buffering preconscious stressor appraisal: the protective role of self

417 Pages·2013·2.32 MB·English

BUFFERING PRECONSCIOUS
STRESSOR APPRAISAL: THE
PROTECTIVE ROLE OF SELF-
EFFICACY

A thesis submitted for the degree of
Doctor of Education (EdD)

By

Timothy William Filtness

School of Sport and Education
Brunel University

July 2013
© Copyright by Tim Filtness 2013
All rights reserved
ii
Buffering Preconscious Stressor Appraisal: the Protective
Role of Self-Efficacy

A Thesis presented

by
Timothy William Filtness

Approved as to style and content by:

…………………………………………………………………………………………
A

…………………………………………………………………………………………
B

…………………………………………………………………………………………
C

…………………………………………………………………………………………
Professor M Watts, Department Head
School of Sport and Education
iii
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my outstanding team of supervisors – Dr Dan Bishop,
Professor José Gonzalez-Alonso and Professor Mike Watts – without
whose support, advice and invaluable guidance, this thesis would never
have taken shape.

I would also like to thank my boss, Del Cooke, who not only let me loose in
her school during the data collection phase of this study, but who also put
up with my absences (both corporeal and cognitive), particularly during
SMT meetings. Without your support, Del, this project would still be a
dusty item on my ‘to do’ list!

I would like to thank my wife, Claire, who has not only supported me
throughout the (long) process of the EdD, but also tolerated my ever-
increasing Amazon purchases (sorry about that) and helped keep me
pointed in the right direction when I faltered. Without your love and
encouragement this project would have not even have made it to the ‘to
do’ list – thank you.

Finally, I would like to thank my son, Oscar; who, despite the early
mornings, has given everything a sense of meaning.

iv
Abstract

Many cognitive resources contribute towards the appraisal of stressors.
Of these, self-efficacy (SE) is widely acknowledged to play a significant
role in protecting adolescents from the effects of stress (Bandura,
1997). This study investigated that relationship through the use of a
quasi-experimental methodology (Cook & Campbell, 1979) utilising an
untreated Control group of 44 adolescent, female participants and an
Experimental group of 70 additional participants, all of whom were
volunteers drawn from the Sixth Form of a single participating school.
The members of both participant groups took part in two rounds of
testing, between which the members of the Experimental group were
exposed to a significant academic stressor (one or more public A-level
examinations). During both test phases, all participants completed the 10-
item Perceived Stress Scale self-report (Cohen & Williamson, 1988), the
Examination Self-Efficacy Scale instrument (Schwarzer & Jerusalem,
1995) and a bespoke Implicit Association Test (Greenwald et al., 1998)
designed to measure implicit stressor appraisal. Significant trends were
identified by means of ANCOVA, correlation and regression analyses, and
the resulting data were interpreted in terms of a dual process model of
stress (Compas, 2004). Results not only concurred with those of previous
studies (e.g. Betoret, 2006; Vaezi & Fallah, 2011) by demonstrating a
strongly negative correlation between acute academic stress and
academic SE, but provided new evidence to suggest that the ‘protective’
effect of SE occurs via a buffering mechanism at the level of
preconscious stressor appraisals (Bargh, 1990), which limits the effect of
acute stress exposure on preconscious stressor appraisals (e.g. Luecken &
Appelhans, 2005).
v
Table of Contents
Page
List of Figures x

List of Tables xiii

List of Abbreviations xiv

List of Appendices xv

Chapter 1: Background 1

Chapter 2: Stress 8

What is stress? 12

What are emotions? 18

Emotion regulation 23

Evidence that stress is an emotion 28

Dual processes models of stress 43

Stress as an emotion – a synopsis 48

Chapter 3: Humans as Efficacious Agents 50

vi
50
Introduction

52
The neurological ‘self’

57
On reductivism

64
Humans as efficacious agents

68
Efficacy beliefs

76
Summary and research questions

78
Chapter 4: Methodology

78
Choosing the research methodology

83
Choosing the quasi-experimental design

89
Application of the quasi-experimental design

91
Relating the design to the research questions

92
Considerations and Control Procedures

100
The design and validity of the instruments

116
Précis of the methodology

vii
Chapter 5: Research Findings 118

Addressing the research questions 118

Validity of the instruments 130

Review of the findings 134

Chapter 6: Discussion 136

Individuality of stress 136

To what extent does academic SE limit the development of acute 138
academic stress?

To what extent does acute academic stress exposure affect the 142
preconscious appraisal of academic stressor stimuli?

To what extent does academic SE affect the preconscious 145
appraisal of academic stressor stimuli?

Next steps 147

Conclusions 153

Implications of the conclusions 153

Limitations of the conclusions 154
viii
Summary 167

Chapter 7: Implications for Practitioners 169

References 176

Appendices 327

Appendix A: The effect of SE on academic performance. 327

Appendix B: Developing, Testing and Validating the Stressor 340
Appraisal Implicit Association Test (SA-IAT): an Institution
Focused Study.

Appendix C: Permission to use the GSES. 383

Appendix D: The Examination Self-Efficacy Scale (ESES). 385

Appendix E: The 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS10). 3891

Appendix F: Confirmation letter from the Ethical Research Ethics 396
Committee

Appendix G: Participant Briefing 398

Appendix H: Participant Consent Form 401

ix
List of Figures

Figure 1 Diagram representing the untreated control group design
with one pre-test quasi-experimental methodology (adapted
from a similar diagram in Shadish et al., 2002).

Figure 2 Diagram representing the three phases of data collection.

Figure 3 Graphs representing G*Power power analysis for minimum
sample size (left, θ = 0.4. right, θ = 0.25).

Figure 4 Average PrS & PoS PSS10 scores for Experimental and
Control groups.

Figure 5 Homogeneity of regression for PSS10 data for Control and
Experimental groups.

Figure 6 Homogeneity of regression for ESES data for Control and
Experimental groups.

Figure 7 Correlation between ESES and ΔPSS10 for Control and
Experimental groups.

Figure 8: Average PrS & PoS SA-IAT scores for Experimental and
Control groups.

Figure 9 Homogeneity of regression for SA-IAT data for Control and
Experimental groups.
x