Anxiety: The state-trait model and the interaction model1

Shedletsky, Ralph; Endler, Norman S.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1974.tb00690.x

Cited by 39 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(73 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous writers have noted the important role that anxiety has played in personality theory (Endler, 1983;Jensen, 1958;Sarason, 1960;Shedletsky and Endler, 1974;Spielberger, 1966). While theoretical interest in anxiety has a long history, systematic attempts to measure anxiety objectively did not begin until the 1950s (Sarason, 1960).…”

Section: The Interaction Model Of Anxietymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An important limitation of the STAI is that it treats both trait and state anxiety as unidimensional constructs. Although the STAI-Trait was developed to assess a predisposition to experience state anxiety in a variety of stressful situations, subsequent research suggests that the scale actually assesses a predisposition to experience state anxiety only in response to ego-threatening situations (Auerbach, 1973a,b;Endler and Shedletsky, 1973;Shedletsky and Endler, 1974). In an early factor analytic study on types of anxiety-provoking situations, Endler et al (1962) had found three general situational anxiety factors: social evaluation situations, physical danger situations, and ambiguous situations.…”

Section: The Interaction Model Of Anxietymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interactionism revisited: Reflections on the continuing crisis in the personality area

1992

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current status of the personality area is critically examined with the view that problems in the discipline voiced two decades ago are stillprevalent. Recurring problems in the personality area have important ramijications for much of contemporary theoretical and applied psychology. The interactional approach to personality came to the fore in the 1970s andearly 1980s as an explicit attempt to resolve a number ofperceived weaknesses in the personality area. While it has become common for researchers to publicly advocate an interactional position, in practice little interactional research has been conducted recently. The historical developments of the trait andsituationism models of personality research and relevant assessment issues are outlined. This history is of interest because it helps to illuminate why and how many current personality researchers continue to perpetuate problems in the personality area. The interactional model of personality is also examined. Finally, the development of an interactional model for the study of anxiety is examined as a specijic example of the theoretical, research, andpractical benejits of this approach.

show abstract

Section: The Interaction Model Of Anxietymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Interaction Model Of Anxietymentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactionism revisited: Reflections on the continuing crisis in the personality area

1992

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We felt that by accentuating the "fear (or threat) of failure," as reflected in measures of trait anxiety (Shedletsky & Endler, 1974), a more valid and focused representation of anxiety would be achieved. Spielberger (1972) similarly maintained that "personal adequacy" situations are differentially threatening to high-versus low-traitanxiety individuals.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Factor Analytic Study of Manifest Anxiety: a Transsituational, Transtemporal Investigation

Livneh

Redding

1986

The Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we investigated the factorial structure of the Manifest Anxiety Scale (MAS) among American, counseling graduate students (N = 227). The MAS was administered across transsituational and transtemporal conditions. The following four factors were yielded following orthogonal rotation: General Worries, Physiological Correlates of Anxiety, Distractibility, and Embarrassment. These four factors, however, explained less than one quarter of the common variance extracted. Following a comparison with previous factor analytic studies of the MAS, we discuss factors possibly contributing to the discrepant findings, with particular attention to the MAS's item content and psychometric properties and the nature of the population used.

show abstract

“…When a facet of multidimensional A-Trait is congruent to A-State it is possible to predict A-State; when they are not congruent, A-State and A-Trait are not related (see Endler, 1975~1, 1975bShedletsky & Endler, 1974). The application of LPA showed that it was possible to identify homogeneous groups of subjects on the basis of their situational interaction pattern on GTA A-Trait data.…”

Section: Latent A-trait Projzes and A-statementioning

confidence: 99%

The multidimensionality of State and Trait Anxiety

Endler¹,

Ekehammar²,

Magnusson³

et al. 1975

PsycEXTRA Dataset

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The two major problems investigated were ( a ) the multidimensionality of trait (A-Trait) and state (A-State) anxiety, and (b) the relationship between A-Trait and A-State under neutral conditions, using two measures of A-Trait (SR-GTA and STAI-T) and two measures of A-State (BRQ and STAI-S). These scales were administered to a sample of Swedish university students (54 males and 105 females). Factor analyses of the GTA situational scales yielded an interpersonal ego threat A-Trait factor and a physical danger A-Trait factor. Factor analyses of the GTA reaction scales and STAI-T reaction scales yielded, respectively, two and three factors providing evidence for the multidimensionality of A-Trait. Results of variance components analyses of the GTA scales provided further evidence for the multidimensionality of A-Trait. Factor analyses of the BRQ and STAI-S measures yielded four and three factors, respectively, indicating the multidimensionality of A-State. The correlations between trait and state measures were higher than the correlations between the two state measures, and afactor analysis of the trait and state scales did not yield separate state and trait factors, questioning the proposition that A-Trait and A-State are distinct concepts. Vialatent profile analysis, it was possible to compare A-State differences for different A-Trait profiles. Problems for further research were discussed.

show abstract

Anxiety: The state-trait model and the interaction model1

Cited by 39 publications

References 33 publications

Interactionism revisited: Reflections on the continuing crisis in the personality area

Interactionism revisited: Reflections on the continuing crisis in the personality area

A Factor Analytic Study of Manifest Anxiety: a Transsituational, Transtemporal Investigation

The multidimensionality of State and Trait Anxiety

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About