Journal of Educational Psycholog\

2001. Vol. 93, No. 2, 420-429

Copyright 2001 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

0O22-0663/01/S5.0O DOI: 10.1037//0022-0663.93.2.420

Cognition, Anxiety, and Prediction of Performance

in 1st-Year Law Students
Rolando J. Diaz, Carol R. Glass, Diane B. Arnkoff, and Marian Tanofsky-Kraff
The Catholic University of America
Two models to predict academic performance using ability, affective, and cognitive variables were
evaluated using students in their 1st year of law school. Participants were assessed before the beginning
of classes and prior to and immediately following 2 anxiety-arousing lst-year academic milestones: a
final exam and an oral argument. In the path analysis for the exam model, only the Law School Aptitude
Test was predictive of performance. Trait anxiety predicted self-efficacy for cognitive control, which
predicted thoughts, which in turn predicted state anxiety. State anxiety, however, did not predict exam
grades. In the oral argument model, a clear path of significant predictors could be traced from
communication apprehension to self-efficacy for affective control, to state anxiety, and finally to oral
argument score. Thus, different processes appear to operate in each of the 2 academic tasks. The
implications of the results for law school education and future research are discussed.

Law school has long been documented as a stressful experience,

with the first year being especially problematic (e.g., Mclntosh,
Key well, Reifman, & Ellsworth, 1994; Schick, 1996). Many law
students suffer from elevated levels of anxiety and depression
(Dammeyer & Nunez, 1999; Shanfield & Benjamin, 1985). The
origins of such psychological distress appear to be a number of
sources in the law school learning environment, including threats
to self-esteem from the competitive atmosphere, class ranking,
overwhelming workload, intimidating Socratic teaching methods,
and single end-of-semester exams with little prior performance
feedback (Carney, 1990). Although it has been suggested that
academic success in law school may be related to student personality (Boyle & Dunn, 1998), the extent to which anxiety and stress
impact law school performance has remained largely unexamined.

have focused on the importance of negative cognition in the form

of self-deprecatory thoughts and low self-efficacy (Beck & Emery,
1985). Further, models that suggest paths of influence may more
thoroughly explain performance than would the examination of
individual variables in relation to outcome (Ozer & Bandura,
1990). For example, in a study of performance on doctoral dissertation oral exams, Arnkoff, Glass, and Robinson (1992) proposed
a model that incorporated cognitive and affective variables into a
sequential path. Results demonstrated the importance of thoughts
and self-efficacy in the prediction of anxiety. Self-efficacy for
cognitive control was predictive of students' thoughts prior to and
during their doctoral oral examinations. The fact that neither
thoughts nor anxiety predicted student performance is likely due to
the restricted range of performance scores, as all students passed
the exam, and 90% scored at or above the midpoint of the rating
scale.
A further study used a path model to predict oral examination
performance in soldiers being evaluated by a military board, where
performance outcome was based both on soldiers' ability to answer questions and on their military bearing and composure (Glass
et al., 1995). Dispositional anxiety was found to predict preexamination anxiety but not self-efficacy for performance. Preexamination anxiety predicted negative thoughts, which in turn predicted
performance independently of the anxiety experienced during the
evaluation.
Although path models have proven informative in a variety of
contexts, no study to date has used such models to investigate
predictors of law school performance. Researchers have also
tended not to look at predictors of outcome on varying tasks in one
population. In the law school setting, an understanding of predictors of success in different tasks could have important implications
for law school educators and for counselors working with law
students.

Models of Performance
Drawing on both previous research and anxiety theory, the
present study aimed to develop and test two models of first-year
law school performance. Recent conceptualizations of anxiety

Rolando J. Diaz, Carol R. Glass, Diane B. Arnkoff, and Marian

Tanofsky-Kraff, Department of Psychology, The Catholic University of
America.
This study was conducted as part of Rolando J. Diaz's doctoral dissertation at The Catholic University of America, under the direction of Carol
R. Glass and Diane B. Arnkoff.
We thank the students at the Columbus School of Law for their willingness to participate. We are also grateful to those who facilitated this
study, including Leah Wortham (then Associate Dean for External and
Student Affairs), John F. Lord (then Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs),
Doris Malig, and Michael Koby. Special thanks go to Ronnie Siddique and
Katie Cimbolic for their assistance in data collection and entry.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Carol R.
Glass, Department of Psychology, The Catholic University of America,
Washington, District of Columbia 20064. Electronic mail may be sent to
glass@cua.edu.

Models of Examination and Oral Argument Performance

In this study, we chose to investigate two distinct yet stressful
first-year law school academic milestones: the final examination in
420

PREDICTION OF LAW STUDENT PERFORMANCE

students' first-semester course on contracts, and a second-semester
oral argument of a case in front of a panel of judges. Final
examinations in law school are highly stressful in that they typically determine the entire grade for a course, often involve the
novel experience of having to present answers in written form (as
opposed to the verbal form used in class), and pose questions often
different from those asked in class (Kissam, 1989). The oral
argument often fosters competitiveness in students (Auerbach,
1984) and can be intimidating due to the prospect of having to
speak in public in an evaluative setting. The ability to perform at
a high level on both types of tasks has important academic and
career implications. Two models were thus proposed, in which we
hypothesized that performance on examinations and oral argument
is a function of a series of variables organized into three phases: (a)
an antecedent phase, (b) a preperformance phase, and (c) a performance phase. Performance outcome was measured by examination grades and by judges' ratings of oral argument performance.

Antecedent Phase
Antecedent phase constructs consisted of dispositional anxiety
variables and ability variables, both of which were theorized to
play a role in the development of self-efficacy and ultimately to
affect actual task performance. Trait anxiety (a personality characteristic associated with a relatively high level of chronic anxiety
and a likelihood of experiencing anxiety easily), test anxiety, and
anxiety in public speaking situations have been shown to correlate
with undergraduate performance (e.g., Hunsley, 1985; Seipp,
1991). These three constructs were thus expected to play a similar
role in law students' responses to their final examination and oral
argument tasks. In addition, we included measures of academic
ability (undergraduate grade point average [GPA] and standardized test scores on the Law School Aptitude Test [LSAT]), which
have been found to be directly predictive of law school academic
performance (Linn & Hastings, 1984; Powers, 1982).

Preperformance Phase
In the second phase, preperformance factors consisted of three
aspects of self-efficacy expectations. Self-efficacy expectations are
cognitive convictions that individuals have regarding whether they
can carry out specific behaviors to achieve a desired outcome. A
number of elements, including prior accomplishments and emotional arousal, affect the development and maintenance of selfefficacy expectations (Bandura, 1977). Social cognitive theory
also postulates that perceived self-efficacy operates as a cognitive
mediator of anxiety arousal and action (Bandura, 1988). Selfefficacy beliefs have therefore been included, along with anxiety
and negative thoughts, in previous path models of behavior and
performance (e.g., Arnkoff et al., 1992; Ozer & Bandura, 1990). A
relationship between self-efficacy for performance and academic
achievement has been found (Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991;
Smith, Arnkoff, & Wright, 1990). In addition, self-efficacy for
grade attainment on a test was shown to be related to anxiety level
on that test (Zohar, 1998).
Research on self-efficacy has also revealed that individuals who
believe they can control their affect and negative cognitions may
be able to cope better with anxiety and may be less likely to
experience intrusive negative thoughts (Arch, 1992; Bandura,

421

1988). These three aspects of self-efficacy were thus assessed in

the present study: self-efficacy for successful performance, selfefficacy for affective control (over subjective anxiety), and selfefficacy for cognitive control (of intrusive, negative thoughts). We
posited that antecedent-phase predispositional constructs would
influence self-efficacy expectations during the preperformance
phase, which in turn would affect performance-phase variables.

Performance Phase
Finally, performance-related constructs, such as the thoughts
and state anxiety experienced during the exam and oral argument,
were expected to have an effect on actual performance. An individual's thoughts have been theorized to either facilitate coping or
interfere with goal behavior (e.g., Arnkoff et al., 1992; Covington
& Omelich, 1990).
Research on examinations has found that cognition is related to
both test anxiety and performance, with negative thoughts correlating positively with test anxiety (Galassi, Frierson, & Sharer,
1981; Kent & Jambunathan, 1989) and negative thoughts, test
anxiety, and worry inversely relating to academic performance
(Bruch, 1981; Deffenbacher, 1986). However, studies have found
that the state of mind (SOM) ratio of positive thoughts to positiveplus-negative thoughts (Schwartz & Garamoni, 1989) may be
more relevant to predicting anxiety and academic performance
than are negative thoughts alone (e.g., Arnkoff et al., 1992;
Schwartz & Garamoni, 1989). Therefore, we elected to use the
SOM ratio as the performance-phase cognitive variable for the
exam model in the present study.
Although no prior studies have investigated thoughts and selfefficacy in the context of oral argument, research has found that
anxious individuals generally have more negative thoughts in
speech settings than do less anxious people (Beidel, Turner, &
Dancu, 1985; Stopa & Clark, 1993). Further, Glass et al. (1995)
found that negative thoughts, but not the SOM ratio, predicted
performance on a career-related oral exam. We thus chose to use
the construct of negative thoughts as the cognitive variable in the
performance phase of the oral argument model.
In addition to thoughts, state anxiety may be an important
predictor of success during the performance phase. State anxiety is
experienced during a specified period of time and is assumed to
vary in intensity as a function of perceived threat (Spielberger &
Rickman, 1990). State anxiety in evaluation situations has been
examined often. For example, McCleary and Zucker (1991) found
anxiety levels in law students to be significantly higher than
undergraduate norms. There are also studies demonstrating that
state anxiety inversely predicts exam performance (Frierson &
Hoban, 1987; Hunsley, 1985). However, state anxiety was not
related to performance in path models that also included selfefficacy and negative thoughts (Arnkoff et al., 1992; Ozer &
Bandura, 1990).
In summary, the present study sought to predict the performance
of first-year law students on a first-semester final exam and on a
second-semester oral argument using path-analytic models. The
two models incorporated a range of predictor variables, including
dispositional anxiety, academic ability/aptitude, self-efficacy expectations, state anxiety, and negative thoughts. Correlates of law
school performance, including first-year class ranking in addition

422

DIAZ, GLASS, ARNKOFF, AND TANOFSKY-KRAFF

to exam grades and judges' oral argument ratings, were also

calculated.
Method
Participants
Participants were 184 first-year law students (91 men and 93 women,
representing 77% of the class) recruited during orientation sessions prior to
their first semester at a private, mid-Atlantic law school. Participants
ranged in age from 21 to 47 years (M = 24.04); 94% of the sample was less
than 30 years of age. The majority of the students were unmarried (n
157), and the remainder identified themselves as married or living as
married. Participants were primarily White/Caucasian (n = 154), with the
remainder being from various ethnic and racial backgrounds, including
African American (n = 11), Asian (n = 9), and Hispanic (n = 6). All
participants had taken the LSAT prior to applying to law school. Their
mean LSAT score of 154.84 (SD = 4.36) was significantly higher than the
national mean of 150. Zv = 6.51, p < .01. Participants' mean undergraduate GPA was 3.10 (SD = .36) and ranged from 1.98 to 3.81.

Measures
Demographic questionnaire. The demographic questionnaire included
questions assessing age, sex, education, race and ethnicity, marital status,
religious preference, and areas of potential legal specialization.
LSAT. The LSAT is a standardized aptitude test required for admission
to most U.S. law schools, and it assesses comprehension and analytical and
logical reasoning. A combined variable of LSAT score and undergraduate
GPA correlates highly with first-year law school GPA (Law School Admissions Council [LSAC], 1996).
Slate-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STA1). The STAI (Spielberger, Gorsuch,
Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs. 1983) was designed to assess both trait and state
anxiety, and it consists of two 20-item forms. The STAI-Trait asks participants to rate, on 4-point scales, how often they generally experience
certain feelings (e.g., "I am inclined to take things hard"). The STAI-State
form uses similar 4-point scales, on which participants rate how they feel
"right now" (e.g.. "1 feel nervous"). Both forms have been used extensively
in anxiety research and show good concurrent validity with other anxiety
measures. The STAI-Trait has strong test-retest reliability, whereas the
STAI-State has demonstrated low test-retest reliability, consistent with the
expected variability in state anxiety over time (Spielberger et al., 1983).
Reactions To Tests (RTT). The RTT (Sarason, 1982, 1984) is a 40-item
self-report measure of dispositional test anxiety. Four-point rating scales
are used to rate the extent to which each item is typical of one's own
reaction to tests (e.g., "I feel distressed and uneasy before tests"). The RTT
has shown moderate but significant concurrent validity with other test
anxiety measures, as well as an inverse relationship with academic performance (Sarason. 1984).
Personal Report of Communication Apprehension-24 (PRCA-24). The
PRCA-24 is a measure of apprehension or anxiety while speaking in public
situations. The most recent revision (the PRCA-24; McCroskey, 1993)
consists of 24 items on 5-point scales assessing communication apprehension in four areas; dyads, groups, meetings, and public speaking. The
PRCA-24 has demonstrated high internal consistency (McCroskey, 1984;
McCroskey, Beatty, Kearney, & Plax, 1985) and convergent validity with
the STAI-Trait form (Beatty, 1986).
Self-Efficacy Scales (SES). Two parallel 24-item questionnaires were
developed for this study to assess self-efficacy on the final exam (SESEX)
and on the oral argument (SES-OA), consistent with Bandura's (1986)
recommendation that self-efficacy expectations be assessed at the most
specific level possible. Both scales consisted of three eight-item subscales
designed to assess specific self-efficacy expectations: Cognitive ("I will be
able to stop myself from having thoughts unrelated to the contracts final

exam," "I will be able to concentrate only on the argument I'll be making"), Affective ("I will be able to control my nervousness when I take my
contracts final exam," "I will be able to relax during my moot court
argument"), and Performance ("I will do well on my contracts final exam,"
"1 will be able to argue the case I am given successfully"). Internal
consistency of each scale using Cronbach's alpha was .96.
Checklist of Positive and Negative Thoughts (CPNT). The CPNT (Galassi et al., 1981) was designed to assess thoughts during examinations
(e.g., "I won't have enough time to finish this test"). It has separate
subscales for positive and negative thoughts, which allow the calculation of
the SOM ratio (Schwartz & Garamoni, 1989). The original checklist format
was revised to assess how often students had each of these thoughts, using
a scale from 0 (never) to 4 (very often). In addition, one item was dropped
because it was not relevant to the law school setting. Brown and Nelson
(1983), using a similar modification of the CPNT to assess thought frequency, found strong internal consistency coefficients for both positive and
negative thoughts. Galassi et al. (1981) found that highly test-anxious
individuals reported significantly higher numbers of negative and fewer
positive thoughts compared with controls.
Social Interaction Self-Statement TestPublic Speaking (S1SST-PS).
The SISST-PS is a revision of the original SISST, a measure of thoughts
in social interactions (Glass, Merluzzi, Biever, & Larsen, 1982). The
SISST-PS has two similar 15-item positive and negative thought subscales,
and it uses a response format from 0 (never) to 4 (very often). To modify
the SISST for a public speaking situation, items were rewritten to use
pronouns appropriate to this group context (e.g., "I'm really afraid of what
they'll think of me"), as had been done in an earlier revision (Turner &
Beidel, 1985). In addition, three positive items from the original SISST that
were not relevant to public speaking were replaced by three items from the
Scale of Thoughts in Oral Examinations (Arnkoff et al., 1992). Various
researchers have reported strong validity coefficients for the SISST (see
reviews by Glass & Arnkoff, 1994, 1997) and for its use in public speaking
situations (e.g., Beidel, Turner, Jacob, & Cooley, 1989).
Performance. The first-semester final exam grade for the contracts
course and the mean oral argument rating across judges served as the
primary measures of performance in the path analyses. Although students
had exams in three of their four fall courses, two of these courses were
taken by some students in the fall and some in the spring. The contracts
class was the only class with an exam taken simultaneously by all first-year
students in the fall semester. The exam was graded on a scale from 1 to 100
points. For the oral argument, attorneys and judges from the community
volunteered to serve as judges for the competition. Participants received an
overall performance rating from each member of the panel of three judges
who heard their argument, with 30 panels each hearing the arguments of
eight students. An average performance rating across judges was calculated
for each student. In addition, the judges rated students' level of observable
anxiety from 0 (not at all anxious) to 10 (extremely anxious). Finally, the
class ranking of students at the end of their first year, the key measure of
achievement used by the law school, served in correlational analyses as a
measure of overall academic performance.

Procedure
The study was conducted across five assessment points over the course
of the students' first year, and different numbers of participants were
present each time.1 At the law school orientation, prior to the beginning of
classes, 184 students volunteered to participate. They signed an informed-

Analyses were conducted to examine whether patterns of missing data

might have influenced the results. Students from the initial sample who
continued to participate at one or more of the four subsequent phases of the
study did not differ from those who chose not to participate on measures of
background ability (i.e., LSAT score and undergraduate GPA) and law

423

PREDICTION OF LAW STUDENT PERFORMANCE

consent form and a release-of-information form, allowing the investigators
access to their LSAT scores, undergraduate GPAs, contracts exam grade,
oral argument performance ratings, and first-year ranking. Participants then
completed the demographic questionnaire and a booklet that contained the
STAI-Trait, PRCA-24, and RTT (in counterbalanced order), in order to
assess trait anxiety, communication apprehension, and test anxiety,
respectively.
Four weeks prior to their first semester final exams, participants (n =
130) completed the SES-EX, which measured their self-efficacy for the
final exam. Immediately following their contracts exam, the CPNT and
STAI-State measures were administered to participants (n = 120) to assess
thoughts and state anxiety.
During their second semester of law school, participants (n = 67)
completed the SES-OA approximately 4 weeks prior to participating in an
oral argument, assessing their self-efficacy for this task. The oral argument
was a cocurricular appellate argument required of all first-year students.
Students prepared legal briefs for both the prosecution and the defense for
one of three assigned hypothetical cases. They then argued only one side
of their assigned case against a fellow student assigned to the other side.
The participants' performance did not have an impact on their course
grades, but they received specific feedback from the judges. Immediately
following the completion of the oral argument, participants (n = 87)
completed the SISST-PS and the STAI-State to measure their thoughts
and state anxiety during the argument.

Results
Correlates of Performance
Pearson correlations revealed that the only significant correlate
of exam grade was the antecedent aptitude variable of LSAT score
(see Table 1). Surprisingly, undergraduate GPA and test and trait
anxiety were not related to exam scores, nor were self-efficacy for
the exam, state anxiety, or thought variables.
For the oral argument, none of the antecedent variables (such as
LSAT, trait anxiety, or communication apprehension) were significantly correlated with performance, but the higher the preperformance level of self-efficacy for the exam, the significantly better
the oral argument scores. Self-efficacy for the oral argument was
related to performance to a similar degree, but it was not significant due to the much smaller number of participants who completed this measure. At the performance phase, the lower the
self-reported state anxiety and the anxiety observed by the judges,
the higher the oral argument performance score. Interestingly,
positive thoughts were significantly associated with oral argument
performance, but negative thoughts were not.
Finally, first-year class rank, a key outcome measure, was most
strongly related to antecedent variables. Specifically, both LSAT
and undergraduate GPA were predictive of class rank, and men
had better academic performance than did women in the first year
of law school. In addition, the greater the self-efficacy for the
contracts exam, the higher the class rank.

school performance (i.e., contracts exam grade, oral argument quality,

first-year law school class rank). However, those who chose to participate
prior to the final exam were significantly less trait and test anxious, and
those who completed measures after the oral argument had significantly
less test anxiety and communication apprehension, compared with those
who had declined to volunteer at those times.

Table 1
Correlates of Contracts Exam Grade, Oral Argument Score, and
Final Class Ranking
Outcome measure
Predictor
Demographic and ability variables
Sexb
Age
LSAT
Undergraduate GPA
Antecedent Phase Dispositional Anxiety
STAI-Trait
PRCA-24 (communication
apprehension)
RTT (test anxiety)
Preperformance phase
SES-EX
SES-OA
STAI-State (before exam)
STAI-State (before oral argument)
Performance phase
STAI-State (after exam)
STAIState (after oral argument)
CPNT-Positive Scale
CPNT-Negative Scale
SISST-PS (Positive thoughts)
SISST-PS (Negative thoughts)
Observed anxiety during oral
argument

Exam
grade

Oral
argument

Class
rank8

.13
.12
.34**
-.05

-.04
.00
-.10
.09

-.29**
.00
-.36***
-.18*

-.01

-.11

-.01

-.12
-.04

.03
-.15

.11
.06

.10
-.10
-.03
-.10

.21*
.21
.02
-.10

-.19*
.05
.01
-.04

-.16
-.04
-.02
-.16
-.10
.00

-.11
-.28**
.14
-.01
.33**
-.12

.07
-.05
-.09
.04
.20
.01

-.04

-.41***

-.02

Note, LSAT = Law School Aptitude Test; GPA = grade-point average;

STAI = State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; PRCA-24 = Personal Report of
Communication Apprehension-24; RTT = Reactions to Tests scale;
SES = Self-Efficacy Scale (EX = exam, OA = oral argument); CPNT =
Checklist of Positive and Negative Thoughts; SISST-PS = Social Interaction Self-Statement TestPublic Speaking.
a
The student at the top of the class was ranked 1. Thus, lower numbers
represent better performance (higher rank). b 0 = female, 1 = male.
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.

Intercorrelations Among Predictor Variables

In contrast to the relatively few significant correlations between
predictor and outcome measures, there were numerous significant
intercorrelations among predictor variables (see Table 2). Dispositional anxiety scales (trait anxiety, test anxiety, and communication apprehension) were all significantly correlated with each other
and with negative thoughts and state anxiety, and they were
inversely related to self-efficacy. All three subscales of selfefficacy for the exam were significantly and inversely associated
with both state anxiety and negative thoughts during the exam
(which were highly correlated with each other). The three oralargument self-efficacy subscales were significantly inversely related to state anxiety, and self-efficacy for oral argument performance was significantly inversely correlated with negative
thoughts on that task. Again, state anxiety and negative thoughts
were strongly related. However, LSAT scores did not correlate
significantly with any of the other predictor variables.

Tests of the Causal Models

A recursive (unidirectional) path-analysis model with ordinary
least squares for the regression equations was used to test the

424

DIAZ, GLASS, ARNKOFF, AND TANOFSKY-KRAFF

Table 2
Intercorrelations Among Predictor Variables
Variable

1.LSAT
2. STAI-Trait
3. PRCA-24
4. RTT
SES-EX
5. Affective control
6. Cognitive control
7. Performance
SES-OA
8. Affective control
9. Cognitive control
10. Performance
STAI-State
11. Exam
12. Oral argument
13. CPNT, Negative
thoughts
14. SISST-PS, Negative
thoughts

2
3
4
5
6
7

10
-.01

.00
44**

-.11
.50**
39**

.03
-.36**
-.23**
_ 33**

11

12

13

-.07
-.33**
-.22*
-.35**

-.03
-.35**
-.13
-.24**

-.18
-.25*
-.58**
-.21

-.08
-.20
-.46**
-.33**

-.01
-.27*
-.40**
-.18

.05
.32**
29**
.39**

.81**

.77**
.76**

.36**
.30*
.24

.32*
.35**
.26

.31*
.32**
.36**

-.32**
-.33**
-.33**

-.14
-.08
-.01

.77**

.84**
.72**

-.36**
-.34**
-.33**

- . 4 1 * * -.24
-.30* -.29*
-.37* -.30*

8
9
10
11
12
13

.17 -.04
.17
.33**
.22*
.21*
.21*
.37**

.13

-.29**
-.33**
-.38**

.65**
.09

14
.20
.30**
.34**
.32**
-.20
-.24*
-.21
-.24
-.28
-.30*
.32**
.55**
.37*

14

Note. LSAT = Law School Aptitude Test; STAI = State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; PRCA-24 = Personal Report of Communication Apprehension-24;
RTT = Reactions To Tests scale; SES = Self-Efficacy Scales (EX = exam, OA = oral argument); CPNT = Checklist of Positive and Negative Thoughts;
SISST-PS = Social Interaction Self-Statement TestPublic Speaking.
* p < . 0 5 . **/><.01.

models. Each of the two performance outcome scores was analyzed separately. All predictors for each dependent variable were
entered simultaneously on the same step. For each model, LSAT
score was used as the main ability variable, because preliminary
analyses and prior research (Wightman, 1993) indicate that the
LSAT is likely to be a better predictor of academic performance
than undergraduate GPA alone.
Contracts exam model. The path analysis predicting the contracts exam grade is shown in Figure 1, along with the R2 for each
endogenous variable. For the antecedent variables, only trait anxiety was predictive of self-efficacy, relating inversely to selfefficacy for cognitive control, affective control, and performance.
Although there was no significant relationship between LSAT
score and self-efficacy for performance, LSAT scores were
strongly predictive of the final exam grade. Test anxiety was found
not to be predictive of self-efficacy for the contracts exam. For the
preperformance-phase variables, self-efficacy for control of cognitions was significantly related to the SOM ratio of thoughts
during the contracts exam. The more self-efficacy for cognitive
control 4 weeks before final exams, the more positive the ratio of
thoughts during the contracts exam. However, there was no relationship between self-efficacy for affective control and state anxiety immediately following the final exam. Further, self-efficacy
for performance was not related to performance outcome.
With regard to the performance-phase variables, SOM was
significantly related to state anxiety in that the more positive the
SOM ratio, the lower the state anxiety. State anxiety was negatively, but not significantly, related to exam grade, and the SOM
ratio was unrelated to performance. When negative thoughts were
used in place of the SOM ratio as the measure of cognition in the
model, no substantive changes were found.
Oral argument path model. The model and results for the oral
argument are shown in Figure 2. For the antecedent variables,

LSAT score was not predictive of level of self-efficacy for performance. However, the PRCA-24 was significantly related to
self-efficacy in that the higher the communication apprehension,
the lower the self-efficacy for performance, affective control, and
cognitive control.
In the preperformance phase, the three self-efficacy subscales
were differentially effective in predicting performance-phase constructs. The greater the self-efficacy for affective control, the lower
the state anxiety. However, self-efficacy for performance was not
related to oral argument score.
Findings in the performance phase indicated that negative
thoughts were significantly related to state anxiety in that the more
frequent the negative thoughts, the higher the state anxiety. Similarly, the higher the level of state anxiety, the lower the oral
argument score, although the frequency of negative thoughts alone
was not related to performance.
When we substituted the SOM ratio for negative thoughts as the
measure of cognition in the path analysis, the relationship between
preperformance- and performance-phase variables shifted slightly.
State anxiety remained the only predictor of performance, /3 =
.47, p < .05, although it was not as strong a predictor as when
negative thoughts were included in the model. SOM, like negative
thoughts, did not predict outcome, /3 = - . 0 3 , p < .88, but SOM
was an even stronger predictor of state anxiety, j3 = .59, p <
.001, than were negative thoughts. However, the predictiveness of
self-efficacy for affective control and for cognitive control
changed. When SOM was used as the measure of cognition,
self-efficacy for cognitive control became a significant predictor of
SOM, /3 = .35, p < .05, whereas self-efficacy for affective control
was no longer a significant predictor of state anxiety, /3 = .19,
p < .16.
Given the correlational findings, a separate path was also calculated using positive thoughts as the cognitive measure. Self-

425

PREDICTION OF LAW STUDENT PERFORMANCE

-.16
EXAM
GRADE

STATE
ANXIETY
TRAIT
ANXIETY
SELF-EFFICACY FOR
AFFECTIVE
CONTROL

I-.65

/-.04
STATE-OFMIND
RATIO
TEST ANXIETY
.17

SELF-EFFICACY FOR
COGNITIVE
CONTROL

Figure 1. Path model for final exam performance. R2 for self-efficacy = .13 (performance), .13 (affective
control), .11 (cognitive control); R2 for state anxiety = .47; for state-of-mind ratio = .13; for exam grade = .12.
**p < .01.

efficacy for cognitive control emerged as a significant predictor of

positive thoughts, /3 = .44, p < .01. Self-efficacy for affective
control no longer predicted state anxiety, )3 = .10, p < .49, but
positive thoughts were a strong predictor, /3 = .57, p < .001,
such that the higher the frequency of positive thoughts, the lower
the level of state anxiety. State anxiety was no longer a significant
predictor of outcome, /3 = .26, p < .16.
Discussion
In summary, results of the path analysis for the exam model
revealed that among the antecedent variables, only LSAT score
directly predicted performance. Trait anxiety predicted selfefficacy for cognitive control, which was predictive of SOM ratio,
which in turn predicted state anxiety. Neither the SOM ratio nor
state anxiety, however, predicted performance on the exam. In the
oral-argument model, a clear path of significant predictors could
be traced from communication apprehension to self-efficacy for
affective control, to state anxiety, and finally to oral argument
score. In addition, negative thoughts were also predictive of state
anxiety. Specific findings relevant to the models will now be
discussed.

man, 1993), the LSAT was a reliable predictor of exam performance (and of first-year class rank, as well). The LSAT is a
standardized test designed to assess the ability to deal with novel
situations and problems with logical and careful analysis (Powers,
1982). Not surprisingly, it did not correlate with oral argument
performance, as standardized tests are poorer predictors of clinical
performance in law school (Powers, 1982). The two models also
differed with regard to the other antecedent variables. As hypothesized in the exam model, trait anxiety was predictive of all three
self-efficacy domains. Although test anxiety was not predictive of
self-efficacy in the exam model, communication apprehension was
predictive of self-efficacy for the oral argument. This unexpected
result in the exam model may be due to the overlapping variance
of trait and test anxiety. It should be noted that simple correlations
did show significant inverse relationships between test anxiety and
self-efficacy. Trait anxiety was not included as an antecedent
variable in the oral argument model, because the much smaller
number of participants necessitated fewer variables in the analysis.
In this case, the specific dispositional anxiety measure of communication apprehension was highly predictive of all three selfefficacy domains.

Antecedent-Phase Predictions

Preperformance-Phase Predictions

Findings with regard to the LSAT were as expected in the exam

model. Consistent with the literature (e.g., LSAC, 1996; Wight-

With regard to the preperformance-phase variables, the two

models were similar in that self-efficacy for performance did not

426

DIAZ, GLASS, ARNKOFF, AND TANOFSKY-KRAFF

V.08

.06

SELF-EFFICACY FOR
PERFORMANCE
STATE
ANXIETY

-.47*

-.51*

ORAL
ARGUMENT
SCORE

-.33}
-.61**
COMMUNICATION
APPREHENSION

SELF-EFFICACY FOR
AFFECTIVE
CONTROL
/.12
NEGATIVE
THOUGHTS

-.50**
-.26-tSELF-EFFICACY FOR
COGNITIVE
CONTROL

Figure 2. Path model for oral argument performance. R2 for self-efficacy = .19 (performance), .38 (affective
control), .25 (cognitive control); R2 for state anxiety = .35; for negative thoughts = .07; for oral argument
score = .23. t/> < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

predict performance, contrary to most studies reviewed by Multon

et al. (1991). However, a recent path-analytic study by Rouxel
(1999) also failed to support a direct (or indirect) effect of selfefficacy on academic performance. The lack of predictive ability in
the exam model is consistent with social cognitive theory stating
that past and vicarious experiences influence the formation of
self-efficacy expectations (Bandura, 1977). Participants had no
prior experience with law school final exams, which are different
from any they had taken as undergraduates, and had no prior
performance feedback in the course. Later in law school, perhaps
even by the end of the first year, after students have had experience
with a number of exams, self-efficacy for performance would be
expected to be related more strongly to exam outcome.
For the oral argument, although some students had done an
optional oral argument in their first semester, most were still
relative novices. The earlier argument was also before a panel of
upper level students, not actual attorneys and judges from the
community. Thus, the lack of specific past experience may have
led to weaker relationships between self-efficacy and outcome.
As hypothesized, self-efficacy for affective control was a significant predictor of state anxiety in the oral argument model, but
it failed to predict in the exam model. The opposite was true for
self-efficacy for cognitive control, which predicted cognition (the
SOM ratio) in the exam model but showed only a trend toward
predicting negative thoughts during the oral argument. When SOM
was substituted as the cognitive measure in the oral argument

model, however, the path to state anxiety became the same as for
the exam model. This finding is consistent with that of Arnkoff et
al. (1992), who found that self-efficacy to control thoughts and
anxiety predicted the SOM ratio, which in turn predicted state
anxiety.

Performance-Phase Predictions
Positive thoughts appeared to play an important role in oral
argument performance. The mean SOM ratio of positive-topositive plus negative thoughts was .71, considerably greater than
that of .59 during the exam. Although negative thoughts did
predict state anxiety in the oral argument model, the strongest
relationships between cognition and state anxiety occurred when
positive cognitions were included, either as part of the SOM ratio
or alone. In addition, there was a trend in the path model for
positive thoughts to predict performance, and the simple correlation was significant.
The importance of positive thoughts in this model is different
from that found in most previous literature, which has primarily
found a debilitating impact of negative thoughts (Arnkoff & Smith,
1988; Kendall, 1984). The high SOM ratio for the oral argument
may be a function of this task, which, unlike exams, was one of the
few things students did during their first year in which they could
feel like a practicing attorney. Further, it had no consequences for
course grades, and students had been told that to be a convincing

427

PREDICTION OF LAW STUDENT PERFORMANCE

advocate, they had to believe in their case and feel it was winnable.
The strongest correlate of state anxiety was the SOM ratio (-.63),
suggesting that it is important to take positive as well as negative
thoughts into account.
The fact that state anxiety was not predictive of exam grades
(and only LSAT scores predicted exam performance) is consistent
with some previous literature. Although anxiety may indirectly
affect performance, findings on the relationship of test anxiety and
performance have been mixed (Brown & Nelson, 1983; Hunsley,
1985). Arnkoff et al. (1992) also failed to find relationships between graduate students' thoughts and anxiety and their performance on doctoral dissertation orals, whereas ability measures
such as Graduate Record Examination (GRE) scores and graduate
GPA were highly correlated with rated performance. In contrast,
the oral argument model showed state anxiety to be highly related
to judges' ratings of oral argument performance, just as Glass et al.
(1995) found in their study of soldiers taking a career-related oral
examination before a panel of their superiors. Evaluations of
performance on public-speaking tasks like the oral argument
largely depend on the speaker's appearing calm and competent.
Effective cognitive control for the oral argument may have consisted of generating positive thoughts that enabled students to feel
less anxious. They may have thus appeared less anxious, more
enthusiastic, and more persuasive, which in turn may have affected
judges' ratings of the quality of their performance.

Implications for Future Research and Legal Education

This study offers a unique examination of models predicting
performance on two law school tasks, with different paths for
exams and oral argument. It may be that for academic exams,
which in law school essentially determine students' grades in each
course, standardized aptitude tests such as the LSAT serve as the
most reliable predictor of performance. The LSAT was also the
strongest correlate of first-year class rank. Thus the stress and
anxiety experienced by first-year law students so often documented in the literature (see Dammeyer & Nunez, 1999), although
causing significant distress, did not appear to have an impact on
their academic performance. In contrast, dispositional anxiety variables and cognitions may be the most useful predictors when the
performance task, in this case an oral argument, is one in which
outcome is in part a function of how calmly and confidently
individuals can present themselves.
Although LSAT and undergraduate GPA did correlate significantly with first-year class rank, the models explained relatively
little of the variance in performance. Thus some of the factors that
were examined in a study of variables predicting passage of the bar
exam, such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, need to work while
in law school, and academic expectations (Wightman, 1998) could
be important additions to the predictive power of our model. Other
possible factors could be students' ability to understand what is
valued and what is not (i.e., knowing "how to play the game"; G.
Niedzielko, personal communication, June 15, 2000), as well as
good analytical and writing skills (G. Watson, personal communication, July 5, 2000).
Future studies might also focus more on the role of positive
thoughts, as they were significantly related to oral argument performance in the present investigation. Additionally, it could be
advantageous to examine oral arguments with academic conse-

quences, in which successful performance is seen as much more

important than in the present study. Finally, it may prove useful to
look at the strength and generality of self-efficacy expectations
later in the course of law school, after students have taken several
exams, and note the role of past performance on the development
of self-efficacy for law school success.
The results of this study have implications for law students
experiencing anxiety, as well as for law school programs interested
in furthering the welfare of their students. It has been suggested
that law schools initiate stress management programs (Gutierrez,
1985; McCleary & Zucker, 1991), and based on the differential
findings from the two models in the present study, the approaches
may need to vary depending on the type of task generating anxiety.
Results of the exam model suggest that the focus might be on
identifying cognitive patterns and negative thoughts that serve as
triggers for anxiety. The goal of such an intervention would be to
help students challenge and develop a sense of control over debilitative cognitions, in order to minimize distress (e.g., Beck &
Burns, 1979).
However, to improve exam performance, academic interventions (such as tutoring and study-skills training) may be necessary.
For example, Wangerin (1988) has suggested that students be
taught metacognitive skills in time management, efficient reading,
note taking, and reviewing material. Teaching specific lawyering
skills, such as legal analysis and research, can be based on principles of cognitive science in order to impart to students the
conceptual tools needed to analyze cases and apply rules of law
(Blasi, 1995). In addition, students could be better prepared for the
novel experience of taking law school exams if they were given
practice on this type of task before the end of the semester, thus
building a sense of self-efficacy that might be related to later
performance. The recent movement toward creating academic
support programs (ASPs) to help minority and nontraditional students acquire necessary metacognitive skills incorporates many of
these strategies (Knaplund & Sander, 1995; Lustbader, 1997).
From the oral argument model, goals for assisting law students
who have difficulties in public-speaking situations could center on
maximizing performance by reducing anxiety. Law school administrators could help by actively sanctioning and encouraging students to seek out counseling services (Carney, 1990; Gutierrez,,
1985). Cognitive-behavioral approaches (St. Lawrence, McGrath,
Oakley, & Suit, 1983) might again be especially useful in targeting
communication apprehension, so that students could better manage
their anxiety and thus increase their self-efficacy for affective
control, resulting in lower anxiety during oral argument and better
performance. Making videotaped oral arguments with judges' ratings available for student observation might also be beneficial for
reducing communication apprehension, as would giving first-year
law students the opportunity to videotape their own practice arguments and review them with faculty or advanced students. Improved academic performance and lower levels of anxiety could
make the law school experience a more positive and valuable one
for the many students who now experience the law school environment as difficult, stressful, and debilitative.
References
Arch, E. C. (1992). Affective control efficacy as a factor in willingness to
participate in a public performance situation. Psychological Reports, 71,
1247-1250.

428

DIAZ, GLASS. ARNKOFF, AND TANOFSKY-KRAFF

Arnkoff, D. B.. Glass, C. R., & Robinson, A. S. (1992). Cognitive processes, anxiety, and performance on doctoral dissertation oral examinations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 382-388.
Arnkoff. D. B., & Smith, R. J. (1988). Cognitive processes in test anxiety:
An analysis of two assessment procedures in an actual test. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 12, 425-439.
Auerbach, C. A. (1984). Legal education and some of its discontents.
Journal of Legal Education, 34, 4372.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura. A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura. A. (1988). Self-efficacy conception of anxiety. Anxiety Research, I, 77-98.
Beatty, M. J. (1986). Communication apprehension and general anxiety.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1, 209-212.
Beck, A. T., & Emery, G. (1985). Anxiety disorders and phobias: A
cognitive perspective. New York: Basic Books.
Beck. P. W., & Burns, D. (1979). Anxiety and depression in law students:
Cognitive intervention. Journal of Legal Education, 30, 270-290.
Beidel. D. C . Turner. S. M , & Dancu, C. V. (1985). Physiological,
cognitive, and behavioral aspects of social anxiety. Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 23. 109-117.
Beidei. D. C . Turner, S. C , Jacob, R. G., & Cooley, M. R. (1989).
Assessment of social phobia: Reliability of an impromptu speech task.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 3, 149-158.
Blasi. G. L. (1995). What lawyers know: Lawyering expertise, cognitive
science, and the functions of theory. Journal of Legal Education, 45,
313-397.
Boyle. R. A.. & Dunn, R. (1998). Teaching law students through individual
learning styles. Albany Law Review, 62, 213-247.
Brown, S. D., & Nelson, T. L. (1983). Beyond the uniformity myth: A
comparison of academically successful and unsuccessful test-anxious
college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 363-374.
Bruch. M. A. (1981). Relationship of test-taking strategies to test anxiety
and performance: Toward a task analysis of examination behavior.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 5, 41-56.
Carney, M. E. (1990, Spring-Summer). Narcissistic concerns in the educational experience of law students. The Journal of Psychiatry &
Law. IX, 9-34.
Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1990). Achievement dynamics: The
interaction of motives, cognitions, and emotions over time. Anxiety
Research. I. 165-183.
Dammeyer. M. M , & Nunez, N. (1999). Anxiety and depression among
law students: Current knowledge and future directions. Law and Human
Behavior. 23. 55-73.
Deffenbacher, J. L. (1986). Cognitive and physiological components of test
anxiety in real-life exams. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10, 635644.
Frierson, H. T., & Hoban. D. (1987). Effects of test anxiety on performance
on the NBME Part I examination. Journal of Medical Education, 62,
431-433.
Galassi, J. P., Frierson, H. T., & Sharer, R. (1981). Behavior of high,
moderate, and low test anxious students during an actual test situation.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 51-62.
Glass, C. R., & Arnkoff, D. B. (1994). Validity issues in self-statement
measures of social phobia and social anxiety. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 32, 255-267.
Glass. C. R., & Arnkoff, D. B. (1997). Questionnaire methods of cognitive
self-statement assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 65, 911-927.
Glass. C. R.. Arnkoff, D. B., Wood, H., Meyerhoff, J. L., Smith, H. R.,
Oleshansky. M. A.. & Hedges, S. M. (1995). Cognition, anxiety, and

performance on a career-related oral examination. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 42, 47-54.
Glass, C. R., Merluzzi, T. V., Biever, J. L., & Larsen, K. H. (1982).
Cognitive assessment of social anxiety: Development and validations of
a self-statement questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6,
37-55.
Gutierrez, J. (1985). Counseling law students. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 64, 130-133.
Hunsley, J. (1985). Test anxiety, academic performance, and cognitive
appraisals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 678-682.
Kendall, P. C. (1984). Behavioral assessment and methodology. In C. M.
Franks, G. T. Wilson, P. C. Kendall, & K. D. Brownell (Eds.), Annual
review of behavior therapy (Vol. 10, pp. 47-86). New York: Guilford
Press.
Kent, G., & Jambunathan, P. (1989). A longitudinal study of the intrusiveness of cognitions in test anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 27,
43-50.
Kissam, P. C. (1989). Law school examinations. Vanderbilt Law Review, 42, 433-504.
Knaplund, K. S., & Sander, R. H. (1995). The art and science of academic
support. Legal Education, 45, 157-234.
Law School Admissions Council. (1996). LSAT/LSADS registration and
information book. Newtown, PA: Author.
Linn, R. L., & Hastings, C. N. (1984). A meta analysis of the validity of
predictors of performance in law school. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 245-259.
Lustbader, P. (1997). From dreams to reality: The emerging role of law
school academic support programs. University of San Francisco Law
Review, 31, 839-860.
McCleary, R., & Zucker, E. L. (1991). Higher trait- and state-anxiety in
female law students than male law students. Psychological Reports, 68,
1075-1078.
McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Self-report measurement. In J. A. Daly & J. C.
McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence and
communication apprehension (pp. 81-94). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McCroskey, J. C. (1993). Introduction to rhetorical communication (6th
ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
McCroskey, J. C , Beatty, M. J., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1985). The
content validity of the PRCA-24 as a measure of communication apprehension across communication contexts. Communication Quarterly, 33,
165-173.
Mclntosh, D. N., Keywell, J., Reifman, A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1994).
Stress and health in first-year law students: Women fare worse. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1474-1499.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of selfefficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38.
Ozer, E. M., & Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms governing empowerment
effects: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58, 472-486.
Powers, D. E. (1982). Long-term predictive and construct validity of two
traditional predictors of law school performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 74, 568-576.
Rouxel, G. (1999). Path analysis of the relations between self-efficacy,
anxiety and academic performance. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 14, 403-421.
Sarason, I. G. (1982). Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference: Reactions
To Tests. Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research.
Sarason, I. G. (1984). Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference: Reactions
To Tests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 929-938.
Schick, S. R. (1996). Creating lawyers: The law school experience. The
Compleat Lawyer, 13(2), 46-49.
Schwartz, R. M., & Garamoni, G. L. (1989). Cognitive balance and
psychopathology: Evaluation of an information processing model of

PREDICTION OF LAW STUDENT PERFORMANCE

positive and negative states of mind. Clinical Psychology Review, 9,
271-294.
Seipp, B. (1991). Anxiety and academic performance: A meta-analysis of
findings. Anxiety Research, 4, 27-41.
Shanfield, S. B., & Benjamin, G. A. H. (1985). Psychiatric distress in law
students. Journal of Legal Education, 35, 65-75.
Smith, R. J., Arnkoff, D. B., & Wright, T. L. (1990). Test anxiety and
academic competence: A comparison of alternative models. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 37, 313-321.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A.
(1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Spielberger, C. D., & Rickman, R. L. (1990). Assessment of state and trait
anxiety. In N. Sartorius (Ed.), Anxiety: Psychobiological and clinical
perspectives (pp. 69-83). New York: Hemisphere.
St. Lawrence, J. S., McGrath, M. L., Oakley, M., & Suit, S. C. (1983).
Stress management training for law students: Cognitive-behavioral intervention. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 1, 101-110.

429

Stopa, L., & Clark, D. M. (1993). Cognitive processes in social phobia.

Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31, 255-267.
Turner, S. M., & Beidel, D. C. (1985). Empirically derived subtypes of
social anxiety. Behavior Therapy, 16, 384-392.
Wangerin, P. T. (1988). Learning strategies for law students. Albany Law
Review, 52, 471-528.
Wightman, L. F. (1993, December). Predictive validity of the LSAT: A
national summary of the 1990-1992 correlation studies (Research Rep.
No. 93-05). Newtown, PA: Law School Admission Council.
Wightman, L. F. (1998). LSAC national longitudinal bar passage study.
Newtown, PA: Law School Admission Council.
Zohar, D. (1998). An additive model of test anxiety: Role of exam-specific
expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 330-340.

Received August 17, 1999

Revision received July 18, 2000
Accepted October 8, 2000