考试焦虑与注意偏向关系的元分析

A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Test Anxiety and Attentional Bias

摘要: 目的：采用元分析技术探讨考试焦虑与注意偏向的关系。方法：首先，通过文献搜索与检查最终获得了近十年的14篇研究，共包含837名被试；其次，使用CMA3.0元软件分别计算考试焦虑被试的积极、消极注意偏向的整体效果量，并分析探讨存在影响注意偏向的调节变量。结果：(1) 元分析结果表明积极和消极注意偏向总体效果量分别为0.055和0.219。(2) 测量方法，与其他范式相比，事件相关电位ERP技术积极偏向效果量(g = −0.742)、stroop范式消极注意偏向效果量(g = 0.485)显著最高。(3) 刺激类别，词汇刺激效果量(g = 0.081)略大于图片刺激(g = 0.015)。(4) 偏向成分，注意解脱困难积极偏向效果量(g = 0.548)和消极注意偏向效果量(g = 0.281)均显著高于注意易化。结论：比起积极刺激，考试焦虑个体可能对消极刺激存在选择性注意偏向；研究使用的不同测量工具、刺激类别、偏向成分可以调节考试焦虑个体与注意偏向的关系。

Abstract: Objective: To explore the relationship between test anxiety and attentional bias by using me-ta-analysis technique. Methods: Firstly, 14 studies involving 837 subjects in the last ten years were obtained through literature search and review. Secondly, CMA3.0 software was used to calculate the overall effect of positive and negative attentional bias of test anxiety subjects, and the moderating variables influencing attentional bias were analyzed and discussed. Results: (1) The results of meta-analysis showed that the overall effect sizes of positive and negative attentional bias were 0.055 and 0.219, respectively. (2) Compared with other paradigms, the positive bias effect size of ERP technology (g = −0.742) and negative attentional bias effect size of Stroop paradigm (g = 0.485) were significantly the highest. (3) The effect of word stimulus (g = 0.081) was slightly larger than that of picture stimulus (g = 0.015). (4) The effect of positive bias (g = 0.548) and negative bias (g = 0.281) on attentional relief difficulty was significantly higher than that on attentional facilitation. Conclusion: Compared with positive stimuli, test anxious individuals may have selective attentional bias to negative stimuli. Different measurement tools, stimulus categories and bias components used in this study can regulate the relationship between test anxiety and attentional bias.