sources of this inconsis-
tency, a series of meta-analyses was conducted using the Schmidt-Hunter algorithm for effect sizes r.
One hundred and twenty-six studies published from 1975 to 1988, based on a total sample of 36,626
subjects, were located after a comprehensive literature search. They include 156 indspendent samples.
An overall analysis with the 156 effect sizes yielded a population effect size of rV=-.21. Further
analyses aimed at exploring moderator variables that would account for the residual variance, but tests
of gender, culture (USA, West Germany and others), and anxiety stability (stateltrait) failed to unveil
the expected moderator impact. However, analyses with the anxiety components worry and emotiona-
lity, kinds of anxiety such as general and test anxiety, and the anxiety measurement point in time yielded
systematic differences: the more cognitively determined and the more specific the anxiety measure, the
closer was its association with academic performance. A closer relationship was also found if anxiety was
measured after the performance situation compared to being measured before.

KEY WORDS: Cognitive theories of anxiety, academic performance, meta-analysis, research integ-
ration

Hundreds of studies so far have investigated the complex relationship between

anxiety and different kinds of performance. They have come up with an over-
whelming amount of diverse results, ranging from positive to negative and from
strong to weak relations, depending on different anxiety constructs, characteristics
of subjects or the conceptualization of performance.
Therefore, a series of meta-analyses is performed in order to establish whether
the relationship between the two variables is (a) homogeneous across different
populations and constructs and, if this is not the case, (b) what the moderators are
and which effects are found for specific populations and constructs. The latter idea
considers the fact that anxiety alone is a broad construct (see Krohne, 1976; R.
Schwarzer, van der Ploeg, & Spielberger, 1982, 1987; Spielberger, 1966; van der
Ploeg, R.Schwarzer, & Spielberger, 1983,1984,1985); the same, however applies
to performance. Intergrating all sorts of anxiety with performance could therefore
result in mixing “apples with oranges”. (This study is concerned with the variety
within the anxiety construct alone; for differential effects within the performance
construct or for methodological and measurement differences, see Seipp [19901).
Meta-analysis, introduced into the literature by Glass (1976), is the “statistically

Address correspondence to: Dr. Bettina Seipp, Heinrich-Heine-Universityof Diisseldorf, Department

of Education 11, Universitatsstrasse 1, D - 4000 Diisseldorf, Germany.

27
 28 B. SEIPP

intelligent” (Hornke & Tries, 1979) integration of empirical research results from
conceptual replication studies. It uses statistics from primary studies (means,
correlations, probabilities) to calculate the (weighted) mean or population effect
size (standardized mean difference, average correlation, combined significance).
Hunter, Schmidt, and Jackson (1982) correct the variance of effect sizes across
studies for sampling error by subtracting the estimated error from the observed
variance and thus end up with the corrected or residual variance. The mean effect
size is significantly different from zero if it is larger than twice the corrected
standard deviation. It can be interpreted meaningfully if it is calculated from a
homogeneous set of effect sizes. Homogeneity, according to Hunter et al. (1982), is
given if at least 75% of the observed variance is explained by sampling error.
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund] at 04:01 11 December 2017

Second, a group is homogeneous if the corrected standard deviation is smaller than

one-fourth of the mean effect size (McDaniel, Hirsh, Schmidt, Raju, & Hunter,
1986). Since it is this residual standard deviation which is used to calculate the
width of the credibility interval, this is the most important criterion for homoge-
neity and shall be used here. (For more details regarding meta-analysis, see
Bangert-Drowns, 1986; Bangert-Drowns & von Saldern, 1986; Fricke & Treinies,
1985; Glass, 1977; Glass, McGaw, & Smith, 1981; Hedges, 1986; Hedges & Olkin,
1985; Hornke, 1973,1983; Hornke & Tries, 1979; Light & Pillemer, 1984; Light &
Smith, 1971; Seipp, 1990; Tries, 1984).

METHOD
Data Base
As a result of a systematic computer-assisted (PSYNDEX, ERIC) and an addi-
tional unsystematic literature search, a total of 359 studies were localized for the
time span of 1975 to 1988. Studies, however, were excluded i f
- anxiety was operationalized on physiological grounds,
- performance was operationalized as IQ, anagram-solution, memory, etc. ,or
- the direction and the strength per se of the effect were not calculable e.g., in
the case of multiple regression weights, canonical correlations, etc.).
Measured by these criteria, 126 studies (35.1%) could finally be used for the
analysis. The associated dropout rate is in line with other recent meta-analyses,
where an average of 365 studies were found, but only an average of 106 (33%)
could be used (see Seipp, 1990).
From these 126 independent studies a total of k = 156 effect sizes (two per study
in the case of separate results for males and females, otherwise one) were entered
into the analysis.
Table 1 shows the distribution of studies to various sources of origin.
A total sample size of 36,626 persons with a mean of 235 is investigated. One
hundred and twenty-six effect sizes are originally correlations, 30 means and
standard deviations, t or F values, which are transformed into correlations, too.
Since most of the original studies are correlational, the causal relationship
between anxiety and performance is not always clear; anxiety, however, is treated
as the independent variable (in accordance with the wording of the anxiety
questionnaires). Anxiety is operationalized by the questionnaires used in the
 ANXIETY AND PERFORMANCE 29

primary studies, which, in the majority of cases, are intended to measure trait
anxiety. Furthermore, the components “worry” and “emotionality” are mostly
measured together because these two factors were included intuitively in nearly all
of the questionnaires, even before Liebert and Morris (1967) suggested the
existence of two separate factors.
Academic performance, i.e., the results of exams or tests in schools or universit-
ies, is regarded as the dependent variable. Once again, it is defined by the
instruments used to measure it. They are standardized tests, such as subscales from
the Achievement College Test, the Stanford Achievement Test, or informal
measures, such as test grades, Grade Point Average (GPA), and oral examin-
ations.
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund] at 04:01 11 December 2017

Table 1 Distribution of studies according to sources of publication

Origin Frequency

Country
USA 89
FRG 29
Others 19
Publication
Journal articles 75
Book chapters 6
Books 5
Dissertations 19
Conference papers 21

Data Analysis
The first research question asks for the homogeneity of effect sizes: The stem-and-
leaf display in Figure 1 as well as the histogram of effect sizes in Figure 2 show a
symmetrical unimodal distribution.
This almost normal distribution seems to imply that all effects belong to the same
population and that all deviations from the parameter are due to sampling error.
The graphic displays, however, are not “tests” of homogeneity, but are only first
indicators of homogeneity, which has to be tested by the Hunter et al. (1982)
statistical criteria (see above).

RESULTS ’
Total Sample
The total sample, comprising N=36,626 persons and k=156 effect sizes, yields a
population effect size of T,= - .212.Its 95% credibility interval (which uses the
residual instead of the observed standard deviation) ranges from - .37 to - .07 (see
Table 2).
The reported mean (T,,,=-.21) - even though it is the best estimator of the
relationship - is of only limited interpretational value. It is clearly negative, but its

’ The analyses were performed with a microcomputer program written by Ralf Schwarzer (1989).
 30 B. SEIPP

-.9 I
-.8 I
-.7 I
-.6 I 6
-.S 1036678
-.4 I00023367799
-.3 I 0000122223445667778
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund] at 04:01 11 December 2017

-.2 I 00111111122222233333334444466666777888888899999
-.l I 00001111112333333444444466666666666777778888999
-.O I 01123666666779
+.O I 1249
+.l I 237
+.2 I
+.3 I 7
+.4 I
+.5 I
+.6 I
+.7 I
+.8 I
+.9 I

Figure 1 Stem-and-leaf-display for 156 effect sizes.

heterogeneity calls for a search for additiona. ,actors connected with study cdsigns,
subjects, kinds of anxiety, etc. They would be considered as real moderators if (a)
“the average effect size will vary from subset to subset, and (b) the corrected
variance will average lower in the subsets than for the data as a whole” (Hunter et
al., 1982, p. 48).

Are There Gender Differences in the Anxiety -Performance Relationship?

Many investigations into the relationship between anxiety and performance show a
substantial difference between male and female subjects insofar as females are
much more inhibited by anxiety (see R. Schwarzer, 1987). Therefore, results are
analyzed separately for males and females in Table 3. (Only those studies that
report correlations separately for both males and females can be used here).
 ANXIETY AND PERFORMANCE 31

Number
of Effect Sizes
t

50

40

30
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund] at 04:01 11 December 2017

20

10

Figure 2 Distribution of 156 effect sizes.

Table 2 Meta-Analysisfor the complete data on anxiety and performance

-
Variable k N rw 3 r s2e s2c s, 7'0 expl. 95%
variance credibility
interval
~ ~~ ~ ~

All 156 36626 -.212 .Wa) .Ma) .ma) .075 41.0 -.36 to
-.07
IT,l>2,=.15 sig., s,>lTwl x.25=.053, heterogeneous

Now a) Slight dimepanein due to rounding.

me abbreviationshave the following meaning:
k number of effect sizcs
E: number of persons
rw: weighted mean of correlations
2.:&Ned variance
2.: error variance
szc: (re.sidual-)variamr
&: (rcsidual-)stpndard deviation
% expl. variance: percent variance explained by error
Ii
;I>/ <2rc: criterion of significance
sc>/<>iw)x.2ti: criterion of homogeneity

Table 3 Meta-Analysisfor males and females

~~

-
Variable k N rw 8, 4, s2c s, 7'0 expl. 95%
variance credibility
interval

Females 38 58356 -.215 .W .006 .M .059 62.6 -.33 to

-.lo
IF,,,I > .12 sig., s, > .054, heterogeneous
Males 40 10921 -.182 .W .003 .005 .073 38.8 -.33to
-.04
If, I > .15 sig., s,> .046, heterogeneous
Note: For abbreviationssee Table 2.
 32 B. SEIPP

This result is one of the most important ones of this meta-analysis: on the highest
level of generalization, gender is not a moderating factor for the anxiety-
performance relationship. The difference between their respective means is only
.03. In spite of that, additional factors are differentially influencing the effects for
the male and female subgroups, which are both heterogeneous.

Are There National Differences in the Anxiety-Performance Relationship?

Due to varying examination procedures and school systems, differences between
the strength of the anxiety-performance relationships might arise with respect to
different countries. The analysis presented in Table 4 investigates this. Once again,
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund] at 04:01 11 December 2017

the respective means are comparable, but the large credibility intervals show that
additional factors must be found here, too.

Table 4 Meta-Analysis for different nations

Variable k N
-rW 2, s2, sc % expl. 95%
S2C
variance credibility
interval

USA 96 15003 -.207 .012 .006 .006 .076 50.6 -.35 to

-.06
(Fw1>.15sig., s,> .052, heterogeneous
FRG 37 14849 -.217 .006 .002 ,004 .064 35.8 -.34 to
- .09
17,) > .13 sig., s,> .054, heterogeneous

Others 23 6774 -.211 .012 .003 .MI9 .093 26.6 -.39 to

- .03
IF,l> .19 sig., ~ ~ r . 0 5heterogeneous
3,

Nore: For abbreviations see Table 2.

Is There a Gender-Nation-Interaction in the Anxiety-Performance Relationship?

As gender is such an important issue in the anxiety-performance relationship, the
possibility of different gender effects within different nations should be considered.
Results are presented in Table 5.
Results show that males and females are equally inhibited by anxiety in Germany
and “other” countries. In Germany, there is definitively no additional factor
influencing the effects for males and females; both subgroups are totally homo-
geneous. The same is true for the female subgroup in “other” countries. In the
USA, however, gender moderates the relationship: The theoretically postulated
stronger relationship for females is found here.
These findings implicate that the general idea of females showing a closer
negative relationship has its origin in USA findings: Most of the theoretical and
empirical work in this field comes from the USA, and the differential gender effect
is an over-generalization of USA findings.
 ANXIETY AND PERFORMANCE 33

Table 5 Meta-Analysisfor nation and gender

Variable k N fW 3, s2e s2c s, YO expl. 95Y0

variance credibility
interval
Females 9 2092 '-.175 .002 .004 -.002 .ooO 100 -
homogeneous

Males 9 2154 -.183 .003 .004 -.001 .ooO 100 -

homogeneous
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund] at 04:01 11 December 2017

USA

Females 22 ' 2926 -.241 .012 .007 .006 .076 53.9 -.39 to
.09
lPwl > .15 sig., s,>.060, heterogeneous
Males 18 3937 -.167 .008 .004 .004 .062 52.6 -.29 to
-.04
IP, I> .12 sig., s, > .042, heterogeneous
Others

Females 7 693 -.213 .009 .09 .ooO .015 97.6 -.24 to

-.18
IP, I > .03 sig., s, > .053, homogeneous
Males 9 4310 -.206 ,009 .002 .008 .088 19.9 -.%to
-.03
.18 sig., s,> .054, heterogeneous
(iW1>

Note: For abbrcnatiom scc Table 2.

Is the Anxiety-PerformanceRelationship the Same for Worry as for Emotionality?

A third finding which is often replicated in empirical studies focusses on the notion
that worry shows a closer relation to performance than emotionality does. The
analysis presented in Table 6 clarifies whether these two components really serve as
a moderator.

Table 6 Meta-Analysisfor worry and emotionality

Variable k N -
TW sz, s2, s2c s, YO expl. 95%
variance credibility
interval
~

worry 38 6885 -.219 .013 .005 .008 .OW 38.0 -.40 to

- .04
liwl>.18 sig., s,> .055, heterogeneous
Emotionality 37 5182 -.147 .006 .007 -.001 .ooO 100 -
homogeneous

Note: For abbreviations see Table 2.

 34 B. SEIPP

Results confirm several ideas concerning the two sub-constructs:

1. The relationship is much weaker for emotionality than for worry. The difference
between the means is .07 and, because of the average residual variance being
= <s2c= .005), it is to be regarded
smaller than for the combined group ( s - ~ ~.004
as systematic, i.e., the two components are a firstorder moderator.
2. The emotionality data constitute a homogeneous subset while worry is associ-
ated with a large credibility interval. Thus, within the emotionality subgroup no
further moderators are functioning, while certain circumstances are apt to make
the worry-performance relationship grow as strong as +,=-.40, but also as
weak as almost zero.
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund] at 04:01 11 December 2017

3. The worry-performance relationship is absolutely comparable to the overall

result (+,= - .212), indicating that anxiety and worry may be regarded as
equivalents in terms of performance prediction.

Is the Anxiety-Performance Relationship Different for Different Kinds of Anxiety?

State anxiety versus trait anxiety

Based upon the Spielberger (1983) conception of state and trait anxiety, trait
anxiety is a latent dimension, comparable to a motive that needs an ego-involving
stimulation in order to be activated into the state that “works”. Therefore, the
relationship between anxiety and performance should be stronger for state than for
trait anxiety. Results are shown in Table 7.
Table 7 Meta-Analysis for state and trait anxiety

Variable k N -
rv ?r s2e s2c s, % expl. 95%
variance credibility
interval
~~

State 29 3867 -.210 .014 .007 .007 .084 49.0 -.38 to

- .04
IP,1>.17 sig., s,> .053, heterogeneous
Trait 137 30670 -.210 .010 .004 .006 .(n9 39.3 - 3 7 to
- .05
lPvl > .16 sig., s,> .053, heterogeneous

Nofe: For abbreviations see Table 2

Contradictory to expectations, the effect sizes are identical for state and trait
anxiety. This is also true for the credibility intervals. On the other hand, one has to
take into account the large number of effects for trait anxiety (k = 137) as
compared to the few for state anxiety (k = 29). Therefore, a second analysis uses
only those studies which investigate the impact of both state and trait anxiety (see
Table 8).
The absolute values change slightly, but the general statements of no difference
and of heterogeneity are maintained. This is also partly true when a third analysis is
done with 22 random effect sizes for both state and trait anxiety. Still, the effect
sizes remain nearly identical; trait anxiety constitutes a homogeneous subset here ,
 ANXIETY AND PERFORMANCE 35

Table 8 Meta-Analysisfor state and trait anxiety measured with the same persons

Variable k N 7, 2, s2e 9, s, % expl. 95%

variance credibility
interval
State 10 1272 -.194 .016 .007 .009 .095 44.9 -.38 to
-.01
IFWl> .13 sig., sc> .042, heterogeneous

Trait 10 1272 -.167 .012 .007 .004 .064 64.2 -.29 to

-.04
IP, I > .19 sig., s, > .048, heterogeneous
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund] at 04:01 11 December 2017

No&: For abbreviations see Table 2.

but this is supposed to be an effect of the small sample sue if compared to the
available set.

General anxiety uerszu test anxiety

A last issue concerning the anxiety construct addresses the different relationship
between general anxiety and performance on the one hand, and test anxiety and
performance on the other. It seems logical that the relationship should be closer
with the more test-situation specific measure of anxiety. The analysis shown in
Table 9 confirms this expectation.

Table 9 Meta-Analysis for general and test anxiety

Variable k N 7, 2, s2, s2, s, % expl. 95%

variance credibility
interval

General anxiety 53 11680 -.163 .007 .004 .003 .050 63.6 -.26 to
-.07
IPWl>.10sig., s,>.041, heterogeneous
~~~~~~~~~

Test anxiety 114 28424 -233 .009 .004 .005 .070 42.0 -.37 to
- .09
IPW1>.14sig., sc>.058, heterogeneous

NOIC:For abbreviations see Table 2.

The mean effect sizes differ with .07,and the average residual variance is smaller
than for the data as a whole (s-2c=.004<s2,=.006). Even though both subgroups
are not sufficiently characterized on this level of analysis, generalised across all
other possible factors the situation specificity of anxiety is a first-order moderator of
its relationship with performance.
The three findings concerning the anxiety construct -worry/emotionality ,state/
trait anxiety, generaUtest anxiety - are summarized in Figure 3.
 36 B. SEIPP

Effect Sizes
-.25

-.20

-.15
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund] at 04:01 11 December 2017

-.lo

-.05

0 construct
State Trait nerd Anxietflest Anxiety Worry Emotionality
Type of anxiety Anxiety content Anxiety component

Figure 3 Effect sizes depending on the anxiety construct.

Does Time of Anxiety Measurement Eflect the Anxiety-Performance Relationship?

Another moderator may reside in the time of anxiety measurement in relation to
the measurement of performance. Theory would predict a closer negative relation-
ship if persons are confronted with an anxiety questionnaire shortly before having
to work on a performance task because their cognitions would then be directed to
this self-centred aspect of the situation and thus impair performance. In order to
investigate this suggestion, three groups can be contrasted to one another: In the
first one the sequence of measurement is (1) anxiety - (2) performance, in the
second one it is (1) performance - (2) anxiety, and the third one functions as a
kind of “control group” in which subjects cannot see a connection between the two
measurements (see Table 10).
The pattern of differences between the respective means which emerges from
these analyses shows a mean difference of .07and an average residual variance of
sC-*=.002 (< .006) (see Table 11; residual variances in the diagonal.)
Thus, the measurement point in time is another first-order moderator of the
anxiety-performance relationship. It is true, however, that, contrary to expec-
tations, the relationship is much closer when anxiety is measured after the
performance, while with measuring it before and independent of the performance it
is equally low, as is shown in Figure 4.
 ANXIETY AND PERFORMANCE 37

T a k 10 Meta-Analysis for different times of measuring anxiety

-
Variable k N 1, 3, sze s“, s, % expl. 95%
variance credibility
interval
Before 31 4498 -.211 .009 .006 .003 .051 70.3 -.32t0
-.12
I i, I > .10 sig., s, > .055, homogeneous
After 9 2056 -.283 .001 .004 -.003 .ooO 100 -
homogeneous
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund] at 04:01 11 December 2017

Independent 35 10906 -212 .009 .003 .006 .079 31.8 -.37 to

-.06
)i,l>.16 sig., s,>.O53, heterogeneous

Note: For abbreviations s a Table 2.

ES
-.30 1
-.25

-.20

-.15

-.lo

-.05

0
indepen- before after
- time
dent
Figure 4 Effect sizes depending on measurement times.
Taking this result into account, the possibility arises that anxiety is not so much
impairing performance, but rather that it is the achievement outcome that is
decisive for the amount of anxiety experienced. An alternative explanation,
however, would be to conceive the retrospective confirmation of anxiety as a
deliberate “excuse” for poor performance results (see Laux and Glanzmann, 1987).

DISCUSSION
This meta-analysis aimed at (a) establishing the homogeneity or heterogeneity of
 38 B. SEIPP

the relationship between anxiety and academic performance as well as its absolute
strength, and (b) determining different effects for distinguishable populations and
facets of the anxiety construct ’.

Table 11 Differences and residual variances for different measurement times

Before After Independent

Before .003 .07 (W

After - .003 .a7
Independant .006
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund] at 04:01 11 December 2017

The overall data set turned out to be highly heterogeneous and yielded a general-
ized effect size of T,= - .212 with a credibility interval ranging from - .07 to -.36.
The relationship is thus clearly negative, which means that high anxiety goes
together with poor performance and vice versa. However, one must keep in mind
that this relationship is much weaker than has often been postulated. One could
think that this might be due to the often claimed nonlinear relationship between
anxiety and performance (see Spence & Taylor, 1951,1953) which is not taken into
account here. On the other hand, academic tasks can always be characterized as
“complex”, and all theories trying to explain the negative relationship between
anxiety and performance claim that in this case a “high enough” intensity of anxiety
is reached (See Carver & Scheier, 1986, 1988; Easterbrook, 1959; Mandler &
Sarason, 1952; Sarason, 1975; Taylor, 1956; Wine, 1971, 1980). Thus, in the
presence of academic achievement, the relationship tends strongly towards linear-
ity, and the weak correlation can be accepted as reflecting the “true” state of
affairs. This weakness is convincingly demonstrated when determining the amount
of variance shared by the two variables. A mean correlation of -.21 yields an
T2,x10O% of 4.5%, which is generally assumed to be a very small amount of
common variance. Two other ways of interpreting the identical correlation do more
justice to the importance of the strength of the anxiety-performance relationship.
The effect size r (correlation) can be transformed into d (standardized mean
difference), which denotes an effect size in units of the standard normal distribu-
tion. In the present case, an T, of -.21 is converted into a d of - -043: High-anxious
subjects differ almost half a standard deviation from low-anxious subjects on a
fictitious achievement scale. If those low-anxious subjects obtain a percentile of 50,
their high-anxious counterparts would arrive at a percentile of 33, i.e., two-thirds of
the low-anxious students score better than the average high-anxious student. The
relationship between anxiety and academic performance can be illustrated by the
Binomial Effect Size Display (BESC) (Rosenthal, 1984) as well, if both variables
are simplified into dichotomies. According to this illustration method, only 39% of
the low-anxious subjects would fail when 61% of the high-anxious subjects fail.
Several moderators were found to mediate the relationship on the highest level
(first-order moderators), having closer relationships with performance:

For many more specific relationships-within the performance construct,for publicationfeatures, and
for the methodologicalquality of the original studies -see R. Schwaner (1989); R. Schwarzer, Seipp,
& C. Schwarzer (1989); Seipp (1990), Seipp & C. Schwarzer, (1987).
 ANXIETY AND PERFORMANCE 39

- worry versus emotionality,

- test versus general anxiety, and
- anxiety measured after versus before the achievement outcome.
The often discussed stronger effect of anxiety with females than with males is
found to be an over-generalization from USA findings (second-order moderator).
Unexpectedly, it does not make any difference whether anxiety is measured by
state or trait anxiety measures. This might be due to the fact that filling in an
anxiety questionnaire is a situation apt to arouse the highly anxious person’s
disposition to the state level.
Consequences from the present findings include the following: On the one hand,
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund] at 04:01 11 December 2017

anxiety is confirmed to be a multifacetted construct having differential relationships

with performance. All research concerning anxiety has to take this fact into
account. This, however, does not imply calculation of all possible effects or
correlations at all times, but, on the contrary, consideration of the differential
effects or validities connected with the special facets of the constructs which
research has brought about in the course of time. For example, predicting academic
performance from anxiety could be improved if anxiety was measured only in terms
of test anxiety and test anxiety only in terms of worry. Furthermore, the very
heterogeneous data in connection with the worry concept -which has proven to be
a construct less clearly defined than emotionality in a variety of non-performance
related analyses (Hodapp, 1989; Schwarzer & Kim, 1984; R. Schwarzer, 1984; R.
Schwarzer & Quast, 1985) - calls for a reconsideration of the purely cognitive
component of test anxiety.

References
Bangert-Drowns, R.L. (1986). Review of developments in meta-analytic method. Psychological
Bulletin, 99, 388-399.
Bangert-Drowns, R.L., & von Saldern, M. (1986). Methoden der Meta-Analyse -- ein Uberblick
[Methods of meta-analysis]. Zeitschrifi f i r Erziehungswissenschafiliche Forschung, 20.3-32.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1986). Functional and dysfunctional responses to anxiety: The
interaction between expectancies and self-focussed attention. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-related
cognitiom in anxiety and motivarion. (pp. 111-114). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1988). A control-process perspective of anxiety. Anxiety Research, 1,17-
22.
Easterbrook, J.A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behaviour.
Psychological Review, 63, 183-201.
Fricke, R., & Treinies, G. (1985). Einfiihrung in die Meta-Analyse. [Introduction to meta-analysis].
Bern: Huber.
Glass, G.V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5,3-8.
Glass, G.V. (197). Integrating findings: The meta-analysis of research. Review of Research in
Education, 5,351-379.
Glass G.V., McGaw, B., & Smith. M.L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Hedges, L.V. (1986). Issues in meta-analysis. Review ofResearch in Education, 13, 353-403.
Hedges, L.V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Hodapp, V. (1989, JunelJuly). An expanded version of the German Test Anxiety Inventory. Paper
presented at the 10th Conference of the Society for Test Anxiety Research. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
Hornke, L.F. (1973). Verfahren zur Mittelung von Korrelationen. [Methods for averaging correlations].
Psychologische Beitdge, 15, 87-105.
Hornke, L.F. (1983). Integration empirischer Forschungsergebnisse?[Integration of empirical research
results?] Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 30, 54-63.
Hornke, L.F., & Tries, J. (1979). Zusammenfassung empirisch-pfidogogischerErgebnisse im S i n e der
Meta-Analyse nach Glass. [Integration of empirical findings in education using Glass’ meta-analysis].
 40 B. SEIPP

Dokumentatwn der Beiwtige der 27. Tagung der Arbeirrgemeinschaji f i r Empirisch P&dagogische
Forschung. (pp. 158-171). Bremen, Germany.
Hunter, J.E., Schmidt, F.L., & Jackson, G.B. (1982). Meta-analysis. Cumulating research findings
across studies. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Krohne, H.W. (1976). Theokn zur Angst. [Theories of Anxiety]. Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer.
Laux, L., & Glarumann, P. (1987). A self-presentational view of test anxiety. In R. Schwaner, H.M.
van der Ploeg, & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Aduances in test anxiety research, Vol. 5 , (pp. 31-37).
Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Liebert, R.M., & Moms, L.W. (1%7). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: A
distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20, 975-978.
Light, R.J., & Pillemer, D.B. (1984). Summing up. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Light, R.J., & Smith, P.V. (1971). Accumulating evidence: Procedures for resolving contradictions
among different research studies. Haruard Educational Review, 41,429-471.
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund] at 04:01 11 December 2017

Mandler, G., & Sarason, S.B. (1952). A study of anxiety and learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 47, 166-173.
McDaniel, M.A., Hirsh, H.R., Schmidt, F.L., Raju, N.S., & Hunter, J.E. (1986). Interpreting the
results of meta-analytic research: A comment on Schmitt, Gooding, Noe, & Hirsch (1984). Personnel
Psychology, 39, 141-148.
Ploeg, H.M. van der, Schwaner, R., & Spielberger, C.D. (Eds.) (1983). A d u m e s in test anxiety
research, Vol. 2. Lisse, The NetherlanddHillsdale, NJ: Swets & ZeitlingerErlbaum.
Ploeg, H.M. van der, Schwaner, R., & Spielberger, C.D. (Eds.) (1984). Aduances in rest anxiety
research, Vol. 3. Lisse, The NetherlanddHillsdale, NJ: Swets & Zeitlinger/Erlbaum.
Ploeg, H.M. van der, Schwaner, R., & Spielberger, C.D. (Eds.) (1985). Aduances in test anxiety
research,, Vol. 4. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Sarason, I.G. (1975). Anxiety and self-preoccupation. In I.G. Sarason & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.),
Sfress and anxiety, Vol. 2 (pp. 27-44). Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere.
Schwarzer, C., & Kim, M.-J. (1984). Adaptation of the Korean form of the Test Anxiety Inventory: A
research note. In H.M. van der Ploeg, R. Schwarzer, & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Aduances in rest
anxiety research, Vol. 3 (pp. 277-285). Lisse, The NetherlanddHillsdale: Swets & ZeitlingerErIbaum.
Schwarzer, R. (1984). Worry and emotionality as separate components in test anxiety. International
Review of Applied Psychology, 33,205-220.
Schwarzer, R. (1987). Stress, Angst und Hiylosigkeit (2nd edition). [Stress, anxiety, and helplessness].
Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer.
Schwarzer, R. (1989). Meta-Analysis Programs. Manual. Freie Universitht Berlin.
Schwarzer, R., Ploeg, H.M. van der, & Spielberger, C.D. (Eds.) (1982). Aduances in test anxiety
research, Vol. 1. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Schwarzer, R., Ploeg, H.M. van der, & Spielberger, C.D. (Eds.) (1987). Advances in test anxiety
research Vol. 5 . Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Schwarzer, R., & Quast, H.-H. (1985). Multidimensionality of the anxiety experience: Evidence for
additional components. In H.M. van der Ploeg, R. Schwarzer, & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.)., Advances
in test anxiety research, Vol. 4 (pp. 3-14). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Schwaner, R., Seipp, B., & Schwarzer, C. (1989). Mathematics performance and anxiety: A meta-
analysis. In R.Schwaner, H.M. van der Ploeg, & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Aduances in test anxiety
research, Vol. 6 (pp. 109-119). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Seipp, B. (1990). Angst und Leistung in Schule und Hochschule: Eine Me&-Analyse. [Anxiety and
achievement: A meta-analysis]. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Seipp, B., & Schwarzer, C. (1987). Anxiety and mathematics achievement: A meta-analysis. In C.
Schwarzer 8c B. Seipp (Eds.), Trends in European educational research. @p. 89-99). Braunschweig:
Braunschweiger Studien zur Erziehungs- und Sozialarbeitswissenschaft.
Spence, K.W., &Taylor, J.A. (1951). Anxiety and strength of the US as determiners of the amount of
eyelid conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42, 183-188.
Spence, K.W., & Taylor, J.A. (1953). The relation of conditional response strength to anxiety in
normal, neurotic and psychotic subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45,265-272.
Spielberger, C.D. (1%). Theory and research on anxiety. In C.D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and
behaviour. (pp. 3-20). New York: Academic Press.
Spielberger, C.D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inuentory (STAI). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Taylor, J.A. (1956). Drive theory and manifest anxiety. Psychological Bulletin, 53,303-320.
 ANXIETY AND PERFORMANCE 41

Tries, J. (1984). Bedingungen kooperativen Verhaltens:Eine Me&-Analyse. [Conditionsof cooperative

behaviour: A meta-analysis]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universityof D-ldorf, Germany.
Wine, J.D. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological Bulletin, 70.92-104.
Wine, J.D. (1980). Cognitive attentionaltheory of test anxiety. In I.G. Sarason (Ed.), Testanriefy. (pp.
349-385). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund] at 04:01 11 December 2017

View publication stats