A TRAIT-STATE THEORY OF ANXIETY

Trait state anxiety theory provides a conceptual frame of reference for

classifying the major variables that should be considered in anxiety research and
suggests possible inter-relationships among these variables. The theory is
especially concerned with clarifying the properties of A-state and A-traot as
psychological constructs, and with specifying the characteristics of stressful
stimulus conditions which evoke differential levels of A-state in persons who
difer in A-trait. The theory also recognizes the centrality of cognitive appraisalin
the evocation of anxiety state, and the importanceof cognitive and motoric
processes (defense mechanisms) that serve to eliminate or reduce anxiety states.

A schematic diagram of Trait-State Anxiety Theory is presented in Figur

2.1 which provides a cross-sectional analysis of anxiety phenomena. The theory
assumes that the arousal of anxiety states involves a process or sequence of
temporally ordered events initiated by either external or internal stimuli that are
perceived to be dangerous or threatening by an individual. Examples of external
stressors that are likely to evoke anxiety reactions are the imminent danger of
injury or death that is faced by a soldier in combat, or the threat to se;f-esteem
that is encountered when a student is called upon to recite in class. Any internal
stimulus which causes an individual to think about or anticipate a dangerous or
frightening situation may also avoke high levels of A-State. For example, a
student who suddenly remembers that he has failed to prepare for an examination
that is scheduled for the next class period would probably experience a sudden
increase in A-State.

As previously noted, situations or circumstances in which personal

adequacy is evaluated are likely to be perceived as more threatening by high A-
Trait individuals than by persons who are low in A-Trait. It should be noted,
however that the appraisal of a particular stimulus or situation as threatening is
also influenced by a person’s aptitude, abilities, and past experience, as well as by
his level of A-Trait and the objective danger that us inherent in the situation.
 Once a stimulus situation is appraised as threatening it is assumed that:

1. An A-State reaction will be evoked

2. The intensity of this reaction will be proportional to the amount of threat the
situation poses for the individual. It is further assumed that the duration of the
A-State reaction will depend upon the persistence of the evoking stimuli and
the individual’s previous experience in dealing with similar circumstances.

Stressful situations that are encountered frequently may lead individual to develop
effective coping responses that quickly alleviate or minimize the danger and
thereby immediately reduce level of A-State intensity. A person may also respond
to threatening situations with defensive processes that serve to reduce the intensity
of A-state reactions.

High level of a-state intensity are experienced as unpleasant and may serve
to initiate cognitive or motoric processes that have effectively reduced A-States in
the past. For example, an undergraduate subject in an experiment that involved the
threat of electric shock initially appraised this experimental situation as
dangerous, and responded with a marked increase in heart rate. After briefly
reflecting on his circumstances, the subject reasoned that either he would not be
shocked (a correct assumption), or that if he was shocked it would not be very
paintful “because university officials would not permit this.” Since the subject had
no way of knowing if the experimenterwould actually shock him, in effect, he
used “denial” and “intellectualization” as defenses against the danger poses by the
situation. Corresponding to his reappraisal of the situation there was a decline in
level of A-State intensity as measured by changes in heart rate and the self-report
of feelings of apprehension and tension.

It was noted previously that two important classes of stressor situations

can be identified that appear to have different implications for the evocation of A-
State in persons who differ in A-Trait:
1. Individuals with high A-Trait appear to interpret circumstances in which their
personal adequacy is evaluated as more threatening than do low A-Trait
individuals
2. Situations that are characterized by physical danger are not interpreted as
differentially threatening by high and low A-Trait subjects.

Accordingly, differential elevations in A-State would be expected for persons who

differ in A-trait under circumstances characterized by some threat to self-esteem,
but not in situations that involve physical danger unless personal adequacy is also
threatened.

The principles assumptions of Trait state anxiety theory may be briefly

summarized as follows:

1. In situations that are appraised by an individual as threatening, an A-State

reaction wil be evoked. Through sensory and cognitive feedack mechanisms
high levels of A-State will be experienced as unpleasant.
2. The intensity of an A-state reaction will be proportional to the amount of
threat that the situation poses for the individual.
3. The duration of an A-state reaction will depend upon the persistence of the
individual’s interpretation of the situation as threatening.
4. High A-Trait individuals will perceive situations or circumstances that
involve failure or threats to self-esteem as more threatening than will persons
who are low in A-Trait.
5. Elevations in A-state have stimulus anda drive properties that may be
expressed directly in behavior, or that may serve to initiate psychological
defenses that have been effective in reducing A-States in the past.
6. Stressful situations that are encountered frequently may cause an individual to
develop specific coping responses or psychological defense mechanisms
which are designed to reduce or minimize A-state.

With regard to the origin and etiology of individual differences in A-Trait,

it is assumed that residues of past experience dispose high A-Trait persons to
appraise situations that involve some form of personal evaluation as more
threatening than do individuals who are low in A-Trait. We may speculate that
childhood experiences influence the development of individual differences in A-
trait, and that parent-child relationships centering around punishment are
especially important in this regard. The fact that self-depreciating atttitudes are
aroused in high A-Trait persons under circumstances characterized by failure or
ego-involving instructions suggests that these individuals received excessive
criticism and negative appraisals from their parents which undermined their self-
confidence and adversely influenced their self-concept.

In summary the schematic representation of Trait state anxiety theory that

is presented in Figure 2.1 provides cross-sectional analysis of anxiety phenomena.
In this conception, two different anxiety construts, A-State and A-Trait, are
posited and distinguished from the stimulus conditions which evoke A-State
reactions and the defenses that help individuals to avoid or reduce A-States.
Figure 2.1 also provides a conceptual frame of reference for classifying the major
variables that should be considered in research on anxiety phenomena, and
suggests some of the possible inter-relationships among them. In addition to the
constructs of A-State and A-Trait, the classes of variables that we believe to be
most significant in anxiety research are:

1. The external and internal stimuli that evoke anxiety states.

2. The cognitive processes tha are involvedin appraising stimuli as threatening
3. The defense mechanisms that are employed to avoid anxiety states or to
reduce the intensity of these states once they are experienced.
THE STATE-TRAIT ANXIETY INVENTORY