"Becoming the Little Engine that Could"
Anxiety, Self-Esteem, and Exam Performance
Stephanie Patterson and Jana Hackathorn
Murray State University
Participants. Participants (N = 72) were predominantly female (n = 54), Caucasian (85.5%) and 19.92 (SD
= 3.41) years of age.
Materials and Procedure. Participants engaged in a six step process that involved timed sessions.
• Asked to study a photocopied page of information taken from a clinical psychology textbook.
• Randomly assigned to answer an essay prompt that asked them to either write about their own death, or
dental pain (e.g., Arndt, et al., 2003).
• Engaged in a filler word puzzle (e.g., Brius, Greenberg, Psyszczynski, Solomon, &Simon, 1994).
• Randomly assigned to write down five positive statements about themselves or bread.
• Complete the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, 1983) questionnaire which queries participants
regarding how much they are feeling of 20 emotions (e.g., worried) on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 4
(very much), as well as a brief demographic questionnaire.
• Finally, an exam over the material.
The current study examined how much non-test related
anxiety affects exam performance. Additionally, the effects
of bolstering self-esteem were also examined.
Hypothesis #1. There will be an interaction between anxiety
condition (death anxiety vs. no anxiety) and self-esteem
(positive self-statements vs. no statements) on anxiety
levels.
Hypothesis #2. There will be an interaction between anxiety
condition and self-esteem on exam scores.
Hypothesis #3. Anxiety scores will predict exam scores.
7
M = 5.45, SD = 1.54
6
M = 5.29, SD = 1.65
M = 4.63, SD = 2.17
5
No-Self Esteem
4
Self-Esteem
3
2
1
50
45
0
Mortality Salience
M = 41.42, SD = 2.47
Dental Care
Figure 2: Main Effects of Self-Esteem and Anxiety Condition on Exam Score Total
40
M = 34.41, SD = 2.61
Discussion
M = 35.1, SD = 2.41
M = 32.7, SD = 2.41
No-Self Esteem
35
Self-Esteem
30
25
20
Mortality Salience
Dental Care
Figure 1: Interaction between Anxiety Condition and Self-Esteem Bolstering on Anxiety Levels.
The Current Study
M = 6.1, SD = 1.02
Number of Correct Answers
Students have a lot of pressure on them to succeed in
college, especially when it comes to exams. Previous studies
have shown that students who engage in negative selfstatements, have higher anxiety and worse performance on
tests than students who engage in positive self-statements
(Hardy, Oliver & Todd, 2011). A person can only effectively
devote attention to a certain number of things and when most
of those things involve anxiety, it does not leave a lot of
cognitive capacity for information or anything else (Tobias,
1983). However, no known research has looked at the
specificity of the anxiety. That is, does the anxiety have to be
current task-related, or is it just anxiety in general.
Terror Management Theory (TMT) states that mortality
salience (MS), or being made aware of the inevitability of
death, creates anxiety in individuals (Greenberg, Goldenberg,
Pyszczynski & Soloman, 2000). One way an individual can
help to relieve his/her death anxiety is by increasing or
bolstering his/her self-esteem (Florian, Hirschberger,
&Mikulincer, 2000). TMT proposes that people need selfesteem because it provides a shield against a deeply rooted
fear of death inherent in the human condition. When selfesteem is strong, this anxiety is mitigated and the person is
able to behave effectively. When self-esteem is weak or
challenged, this threatens a “leakage” of this core anxiety,
which instigates various forms of defensive, and often
deleterious, behavior ( Arndt et. al., 2003).
Methods
Level of Anxiety
Background
8
Results
Hypothesis #1. Results of a 2 (Anxiety condition) X 2 (Self-esteem) ANOVA on anxiety scores
indicated there was an interaction, F(1, 72) = 3.60, p = .031, η2p= .05 (See Figure 1). Results indicate
mortality salience without positive self-statements rated higher anxiety (M = 41.42, SD = 13.07) above
the other conditions, but was lowered to a normal state when participants made positive selfstatements (M = 32.70, SD = 10.27). This replicates past findings.
Hypothesis #2. Results of a 2 X 2 ANOVA on exam scores indicated there was no interaction.
However, both main effects were significant (See Figure 2). Results indicate individuals who made
positive self-statements had higher exam scores (F(1, 72) = 4.66, p = .017, η2p = .06) than participants
who made no statements. Additionally, participants who had death anxiety had lower exam scores (F
(1,72) = 8.15, p = .047, η2p = .04) than control.
Hypothesis #3. There was no relationship between anxiety scores and exam scores (B = -.08, t = -.70,
p = .485). Interestingly, a trend in the data indicated that of those individuals who were allowed to
bolster their self-esteem, those with higher anxiety (M = 6.24, SD = 1.09) performed better on the
exam than those with lower anxiety (M = 5.43, SD = 1.41, F(1, 72) = 2.17, p = .072).
Results of the current study indicated that participants hat
were allowed to increase their self esteem prior to taking
the exam reduced their anxiety and performed better on the
test, as predicted. However, a direct test of anxiety on
exam scores was not significant. Perhaps this indicates
there is a different mechanism involved, such as
rumination, that actually leads to lower exam scores.
Additionally, participants who were high in anxiety and
were allowed to increase their self-esteem actually
performed better on the test than individuals who were low
in anxiety and were allowed to increase their self-esteem.
Perhaps this is because anxiety is arousal. That is, an
optimal amount of anxiety leads to focus. Perhaps the selfesteem works as a buffer for anxiety overload, whereas,
individuals without anxiety performed worse due to a lack
of focus or even care.
This should be investigated further because it adds an
interesting caveat to the idea that anxiety takes up
cognitive capacity and thus leads to detriments in
performance. Perhaps one way teachers can help students
who have high anxiety is to allow them to to increase their
self-esteem, through positive self-statements, just before
taking an exam.
References
Arndt, J., Dechesne, M., Pyszczynski, T., Ransom, S., Sheldon, K. M., Van Knippenberg, A., & Janssen, J. (2003). Literal and symbolic immortality: the effect of evidence of literal immortality on self-esteem striving in response to mortality salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 722.
Breus, M., Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S.,& Simon, L. (1994). Role of consciousness and accessibility of death-related thoughts in mortality salience effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 62.
Florian, V., Hirschberger, G., &Mikulincer, M. (2000). Strivings for romantic intimacy following partner complaint or partner criticism: A terror management perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 675-687.
Goldenberg, J., Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., &Soloman, S. (2000).Fleeing the body: A terror management perspective on the problem of human corporeality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 200-218.
Hardy, J., Oliver, E., &Tod, D. (2011). Effects of self-talk: A systematic review. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 666-687.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Tobias, S. (1983).Anxiety and cognitive processing of instruction. U.S. Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences, 2-16