Anxiety and Formal Second/Foreign Language Learning

Kenneth Williams
Japan

The SLA/FLA View of Anxiety

I will consider briefly the inverted-U model, facilitating and debili-
tating anxiety and state trait anxiety. I will also examine the relationship
of these concepts to second-language learning. Finally, I will present the
work accomplished in the area of foreign-language classroom anxiety.

The inverted-U model is dependent on the concept of arousal, which

is defined in the Longman Dictionary of Psychology and Psychiatry (1984)
as &dquo;a state of alertness and readiness for action&dquo; (p. 60). The model
states that when arousal is low, performance is low. Then, for a time, as
arousal increases, so does performance, to an optimal point. As arousal
increases further, performance falls ultimately to zero (Lundberg, 1982).
It has been theorized that stress (anxiety) may function in a similar man-
ner (McGrath, 1982).
The inverted-U model has seldom, if ever, been tested in the second-
language classroom. But research has suggested and been interpreted in a
way that indicates the presence of this uni-dimensional construct. For ex-
ample, Backman (1976) found that the two Spanish-speaking students
who had the most difficulty learning English also had the highest and
lowest scores on the anxiety measure she utilized. Chastain (1975) found
a negative correlation between scores on tests and anxiety in an audiolin-
gual French course. On the other hand, he found a positive correlation
between anxiety and scores in regular French or German courses. Chas-
tain (1975) resolves these conflicting results by saying, &dquo;perhaps some
concern about a test is a plus, while too much anxiety can produce
negative results&dquo; (p. 160).
It is reasonable to assume that some level of brain arousal is neces-
sary for to occur and that learning is optimal somewhere bet-
learning
ween a brain-dead state and an epileptic grandmal seizure. However,
Chastain’s terms &dquo;some concern&dquo; and &dquo;too much&dquo; are far too vague.
Such definitions leave it up to the instructor to, more or less, arbitrarily
decide what &dquo;a little&dquo; or &dquo;too much&dquo; anxiety is, and this could be very
difficult to accomplish. Another, and even more compelling, point is
presented by Krohne and Laux: (1982)
In our Western societies, stress and anxiety especially in achievement
situations, have become important issues. There is a general concern

19

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 about the adverse effects of stress and anxiety on academic achieve-
ment and other aspects of human behaviour (p. xi).

Therefore, rather than depending on anxiety to stimulate students, it

would be wiser for ESL instructors to use, for example, motivation as an
alternative. For an excellent review of this topic, see Crookes and
Schmidt (1989).

One approach, which moves away from the unidimensional model,

is that of a facilitating and debilitating dichotomy for the description of
anxiety. This construct was first theorized by Alpert and Haber (1960),
who view facilitating anxiety as a source of motivation. In contrast, debi-
litating anxiety, a more commonly used definition, acts as a distractor.
Kleinmann’s (1977) work has been cited as an example of the pre-
sence of facilitating and debilitating anxiety in the language-learning set-
ting (Scovel, 1978; Long and Larsen-Freeman, in press). Kleinmann’s
primary intent was to examine the relationship between the syntactic
structures in English that are avoided by foreign students (Arabic and
Spanish) and the syntactic structures of the students’ native language. Of
secondary interest to him was the interaction between avoidance
behaviour and anxiety. To evaluate the students’ anxiety, Kleinmann ad-
ministered a modified version of the Achievement Anxiety Test (Alpert
and Haber, 1960), which is designed to measure the facilitating and debi-
litating effects of anxiety and academic performance. The test statements
Kleinmann used were adapted to the language-learning situation. Exam-
ple statements used by Kleinmann (1977) are:
1. &dquo;Nervousness while using English helps me do better.&dquo;
2. &dquo;Nervousness while using English in class prevents me from doing
well&dquo; (p. 98).

Kleinmann (1977) found that the Spanish students who scored high
on the itemsdesigned to measure facilitating anxiety also used various
structures (such as infinitive complements and direct-object pronouns) in
English that other Spanish students in the same class tended to avoid.
The Arabic students showed similar tendencies, with the facilitating-
anxiety group tending to use the passive voice in English more frequently
than their peers. Kleinmann (1977) contends that some &dquo;second language
learners resort to an avoidance strategy that cannot be attributed to a
lack of knowledge of the avoidance structure&dquo; (p. 106). He concludes by
saying that anxiety, along with other affective characteristics, should be
researched further to help identify potential avoiders.

One possibility overlooked by Alpert and Haber, Kleinmann, Scovel

20

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

and others, is that observations of facilitating and debilitating anxiety
are actually different ends of the same anxiety continuum (Hembree,
1988). In other words, the emotional state of facilitating anxiety may be
equivalent to a low-anxiety state that diverts the students’ attention only
slightly from the language-learning task. On the other hand, debilitating
anxiety would represent a high anxiety state that diverts a substantial
(debilitating) amount of the students’ attention.
Although I have questions with regard to Kleinmann (1977) and
others’ general interpretation of anxiety as a facilitating stimulus, I agree
with Scovel (1978) that the &dquo;article by Kleinmann takes a step in the right
direction&dquo; (p. 132). This direction, in my opinion, is to look at our
students as individuals who have the potential to respond differently to
anxiety.
A closer look at the situation leads us to the Trait-State Anxiety
Theory. This theory separates anxiety into a transitory state and a rela-
tively stable personality trait. Spielberger, Gorsuch, and Lushene’s
(1970) perspective is:
State anxiety (A-State) may be conceptualized as a transitory emo-
tional state or condition of the human organism that varies in intensity
and fluctuates over time. This condition is characterized by tension
and apprehension, and activation of the autonomic nervous
system.... Trait anxiety (A-Trait) refers to relatively stable individual
differences in anxiety proneness, that is, to differences between peo-
ple in the tendency to respond to situations perceived as threatening
with evaluations in A-State intensity (p. 3).

Individuals high in trait anxiety may perceive a second-language learning

situation as more dangerous or threatening than persons low in A-Trait
and may respond to this threatening situation with A-State elevations of
greater intensity.

An important factor to consider is that when A-State anxiety is eva-

luated in a complex learning situation (as we would find in many language-
learning classrooms), the A-State in an individual may vary with the
given situation (Spielberger, O’Neil, and Hansen, 1972). Therefore, it is
conceivable that the same person could score in one category on a test four
State-Trait anxiety prior to a learning situation and in another category if
the test were given during a learning situation. The view that A-State
anxiety can play a significant role in complex learning situations is sup-
ported by Heinrich and Spielberger (1982), who say: &dquo;The research
literature provides strong evidence that the impact of stress and task dif-
ficulty on complex learning is mediated by state anxiety&dquo; (p. 159).

21

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 Another significant element in the State-Trait Anxiety theory is the
conditions that an individual perceives as threatening. The variable(s)
that will increase anxiety and their interaction are still under investiga-
tion. However, a useful classification scheme at the macro level is of-
fered by McGrath (1970). After reviewing numerous stress studies, he
identified the following stressful conditions: physical threat, ego threat
and interpersonal threat. In a more situation-specific setting, the formal
foreign-language classroom, Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1986) hypo-
thesize that anxiety may be seen as a combination of three components:
1. communication apprehension (a type of shyness characterized by
fear of or anxiety about communicating with other people)
2. fear of negative social evaluation (a broad category that may occur
in situations such as interviews or speaking in foreign-language
classes)
3. testanxiety (a type of performance anxiety stemming from a fear of
failure)
Horwitz et al. (1986) also propose that most adults perceive themselves as
reasonably good communicators in their first language. Then, when a
student is asked to perform in a second language, the concept of being a
competent communicator is challenged. This challenge may lead to reti-
cence, self-consciousness, fear or even panic. In Horwitz et al.’s (1986)
words, &dquo;The language learner’s self-esteem is vulnerable to the awareness
that the range of communication choices and authenticity is restricted&dquo;
(p. 128). This hypothesis and information gathered from students study-
ing foreign languages led to the development of the statements on the
Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) (Horwitz et al.
1986).
In an attempt to evaluate the theoretical framework of Horwitz et al.
(1986), MacIntyre and Gardner (1989) designed a three-phase study of 52
male and 52 female native English speakers. In the first phase, they
administered a three-part questionnaire containing a series of anxiety
scales. The first part contained the French-class anxiety, English-class
anxiety and mathematics-class anxiety scales, which were answered on a
six-point Likert scale. The second section contained the French-use anx-
iety, trait anxiety and computer anxiety scales, which were also answered
on a six-point Likert scale. The final parts were the measurements of test
anxiety and audience anxiety, which required True/False responses- In
the second phase, the students were given four trials to learn 38 English-
French pairs administered by computer and were tested prior to each
trial. Spielberger’s (1983) State-Anxiety scale was administered after
three of these tests. The final phase involved French vocabulary produc-
tion and free recall of paired associations.

22

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 MacIntyre and Gardner’s (1989) results support two of Horwitz et
al.’s (1986) hypotheses that communication apprehension and social eva-
luation are part of the elements of foreign-language classroom anxiety.
However, their findings suggest that test anxiety is a general problem and
not one that is specific to the language classroom. Maclntyre and Gardner
also found that the students with high communicative anxiety tended to
have lower scores on free recall on the paired-associates learning task and
oral and written vocabulary tests. MacIntyre and Gardner (1989) state
that: &dquo;The results presented tend to indicate that anxiety leads to deficits
in learning and performance&dquo; (p. 271).

To summarize: the majority of the early studies in second-language

learning anxiety produced conflicting results (Scovel 1978, Maclntyre
and Gardner 1989). Maclntyre and Gardner (1989) consider these results
to be &dquo;likely attributable to an inappropriate level of instrument speci-
ficity&dquo; (p. 272). Later studies such as Kleinmann’s (1977) are significant
because the implementation of a situation-specific instrument will produce
scores that are more accurate than one based on a general (anxiety) scale
(Alper and Haber, 1960). Recently, researchers have attempted to analyze
anxiety-evoking situations in a language-learning classroom and build an
anxiety-evaluation instrument around their findings (Horwitz et al. 1986).

Operationalizing The Construct ,

The following is one way to conceptualize the components that create

ESL/EFL classroom anxiety:
I. An external element:
A situation that is anxiety provoking.
II. A receptive element:
An acceptance or perception that a situation is anxiety pro-
voking.
II. An expressive element:
A psychological and/or somatic response to number one and
two that is measurable or observable.

The external element, the second language-classroom setting, is, at

times, controlled by groups outside of the classroom (e.g., the community,
the government and the educational bureaucracy). Very likely, these and
other groups will decide on the content, the rate of presentation of the
material used in the class and the amount of progress expected from the
students (Stern, 1986; Dubin and Olshtain, 1987). All three - content,
rate of presentation and expected progress - have the potential to be
highly anxiety provoking for students if the demands are beyond the
students’ abilities.

23

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 The second element, reception, is still under investigation. It is not
known why some people accept or perceive an external setting as threaten-
ing and therefore anxiety provoking and others do not. However, Dweck
and Wortman (1982) have reviewed the literature concerning the major
differences in cognitive processes and coping strategies between in-
dividuals who show adaptive behaviour in performance settings and
those who are less successful at adapting.

Dweck and Wortman’s identification of the elements of adaptive

and nonadaptive behaviour can be organized as follows:
I. self-doubt and low-esteem versus self-confidence and high
esteem
A. those in the self-doubt group tend to:
1. misinterpret or distort neutral or even positive external
situations (Sarason, 1960; Diener and Dweck, 1978;
Smith and Sarason, 1975)
2. blame themselves for the situation (Doris and Sarason,
1955; Diener and Dweck 1978)
3. have a high degree of concern and worry about evalua-
tion (Mandler and Watson, 1966)
4. have a negative attitude toward a given task (Neale and
Katahn, 1968)
B. the self-confident group tends not to exhibit the traits
listed above.

II. self focus (distracted) versus task focus

A. The self-focus group has a higher incidence of non-task-
related thoughts than the task focus group (Weine, 1971;
Sarason, 1975; Mandler and Watson, 1968)

If there is key that suggests why some people accept or perceive a lan-
a
guage-learning situation as anxiety provoking and therefore manifest the
above symptoms, it most likely is fear of failure (rejection) to meet the
demands set in the external element plus the perceived self-perpetuating
nature of this condition. Generally, this apprehension includes the fear
of failure in interpersonal relationships and/or negative self evaluation
because of task failure (McGrath, 1970).

The expressive element, a measurable or observable psychological

and/or somatic reaction, is drawn from a classification of indices of
stress responses by McGrath (1970).

24

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 This element may take the form of:
1. neuro-physiological response detectable through:
A. a biochemical analysis of body products (e.g., blood and
urine)
B. an instrumental measure of physiological processes (e.g.,
GSR, EEG)
II. direct observation of behaviour (e.g., pacing, stammering,
facial expression)
III. observation of performance on a task (e.g., inability to attend
to task)
IV. reporting of a self-observed physical response (e.g., trembling,
increased heart rate)
V. reporting of a self-observed psychological state (e.g., fear,
nervousness)

Several of the above measurements may be impractical in the

second/foreign language classroom. Testing for trace elements in
students’ bodily fluids or, for example, measurement of the electrical
conductivity of the skin (galvanic skin response) seems out of place in the
language-learning setting. Direct observation of symptoms of anxiety are
vulnerable to observer biases. Also, other factors, such as fatigue or dis-
interest, could produce behaviour that is indistinguishable from that of
anxiety. The third option, self report, also has some limitations. For ex-
ample, it is dependent on the individual consciously accepting that anxiety
is present during a specific stimulus situation and/or that the physical or
emotional state represents anxiety. On the other hand, Wallbott and
Scherer (1986) argue that a self-reporting approach to the study of emo-
tional processes &dquo;may be a suitable way to study not only emotion-
eliciting situations but also emotional reactions&dquo; (p. 765). Wallbott and
Scherer accept that recall and self-reporting processes may bias the
results and that the results are subjective, not objective measurements of
situations. However, even given the limitations, a self-reporting evalua-
tion appears to be the best option available at this time for the evaluation
of anxiety in the ESL/EFL classroom.

Using the above analysis as a guide, I will define anxiety in the for-
eign-language classroom as a response to a condition in which the exter-
nal element is or is perceived as presenting a demand that threatens to ex-
ceed the student’s capabilities and resources for meeting it. The accep-
tance of the situation as threatening then manifests itself as a psychologi-
cal emotion and/or a physiological response which acts as a distractor
that divides and diverts the student’s focus and therefore lowers the

25

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

amount of attention and effort that otherwise could be used to master
the task presented.

Discussion
The role of affect in general and anxiety specifically has been over-
looked for too long in the field of second/foreign-language. The key to
changing this situation and having researchers, administrators and
teachers acknowledge the existence and negative effects of foreign-lan-
guage anxiety is further research. This research could take many for-
mats ; however, a long-term study that would allow an evaluation of the
students’ foreign-language classroom anxiety and their progress in the
target language would be a very good one.
The FLCAS can be used or a situation-specific, culturally based
scale could be developed. Several methods are available for the develop-
ment of a culturally based scale. One way would be to adapt the question-
naire approach used by Matsumoto et al. (1988) to the formal language
setting. A second method would be to have students keep a diary study of
the anxiety they perceive during a semester (or longer) of studying a
foreign language. The results of studies like these could be evaluated and
ued to design a culturally based scale.

Another interesting study would be to, along with the FLCAS, ad-
minister a scale that would evaluate the students’ view of their language-
learning skills. In this way more information could be gathered on why
students find a situation like a language-learning setting anxiety provok-
ing.

References
Alpert, R., Haber, R. (1960). Anxiety in academic achievement situa-
&
tions. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61:207-21.
Backman, N. (1976). Two measures of affective factors as they relate to
progress in adult second-language learning. Working Papers in Bi-
lingualism, 10:100-22.
Chastain, K. (1975). Affective and ability factors in second-language ac-
quisition. Language learning, 25:153-61.
Crookes, G. and Schmidt, R. (1989). Motivation: Reopening the research
agenda. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 8:217-56.
Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness:
Continuous changes in performance strategy, and achievement
cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 36:451-62.

26

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

Doris, J., & Sarason, S. B. (1955). Test anxiety and blame assignment in
a failure situation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
50:335-38.
Dubin, F. & Olshtain, E. (1987). Course Design. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dweck, C. & Wortman. C. (1982). Learned helplessness, anxiety, and
achievement motivation: Neglected parallels in cognitive, affective,
and coping responses. In Krohne, H. W. & Layx, L. (Eds.). Achieve-
ment, Stress and Anxiety. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Cor-
poration.
Goldenson, R. M. (Ed.) (1984). Longman Dictionary of Psychology and
Psychiatry. New York: Longman Inc.
Heinrich, D. L. & Spielberger, C. D. (1982). Anxiety and complex
learning. In Krohne, H. W. & Layx, L. (Eds.), Achievement, Stress,
and Anxiety. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, Causes, Effects, and Treatment of Test
Anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58:44-7.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign lan-
guage classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal,
70:125-32.
Kleinmann, H. H. (1977). Avoidance behaviour in adult second-language
acquisition. Language Learning, 27:93-107.
Krone, K. W. & Laux, L. (1982). Achievement Stress and Anxiety. New
York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Long, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (in press). An Introduction to Second
Language Research.
Lundberg, U. (1982). Psychophysiological aspects of performance and
adjustment to stress. In Krohne, K. W. & Laux, L. (Eds.) Achieve-
ment, Stress and Anxiety. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Cor-
poration.
Mandler, G., & Watson, D. L. (1968). Anxiety and the interruption
of behaviour. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and Behaviour.
New York: Academic Press.
Mandler, G., & Watson, D. L. (1966). Test anxiety and immediate
or delayed feedback in a test like avoidance task. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 8:200-3.
Matsumoto, D., Kudoh, T., Scherer, K., & Wallbott, H. (1988). Ante-
cedents of and reactions to emotions in the United States and
Japan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19:267-86.
McCoy, I. R. (1979). Means to overcome the anxieties of second language
learners. Foreign Language Annals, 12:185-9.

27

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 McGrath, J. E. (1970). Social and psychological factors in stress. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
McGrath, J. E. (1976). Stress and behaviour in organizations. In M. Dun-
nette (Ed.) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
McGrath, J. E. (1982). Methodological Problems in Research on Stress.
In Krohne, K. W. & Laux, L. (Eds.) Achievement, Stress and An-
xiety. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Maclntyre P. D. and Gardner R. C. (1989). Anxiety and Second
Language-Language Learning: Toward a Theoretical Clarification
Language Learning, 39:251-75.
Neale, J. M., & Katahn, M. (1968). Anxiety, choice, and stimulus uncer-
tainty. Journal of Personality, 36:235-45.
Sarason, I. G. (1960). Empirical findings and theoretical problems in the
use of anxiety scales. Psychological Bulletin, 57:403-15.

Sarason, I. G. (1975). Anxiety and self-preoccupation. In I. G. Sarason

& C. D. Spielberger (Eds.). Stress and Anxiety (Vol. 2). New York:
Academic Press.
Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A
review of the anxiety research. Language Learning, 28:129-42.
Smith, R. E., & Sarason, I. G. (1975). Social anxiety and the evaluation
of negative interpersonal feedback. Journal of consulting and Clin-
ical Psychology, 43:429.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene R. E. (1970). Manual for
the State- Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psycho-
logist Press.
Spielberger, C. D., O’Neil, H. F., & Hansen, D. N. (1972). Anxiety, drive
theory, and computer-assisted learning. In Mather B. A. (Ed.),
Progress in Experimental Personality Research: (Vol. 6). New
York: Academic Press.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety In-
ventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Stern, H. H. (1986). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching.
Fourth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wallbott, H. G., & Scherer, K. (1986). How universal and specific is
emotional experience? Evidence from 27 countries on five con-
tinents. Social Science Information, 25:763-95.
Wine, J. D. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 76:92-104.

28

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016