Experiencing more mathematics anxiety than expected? Contrasting trait and state anxiety in high achieving students

This study examined mathematics anxiety among high and low achieving students (N = 237, grades 9 and 10) by contrasting trait (habitual) and state (momentary) assessments of anxiety. Previous studies have found that trait anxiety measures are typically rated higher than state measures. Furthermore, the academic self-concept has been identified to play a moderating role in the trait-state discrepancy, with higher academic self-concept leading to a lower discrepancy (i.e. less overestimation of trait anxiety if state assessments reflect actual experience). Therefore, we assumed that high achievers who were expected to have high academic self-concepts would exhibit a smaller trait-state discrepancy than low achievers. Results confirmed these assumptions and revealed that high achievers even underestimated their trait anxiety. Implications are discussed.     

Correction to: Examining Agency in Children’s Nonfiction Picture Books

Children's Literature in Education - In the original publication of the article unfortunately contained a mistake in the name of co-author Vera Sotirvoska.The correct name should be Vera...     

Baseline Intraocular Pressure Is Associated With Subjective Sensitivity to Physical Exertion in Young Males

Purpose: The purposes of this study were to (a) investigate the effect of physical effort (cycling for 60 min at 60 ± 5% of individually computed reserve heart-rate capacity), combined with 2 different levels of cognitive demand (2-back, oddball), on intraocular pressure (IOP) and subjective judgments of perceived exertion (ratings of perceived exertion [RPE]), affect (Affective Valence subscale of the Self-Assessment Manikin [SAM]), and mental workload (National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index [NASA-TLX]); and (b) ascertain whether baseline IOP, measured before exercise, is associated with individual differences in subjective assessments of effort and affective response during exercise. Method: Seventeen participants (M_age = 23.28 ± 2.37 years) performed 2 physical/cognitive dual tasks, matched in physical demand but with different mental requirements (2-back, oddball). We assessed IOP before exercise, after 2 min of active recovery, and after 15 min of passive recovery, and we also collected RPE and SAM measures during the sessions (28 measurement points). We used NASA-TLX and cognitive performance as checks of the mental manipulation. Results: (a) Intraocular pressure increased after concomitant physical/mental effort, with the effect reaching statistical significance after the 2-back task (p = .002, d = 0.35) but not after the oddball condition (p = .092, d = 0.29). (b) Baseline IOP was associated with subjective sensitivity to effort and showed statistical significance for the oddball condition (p = .03, ?_p² = .622) but not for the 2-back task (F < 1). Conclusions: Results suggest a relationship between IOP and physical/cognitive effort, which could have implications for the management of glaucoma. Additionally, a rapid measure of IOP could be used as a marker of individual effort sensitivity in applied settings.