Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
School Psychology Quarterly
The Scare Tactic: Do Fear Appeals Predict Motivation andExam Scores?David Putwain and Richard RemediosOnline First Publication, April 14, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000048
CITATIONPutwain, D., & Remedios, R. (2014, April 14). The Scare Tactic: Do Fear Appeals PredictMotivation and Exam Scores?. School Psychology Quarterly. Advance online publication.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000048
The Scare Tactic: Do Fear Appeals Predict Motivation andExam Scores?
David PutwainEdge Hill University
Richard RemediosDurham University
Prior to high-stakes exams, teachers use persuasive messages that highlight to students thepossible consequences of failure. Such messages are known as fear appeals. This studyexamined whether fear appeals relate to self- and non-self-determined motivation andacademic performance. Data were collected in 3 waves. Self-report data pertaining toperceived fear appeals were collected in the first wave, self-report data pertaining toself-determined motivation were collected in the second wave, and exam scores werecollected in the third wave. An increased frequency of fear appeals and the appraisal of fearappeals as threatening predicted lower self-determined motivation but were largely unre-lated to non-self-determined motivation. An increased frequency of fear appeals and theappraisal of fear appeals as threatening predicted lower examination performance that waspartly mediated by lower self-determined motivation. These findings support a positionderived from self-worth theory that the negative consequences of fear appeals arise fromtheir focus on avoiding failure rather than their focus on extrinsic consequences. We suggestthat teachers and instructors need to be aware how seemingly motivational statements canunwittingly promote lower self-determined motivation.
Keywords: fear appeals, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, teacher behavior, academicperformance
The classroom environment has a profound andpervasive influence on students. The motivationalclimate of the classroom, the interpersonal rela-tionships, and the physical classroom characteris-tics can serve to enhance or detract from student’slearning, educational achievement, and enjoymentand value of learning (e.g., Eccles, 2007; Wool-folk Hoy, Hoy, & Davis, 2009). This article re-ports on a study that examined one relativelyunexplored aspect of the classroom environment:the messages communicated by teachers as stu-dents prepare for high-stakes exams concerning(a) the consequences of failure, and (b) the impor-tance of avoiding failure. Our study examinedhow the use of such messages related to self-
determined motivation and examination perfor-mance as students followed the program of studyfor the General Certificate of Secondary Educa-tion (GCSE) in “maths.” GCSEs are the schoolleaving examinations in England, Wales, andNorthern Ireland, taken at the end of compulsorysecondary education in Year 11, when studentsare 15 to 16 years old. A pass in GCSE maths istypically required as a minimum entry require-ment for access to any form of postcompulsoryeducation or training, whether academic, techni-cal, vocational, or for entry into the labor marketfor any occupation other than those that are rou-tine or manual. The GCSE maths program ofstudy provides a context to the study in which theconsequences of success or failure may influencefuture life trajectory and provides a high-stakescontext that is real and not simply imagined.
Classroom Fear Appeals: Messages ThatMay Elicit Fear
Prior to high-stakes examinations, teacherscommunicate to students important informationregarding that examination. Some of this infor-
David Putwain, Faculty of Education, Edge Hill Univer-sity, Ormskirk, United Kingdom; Richard Remedios,School of Education, Durham University, Durham, UnitedKingdom.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-dressed to David Putwain, Department of Psychology, EdgeHill University, St Helen’s Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire,L39 4QP. E-mail: [email protected]
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
School Psychology Quarterly © 2014 American Psychological Association2014, Vol. 28, No. 4, 000 1045-3830/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/spq0000048
1
mation may be administrative and informa-tional, regarding the date, time, and venue of theexamination, the length of time of that exami-nation, what materials may be required, and soforth. However, teachers also present messagesto students regarding the consequences of ex-aminations, why they might be considered to behigh-stakes, and what the consequences of suc-cess and/or failure might be (Chamberlain,Daly, & Spalding, 2011; Connor, 2001, 2003;Putwain, Connors, Woods, & Nicholson, 2012).One study reported how teachers would empha-size to students the importance of academiccredentials in general and how certain subjectsand/or scores would be required for entry to thelabor market, particular occupations, and accessto postcompulsory education (Putwain, 2009).Notably, teachers also would highlight to stu-dents how failure would threaten aspirationsand limit future educational and occupationalchoices. These kinds of messages were intendedas motivational strategies by teachers to encour-age students to engage with their studies andprepare for their forthcoming examinations bydrawing attention to the negative consequencesof failure (Putwain, 2009; Putwain & Roberts,2012).
Persuasive messages designed to facilitate acourse of action so as to avoid a negative out-come have been referred to as fear appeals.These originated in the health literature in at-tempts to promote health-conscious lifestyle be-haviors, such as smoking cessation and safe sexpractices (e.g., Ruiter, Abraham, & Kok, 2001;Smerecnik & Ruiter, 2010). Fear appeals havebeen applied to the messages used in an educa-tional or instructive context prior to taking testsand examinations (Putwain & Roberts, 2009;Sprinkle, Hunt, Simonds, & Comadena, 2006).Thus, messages presented to students prior tohigh-stakes examinations may focus, to agreater or lesser extent, on the negative conse-quences of failure that may elicit more or lessfear in students. Consider the following twoexamples in the context of a Year 11 mathsGCSE lesson. In the first message, the teachersays, “If you fail GCSE maths, you will neverbe able to get a good job or go to college. Youneed to work hard in order to avoid failure.” Inthe second message, the teacher says, “GCSEmaths is really important as most jobs that paywell require GCSE maths, and if you want to goto college you will also need a pass in GCSE
maths. It’s really important to try your hardest.”Both messages highlight to students the impor-tance of effort and provide a reason for doingso. Where these messages differ is in their focuson success or avoiding failure. The former mes-sage focuses on avoiding failure and would beregarded as including a fear appeal. The lattermessage focuses on success and would not beregarded as including a fear appeal.
We approach the study of fear appeals from asociocognitive perspective (Bandura, 1997) inwhich the outcome of an environmental event,such as messages made to students prior tohigh-stakes examinations, would be cognitivelymediated. For example, Putwain and Symes(2011a, 2011b) have shown that test anxiety isnot related to how frequently pupils perceivethey are receiving fear appeals; rather, anxietyis related to the degree to which messages areperceived as threatening. When examining theimpact of fear appeals on subsequent motiva-tion, we distinguish, as these studies do, be-tween how frequently pupils receive fear ap-peals and how threatening they perceive themessages to be.
Self-Determination Theory and ControllingTeacher Practices
Self-determination theory (SDT) provides anoverarching motivational framework based oninnate psychological needs for competence, au-tonomy, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 1985;Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2002). According to SDT,the critical determinant of motivation is theextent to which behavior is believed to be lo-cated within an internal or external locus ofcontrol. Intrinsic motivation, characterized bychallenge, interest, mastery, and exploration, isoptimized when feelings of competence or self-efficacy are accompanied with a sense of auton-omy (see cognitive evaluation theory in Ryan &Deci, 2000). Extrinsic motivation is a means forobtaining a separable outcome from the behav-ior itself (i.e., it is a means to an end) and variesin relative autonomy (see organismic integra-tion theory in Ryan & Deci, 2000). The leastautonomous, extrinsically motivated behaviorsare externally regulated to satisfy an externaldemand or reward contingency and are per-ceived to have an external locus of control.Introjected regulation occurs when behaviorsare contingent on self-esteem (such as guilt or
2 PUTWAIN AND REMEDIOS
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
pride) and locus of control has been part inter-nalized. Identified regulation is more autono-mous and represents a conscious value of a goalin which the locus of control is perceived to bemore internal than external. A state of lackingintent or amotivation is characterized by a lackof competency, value, or expected outcome.
According to SDT, characteristics of theclassroom or instructional climate that vary inthe extent to which they make salient studentautonomy can promote or detract from intrinsicmotivation or provide conditions in which ex-trinsic motivations become internalized. Di-rectly controlling teacher behaviors refer to aninstructional style that is characterized byteacher pressure, teacher power, and externalsources of motivation (Reeve, 2009). Suchpractices have been associated with an increasein negative feelings toward learning, such asanger and anxiety (Assor, Kaplan, Kanat-Maymon, & Roth, 2005; Assor, Roth, & Deci,2004), reduced intrinsic motivation (Deci,Ryan, & Williams, 1996), and increased extrin-sic motivation and amotivation (Assor et al.,2005). In contrast, teachers’ autonomy-support-ive behaviors, such as the provision of choice,minimal use of controls, and explanation of therelevance of learning tasks (Ryan, Sheldon,Kasser, & Deci, 1996; Skinner & Belmont,1993), generally promote positive outcomes, in-cluding students’ views of themselves as com-petent and autonomous individuals (Danielsen,Samdal, Hetland, & Wold, 2009; Skinner, Fur-rer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008), and in-creased intrinsic and self-determined extrinsicmotivation (Gillet, Vallerand, & Lafrenière,2012; Guay & Vallerand, 1996–1997).
Classroom Fear Appeals andSelf-Determined Motivation
Fear appeals, like directly controlling teacherpractices, focus on the threat of failure andextrinsic reasons for engaging in behaviorslikely to avoid failure. As such, fear appealswould be expected to predict lower self-determined forms of motivation (intrinsic andidentified) and greater non-self-determinedforms of motivation (introjected, external, andamotivation). From the SDT perspective, thecritical element of messages that contain fearappeals is their focus on an external locus ofcontrol. The fear-eliciting aspect of fear appeals
is not central, but a means by which this con-ducement occurs (e.g., through the use of pres-sured language). From the SDT perspective,therefore, the appraisal of fear appeals as threat-ening is indicative of the extent to which themessage was perceived to be controlling.
An alternative perspective is offered by self-worth theory (SWT). In this theory intrinsicand extrinsic forms of motivation are repre-sented on separate dimensions rather than as asingle continuum in SDT (Covington, 1992;Covington & Müeller, 2001). Intrinsic moti-vation is damaged by a focus on avoidingfailure rather than a focus on extrinsic reasonsfor engaging in behavior. Thus, from theSWT perspective, the critical element of fearappeals is not the focus on the extrinsic char-acter of the consequences, but the orientationtoward avoiding failure. Fear appeals madeprior to a high-stakes examination would beexpected to predict lower self-determinedforms of motivation (intrinsic and identified),but should be unrelated to non-self-deter-mined forms of motivation (introjected, ex-ternal, and amotivation). The appraisal of fearappeals as threatening is indicative of theextent to which the message was successful ineliciting fear in the recipient of the message.
The first novel way in which this studyadds to the literature is by examining howfear appeals relate to self and non-self-determined motivation. Both SDT and SWTwould suggest fear appeals would have a det-rimental impact on self-determined motiva-tion. From a SDT perspective, this wouldoccur by encouraging non-self-determinedmotivation. However, from an SWT perspec-tive, this would occur via a focus on failureavoidance, and fear appeals would be unre-lated to non-self-determined motivation.
A Mediated Model of Fear Appeals,Autonomous Motivation, and Examination
Performance
Self-determined motivation predicts highereducational achievement (e.g., Guay & Valler-and, 1996–1997; Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar,2005; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2005; Vans-teenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci,2004). However, inconsistent findings are re-ported between extrinsic motivation and aca-demic achievement, some negative (e.g., Lep-
3FEAR APPEALS AND MOTIVATION
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
per et al., 2005; Ratelle, Guay, Vallerand,Larose, & Senécal, 2007) and some positive(e.g., Putwain, Kearsley, & Symes, 2012; Ra-telle et al., 2007). This latter finding may bepartly attributed to the ways in which extrinsicmotivations have been conceptualized and op-erationalized. Some research (e.g., Lepper et al.,2005; Putwain, Kearlsey, et al., 2012) has useda single extrinsic motivation scale, which doesnot differentiate between self- and non-self-determined forms of extrinsic motivation. Otherresearch (e.g., Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2005;Vansteenkiste et al., 2004) combines intrinsic,self-, and non-self-determined forms of extrin-sic motivation and amotivation into a singlecontinuum in which is not possible to examinethe relations different forms of extrinsic moti-vation may show with academic achievement.When extrinsic motivations are examined sep-arately (e.g., Ratelle et al., 2007), inverse rela-tions are shown with external motivation, pos-itive relations with identified motivation, andnull relations with introjected motivation.
In considering how motivation may predicteducational performance, the literature hasreported on achievement from low-stakestests (e.g., Vansteenkiste et al., 2004;Yıldırım, 2012), school grades (e.g., Putwain,Kearlsey, et al., 2012; Ratelle et al., 2007),and reading test scores (e.g., Becker, McEl-vany, & Kortenbruck, 2010). Examples usingperformance on high-stakes tests and exami-nations are rare (e.g., Soenens & Vansteenk-iste, 2005). Thus, a second way in which thisstudy adds to the literature is by consideringhow self- and non-self-determined motivationpredict academic performance on a high-stakes test, namely, the GCSE examination inmaths.
This study tests a model that positions self-determined motivation as a mediating variablebetween fear appeals and academic perfor-mance. Prior research has shown intrinsic mo-tivation to be a mediator of the relations be-tween an autonomy-supportive context andachievement in a low-stakes test (Vansteenkisteet al., 2004) and with grade point average(Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2005). More sup-portive environments predicted greater self-determined motivation that, in turn, predictedbetter educational achievement. In this study,based on the consideration of fear appeals fromthe SDT and SWT perspectives, the greater use
of fear appeals and their perception as threaten-ing are expected to predict lower autonomousmotivation, and, in turn, a lower performance inGCSE maths.
Aims of the Current Study
The aims of this study are twofold. First, thestudy aims to examine the relations betweenfear appeals, both the frequency of fear appealsas reported by students, and their perception asthreatening, and motivation. Based on predic-tions of SDT and SWT, we hypothesize that ahigher frequency and perceived threat of fearappeals will predict a lower self-determinedmotivation (intrinsic and identified). We do notoffer any specific hypotheses regarding fear ap-peals and non-self-determined motivations (in-trojected, external, and amotivation), as the pre-dictions suggested by SDT and SWT differ.Second, the study aims to test a mediationalmodel of fear appeals, self-determined motiva-tion, and examination performance. Based onpredictions of SDT and SWT, self-determinedmotivation is expected to predict higher GCSEmaths exam scores. Thus, a higher frequencyand perceived threat of fear appeals will predicta lower GCSE score via lower self-determinedmotivation.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 347 students (males,n � 174; females, n � 173) in their final year ofcompulsory secondary education in England(Year 11), with a mean age of 15.3 years (SD �.46). Students were drawn from two participat-ing schools in which they were following the18-month program of study leading to schoolleaving qualifications (the GCSE). Studentswere clustered for maths instruction by abilityin 20 classes (M � 19.2 students per class). Wedid not have access to students’ individual eth-nic or socioeconomic backgrounds. However,school demographic data indicated that 86% ofstudents were from a White British background,6% did not speak English as their first language,and 22% of students were eligible for freeschool meals (as a proxy indicator of a low-income background).
4 PUTWAIN AND REMEDIOS
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Measures
Fear appeals were measured using the Teach-ers’ Use of Fear Appeals Questionnaire (Putwain& Roberts, 2009), in which items were madespecific to the maths GCSE. This questionnaireprovides scores for the perceived frequency withwhich teachers are reported to make fear appeals(e.g., “How often do your teachers tell you thatunless you work hard you will fail your mathsGCSE?”) and the appraisal of fear appeals asthreatening (e.g., “Do you feel worried when yourteachers tell you that your maths GCSE exam isgetting nearer?”). Participants rate each item on a5-point scale (1 � never; 5 � most of the time).The construct validity of this measure has beendemonstrated in prior work (e.g., Putwain & Rob-erts, 2009; Putwain & Symes, 2011a, 2011b). Theinternal reliability coefficients for the presentstudy, established through Cronbach’s alpha, weregood (see Table 1).
Motivation was measured using the AcademicMotivation Scale (Vallerand et al., 1992), inwhich items were adapted to refer specifically toGCSE maths. This questionnaire consists of 28items that correspond to seven scales (four itemsper scale) designed to measure self- and non-self-determined motivations. Participants respond to ageneral stem (“What is the reason for doing yourmaths GCSE schoolwork?”) on a 5-point scale(1 � strongly disagree; 5 � strongly agree). In-trinsic motivation represents autonomously regu-lated motivations and consists of three scales: in-trinsic motivation to know (e.g., “Because myGCSE maths classes allow me to learn aboutmany things that interest me”), intrinsic motiva-tion to accomplish (e.g., “For the pleasure I expe-rience getting good marks in GCSE maths”), andintrinsic motivation to experience stimulation(e.g., “Because for me, GCSE maths is fun”).Extrinsic motivation represent externally contin-gent motivations and also consists of three scales:Identified Motivation (e.g., “Because I believe thatmaths GCSE will improve my competence whenI enter work”), Introjected Motivation (e.g., “Be-cause I want to show myself that I can get a goodgrade in GCSE maths”), and externally regulatedmotivation (e.g., “Because I need a good mathsGCSE in order to find a good job when I leaveschool”). The last scale is Amotivation (e.g.,“Honestly, I don’t know; I really feel that I amwasting my time doing GCSE maths”). The va-lidity of this measure has been demonstrated on
numerous previous occasions (e.g., Carbonneau,Vallerand, & Lafrenière, 2012; Guay & Valler-and, 1996–1997; Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay,1997), including a subject-specific version used inan English educational context (Putwain, Kears-ley, et al., 2012). The internal reliability co-efficients for the present study, establishedthrough Cronbach’s alpha, were good (seeTable 1).
GCSE maths is graded on an 8-point scale(A� to G), with Grade C considered to be a passgrade. Grades were converted to a numericalscale using the conventional for educational re-search in England (A� � 8, A � 7, B � 6,etc.)1, so that a higher score represents a highergrade. As GCSE maths exams are marked by anexternal awarding body and provided to us bythe participating schools, it was not possible toestablish the internal reliability.
Design and Procedure
Self-report data were collected in twowaves. Fear appeals were measured in thefirst wave of data collection, approximatelythree months prior to the GCSE maths examsat the end of the spring term (March, 2012).Motivation was measured in the second waveof data collection, midway through the sum-mer term (May, 2012), approximately onemonth prior to the GCSE maths exam. Datawere collected in school by form teachersduring a period of the timetable used forregistration and administrative purposes.Thus, data were not completed in the presenceof a student’s maths regular instructor. Par-ticipating teachers were provided with a scriptand instructions for administering question-naires that emphasized to students that thequestionnaires did not constitute a test, par-ticipation was voluntary, and to ask for helpwith reading, if necessary. We obtained theinstitutional consent of the head teacher ateach participating school and the individualconsent of participating students at bothwaves of data collection, including permis-sion to use maths grades. GCSE maths gradeswere provided by the school as the final waveof data collection.
1 An A� grade is an upper Grade A in the highest range ofscores. Other grades do not have such equivalents to indi-cate high scores in that range (e.g., B� or C�).
5FEAR APPEALS AND MOTIVATION
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Results
Descriptive Statistics and BivariateCorrelations
Descriptive data are reported in Table 1.All variables showed acceptable internal reli-ability (Cronbach’s alpha �.7) and were nor-mally distributed (external motivationshowed a slightly longer tail at the bottom endof the distribution). As anticipated, the differ-ent motivation scales show significant inter-correlations, which could result in multicol-linearity effects if entered into subsequentregression analyses as simultaneous predic-tors (this assumption was empirically sup-ported; see Table 2). We followed the proce-dure adopted in earlier research (e.g., Guay &
Vallerand, 1996 –1997; Vallerand et al.,1997) to create a single motivation scale thatrepresents the continuum of autonomy(henceforth referred to as self-determined mo-tivation). Intrinsic motivation items were ag-gregated and weighted at �2, identified mo-tivation items were weighted at �1, externalmotivation items were weighted at �1, andamotivation items were weighted at �2.Weighted items were then aggregated so thata higher score on this scale represents a moreself-determined motivation. Conceptually,this approach aligns with the model of moti-vation as proposed within SDT (Deci & Ryan,1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2002).
Bivariate correlations are reported in Table 2.Fear appeals were negatively correlated with
Table 1Descriptive Data for Fear Appeals and Motivation
Scale Range M SD � Skewness Kurtosis
Frequency of Fear Appeals 1 to 5 2.94 .92 .89 .24 .67Perceived Threat of Fear Appeals 1 to 5 2.71 1.03 .84 .23 �.76To Know (intrinsic) 1 to 5 2.95 .90 .86 �.17 �.21To Accomplish (intrinsic) 1 to 5 3.16 .86 .84 �.57 .31To Experience Stimulation (intrinsic) 1 to 5 2.81 .94 .87 �.29 �.62Identified (extrinsic) 1 to 5 3.62 .85 .87 �.65 .44Introjected (extrinsic) 1 to 5 3.33 .85 .81 �.60 .37External (extrinsic) 1 to 5 3.86 .81 .86 �.94 1.27Amotivation 1 to 5 2.24 .88 .79 .52 �.38Self-Determined Motivation �8 to 8 1.23 2.77 .89 �.46 .73GCSE Maths Score 1 to 8 5.18 1.46 — .09 .05
Note. GCSE � General Certificate of Secondary Education.
Table 2Bivariate and Intraclass Correlations for Fear Appeals, Motivation, and GCSE Score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Fear Appeals Frequency — .67��� �.13� �.19��� �.23��� �.11� �.08 �.03 .12� �.21��� �.39���
2. Perceived Threat — �.19��� �.23��� �.25��� �.13� �.09 �.07 .10 �.22��� �.28���
3. To Know — .77��� .87��� .61��� .62��� .40��� �.15�� .73��� .21���
4. To Accomplish — .70��� .49��� .73��� .43��� �.19��� .68��� .31���
5. To Experience Stimulation — .54��� .52��� .27��� �.13� .73��� .24���
6. Identified — .59��� .78��� �.32��� .63��� .24���
7. Introjected — .62��� �.19��� .53��� .21���
8. External — �.39��� .42��� .23���
9. Amotivation — �.73��� �.28���
10. Self-Determined Motivation — .32���
11. GCSE Maths Score —�I .23 .15 .03 .02 .09 .03 �.01 .03 .03 .05 .38
Note. GCSE � General Certificate of Secondary Education.� p � .05. �� p � .01. ��� p � .001.
6 PUTWAIN AND REMEDIOS
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
autonomous forms of motivation (intrinsic andidentified) and largely unrelated to non-self-determined forms of motivation (the one expec-tation was a small positive correlation betweena higher frequency of fear appeals and amoti-vation). Positive intercorrelations were shownbetween the intrinsic and extrinsic componentsof motivation, thus supporting the decision tocreate a single motivation variable to representthe continuum of autonomy. GCSE score wasnegatively correlated with fear appeals andamotivation, and positively correlated with bothintrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Intraclasscorrelation coefficients (reported as �I; also seeICC1 in Lüdtke, Robitzsch, Trautwein, &Kunter, 2009) were estimated using empty hi-erarchical models (i.e., with no predictors),which partition variance into between-class(�W
2 ) and within-class (�B2 ) components. There-
fore, coefficients represent the proportion ofvariance attributable to the different mathsclasses in which students were instructed. Be-tween 15% and 23% of variance in fear appeals,up to 9% of variance in academic motivation,and 37% of GCSE scores was attributable tobetween different maths classes.
Multilevel Mediation Modeling
A mediational model was tested in which fearappeals were hypothesized as predictors of au-tonomous motivation, which, in turn, was hy-pothesized as a predictor of GCSE maths score.As noted, a substantial proportion of variance inmaths GCSE scores was attributable to be-tween-class differences. Hence, it was neces-sary to adopt an analytic rationale to account forthe structured nature of the data. We followedthe approach outlined by Krull and MacKinnon(2001) that involves three stages. The first stepis to estimate the path (path �a) between thepredictor variable, in our case, fear appeals, andthe mediating variable, in our case, self-
determined motivation. The second step is toestimate the path (path �b) between the medi-ating variable and the outcome variable, in ourcase, GCSE maths scores, while controlling forthe predictor variable, fear appeals. Thus, thesecond step also provides additional coefficientsfor the direct path between the predictor andoutcome variables (path �c=). The third step is totest for the significance of the indirect path byestimating 95% confidence intervals (CIs)around the product of paths �a and �b. Thisanalytic rationale is diagrammed in Figure 1.
The perceived frequency with which fear ap-peals were used by teachers was entered intoanalyses as a classroom-level predictor. Individ-ual student reports of the frequency of fearappeals were aggregated for the class in whichthey received their GCSE maths instruction tocreate a group mean. This approach uses indi-vidual student reports as multiple indicators ofthe class-level phenomena. This is similar to theway in which observational studies might makeuse of multiple raters as a way of increasingreliability. It is possible to establish the extent towhich students within a particular class wereconsistent in the way in which they reported onteachers fear appeals using the ICC2 intraclasscorrelation coefficient (as distinct from the �I orICC1; see Lüdtke et al., 2009), in which val-ues �.7 are adequate. The ICC2 coefficient forthe perceived frequency of fear appeals wascalculated at .86, indicating that students withina class were highly consistent in their reportingof teachers’ fear appeals. Therefore, this mea-sure can be considered to be reliable and notsubject to the idiosyncratic reporting of individ-ual students. As the perceived threat of fearappeals and autonomous motivation are inter-nally represented sociocognitive constructs,these were represented as individual-level vari-ables in subsequent analyses.
Fear Appeals GCSE Maths Score
Self-determined Mo�va�on
βc´
βb βa
Figure 1. The mediational paths specified in Krull and MacKinnon’s (2001) multilevelmediational analysis.
7FEAR APPEALS AND MOTIVATION
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Multilevel mediational models are structuredin such a way that a group-level predictor canestimate a mediating variable at a group orindividual level, whereas an individual-levelpredictor can estimate a mediating variable onlyat the individual level (Bauer, Preacher, & Gil,2006; Krull & MacKinnon, 2001). As we pro-pose that self-determined motivation is an indi-vidual-level predictor, the hierarchical structureof the data can be modeled in one of two ways.The first possibility is that the appraisal of fearappeals, self-determined motivation, and GCSEare all represented as individual-level variables(a 1¡1¡1 model). The second possibility isthat the frequency of fear appeals as a class-level variable predicts self-determined motiva-tion and GCSE scores at the individual level(a 2¡1¡1 model). The alternative, in which amediator may be represented at the class level (a2¡2¡1 model), is not relevant to our series ofanalyses.
Predicting Self-Determined MotivationFrom Fear Appeals
The first set of analyses was to estimate co-efficients and their standard errors for pathsbetween fear appeals and self-determined moti-vation, referred to in Krull and MacKinnon’s(2001) notation as �a, using a simultaneousordinary least squares regression analysis. Theperceived frequency by which teachers usedfear appeals was entered as a class-level predic-tor and the appraisal of fear appeals as threat-ening as a classroom-level predictor (thusgenerating two �a coefficients). Results are pre-sented in Table 3. The model accounted for 9%of the variance in self-determined motivation.Both perceived frequency of fear appeals (� ��.23, p � .001) and the appraisal of fear ap-peals as threatening (� � �.15, p � .005)predicted lower self-determined motivation.
Predicting GCSE Scores FromSelf-Determined Motivation Controllingfor Fear Appeals
The purpose of the second set of analyses wasto estimate coefficients and their standard errorsfor the path between self-determined motivationand GCSE scores, referred to as �b in Krull andMacKinnon’s (2001) notation, while controllingfor fear appeals (see Table 4). Self-determinedmotivation was entered into the model as anindividual student-level predictor. This modelalso allows for the estimation of paths betweenfear appeals and GCSE scores, referred to as�c=. Perceived frequency was entered as aclassroom-level predictor and perceivedthreat as an individual student-level predictor.Thus, two �c= coefficients are generated fromthis analysis. Models were estimated usingrandom intercepts with restricted maximumlikelihood. That is, outcome variables wereassumed to differ between maths classes. Weestimated three models: Model 0 contained nopredictors and presents the variance parti-tioned into the within-class and between-classcomponents. Model 1 added individual pre-dictors, self-determined motivation, and theappraisal of fear appeals as threatening.Model 2 added the perceived frequency offear appeals as a class-level predictor. Thechange in model fit was established using thechange in the �2 log likelihood (�2LL) sta-tistic.
The introduction of individual-level predic-tors (Model 1) significantly improved model fit.A significant path �b coefficient was shown, inwhich self-determined motivation predicted ahigher GCSE score (B � .13, p � .001), and asignificant �c= coefficient was shown, in whichperceived threat predicted a lower GCSE score(B � �.34, p � .001). Together, these predic-tors accounted for a proportional reduction inthe individual-level variance of 14.7%. A sig-nificant improvement in model fit was shownwhen perceived frequency was entered into themodel as a class-level predictor (Model 2). Asignificant �c= coefficient was shown, in whicha greater frequency of fear appeals predicted alower GCSE score (B � �.1.302, p � .001),accounting for a proportional reduction in thegroup-level variance by 60.8%.
Table 3Predicting Autonomous Motivation FromFear Appeals
B SE �
Intercept 5.15 .94Frequency of Fear Appeals �1.32 .30 �.23���
Perceived Threat �.44 .15 �.15��
Note. F(3, 345) � 70.69, p � .001, R2 � .09.� p � .05. �� p � .01. ��� p � .001.
8 PUTWAIN AND REMEDIOS
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Significance of the Indirect Paths FromFear Appeals to GCSE Score via theMediating Effect of Self-DeterminedMotivation
These analyses suggest two possible media-tional routes from fear appeals to GCSE mathsscore via self-determined motivation. First,higher perceived threat predicts lower self-determined motivation that, in turn, predicts ahigher GCSE (a 1¡1¡1 model). Second,greater frequency of fear appeals threat predictslower self-determined motivation that, in turn,predicts a higher GCSE (a 2¡1¡1 model). Thesignificance of the indirect path was estimatedby calculating the coefficient and its standarderror of �a �b, and then generating 95% CIsaround this estimate using the PRODCLIN soft-ware (MacKinnon, Fritz, Williams, & Lock-wood, 2007); 95% CIs that do not cross zeroindicate a significant mediated effect (at p �.05).
The indirect path for the 1¡1¡1 model wasB � �.057, SE � .018, 95% CIs [�0.016,�0.110]. Thus, students who perceive fear ap-peals as more threatening have lower self-determined motivation and subsequently per-form lower on their GCSE maths. The indirectpath for the 2¡1¡1 model was B � �.120,SE � .039, 95% CIs [�0.046, �0.215]. Thus,students who perceive more frequent fear ap-peals have lower self-determined motivationand subsequently perform lower on their GCSE
maths. However, significant �c= coefficients re-mained for direct paths between the frequency/perceived threat of fear appeals and GCSEscore. Thus, self-determined motivation is apartial, rather than full, mediator of the relation-ship between fear appeals and GCSE score. Theindirect paths are diagrammed in Figure 2.
Summary of Analyses
The analyses showed that when teachers arereported to be making more frequent fear ap-peals, and when they are perceived as threaten-ing, students subsequently report lower self-determined motivation. Furthermore, studentsperformed better on their GCSE maths examwhen they reported higher self-determined mo-tivation, reported their teacher used less fre-quent fear appeals, and perceived fear appealsas less threatening. The lower GCSE mathsscores that followed more frequent fear appeals,and their appraisal as threatening, was shown tobe partly due to lower self-determined motiva-tion.
Discussion
The aims of this study were to examine howfear appeals in the context of maths GCSEinstruction were related to self- and non-self-determined forms of motivation and mathsexam score indirectly, via self-determined mo-tivation. Results showed that students reported
Table 4Predicting GCSE Scores From Autonomous Motivation Controlling for Fear Appeals
Model 0 Model 1 Model 2
B SE B SE B SE
Intercept 5.05��� .23 5.05��� .23 9.29��� 1.01Student level
Self-Determined Motivation .13��� .03 .13��� .03Perceived Threat �.34��� .06 �.34��� .06
Class levelFrequency of Fear Appeals �1.19� .45
Variance components�2W 1.29��� .11 1.11��� .09 1.11��� .09�2B .79� .32 .79� .32 .31� .15�I .38�2LL 1026.92 (3) 978.19 (5) 963.95 (6)�2LL 48.01 (2)��� 14.24 (1)���
Note. GCSE � General Certificate of Secondary Education.� p � .05. �� p � .01. ��� p � .001.
9FEAR APPEALS AND MOTIVATION
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
lower intrinsic and identified types of self-determined motivation when their teachersmade more frequent fear appeals and whenthese fear appeals were perceived to be threat-ening. However, fear appeals (both a higherfrequency and perceived threat) were unrelatedto introjected and external forms of non-self-determined motivation. Although students didreport greater amotivation, the remaining formof non-self-determined motivation, when theirteachers made more frequent fear appeals, theassociation was seemingly small. Students per-formed lower on their GCSE maths exam whenthey reported teachers to be making more fre-quent fear appeals and when they perceived thisas threatening. A mediational analysis showedthat lower GCSE maths score following fromfrequent and threatening fear appeals was partlyattributable to lower self-determined motiva-tion.
These findings support our hypothesis, basedon both SDT and SWT, that lower self-determined motivation (intrinsic and identified)would be found when teachers make more fre-quent fear appeals and when such fear appealsare perceived as threatening. However, thisfinding does not, in isolation, suggest that fearappeals are the equivalent of directly control-ling teacher behaviors, as proposed in SDT(e.g., Assor et al., 2004, 2005; Reeve, 2009). Tobe considered the equivalent of directly control-ling teacher behaviors, fear appeals would alsohave to relate to higher non-self-determinedforms of motivation (introjected, external, andamotivation). On balance, our findings do not
show this to be the case. Fear appeals wereunrelated to introjected or external motivations,and although a higher frequency of fear appealsis related to greater amotivation, the impact wassmall. Therefore, although fear appeals mayshow some similarities with directly controllingteacher behaviors and are autonomy restrictive,they cannot be considered as their equivalent oras a specific type of controlling behavior.
SDT suggests that self- and non-self-determined forms of motivation exist on a sin-gle continuum. Intrinsic motivations are placedat one end, representing the most autonomousforms of self-regulation, and amotivation at theopposing end, representing the least autono-mous forms of self-regulation (Deci & Ryan,1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2002). Instructionalconditions that focus on an external locus oncontrol result in lower self-determined forms ofmotivation as well as stronger non-self-determined forms of motivation. Lower self-determined motivation follows more frequentfear appeals. However, there was no corre-sponding bilateral outcome for higher non-self-determined motivation. In SWT, intrinsic andextrinsic motivations are not represented on asingle continuum (Covington, 1992). Therefore,it is possible for intrinsic motivation to relate toinstructional climate in one way, which is notshown in the opposing way for extrinsic moti-vation. Fear of failure, rather than extrinsic re-inforcers, is the greatest detriment to intrinsicmotivation (Covington & Müeller, 2001; Martin& Marsh, 2003). Our findings are consistentwith the position presented in SWT and would
2→1→1 model Level 2
Level 1 1→1→1 model
.13 -.44
-1.32
Self-determined Mo�va�on
GCSE Maths Score
-.34
-1.19 Fear Appeals:
Frequency
Fear Appeals:
Threat
Figure 2. The indirect paths from fear appeals to GCSE score via the mediating role ofautonomous motivation.
10 PUTWAIN AND REMEDIOS
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
suggest that the characteristic of fear appealsthat is damaging to intrinsic motivation is theirfocus on avoiding failure rather than success. Itis not necessarily their highlighting academiccredentials or the value of GCSEs for one’ssubsequent life trajectory.
These findings support the hypothesis thatstudents with higher self-determined motivationwould perform better in their GCSE mathsexam and is consistent with the extant research(Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2005; Vansteenkisteet al., 2004). We also found support for role ofself-determined motivation as partly accountingfor the relationship between fear appeals andGCSE maths score. Previous research has dem-onstrated the role of self- and non-self-determined forms of motivation in explaininghow autonomy-supportive environments can in-fluence educational achievement (e.g., Guay &Vallerand, 1996–1997; Yıldırım, 2012). Thisstudy extends the literature by demonstratingthe mediating role of self-determined motiva-tion in relation to academic performance in ahigh-stakes exam and an autonomy restrictivecontext (the increased frequency and threat offear appeals). Lower self-determined motiva-tion and lower exam performance follow morefrequent fear appeals. Lower self-determinedmotivation was only partly responsible for thelower performance on GCSE maths scores fol-lowing fear appeals; thus, other mechanismsmay be working with or alongside self-determined motivation. Prior research hasshown that the worry and tension componentsof test anxiety also may account for lower examscores following fear appeals (Putwain &Symes, 2011b). This finding is also consistentwith our interpretation of the focus on avoidingfailure as the central characteristic of fear ap-peals. Therefore, lower exam scores that followfrom more frequent and threatening fear appealsmay be explained partly by self-determined mo-tivation and partly by test anxiety. Future re-search may test a model that contains both ofthese variables.
Implications for Practice
We cannot draw a firm conclusion regardingthe causal status of fear appeals in loweringsubsequent self-determined motivation and ed-ucational performance. Thus, our implicationsfor practice are necessarily cautious. Notwith-
standing this limitation, these findings raise thepossibility that fear appeals may not be an ef-fective motivational strategy to use prior to ahigh-stakes test; highlighting the avoidance offailure may not be a productive motivationalstrategy. Our anecdotal experience of workingwith schools and teachers when conducting thisand other projects was that teachers were des-perately keen to motivate their students in thebest possible way and were largely unaware ofthe types of messages that they communicatedto their students. We suggest that this is wherethe role of the school and practicing educationalpsychologist may prove most beneficial.
Psychologists who work in, or with, schoolscould help teachers and instructors consider thetypes of messages they present to students andtheir outcomes in the following three steps.First, given the general lack of understanding ofhow teachers’ messages may influence students,an initial step would be to instruct and informteachers how classroom environments (includ-ing messages) may influence students in bothpositive and negative ways. Second, we suggestthat a reflective exercise may be useful in whichteachers are prompted to consider what types ofmessages they currently use and what their pos-sible consequences might be. Some studentsmay respond well to fear appeals, and thosewho work directly in an instructional capacitywith students are best placed to make this judg-ment. Psychologists able to observe teachers inlessons may obtain valuable additional informa-tion. Third, teachers should plan what types ofmessages would be the most effective and howthey could be incorporated into the lesson plans.For example, consider the characteristics ofmessages on the following four dimensions: Isthe focus attaining success or avoiding failure?;What are the reasons given for avoiding failure/attaining success?; What behaviors are requiredto avoiding failure/attaining success?; and Howcan students’ beliefs that they are capable ofperforming these behaviors be encouraged? Theuse of different types of messages could bepracticed with peers in a microteaching activity,with feedback provided from both peers and thepsychologist. After a period of attempting toalter the messages provided, teachers should beencouraged to reflect on their use and successwith peers.
11FEAR APPEALS AND MOTIVATION
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Limitations and Suggestions for FurtherResearch
We would like to highlight three limitationsof our study. First, one issue that pervadesnearly all multiwave studies is autoregression.Our model could not control for autoregressiverelations or permit a causal interpretation offindings. For example, we cannot conclude thatfear appeals caused students self-determinedmotivation to deteriorate, because teachers mayhave been using such strategies more frequentlyin classes containing students with lower self-determined motivation to begin with. A priorcontrol of motivation and/or prior attainmentwould allow for the causal direction of suchrelations to be established, and thus to offer amore thorough test of the relationship betweenfear appeals and subsequent motivation andexam scores. Such designs are very difficult toexecute because pupils, especially in multiwaverepeated-measures studies, can suffer fromquestionnaire overload. Too few multiwavestudies mention the issue. We would be remissto not highlight this potential confound. Second,we situate our study clearly in the context ofGCSE maths. We believe that the context isimportant, as teachers may be more prone tomake fear appeals in such high-stakes contextsand students may be more likely to appraisesuch messages as threatening. However, thegeneralizability of such findings can be ques-tioned. We do not know if they apply equally toother academic subjects or in educational sys-tems in which the consequences for future lifetrajectory are not as profound as they are in theEnglish education system. These are importantquestions, and we urge colleagues to theorizeand explore contextual influences. Third, werely on students’ reports of the frequency of fearappeals. Attaining a high level of agreementregarding student reports of the frequency offear appeals used by teachers in different classeswas reassuring. However, there would be con-siderable merit in collecting data pertaining tothe frequency of fear appeals from othersources, such as teacher and observer reports.The triangulation of different sources of datawould serve to enhance the validity of the mea-surement of fear appeals.
In addition to these limitations, we also drawattention to some of the other characteristics ofmessages that teachers may make prior to high-
stakes examinations. Messages may differ in thecontent of their fear content and the extent towhich they include efficacy appeals, the valueof academic credentials, and whether they havea failure or success focus. In short, there is ahost of different ways in which the messagesmade to students may differ. For example, ef-ficacy appeals refer to the behaviors required toavoid failure or attain success, and messagesmay differ in the extent to which these areemphasized and made salient. Furthermore, ac-ademic credentials may be valued in differentways and for different students. Thus, teachersmay promote different values for different typesand groups of students, and also consider howstudents’ personal values may influence theirinterpretation of fear appeals. Future researchmay investigate such messages, either in a real-life context, to code teachers messages on suchdimensions and test associations to subsequentoutcomes (e.g., motivation and examinationperformance), or in more artificial, but carefullycontrolled, studies, in which messages could bepresented and altered in vignettes.
References
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Roth,G. (2005). Directly controlling teacher behavioursas predictors of poor motivation and engagementin girls and boys: The role of anger and anxiety.Learning and Instruction, 15, 397– 413. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.008
Assor, A., Roth, G., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Theemotional costs of perceived parents’ conditionalregard: A self-determination theory analysis. Jour-nal of Personality, 72, 47–88. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00256.x
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise ofcontrol. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006).Conceptualizing and testing random indirect ef-fects and moderated mediation in multilevel mod-els: New procedures and recommendations. Psy-chological Methods, 11, 142–163. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.142
Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M.(2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivationas predictors of reading literacy: A longitudinalstudy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102,773–785. doi:10.1037/a0020084
Carbonneau, N., Vallerand, R. J., & Lafrenière,M. K. (2012). Towards a tripartite model of intrin-sic motivation. Journal of Personality, 80, 1147–1178. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00757.x
12 PUTWAIN AND REMEDIOS
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
Chamberlain, S., Daly, A. L., & Spalding, V. (2011).The fear factor: Students’ experiences of test anx-iety when taking A-level examinations. PastoralCare in Education, 29, 193–205. doi:10.1080/02643944.2011.599856
Connor, M. J. (2001). Pupil stress and standard as-sessment tests (SATS). Emotional & BehaviouralDifficulties, 6, 103–111. doi:10.1177/1363275201006002004
Connor, M. J. (2003). Pupil stress and standard as-sessment tests (SATS): An update. Emotional &Behavioural Difficulties, 8, 101–107. doi:10.1177/13632752030082002
Covington, M. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school re-form. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139173582
Covington, M., & Müeller, K. J. (2001). Intrinsicversus extrinsic motivation: An approach/avoid-ance reformulation. Educational Psychology Re-view, 13, 157–176.
Danielsen, A. G., Samdal, O., Hetland, J., & Wold,B. (2009). School-related social support and stu-dents’ perceived life satisfaction. The Journal ofEducational Research, 102, 303–320. doi:10.3200/JOER.102.4.303-320
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motiva-tion and self-determination in human behaviour.New York, NY: Plenum Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Williams, G. C. (1996).Need satisfaction and the self-regulation of learn-ing. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 165–183. doi:10.1016/S1041-6080(96)90013-8
Eccles, J. S. (2007). Families, schools, and develop-ing achievement related motivations and engage-ment. In J. E. Grusec and P. D. Hastings (Eds.),Handbook of socialization (pp. 665–691). NewYork, NY: Guilford Press.
Gillet, N., Vallerand, R. J., & Lafrenière, M. K.(2012). Intrinsic and extrinsic school motivation asa function of age: The mediating role of autonomysupport. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 77–95. doi:10.1007/s11218-011-9170-2
Guay, F., & Vallerand, R. J. (1996–1997). Socialcontext, students’ motivation, and academicachievement: Toward a process model. Social Psy-chology of Education, 1, 211–233. doi:10.1007/BF02339891
Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevelmodeling of individual and group level mediatedeffects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36,249–277. doi:10.1207/S15327906MBR3602_06
Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005).Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations inthe classroom: Age differences and academic cor-relates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97,184–196. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.184
Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Kunter,M. (2009). Assessing the impact of learning envi-ronments: How to use student ratings of classroomor school characteristics in multilevel modelling.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 120–131. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.001
MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., &Lockwood, C. M. (2007). Distribution of the prod-uct confidence intervals for the indirect effect:Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research Meth-ods, 39, 384–389. doi:10.3758/BF03193007
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2003). Fear of failure:Friend or foe? Australian Psychologist, 38, 31–38.doi:10.1080/00050060310001706997
Putwain, D. W. (2009). Assessment and examinationstress in Key Stage 4. British Educational Re-search Journal, 35, 391– 411. doi:10.1080/01411920802044404
Putwain, D. W., Connors, E., Woods, K. A., & Nich-olson, L. J. (2012). Stress and anxiety surroundingthe Key Stage 2 Standard Assessment Tests inEnglish schoolchildren. Pastoral Care in Educa-tion, 30, 289–302. doi:10.1080/02643944.2012.688063
Putwain, D. W., Kearsley, R., & Symes, W. (2012).Do creativity self-beliefs predict literacy achieve-ment and motivation? Learning and IndividualDifferences, 22, 370 –374. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.12.001
Putwain, D. W., & Roberts, C. M. (2009). The de-velopment and validation of the Teachers Use ofFear Appeals Questionnaire. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 79, 643– 661. doi:10.1348/000709909X426130
Putwain, D. W., & Roberts, C. M. (2012). Fear andefficacy appeals in the classroom: The secondaryteachers’ perspective. Educational Psychology, 32,355–372. doi:10.1080/01443410.2012.659845
Putwain, D. W., & Symes, W. (2011a). Teachers’ useof fear appeals in the Mathematics classroom:Worrying or motivating students? British Journalof Educational Psychology, 81, 456–474. doi:10.1348/2044-8279.002005
Putwain, D. W., & Symes, W. (2011b). Classroomfear appeals and examination performance: Facil-itating or debilitating outcomes? Learning and In-dividual Differences, 21, 227–232. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.022
Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S.,& Senécal, C. (2007). Autonomous, controlled,and amotivated types of academic motivation: Aperson-oriented analysis. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 99, 734–746. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.734
Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controllingmotivating style towards students and how theycan become more autonomy supportive. Educa-
13FEAR APPEALS AND MOTIVATION
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
tional Psychologist, 44, 159–175. doi:10.1080/00461520903028990
Ruiter, R. A. D., Abraham, C., & Kok, G. (2001).Scary warnings and rational precautions: A reviewof the psychology of fear appeals. Psychology &Health, 16, 613– 630. doi:10.1080/08870440108405863
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determinationtheory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,social development, and well-being. American Psy-chologist, 55, 68–78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview ofself-determination theory: An organismic-dialecti-cal perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.),Handbook of self-determination research (pp.3–33). Rochester, NY: The University of Roches-ter Press.
Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., & Deci,E. L. (1996). All goals are not created equal: Anorganismic perspective on the nature of goals andtheir regulation. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh(Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cogni-tion and motivation to behavior (pp. 7–26). NewYork: Guilford Press.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivationin the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacherbehaviour and student engagement across theschool year. Journal of Educational Psychology,85, 571–581. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571
Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kinder-mann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection inthe classroom: Part of a larger motivational dy-namic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100,765–781. doi:10.1037/a0012840
Smerecnik, C. M. R., & Ruiter, R. A. C. (2010). Fearappeals in HIV prevention: The role of anticipatedregret. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 15, 550–559. doi:10.1080/13548506.2010.498888
Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Anteced-ents and outcomes of self-determination in three
life domains: The role of parents’ and teachers’autonomy support. Journal of Youth and Adoles-cence, 34, 589–604. doi:10.1007/s10964-005-8948-y
Sprinkle, R., Hunt, S., Simonds, C., & Comadena, M.(2006). Fear in the classroom: An examination ofteachers’ use of fear appeals and students learningoutcomes. Communication Education, 55, 389–402, doi:10.1080/03634520600879170
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Brière,N. M., Senécal, C., & Vallières, E. F. (1992). Theacademic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic,extrinsic and amotivation in education. Educa-tional and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1003–1017. doi:10.1177/0013164492052004025
Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. G. (1997).Self-determination and persistence in a real-lifesetting: Towards a motivation model of high-school drop-out. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 72, 1161–1176. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1161
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon,K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning,performance, and persistence: The synergistic roleof intrinsic goals and autonomy support. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246–260. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246
Woolfolk Hoy, A., Hoy, W. K., & Davis, H. A.(2009). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. In K. R.Wentzel and A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of mo-tivation in school (pp. 627–653). New York, NY:Routledge.
Yıldırım, S. (2012). Teacher support, motivation,learning strategy use, and achievement: A multi-level mediation model. Journal of ExperimentalEducation, 80, 150–172. doi:10.1080/00220973.2011.596855
Received June 19, 2013Revision received October 20, 2013
Accepted October 23, 2013 �
14 PUTWAIN AND REMEDIOS
Thi
sdo
cum
ent
isco
pyri
ghte
dby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
cal
Ass
ocia
tion
oron
eof
itsal
lied
publ
ishe
rs.
Thi
sar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
for
the
pers
onal
use
ofth
ein
divi
dual
user
and
isno
tto
bedi
ssem
inat
edbr
oadl
y.
