An assessment of appraisal, anxiety, coping, and procrastination during an examination period

European Journal of Personality, Vol. 3,195-208 (1989)

An assessment of appraisal, anxiety, coping, and procrastination during an examination period

CLARRY H. LAY York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

JEAN M. EDWARDS Wright State University, Dayton. Ohio, USA

JAMES D.A. PARKER and NORMAN S. ENDLER York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Abstract

High Schoolstudents responded to an inventory which included dispositional measures ofprocrastination and social evaluation trait anxiety. Subsequently, and 7daysprior to their first examination (Stage 1)) each of the 40 female and 23 male students completed measures of state anxiety, perception of the stressor situation, and ways of coping, all with regard to their approaching exam period. These judgments were repeated 1 day prior to their first examination (Stage 2), and again 5 days after their last examination (Stage 3). Correlational analyses indicated that threat and harm perceptions were highly positively related to state anxiety, whereas challenge and gain were moderately and negatively related. State anxiety was linked to emotion-focused coping, but was independent of problem-focused coping. In an analysis of variance, high procrastination, high trait anxious subjects felt the least challenged at Stage 1. In a ‘maverick’, post hoc analysis, high procrastinators were more likely than low procrastinators at each stage to promise themselves ‘that things will be different next time’. Discussion included an assessment of the need for specificity when using the Ways of Coping (Folkman and Lazarus, 1985) scale.

INTRODUCTION

The present study examined a number of issues derived from the extended interaction model of anxiety and coping proposed by Endler (1980,1983,1988). A diagram of the model is presented in Figure 1.

The model includes a critical focus on (1) the distinction between state and trait

Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Clarry Lay, Department of Psychology, York University, 4700 Keele Street, North York, Canada, M3J 1P3 (YFPY0031 at York VM1).

0890-2070/89/030195-14$07.00 01989 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 22 June 1988 Accepted 13 December 1988

196 C.H. Lay et al.

PERCEPTION INCREASE

OF SITUATION - PERSON VARIABLES

INSTATE +--)

ANXIETY

1 . Trait Anxlety (e.q. Threat. Harm, Gam. Challenge)

REACTIONS TO INCREASE IN STATE ANXIETY

(Eg. EroPh-focwed EFiY. Protdam-hocvsed coping)

I I 2. Procrastination

PHASE A PHASE B PHASE C PHASE D

Figure 1. Phases of the interaction model of anxiety and coping

anxiety, and (2) the multidimensionality of trait anxiety and the concurrent interaction of congruent dimensions of trait anxiety and situational threat. Trait anxiety refers to relatively stable individual differences in the predisposition to perceive certain types of situations as stressful and to respond with increases in state anxiety. State anxiety is a transient reaction consisting of physiological-arousal and cognitive- worry components. The model distinguishes between four types of stressor situations and four corresponding types of trait anxiety: social evaluation, physical danger, ambiguity, and daily routines.

The first phase in the model (Phase A in Figure 1) concerns person and situation variables. The second phase in the model concerns the perception of the stressor situation (Phase B in Figure 1). Stressor situations are perceived as more or less threatening, depending on the nature of the situation. Individual differences in the level of such a perception would also be anticipated, as indicated by the link between Phase B and the lower box of Phase A.

These relationships are an essential part of the interaction model of anxiety, reflecting the importance of congruence between the type of stressor situation and the corresponding facet of trait anxiety. The presence of congruent conditions leads to perceptions of high threat. Perceptions of the stressor situation as threatening are expected, in turn, to lead to heightened levels of state anxiety (Phase C of Figure I), in terms of both physiological arousal and cognitive worry. To date, the link between congruency and heightened state anxiety has received substantial support across diverse situations (Endler, 1983).

In an extension of the model (Edwards and Endler, 1983; Endler, 1988), a consideration of reactions to high state anxiety has been included, as depicted in Phase D of Figure 1. One posited reaction is coping, which would serve to reduce state anxiety. Two major types of coping are considered: problem-focused coping and emotion- focused coping. Problem-focused coping is ‘doing something to change for the better the problem causing the distress’, and emotion-focused coping is directed at ‘the

Anxiety and coping 197

regulation of distressing emotions’ (Folkman andLazarus, 1985, p. 152). State anxiety, then, is seen as an antecedent to the enactment of various coping behaviours. The level of state anxiety should therefore be related to the degree, or frequency of use, of such coping behaviours.

In dealing with state and trait anxiety and stressor situations, the Endler interaction model of anxiety has focused on the perception of situations as threatening (Phase B of Figure 1). The model can be extended to consider other perceptions of stressful situations. Such an extension is exemplified in the work of Folkman and Lazarus (1985). Along with threat, these researchers have been concerned with three additional perceptions (or appraisals, as they refer to thern)’-challenge, harm, and gain. These appraisals are actually emotion responses which are taken to reflect appraisals. For example, feeling ‘worried’ and ‘fearful’ represents an appraisal of the situation as threatening. Feeling ‘confident’ and ‘eager’ reflects the appraisal of challenge. In addition, Folkman and Lazarus assess harm appraisals (such as feeling ‘angry’ or ‘disappointed’) and gain appraisals (such as feeling ‘exhilarated’ or ‘pleased’). Threat and challenge are viewed by Folkman and Lazarus (1985) as anticipatory appraisals of a stressor situation that is to occur some time in the future. On the other hand, these authors consider harm and gain as outcome appraisals. But such appraisals may also be related to an assessment of how one isprogressing towards a goal. These appraisals of harm and gain are therefore seen by the present authors as important to consider prior to the time of receiving feedback about one’s performance. For example, spending a weekend studying 2 weeks prior to an examination is likely to produce high gain appraisals; not studying, on the other hand, could produce appraisals of harm. It has already been stated that threat appraisals should be linked to levels of state anxiety. The other pertinent appraisals may be related as well (Endler, 1988).

The lower boxes in Phase A of Figure 1 incorporate individual difference variables into the model. To date, there has been an emphasis on trait anxiety, although other variables may be examined within this framework. Procrastination, for example, would be another trait that may be seen to interact with stressor situations in the context of goal-related behaviour. The present study incorporated trait procrastination into the interaction model along with trait anxiety, as indicated in Figure 1. The dotted line joining these two variables in the lower box of phase A is intended to indicate the potential interaction between these two person variables.

Procrastination was defined as ‘the tendency to postpone that which is necessary to reach some goal’ (Lay, 1986). There is evidence that procrastinators respond differ- ently to stressful situations than do non-procrastinators (Burka and Yuen, 1983; Lay, 1986). For one, they would appear to be less challenged and less confident of outcome in such situations. This is consistent with two of the major interpretations of procrastinatory behaviour, namely, the fear of failure, and the simple avoidance of aversive or unpleasant tasks (Burka and Yuen, 1983; Milgram, Sroloff and Rosenbaum, 1988).

The present study

The interaction model outlined above was applied to the stressor situation of a high school examination period. Students made judgments about their final examinations at three stages. The decision regarding the stages was guided by the earlier work of

‘Endler (1983) uses the term perception. whereas Folkman and Lazarus (1985) use the term appraisal.

198 C.H. Lay et al.

Endler and colleagues (e.g. Phillips and Endler, 1982), by a recent study of Folkman and Lazarus (1985), and by the present study’s concern with procrastinatory behaviour. Stage 1 occurred 7 days prior to the subjects’ first exam scheduled during their senior high school year. More than an anticipatory period, this time was viewed as a preparation stage and was seen to be particularly relevant to the concept of procrastination. Stage 2 occurred 1 day prior to this first exam and was viewed as the stage of last minute preparation and anticipation. Given the proximity of Stage 2 and the first day of examinations, this stage was viewed as potentially the most stressful one. Stage 3 occurred 5 days after the student’s last exam. As grades were not available at Stage 3, this period represented a waiting stage. Since the examination situation is a social evaluation one, a self-report measure of social evaluation trait anxiety was obtained for each student, along with a self-report measure of procrastinatory predispositions (lower box of Phase A in Figure 1). In addition, at each stage, students rated the situation in terms of threat, challenge, harm, andgain perceptions (Phase B); indicated their levels of state anxiety (Phase C); and described their coping behaviour (Phase D).

Summary of analyses and major predictions

From the data gathered, and within the context of the model, decisions were made to address certain predictions. The assessment of relationships between perceptions (Phase B) and state anxiety (Phase C), and between state anxiety and coping (Phase D) involved correlational analyses. Given the interaction nature of the model at Phase A, predictions concerning the effect of level of the stressor situation and the person variables on perception, state anxiety, and coping necessarily involved analyses of variance. In addition, it was decided to consider the two individual difference variables of social evaluation trait anxiety and procrastination simultaneously, thus creating groups of subjects low-low, low-high, high-low, and high-high on the two measures. Preliminary data had indicated the relative independence of the trait anxiety measure and the trait procrastination measure used in the present study.

Correlational analyses

(1) It was expected that perceptions (or appraisals) would be related to state anxiety. In particular, prior to the examination period, at Stages 1 and 2, apositive relationship between the threat perception and levels of state anxiety was anticipated (cf. Endler, 1988).

(2) It was predicted that state anxiety would be positively associated with emotion- focused and problem-focused coping (cf. Endler, 1988).

Analyses of variance

(3) Since the stressor situation would be most stressful at Stage 2 and least stressful at Stage 3, the perception of threat, the level of state anxiety, and the level of coping were expected to be highest at Stage 2 and lowest at Stage 3.

(4) High social evaluation trait anxious subjects would be expected to perceive the situation as more threatening than low social evaluation trait anxious subjects, particularly at Stage 2.

( 5 ) Based on the work of Endler and colleagues (e.g. Phillips and Endler, 1982), prior to their first exam (Stage 1 and Stage 2) , those students who were high on social


evaluation trait anxiety would be expected to experience greater state anxiety when asked to think about their upcoming examinations than those who were low on evaluation trait anxiety. This would occur particularly at Stage 2.

(6) Since coping behaviour is viewed as a reaction to high state anxiety or increases in state anxiety, a comparable social evaluation trait anxiety by stage interaction on coping behaviour was predicted.

(7) Based on earlier work by Lay (1986), it was predicted that high procrastinators would report less intense challenge perceptions prior to their exams than those reported by low procrastinators.

(8) High procrastinators would be less engaged than low procrastinators in problem-focused coping 7 days prior to their first exam (Stage 1), but equally engaged 1 day prior (Stage 2).

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were Grade 13 male and female students attending a high school located in a South-Central Ontario city with a population of 60,000. The school draws from both the immediate neighbourhood and the surrounding rural area. From a total pool of 98 students, 65 agreed to participate in the study. Complete data were obtained for 40 females and 23 males. Initially, subjects had been informed that they would be paid $10.00 Canadian for their participation. Subsequently, they opted for a comparable lump sum to be given to the Grade 13 class fund.

Questionnaire materials

Endler Multidimensional Anxiety Scales, state and trait forms (Endler, Edwards and Vitelli, 1989)

The state form of this scale yields two sub-scale scores, representing the autonomic- emotional component of state anxiety and the cognitive-worry component, plus a total state-anxiety scale score. The trait inventory is a multidimensional trait anxiety measure that assesses anxiety in four types of general situations (social evaluation, physical danger, ambiguous, and daily routines). The relevant situation here was the one in which a person was being socially evaluated by other people. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they would show each of 15 reactions or feelings for each of the four general situations. A summing of their responses for the social evaluation situation provided the social evaluation trait anxiety measure.

Procrastination scale

A 20-item procrastination scale, Form G (Lay, 1986) was used? This scale was embedded in a larger 242-item inventory containing filler scales relevant to another study. Evidence for the scale’s reliability and validity is found in Lay (1986, 1987, 1988). Sample items include ‘I am continually saying I’ll do it tomorrow’ (true-keyed), and ‘I usually start an assignment shortly after it is assigned’ (false-keyed).

2Copies of the scale and item statistics are available from the first author.

200 C.H. Lay et ul.

Threat, challenge, harm, and gain appraisals (Folkman and Lazarus, 1985) Students indicated how they felt with regard to the upcoming examination period (or the just completed exam period) on each of the 15 emotions used by Folkman and Lazarus. Judgments were made on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal) with respect to each of the emotions. The appraisal categories were as follows: threat-worried, fearful. and anxious; challenge-confident, hopeful, and eager; harm-angry, sad, disappointed, guilty, and disgusted; and gain-exhilarated. pleased, happy, and relieved. The emotions were presented to subjects in a random order. Ways of Coping Scale (Folkman and Lazarus, 1985) Subjects completed the full 66-item Ways of Coping Scale developed by Folkman and Lazarus. This scale included 35 critical items and 31 filler items. Subjects were asked to indicate the extent to which they were currently using each of the listed ways of copingwith regard to the upcoming (or just compieted) examination period. The scale ranged from 1 (not used) to 4 (used a great deal).Twosubscales were scored: problem- focused coping (11 items), and emotion-focused coping (24 items).

Procedure Having completed the personality questionnaires about 1 month earlier, students responded to the state anxiety measure of the Endler Multidimensional Anxiety Scales (EMAS-S) at each of the three surrounding stages (prior, just before, and after) of their examination period. In addition, at each stage, students responded to the 15 emotions representing the appraisals of threat, challenge, harm, and gain and to the full 66-item Ways of Coping Scale.

All questionnaires were completed by subjects in lheir own time. About 1 week prior to Stage 1, three packages of questionnaires, one for each stage, were distributed in class to participating students. Students were asked to take the packages home. Since all students did not start and end their exams on the same days, they were asked to provide the researchers with individual listings of the dates on which Stages 1,2, and 3 fell. They also indicated their home telephone number. An attempt was made to contact all subjects on the evening of Stage 1, Stage 2, and Stage 3 to remind them that it was the day to complete the appropriate questionnaire set. Contact was made, or messages left, on about 90 per cent of such occasions. Subjects were provided with three stamped envelopes to be used in mailing their completed questionnaires back to the researchers. They were encouraged to do so within 24 h of completing a questionnaire set. The postmark of each returned questionnaire set was recorded. This postmark was within 3 days of the designated day to complete a particular set of questionnaires in about two-thirds of all cases. A number of students for whom the postmarks deviated markedly from the designated date were contacted. They assured the researchers that they had completed the questionnaires on the designated date and that the deviation was due to tardiness in mailing back the envelope.

RESULTS

Internal consistency of scales

There were eleven variables in all. In the odd case of a missing response, a value equal to the mean of the responses to the other items in a scale was assigned. Since the


reliability of scales can be population-specific, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was computed for each of the measures based on the Stage 1 data. The alpha coefficients were as follows: social evaluation trait anxiety, 0.93; procrastination, 0.85; state anxiety-cognitive, 0.87; state anxiety-emotional, 0.87; state anxiety-total, 0.92; threat appraisals, 0.72; challenge, 0.67; harm, 0.84; gain, 0.76; problem-focused coping, 0.77; and emotion-focused coping, 0.83. The internal consistencies were viewed to be satisfactory.

Correlational analyses

To assess the predicted relationships between appraisals and state anxiety (Prediction l), Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed at each stage of the examination process between each of the appraisal measures and the cognitive, emotional, and total state anxiety scores. As the correlations with each measure of state anxiety were essentially similar, only the relationships between appraisals and total state anxiety are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients between appraisals and total state anxiety at each stage

Total state anxiety Stages: 1 2 3

Appraisals Threat 0.47** 0.59** 0.49** Challenge -0.32** -0.12 -0.24* Harm 0.67** 0.67** 0.54** Gain -0.30** 0.02 -0.34**

* p < 0.05; ** p i 0.01.

As predicted from the model, threar appraisals were positively related to state anxiety. Harm appraisals were also positively related. In addition, moderate negative relationships were obtained between both challenge and gain and state anxiety at Stages 1 and 3. Note that these positive appraisals were unrelated to state anxiety at Stage 2.

To assess the predicted relationships between state anxiety and coping (Prediction 2), Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed between the state anxiety measures and ways of coping. Positive correlations were obtained between state anxiety and emotion-focused coping, the coefficients ranging from 0.29 to 0.43 (p < 0.01). On the other hand, no significant relationships were found between state anxiety and problem-focused coping, the correlations ranging from -0.04 to 0.17. Thus, the relationships between state anxiety and coping were as predicted only with regard to emotion-focused coping.

Analyses of variance

The analyses of variance were designed to assess the relationships and interactions between the three independent variables of trait anxiety, procrastination, and stage on appraisals (Predictions 3,4, and 7), state anxiety (Prediction 5) , and ways of coping

202 C.H. Lay et al.

(Predictions 6 and 8). Each dependent variable was subjected to a 2 X 2 X 3 analysis of variance, the third variable being a within-subjects one.

Consistent with an earlier assessment, the two individual difference variables were independent of one another. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient between scores on the procrastination scale and the trait anxiety-social evaluation subscale was -0.10.

Subjects were dichotomized around the median of their scores on the procrastination scale, forming a high group of procrastinators and a low group. Subjects were also dichotomized around the median on the trait anxiety measure. Because of sex differences in the elevation of trait anxious scores, male subjects were dichotomized around the median for males, and female subjects around the median for females. The male and female high groups were then combined, as were the male and female low groups. Within each analysis the number of subjects in each of the 12 cells ranged from 13 to 18.

Appraisals

The mean threat, challenge, harm, and gain appraisal scores for low and high procrastination and for low and high evaluation trait anxious subjects across each of the three stages are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Mean threat, challenge, harm, and gain appraisal scores for low and high evaluation trait anxious and for low and high procrastination subjects at each stage

Appraisal Threat Challenge Harm Gain

Stage Stage Stage

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Stage

1 2 3

Trait Procrast- Anxiety ination Low Low 5.2 6.5 3.4 6.7 6.1 7.8 4.1 5.0 4.3 Low High 5.9 7.1 3.3 7.1 6.4 6.7 4.1 4.7 3.9 High Low 6.3 6.7 4.6 6.8 5.0 7.0 4.5 4.9 4.3 High High 7.9 7.7 4.7 4.9 5.8 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.3

Total 6.4 7.0 4.0 6.3 5.8 6.9 4.8 5.2 4.5

5.7 4.2 10.2 6.2 5.4 9.7 4.8 4.1 9.3 4.0 4.5 8.3

5.1 4.5 9.3

As predicted, subjects indicated the highest level of threat appraisal at Stage 2 and the least at Stage 3 ( F = 30.3, df = 2, 116, p < 0.001).3 In addition, subjects felt most confident, hopeful, and eager (challenge appraisals) after the examination period, during the waiting stage of the present study ( F = 7.5, df = 2,116, p < 0.001). Harm appraisals did not vary from one stage to another. Gain appraisals did increase after the examinations had been written, students feeling most exhilarated, pleased, happy, and relieved at this time ( F = 59.4, df= 2 ,116 ,~ < 0.001).

Not one of the other eight main effects was significant. Two of a total of 16 interactions were significant, both involving challenge. As predicted, procrastination 3With significant main effects of the stage variable, cell comparisons were analysed by computing FvaIues between two cells (Gaito, 1973). Cell comparisons verbally described in the results section with regard to the stage variable were all significant at beyond the 0.01 level with two exceptions: with threat appraisals, Stages 1 and 2, p < 0.02 and with challenge appraisals, Stages 1 and 3, p < 0.05.


interacted with the stage variable (p < 0.03). In addition, the procrastination by trait anxiety by stage interaction was significant ( F = 9.9, df= 2 , 1 1 6 , ~ < 0.02). The focus in interpreting the three-way interaction was on the high social evaluation trait anxiety, high procrastinator subjects. These subjects felt the least challenged of any grouping at the early preparation stage, but were no less challenged at the last minute preparation stage. Cell comparisons, analysed by computing Fvalues between the appropriate combinations of two cells (Gaito, 1973) indicated that the high anxiety, high procrastination group differed from each of the other groups at beyond the 0.05 level. In addition, counter to the high social evaluation trait anxiety, high procrastination group, the other groups showed a decrease in challenge emotions from the early preparation stage to the last minute preparation stage, although only the difference for the high anxious, low procrastination group was significant (p < 0.01). Note, as well, that the low (social evaluation) anxious, low procrastination group, and the high anxious, low procrastination group both showed a marked increase in challenge from Stage 2 to Stage 3 (p < 0.01). There was no evidence linking social evaluation trait anxiety to threat appraisals at any stage (Prediction 4) .

State anxiety

The main effect of the stage variable was significant with each state anxiety measure. For example, the mean total state anxiety scores were 40.8,47.7, and 32.0 for Stages 1,2 and 3, respectively ( F = 44.1, df = 2 , 1 1 6 , ~ < 0.001). As predicted, the subjects felt most state anxious at Stage 2 , l day prior to their first final exam. They were least state anxious at Stage 3 , 5 days following their last exam.

There was no evidence directly linking trait anxiety to levels of state anxiety, even in interaction with the stage variable (Prediction 5) . Procrastination was not related to state anxiety either.

Ways of coping

The mean problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping scores for low and high procrastination and for low and high social evaluation trait anxious subjects across each of the three stages are presented in Table 3.

As predicted, the frequency of problem-focused coping decreased after the examinations had been written (Stage 3) , at least in comparison with the early preparation Table 3. Mean problem-focused and emotion-focused Ways of Coping Scale scores for low and high evaluation trait anxious and for low and high procrastination subjects at each stage

Problem-focused

Stage

Emotion-focused

Stage

1 2 3 1 2 3

Trait Procrast- Anxiety ination Low Low 17.1 15.3 15.4 24.1 21.9 25.0 Low High 13.7 13.5 10.7 24.7 22.6 22.1 High Low 12.8 12.9 12.1 25.4 22.6 21.0 High High 12.4 11.9 11.9 26.3 24.4 24.7

Total 13.9 13.3 12.5 25.2 23.0 23.3

204 C.H. Lay et al.

stage (Stage 1) ( F = 7.8, d f = 2,114,~ < 0.01). Contrary to prediction, emotion-focused coping was not highest at Stage 2.

Social evaluation trait anxiety was not related to coping in interaction with stage (Prediction 6), nor did procrastination interact with stage with regard to problem- focused coping (Prediction 8).

DISCUSSION

The multidimensional interaction model of anxiety views state anxiety as a response to a perceived threat, and, as expected, high threat was accompanied by high state anxiety. Harm appraisals were also positively related to state anxiety. Challenge and gain appraisals, on the other hand, were negatively related to state anxiety, although to a lesser degree, and not at Stage 2. These results suggested that the scope of perceptions that influence state anxiety must be broadened. Before doing so, however, questions regarding the causal links between perception and state anxiety must be addressed in future studies. Further, perceptions that are less ‘emotion’ saturated than the ones used in the present study may provide an additional view. Whatever the outcome, for the present it would be fruitful to distinguish between negatively-toned perceptions and positively-toned perceptions, since the former appeared to accompany high states of anxiety and the latter to accompany low states.

Two other points regarding the perception-state anxiety relationships were also worth noting. Firstly, the perceptions appeared to be comparably related to both components of state anxiety, that is to state anxiety as expressed cognitively and to state anxiety as expressed emotionally-physiologically. This finding was counter to the emphasis by some researchers on distinguishing worry from emotionality (e.g. Sara- son, 1984). Secondly, the pattern of negative relationships between the appraisals of challenge and gain and state anxiety was not found at Stage 2. This would suggest that the close temporal proximity to the onset of the stressful event at Stage 2 evoked state anxiety in a manner which negated individual differences in how ‘confident’ or ‘happy’ students felt.

It had been predicted that state anxiety would be related to ways of coping, since the former is seen as precipitating the latter. This contention of the model now requires qualification, however, since state anxiety in the present study was related only to emotion-focused coping. Within the confines of an examination situation, at least, high levels of state anxiety do not appear to be antecedents of problem-focused coping, at least across all subjects. More generally, then, the model’s future predictions regarding the relationship between state anxiety and coping must take into account the nature of the situation and individual differences in coping with varying levels of anxiety (cf. Norem and Cantor, 1986).

Turning to the analyses of variance results, the high social evaluation trait anxious, high procrastination subjects were distinguished in the procrastination by trait anxiety by stage interaction with challenge appraisals. Such appraisals had been expected to distinguish high and low procrastinators, but no interaction with trait anxiety had been predicted. The high trait anxious, high procrastination subjects felt the least challenged at Stage 1, the early preparation stage. Furthermore, all other groupings of subjects showed a decline in challenge appraisals from Stage 1 to Stage 2. This decline in challenge from the early preparation stage to the last-minute stage may represent


a more typical response to an approaching stressful period. The response of the high trait anxious, high procrastinator subjects, on the other hand, may have reflected unrealistic, last minute bravado on the part of these students. The low procrastination subjects indicated a sharp rise in challenge from Stage 2 to Stage 3, after completing their examinations. This group may have been better prepared, and may have performed better, resulting in their increased challenge appraisals after the exam.

The major predictions derived from the interaction model of anxiety with regard to perceptions, state anxiety, and ways of coping were not supported in the analyses of variance, nor was the predicted relationship between procrastination and problem- focused coping in interaction with the stage variable. Possible reasons for this lack of support were three-fold. First, subjects completed their questionnaires on their own. This procedure, logistically dictated, may have resulted in a large amount of error variance. The other two reasons are discussed below.

The predicted evaluation trait anxiety by stage interaction on state anxiety was not found in the present study. This cannot be attributed to the manipulation of stage, since judgments by subjects were as expected across this dimension. The highest state anxiety and threat appraisals were found at Stage 2, the high stress stage; and gain appraisals were highest, and problem-focused coping lowest, at Stage 3. The lack of a trait anxiety by stage interaction with state anxiety represents an exception to earlier data summarized by Endler (1983). And the lack of such an interaction precluded the parallel prediction with coping behaviour. The present study was concerned with judgments made from three temporal perspectives surrounding, but remote from, the stress period. On the other hand, Endler has typically obtained state anxiety measures within the stressful event itself, or at least very close to it, and has compared those ratings with how subjects felt in a non-stress situation. For example, in the Phillips and Endler study (1982), subjects rated their level of state anxiety at three points in time: 1 week prior to their psychology examination, just minutes prior to writing the exam, and 1 week later. On each occasion, subjects were asked to indicate how they felt a f that moment. The first and third assessments were viewed as non-stress situations; just prior to writing the exam was viewed as the stress encounter. In contrast, in the present study, subjects were asked at each point in time how they felt with regard to their upcoming or recent examinations. It may be one thing to be actually in the stressful situation, or in close temporal proximity to it, and quite another to think about the event from a temporal distance. For one, there is the possibility that subjects would not be able, in any consistent fashion, to separate how they were feeling with regard to the upcoming or just past examinations from other concerns that were also a part of their lives at each stage. Nor may they be able, reliably, to separate how they felt at the moment with regard to the upcoming event from how they anticipated feeling once the event had arrived.

In hindsight, ways of coping are situation-specific. Consequently, not all items in the Folkman and Lazarus (1985) problem-focused coping scale now appear relevant as coping responses to a high school student’s exam period, nor do all of the emotion- focused items appear relevant. In pursuit of this idea, 41 undergraduate university students were asked to rate the relevancy to a high school examination period of each of the 66 items in the Ways of Coping Scale. The difficulty with the problem-focused Ways of Coping Scale (Folkman and Lazarus. 1985) is that the items are not necessarily task-relevant or task-specific (e.g. the items do not focus on examinations). Only four of the 11 items in the problem-focused scale were rated as highly

206 C. H. Lay et al.

relevant, and half of the 24 emotion-focused coping items were judged to be no more than moderately relevant. Irrelevant items may be less stable items, more subject to error variance, and may be viewed as a further source of imprecision in our hypothe- sis testing. It is therefore recommended in future that the Ways of Coping Scale be tailored to the specific situation in which it is to be used.

Ways of coping may not only be situation-specific, but their relation to individual difference measures may be specific as well. For example, the present study predicted that high procrastinators would score lower on the problem-focused coping scale at Stage 1 than would low procrastinators. This prediction was made at ascale score level, without regard for the specific content of the items. A problem-focused coping item like ‘I’m making a plan of action and following it’ would appear to be more directly related to individual differences in procrastination than a companion item, ‘I go over in my mind what I will say or do’, yet the overall problem-focused scale score allowed for no such distinction.

Other single items, or sets of items, could be selectedonanapriori basis as especially pertinent to the specific individual difference variables under consideration, particularly where the identification of suchitems is basedon theory or links to prior research. For example, the characterization of the underachiever who procrastinates (Mandel and Marcus, 1988) includes the awareness by such students of their past failings coupled with a continued unrealistically positive outlook. One item from the emotion- focused scale of the present study addressed this component. It read ‘Make a promise to myself that things will be different next time’. In a post hoc analysis of this single item, high procrastinators were twice as likely than low procrastinators to make this promise to themselves.

In the introduction we questioned the value of considering harm and gain as outcome appraisals only (Folkman and Lazarus, 1985). The present data with regard to harm appraisals supported our misgivings. The analysis of variance revealed no main effect of stage. Harm appraisalswere equal at eachstage,even thoughitwasmost probable that the students had an accurate view of their performance on their exams prior to receiving formal feedback (cf. Folkman and Lazarus, 1985). We had initially suggested that harm appraisals or perceptions can refer to progress made as well as to outcome. Whatever the resolution, it would appear that the composition and concep- tualization of such appraisals need to be reassessed.

In conclusion, positive perceptions would appear to be positively related to state anxiety, and negative perceptions inversely related. The relationship between state anxiety and ways of coping would appear to be situation-specific, with state anxiety only related to emotion-focused coping in the examination situation. Furthermore, suggestions have been made regarding the need for specificity when assessing ways of coping. Finally, as indicated in Figure 1, procrastination, anxiety, and coping were fruitfully evaluated within the framework of an interactional model, and recommen- dations for future research were suggested.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was partially supported by internal grants from York University to the first, second, and fourth authors, and from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (410-86-0631 to the first author and 410-84-1261 to the


fourth author). The authors would like to thank Mara Paronetto for her research assistance. They would also like to express their gratitude to the Editor and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. In addition, the authors are extremely grateful to Mr. J. McCormick, principal, and Mr. W. Gilroy, vice-principal of Crestwood High School, Peterborough, Ontario, for their help and co-operation in conducting this study. Gratitude is also expressed to the teachers who helped and to the Grade 13 students who served as subjects.

REFERENCES

Burka, J. B. and Yuen, L. M. (1983). Procrastination, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Edwards, I. M. and Endler, N. S. (1983). ‘Personality research’. In: Hersen, M., Kazdin, A. E.

and Bellack, A. S. (Eds), The Clinical Psychology Handbook, pp. 223-238, Pergamon Press, New York.

Endler, N. S. (1980). ‘Person-situation interaction and anxiety’. In: Kutash, I. L. and Schlesin- ger, L. B. (Eds), Handbook on Stress and Anxiety: Contemporary Knowledge, Theory and Treatment, pp. 241-266, Jossey Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.

Endler, N. S. (1983). ‘Interactionism: a personality model but not yet a theory’. In: Page, M. M. (Ed), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1982: Personality - Current Theory and Research, pp. 155-200, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE.

Endler, N. S. (1988). ‘Hassles, health, and happiness’. In: Janisse, M. P. (Ed), Applications of Individual Differences in Stress and Health Psychology, pp. 24-56, Springer, New York.

Endler, N. S. and Magnusson, D. (1977). ‘The interaction model of anxiety: An empirical test in an examination situation’, Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 9: 101-1 07.

Endler, N. S., Edwards, J. M. and Vitelli, R. (1989). Endler Multidimensional Anxiety Scales: Manual, Western Psychological Services, Los Angeles, CA (in press).

Endler, N. S., King, P. R., Edwards, J. M., Kuczynski, M. and Diveky, S. (1983). ‘Generality of the interaction model of anxiety with respect to two social evaluation field studies’, Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 15: 60-69.

Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R. S. (1985). ‘If it changes, it must be a process: study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination’, Journal of Personality and Social

Gaito, J. (1973). Introduction to Analysis of Variance Procedures, MSS Information Corpora- tion, New York.

Krantz, S. E. (1983). ‘Cognitive appraisals and problem-directed coping: A prospective study of stress’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44: 638-643.

Lay, C. H. (1986). ‘At last, my research article on procrastination’, Journal of Research in Personality, 20: 474-495.

Lay, C. (1987). ‘A modal profilc analysis of procrastinators: A search for types’, Personality and Individual Differences, 8,705-714.

Lay, C. (1988). ‘The relationship ot procrastination and optimism to judgments of time to complete an essay and anticipation of setbacks’, Journal of Social Behavior und Personality,

Mandel, H. P. and Marcus, S. I. (1988). The Psychology of Underachievement: Differential

Milgram, N. A., Sroloff, B. and Rosenbaum, M. (1 988). ’The procrastination of everyday life’,

Norem, J. K. and Cantor, N. (1986). ‘Defensive pessimism: Harnessing anxiety as motivation’,

Phillips, J. B. and Endler, N. S. (1982). ‘Academic examinations and anxiety: The interaction

Sarason, I. G. (1984). ‘Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference: Reactions to tests’, Journal

Psychology, 48: 150-170.

3: 201-214.

Diagnosis and Differential Treatment, Wiley, Toronto.

Journal of Research in Personality, 22: 197-212.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1205-1217.

model empirically tested’, Journal of Research in Personality, 16: 303-318.

of Personality and Social Psychology, 46: 929-938.

208 C.H. Lay et al.

RESUME

Des Cleves de i’ecole secondaire ont rempli un questionnaire qui contenait des mesures dispositionnelles de (a) la tendance hremeltre (iplus tard) et (b) l’angoisse face aux Cvaluations sociales. Chacun des 23 lycCens et des 40 lyceennes remplit, sept jours avant le premier examen (Stade 1) des Cchelles sur I’Ctat de l’angoisse, sur la perception de la situation stressante et sur les techniques permettant de rCsister a ce stress (coping). Ces Cvaluations furent repetkes un jour avant I’examen (Stade 2) et h nouveau cinq jours apres le dernier examen (Stade 3 ) . Les analyses corrClationnelles montrkrent que les perceptions de menace et dommage Ltaient posi- tivement reliees h Yetat de l’angoisse, tandis que challenge et gain montraient des corrClations moyennes et negatives. L’Ctat de l’angoisse apparut comme allant de pair avec les techniques permettant de rCsister au stress axees sur la rCgulation de l’Cmotion, mais independante de celles axees sur le problkme. I1 apparait dans l’analyse de variance que les sujets qui ont un score ClevC aux tendances dispositionnelles ?I remettre (a plus tard), B montrer de I’angoisse avant des Cvaluations sociales, se sentaient le moins defiCes au cours du Stade 1. Une analyse posr hoc montra que les sujets remettant h plus tard, comparCs aux sujets ayant un score bas B I’Cchelle de la tendance h remettre, se promettaient h chaque stade que ‘les choses seraient diffkrentes la prochaine fois’. Au chapitre Discussion, il est entre autre question de la necessite de la prise en compte de la sp6cificitC de la situation dans le cas de l’emploi du questionnaire Ways of Coping (Folkman et Lazarus; 1985).

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

High School-Studenten bearbeiteten einen Fragebogen zur Trait-Angstlichkeit im Hinblick auf soziale Bewertung sowie zur Tendenz, notwendige Aufgaben zu verschieben. Danach, sieben Tage vor ihrer ersten Prufung (Phase l), wurde bei 40 weiblichen und 23 mannlichen Studenten die Zustandsangst, die Wahrnehmung der StreBsituation sowie die Coping- Strate- gie erfaBt, und zwar jeweils im Hinblick auf die bevorstehende Prufungsperiode. Diese Urteile wurden einen Tag vor der ersten Prufung (Phase 2) und wiederum funf Tage nach der letzten Prufung (Phase 3 ) wiederholt. Korrelationsanalysen ergaben, daB die Wahrnehmungen von Bedrohung und Leid hohe positive Beziehungen zur Zustandsangst aufwiesen, wahrend wahrgenommene Herausforderung und Gewinn mabig negative Beziehungen zeigten. Zu- standsangst war mit einem emotions-zentrierten Coping verbunden, erwies sich aber als unabhangig von Problem-zentriertem Coping. In einer Varianzanalyse fuhlten sich stark zur Verzogerung neigende und dispositionell hoch angstliche Personen in Phase 1 am wenigsten herausgefordert. In einer post hoc Analysc zeigte sich, daR Personen mit einer starken Tendenz zum Aufschieben von Aufgaben eine erhohte Erwartung aufwiesen, ‘beim nachsten Mat wiirde die Situation anders sein’, Die diskussion betont unter anderem die Notwendigkeit, die Ways of Coping Skala (Folkman und Lazarus, 1985) spezifischer zu gestalten.

Documents

An assessment of appraisal, anxiety, coping, and procrastination during an examination period