Response Expectancies and Irrational Beliefs Predict Exam-Related Distress

Abstract

Individual differences in cognitive factors such as response expectancies and irrational beliefs (IBs) have been shown to contribute to variability in distress associated with stressful situations. However, their independent influence on distress when examined within the same study has not been established, nor has the potential of mediational relationships. The purpose of this study was to investigate the contribution of response expectancies and IBs (both general and exam-specific) to exam-related distress in a prospective study. Results revealed that both response expectancies and general IBs separately predicted exam-related distress (p's <.05; N = 105). Observed effects of general IBs were perfectly mediated by, and observed effects of exam-specific IBs were partially mediated by, response expectancies using the Baron and Kenny approach. These data support the view that cognitive factors contribute to psychological distress and are consistent with response expectancy and rational emotive behavior theories. The results suggest that interventions focused on response expectancies and IBs might be an effective means to reduce psychological distress associated with real life stressors such as exams. Future research is needed to determine whether this effect generalizes to other stressful situations.

Psychological effects and brain correlates of a rose‐based scented cosmetic cream

“…Visual analogues scales (VAS) were used for measuring affective states Visual analog scale formats were used to assess relaxation, satisfaction, happiness, and stress. Specifically, we administered 10-cm visual analog scales assessing relaxation, satisfaction, happiness, and respectively stress (for details about the measurement process, see Montgomery, David, Dilorenzo, & Schnur, 2007). Participants were instructed to assess to what degree they feel each of the emotions from 0 = none to 100 = very much.…”

Self-Acceptance and the Parenting of Children

“…Global evaluation is nonpragmatic because it prevents people from achieving their goals; is illogical because it does not fi t logics to extend our identity to a role or behavior; is inconsistent with reality because often the empirical evidences do not support it. In turn, unconditional self-acceptance (USA) is (a) pragmatic, in that it helps people to achieve their aim; (b) logical, in that it respects logics; (c) reality based, in that it is consistent with reality (Montgomery, David, DiLorenzo, & Schnur, 2007 ). Ellis et al ( 1966 ) underlined in "How to Raise an Emotionally Healthy, Happy Child" the role that parental IBs about their children can have on shaping their children's view of the world.…”

“…The structure of the scale is based on the RIBS-GF (Rational and Irrational Beliefs Scale-General Format; Montgomery et al, 2007 ). An equal number of statements refl ecting rational and irrational processes were included, as measured by the Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (ABS-II; DiGiuseppe et al, 1988 ).…”

Response expectancy versus response hope in predicting birth‐related emotional distress and pain

“…According to the scientific literature (Kirsch, 1990), expectancies are strongly involved in both volitional (see Rotter, 1954) and nonvolitional behavioral outcomes (see David, Montgomery, Stan, DiLorenzo, & Erblich, 2004; Montgomery, David, DiLorenzo, & Erblich, 2003; Montgomery, David, DiLorenzo, & Schnur, 2007; Montgomery, Schnur, Erblich, Diefenbach, & Bovbjerg, 2010).…”

“…According to the scientific literature (Kirsch, 1990), expectancies are strongly involved in both volitional (see Rotter, 1954) and nonvolitional behavioral outcomes (see David, Montgomery, Stan, DiLorenzo, & Erblich, 2004;Montgomery, David, DiLorenzo, & Erblich, 2003;Montgomery, David, DiLorenzo, & Schnur, 2007;Montgomery, Schnur, Erblich, Diefenbach, & Bovbjerg, 2010). Kirsch (1985Kirsch ( , 1990 was the first to demonstrate the impact of expectancies on nonvolitional outcomes (i.e., response expectancies), showing that response expectancies (see Montgomery & Bovbjerg, 2004) (1) are sufficient to cause nonvolitional outcomes, (2) are not mediated by other psychological variables, and (3) are self-confirming while seemingly automatic.…”