Contemporary Educational Psychology 65 (2021) 101949

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Contemporary Educational Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cedpsych

The relationship between math anxiety and math achievement in young

children is mediated through working memory, not by number sense, and it
is not direct☆
Monika Szczygieł
Institute of Psychology, Pedagogical University of Krakow, ul. Podchorążych 2, 30-084 Krakow, Poland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Math anxiety is considered a predictor of math achievement, although the cognitive mechanism whereby math
Math anxiety anxiety impairs math achievement is unclear. The paper presents the results of cross-sectional (N = 241) and
Working memory longitudinal (N = 369) studies conducted among early school-aged children on the cognitive mechanism
Number sense
whereby math anxiety impairs math achievement. The following hypotheses were tested: (1) math anxiety
Math achievement
directly affects math achievement; (2) in accordance with processing efficiency and attentional cognitive theories,
math anxiety indirectly affects math achievement through working memory; (3) in accordance with the cognitive
deficit model, math anxiety indirectly affects math achievement through number sense. The results mostly
confirm the mediating role of working memory and undermine the mediating role of number sense and the direct
path in the relationship between math anxiety and math achievement. Because previous studies undertaken in
adults show the direct path from math anxiety to math achievement and the role of symbolic number processing
in explaining the relationship between the two, the methodological and developmental aspects of the obtained
results are discussed in the paper.

1. Introduction solving of mathematical problems in a wide variety of everyday life and

1.1. The relationship between math anxiety and math achievement
From both an individual and a society-wide perspective, having
adequate mathematical skills is fundamental in contemporary societies.
Poor mathematical skills are associated not only with a low individual
social position but also with significant costs for the general public in the
areas of social policy and the economy (Ansari, De Smedt, & Grabner,
2012; Butterworth, Varma, & Laurillard, 2011; OECD, 2010; Parsons &
Bynner, 2006). The quality of early math education is especially
important for the development of further math skills in children. The
acquisition of advanced mathematical knowledge and skills is made
possible when students master the basics of mathematics. Learning
mathematics requires regularity, which is why low achievement at an
early stage of education may determine future low math performance.
One of the correlates of students’ math achievement is math anxiety
(Namkung, Peng, & Lin, 2019), which is defined as “feelings of tension
and anxiety that interfere with the manipulation of numbers and the
academic situations” (Richardson & Suinn, 1972, p. 551). Math anxiety
is negatively related to math achievement (Zhang, Zhao, & Kong, 2019).
However, the debate regarding the nature of the relationship between
math anxiety and math achievement has been ongoing for some time.
Suárez-Pellicioni, Núñez-Peña, and Colomé (2016) presented three
explanations for the relationship between math anxiety and math
achievement. First, in accordance with the cognitive deficit model (Fer­
guson, Maloney, Fugelsang, & Risko, 2015; Maloney, Risko, Ansari, &
Fugelsang, 2010; Maloney, Ansari, & Fugelsang, 2011), deficits in basic
numerical processing skills lead to poor math achievement, which in
turn leads to negative affect. Second, according to the attention control
theory (Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007) and its predecessor,
the processing efficiency theory (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992), the cognitive
resources of math-anxious individuals may be consumed by worrisome
thoughts, ruminations, and distractors when solving mathematical
tasks; these reduce the level of math performance and may consequently
increase math anxiety. The final explanation concerns negative experi­
ences whilst learning mathematics that result in the avoidance of math;

☆
I would like to thank all those involved in the project: researchers, school principals, teachers, parents, and pupils. This work was supported by the National
Science Centre (Poland; grant number 2015/19/N/HS6/00791).
E-mail address: monika.szczygiel@up.krakow.pl.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101949

Available online 10 February 2021

0361-476X/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M. Szczygieł
math avoidance reduces math performance, which in turn results in the
development of negative emotions (Hembree, 1990; Namkung et al.,
2019). The data confirming the validity of the model described by
Suárez-Pellicioni et al. (2016) were provided for adults by Skagerlund,
Östergren, Västfjäll, and Träff (2019). They observed an indirect path
through number sense, an indirect path through working memory, and a
direct path from math anxiety to math achievement.
1.2. The universality of the three-path model of math anxiety effect on
math achievement
Although the three-path model was confirmed in adults, some doubts
with its universality across the lifespan have been indicated (Lutten­
berger, Wimmer, & Paechter, 2018). The main problem concerns the
paucity of data on the mechanism that underlies the relationship be­
tween math anxiety and math achievement in young children. The
verification of this model in a group of young children is justified
because it has been observed that early school-aged children feel some
degree of math anxiety (Cargnelutti, Tomasetto, & Passolunghi, 2017;
Ramirez, Chang, Maloney, Levine, & Beilock, 2016; Ramirez, Gunder­
son, Levine, & Beilock, 2013) and this anxiety is negatively related to
their math achievement (Ramirez et al., 2013; Vukovic, Kieffer, Bailey,
& Harari, 2013; Wu, Barth, Amin, Melcarne, & Menon, 2012). It is likely
that similar mechanisms underlie the relationship between math anxiety
and math achievement in both young and older children, but one may
wonder whether all three paths presented by Suárez-Pellicioni et al.
(2016) adequately describe the situation of young children. The hy­
pothesis that math anxiety directly affects math achievement is espe­
cially debatable. Although the other two explanations regarding the
mediating role of working memory and number sense are more likely,
there is limited evidence for their validity in children (Justicia-Galiano,
Martín-Puga, Linares, & Pelegrina, 2017). Arguments for and against the
universality of the three-path model from childhood to adulthood are
presented below.
The first explanation concerns the direct path between math anxiety
and math achievement. Skagerlund et al. (2019) observed a direct path
from math anxiety to math achievement in adults, and they hypothe­
sized that it could be a result of avoiding math through many years of
education. They underlined that the avoidance effect hypothesis might
be strengthened if the direct path from math anxiety to math achieve­
ment in children was weak or the effect did not occur. It is likely that
avoidance behaviors may adequately explain the mechanism of math
anxiety effect on math achievement in people with many mathematical
experiences (Skagerlund et al., 2019). Although children starting school
can differ in their math learning experiences and their levels of math
anxiety (Ganley & McGraw, 2016; Sorvo et al., 2017), it is more credible
that avoiding mathematics is not a common problem at this stage of
education (Ginsburg, 2006). Nevertheless, one should not dismiss the
explanation that one year of schooling is enough for children to start
avoiding mathematics, which in turn may explain the relationship be­
tween their math anxiety and math achievement. Since the correlation
between math anxiety and math achievement may occur after a few
months of schooling (Dowker, Cheriton, Horton, & Mark, 2019), and it
has not yet been determined how much time must pass before the
avoidance of mathematics contributes to poor math achievement and
deepens math anxiety, it is an open question whether the direct path
from math anxiety to math achievement occurs in young children. If the
direct path does not occur or is weak in children, it will contribute to the
validity of the hypothesis that direct path in adults results from math
avoidance (Skagerlund et al., 2019). If there is a moderate or strong
direct path in children, it undermines the explanation of the effect
through avoidance behavior. Therefore, there is a need to revise the
hypothesis about the factors that explain the relationship between math
anxiety and math achievement in adults.
The second explanation concerning the relationship between math
anxiety and math achievement refers to the working memory mediation
2
Contemporary Educational Psychology 65 (2021) 101949
effect. Working memory is defined as a cognitive system that is
responsible for the storing and processing of information for a short
period of time (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974). It is considered both a pre­
dictor of math achievement (in young children: Jordan, Glutting, &
Ramineni, 2010; in older children: Sowinski et al., 2015; in adolescents:
De Smedt, Taylor, Archibald, & Ansari, 2010; and in adults: Skagerlund
et al., 2019) and a mediator in the relationship between math anxiety
and math achievement (in young and older children: Justicia-Galiano
et al., 2017; Soltanlou et al., 2019; and in adults: Skagerlund et al.,
2019). Therefore, it can be assumed that negative thoughts associated
with mathematics can consume the cognitive resources of young chil­
dren, thus leading to a decrease in the level of mathematical perfor­
mance (Ashcraft & Kirk, 2001). This explanation is all the more credible
because, at the initial stage of mathematical education, children have to
master many new mathematical facts, and this is associated with sig­
nificant cognitive effort. However, in all likelihood, only one study
among children between the third and fifth grades (Justicia-Galiano
et al., 2017) has confirmed so far the mediating role of working memory
in the relationship between math anxiety and math achievement.
Therefore, testing the indirect path from math anxiety through working
memory to math achievement among early school-aged children is
justified.
The last path concerns the role of number sense in the relationship
between math anxiety and math achievement. Number sense, defined as
a fundamental ability to automatically and efficiently process numerical
magnitude information (Dehaene, 2011), is considered a predictor of
math achievement (Chen & Li, 2014; Libertus, Feigenson, & Halberda,
2011) but not necessarily of math anxiety. Some researchers indicate
that a less precise representation of numerical magnitude is related to
math anxiety (Douglas & LeFevre, 2017; Lindskog, Winman, & Poom,
2017; Maloney et al., 2010, 2011; Skagerlund et al., 2019), but this
relationship was not observed by others (Braham & Libertus, 2018;
Dietrich, Huber, Moeller, & Klein, 2015). There is also a debate as to
whether math anxiety potentially determines nonverbal number skills or
vice versa. Lindskog et al. (2017) checked both possibilities and showed
that the approximate number system predicts math anxiety, which in
turn leads to low math performance. Furthermore, math outcomes
predict math anxiety, which in turn reduces approximate number sys­
tem acuity. Recently, Skagerlund et al. (2019) indicated that math
anxiety hampers number processing, which in turn results in low math
performance, but this is not the case in all types of mathematical tasks.
Although this relationship can be two-sided (Herts, Beilock, & Levine,
2019), Skagerlund et al. (2019) showed that math anxiety indirectly
affects math achievement through poor basic number-processing abili­
ties. Researchers (Braham & Libertus, 2018; Maloney et al., 2011) sug­
gest that math anxiety diminishes math performance through less
precise representations of numerical magnitude, which means that
proper approximate number system acuity may serve as a protective
factor for individuals with high math anxiety when they do math tasks.
This hypothesis is probable. Therefore, it is worth ascertaining whether
good number sense in early school age reduces the harmful effects of
math anxiety on math results.
1.3. Current study
The main objective of the current paper is to verify the universality of
the model that assumes the mediation effect of working memory be­
tween math anxiety and math achievement, the mediation effect of the
approximate number system on the relationship between math anxiety
and math achievement, and the direct path from math anxiety to math
achievement (Skagerlund et al., 2019; Suárez-Pellicioni et al., 2016).
While some studies among adults (Skagerlund et al., 2019), school-aged
children (Soltanlou et al., 2019) and young children (Justicia-Galiano
et al., 2017) confirm the first hypothesis, the mediating role of number
sense is definitely more debatable because of the paucity of evidence in
adults (Douglas & LeFevre, 2017; Skagerlund et al., 2019) and the lack
M. Szczygieł
Fig. 1. Hypothesized conceptual model of pathways between math anxiety,
working memory, number sense, and math achievement in early school-
aged children.
of evidence in children. Based on previous studies, it may be assumed
that math anxiety burdens working memory resources, thus impairing
math performance in children. In addition, it is hypothesized that math
anxiety undermines more basic number-processing abilities, which in
turn reduces math achievement in children. A direct path from math
anxiety to math achievement has been observed in adults, and it is likely
that this results from years of avoiding math activity. If so, then math
anxiety’s direct effect on math achievement in young children should
not be present or should be weak. However, as it is not known how long
it takes for children to develop a math-avoidance strategy, it is therefore
justified to test this path in elementary school children.
To verify these three hypotheses, multiple mediator models (see
Fig. 1) were tested in two studies: a cross-sectional study among first- to
third-grade children (study 1) and a longitudinal study among first- to
second-grade children (study 2). The two studies differed in methodo­
logical details and were carried out to ensure that the results did not
depend on the type of tasks or the research plan and sample used.
2. Study 1
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants
The selection of schools for the study was random and included all
public elementary schools in Krakow (Poland). However, a given
school’s decision to participate in the project depended upon its man­
agement. The cross-sectional research was conducted among early
school-aged children in nine public elementary schools in this city. Two
hundred and forty-one students whose parents allowed them to partic­
ipate in the project took part in the research: 46 children (23 girls) from
the first grade (mean age: 7 years and 3 months, SD = 0.62, range =
6.1–8.3 years), 101 children (60 girls) from the second grade (mean age:
8 years and 2 months, SD = 0.55, range = 7.1–9.3 years), and 94 chil­
dren (51 girls) from the third grade (mean age: 9 years and 4 months, SD
= 0.69, range = 8.0–11.2 years). None of the students participating in
the study had been diagnosed with a math learning disability. The so­
cioeconomic status of the children’s families was established based on
the level of education, income, and occupation of both parents. To
obtain one measure of the socioeconomic status, principal component
analysis was conducted and raw scores were converted to sten scores.
The families of most children had a moderate or high socioeconomic
status. The study was carried out at schools from the top, middle, and
bottom of the ranking of elementary schools in the city. The ranking was
based on the final test results (Dolna, 2016).
2.1.2. Measures
Math Anxiety Two scales were used to measure math anxiety among
early school-aged children: the Modified Abbreviated Math Anxiety
Scale for Elementary Children (mAMAS-E; Szczygieł, 2019) and the
Math Anxiety Questionnaire for Children (MAQC; Szczygieł, 2020a).
3
Contemporary Educational Psychology 65 (2021) 101949
The MAQC was used for the whole group, whilst the mAMAS-E was used
only for the part of the group because it was only published and adapted
into Polish after the study had begun. Therefore, it was decided to use it
additionally among the children that had not yet been studied.
The mAMAS-E was developed on the basis of the mAMAS (Modified
Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale; Carey, Hill, Devine, & Szűcs, 2017),
whose psychometric properties had been confirmed in a series of tests
(Szczygieł, 2019). The mAMAS-E, which is similar to the mAMAS, is a
nine-item scale and contains two subscales: testing (mAMAS-E testing)
and learning (mAMAS-E learning). However, when compared to the
mAMAS, the mAMAS-E differs in the response scale and the test pro­
cedure that was used for the adaptation of the scale to the capabilities of
early school-aged children. A three-point response scale was used
instead of a five-point Likert scale, and children’s math anxiety was
assessed in individual semi-structured interviews instead of in a group
procedure. To eliminate differences between the children in the level of
their language skills, the instructions and statements were read aloud by
the researcher, and the children’s answers were marked on a response
card by the interviewer. Before the testing session, the children were
given an example of how to answer further questions. The children were
asked: “Do you feel math anxiety in such situations? Yes, a little, or no?”,
and their responses were rated in the following way: no – 0 points, a
little – 1 point, yes – 2 points. The children were given explanations of
what anxiety means (“Anxiety means feelings of worry, nervousness, or
fear”). Therefore, the minimum and maximum scores in the mAMAS-E
ranged between 0 and 18 for the total score, 0–10 for the learning
score, and 0–8 for the testing score. The higher the number of points, the
higher the level of math anxiety. The reliability of the mAMAS-E (N =
121) was checked with Cronbach’s α = 0.72 (total score), α = 0.67
(testing score), α = 0.58 (learning score). The relatively low reliability of
the learning subscale is due to the small number of questions, the short
answer scale, and the very low variance in the children’s math anxiety
assessments (most children reported a low level of math anxiety).
The MAQC (Szczygieł, 2020a) measures general math anxiety (MA-
G) and was developed on the basis of two scales: the Mathematics
Anxiety Scale in Young Children (Harari, Vukovic, & Bailey, 2013) and
the Scale for Early Mathematics Anxiety (Wu et al., 2012). Both scales
were used in the preliminary study, but the results revealed many
problems with measuring children’s emotions: the questions were not
appropriate to the language abilities of young children, the Polish
educational curriculum differs from the US curriculum, and the children
had difficulties assessing their emotions on a four- or five-point response
scale. Therefore, several changes were needed to reliably and accurately
measure math anxiety in young children in the Polish educational
context. Based on both scales, a 12-item unidimensional scale was
created. Evidence on the convergent and divergent validity of the MAQC
can be found in Szczygieł (2020a). The MAQC score mainly strongly
correlated with math anxiety measured with other math anxiety scales,
while it mainly moderately correlated with general and test anxiety.
Moreover, children with a high level of math self-esteem had a lower
MAQC score than children with medium math self-esteem, whilst chil­
dren with medium and high self-esteem in Polish did not differ from
each other in their math anxiety level. Similar to the mAMAS-E, the
following features were employed: a simple instruction, a three-point
answer scale (no – 0 points, a little – 1 point, yes – 2 points), and an
individual semi-structured interview. Children were asked, e.g., “When
you are in a math class and the teacher says that you will be discussing a
new topic, are you nervous? Yes, a little or no?” Minimum and maximum
scores in the MAQC fall within the range of 0–24. The higher the score
on the MAQC, the higher the level of math anxiety. The internal reli­
ability of the scale in the present study is α = 0.72, N = 241.
Working Memory Because prior studies had indicated that various
components of working memory played distinct roles in math perfor­
mance (Soltanlou, Pixner, & Nuerk, 2015; Soltanlou et al., 2019), two
backward span tasks were used to assess verbal and visuospatial working
memory efficiency: the WISC-R Backward Digit Span task (the Polish
M. Szczygieł
language edition of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children –
Revised; Matczak, Piotrowska, & Ciarkowska, 1991) and the Corsi
Block-Tapping task (Kessels, van Zandvoort, Postma, Kappelle, & de
Haan, 2000).
Verbal working memory (VWM) was measured using the WISC-R Digit
Span Backward task (DSB) according to the procedure described in the
test manual. This task required the children to repeat a list of digits that
were spoken by the researcher. The list began with two elements; when
the children successfully repeated them, more elements were added
until a maximum of eight was reached. Each span level included two
lists. If the children incorrectly repeated two items consecutively, the
test session ended. The total result was calculated by adding up the
number of items correctly recalled for each list length. The minimum
and maximum scores are between 0 and 14 points. The split-half reli­
ability of the task was calculated with the Spearman-Brown formula and
is below the cut-off (r = 0.63, N = 239).
Visuospatial working memory (VSWM) was measured using the
manual version of the Corsi Block-Tapping task (CBT). The children
were asked to recall the order of a sequence of blocks touched by the
researcher, from last to first. The test session was preceded by a training
session. The task consisted of a series from two to nine items. There were
two sequences to perform in each series. On the successful repetition of
the series, the number of items increased until the children performed
two consecutively incorrect attempts at repeating the series. After that,
the testing session stopped. Each successful attempt was rewarded with
one point, while an incorrect one scored no point. The minimum and
maximum score in the CBT is from 0 to 18 points. The split-half reli­
ability of the CBT was calculated with the Spearman-Brown formula and
is borderline acceptable (r = 0.67, N = 233). Both tasks that measure
working memory are progressive, which is why a relatively poor reli­
ability can be observed.
Number Sense The non-symbolic comparison task (NSC) is a well-
known and valid task that measures approximate number system acu­
ity (Dietrich et al., 2015; Lafay, St-Pierre, & Macoir, 2019). The task was
constructed as follows: Sets of magnitudes (white dots) were placed on a
black background in each trial. Stimuli were generated in MATLAB in
accordance with the guidelines of Gebuis and Reynvoet (2011). The size
of the set was determined on the basis of the Weber fraction and took the
following rounded sizes: 0.125, 0.25, 0.33, 0.6, 1. The boards consisted
of 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 20, 22, 26, or 32 dots. Both the size of the set and
the ratio of the number of sets were balanced in the task (the same
number of sets of a given number, and the same number of sets for each
ratio displayed on the screen). The trials differed in terms of the
coherence of the spatial cues with each number. For a coherent trial,
larger and more dots were displayed on one board, whilst smaller and
fewer dots were displayed on the other board. In this way, the selection
of a larger set is easier as larger dots mean a larger magnitude set. An
incoherent trial was more difficult. An incoherent trial occurred when a
set of larger and fewer dots was compared with a set of more numerous
and smaller dots. Both in the training and in the test session, the boards
presented both the coherent and the incoherent conditions equally, in
accordance with the recommendations of Nuerk, Weger, and Willmes
(2004). In total, 30 trials in the coherent condition and 30 in the inco­
herent condition were constructed, with each trial being displayed
twice. The order of trials was random. The task was presented on a
computer screen with DMDX software (Forster & Forster, 2003). The
children were asked to select the more numerous set of dots from two
sets. The elements of the set were different-sized dots. The children
selected the larger number of dots using the buttons marked on the
keyboard (e.g. ‘A’ on the left and ‘L’ on the right). If the set on the left
side of the screen was more numerous, the children were expected to
press the ‘A’ key; if there was a more numerous set on the right side of
the screen, the children were expected to press the ‘L’ key. The stimulus
display time was 7 s, after which the board disappeared and the next one
appeared in its place. The task consisted of 4 training trials and 120 trials
in the test session, with a break in the middle of the task. The time
4
Contemporary Educational Psychology 65 (2021) 101949
allowed for the completion of the task was about 4 min. The indicator of
approximate number system acuity used in the study was the average
correctness in the whole task. In the present study, Cronbach’s α index
for the task was 0.87, N = 232.
Math Achievement Because no standardized mathematical tests
were available for use in Poland, the mathematical achievement of the
children was measured with tasks prepared on the basis of the core
curriculum for elementary schools and mathematical education mate­
rials recommended by the Ministry of Education in Poland (MATH). No
dimensions of the constructed tasks were assumed. Children from the
first, second, and third grades received a varied set of mathematical
tasks that tested different math skills to be mastered by children during
the school year. The mathematical tasks tested the following areas: first
grade – knowledge of numbers, counting, addition and subtraction,
discovering rules, knowledge of money, knowledge of geometric figures,
reading a tape measure; second grade – addition and subtraction,
multiplication and division, reading a tape measure, spatial orientation,
discovering rules, clock reading; third grade – addition and subtraction,
multiplication and division, reading a tape measure, discovering rules,
clock reading, knowledge of dates and money. The children performed
mathematical tasks on their own, but to eliminate the impact of reading
skills on mathematical performance the researcher read the instructions
aloud. This was possible because each child had an individual meeting
with the researcher. The time allowed for the completion of the task
depended on a child’s individual needs and was usually 20–40 min. The
maximum score that could be obtained in the tasks for each grade year
was 36. The psychometric properties of the mathematical tests were
established. All correlations between the mean score and math items
were from weak to strong, positive, and significant (p < .05–0.001): first
grade – r = 0.39–0.69; second grade – r = 0.29–0.71; third grade – r =
0.32–0.74. The internal consistency of the tests was also checked. The
reliability of the mathematical achievement tasks was satisfactory: first
grade α = 0.80, second grade α = 0.83, third grade α = 0.89. Finally, the
level of task difficulty in each grade year was checked. The average level
of difficulty for the mathematical task was similar in each class (0.77,
0.71, 0.71 for the first, second, and third grades, respectively), and the
tasks may be referred to as “easy” or “moderately difficult” (Janowicz,
2017).
2.1.3. Procedure
The cross-sectional study was carried out in public schools after prior
approval had been obtained from the head of each school and the par­
ents of the children. Ethical permission was obtained from the Scientific
Research Ethics Committee of the Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian
University of Krakow. The described study is part of a larger research
project in which the individual and environmental predictors of math
achievement of early school-aged children were tested (see Szczygieł,
2020b, 2020c). The study was conducted in 2017 and consisted of two
individual meetings with children in April/ May (first test session) and
May/June (second test session). The data were collected by four re­
searchers who had previously been trained in the research procedure.
Before starting the study, the children were asked to agree to participate
in it; they were informed that they could ask questions and refuse to
perform a task or participate in the meetings at any time. During the first
test session, the children performed tasks that measured their verbal and
visuospatial working memory resources and approximate number sys­
tem acuity; also, they were asked about their level of math anxiety.
During the second test session, the children were asked to perform
mathematical tasks. The average interval between the two sessions was
47 days. The first and second meeting with the children lasted for an
average of 25 min (15–45 min) and 35 min (10–45 min), respectively.
All tasks instructions were read aloud by the researcher.
2.1.4. Analysis
The children solved various mathematical tasks, but the level of
difficulty of the test was similar in each grade. A one-way analysis of
M. Szczygieł Contemporary Educational Psychology 65 (2021) 101949

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlations between Variables in Study 1.
M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 ANS 0.81 (0.09)

2 VSWM 6.05 (1.63) 0.12
3 VWM 4.08 (1.32) 0.10 0.26***
4 MA-G 4.27 (3.63) − 0.10 − 0.17** − 0.15*
5 MA-T 1.80 (1.93) 0.01 − 0.16 − 0.22* 0.53***
6 MA-L 0.69 (1.28) − 0.24* − 0.18* − 0.24* 0.53*** 0.48***
7 MATH 26.28 (6.21) 0.28*** 0.27*** 0.29*** − 0.36*** − 0.37*** − 0.33***

Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; N = 223 (correlations with MA-T and MA-L was calculated based on N = 114). Correlations for math achievements were
calculated using z-scores for each grade level. ANS – approximate number system (the Non-Symbolic Comparison task), VSWM – visuospatial working memory (the
Corsie Block Tapping task), VWM – verbal working memory (WISC-R Digit Span Backward task), MA-G – general math anxiety (MAQC), MA-T – testing math anxiety
(mAMAS-E testing), MA-L – learning math anxiety (mAMAS-E learning), MATH – math achievement.

Table 2
Direct and Indirect Effect of Math Anxiety on Mathematical Performance in Study 1.
Standardized coefficient Model fit

Model Predictor Mediator Output Indirect Total N χ2 CFI RMSEA [90%] SRMR

1 MA WM MATH − 0.19 − 0.53*** 114 χ2(5) = 7.51; p = .19 0.97 0.07 [0.00− 0.16] 0.04
ANS − 0.02
2 MA-G WM MATH − 0.13* − 0.36*** 223 χ2(2) = 0.43; p = .81 1.00 0.00 [0.00− 0.08] 0.01
ANS − 0.02

Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. MA – math anxiety is a latent variable that consists of testing (mAMAS-E testing) and learning math anxiety (mAMAS-E
learning), MA-G – general math anxiety (MAQC), WM – working memory is a latent variable that consists of visuospatial (the Corsie Block Tapping task) and verbal
(WISC-R Digit Span Backward task) working memory, ANS – approximate number system (the Non-Symbolic Comparison task), MATH – math achievement.

variance was performed to test whether grade level affects the math
result. The grade effect was not observed, F(2,237) = 1.76; p = .17; this
enabled the inclusion, in the analysis, of one indicator of math
achievement in early school-aged children. The descriptive statistics and
correlation analysis were prepared in PS IMAGO PRO 5.1, and the
mediation analysis was tested in the lavaan and mediation packages for
the R environment (Rosseel, 2012; Tingley, Yamamoto, Hirose, Keele, &
Imai, 2014). The effect size for Pearson’s correlation was provided based
on Evans’ proposal (1996): r < 0.20 very weak, 0.20–0.39 weak,
0.40–0.59 moderate, 0.60–0.79 strong, >0.80 very strong correlation.
The model fit indices cut-off values were established in accordance with
Hu and Bentler (1999): CFI – Comparative Fit Index (>0.90), SRMR –
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (<0.08), RMSEA – Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (<0.06). The Maximum Likelihood
Fig. 2. Tested multi-mediation model for the relationship between math anx­
estimator was used in all mediation analyses. Listwise deletion was
iety and math performance in the first to third grade children (study 1). MA –
applied in correlation analyses and mediation models. Listwise deletion
math anxiety is a latent variable that consists of testing (mAMAS-E testing) and
was applied because math anxiety was measured with the MAQC in the
learning math anxiety (mAMAS-E learning), WM – working memory is a latent
whole group and additionally with the mAMAS-E in around 1/2 group. variable that consists of visuospatial (the Corsie Block Tapping task) and verbal
Therefore, there were mostly no single gaps in the data, but there was no (WISC-R Digit Span Backward task) working memory, ANS – approximate
data for around 50% of the children in the mAMAS-E. Since data were number system (the Non-Symbolic Comparison task), MATH – math achieve­
missing completely at random (Rubin, 1976): Little’s MCAR test: χ 2(23) = ment. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
24.83, p = .34, listwise deletion is suitable (Soley & Bori, 2013). To
maintain the consistency of data analyses, correlations are presented In the second step of the analysis, the multi-mediation effects of
with the MAQC (N = 223) and with the mAMAS-E (N = 114) using working memory and the approximate number system in the relation­
listwise deletion separately for each dataset. ship between math anxiety and math achievement were tested (see
Table 2). Math anxiety was measured with two tasks: the mAMAS-E and
3. Results the MAQC. Since the first questionnaire was only used amongst half of
the students in the study, it was decided to build two separate models.
The descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation coefficient for all Both models tested working memory and the approximate number
variables are presented in Table 1. Math achievement correlates posi­ system as mediators between math anxiety and math achievement. The
tively and weakly with the approximate number system and with verbal first model assumed that the mAMAS-E was a latent variable consisting
and visuospatial working memory; it correlates negatively and weakly of two observable factors: testing and learning. The second model
with all measures of math anxiety. Math anxiety correlates negatively included the MAQC as an observable variable. In both models, working
and weakly with the approximate number system only when learning memory (WM) was a latent variable consisting of two observable vari­
math anxiety is considered. Almost all indicators of math anxiety ables: verbal (VWM) and visuospatial (VSWM) working memory. The
negatively and weakly correlate with verbal and visuospatial working approximate number system (ANS) and math achievement (MATH)
memory. were treated as observable variables.

5
M. Szczygieł
Fig. 3. Tested multi-mediation model for the relationship between math anx­
iety and math performance in the first to third grade children (study 1). MA –
general math anxiety (MAQC), WM – working memory is a latent variable that
consists of visuospatial (the Corsie Block Tapping task) and verbal (WISC-R
Digit Span Backward task) working memory, ANS – approximate number sys­
tem (the Non-Symbolic Comparison task), MATH – math achievement. * p <
.05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Both tested models (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Table 2) obtained the
required χ 2 values and the model fit indices were very good (see Table 2,
Hu & Bentler, 1999). In the first model, the following were observed: a
nonsignificant path from math anxiety through working memory to
math achievement (β = − 0.19, p = .09), no mediation effect of the
approximate number system (β = − 0.02, p = .33), and a negative and
weak direct path from math anxiety to math achievement (β = − 0.32, p
= .04). A direct path and two indirect paths explained 42% of the
variance in math achievement (R2 = .42). In the second model, the
negative and weak mediation effect of working memory was observed
(β = − 0.13, p = .03), with no mediation of approximate number sense (β
= − 0.02, p = .22). In this model, a significant, negative, and weak direct
path from math anxiety to math achievement was observed (β = − 0.22,
p < .01). Math anxiety, working memory, and the approximate number
system explained 32% of the variance in math achievement (R2 = .32).
Therefore, the results of the first study are inconclusive and indicate (1)
a negative and weak direct path from math anxiety to math achieve­
ment, (2) negative and weak mediating roles of working memory or the
lack of mediation, and (3) no mediation effect of number sense.
4. Study 2
The first study had some methodological limitations and its results
are inconsistent in some points. First, the p values of the results of the
working memory mediation effect and direct path varied from <0.01 to
0.09, which increases the type I error and makes the results inconclu­
sive. Second, the first model was built on a relatively small number of
observations. Third, in both models, the dependent variable was calcu­
lated as one indicator to include the results of the children from first to
third grade in one model. It is likely, however, that there are differences
between the children from particular grades in their levels of math
anxiety, working memory efficiency, and number sense, although there
were no differences in the average level of mathematical tasks. There­
fore, the second study was conducted without these limitations and an
analogous model was tested in the longitudinal plan.
4.1. Method
4.1.1. Participants
As with the first study, schools were randomly selected for the study
from amongst all the schools in the city (Krakow, Poland), but it was up
to the individual schools’ management and parents to give consent to
children’s participation in the project. The children participating in the
6
Contemporary Educational Psychology 65 (2021) 101949
second study were different from those in study 1. The study involved
children who had received their parents’ consent to participate in the
project (N = 369, 181 girls). The children attended 28 classes across
twelve elementary schools. The full measurement was made four times:
at the beginning (N = 348), in the middle (N = 337), and at the end of
the first grade (N = 317), and at the end of the second grade (N = 263).
The number of the children who participated in subsequent measure­
ments decreased because some of them had changed school, some were
absent, and some withdrew from participation in the study. The mean
age of the children during the first measurement was 7 years 2 months
(SD = 0.42; range = 6.0–8.3), during the second measurement it was 7
years 5 months (SD = 0.43; range 6.3–8.6), and at the end of the first
grade it was 7 years 8 months (SD = 0.41; range = 6.6–8.7). The children
were one year older when the last measurement was conducted. Only
those children who did not have a diagnosis of mathematics learning
disability participated in the study. The children were from families with
a medium or a high socioeconomic status. Similar to the first study, the
indicator for the children’s families’ socioeconomic status was ascer­
tained on the basis of parental education, income, and occupation. The
principal component analysis was conducted and raw scores were con­
verted to sten scores. The schools used in the study were at the top,
middle, or bottom of the ranking of elementary schools in the city based
on the final test results (Dolna, 2016).
4.2. Measures
4.2.1. Math anxiety
As with the cross-sectional study, the mAMAS-E (Szczygieł, 2019)
was used to assess the level of math anxiety of the children across the
four measurement points. Internal consistency for the total score
checked with Cronbach’s α: at the beginning (N = 347), in the middle (N
= 333), at the end of first (N = 309), and second grade (N = 262) was
0.78, 0.71, 0.73, and 0.76, respectively. Cronbach’s α established for the
learning scale was 0.69, 0.54, 0.59, 0.57; for the testing scale it was 0.72,
0.69, 0.69, 0.73. One of the reasons for the low reliability of the learning
subscale is the very low variance in the results among young children
(most children reported weak math anxiety).
4.2.2. Working memory
Verbal and visuospatial working memory was measured in the same
way as in the cross-sectional study. As with the first study, two trials
were used for each list length. The split-half reliability of the Backward
Digits Span task calculated with the Spearman-Brown formula is r =
0.61 (N = 345) and the split-half reliability of the Corsi Block Tapping
task is r = 0.69 (N = 346). Task reliability is similar to the first study
because there were only two attempts and the task had an increasing
level of difficulty.
4.2.3. Number sense
In the longitudinal study, the Numeracy Screener was used (Nos­
worthy, Bugden, Archibald, Evans, & Ansari, 2013). This is a pencil and
paper test that measures symbolic and non-symbolic numerical magni­
tude processing. Detailed information on the construction of the test (e.
g. order, ratio, density of stimuli) can be found in the authors’ work
(Nosworthy et al., 2013). During the magnitude comparison task, the
children compared pairs of magnitudes (ranged 1–9) in symbolic (56
pairs of digits) or non-symbolic (56 dot arrays pairs) forms and chose
which one in each pair was larger. The children in both conditions were
to make a comparison within one minute. Both test sessions were pre­
ceded by training (three attempts with the researcher and nine practice
items performed by the children themselves). Half of the children
received the symbolic comparison task first and then the non-symbolic
version; the other half received the tasks in reverse order. In both con­
ditions, the task score that could be obtained ranged from 0 to 56 points.
Internal consistency was not ascertained because of the time-limited test
and the zero variance in some items.
M. Szczygieł Contemporary Educational Psychology 65 (2021) 101949

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlations between Variables in Study 2.
M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 ANS T1 31.14 (7.16)

2 VSWM T1 5.24 (1.70) 0.13*
3 VWM T1 3.41 (1.16) 0.12* 0.35***
4 MA-T T2 2.05 (2.11) − 0.10 − 0.02 − 0.17**
5 MA-L T2 0.78 (1.33) − 0.05 − 0.13* − 0.09 0.49***
6 MA-T T3 1.93 (2.06) − 0.02 − 0.05 − 0.14* 0.32*** 0.32***
7 MA-L T3 0.84 (1.44) 0.01 − 0.08 − 0.04 0.55*** 0.55*** 0.53***
8 MA-T T4 2.50 (2.22) − 0.12 − 0.17* − 0.17* 0.37*** 0.29*** 0.50*** 0.50***
9 MA-L T4 1.26 (1.70) − 10 − 22*** − 0.15* 0.26*** 0.37*** 0.38*** 0.33*** 0.50***
10 MATH-T2 48.21 (6.77) 0.15* 0.41*** 0.42*** − 0.08 − 0.15* − 0.20** − 0.14* − 0.27*** − 0.25***
11 MATH-T3 47.12 (7.68) 0.17* 0.38*** 0.38*** − 0.05 − 0.14* − 0.15* − 0.07 − 0.26*** − 0.27*** 0.70***
12 MATH-T4 42.50 (9.92) 0.10 0.29*** 0.40*** − 0.04 − 0.20** − 0.17* − 0.09 − 0.24*** − 0.26*** 0.63*** 0.66***

Note: *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; N = 239–348. ANS – approximate number system (the Non-Symbolic Comparison task), VSWM – visuospatial working memory
(the Corsie Block Tapping task), VWM – verbal working memory (WISC-R Digit Span Backward task), MA-T – testing math anxiety (mAMAS-E testing), MA-L – learning
math anxiety (mAMAS-E learning), MATH – math achievement. T1 – the beginning of the first grade, T2 – the middle of the first grade, T3 – the end of the first grade, T4
– the end of the second grade.

4.2.4. Math achievement
As with the first study, the mathematical tasks in each measurement
were prepared in accordance with the mathematical core curriculum for
elementary schools and with materials recommended by the Ministry of
Education in Poland. The tests in the longitudinal study examined the
practical application of mathematical knowledge in the following areas:
the middle of the first grade (MATH-T2) – knowledge of numbers,
counting, discovering rules, knowledge of geometric figures, spatial
orientation; the end of the first grade (MATH-T3) – knowledge of
numbers, counting, addition and subtraction, discovering rules,
knowledge of money, knowledge of geometric figures, reading a tape
measure; the end of the second grade (MATH-T4) – addition and sub­
traction, multiplication and division, reading a tape measure, spatial
orientation, discovering rules, clock reading. The procedure for testing
math achievement in the longitudinal study was the same as in the first
study. Each time, the children were given mathematical tasks in written
form, although task instructions were read aloud by the researcher. The
tasks were solved by the children themselves. There was no time limit to
complete the tasks, but most children finished the test in 20–40 min. The
point score that could be obtained in each measurement ranged from
0 to 62. The psychometric properties of the tests were established. The
internal reliability tested with Cronbach’s α is 0.85 (MATH-T2), 0.86
(MATH-T3), and 0.91 (MATH-T4). Correlations between mathematical
tasks and the total score at each measurement point were significant (p
< .05–0.001), positive, and from weak to strong (T2 r = 0.15–0.51; T3 r
= 0.13–0.61; T4 r = 0.18–0.61). The average level of difficulty of the
tasks in the three measurements was 0.78, 0.76, 0.69, respectively.
Therefore, the test was easy in the first grade and moderately difficult in
the second grade (Janowicz, 2017).
4.3. Procedure
The data from the longitudinal study was collected in four meetings
with the children. The meetings were conducted at the beginning
(September/October 2017), in the middle (February/March 2018), and
at the end (May/June 2018) of the first grade, and at the end of the
second grade (May/June 2019). The presented data are part of a larger
research project concerning individual and environmental predictors of
math achievement in early school-aged children (see Szczygieł, 2020d,
Szczygieł & Pieronkiewicz, accepted). The study was carried out in the
schools after prior approval had been given by the head of each school
and the parents of the children. Ethical permission was obtained from
the Scientific Research Ethics Committee of the Institute of Psychology,
Jagiellonian University of Krakow. Similar to the cross-sectional study,
the children were tested individually by a researcher trained in the
research procedure. Before each meeting, the children were asked to
agree to participate in it and were informed that they could ask
questions, refuse to perform a task, or withdraw from the meetings at
any time. For all tasks, the researcher read the instructions aloud to
compensate for differences in the level of the children’s reading skills.
The average length of the meeting was dependent on the research stage
and individual needs of each child. The first meeting lasted about 30–40
min, during which verbal and visuospatial working memory resources
and approximate number system acuity were measured. Subsequent
meetings, during which the level of math anxiety and math achievement
were measured, took approximately 20–30 min per child.
4.4. Analysis
Similar to the first study, the descriptive statistics and correlation
analysis were calculated in PS IMAGO PRO 5.1; the mediation models
were tested in the lavaan and mediation packages in the R environment
(Rosseel, 2012; Tingley et al., 2014). Since “number sense” refers to non-
symbolic numerical magnitude processing, the non-symbolic part of the
Numeracy Screener was included in the analysis and is presented in the
results section. However, because some researchers understand basic
numerical skills as number processing, additional analysis was con­
ducted (including the symbolic part of the task), the results of which are
presented in the Appendix. Similar to the first study, the effect size of
Pearson’s correlation was assessed in accordance with Evans (1996),
and model fit indices were rated according to Hu and Bentler (1999).
Moreover, as with the first study, the Maximum Likelihood estimator
was used in all mediation analyses. Pairwise deletion of missing data
was used in the correlation analyses and listwise deletion of missing data
was applied in mediation models. Mediation models were tested three
times. However, some children dropped out of the study. Therefore,
there were children who did not participate in all measurements. Similar
to the first study, missing data also were random (Little’s MCAR test:
χ 2(119) = 141.39, p = .08) and listwise deletion was justified (Soley & Bori,
2013). The correlation matrix presents results from four-time points. So
as not to substantially limit the number of observations, it was decided
to show the results of pairwise deletion.
4.5. Results
First of all, the descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation co­
efficients between measured variables at four time points were calcu­
lated (see Table 3). Math achievement was positively but very weakly
related to the non-symbolic comparison task (except the last measure­
ment). Both verbal and visuospatial working memory were positively
and weakly/moderately related to math achievement in the first and
second grades. Generally, negative and very weak or weak correlations
were observed between math achievement and math anxiety, but the
existence of this relationship and its strength depended on the math

7
M. Szczygieł
Fig. 4. Tested multi-mediation model for the relationship between math anx­
iety and math performance in the middle of the first grade (study 2). MA (T2) –
math anxiety is a latent variable that consists of testing (mAMAS-E testing) and
learning math anxiety (mAMAS-E learning), WM (T1) – working memory is a
latent variable that consists of visuospatial (the Corsie Block Tapping task) and
verbal (WISC-R Digit Span Backward task) working memory, ANS (T1) –
approximate number system (the Non-Symbolic Comparison task), MATH (T2)
– math achievement. T1 – the beginning of the first class, T2 – the middle of the
first class. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Fig. 5. Tested multi-mediation model for the relationship between math anx­
iety and math performance at the end of the first grade (study 2). MA (T3) –
math anxiety is a mean score of testing (mAMAS-E testing) and learning math
anxiety (mAMAS-E learning), WM (T1) – working memory is a latent variable
that consists of visuospatial (the Corsie Block Tapping task) and verbal (WISC-R
Digit Span Backward task) working memory, ANS (T1) – approximate number
system (the Non-Symbolic Comparison task), MATH (T3) – math achievement.
T1 – the beginning of the first class, T3 – the end of the first class. * p < .05, ** p
< .01, *** p < .001.
anxiety type and the measurement point. Math anxiety negatively and
very weakly correlated with verbal and visuospatial working memory,
but the occurrence of this relationship depended on measurement time.
Math anxiety generally did not correlate with the approximate number
system.
Next, the multi-mediator models were tested. In the first and third
models, math anxiety (MA) was defined by two observable variables:
testing and learning. In the second model, the mAMAS-E summary index
(MA-E) was taken into account due to negative variances and the need to
reduce the complexity of the model. In all models, working memory
(WM) was a latent variable and included two variables: verbal (VWM)
and visuospatial (VSWM) working memory. The approximate number
system (ANS) and math achievement (MATH) were included in the
models as observable variables. Working memory and non-symbolic
number sense were tested once (at the beginning of the first grade)
8
Contemporary Educational Psychology 65 (2021) 101949
Fig. 6. Tested multi-mediation model for the relationship between math anx­
iety and math performance at the end of the second grade (study 2). MA (T4) –
math anxiety is a latent variable that consists of testing (mAMAS-E testing) and
learning math anxiety (mAMAS-E learning), WM (T1) – working memory is a
latent variable that consists of visuospatial (the Corsie Block Tapping task) and
verbal (WISC-R Digit Span Backward task) working memory, ANS (T1) –
approximate number system (the Non-Symbolic Comparison task), MATH (T4)
– math achievement. T1 – the beginning of the first class, T4 – the end of the
four class. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
due to the assumption that the cognitive skills of children do not rapidly
change over two years. Math anxiety and math achievement were tested
three times to check whether there were changes in the results
depending on the grade year. Therefore, three models were tested to
check the mediating role of working memory and the approximate
number system in the relationship between math anxiety and math
achievement.
All models (see Figs. 4–6 and Table 4) are characterized by a good χ 2
value and a very good model fit (see details in Table 4, Hu & Bentler,
1999). The results indicate that working memory negatively, weakly,
and fully mediated the relationship between math anxiety and math
achievement in the middle of the first grade (β = − 0.20, p < .05) and at
the end of the second grade (β = − 0.27, p < .01) but not at the end of the
first grade (β = − 0.10, p = .06). The approximate number system did not
mediate the relationship between math anxiety and math achievement
at any time (the middle of the first grade β = − 0.01, p = .83, the end of
the first grade β = − 0.01, p = .96, the end of the second grade β = − 0.01,
p = .43) and a direct path from math anxiety to math achievement was
not found at any time (the middle of the first grade β = 0.01, p = .99, the
end of the first grade β = − 0.02, p = .76, the end of the second grade β =
− 0.13, p = .20). The variance in math achievement was explained by
direct and indirect paths in over 40% (R2 = 0.48 in the middle of the
first grade, R2 = 0.43 at the end of the first grade, R2 = 0.42 at the end
of the second grade).
5. Discussion
In previous studies in adults, adolescents, and children, a relation­
ship between math anxiety and math achievement had been observed,
but only a limited number of studies had tested the mechanism under­
lying this relationship. The main objective of the present studies was to
determine the cognitive mechanism whereby math anxiety impairs math
achievement in early school-aged children. In both the cross-sectional
and the longitudinal study, the direct path from math anxiety to math
achievement, the mediation effect of working memory, and the
approximate number system were tested. In five out of eight tested
models presented in the paper and in the Appendix, the mediating role of
working memory between math anxiety and math achievement was
confirmed. The role of non-verbal number sense was not demonstrated
in any model. The occurrence of the direct path was observed in two out
of eight models (in the first study but not in the second study).
Therefore, the main observation that working memory is a mediator
M. Szczygieł
Table 4
Direct and Indirect Effect of Math Anxiety on Math Achievements in Study 2.
Standardized coefficient
Model Predictor Mediator Output Indirect Total
1 MA (T2) WM (T1) MATH-T2 − 0.20* − 0.19*
ANS (T1) − 0.01
2 MA-E (T3) WM (T1) MATH-T3 − 0.10 − 0.12*
ANS (T1) − 0.01
3 MA (T4) WM (T1) MATH-T4 − 0.27** − 0.39***
ANS (T1) − 0.01
Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
MA – math anxiety is a latent variable that consists of testing (mAMAS-E testing) and learning math anxiety (mAMAS-E learning), MA-E – mean score of testing
(mAMAS-E testing) and learning (mAMAS-E learning) math anxiety, WM – working memory is a latent variable that consists of visuospatial (the Corsie Block Tapping
task) and verbal (WISC-R Digit Span Backward task) working memory, ANS – approximate number system (the Non-Symbolic Comparison task), MATH – math
achievement. T1 – the beginning of the first grade, T2 – the middle of the first grade, T3 – the end of the first grade, T4 – the end of the second grade.
in the relationship between math anxiety and math achievement in
young children is in accordance with the models of Suárez-Pellicioni
et al. (2016) and Skagerlund et al. (2019). However, the universality of
both models is challenged by the fact that there is mostly no direct path
from math anxiety to math achievement and there is no indirect path
from math anxiety to math achievement through number sense. The
results indicate that the three-path model suits adults well but not young
children.
First, the lack of a direct path in the tested children in the second
study strengthens the hypothesis presented by Skagerlund et al. (2019)
that the direct effect in adults may stem from avoiding mathematics in
education. The tested children had had math classes for several months
up to a maximum of several years, and their levels of math anxiety were
relatively low. Math education in the first, second, and third grades is
often combined with fun, which demonstrates that math can be a
pleasant activity that children engage in rather than avoid. Indeed,
previous works indicated that children like mathematics and math is a
natural part of young children’s activity (Ginsburg, 2006; Dowker et al.,
2019). However, it is important to test an analogous model of young
children, older children, and adolescents in the future. It may turn out
that it is wrong to think that the negative effects of avoiding mathe­
matics can only be observed after many years of education. It is possible
that this strategy could develop within just a few years. Such hypothesis
is strengthened by the results from the first study that reveals a weak and
negative direct path from math anxiety to math achievement. The dif­
ferences between both studies may be explained by the methodological
differences, especially the grade year of the tested children. The analyses
in the first study were conducted in children older than those tested in
the second study: the former involved children from the end of the first,
second, and third grade, whereas the latter tested children in the middle
and at the end of the first grade and at the end of the second grade.
Second, the results are in accordance with studies showing the
importance of cognitive resources as a mediator between math anxiety
and math achievement in younger and older children (Justicia-Galiano
et al., 2017; Soltanlou et al., 2019) and in adults (Skagerlund et al.,
2019). The obtained results mostly indicate that the negative effect of
math anxiety on working memory and consequently on the performance
of mathematical tasks is universal across the lifespan. Even a low
average level of math anxiety manifested in a group of young children
weakens their cognitive resources. According to the processing efficiency
theory and the attentional cognitive theory, the cognitive resources of
math-anxious individuals are burdened by distractors, worrisome
thoughts, and ruminations while solving math problems; this diminishes
the level of math performance and consequently strengthens math
anxiety (Ashcraft & Kirk, 2001; Eysenck & Calvo, 1992; Eysenck et al.,
2007; Ramirez et al., 2013). Working memory is one of the most
examined mediators of anxiety/math anxiety and math performance,
and it undoubtedly plays an important role in explaining the mechanism
of math anxiety effect (Justicia-Galiano et al., 2017; Ng & Lee, 2015;
9
Contemporary Educational Psychology 65 (2021) 101949
Model fit
N χ2 CFI RMSEA [90%] SRMR
325 χ2(5) = 11.44; p = .04 0.97 0.06 [0.01− 0.11] 0.03
298 χ2(2) = 0.56; p = .76 1.00 0.00 [0.00− 0.08] 0.01
255 χ2(5) = 2.28; p = .81 1.00 0.00 [0.00− 0.05] 0.02
Soltanlou et al., 2019). The results of the current studies indicate that, in
early childhood, appropriate interventions are already needed to pre­
vent the emergence and development of math anxiety and to reduce the
high level of math anxiety among some young students. Although there
is some controversy regarding the long-term efficacy of working mem­
ory training (Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013), the results partially explain
why short-term interventions that consist in relieving working memory
resources may reduce math anxiety and increase task performance
(Park, Ramirez, & Beilock, 2014; Ramirez & Beilock, 2011).
Third, as opposed to Skagerlund et al. (2019), number sense turned
out not to mediate the relationship between math anxiety and math
achievement in young children. Regardless of whether the models with
non-symbolic (study 1 and study 2) or symbolic (study 2, Appendix)
number sense were tested, the results were the same. Therefore, the
obtained results challenge assumptions about the role of deficits in nu­
merical magnitude information processing as a factor that contributes to
the negative effect of math anxiety on math performance. The results
may be explained by methodological differences between young chil­
dren and adults and their different educational situations. Math anxiety
is associated with the use of mathematical symbols, while Skagerlund
et al. (2019) used symbolic comparison tasks to measure number sense
efficiency. The correlation between the math anxiety and the symbolic
comparison task score may therefore result from the fact that people
have high levels of math anxiety because they are not good at symbol
operations. Indeed, this relationship may stem from the fact that
learners avoid math lessons for many years of mathematics education.
This trend cannot yet be observed in young children. Developmental
factors are important when considering differences between the situa­
tion of children and that of adults because the acuity of number sense
(Nys et al., 2013; Park & Brannon, 2013; Park et al., 2014) and the level
of math anxiety (Hembree, 1990; Wang, Oh, Malanchini, & Borriello,
2020) may increase during math education. Additionally, previous
studies revealed that symbolic and non-symbolic magnitudes are coded
differently and are not represented in an abstract and modality-
independent manner. Therefore, symbolic and non-symbolic compari­
son tasks should not be used interchangeably (Bulthe, De Smedt, & Op
de Beeck, 2014; Dietrich et al., 2015; Lyons, Nuerk, & Ansari, 2015). The
last problem is the ecological validity of the math anxiety scale used by
Skagerlund et al. (2019), which covers many situations unsuited to
adults, e.g. being given a surprise math test in a class or sitting in a math
class. Further research is required to determine what underlies the dif­
ferences in results that show the existence (or not) of the role of number
sense. Nevertheless, the obtained results do not allow us to conclude that
good approximate number system acuity is a factor that protects against
the harmful effects of math anxiety on math achievement among early
school-aged children.
Therefore, the universal validity of the cognitive deficit model (Malo­
ney et al., 2011; Ferguson et al., 2015) has to be challenged. Admittedly,
supporters of this model assume that math anxiety results from a basic
M. Szczygieł Contemporary Educational Psychology 65 (2021) 101949

Table 5
Pearson Correlation between Symbolic Number Processing and Other Variables in Study 2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
ANS T1 VSWM T1 VWM T1 MA-T T2 MA-L T2 MA-T T3 MA-L T3 MA-T T4 MA-L T4 MATH-T2 MATH-T3 MATH-T4

NS-S T1 0.80*** 0.17** 0.22*** − 0.10 − 0.08 − 10 0.00 − 0.14* − 0.14* 0.24*** 0.25*** 0.22***

Note: *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; N = 239–369. NS-S – symbolic number sense (the Symbolic Comparison task), ANS – approximate number system (the Non-
Symbolic Comparison task), VSWM – visuospatial working memory (the Corsie Block Tapping task), VWM – verbal working memory (WISC-R Digit Span Backward
task), MA-T – testing math anxiety (mAMAS-E testing), MA-L – learning math anxiety (mAMAS-E learning), MATH – math achievement. T1 – the beginning of the first
grade, T2 – the middle of the first grade, T3 – the end of the first grade, T4 – the end of the second grade.
NS-S: M = 30.89, SD = 7.16.

Table 6
Direct and Indirect Effect of Math Anxiety on Math Achievement in Study 2.
Standardized coefficient Model fit

Model Predictor Mediator Output Indirect Total N χ2 CFI RMSEA [90%] SRMR

1 MA (T2) WM (T1) MATH-T2 − 0.20* − 0.18* 333 χ2(5) = 9.12; p = .10 0.98 0.05 [0.00− 0.10] 0.02
NS-S (T1) − 0.01
2 MA-E (T3) WM (T1) MATH- T3 − 0.10 − 0.12* 306 χ2(2) = 1.32; p = .52 1.00 0.00 [0.00− 0.10] 0.01
NS-S (T1) − 0.01
3 MA (T4) WM (T1) MATH-T4 − 0.25** − 0.36*** 262 χ2(5) = 2.74; p = .74 1.00 0.00 [0.00− 0.06] 0.02
NS-S (T1) − 0.01

Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. MA – math anxiety is a latent variable that consists of testing (mAMAS-E testing) and learning math anxiety (mAMAS-E
learning), MA-E – mean score of testing (mAMAS-E testing) and learning (mAMAS-E learning) math anxiety, WM – working memory is a latent variable that consists of
visuospatial (the Corsie Block Tapping task) and verbal (WISC-R Digit Span Backward task) working memory, NS-S – symbolic number system (the Symbolic Com­
parison task), MATH – math achievement. T1 – the beginning of the first grade, T2 – the middle of the first grade, T3 – the end of the first grade, T4 – the end of the
second grade.

Fig. 7. Tested multi-mediation model for the relationship between math anx­
iety and math performance in the middle of the first grade. MA (T2) – math
anxiety is a latent variable that consists of testing (mAMAS-E testing) and
learning math anxiety (mAMAS-E learning), WM (T1) – working memory is a
latent variable that consists of visuospatial (the Corsie Block Tapping task) and
verbal (WISC-R Digit Span Backward task) working memory, NS-S (T1) –
symbolic number sense (the Symbolic Comparison task), MATH (T2) – math
achievement. T1 – the beginning of the first class, T2 – the middle of the first
class. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
low-level deficit in numerical processing and it mediates the develop­
ment of a higher level of math skills, while in current studies and the
research conducted by Skagerlund et al. (2019) the assumption made
was that math anxiety affects basic number skills. Nevertheless, whether
math anxiety impairs number sense or number sense affects math anx­
iety, the correlation between both variables should be observable.
However, the obtained results do not provide strong evidence for this
thesis. The analyses, which included various types of math anxiety
(general, learning, and testing), show that correlations between math
anxiety and the approximate number system are insignificant, or very
weak and negative. Therefore, the results represent another contribution
Fig. 8. Tested multi-mediation model for the relationship between math anx­
iety and math performance at the end of the first grade. MA (T3) – math anxiety
is a latent variable that consists of testing (mAMAS-E testing) and learning math
anxiety (mAMAS-E learning), WM (T1) – working memory is a latent variable
that consists of visuospatial (the Corsie Block Tapping task) and verbal (WISC-R
Digit Span Backward task) working memory, NS-S (T1) – symbolic number
sense (the Symbolic Comparison task), MATH (T3) – math achievement. T1 –
the beginning of the first class, T3 – the end of the first class. * p < .05, ** p <
.01, *** p < .001.
to discussions about the relationship between math anxiety and number
sense as previous studies have confirmed its occurrence (Maloney et al.,
2010, 2011; Lindskog et al., 2017; Douglas & LeFevre, 2017; Núñez-
Peña & Suárez-Pellicioni, 2014; Skagerlund et al., 2019) or absence
(Braham & Libertus, 2018; Dietrich et al., 2015; Hart et al., 2016; Wang
et al., 2014). Although the obtained results challenge the cognitive
deficits model, it may be assumed that people who have weak number
sense do not cope with mathematics and start avoiding it. At the same
time, it deepens their math anxiety, which – rather than sharpen

10
M. Szczygieł
Fig. 9. Tested multi-mediation model for the relationship between math anx­
iety and math performance at the end of the second grade. MA (T4) – math
anxiety is a latent variable that consists of testing (mAMAS-E testing) and
learning math anxiety (mAMAS-E learning), WM (T1) – working memory is a
latent variable that consists of visuospatial (the Corsie Block Tapping task) and
verbal (WISC-R Digit Span Backward task) working memory, NS-S (T1) –
symbolic number sense (the Symbolic Comparison task), MATH (T4) – math
achievement. T1 – the beginning of the first class, T4 – the end of the four class.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
approximate number system acuity – contributes in turn to their low
math achievement. This process continues over the years and the indi­
vidual factors determine each other. Such mechanisms would explain
why almost no relationship is observed between math anxiety and the
approximate number system in the case of children, although it appears
to be the case in older people. This hypothesis is reinforced by the fact
that, in the present studies, the correlation between the approximate
number system and math achievement in young children was signifi­
cant. This means that math anxiety and number sense independently
correlate with math outcomes from the beginning of education. There­
fore, it is possible that math anxiety and approximate number system
acuity develop in separate ways and, in adulthood, they interact and
consequently affect some math learning outcomes (Braham & Libertus,
2018). Nevertheless, the level of math anxiety does not predict number
sense acuity in childhood. What is more, the obtained results suggest
that number sense may be important in regression models when it is the
only predictor but not when general cognitive skills are entered into the
regression model (Fuhs & McNeil, 2013; Gilmore et al., 2013; Szűcs,
Devine, Soltesz, Nobes, & Gabriel, 2014). Therefore, cross-sectional and
developmental research is needed to determine the dynamics in the
change of relationships between math anxiety, number sense, general
cognitive skills, and math achievement, including complex mediation
models. It is noteworthy that the direct path and two indirect paths
explained from 32% to 48% of the variance of the results in mathe­
matical achievement. This means that math anxiety, working memory,
and number sense are important predictors of mathematical achieve­
ment in early school-aged children.
Subsequently, the methodological issues should be discussed.
Although a large group of children was tested in the two studies, some
limitations with the generalizability of the results on elementary school
children should be noted. Both studies were conducted in children from
high/medium socioeconomic status families living in a big city. Consent
for the children’s participation in the study was obtained during a
teacher-parent conference in which not all parents participated. It can be
assumed, therefore, that an additional limitation of the study is that the
tested children have parents who are involved in their education.
Another limitation is the relatively low reliability of some of the scales.
The low reliability of the math anxiety scales can mostly be explained by
the low variance of results that arises because the response scale con­
sisted of only three categories and therefore produced homogeneous
results. The problem with math anxiety measurement in young children
is very common (Primi et al., 2020). However, it should be indicated
11
Contemporary Educational Psychology 65 (2021) 101949
that the low variance of math anxiety in young children presents a
developmental pattern of math anxiety intensity. Generally, most young
children are not math anxious or feel weak math anxiety (Dowker et al.,
2019; Ginsburg, 2006; Petronzi, Staples, Sheffield, Hunt, & Fitton-
Wilde, 2019). In the working memory tests, the participants had only
two attempts to perform each of the sequences in the tasks. Future
studies should be broadened to include more attempts to perform the
sequences in the tasks that measure working memory. Finally, many
effects were borderline significant or at the level of p < .05. This is a
challenge for the results and indicates a need for further research on this
topic in children.
Finally, educational implications and further research directions
should be discussed. From the practical point of view, the most impor­
tant result is the one that shows the weak and negative mediation of
working memory in the relationship between math anxiety and math
achievement. Math anxiety burdens working memory resources in
young children, which in turn negatively affects their mathematical
performance. It indicates the great responsibility of parents and teachers
to limit the math anxiety level already in early school-aged children.
Among the reasons of math anxiety reported by young children there are
concerns about failure during math problem solving, negative reactions
of parents, teachers, and classmates, bad grades, and math problem
solving under time pressure (Petronzi, Staples, Sheffield, Hunt, 2019;
Szczygieł & Pieronkiewicz, accepted). Worries about the consequences
of failure as well as limited time for solving math problems decrease
children’s working memory resources, which results in failure and
extended response time. The circle of fear and mistakes is closed.
Therefore, although it sounds like a truism, it is important to create a
friendly and safe atmosphere where every students is approached in a
personalized manner. Learners should have enough time to solve math
problems (Jameson, 2019) and have a chance to correct their answers
(Núñez-Peña, Bono, & Suárez-Pellicioni, 2015). The optimization of
math class conditions may improve children’s cognitive functioning.
The children could in turn use working memory resources more
efficiently.
It is also worth considering whether the obtained results and rec­
ommendations may be useful for students with special educational
needs, e.g. with dyscalculia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD). Taking into account deficits in number sense in the former
(Wilson & Dehaene, 2007) and deficits in working memory in both
groups (Alloway & Passolunghi, 2011; Menon, 2016), it is likely that the
strategy of avoiding math starts earlier in children with severe mathe­
matical difficulties than in children without cognitive and mathematical
deficits. Moreover, children with math difficulties may have a higher
level of math anxiety than children without such problems (Devine, Hill,
Carey, & Szűcs, 2018), and math anxiety may additionally impair the
former’s working memory resources more. It is also interesting to test
the mechanism of math anxiety effect on math performance in learners
with ADHD and precise number sense as well as those with overlapping
problems: ADHD and dyscalculia. Due to their greater difficulty in
learning math and their higher level of anxiety, one can expect that the
mechanism of math anxiety effect on math performance in children with
dyscalculia and/or ADHD may be more similar to the mechanism
described in adults than in typical young children.
6. Conclusion
The results generally show that working memory mediates the
relationship between math anxiety and math achievement in early
school-aged children, whereas the approximate number system path
does not allow an explanation as to how math anxiety impacts mathe­
matical achievement. In accordance with processing efficiency and
attentional cognitive theories, math anxiety generates distracting
thoughts that reduce working memory resources and in turn impede
mathematical operations. Efficient working memory is a factor that
partly limits the negative effect of math anxiety on the level of
M. Szczygieł Contemporary Educational Psychology 65 (2021) 101949

mathematical tasks in children. Precise number sense does not mediate
the relationship between math anxiety and math achievement, so the
validity of the cognitive deficit model in young children has been chal­
lenged. Finally, a direct path from math anxiety to math achievement
was mostly not found, which suggests that the direct effect of math
anxiety on math achievement observed in adults may stem from the fact
that they avoided math at school. Further studies on the universality of
the three-path model are necessary among children and adolescents to
elucidate the mechanism of action of math anxiety on math achievement
across the lifespan.
Data availability statement
The data are available: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SXVQG.

Appendix

Since many researchers test the cognitive deficit model by using symbolic or non-symbolic magnitude processing tasks, it was additionally checked in
the longitudinal study whether the obtained results differed when a symbolic comparison task (NS-S) was used instead of a non-symbolic one (ANS).
The symbolic comparison task was used in accordance with the proposal of Nosworthy et al. (2013).
First, Pearson’s correlation with other variables was checked, and this was followed by the testing of the mediation models (see Tables 5–6,
Fig. 7–9).
The results show that symbolic number sense was positively and weakly related to verbal and visuospatial working memory and math achieve­
ment. The relationship between symbolic number sense and math anxiety was insignificant or significant but very weak and negative, and it depended
on the type of math anxiety and the time point of measurement.
In the second step, the mediation effect of working memory and symbolic number sense was tested in an analogous way to models with a non-
symbolic comparison task.
All models (see Figs. 6–8, and Table 6) are characterized by a good χ 2 value and a very good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 2009). The results show that
working memory negatively, very weakly or weakly, and fully mediates the relationship between math anxiety and math achievement in the middle of
the first grade (β = − 20, p < .01) and at the end of the second grade (β = − 0.25, p < .05). There was no mediation effect of working memory at the end
of first grade (β = − 0.01, p = .82). Symbolic number sense did not mediate the relationship between math anxiety and math achievement any time (the
middle of the first grade β = 0.01, p = .93, the end of the first grade β = − 0.01, p = .91, the end of the second grade β = − 0.01, p = .92) and the direct
effect was not observed any time (the middle of the first grade β = 0.02, p = .83, the end of the first grade β = − 0.01, p = .82, the end of the second
grade β = − 0.11, p = .25). The variance in math achievement was explained by direct and indirect paths in over 40% (R2 = 0.49 in the middle of the
first grade, R2 = 0.43 at the end of the first grade, R2 = 0.41 at the end of the second grade). The results are almost identical to those obtained in
models with non-symbolic comparison tasks. Summing up, math anxiety mostly decreases math achievement via working memory but not directly or
by number sense.

References Developmental Science, 13(3), 508–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/

j.14677687.2009.00897.x.
Dietrich, J. F., Huber, S., Moeller, K., & Klein, E. (2015). The influence of math anxiety
Alloway, T. P., & Passolunghi, M. C. (2011). The relations between working memory and
on symbolic and non-symbolic magnitude processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 6,
arithmetical abilities: A comparison between Italian and British children. Learning
1621.
and Individual Differences, 21, 133–137.
Dolna, J. (2016). Test szóstoklasisty 2016: ranking szkół podstawowych. Nasze Miasto
Ansari, D., De Smedt, B., & Grabner, R. H. (2012). Introduction to the special section on
Kraków. Downloaded from: http://krakow.naszemiasto.
“Numerical and Mathematical Processing”. Mind, Brain and Education, 6(3),
pl/artykul/test-szostoklasisty-2016-ranking-szkol-podstawowych,3763864,artgal,t,
117–118.
id,tm.html [08.05.2020].
Ashcraft, M. H., & Kirk, E. P. (2001). The relationships among working memory, math
Douglas, H. P., & LeFevre, J. (2017). Exploring the influence of basic cognitive skills on
anxiety, and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 130, 224–237.
the relation between math performance and math anxiety. Journal of Numerical
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The
Cognition, 3, 642–666. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.v3i3.113.
psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp.
Dowker, A., Cheriton, O., Horton, R., & Mark, W. (2019). Relationships between attitudes
47–89). New York: Academic Press.
and performance in young children’s mathematics. Educational Studies in
Braham, E. J., & Libertus, M. E. (2018). When approximate number acuity predicts math
Mathematics, 100, 211–230.
performance: The moderating role of math anxiety. PLoS ONE, 13(5), Article
Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove:
e0195696.
Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Bulthe, J., De Smedt, B., & Op de Beeck, H. (2014). Format-dependent representations of
Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance. The processing
symbolic and non-symbolic numbers in the human cortex as revealed by multi-voxel
efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 409–434.
pattern analyses. NeuroImage, 87, 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive
neuroimage.2013.10.049.
performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336–353.
Butterworth, B., Varma, S., & Laurillard, D. (2011). Dyscalculia: From brain to education.
Ferguson, A. M., Maloney, E. A., Fugelsang, J. A., & Risko, E. F. (2015). On the relation
Science, 332, 1049–1053.
between math and spatial ability: The case of math anxiety. Learning and Individual
Carey, E., Hill, F., Devine, A., & Szűcs, D. (2017). The modified Abbreviated Math
Differences, 39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.02.007.
Anxiety Scale: A valid and reliable instrument for use with children. Frontiers in
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with
Psychology, 8(11). https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.8377.
millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35,
Cargnelutti, E., Tomasetto, C., & Passolunghi, M. C. (2017). How is anxiety related to
116–124.
math performance in young students? A longitudinal study of grade 2 to grade 3
Fuhs, M. W., & McNeil, N. M. (2013). ANS acuity and mathematics ability in preschoolers
children. Cognition and Emotion, 31(4), 755–764. https://doi.org/10.1080/
from low-income homes: Contributions of inhibitory control. Developmental Science,
02699931.2016.1147421.
16, 136–148.
Chen, Q., & Li, J. (2014). Association between individual differences in non-symbolic
Ganley, C. M., & McGraw, A. L. (2016). The development and validation of a Revised
number acuity and math performance: A meta-analysis. Acta Psychologica, 148,
Version of the Math Anxiety Scale for Young Children. Frontiers in Psychology, 7
163–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.01.016.
(1181). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01181.
Dehaene, S. (2011). The number sense. How the mind creates mathematics. New York:
Gebuis, T., & Reynvoet, B. (2011). Generating nonsymbolic number stimuli. Behavior
Oxford University Press.
Research Methods, 43(4), 981–986.
Devine, A., Hill, F., Carey, E., & Szűcs, D. (2018). Cognitive and emotional math
Gilmore, C., Attridge, N., Clayton, S., Cragg, L., Johnson, S., Marlow, N., … Inglis, M.
problems largely dissociate: Prevalence of developmental dyscalculia and
(2013). Individual differences in inhibitory control, not non-verbal number acuity,
mathematics anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(3), 431–444. https://
correlate with mathematics achievement. PLoS One, 8, Article e67374.
doi.org/10.1037/edu0000222.
Ginsburg, H. (2006). Mathematical play and playful mathematics: A guide for early
De Smedt, B., Taylor, J., Archibald, L., & Ansari, D. (2010). How is phonological
education. In D. G. Singer, R. M. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play = learning:
processing related to individual differences in children’s arithmetic skills?
How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp.
145–165). New York: Oxford University Press.

12
M. Szczygieł
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.
Hart, S. A., Logan, J. A. R., Thompson, L., Kovas, Y., McLoughlin, G., & Petrill, S. A.
(2016). A latent profile analysis of math achievement, numerosity, and math anxiety
in twins. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/
10.1037/edu0000045.
Hembree, R. (1990). The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/749455.
Herts, J. B., Beilock, S. L., & Levine, S. C. (2019). The role of parents’ and teachers’ math
anxiety in children’s math learning and attitudes. In I. C. Mammarella, S. Caviola, &
A. Dokwer (Eds.), Mathematics anxiety. What is known and what is still to be understood
(pp. 190–210). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Jameson, M. M. (2019). Time, time, time: Perception of the causes of mathematics
anxiety in highly maths anxious female adult learners. Adult Education Quarterly,
1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713619896324.
Janowicz, J. (2017). Jak statystyka może pomóc w odczytaniu wyników sprawdzianu.
Warszawa: Nowa Era. Pobrane z: http://www.sprawdzian6.nowaera. pl/pdf/Jak_s
tatystyka_moze_pomoc.pdf (10.05.2020).
Jordan, N. C., Glutting, J., & Ramineni, C. (2010). The importance of number sense to
mathematics achievement in first and third grades. Learning and Individual
Differences, 20, 82–88.
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. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 573–589.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12165.
Kessels, R. P., van Zandvoort, M. J., Postma, A., Kappelle, L. J., & de Haan, E. H. (2000).
The Corsie Block-Tapping Task: Standarization and normative data. Applied
Neuropsychology, 7(4), 252–258.
Lafay, A., St-Pierre, M.-C., & Macoir, J. (2019). Impairment of non-symbolic number
processing in children with mathematical learning disability. Journal of Numerical
Cognition, 5(1), 86–104. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.v5i1.177.
Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta-
analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 270–291. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0028228.
Libertus, M. E., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2011). Preschool acuity of the approximate
number system correlates with school math ability. Developmental Science, 14(6),
1292–1300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01080.x.
Lindskog, M., Winman, A., & Poom, L. (2017). Individual differences in nonverbal
number skills predict math anxiety. Cognition, 159, 156–162. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cognition.2016.11.014.
Luttenberger, S., Wimmer, S., & Paechter, P. (2018). Spotlight on math anxiety.
Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 11, 311–322. https://doi.org/
10.2147/PRBM.S141421.
Lyons, I. M., Nuerk, H.-C., & Ansari, D. (2015). Rethinking the implications of numerical
ratio effects for understanding the development of representational precision and
numerical processing across formats. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 144(5),
1021–1035. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000094.
Maloney, E. A., Ansari, D., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2011). The effect of mathematics anxiety
on the processing of numerical magnitude. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 64(1), 10–16.
Maloney, E. A., Risko, E. F., Ansari, D., & Fugelsang, J. (2010). Mathematics anxiety
affects counting but not subitizing during visual enumeration. Cognition, 114(2),
293–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.013.
Matczak, A., Piotrowska, A., & Ciarkowska, W. (1991). Skala inteligencji D. Wechslera dla
dzieci – wersja zmodyfikowana. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych PTP.
Menon, V. (2016). Working memory in children’s math learning and its disruption in
dyscalculia. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 10, 125–132.
Namkung, J., Peng, P., & Lin, X. (2019). The relation between mathematics anxiety and
mathematics performance among school-aged students: A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 89(3), 459–496. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0034654319843494.
Ng, E., & Lee, K. (2015). Effects of trait test anxiety and state anxiety on children’s
working memory task performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 40, 141–148.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.04.007.
Nosworthy, N., Bugden, S., Archibald, L., Evans, B., & Ansari, D. (2013). A two-minute
paper-and-pencil test of symbolic and nonsymbolic numerical magnitude processing
explains variability in primary school children’s arithmetic competence. Plos One, 8
(7), Article e67918.
Nuerk, H. C., Weger, U., & Willmes, K. (2004). On the perceptual generality of the unit-
decade compatibility effect. Experimental Psychology, 51(1), 72–79.
Núñez-Peña, M. I., & Suárez-Pellicioni, M. (2014). Less precise representation of
numerical magnitude in high math-anxious individuals: An ERP study of the size and
distance effects. Biological Psychology, 103, 176–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biopsycho.2014.09.004.
Núñez-Peña, M. I., Bono, R., & Suárez-Pellicioni, M. (2015). Feedback on students’
performance: A possible way of reducing the negative effect of math anxiety in
higher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 70, 80–87. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.02.005.
Nys, J., Ventura, P., Fernandes, T., Querido, L., Leybaert, J., & Content, A. (2013). Does
math education modify the approximate number system? A comparison of schooled
and unschooled adults. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 2(1), 1–10. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tine.2013.01.001.
13
Contemporary Educational Psychology 65 (2021) 101949
OECD. (2010). The high cost of low educational performance: The long-run economic impact
of improving educational outcomes. Paris: OECD.
Park, J., & Brannon, E. M. (2013). Training the approximate number system improves
math proficiency. Psychological Science, 24(10), 2013–2019. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0956797613482944.
Park, D., Ramirez, G., & Beilock, S. L. (2014). The role of expressive writing in math
anxiety. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(2), 103–111.
Parsons, S., & Bynner, J. (2006). Does numeracy matter more? London: NRDC.
Petronzi, D., Staples, P., Sheffield, D., Hunt, T., & Fitton-Wilde, S. (2019). Further
development of the children’s mathematics anxiety scale UK (CMAS-UK) for ages
4–7 years. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 100, 231–249.
Petronzi, D., Staples, P., Sheffield, D., & Hunt, T. (2019). Acquisition, development and
maintenance of math anxiety in young children. In I. C. Mammarella, S. Caviola, &
A. Dokwer (Eds.), Mathematics anxiety. What is known and what is still to be understood
(pp. 77–102). New York, NY: Routledge.
Primi, C., Donati, M. A., Izzo, V. A., Guardabassi, V., O’Connor, P. A., Tomasetto, C., &
Morsanyi, K. (2020). The Early Elementary School Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale
(the EES-AMAS): A new adapted version of the AMAS to measure math anxiety in
young children. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1014. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2020.01014.
Ramirez, G., & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Writing about testing worries boosts exam
performance in the classroom. Science, 331, 211–213. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1199427.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.07.014.
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.
Richardson, F. C., & Suinn, R. M. (1972). The mathematics anxiety rating scale:
Psychometric data. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19(6), 551–554.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of
Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.
Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika., 63, 581–592.
Skagerlund, K., Östergren, R., Västfjäll, D., & Träff, U. (2019). How does mathematics
anxiety impair mathematical abilities? Investigating the link between math anxiety,
working memory, and number processing. PLoS ONE, 14(1), Article e0211283.
Soltanlou, M., Pixner, S., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2015). Contribution of working memory in
multiplication fact network in children may shift from verbal to visuo-spatial: A
longitudinal investigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1062.
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). https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.00089.
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. https://
doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12151.
Sowinski, C., LeFevre, J. A., Skwarchuk, S. L., Kamawar, D., Bisanz, J., & Smith-Chant, B.
(2015). Refining the quantitative pathway of the pathways to mathematics model.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 131, 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jecp.2014.11.004.
Suárez-Pellicioni, M., Núñez-Peña, M. I., & Colomé, A. (2016). Math anxiety: A review of
its cognitive consequences, psychophysiological correlates, and brain bases.
Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 16(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/
10.3758/s13415-015-0370-7.
Szczygieł, M. (2019). How to measure math anxiety in young children? Psychometric
properties of the modified Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale for Elementary Children
(mAMAS-E). Polish Psychological Bulletin, 4(50), 303–315.
Szczygieł, M. (2020a). More evidence that math anxiety is specific to math in young
children. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 12(5), 429–438.
https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2020562133.
Szczygieł, M. (2020b). When does math anxiety in parents and teachers predict math
anxiety and math achievement in elementary school children? The role of gender
and grade year. Social Psychology of Education, 23, 1023–1054. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11218-020-09570-2.
Szczygieł, M. (2020c). Sukcesy i porażki w uczeniu się matematyki. Uwarunkowania
osiągnięć matematycznych uczniów edukacji wczesnoszkolnej. [Successes and failures in
learning mathematics. Determinants of mathematical achievements in early childhood
education.]. Krakow: Libron.
Szczygieł, M. (2020d). Gender, general anxiety, math anxiety and math achievement in
early school-age children. Issues in Educational Research, 30(3), 1126–1140.
Szczygieł, M., & Pieronkiewicz, B. (accepted). Exploring the nature of math anxiety in
young children: Intensity, prevalence, reasons. Mathematical Thinking and Learning.
Szűcs, D., Devine, A., Soltesz, F., Nobes, A., & Gabriel, F. (2014). Cognitive components
of a mathematical processing network in 9-year-old children. Developmental Science,
17(4), 506–524.
Tingley, D., Yamamoto, T., Hirose, K., Keele, L., & Imai, K. (2014). mediation: R package
for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 59(5), 1–38. http
://www.jstatsoft.org/v59/i05/.
Vukovic, R. K., Kieffer, M. J., Bailey, S. P., & Harari, R. R. (2013). Mathematics anxiety in
young children: Concurrent and longitudinal associations with mathematical
performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 1–10.
Wang, Z., Hart, S. A., Kovas, Y., Lukowski, S., Soden, B., … Petrill, S. A. (2014). Who is
afraid of math? Two sources of genetic variance for mathematical anxiety. Journal of
M. Szczygieł
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(9), 1056–1064. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jcpp.12224.
Wang, Z., Oh, W., Malanchini, M., & Borriello, G. A. (2020). The developmental
trajectories of mathematics anxiety: Cognitive, personality, and environmental
correlates. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2020.101876.
Wilson, A. J., & Dehaene, S. (2007). Number sense and developmental dyscalculia. In
D. Coch, G. Dawson, & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Human behavior, learning, and the
developing brain: Atypical development (pp. 212–238). The Guilford Press.
14
Contemporary Educational Psychology 65 (2021) 101949
Wu, S. S., Barth, M., Amin, H., Melcarne, V., & Menon, V. (2012). Math anxiety in second
and third graders and its relation to mathematics achievement. Frontiers in
Psychology, 3(162), 1–11.
Zhang, J., Zhao, N., & Kong, Q. P. (2019). The relationship between math anxiety and
math performance: A meta-analytic investigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1613.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01613.