Abstract
Test anxiety is common and may lead to a range of negative outcomes, including poor exam performance. Therefore, it is important to explore psychological predictors of test anxiety. In this paper, we examined whether intellectual humility can predict test anxiety. In Study 1, college students (N = 181) completed an intellectual humility measure with four subscales and two different measures of test anxiety. In Study 2 (N = 196), a community sample recruited from an online workforce completed the same measures. In both studies, we found that intellectual humility was negatively related to test anxiety, such that higher intellectual humility predicted lower test anxiety. Specifically, Study 1 demonstrated a negative correlation between intellectual humility and the Sarason Test Anxiety Scale; Study 2 confirmed this negative relationship with both the Sarason and Westside test anxiety scales. We also found that this relationship was largely driven by the intellectual humility subscale of Independence of Intellect and Ego. Additionally, these results were present even when controlling for key demographic factors. These findings highlight intellectual humility’s role in predicting exam anxiety and offer a potential avenue for intellectual humility to be leveraged into interventions to decrease exam anxiety in the future.
Keep Calm and Be Humble: Can Intellectual Humility Predict Test Anxiety?
Test anxiety is a common experience among students that can negatively affect academic outcomes when experienced in a high degree. Current estimations have found between 15% and 40% of students experience high degrees of test anxiety (Abolghasemi et al., 2009; Hill, 1984; Putwain & Daly, 2014; Szafranski et al., 2012; Thomas et al., 2017; Vitasari et al., 2010; von der Embse et al., 2013). At least one study found that 38.5% of students experienced test anxiety during the course of their academic career at a 4-year university (Gerwing et al., 2015). However, the wide range of test anxiety experienced by students may also depend on the assessment for test anxiety. Test anxiety is characterized by feelings of dread and worry that are specific to the context of academic testing conditions (Driscoll, 2007; Sarason, 1977). Test anxiety is associated with poor course grades (Chapell et al., 2005; Segool et al., 2014), difficulties engaging in instructional content (Bedell & Marlowe, 1995), lower neurocognitive performance (Thames et al., 2015), and low test performance (Putwain, 2008; von der Embse & Witmer, 2014), which has been demonstrated to range across a variety of indicators of academic success including standardized tests, university entrance exams, as well as grade point average (von der Embse et al., 2018). Consequently, research should identify correlates and predictors of test anxiety in order to better understand the construct and improve upon intervention strategies.
Because test anxiety is composed of feelings of worry surrounding the assessment of knowledge in an academic setting, the psychological construct of intellectual humility may serve to better understand and address this detriment to student performance in academia. In its most basic form, intellectual humility is considered an “epistemic virtue that promotes being a good knower” (Brady & Pritchard, 2003; Stafford, 2010). The general construct of humility is a multifaceted psychological construct with definitions that emphasize a variety of intrapersonal qualities; however, an accurate view of oneself including an accurate perspective of one’s position relative to other people and circumstances is nearly universally accepted among humility researchers (Davis et al., 2010; Krumrei-Mancuso & Rouse, 2016). While the general construct of humility is rooted in perceptions of the self, intellectual humility is based in perceptions specific to one’s knowledge, beliefs, opinions, and ideas (Krumrei-Mancuso & Rouse, 2016). For example, intellectual humility has been found to predict anti-vaccination attitudes and intentions to vaccinate against COVID-19 (Huynh & Senger, 2021; Senger & Huynh, 2021). Therefore, intellectual humility can best be described as being modest about the manner in which the self attains and uses information (Stafford, 2010). Intellectual humility has been described as a virtue when concern for knowledge and truth supersede concern for one’s intellectual status (Roberts & Wood, 2007). Furthermore, intellectual humility means acceptance of one’s own ideas with confidence while remaining open to contradictory or alternative evidence (Vorobej, 2011). Consequently, research that elucidates the relationship between intellectual humility and test anxiety may lay the foundation of future interventions.
Intellectual Humility
As described, various conceptions of intellectual humility exist; in this paper, we subscribe to the conceptualization of humility put forth by the comprehensive intellectual humility scale (Krumrei-Mancuso & Rouse, 2016). Intellectual humility can be defined by four distinct but intercorrelated facets: Independence of Intellect and Ego, Openness to Revising One’s Viewpoint, Respect for Others’ Viewpoints, and Lack of Intellectual Overconfidence. When an individual’s ego is intertwined with their intellect, they may feel threatened when their ideas or beliefs are challenged such as a student who experiences test anxiety when self-doubt overcomes the assuredness that should come about from rehearsed knowledge. In contrast, Independence of Intellect and Ego allows for calm consideration of ideas that contradict, oppose, or refute one’s own ideas or beliefs because the individual is secure in their own ideas and beliefs. So, the intellectually humble student would experience more self-confidence in the knowledge they obtained when faced with the challenge of test questions. Openness to Revising One’s Viewpoint has much face value as it can be described in terms of changing or revising one’s ideas when presented with new information, good or compelling reasons, or when it is determined one’s ideas were wrong. Therefore, the intellectually humble student may remain open to modifying their understanding when corrected by a peer, tutor, instructor, or professor. Respect for Other’s Viewpoints is composed of valuing others despite differences in opinions and beliefs. Consequently, a student with intellectual humility may respect the individual delivering guidance even when it differs from their own ideas. Finally, Intellectual Overconfidence encompasses beliefs that one’s ideas are intrinsically superior to those of others and lack of consideration for the possibility that one may maintain a faulty idea or belief. The Respect for Other’s Viewpoints combined with the Lack of Intellectual Overconfidence may also contribute to the testing atmosphere in which the student may try to think through their own ideas and question them in order to better understand what is being asked of them on the exam. Generally, the four interrelated facets of the comprehensive intellectual humility scale (Krumrei-Mancuso & Rouse, 2016) engender a sense of calm and a secure position of the intellectually humble person that opposes the anxiety experienced upon being tested and may provide a mechanism for intervention.
Intellectual humility is also associated with memory and knowledge (Deffler et al., 2016; Krumrei-Mancuso et al., 2020). In a test of memory, individuals who scored high on intellectual humility were able to more accurately determine which stimuli they had previously observed (Deffler et al., 2016). Another study found that intellectual humility was linked with more general knowledge, less claiming of knowledge one does not have, and intrinsic motivation to learn (Krumrei-Mancuso et al., 2020). Finally, intellectual humility has also demonstrated an indirect effect on academic performance through receptivity to feedback (Wong & Wong, 2021).
Test Anxiety
Test anxiety is an arousal response specific to testing environments, which derives from trait anxiety (Spielberger & Vagg, 1995). People who experience test anxiety perceive evaluations of their performance as a threat and consequently experience a heightened state of anxiety in the testing environment (Ringeisen et al., 2016). Generally, anxiety can be described as physiological over-arousal with cognitions including dread, worry, and expectations of catastrophic failure (Driscoll, 2007). Additionally, anxiety can also be described as a type of cognitive response marked by self-doubt, feelings of inadequacy, and self-blame (Sarason, 1977). When describing test anxiety, both Sarason (1977) and Driscoll (2007) explain that worry and dread regarding academic performance interfere with concentration and accordingly are closely associated with impairment. However, Sarason (1977) explores the individual experiencing anxiety more thoroughly explaining that the individual may engage in cognitive assessments of the situation and of the self that cause alarm. Specifically, the situation is seen as trying, challenging, and/or threatening and the assessment of the self is seen as ineffective or inadequate to the task (Sarason, 1977). Consequently, the individual engages in self-deprecatory preoccupations and imagines outcomes that are undesirable due to personal inadequacy and loss of regard to others (Sarason, 1977). Furthermore, characteristics of anxiety provoking situations can be associated through experience causing anticipation in future scenarios (Sarason, 1977). The origins of perceptions of personal inadequacy and perceptions of threat can derive from the stimulus properties of the situations, unrealistically high standards, and in some cases, be traced to early childhood experiences (Sarason, 1977).
Sarason (1977) recommends cognitive restructuring in order to help individuals develop new cognitive skills to replace maladaptive ones. To reiterate, anxiety may stem from cognitive distortions surrounding perceptions of the self and external stimuli whereas intellectual humility is rooted in an accurate and therefore non-biased assessment of one’s knowledge. Thus, intellectual humility may be well suited as both an inverse psychological construct and as a mode of intervention that could potentially address the main cognitive distortions in test anxiety.
Demographic factors
Demographic variables are also important when considering who experiences test anxiety with more frequency. A meta-analytic review found that female and minority students reported higher degrees of test anxiety (von der Embse et al., 2018). While no studies were located that directly associated socioeconomic status (SES) to test anxiety, previous research at a minority-majority institution demonstrated that perceived lower SES predicted academic self-perceptions (Huynh et al., 2021). The research on age and test anxiety is mixed. Some research has demonstrated age to be inversely related to test anxiety, where test anxiety decreases with age (Chapell et al., 2005; Dawood et al., 2016); whereas, other research has shown an inverse relationship, where test anxiety increases with age (Sansgiry & Sail, 2006) or has no effect at all (Rasor & Rasor, 1998). Thus, a test of the association between intellectual humility and test anxiety should control for the potential influence of demographic factors such as sex, age, and racial/ethnic identity.
Summary and hypotheses
Test anxiety can hinder academic performance. Intellectual humility is a psychological construct that may oppose test anxiety and serve as a potential avenue to decrease it. In this study, we examined the relationship between intellectual humility and test anxiety in a college student sample and a community sample. We hypothesized that intellectual humility would negatively predict test anxiety in both samples, even when controlling for the potential influence of demographic factors on test anxiety.
Study 1: Student Sample
Participants
Participants’ Demographic Information for Study 1 and Study 2
Measures
Intellectual humility
Intellectual humility was measured using the Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale (Krumrei-Mancuso & Rouse, 2016). The scale contains four subscales (22 statements total): Independence of Intellect and Ego; Openness to Revising One’s Viewpoint; Respect for Other’s Viewpoints, and Lack of Intellectual Overconfidence. Participants indicated their (dis)agreement with statements, with 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree as anchors. Higher scores reflect higher intellectual humility.
Westside test anxiety
We used two measures to assess test anxiety. The first measure was the Westside Test Anxiety Scale (Driscoll, 2007). Participants rated how true each statement was of them (10 statements total) using a 5-point scale, 1 – seldom or never true to 5 – extremely or always true. Scores to the 10 items were averaged to achieve a single test anxiety score, with higher scores indicating more anxiety.
Sarason test anxiety
Test anxiety was also measured using the Test Anxiety Scale (Sarason, 1977), which consists of 37 true-false items (e.g., “If I were to take an intelligence test, I would worry a great deal before taking it.”; “During tests I find myself thinking of the consequences of failing.”). The total exam anxiety score equals the sum of all true responses, again with higher scores indicating more anxiety.
Demographics
Participants provided information about their sex (male, female, prefer not to say), race/ethnicity, and their socioeconomic status (SES) using the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status (Adler et al., 2000). Participants rated their own social status by selecting a step on a 10-step ladder that they think best describes their own status relative to others; 1 = worst off relative to others, 10 = best off relative to others. This subjective SES measure can be more sensitive for detecting SES-related outcomes than objective measures (e.g., income; Adler et al., 2000).
Procedure
Participants clicked on a web link that led them to an online questionnaire, where the first page contained important information to help participants decide whether they would like to participate in the study. Participants could consent to participate in the study by clicking on the “I agree to participate” option, then clicking next. Following these consent procedures, participants provided responses to the study assessments. The scales were presented in random order to reduce potential order effects. Following their completion of the scales, participants provided demographic information. All materials and procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at Texas A&M-San Antonio.
Results
Bivariate correlations
Bivariate correlations revealed that intellectual humility was negatively correlated with test anxiety as measured by the Sarason Test Anxiety Scale, r = −.21, p = .005. This relationship was largely driven by the subscale of Independence of Intellect and Ego, r = −.39, p < .001.
Correlations between Test Anxiety Measures and Intellectual Humility in Student Sample.
Notes: n = 181. Correlations significant at p < .05 = *, p < .01 = **.
Multiple regression
In addition to bivariate correlations, we used multiple regression to examine the simultaneous effect of intellectual humility (overall and the Independence of Intellect and Ego subscale), sex, age, subjective SES, and race/ethnicity on test anxiety scores (for both measures). The tested regression equation with scores of the Sarason Test Anxiety Scale as the outcome was significant, F(6,173) = 9.94, p < .001, R2 = .26. Overall intellectual humility did not predict exam anxiety, β = .06, p = .48; however, the subscale of Independence of Intellect and Ego negatively predicted test anxiety, β = −.32, p < .001. Age also negatively predicted test anxiety, β = −.16, p = .02. Additionally, sex predicted test anxiety, such that females reported higher test anxiety relatively to males, β = .23, p = .001. Race/ethnicity and SES did not predict test anxiety, β = −.03, p = .63; β = −.09, p = .18, respectively.
The tested regression equation with scores of the Westside Test Anxiety Scale as the outcome was also significant, F(6,173) = 5.14, p < .001, R2 = .15. Overall intellectual humility did not predict exam anxiety, β = .09, p = .34; however, Independence of Intellect and Ego negatively predicted test anxiety, β = −.23, p = .02. Age did not predict test anxiety, β = −.11, p = .16. Sex predicted test anxiety in a similar direction to the Sarason Scale (females reported higher test anxiety relatively to males), β = .16, p = .03. Race/ethnicity did not predict test anxiety, β = −.04, p = .55, whereas SES did, β = −.17, p = .02.
Study 2: Community (MTurk) Sample
In Study 1, we examined the relationship between intellectual humility and exam anxiety in a student sample. This sample made the most sense because students are most likely to experience exam anxiety. Having confirmed this relationship in Study 1 and given the pervasive nature of exam anxiety, we wanted to examine the relationship between intellectual humility and exam anxiety in an adult community sample in Study 2.
Participants
We recruited participants from Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk), an online workforce where people complete tasks in exchange for compensation. MTurk is a popular source for social science and psychology researchers because participants are more diverse than typical college student samples (Aguinis et al., 2021). MTurk participants also tend to perform equally or better on study tasks than subjects who complete studies in person (Casler et al., 2013). Participants were compensated at the rate of $10/hour based on the average completion time of a pilot version of the study.
We used GPower again to estimate the necessary sample size given the following parameters: r = .20,
Measures and Procedures
Measures and procedures were identical to Study 1. However, considering this study examined test anxiety in a community sample, we changed language to the directions for the test anxiety scales. We stated: “We are interested in your general feelings about exams, so you can answer these questions about exams as they relate to exams that you have to take for work (if you have any) or for exams when you were in an academic setting (or if you’re currently in one).” All materials and procedures for Study 2 were also approved by the IRB at Texas A&M University-San Antonio.
Results
Bivariate correlations
Correlations between Test Anxiety Measures and Intellectual Humility in MTurk Sample.
Notes: n = 196. Correlations significant at p < .05 = *, p < .01 = **.
Multiple regression
We used multiple regression to examine the simultaneous effect of intellectual humility (overall and the Independence of Intellect and Ego, and Lack of Overconfidence subscales), sex, age, subjective SES, and race/ethnicity on the Westside Anxiety Scale scores. The tested regression equation with scores of the Westside Test Anxiety Scale as the outcome was significant, F(7,187) = 34.37, p < .001, R2 = .56. Overall intellectual humility predicted test anxiety, β = −.18, p = .007, as did the subscale of Independence of Intellect and Ego, β = −.53, p < .001. Although the bivariate correlations reveal a negative relationship between the subscale of Lack of Overconfidence and test anxiety, the results of the multiple regression did not find that Lack of Overconfidence predicted test anxiety, β = −.65, p = .33. Age negatively predicted exam anxiety, β = −.10, p = .047, such that older individuals reported less test anxiety; whereas subjective SES positively predicted exam anxiety, β = .13, p = .01. Race/ethnicity and sex did not predict exam anxiety, β = −.005, p = .97; β = −.10, p = .24, respectively.
The tested regression equation with scores of the Sarason Test Anxiety Scale as the outcome (with the same predictors as above) was significant, F(7,187) = 14.58, p < .001, R2 = .35. Similar to above, overall intellectual humility negatively predicted test anxiety, β = −.22, p = .008, as did the subscale of Independence of Intellect and Ego, β = −.50, p < .001. Lack of Overconfidence did not predict test anxiety, β = −.12, p = .12. Neither did race/ethnicity, sex, age, nor SES, βs < −.09 p > .42.
General Discussion
We hypothesized that there would be a negative correlation between overall intellectual humility and test anxiety; this hypothesis was confirmed. Using a student sample, Study 1 demonstrated that overall intellectual humility was negatively related to test anxiety as measured by the Sarason Test Anxiety Scale (but not the Westside Scale); higher scores on intellectual humility was related to lower test anxiety. In Study 2, using a community sample recruited through MTurk, we found that overall intellectual humility negatively predicted test anxiety on both measures of test anxiety. In both studies, regression analyses demonstrated that the main driver of the relationship between intellectual humility and test anxiety was due to the intellectual humility facet of Independence of Intellect and Ego.
This finding makes sense in light of the fact that exams can threaten people’s evaluation of themselves and their ideas/knowledge. Intellectually humble people may be able to separate their knowledge from their self-worth (i.e., ego); thus, exams may not be perceived as anxiety-provoking events. Additionally, the intellectually humble may have a more fluid conception of their knowledge, understanding that their knowledge, and knowledge generally, is dynamic and intended to be updated. Thus, intellectual people may view exams as a test of their current knowledge, but not necessarily their definitive knowledge. This perception of knowledge as dynamic may lessen anxiety associated with exams.
It is worth noting that although overall intellectual humility was related to test anxiety as measured by the Sarason Scale, it was not related to test anxiety as measured by the Westside Scale in Study 1. The Sarason scale includes 37 items assessing a broad range of test anxiety experienced as both physiological arousal as well as dread and worry in anticipation of, during, and after an examination. Some questions also ask participants to endorse or deny statements regarding speculations about other students’ intelligence, avoidance behavior, and wishes about professors using different academic assessment criteria as well as the university understanding the anxiety that some students experience with examination. In contrast, the Westside Scale includes only 10 questions with a more limited range of topics; four questions assess worry and dread in anticipation of examination and writing assignments while six questions assess impairment experienced during examination as well as self-assessment after examination (Driscoll, 2007). Consequently, the broader assessment of questions included in the Sarason scale may capture more entanglement of ego with intellectual threat from the outside world than the Westside scale. This interpretation is consistent with the fact that, although overall intellectual humility was not related to scores on the Westside Scale, the facet of Independence of Intellect and Ego nonetheless significantly predicted scores on the Westside Scale.
Previous empirical evidence suggests that simple interventions such as those involving workbook exercises (Lavelock et al., 2014) can increase humility. Future research may attempt to include a workbook exercise as an intervention to increase intellectual humility, specifically focusing on increasing independence of intellect and ego. Such interventions can also test for associated improvements in test anxiety. Additionally, whereas humility has been predominantly viewed as a trait, others have suggested that humility can be examined as a state (e.g., Kruse et al., 2017). Thus, future studies can also examine whether momentary increases in intellectual humility can cause momentary decreases in exam anxiety when it matters most, for example, prior to the start of an important exam. Thus, our work lays the foundation for future experimental work to determine intellectual humility’s impact to exam anxiety.
Finally, it is worth noting the statistical significance of several demographic factors in Study 1. Female sex consistently predicted higher test anxiety across both scales in Study 1. This finding is consistent with previous research that shows that females report more test anxiety (Donati et al., 2020; Goetz et al., 2013; Ringeisen et al., 2016; Schnell et al., 2013). Also of note is that sex did not predict test anxiety in the community sample; this may have been due to not being in an academic environment where the pressure to perform is more imminent. In Study 1, both age and subjective SES were significant negative predictors of test anxiety as measured by the Sarason Scale (and not the Westside Scale), whereas race and ethnicity were not significant predictors for either scale. In contrast, subjective age and SES were both significant negative predictors of test anxiety as measured by the Westside Scale (and not the Sarason Scale) in Study 2. It is unclear why these group and scale patterns emerged. Future research may attempt to investigate group differences in demographic predictors of test anxiety as measured by different scales. Nonetheless, the significance of SES as a predictor of test anxiety among students in Study 1 was consistent with previous findings related to SES and academic self-perceptions (Huynh et al., 2021). However, the non-significant relationship between Hispanic ethnicity as a predictor was dissimilar to Huynh et al.’s (2021) findings. The inverse relationship of age with test anxiety in both groups, albeit for different measures, was consistent with some previous findings (Chapell et al., 2005; Dawood et al., 2016).
Limitations
Despite the relatively consistent connections between intellectual humility and exam anxiety across two different participant samples, this study is correlational and therefore cannot determine if different levels of intellectual humility cause differences in exam anxiety. Future research is needed to experimentally test if interventions designed to increase intellectual humility can reduce exam anxiety. Additionally, further research can more thoroughly characterize how different demographic factors play a role in intellectual humility and exam anxiety. In the present research, Study 1 included mostly female and Hispanic/Latino students, whereas participants in Study 2 were predominately male, White/Caucasian, and approximately 10 years older than participants in Study 1. The role of demographic factors may be important information when designing future inventions aimed at reducing exam anxiety (e.g., the predominately female and Hispanic population, where the Study 1 data were collected, may experience unique interactions between intellectual humility and exam anxiety).
Conclusion
Our study demonstrated a negative correlation between intellectual humility and test anxiety with both the student and community sample. Independence of Intellect and Ego was the key factor in determining the negative relationship. Our study expands the field of research by recognizing intellectual humility as being a negative predictor of exam anxiety, allowing for further research of intellectual humility-based interventions.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a Psi Chi Undergraduate Research Grant.
Ethics Approval
The questionnaire and methodology for this study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Texas A&M University – San Antonio (Protocols #2020–19 and #2020–04).
Consent to Participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available because they contain information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.
