This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]

On: 25 August 2014, At: 22:46

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Anxiety, Stress, & Coping: An

International Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gasc20

Coping with examination stress:

Resources, strategies, outcomes
a
Moshe Zeidner
a
School of Education, University of Haifa , Mt. Carmel, Israel
Published online: 29 May 2007.

To cite this article: Moshe Zeidner (1995) Coping with examination stress: Resources,
strategies, outcomes, Anxiety, Stress, & Coping: An International Journal, 8:4, 279-298, DOI:
10.1080/10615809508249379

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615809508249379

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 1995, Vol. 8, pp. 279-298 0 1995 Hanvood Academic Publishers GmbH
Reprints available directly from the publisher Printed in Malaysia
Photocopying permitted by license only

COPING WITH EXAMINATION STRESS:

RESOURCES, STRATEGIES, OUTCOMES
MOSHE ZEIDNER
School of Education, University of Haifa, Mt. Carmel, Israel
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:46 25 August 2014

(Received I3 July 1995)

This prospective study investigated the role of evaluative anxiety and coping processes as predictors of
affective and cognitive adaptational outcomes in a sample of 241 college students preparing for
midterm examinations. Data were collected on students’ test anxiety and coping resources, conceptual-
ized as antecedent predictor variables, during the semester period. Data on situation-specific coping
strategies and state anxiety, serving respectively as mediating and outcomes variables, were collected
prior to an important semester exam. Data on students’ overall achievement on semester exams, serving
as outcome variable, was obtained towards the end of the examination period. A path analysis showed
that when controlling for the effects of other variables in the model, coping resurces and emotion-
focused coping had a substantial direct effect on students’ state anxiety in an evaluative situation.
Furthermore, both the Worry and Emotionality components of test anxiety, as a situation-specific trait,
were positively predictive of state anxiety in an evaluative situation. Exam performance was directly
predicted by both problem-focused coping and the cogntive component of test anxiety. Coping
strategies were not found to moderate the effects of coping resources upon affective or cognitive
outcomes. The results were discussed in light of coping theory and prior research.

KEY WORDS: Coping, Coping Strategies, Coping Resources, Test Anxiety, Adaptive Outcomes.

A wide variety of exams and evaluative situations are coming to play an increas-
ingly important role in determining students’ academic and occupational careers in
modem society. It is now readily apparent that adaptive coping with evaluative
situations is crucial for the achievement of a person’s academic goals as well as for
maintaining their psychological well-being. In view of the heightened awareness of
the importance of coping with exams, the past few years have witnessed an
increasing number of publications focusing on how students cope with stressful
evaluative encounters and how coping impacts upon adaptational outcomes
(Zeidner, in press).
Although stress researchers have been primarily interested in the effects of
evaluative stress on anxiety and test attainment, evaluative situations are coming
to be viewed as a promising area of research for understanding how people cope
with ego-threatening social encounters and how coping effects adaptational out-
comes (Carver & Scheier, in press). In fact, evaluative situations are now viewed as
well-suited vehicles for examining the coping process during stressful encounters
on several counts (Bolger, 1990; Carver & Scheier, in press; Folkman & Lazarus,
1985). To begin with, an exam embodies many of the criteria1 elements of major
Address correspondence to: Professor Moshe Zeidner, School of Education, University of Haifa, Mt.
Carmel, ISRAEL 3 1905.

219
 280 M. ZEIDNER

environmental stressors (i.e., preparation for the impending threat or event,

confrontation with the stressor, uncertainty about the outcome, and coping with
the consequences). Inasmuch as exams are ubiquitous events, they are readily
accessible situations for purposes of research. Further, since the exam process
unfolds in a lawful and predictable manner it is relatively easy to control for the
temporal aspect of the stressful transaction and thereby more accurately zoom in
on coping behaviors during distinct phases of a stressful encounter (e.g., anticipa-
tory stage, encounter stage, outcome stage).
Because this study set out to shed light on the effects of anxiety and coping on
adaptational outcomes in a salient social evaluation encounter, I begin by provid-
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:46 25 August 2014

ing a short conceptual overview of the nature of coping with evaluative stress and
briefly summarize the empirical literature exploring the effects of anxiety and
coping on adaptational outcomes in test situations.

Coping Strategies and Resources

Coping, broadly speaking, involves a person’s constantly changing cognitive and
behavioral efforts to manage (i.e., reduce, minimize, master, tolerate) the internal
and external demands of a transaction that is appraised as stressful (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Shetter, DeLongis & Gruen, 1986).
Accordingly, when the demands of a threatening situation, such as an important
classroom test or college exam, are perceived as stressful and taxing one’s personal
resources, efforts are directed at regulating emotional stress and/or dealing with the
problem at hand in order to manage the troubled person-environment transaction.
According to Endler and Parker (199 1) coping has three basic functions,
defining three major and conceptually independent coping strategies: (a) problem-
focused, designed to manage or solve the problem by removing or circumventing
the stressor; (b) emotion-focused, designed to regulate, reduce or eliminate the
emotional arousal associated with the stressful situation; and (c) avoidance,
describing activities and cognitive changes designed to avoid the stressful situation
by either personal oriented strategies (e.g., seeking out of others) or task-oriented
strategies (engaging in nonrelevent tasks).
Coping resources are viewed as person-characteristicsthat enable individuals to
handle stressors more effectively, experience fewer or less intense symptoms upon
exposure to a stressor, or recover faster from exposure (Zeidner & Hammer, 1990).
Resources are typically construed as facets of personality that, by affecting a variety
of facts in the coping situation (e.g., type of strategy adopted, range of responses
considered, interpretation of the event, or effort expended on coping), may
increase an individual’s potential for dealing effectively with stress (Wheaton,
1983; Zeidner & Hammer, 1990).Whereas strategies refer to things that people do
or think in reaction to a specific stressor occurring in a particular context, coping
resources act as precursors of behavior and as background factors (Wheaton,
1983).
According to coping theory (Holohan & Moos, 1990) when stressors are high,
say in a community disaster situations, personal resources should predict stable
functioning indirectly through coping efforts, primarily through an association
with more frequent attempts at approach coping (Holahan & Moos, 1990). Under
less stressful conditions, such as exam situations, resources should operate in a
direct way to improve adaptive functioning. Resources may also increase approach
 COPING WITH EXAMINATION STRESS 281

coping through the appraisal process by fostering positive beliefs about one’s
ability to successfully manage a threatening experience (Holahan & Moos, 1990).

Coping in Evaluative Situations

An increasing number of studies over the past two decades have specifically
focused on the ways students cope with stressful social evaluative encounters. In a
frequently cited study by Folkman and Lazarus (1985), the coping process was
researched from a transactional framework during three stages of a midterm exam:
The anticipation stage - before an important exam; the waiting stage - after the
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:46 25 August 2014

exam but before the announcement of grades; and the post-grade stage - after
grades were posted. Coping was shown to be a complex process, with significant
changes observed in both emotions and coping across the three objective stages of
the evaluative encounter. Also, students used combinations of most of the available
forms of problem-focused and emotion-focused coping at every stage of the exam
rather than just one form or the other. Problem-focused coping, seeking social
support, and emphasizing the positive were viewed to be more prominent during
the early stages of the process (i.e., anticipation stage), whereas distancing and
wishful thinking were more prominent during the latter stages. The authors suggest
that problem-focused coping was at its height during the anticipatory stage,
presumably in the service of studying for the exam. Recent research by Carver and
Scheier (in press) supports the claim that problem-focused coping and continued
effort is adaptive in evaluative contexts, where such effort will produce the desired
outcome. Accordingly, problem-focused coping was shown to be especially adap-
tive in a student population during the anticipatory stage of an exam where
something can still be done to shape the outcomes (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985;
Carver & Scheier, in press).

Coping as predictor of anxiety

A number of recent studies focused specifically on the association between coping
parameters and adaptational outcomes in social evaluative situations. Zeidner
(1994) reported that emotion-oriented coping responses were significant predictors
of state anxiety among college students in close proximity to an important
anticipiated college exam. Similarly, Endler, Kantor, and Parker (1994) and
Blankenstein, Flett, and Watson (1992) found that state anxiety in an exam
situation was predicted by both emotion-oriented and avoidance coping.
Lay, Edwards, Parker, and Endler (1 989) assessed the effects of appraisal,
anxiety, coping, and procrastination in a group of Ontario high school students.
State anxiety and coping was assessed at each of three stages surrounding an exam
(i.e., a week prior to, just before, and after an exam). Positive, though moderate,
correlations were obtained between emotion-focused coping relating to the exam
and state anxiety, but no significant relations were found between state anxiety and
problem-focused coping.
Bolger (1990) hypothesized that personality variables, such as trait anxiety,
influence the coping strategies people employ in coping with stressful encounters,
and that these strategies, in turn, influence subsequent outcomes. Coping and
various anxiety measures were addministered to students surrounding an impor-
tant medical admissions exam at four points in time: five weeks before the exam,
 282 M.ZEIDNER

ten days before the exam, two and a half weeks after the exam, and 35 days after the
exam. The results show that subjects high on trait anxiety, as measured by the
Neuroticism (N) scale, show increased escapist copying methods (i.e., wishful
thinking, self-blame, distancing), and these styles were, in turn, related to distress
surrounding the exam. The author suggests that coping behaviors are the means
through which trait anxiety elevates stress. Surprisingly, coping was not observed
to be related to test performance.
Thus, based on current studies, trait test anxiety as well as both palliative coping
strategies are predicted to be positively associated with state anxiety in an exam
situation. The effects of poblem-focused coping on affective outcomes are unclear
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:46 25 August 2014

at the moment and additional research on this topic is warranted.

Coping and examination performance. There is some research suggesting a
modest relationship between coping with an exam and exam performance. Re-
search by Endler et al. (1994) on a sample of 272 students shows that task-oriented
coping was positvely related to exam performance, but only for men. Edwards and
Trimble ( 1992) reported that task-oriented coping behaviors were positively
correlated with test scores in a small sample of college undergraduates, whereas
avoidance behavior was ineversely related to test performance. These studies
suggest that certain instrumental coping behaviors conducive to exam performance
may enhance the examinee’s prospects for doing well on the exam. On the other
hand, avoiding an important exam may result in negative cognitive outcomes, as
students may not delegate adequate time for exam preparation and may be
deficient in their mastery of the skills and information necessary to perform well on
the exam. Given the inconsistent empirical data on the relationship between
coping with exams and exam outcomes, additional research on this association
would be useful.
Test anxiety and adaptive outcomes. Modern cognitive theories tend to regard
test anxiety as a multidimensional construct involving a complex series of cogni-
tive, affective, somatic, and behavioral reactions to situations that are stressful
because performance is to be evaluated. Although there is little consensus about the
various types of test anxiety or the various forms it may assume, there appears to be
general agreement that perceived emotional arousal and cognitive concern are
basic reactions to test situations. The emotionality component refers to perceived
somatic reactions and autonomic reactions to examination stress (Liebertt &
Morris, 1967), whereas worry related to the cognitive concern about performance
and test taking.
A number of studies point to the predictive value of dispositional test anxiety in
predicting aflective outcomes in an evaluative situation. Hunsley (1 987), for
example, found that evaluation trait anxiety predicted students’ state anxiety levels
prior to and immediately following a series of exams. Phillips and Endler (1982)
reported increases in state anxiety prior to a university exam for high social
evaluative trait-anxious subjects (cf. Bolger, 1990).
The relationship between anxiety and cognitive performance outcomes has been
the focus of considerable research, particularly with regard to test anxiety. Gener-
ally, findings indicate that test anxiety and academic performance are inversely
related (Hembree, 1988; Seipp, 1991; various chapters in Sarason, 1980). The
worry and emotionality components have been found to be distinguishable by
 COPING WITH EXAMINATION STRESS 283

virtue of their different patterns of correlations with cognitive test scores. Accord-
ingly, the worry component has been found to be more closely related to academic
performance than the emotionality component (Liebert & Morris, 1967). Clearly,
the causal direction in the reported relationship between anxiety and performance
in correlational studies is necessarily ambiguous.

Goals and specific hypotheses of the present study

This prospective study aims at contributing to the literature by linking anxiety,
coping resources and strategies, and performance together using a prospective
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:46 25 August 2014

research design. In contrast to most prior studies which looked at the separate roles
of personal variables and coping strategies in affecting adaptational outcomes, this
study assesses the joint effects of coping resources and strategies in predicting
outcomes in an evaluative situation. In addition, this research hopes to make a
contribution by examining the moderating role of coping strategies in the relation-
ship between coping resources and adaptational outcomes in a social-evaluative
context.
The transactional model of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) predicts that the
particular coping strategies an individual chooses to use in a particular situaiton
will be influenced not only by the objective nature of the situation and the person’s
appraisal of the stressful encounter but also by personal variables, such as coping
resources. Thus, when considering independent variables in the coping process, we
sought to relate to both coping resources and strategies, and to determine their
interplay and their possible differential effects on stress reactions and cognitive
outcomes in an evaluative situation.
Specijic hypotheses. Based on prior research indicating that continued effort is
adaptive in any situation where such effort will produce the desired outcome,
students are predicted to employ more problem-focused coping than palliative
coping (emotion-focused, avoidance) in coping with the preparatory stage of the
test process. Personal resources would be predictive of both coping strategies and
adaptive outcomes in an evaluative situation. Thus, students high in coping
reources would be predicted to show less anxiety and better performance than
those low in coping resources. Given that an exam situation may be construed
more as a “hassle” or routine low-stress encounter, rather than a grave or traumatic
stressor situation, personal coping resources would not be expected to mainly work
through coping strategies in impacting upon affective outcomes, but instead have a
direct impact on outcomes.
Furthermore, based on prior research, students high in trait test anxiety, are
predicted to use more palliative coping (emotion-focused and avoidance) in
evaluative situations and, in turn, show elevated state anxiety in an exam situation.
Given previous findings that evaluative trait anxiety is related to emotion-focused
coping, which is, in turn, related to elevated anxiety levels in an evaluative
situation, coping is predicted to mediate the effects of dispositional test anxiety
upon state anxiety. In addition, the Worry component would be expected to be
more strongly predictive of achievement than the Emotionality component of
anxiety.
Furthermore, based on the literature review, coping strategies are predicted to
be associated with adaptive outcomes. Specifically, more frequent usage of pallia-
 284 M. ZEIDNER

tive coping strategies (i.e., emotion-focused and avoidance coping), but not prob-
lem-focused coping, is hypothesized to be positively associated with increased
levels of state anxiety prior to the exam. Also, problem-focused coping, but not
palliative coping, is hypothesized to be positively, though modestly, related to
exam performance.

METHOD

Sample
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:46 25 August 2014

This study was conducted on a sample of 241 undergraduate students (68% female)
enrolled in the Faculties of Social Science, Humanities, and Education in a major
northern university in Israel. Students’ age ranged from 18 to 57 with a median age
of 25 (semiquartile range = 4). The relatively high age of this college sample is due,
in part, to the fact that most Israeli male and female students, respectively, begin
their academic studies after a two to three year period of compulsory service in the
military. In addition, education students, comprising a sizable proportion of our
sample, tend to be somewhat older than students in other faculties, generally begin
their studies after several years of experience in teaching and administration.

Instruments
The predictor variables and their measures will be presented first, followed by the
criterion measures.

Predictor Variables
1. Test Anxiety was assessed by the Hebrew version (Zeidner & Nevo, 1992) of
Spielberger’s Test Anxiety Inventory (TAI; Spielberger, et al., 1980), designed to
assess test anxiety as a situation-specific personality trait. The Hebrew version of
the instrument, is composed of 20 items. The scale yields a total test anxiety score
(20 items, alpha = .95) as well as Worry (8 items, alpha = .91), and Emotionality (8
items, alpha = .92) subscale scores, which were employed in the analyses.
2. The Coping Resources Inventory (CRI) was used to identify students’
personal coping resources (Hammer & Marting, 1985). The CRI is a 60-item
instrument that measures resources in five domains: (a) Cognitive ( e g , “I feel as
worthwhile as anyone else”), alpha = .69; (b) Social (e.g., “I am part of a group,
other than my family, that cares about me”), alpha = .78; (c)Emotional (e.g., “I can
cry when sad”), alpha = .82; (d) Spiritual (e.g., “I know what is important in life”),
alpha = 3 0 ; and (e) Physical (e.g., “I exercise vigorously 3-4 times a week”),
alpha = .68. For each of the 60 items respondents use a 4-point scale to indicate
how often they have engaged in the behavior described over the past three months.
Scores for each scale are simply the sum of item responses, with negatively worded
items recorded. The total coping resources score (Alpha = .89) was computed by
summing the five scale scores; the higher the total CRI scale score, the higher
personal resources. The CRI manual provides additional psychometric data and
evidence for the concurrent, predictive, discriminant (through comparing a series
of target groups and controls), convergent and divergent validity of the instrument.
 COPING WITH EXAMINATION STRESS 285

3. Coping strategies were assessed via selected items from the COPE scale (see
Carver, Schcier, & Weintraub, 1989, for an explication of most of the COPE
scales). The various COPE subscales were rationally derived and are partially
supported by factor analytic research. The COPE is composed of the following
scales, representing specific copic tactics used in a wide variety of situations: (1)
Active coping (taking action or putting forth effort to remove or circumvent the
stressor), (2) Planning (thinking about how to confront the stressor, planning one’s
efforts), (3) Seeking instrumental social support (seeking information or assistance
or advice about what to do), (4) Seeking emotional social support (getting sympa-
thy or emotional support), (5) Suppression of competing activities (suppressing
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:46 25 August 2014

one’s attention to other activities in order to concentrate more fully on the

stressor), (6) Religion (increased engagement in religious activities), (7) Positive
reinterpretation (making the best of the situation by viewing it in a positive light),
(8) Restraint coping (coping passively by holding back one’s coping efforts), (9)
Acceptance (accepting the fact that the stressful event has occurred and is real). (10)
Ventilation of emotions (increased awareness of stress and tendency to ventilate or
discharge emotions), (1 1) Denial (attempt to reject reality of the stress situation),
( 12) Mental disengagement (using alternative activities to distract oneself from the
problem or withdrawing mental effort from the attempt to attain the goal with
which stressor is interfering), ( 13) Behavioral disengagement (reducing efforts to
deal with the stressor or giving up efforts to attain the goal with which the stressor is
interfering), (14) Alcohol/drug use (turning to alcohol or other drugs as way of
disengaging from stressor), and (15) Humor (joking about the stressor).
Each COPE scale was represented by two (out of four) of the original items,
selected by two psychologists using face validity procedures. Only two items per
scale were employed due to the possibility of low subject responsiveness to a
lengthy measure under the specific conditions in which this study was conductd.
The instructions were exam-specific. Accordingly, respondents indicated how
they are coping with the upcoming exam by assessing the degree to to which they
have been using each of the coping strategies in preparing for the next upcoming
exam during examination period (0 = not at all, 3 = great extent).
Because the 15 subscales were felt to be a bit unwieldy for purposes of the type of
analyses we planned, i.e., multiple regression and path analysis, we conducted a
principal-axis factor analysis of the coping scales, followed by varimax rotations,
for data reduction purposes. Orthogonal rotations were conducted on the basis of
current conceptualizations of the relative independence of specific coping strate-
gies (Endler & Parker, 1991). The principal-axis factor analysis of the coping scale
intercorrelation matrix, followed by varimax rotations, revealed three orthogonal
factors, each accounting for over 10%of the variance (factor loadings in parenthe-
sis). The following criteria were used for factor retention: Eigenvalue of factor
greater than 1, meaningful loadings of coping subscale markers on the designated
factor (> .30), and factor interpretability according to current typologies of coping
strategies. The three factors retained were:
1 Problemfocused coping, as marked by the following three scales: active (.86),
planning (.72), and suppression of competing activities (.55). The Eigenvalue was
1.96, with the factor accounting for 13% of the variance;
2. Emotion-focused coping, as marked by the following six scales: emotional social
support (.78), ventilation (.57), positive reinterpretation (.48), instrumental social
 286 M. ZEIDNER

support (.47), restraint (.35), and humor (.30). The Eigenvalue was 1.95, with this
factor accounting for 13% of the variance;
3. Avoidance coping, as marked by the following six scales: mental disengagement
(.72), behavioral disengagement (.52), religion (.48), denial (.43), and alcohol (.24).
The Eigenvalue was 1.46, with this factor accounting for 10%of the variance.
Factor scores were formed for each of these three factors by a linear sum of those
subscale scores serving as marker variables having loadings of .30 or greater on the
designated factors. The alpha reliability coefficients for the individual scales
comprising the problem-focused, emotion-focused, and avoidance coping factors
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:46 25 August 2014

were .84, .78, and .74, respectively.

Outcome measures
4. State Anxiety was assessed by the State-Anxiety subscale of the Hebrew adapta-
tion (Ben-Zur & Zeidner, 1988) of Spielberger’s State-Trait Personality Inventory
(STPI: Spielberger et al., 1979).Respondents were asked to rate how they felt (e.g.,
calm, nervous, worried) at the time of questionnaire administration (i.e., during
midterm exam period) according to four response options (1 = not at all, 4 = very
much). The anxiety total score was computed by summing over all 10 items
(alpha = .89).
5. Student’s scholastic achievement was indexed by self-reported aggregate
(unweighted) midyear test grades. Test grades were obtained from students towards
the end of the exam period.
Additional data were collected on a variety of background variables (e.g.,
gender, ethnic background, age, etc.), but only gender differences were reported in
this study.

Procedure
Data on test anxiety, coping resources, and demographics were gathered via
questionnaires distributed to students in various courses during midsemester. Data
on state anxiety and coping strategies were gathered during the first week of
examination period, within 24 hours prior to an important exam. Self-reported
grades on midyear exams were obtained from student respondents during the
second term, when grades were in (Mean = 81.84, SD = 5.97). This information
was merged with the personality measures through matching by respondent’s date
of birth and mother’s maiden name.
Data were analyzed via ANOVA, regression, and path-analytic procedures.
Because data were missing from the profiles of some students, the rzs for the
findings reported below vary slightly from analysis to analysis. This accounts for
the slightly differnt degrees of freedom that are reported.

RESULTS
Preliminary Results
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for the major coping and
outcome variables, by gender. Table 2 presents the major coping tactics, by gender.
 COPING WITH EXAMINATION STRESS 287

Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Key Variables, by Sex

Variables Total Group Males Females

M SD M SD M SD

Criterion Variables
Achievement 81.84 5.97 79.99 6.96 82.72 5.29
State Anxiety 20.08 4.43 19.22 4.60 20.48 4.33
Predictor Variables
Test Anxiety
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:46 25 August 2014

Worry 13.56 4.82 13.52 4.66 13.65 4.91

Emotion 18.60 5.65 18.17 5.86 18.9 1 5.52
TAI total 40.46 11.98 39.60 12.19 41.08 11.88
Coping Strategies
Prob-Focused 12.73 3.86 12.30 3.90 12.96 3.82
Emot-Focused 18.2 1 6.60 16.52 6.39 18.99 6.55
Avoidance 6.56 4.56 6.66 4.28 6.57 4.12
Coping Resources
Cognitive 28.02 3.38 28.44 2.70 27.84 3.67
Social 40.83 4.64 4 1.26 4.26 40.66 4.84
Emotinal 48.62 6.61 47.29 5.68 49.27 6.20
Spiritual 28.57 4.05 28.09 4.18 28.84 3.98
Physical 27.97 4.53 29.45 4.35 27.22 4.41
Total 174.01 15.68 174.53 12.99 173.83 16.92
Note. Male ns range from 75 to 77 and females from 160 to 164 due to missing values. Achievement represents aggregate
mean grades on exams taken during the midyear exam period.
Prob-Focused = Problem-focused strategies.
Emot-Focused = Emotion-focused strategies.

Ways of coping with exams. Comparisons among the coping strategy mean
item scores (i.e., problem-focused, M = 4.24; emotion-focused, M = 3.04; and
avoidance coping, M = 1.3 I), via t tests for dependent measures, provide support
for the hypothesis that problem-focused responses are significantly (p < .001) more
salient and more frequently employed than both emotion-focused and avoidance
responses. Also, emotion-focused responses are more frequently reported than
avoidance coping responses.
With respect to specific coping tactics (see Table2), a series of t tests for
dependent measures, conducted separately for male and female student groups,
indicates that the most salient coping responses used by male and female students
alike are two “functional” coping tactics - active coping and planning. These
strategies were reported to be used more frequently than each of the other coping
strategies (p < .001). Furthermore, in both male and female groups, use of alcohol
and drugs was reported to be used significantly less frequently than each of the
other tactics (p < .001). Furthermore, in both sex groups denial and religion were
reportedly used less frequently 0, < .001) than any of the other tactics, save for ue
of alcohol and drugs, which was reported to be the least frequently used tactic.
A series of contrasts among the three coping score means showed that whereas
 288 M. ZEIDNER

Table 2 Coping Tactics: Means and SD for the Entire Sample and by Sex

Variables Total Group Males Females

M SD M SD M SD

Active 4.64 1.45 4.53 1.44 4.70 1.46

Planning 4.57 1.38 4.34 1.35 4.69 1.39
Positive Re. 3.85 1.61 3.53 1.67 4.01 1.54
Social Supp. 1 3.81 1.75 3.27 1.91 4.07 1.62
Social Supp. 2 2.46 1.80 2.22 1.76 2.58 1.82
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:46 25 August 2014

Suppression 3.52 1.67 3.43 1.71 3.57 1.65

Religion 1.10 1.67 .85 1.52 1.22 1.74
Restraint 2.51 1.78 2.18 1.61 2.64 1.83
Acceptance 3.32 1.69 3.50 1.67 3.19 1.68
Ventilation 3.14 1.63 2.80 1.63 3.29 1.60
Denial 1.43 1.56 1.71 1.63 1.31 1.54
Mental dis. 1.90 1.50 1.86 1.57 1.93 1.48
Behav. dis. 1.85 1.47 1.89 1.48 1.86 1.48
Alcohol/Drugs .30 .88 .33 .84 .29 .9 1
Humour 2.50 1.82 2.55 1.89 2.48 1.76
Note. Male ns range from 7 5 to 77 and females from 160 to I64 due to missing values
Mental dis = mental disengagement.
Behav. dis = behavioral disengagement.
Social support1 = emotional social support.
Social support2 = instrumental social support.
Positive re = positive reinterpretation.

problem-focused and avoidance coping strategy mean scores were not reliably
differentiated by sex, women were significantly higher on emotion-focused coping
compared to men (18.99 > 16.52, t(237) = 2.74, p < .007). Furthermore, females
were higher on state anxiety relative to males (20.48 > 19.22, t(234) = - 2.08,
p < .05).

Coping resources, strategies, and adaptive outcomes

Table 3 presents the product-moment correlations between specific coping re-
sources and key coping and outcome variables in thus study. Table 4 presents the
matrix of intercorrelations among the key scales in this study.
A series of standard multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the
relationships between specific coping resources, as predictors, and coping strategies
and adaptive outcomes, as criterion variables. Accordingly, coping strategies,
state-anxiety, and test achievement, in turn, were regressed upon the five coping
resources scales (i.e., cognitive, social, emotional, spiritual, and physical) as
predictor stock. The regression of emotion-focused coping upon the five coping
resource scales yielded a significant R for regression (F(5,235) = 2.39, p < .05),
with the following three resources jointly accounting for about 6% of the variance:
Cognitive resources ( B = - .20, t = - 2.42, p < .02), emotional resources ( B = .24,
t = 2.63, p < .009), and spiritual resources ( B = .14, t = 2.11, p < .04).Thus, when
 COPING WITH EXAMINATION STRESS 289

Table 3 Correlations Between Coping Resources and Other Variables

Total Resources Cognitive Social Emotional Spiritual Physical

Achievement .02 .03 .03 .09 .02 - .09
S-Anxiety - .52* - .59* - .41* - .45* .06 - .34*
Prob-Focused .15* .07 .12 .13* 13 .05
Emot-Focused .10 .04 .04 .13* .15* .03
Avoidance - .13* - .I2 -.18* -.18* .18* - .09

TAI - .28* - .34* - .21* - .24* .o 1 - .13

Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:46 25 August 2014

WOW - .31* - .31* - .28* - .29* .03 - .16*

Emotionality - .21* - .29* -.21* - .16* - .01 - .08
Sex - .02 - .08 - .06 .15* .08 - .23*
Note. Correlations significant at the .05 level were marked by an asterisk.
S-Anxiety = State anxiety.
Prob-Focused = Problem-focused.
Emot-Focused = Emotion-focused.

Table 4 Intercorrelations Amogn Key Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 I 8 9 10

1. Achievement - 01 19* 01 -21* 02 -27* -19* - 29* 21*

2. S-Anxiety - -02 23* 24* -52* 44* 41* 48* 13*
3. Problem-Focused Coping - 44* - 12 15* -13* -03 - 08 08
4. Emotion-Focused Coping - 25* 10 21* 26* 26* 18*
5. Avoidance Coping - -13* 54* 33* 47* - 01
6. Coping Resources - -30* -21* - 28* - 02
I . worry - 64* 81* 01
8. Emotionality - 92* 05
9. Test Anxiety Total - 05
10. Sex -
Note. Due to missing values, ns ranged from 235 to 24 I. Decimals were omitted. Correlations significant at the .05 level were
marked by an asterisk.
S-Anxiety = State anxiety.

controlling for the other resources, students with richer cognitive resources tended
to use less emotion-focused coping whereas those with greater emotional and
spiritual resources tended to use more emotion-focused coping. A similar regres-
sion for avoidance coping, as dependent variable, showed that coping resources
contributed significantly to the prediction of avoidance coping (F(5,235) = 4.80,
p < .03), accounting for 9% of the variance in the coping scale. Only spiritual
resources (B = .23, t = 3.61, p < .004) made an independent contribution to the
regression. Accordingly, students higher in spiritual coping resources tended to
engage more often in avoidance strategies than those with poorer spiritual re-
sources. The regression of problem-focused coping upon the five coping resource
scales yielded a nonsignificant R for regression, suggesting that personal resources
are not predictive of active, problem-focused coping.
 290 M. ZEIDNER

The regression fo state anxiety on the five coping resources scales taken together
yielded a significant model, F(5,225) = 38.68, p < .001, with resources accounting
for about 46% of the variance in state anxiety scores. Students lower in cognitive
( B = - .48, t = - 7.36, p < .001) and physical resources ( B = - .19, t = - 3.63,
p < .001), but higher in spiritual resources ( B = .20, t = 4.16, p < .001) also tend to
be more anxious surrounding an important exam. When achievement test scores
were regressed on coping resources, none of the resources contributing unique
variance toward the prediction of achievement.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:46 25 August 2014

Coping strategies, anxiety, and achievement

The regression of state anxiety on the three coping strategy factor scores, i.e.,
problem-focused, emotion-focused, and avoidance coping ( F (3,224) = 7.16,
p < .001, RSQ = .07) indicates that students employing more emotion-focused
coping ( B = .22, t = 2.89, p < .004) and avoidance coping ( B = .16, t = 2.36, p<.Ol)
were also more anxious prior to an important exam. A similar regression using
achievement test scores as criterion measure (F(3,224) = 5.38, p < .001,
RSQ = .07) showed that students who use more problem-focused coping ( B = .17, t
2.23, p < .05) and less avoidance ( B = - .18, t = - 2.59, p < .05) also tend to do
better on their midterm tests.
In addition, a standard regression of each of the coping strategies, in turn, on the
Worry and Emotionality test anxiety subscales showed significant effects for
emotion-focused coping (F(2,237) = 8.23, p < .001, RSQ = .06) and avoidance
coping (F(2,237)= 47.67, p < .001, RSQ = .28). The Emotionality component was
observed to be a significant predictor of emotion-focused coping ( B = .20, t = 2.4 1,
p < .02), whereas the Worry component was a significant predictor of avoidance
coping. ( B = .55, t = 7.74, p < .001).

Path analysis
In order to depict the relationships between key variables in this study in a more
manageable form, we conducted a path analysis. Test anxiety components, total
coping resources, and gender were conceptualized to impact upon the specific
coping strategies students employed in an evaluative context, which, in turn, were
hypothesized to affect affective and cognitive adaptational outcomes. The total
coping resources score was used in the path analysis instead of specific coping
resources subscale scores because the former aggregate measure provided a more
parsimonious model and did not substantially reduce the regression fit indices.
The most salient findings are displayed as an empirical path diagram in Figure 1,
providing a model for the coping process in an evaluative tet situation. The
numerical values in the model represent standardized regression coefficients. Each
endogenous variable was regressed on all causally prior variables. For ease of
display and interpretation, only those coefficients that were greater than .10 and
significant were included in the model. The various regression runs on which the
summary diagram is based are presented in Table 5. Table 6 presents the decom-
position of the effects for the two criterion variables, i.e., achievement and anxiety.
Summary ofpath-analyticjndings. As predicted, personal variables are shown
to have a direct affect on both affective and cognitive outcomes in an evaluative
 COPING WITH EXAMINATION STRESS 29 1

worry

56 -
Emotion Focused
.20 coping

Emoiionality
State Anxiety
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:46 25 August 2014

-.46

coping Resources
-
Avoidance Coping

Figure 1 Empirically derived path model providing a summary of major findings.

situation. Thus, when controlling for the effects of other variables in the model,
total coping resources show a substantial direct negative impact on anxiety levels in
a test situation, while at the same time bearing a small indirect and positive effect
on state anxiety through association with emotion-focused coping. Surprisingly,
personal coping resources do not appear to have an effect on achievement.
The Worry and Emotionality components of test anxiety are positively predic-
tive of state anxiety in an evaluative situation. In addition to exerting a direct effect
on state anxiety, the Emotionality component also exerts a small indirect effect on
state anxiety, working mainly through emotion-focused coping. Accordingly, stu-
dents higher on emotionality show increased emotion-focused coping, which, in
turn, is predictive of state anxiety.
Further, as hypothesized, the Worry component is directly predictive of achieve-
ment, wih covariance among Worry and achievement (see Table 3) attributable
mainly to causal covariation. By contrast, the observed modest covariation be-
tween Emotionality and achievement (Y = - .19, see Table 4) appears to reflect
mainly noncausal variation. Whereas gender is not observed to bear a direct effect
on state anxiety, gender does have a small indirect effect on affective outcomes,
working through emotion-focused coping. Gender is shown to have a direct impact
on exam achievement, with women students receiving better grades than males on
the midterm test.
Furthermore, personal variables are shown to be predictive of copig strategies
employed by students in an exam context. Thus, Worry, but not Emotionality, is
shown to have a strong direct effect on avoidance coping, with students higher on
worry tending to use more avoidance coping. Coping resources, the Emotionality
component (and to a lesser extent the Worry component), and gender are directly
predictive of emotion-focused coping.
Moving on to the effects of coping strategies on adaptive outcomes, the path
diagram implies that problem-focused coping is directly predictive of achievement
but does not bear a significant effect on affective outcomes. By contrast, emotion-
focused coping strategies are not related to achievement but are observed to be
 292 M. ZEIDNER

Table 5 Set of Standardized Regression Equations for the Summary Path Model Depicted in Figure 1

Variable beta t P Tolerance

Achievement (DV)
State anxiety .I5 1.78 ns .56
Problem-foc. coping .15 1.98 .05 .75
Emotion-foc. coping - .02 - .29 ns .62
Avoidance coping - .05 - .69 ns .66
Coping resources - .oo .04 ns .65
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:46 25 August 2014

Worry - .22 - 2.27 .02 .42

Emotionality - .09 - 1.03 ns .52
Sex .19 2.95 .003 .94
Fit index:RSQ=. 16,F(8,215)=4.98,p<,001
State Anxiety (DV)
Problem-foc. coping - .02 - .34 ns .19
Emotion-foc. coping .19 3.05 ns .65
Avoidance coping - .01 - .I9 ns .68
Coping Resources - .46 - 8.52 ,001 .87
worry .15 2.05 .04 .45
Emotionality .17 2.60 ,009 .57
Sex .08 1.61 ns .96
Fit index:RSQ = .43, F(7,229) = 24.74, p < .001
Problem-foc. Coping (DV)
Coping resources .12 1.72 ns .90
Worry -.15 - 1.74 ns 1.oo
Emotionality .08 2.60 ns .51
Sex .08 1.22 ns .52
Fit index:RSQ = .04, F(4,232) = 2.42, p < .05
Emotion-foc. Coping (DV)
Coping resources .19 2.89 .004 .90
Worry .14 1.72 ns 1.oo
Emotionality .20 2.60 .01 .57
Sex .17 2.51 ,006 .59
Fit index:RSQ = .13,F(4,232) = 2.13, p < ,001
Avoidance-foc. Coping (DV)
Coping Resources .03 .43 ns .90
Worry .56 7.55 .001 1.oo
Emotionality - .03 - .40 ns .57
Sex - .02 - .36 ns .59
Fit index:RSQ = .28, F(4,232) = 23.01, p < ,001
 COPING WITH EXAMINATION STRESS 293

Table 6 Decomposition of Effects from Path Analysis: Direct and Indirect Effects on Achievement and
State Anxiety

Variable r Direct Indirect Total Effect

on Achievement
State anxiety .01 .15 .oo .15
Problem-focused coping .19 .15 .oo .15
Emotion-focused coping .01 - .02 .03 .01
Avoidance coping - .21 - .05 .oo - .05
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:46 25 August 2014

Coping resources .02 .oo - .05 - .05

Worry - .27 - .22 - .02 - .24
Emotionality - .19 - .09 .02 - .07

Sex .2 1 .19 .02 .2 1

on State-Anxiety
Problem focused coping - .02 - .02 .00 - .02
Emotion focused coping .23 .19 .00 .19
Avoidance coping .24 - .01 .00 - .01
Coping resources - .52 - .46 .03 - .43
wow .44 .15 .02 .17
Emotionality .41 .17 .04 .21
Sex .13 .08 .03 .ll
~~~ ~

Note. Calculation of effects is based on the regression results (see Table 5 ) , including those paths with marginal or
nonsignificant effects (not appeanng in the path diagram)

positively related to state anxiety in an evaluative situation. Accordingly, students

who employ more emotion-focused coping - a strategy presumably less effective
than problem-focused coping-tend to be more anxious as well in an evaluative
situation. It is noted that the positive covariation observed between avoidance and
state anxiety ( r = .24), on one hand, and the negative covariation between avoid-
ance and achievement ( r = - .21), on the other, appear to be due to noncausal
effects. Considering the strong association between avoidance behavior and worry,
it may well be that the noted covariations between avoidance and adaptive
outcomes simply reflects the effects of the Worry component on both anxiety and
achievement. Contrary to expectations, state anxiety scores were not observed to
be inversely related to exam scores.
It is noted that the strong correlation (.62) between the Worry and Emotionality
subscales suggests there might be a collinearity problem in using both scales as
predictors in the regression analyses. The Tolerance values provided in Table 5 for
the predictors show tolerance values for both Worry and Emotionality that are in
the acceptable range and therefore do not indicate a major collinearity among the
variables.

Coping strategies as moderators of the relationship between personal resources and

affective outcomes
Coping strategies have frequently been claimed to moderate the relationship
between personal variables and affective outcomes. In order to test this claim, we
 294 M.ZEIDNER

conducted a series of regression analyses in which test anxiety, as dependent

variable, was regressed upon total resources, coping strategy, and the Resources x
Coping Strategy multiplicative vector. Three separate regression runs were con-
ducted, one for each coping strategy. These results showed nonsignificant
Resources x Strategy interactive effects for each of the coping strategies. Thus,
coping strategies are not meaningful moderators of the relationship between
personal resources and state anxiety. Similar tests for the interactive effects of
coping strategies and resources upon test performance, as outcome variable, also
yielded nonsignficant results. Thus, the relationship between coping resources and
adaptive outcomes does not appear to be moderated by coping strategies.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:46 25 August 2014

DISCUSSION
This study set out to shed light on the role of test anxiety, coping resources and
coping strategies in predicting affective reactions and academic performance in an
evaluative situation.

Coping With Evaluative Test Situations

Consistent with our hypothesis, the present data indicate that problem-focused
coping is more prominent than palliative coping during the preparatory or “antic-
ipatory” stage (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985) of an evaluative encounter. Further,
students use combinations of most of the available forms of problem-focused and
palliative coping tactics rather than just one form or the other. Thus, these data are
consistent with prior research indicating that where one can exert a high degree of
objective control, such as when preparing for an important exam, problem-focused
coping will be more salient than other forms of coping in an evaluative situation
(Endler & Parker, 1991). That is, problem-focused coping responses at the pre-
exam anticipatory stage are prevalent because something could still be done to
influence the outcome, whereas following the exam one would expect a dramatic
decrease in problem-focused coping and increase in emotion-focused coping such
as emotional social support (cf. Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). Furthermore, from a
cultural perspective, Israeli students appear to prefer adopting a problem-solving
attitude towards environmental stressors, even under the most trying of conditions
(Guttman & Levy, 1983).

Coping Resources, Strategies, and Aflective Outcomes

Surprisingly, personal resources were found to be only weakly predictive of coping
strategies. When statistically controllingfor the other resources, regression analysis
showed that cognitive resources are inversely related to emotion-focused strategies,
as criterion, whereas emotional and spiritual resources are positively related to
emotion-focused coping. It may well be that rich cognitive resources foster positive
beliefs in students about their ability to successfully manage a threatening experi-
ence, thereby minimizing emotion-focused coping. The positive effect of resources
on emotional coping is accounted for, in part, by the Emotional Resources scale,
which asks respondents to report the frequency with which they can identify
 COPING WITH EXAMINATION STRESS 295

various emotions and discuss them with others. Thus, those respondents who are
able to identify more emotions may use them in coping in a stressful situation as
well. Spiritual resources are presumed to help people cope with stress primarily
through the appraisal process - by providing a nexus of traditions or perceptual
framework that can help to establish the meaning of a stressor in a larger context
and can also prescribe acceptable coping techniques. For some unknown reason,
the larger evaluative context in which this study was conducted seems to have
enhanced social evaluative threat appraisals, with students high on spiritual
resources needing to use more palliative coping surrounding the exam.
The substantial inverse relationship reported herein between coping resources
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:46 25 August 2014

and state anxiety is consistent with prior research showing that coping resources are
predictive of affective (and somatic) outcomes. Indeed, research supports the
conception of coping resources as adaptive capacities that reduce the likelihood of
strain (Wheaton, 1983). Further, students with more positive self-concepts and
outlooks (i.e., cognitive resources) amd those engaged in more health promoting
behaviors (physical resources), were less likely to report anxiety before a major test.
These data are consistent with those provided by Zeidner and Hammer (1 990)
showing that cognitive and physical resources are the best predictors of adaptive
outcomes, as assessed by various forms of symptoms in adolescent student
populations. One link between physical and cognitive resources and anxiety may
be found in considering the role of anxiety in adaptive outcomes. Since anxiety
appears to be a major factor in human well being and anxiety is composed of a
cognitive and emotional or perceived somatic component, individuals capable of
coping with these components (i.e., those characterized by high cognitive and
physical resources), may be characterized as better adjusted as well.

Coping and Affective Outcomes

Overall, these results are consistent with prior research showing that emotion-
oriented behaviors are associated with state anxiety in evaluative test situations
(Carver & Scheier, in press; Endler et al., 1994). Excessive palliative coping,
particularly avoidance behavior, surrounding final exam period can have disaste-
rous consequences, resulting in poor test preparation, heightened tension and
anxiety, and failure on exams. In fact, there is an increasing body of research
indicating that high levels of emotion-focused coping is typically associated with
poor adaptation to stress (e.g., Felton & Revenson, 1984).

Anxiety and performance

The results are consistent with our predictions and a voluminous empirical
literature showing that test anxiety, particularly the worry component, is inversely
related to test performance (Hembree, 1988). Further, these data are consistent
with prior research showing that the worry and emotionality components are
distinguishable by virtue of their different patterns of correlations with cognitive
test scores. Accordingly, the worry component has been found to be more closely
related to academic performance than the emotionality component (Liebert &
Morris, 1967).
The finding that problem-focused coping is positively related to student test
scores supports data provided by Edwards and Trimble (1992) and Endler et al.
 296 M. ZEIDNER

(1 994) showing that task-oriented coping is related to cognitive outcomes. Indeed,

some prior research suggests that under controllable situations problem-focused
strategies lead to better outcomes (cf. review of the literature by Zeidner &
Saklofske, in press). Accordingly, students who prepare for the exam, plan their
work, and take things one step at a time, would be better equipped to master the
exam compared to those who use avoidance strategies (e.g., denial, alcohol,
religion, mental and behavioral disengagement) and do not cope actively with the
upcoming exam. As pointed out by Carver, Scheier, and Pozo (1 992), giving up
prematurely works against the person; by the criterion of successful goal attainment
(i.e., maximization of academic success), disengaging in such a situation is dysfunc-
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:46 25 August 2014

tional.

Mediating Eflects of Coping Strategies

This study partially supports the observation that personal variables (e.g., test
anxiety) may influence the coping strategies people select, particularly emotion-
focused coping, and that these strategies, in turn, influence affective outcomes.
These data, in part, are consistent with those presented by Bolger (1990) based on
observations of students’ anxiety and coping surrounding an important medical
exam. Bolger found that personality variables such as trait anxiety influence the
coping strategies people select and that these strategies, in turn, may influence
subsequent outlcomes.
Furthermore, the correlations show that students high on test anxiety show
increased avoidance behavior. These results are consistent with data reported by
Bolger (1990) indicating that subjects high on trait anxiety show increased escapist
coping methods while preparing for a medical admissions exam, which were in
turn, related to distress during the exam. Coping behaviors are implicated as the
means through which trait test anxiety elevates state anxiety in evaluative situa-
tions.
Coping strategies were not found to moderate the relationship between re-
sources and adaptational outcomes, with resources shown to have similar effectson
anxiety and achievement irrespective of the scores on particular coping strategies.
These data are consistent with some prior research (Wheaton, 1983) showing that
coping strategies were not found to play a moderating role in the relationship
between resources and outcomes. Thus, the data suggest an additive model, with
coping strategies and resources having main rather than interactive effects on
adaptive outcomes. In sum, this study suggests that personality variable influence
the coping strategies people select and that these strategies, in turn, influence
subsequent affective outcomes.

Sex group diflerences

The path analytic data suggest that gender group differences in state anxiety may be
partly mediated by gender differences in emotion-focused coping. Thus, females,
who are higher on emotion-focused coping also show elevated levels of anxiety in a
test situation. The results showing that women are significantly higher on emotion-
focused coping compared to men are consistent with prior research in evaluative
test situations (Endler et al., 1994).
 COPING WITH EXAMINATION STRESS 291

Coping and Adaptational Outcomes

Research in evaluative situations concurs that some kinds of coping responses to
some kinds of test situations and exigencies do make a difference, mainly with
respect to affective outcomes. However, it is not entirely clear at present whether
coping influences outcomes, whether coping tactics merely covary with adjustment
to exam situations, or coping and distress are mutually intertwined reflections of
something else. Causal relationships among coping strategies and outcome indices
are likely to be multidirectional rather than linear (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984;
Carver & Scheier, in press). It would appear that there is a mutually reinforcing
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:46 25 August 2014

causal cycle between stressful examination contexts, poor outcomes on the exam,
and maladaptive coping strategies. Coping indices, often seen as dependent
variables, might also serve as independent variables in a complex process of
reciprocal and unfolding transactions over time.

REFERENCES
Ben-Zur, H., & Zeidner, M. (1988). Sex differences in anxiety, curiosity, and anger: A cross-cultural
study. Sex Roles, 19, 335-347.
Blankenstein, K.R., Flett, G.L., & Watson, M.S. (1 992). Coping and academic problem-solvingability in
test anxiety. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48, 37-46.
Bolger, N. (1990). Coping as a personality process: A prospective study. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 59, 525-537.
Carver, C.S. & Scheier, M.F. (in press). Situational coping and coping dispositions in a stressful
encounter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., & Pozo, C. (1992). Conceptualizing the process of coping with health
problems. In H.S. Friedman (Ed.), Hostility, coping, and health (pp. 167-1 99). Washington, DC:APA.
Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., & Weintraub, J.K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,267-283.
Edwards, J.M., & Trimble, K (1992). Anxiety, coping, and academic performance. Anxiety, Stress, and
Coping: An International Journal, 5,337-350.
Endler, N.S., Kantor, I., & Parker, J.D.A. (1994). State-trait coping, state-anxiety and academic
performance. Personality and Individual Diflerences, 16,663-670.
Endler, N.S., & Parker, J.D.A. (199 1). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical evaluation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 344-3 54.
Felton, B.J., & Revenson, T.A. (19 84). Coping with chronic illness: A study of illness controllability and
the influence of coping strategies on psychological adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
P S Y C ~ O ~52,
O ~343-353.
Y,
Folkman, S., & 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 Psychology, 48,
150-170.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R.S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. (1986). The dynamics of a
stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal ofpersonality and
Social Psychology, 50, 9 92- 1003.
Guttman, L., & Levy, S. (1983). Dynamics of three varieties of mdorale: The case of Israel. In S.
Breznitz (Ed.). Stress in Israel (pp. 102-1 13). New York: Von Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Hammer, A.L., & Marting, M.S. (1985). Manual for the Coping Resources Inventory. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational
Research, 58,47-77.
Holahan, Ch., & Moos, R.H. ( 1 987). Personal and contextual determinants of coping strategies. Journal
ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 52, 946-955.
Holahan, Ch., & Moos, R.H. (1990). Life stressors, resistance factors, and improved psychological
functioning: An extension of the stress-resistance paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social
P~j~chology, 58, 909-9 17.
 298 M. ZEIDNER

Hunsley, J. (1987). Cognitive processes in mathematics anxiety and test anxiety: The role of appraisals,
internal dialogue and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 388-392.
Lay, C.H., Edwards, J.M., Parker, J.D.A., & Endler, N.S. (1989). An assessment of appraisal anxiety,
coping, and procrastination during an examination period. European Journal of Personality, 3,
195-208.
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York Springer.
Liebert, R.M., & Morris, L.W. (1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: A
distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20,975-978.
Phillips, J.B., & Endler, N.S. ( 1 982). Academic examination anxiety: The interaction model empirically
tested. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 16, 303-3 16.
Sarason, I.G. (1980). (Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, research and applications. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:46 25 August 2014

Seipp, B. (1 99 1). Anxiety and academic performance: A meta-analysis of findings. Anxiety Research, 4,
27-41.
Spielberger, C.D., Barker, L., Russell, S., Silva de Crane, R., Westberry, L., Knight, J., & Marks, E.
(1979). Preliminary manualfor the State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI) Tampa, F L University of
South Florida.
Spielberger, Gonzalez, H.P., Taylor, C.J., Anoton, W.D., Algaze, B., Ross, G.K., & Westberry, L.G.
(1980). Text Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Wheaton, B. (1983). Stress, personal coping resources, and psychiatric symptoms: An investigation of
interactive models. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24,208-229.
Zeidner, M. (1994). Personal and contextual determinants of coping and anxiety in an evaluative
situation: A prospective study. Personality and Individual Di'erences, 16, 899-9 18.
Zeidner, M. (1995). Adaptive coping with test situations: A review of the literature. Educational
Psychologist, 30, 123-133.
Zeidner, M., & Hammer, A. (1990). Life events and coping resources as predictors of stress symptoms in
adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 11,693-703.
Zeidner, M., & Nevo, B. (1992). Test anxiety in examinees in a college admission testing situation:
Incidence, dimensionality, and cognitive correlates. In K. Hagtvet (Ed.). Advances in test anxiety
research, Vol. 7 (pp. 288-303). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Zeidner, M., & Saklofske, D. (in press). Adaptive vs, maladaptive coping. In M. Zeidner & N. Endler
(Eds.). Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications. New York Wiley.