1965
DOI: 10.1037/h0022625
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of test anxiety on children's performance as a function of instructions and type of task.

Abstract: 2 tasks were administered to 28 high test-anxious (HA) and 28 low testanxious (LA) 4th-grade boys. 4 of each group received test instructions and i received game instructions. The 1st hypothesis was that HA Ss perform as if being tested regardless of instructions. On a simple gamelike tracing task, LA Ss in the test condition made fewer errors than LA Ss in the game condition, while HA Ss in the 2 conditions did not differ. The 2nd hypothesis was that fear of failure is basic to the arousal of test anxiety. On… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

1972
1972
1990
1990

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This has been done, for example, by instituting a competitive versus individual reward structure (e.g., Ames, 1984;Ames, Ames, & Felker, 1977), by varying the alleged diagnosticity of the task vis vis important abilities (e.g., Nicholls, 1975), by introducing an audience or evaluator versus allowing the individual to perform privately or focusing his or her attention on the task (e.g., Brockner & Hulton, 1978;Carver & Scheier, 1981;E. Diener & SruU, 1979), and by presenting the task with "test" instructions versus "game" or neutral instructions (e.g., Entin & Raynor, 1973;Lekarczyk & Hill, 1969;McCoy, 1965;Sarason, 1972).…”
Section: Learning and Performance Goals Contrastedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This has been done, for example, by instituting a competitive versus individual reward structure (e.g., Ames, 1984;Ames, Ames, & Felker, 1977), by varying the alleged diagnosticity of the task vis vis important abilities (e.g., Nicholls, 1975), by introducing an audience or evaluator versus allowing the individual to perform privately or focusing his or her attention on the task (e.g., Brockner & Hulton, 1978;Carver & Scheier, 1981;E. Diener & SruU, 1979), and by presenting the task with "test" instructions versus "game" or neutral instructions (e.g., Entin & Raynor, 1973;Lekarczyk & Hill, 1969;McCoy, 1965;Sarason, 1972).…”
Section: Learning and Performance Goals Contrastedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Subjects who were instructed to make a favorable impression reported feeling significantly more shy than those who were not. McCoy (1965) found that telling children they would be working on a "test" rather than a "game" decreased their verbalizations, and Gynther (1957) found that arousing evaluation apprehension in college students reduced their communication efficiency; these responses are usually associated with anxiety.…”
Section: Motivation To Impress Othersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, Stevenson and Odom (1965) showed that high-anxious children did less well than low-anxious children on a concept-formation task, because their anxiety interfered with their ability to remember the concepts. Anxious children also do poorly compared with low-anxious children when they are asked to perform quickly (S. Sarason et al 1960) or when the task is introduced as a test of ability (Barnard, Zimbardo, & Sarason 196 1;Lekarczyk & Hill 1969;McCoy 1965). Other work shows that anxious children tend to work very cautiously in many evaluative situations (Ruebush 1963) and perform less well when an adult observer is present (Cox 1966(Cox , 1968.…”
Section: Generality Of Anxiety Effectsmentioning
confidence: 99%