Academic examinations and anxiety: The interaction model empirically tested

The person-by-situation interaction model of anxiety was tested in the reallife setting of an academic examination. Twenty-eight male and 79 female university students served as subjects. State anxiety (A-State) was assessed just prior to the examination (Trial 2) and approximately 1 week before (Trial 1) and after (Trial 3) the examination. Five facets of trait anxiety (A-Trait) were measured in a nonstressful situation 1 week prior to the examination. The subject's cognitive appraisal of the various situations was assessed by a self-report index of the type and degree of threat involved in the situation just experienced. As predicted, a significant A-Trait-by-situation interaction in eliciting A-State was observed for social evaluation A-Trait. There were no interactions for the other, noncongruent facets of trait anxiety. The results also indicated that individuals' perception of situations may be the most important factor affecting reactions to stressful situations. In general, the results were interpreted as providing support for the multidimensionality of A-Trait and further validation of the interaction model of anxiety.     

The composite measure of the defense mechanism inventory

A reanalysis of previously published data suggests that the Defense Mechanism Inventory can be utilized to yield a composite measure of reaction to frustration by contrasting linearly the defenses of Turning-against-object and Projection against those of Principalization and Reversal-of-affect. Factor-analytic and correlational data support the exclusion of Turning-against-self from the composite measure. Studies of content validity are presented for the combination of the four defenses into one dimension. Patterns of interitem reliability are charted for the five defenses and the composite measure for both men and women. Internal consistency data are also presented for the standard scoring as well as for a modified method to explore the feasibility of simplifying and shortening the test-taking procedure.     

Causal explanations for school performance: Contrasts between mothers and children

This study investigated the causal attributions given by mothers and their fifth and sixth grade children to explain the children's success in a school subject of relatively high achievement as well as their failure in an area of low performance. Participants were asked to weight the importance of four attributions: ability, effort, personality, and training. Analyses of variance revealed significant differences between mothers' and children's weightings. Mothers cited children's ability as the main cause of success, while lack of effort was viewed as the reason for failure. Children, in contrast, gave effort as the explanation for success and lack of ability as the reason for failure. The apparent lack of concordance between mothers' and children's causal beliefs is discussed in terms of three explanatory possibilities: (a) actor/observer differences, (b) the effects of the affective bond between mother and child, and (c) the tendency toward self-presentational bias.     

Preschoolers' counting: principles before skill

Three- to 5-year-old children participated in one of 4 counting experiments. On the assumption that performance demands can mask the young child's implicit knowledge of the counting principles, 3 separate experiments assessed a child's ability to detect errors in a puppet's application of the one-one, stable-order and cardinal count principles. In a fourth experiment children counted in different conditions designed to vary performance demands. Since children in the errror-detection experiments did not have to do the counting, we predicted excellent performance even on set sizes beyond the range a young child counts accurately. That they did well on these experiments supports the view that errors in counting—at least for set sizes up to 20—reflect performance demands and not the absence of implicit knowledge of the counting principles. In the final experiment, where children did the counting themselves, set size did affect their success. So did some variations in conditions, the most difficult of which was the one where children had to count 3-dimensional objects which were under a plexiglass cover. We expected that this condition would interfere with the child's tendency to point and touch objects in order to keep separate items which have been counted from those which have not been counted.     

A constraint on comparisons: Equally detailed alternatives

Children's errors in collective comparison tasks are atributed to the comparison of the wrong classes. It is specifically hypothesized that alternative classes are erroneously formed subject to the constrain that the same kinds of properties are criterial for each alternative. This hypothesis, called the equally detailed alternatives hypothesis, is tested in three experiments with hierarchically organized stimuli and requests to compare a superordinate class and a nonincluded subclass, for example, dogs and yellow cats. In all three experiments 4-year-old children's comparisons were found to be in accord with the hypothesis. In the first experiment both perceptual and linguistic factors determine which classes are compared. In the second experiment, as predicted, erroneous subclass comparisons were more common when all subclasses were distinguished by the same kinds of properties. In the third experiment, the children were asked to partition the stimulus objects into the classes to be compared. The vast majority of partitions were erroneous and in accord with the hypothesis. Potential benefits of the constrain are considered.