European
Psychologist
The Nature of Trait Anxiety: Cognitive
and Biological Vulnerab~lity
Manuel G. Calvo 1 and Antonio Cano-Vindel 2
1
University of La Laguna, Spain, and 2Complutense University of Madrid, Spain
This paper examines the nature of trait anxiety using self-report and
objective meas ures of biological, behavioral, and cognitive characteristics
as predictors in mu/tiple regression analyses. Trait anxiety was associated
with seif-reported psychological maladjustment and psychosomatic dis-
orders, but not with actual physical capacih; and skills, cardiovascular
fttness, or biochemical parameters. Under social-evaluative stress, trait
anxiety was associated with self-reported cognitive and somatic state
Keywords: Trait anxiety, evaluative stress, cognitive biases, bio/ogical, behaviora/ anxiety, physiological arousal.
There is considerable evidence that patients suffering
from most of the anxiety disorders have elevated levels
of trait anxiety (Clark, Watson, & Mineka, 1994; Zinbarg
& Barlow, 1996). This suggests continuitybetweenhigh
trait anxiety in normals and anxiety disorders in pa-
tients. Continuity has been accounted for mainly in
terms of cognitive vulnerability: High trait anxiety and
the anxiety disorders reflect the same underlying pro-
cesses, which are concerned with hypervigilance to
threat-related information (e . g., Mathews & MacLeod,
1994; Eysenck, 1997). However, there is also the possibil-
ity that vulnerability is concerned with biological factors
(Gray, 1982; Gray & McNaughton, 1996). The aim of this
study is to examine the nature of trait anxiety in order
to uncover dispositional factors that may constitute vul-
nerability to anxiety disorders. A wide range of cogni-
tive, biological and behavioral variables were measured
in normal subjects differing in trait anxiety. Their rela-
tive contribution to trait anxiety is estimated.
Spielberger, Gorsuch, and Lushene (1970) defined
trait anxiety as relatively stable proneness to react with
subjective feelings of tension and apprehension, and
heightened autonomic nervous system activity. In virtu-
ally all theories of personality, trait anxiety or neuroti-
cism are essential structural components (Zuckerman,
Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta, & Kraft, 1993). The assump-
European Psychologist, Vol. 2, No. 4, December 1997, pp. 301-312
1997 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
w'lf \lf
\lf '
llf
\[I
'l'
\jJ \[f \jf
anxiety, but only slightly with actual behavioral anxiety (011/y gaze
avoidance) and physiologica/ arousal (only heart rate recovery). There
was high stability in relationships over a 3-month period. These results
favor a cognitive, rather than a biological, conceptualization of trait anx-
iety. It is suggested that a cognitive bias to focus on interna/ threat-related
stimuli is a vulnerability factor in trait anxiety that predisposes to anx-
iety disorders.
tion of a psychobiological entity for trait anxiety is con-
sistent with an evolutionary perspective, according to
which the anxiety response is part of an evolved defense
mechanism that helps organisms to keep away from
dangerous situations (hman, 1996; Marks & Nesse,
1994). Asan adaptive response protecting from survival
threats, anxiety should mobilize most organismic re-
sources (metabolic, behavioral, and mental) in a coordi-
nated manner (to provide energy and prepare for vigor-
ous and potentially hazardous action). Evolutionary his-
tory across the species must have cemented this trait as
an integrated functional capacity of the organisms.
There are basically two theoretical approaches ex-
plaining the nature of trait anxiety: neurophysiological
and cognitive. Neurophysiological theories of trait anxi-
ety have tried to substantiate its biological nature in
terms of constitutional characteristics in the functioning
of the central nervous system. According to H. J. Eysenck
Manuel G. Calvo is Professor of Psychology at La Laguna University,
Spain. Since receiving his PhD in 1982, he has been concerned with
research on anxiety, efficiency, and cognitive biases.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Manuel G. Calvo, Departamento de Psicologia Cognitiva, Universi-
dad de La Laguna, E-38205 Tenerife, Spain (tel. +34 22 317514, fax
+34 22 317461, E-mail mgcalvo@ull.es).
301
Manuel G. Calvo and Antonio Cano-Vindel
(1967), differences between those high and low in neurot-
icism can be accounted far "in terms of differential
thresholds far hypothalamic activity" (p. 237), with high
neuroticism being associated with greater responsivity of
the sympathetic nervous system. Somewhat similar
structures were identified by Gray (1982; Gray &
McNaughton, 1996): Susceptibility to anxiety would de-
pend on a greater reactivity of the behavioral inhibition
system, which mainly consists of the septohippocampal
system; this reactivity makes high-anxiety individuals
especially sensitive to signals of punishment, nonreward,
and novelty. In a further extension of this approach, neu-
rochemical research has identified neurotransmitters,
such as norepinephrine, serotonin, and gamma-amino-
butyric acid (GABA), acting on the above-mentioned and
related brain areas, which may mediate the sensitivity to
signals of punishment in high-anxiety individuals (Pi,
Cross, & Nagy, 1994; Zuckerman, 1995).
Though there is sorne empirical support far neuro-
biological theories of trait anxiety, mainly coming from
the effects of anti-anxiety drugs and neurological lesions
in animals, inconsistent data ha ve also been faund in hu-
mans. Direct measures of individual differences in the
level of activity in the visceral brain ar the behavioral
inhibition system have not been obtained. Instead, indi-
rect physiological measures such as EEG, heart rate, and
skin conductance have been used. According to Fahren-
berg (1992), "research has failed to substantiate the phys-
iological correlates that are assumed far emotionality
and trait anxiety" (p. 212). Sorne studies have found
higher physiological reactivity far high- than far low-
anxiety individuals (Beidel, 1988; Beidel, Turner, &
Dancu, 1985; see Bernstein, Borkovec, & Coles, 1986, p
. 373), but most of them have not (Baggett, Saab, &
Carver, 1996; Craske & Craig, 1984; Dua & King, 1987;
Holroyd, Westbrook, Wolf, & Badhom, 1978; Steptoe &
Vogele, 1992; Walsh, Eysenck, Wilding, & Valentine,
1994). Further indirect evidence from motor control stud-
ies is predominantly negative ar inconsistent (Craske &
Craig, 1984; Derakshan & Eysenck, 1996; Gilbert, 1991;
Lamb, 1978) regarding differences between high- and
low-anxiety persons. Therefore, there is weak evidence
of objective physiological and behavioral differences as a
function of trait anxiety, which is not consistent with a
neurobiological conceptualization. Most support comes
from self-report measures (see Fahrenberg, 1992).
Cognitive theories of trait anxiety (Eysenck, 1992;
1997; MacLeod, 1996; Mathews, 1993; Williams, Watts,
MacLeod, & Mathews, 1997) argue that the nature of
trait anxiety is concerned with systematic biases in infar-
mation processing, i . e., which stimuli are preferentially
302
processed and how they are interpreted. One of the main
assumptions of this cognitiveapproach is that "the most
important function of anxiety is to facilitate early detec-
tion of signs of threat or impending danger in poten-
tially threatening environments" (Eysenck, 1992, p. 42-
43). Accordingly, if threat is to be detected quick1y, in
arder to mobilize anticipatory defensive responses, then
the attentional system needs to be selective, favoring
threat-related stimuli over neutral stimuli, and ambigu-
ous stimuli or situations should be preferentially inter-
preted as threatening. In high trait anxiety this mecha-
nism would have a low activation threshold. This anal-
ysis is also consistent with the evolutionary perspective
on the adaptive function of anxiety (hman, 1996).
Therefore, high trait anxiety can be characterized by a
hypervigilance bias to threat, that is, a bias in selective
attention to threat-related stirnuli and the interpretation
of ambiguous stimuli as threatening.
Considerable experimental evidence directly sup-
porting the cognitive theory of trait anxiety has been
obtained with regard to externa! sources of information
(see reviews by Eysenck, 1992; MacLeod, 1996; Mathews
& MacLeod, 1994; Mineka & Sutton, 1992). This evi-
dence is concerned both with high trait anxiety in nor-
mal individuals (e . g., Calvo & Castillo, 1997; Calvo,
Eysenck, & Estevez, 1994; Mogg, Bradley, & Hallowell,
1994; MacLeod & Cohen, 1993), and with anxiety disor-
ders in patients (e. g., Eysenck, Mogg, May, Richards, &
Mathews, 1991; Mathews, May, Mogg, & Eysenck, 1990).
However, in a further refinement and extension of the
cognitive theory of trait anxiety, Eysenck (1997) has re-
cently argued that the attentional and interpretative bi-
ases in trait anxiety are also concemed with interna/
sources of information. More specifically, high-trait-anx-
iety individuals would show preferential attention to
their own physiological activity, behavior, and thoughts,
and would tend to magnify their threateningness.
The present study aims to provide data relevant to
both the biological and the cognitive theories of trait
anxiety. In principie, both' approaches are compatible
and complementary: Trait anxiety may have a biological
nature rooted in neurophysiological and neurochemical
reactivity patterns, as well as a cognitive nature charac-
terized by cognitive biases. However, a contrast between
them can be made by examining objective (or actual)
and subjective (or self-reported) responses. In general,
objective physiological and behavioral differences, but
not subjective differences, between persons high and
low in trait anxiety would be favorable to a biological
conceptualization of trait anxiety, whereas the reverse
would be consistent with a cognitive theory. More
European Psychologist, Vol. 2, No. 4, December 1997, pp. 301-312
1997 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

specifically, in this study several groups of measures
have been collected in order to make the contrast.
First, psychological and biological measures related to
anxiety were assessed under both nonstress and stress
(social-evaluative) conditions, in order to determine
whether trait anxiety is associated with stable and/ or
transitory characteristics.
Second, the three areas of manifestation of anxiety un-
der stress, i. e., physiological, motor, and cognitive
(Bernstein et al., 1986), have been explored. In addi-
tion, performance on tasks susceptible of being influ-
enced by cognitive or physiological anxiety was exam-
ined, as a validation approach.
Third, both objective and self-report measures have
been obtained.
This study represents an extension over previous simi-
lar research in several respects.
First, it increases the number, range, and contrasts of
measures.
Second, although it is a correlational study, the relative
contribution of several variables to trait anxiety has
been estimated by means of multiple regression anal-
ysis. Instead of using arbitrary cut-offs to separate two
extreme groups of high- and low-anxiety persons
(which often makes comparisons between different
studies difficult), we have preferred keeping a 166-
subject sample intact, with normal distributions in ev-
ery variable involved in the relationships with trait
anxiety.
Third, participants in this study were normal under-
graduates with varying levels of anxiety. Nevertheless,
the fact that trait anxiety in similar samples (and even
in this one) has proved to impair performance and/ or
efficiency under stress conditions, ensures that we are
dealing with significant levels of anxiety.
Fourth, both females and males ha ve been included in
order to see whether trait anxiety has a similar nature
in both sexes.
Finally, trait anxiety and other measures have been
gathered twice, with a 3-month interval, in order to
determine the temporal consistency of trait anxiety
characteristics.
Method
Participants
One hundred and sixty-six undergraduates (118 fe-
males, 48 males; age: M = 21.2 years, SD = 2.1) partici-
European Psychologist, Vol. 2, No. 4, December 1997, pp. 301-312
1997 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
The Nature of Trait Anxiety
pated for course credit. All of them were assessed on
trait anxiety, psychological measures, self-report biolog-
ical measures, and physical capacity and skills mea-
sures. Eighty seven of them (54 females, 33 males) were
randomly selected to be assessed on cardiovascular and
biochemical measures, and to participate in a session
where emotional reactivity and performance were
gauged.
Measures
Apart from trait anxiety, there were four types of vari-
ables: psychological, biological, emotional reactivity un-
der stress, and task performance under stress. Trait anx-
iety, as well as the other psychological measures and the
biological measures, was measured twice (about 90 days
apart). Emotional reactivity and performance under
stress were determined only once (at the end of the 90-
day period).
Trait anxiety. Trait anxiety was assessed using the trait
scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (ST Al; Spiel-
berger, Gorsuch & Lushene, 1982). This inventory has 20
items; the minimum score is 20 and the maximum is 80.
Reliability for the Spanish version is 0.88 (Cronbach's a).
In the current sample, mean trait anxiety for females was
45.5 at the first assessment (SO= 10.6) and 45.1 (SO =
10.1) at the second assessment (about 90 days la ter); for
males the figures were 37.9 (SO= 7.3) and 38.5 (SO= 8.4),
respectively.
Psychological (Self-report) Measures. Satisfaction with life
was assessed with the Satisfaction With Life scale (SWL;
Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), general
health was gauged with the General Health Question-
naire (GHQ; Goldberg, 1978), self-efficacy was mea-
sured with the Perceived Self-Efficacy test (PSE; Palen-
zuela, 1991), depression was measured with the Beck
Oepression lnventory (BOi; Beck, 1978), and mood was
measured by the tension, anger, fatigue, depression,
vigor, and confusion scales of the Profile of Mood Sta tes
Inventory (POMS; Lorr & McNair, 1984), with the in-
struction for participants to respond "how have you
been feeling in the last week."
Biological Measures. There were four types of biological
measures:
Self-reported psychosomatic symptoms: (1) sleep disor-
ders (e . g., insomnia), (2) gastrointestinal (e . g., diar-
rhea), (3) cardiovascular (e. g., palpitations), (4) respi-
303
Manuel G. Calvo and Antonio Cano-Vindel
ratory (e. g., colds), (5) vitality (e. g., tiredness), and (6)
other disorders (e. g., headaches, etc.). Participants
were asked to indicate, "to what extent have you felt
each of these symptoms in the last month?" For each
of 25 items there were five possible alternative re-
sponses: (O) never; (1) doubtful; (2) sometimes; (3) of-
ten; (4) every day. The internal consistency of the scale
was .79 (Cronbach's a).
Physical capacity and skills in nine standard tasks
(Blazquez, 1990): (1) time taken to sprint 60 meters, (2)
maximal reach-back flexibility test (in cm), (3) jump-
forward test (distance in cm), (4) number of sit-ups
within 60 seconds; (5) throwing a 3-kg (females) ora
5-kg (males) ball test (distance in cm), (6) dynamic
equilibrium (walking on a 4.5-cm wide gymnastics
bar; meters within 60 seconds), (7) bodly ability test
(obstacle running in a field; time in seconds), (8) bodily
ability with moving object test (running while kicking
a ball; in seconds), and (9) distance running test
(1200 m for females and 1600 m formales; in seconds).
Cardiovascular fitness: resting heart rate, resting systolic
and diastolic pressure, time running on the treadmill
test, heart rate, and systolic and diastolic pressure at
maximum effort on the treadmill test, estimated met-
abolic equivalents and participants' V02 max were de-
termined using the standard Bruce' s protocol (De-
Busk, 1990). A Quinton-65 treadmill and a Fukuda
Cardimax-66 electrocardiograph were used for this
purpose.
Biochemical measures: levels of lymphocytes, erythro-
cytes, leukocytes, hemoglobin, hematocrit, thrombo-
cytes, glucose, urea, uric acid, creatinine, VDL-choles-
terol, triglycerides, aspartate-aminotransferase, and
alanine-aminotransferase were determined from
blood samples, and analyzed using a Hitachi-717 au-
tomatic analyzer anda Technicon H-1 system.
Emotional Reactivity under Evaluative Stress. There were
three groups of state anxiety measures:
Self-reported cognitive and somatic state anxiety was as-
sessed by means of the CSAS (Cognitive and Somatic
Anxiety Scale; Calvo, Alamo, & Ramos, 1990). The
CSAS is a 20-item scale containing 10 statements con-
cerned with cognitive anxiety (e. g., "I am worrying
about my performance") and 10 statements concerned
with somatic anxiety (e. g., "My hands feel moist").
The statements were rated on a five-point scale rang-
ing from not at all (1) to very much (5). It was con-
structed after factorial analyses of items from several
similar scales (e. g., the CSAQ, by Schwartz, Davidson,
& Goleman, 1978; see Calvo et al., 1990). Two factors
304
with eigenvalues > 1.5 accounted for a total of 60% of
the variance. The correlation between the cognitive
and the somatic factor was .66. The internal consisten-
cies for each subscale were .88 and .86, respectively.
Behavioral anxiety was evaluated according to the
method described by Lamb (1978) (see also Bernstein
et al., 1986). Behavioral anxiety was decomposed into
four indices: motor, facial, verbal and social anxiety.
There were seven components of the motor anxiety
measure: gratuitous torso movements (trunk contor-
tions), nail biting, hair touching, face touching, object
grabbing/ touching, cloth or body touching, gratu-
itous head movements; five facial anxiety components:
lip licking or biting, swallowing, throat clearing, sighs,
grimaces or facial tics; four elements of verbal anxiety:
speech blocks, "ah ... " sounds during speech, pet
words, and avoidance comments; and one index of
social anxiety: cumulative avoidance of gaze from the
camera while speaking (Farabee, Hokom, Ramsey, &
Cole, 1993; Baggett et al., 1996). All the indices were
determined from video-taped records by two inde-
pendent raters who observed the frequency of their
occurrence in two series (5 minutes each) of twenty
15-s intervals. One series corresponded to the antici-
pation (of tasks) phase, and the other to the speech
phase (see Procedure). The inter-rater reliability was
.98.
Physiological arousal. Heart rate (HR) and tonic skin re-
sistance level (henceforth referred to as skin resistance
or SR) were continuously recorded during a prebase-
line adaptation phase (until they became stable; 9 min-
utes on average), a baseline phase (3 minutes), an an-
ticipation phase (5 minutes), a tasks phase (10 minutes;
with a 5-minute speech subphase within), anda recov-
ery phase (5 minutes). Recording took place in a tem-
perature and humidity controlled laboratory, which
was noise-shielded and dimly illuminated. The partic-
ipants were seated in a comfortable armchair. HR is
assumed to reflect arousal directly (i. e., the higher the
HR, the greater the anxiety), whereas SR is an inverse
index (i. e., the higher the SR, the lower the anxiety).
HR was monitored with a photoelectric finger pulse
transducer (Biociber, Model CI450) attached to the distal
phalanx of the middle finger on the participants' non-
dominant hand, connected to a Letica preamplifier
(Module LE135, Cardioback Biofeedback, Scientific In-
struments). SR was recorded bipolarly with BSR-SC
(Biociber) Ag-AgCl electrodes (surface area = 1 cm 2) at-
tached to the thenar (C6) and hypothenar (C8) emi-
nences of the subject's nondominant hand, with 0.05 M
European Psyclwlogist, Vol. 2, No. 4, December 1997, pp. 301-312
1997 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

NaCl electrolyte. SR was determined using a constant
current generator, connected to a Letica preamplifier
(Module LE138, Dermal Biofeedback, Scientific Instru-
ments). The HR and SR data were relayed online toan
ALR-486 computer, in which the signals were digitized,
and the data were averaged on a second-by-second basis
for subsequent analysis.
Performance under Evaluative Stress. There were indices
of:
Cognitive performance in a 5-minute mental arithmetic
task, which consisted of checking sums in the Primary
Mental Abilities test (PMA; Thurstone & Thurstone,
1979). The number of correct responses were recorded.
Psychomotor performance in a fine motor task, the
Steadiness test, which required that subjects hold a
metal-tipped stylus in an apparatus with nine progres-
sively smaller holes (Model 32011, Lafayette Instru-
ments) without touching the sides. Subjects' arm and
hand were suspended in the air (i. e., not leaning on
the table or the body) while holding the stylus. An
electric impulse counter (Model 58022, Lafayette In-
struments) recorded the errors (number of times the
stylus touched the sides). There was one 20-second
practice trial for the largest hole, and a 20-second trial
for each of the eight remaining holes, each followed by
a 10-second rest interval (total time: 4.5 minutes).
Linguistic performance, measured by the amount of
time talking during 5 minutes of an impromptu
speech, which was required from each participant on
a different topic about popular issues (e. g., "Drugs").
Social-Evaluative Stress
In order to simulate a social-evaluative stress condition,
participants were presented with ego-threat instructions
in writing, and asked to perform two aptitude tasks in
front of a video camera. Ego-threat instructions and
video-taping started at the beginning of the anticipation
phase (see Procedure), which also included a 5-minute
interval for the preparation of a speech. The ego-threat
instructions (Calvo, Ramos, & Estevez, 1992) indicated
that the purpose of the experiment was to assess linguis-
tic ability and psychomotor skill, along with partici-
pants' physiological responses to measure their resis-
tance to stress. In addition, participants were told that
their individual results on the tasks would be evaluated
and compared with those of other students. They were
also instructed to perform at their best. Thus, they were
led to anticipate evaluation of their competence.
European Psychologist, Vol. 2, No. 4, December 1997, pp. 301-312
1997 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
The Nature of Trait Anxiety
Procedure
The psychological measures, trait anxiety, and the self-
reported psychosomatic symptoms were collected in a
classroom under non-stress conditions. In order to facil-
itate honest responses, subjects were asked to use an
anonymous code in the questionnaires, instead of their
names. The physical capacity and skills tests were per-
formed at the University Sports Center (University of La
Laguna). The cardiovascular and biochemical measures
were collected at the University and Candelaria Hospi-
tals (Tenerife).
Emotional reactivity and performance under stress
were assessed in a laboratory room, individually for
each subject, according to the following sequence of
phases. First, after the general instructions to the partic-
ipants (about the safety of the procedure, the conve-
nience of keeping still and relaxed), and the attachment
of the electrodes, the physiological adaptation and sta-
bilization period began. Next, baseline heart rate and
skin resistance were determined. Subsequently, the an-
ticipation phase of evaluative stress started with the
placement of the camera in front of the participant, the
ego-threat instructions, and the participant's prepara-
tion of the speech for 5 minutes. During this phase, mo-
tor and facial anxiety were recorded. Next, a tasks stage
began: Participants performed the steadiness test and
the speech. During the speech, motor, facial, verbal, and
social anxiety were recorded. There was a rest interval
of 2 minutes between the tasks. Subsequently, in the re-
covery phase, the camera was removed, and partici-
pants were told that there would be no more tasks and
asked to relax. Finally, they were requested to fill in the
CSAS, in order to measure the cognitive and somatic
anxiety that they were feeling during the tasks phase.
Results
Preliminary Analyses and Criteria far Multiple Regression
The effectiveness of the stress manipulation was as-
sessed in a 2 (gender: males vs females) x 4 (phase: base-
line vs anticipation vs speech vs recovery) ANOVA on
HR and SR seores. Main effects of phase for HR, F(3, 255)
= 17.49, p < .0001, and SR, F(3, 255) = 15.10, p < .0001,
along with post-hoc Newman-Keuls t tests (p < .05), re-
vealed an increase in HR and a decrease in SR from base-
line to anticipation and speech phases, anda decrease in
HR from anticipation to recovery. Therefore, the manip-
ulation was effective. Nevertheless, SR took more time
to recover than HR.
305
Manuel G. Calvo and Antonio Cano-Vindel

Table 1
Pearson correlations between trait anxiety and psychological self-report variables, and regression statistics (~. sr 2 , p, R,
R2 , adjusted R2 , and F) of trait anxiety on gender and psychological variables, corresponding to the first and the second
assessments (of ali variables).
Psychological Correlations with
variables Trait Anxiety ~ sil
First Second First Second First Second
Satisfaction (SWL) -.66*** -.61 *** -.23*** -.36*** .02 .06
General health (GHQ) -.75*** -.69*** -.21 * -.15* .02 .01
Self-efficacy (PSE) -.49*** -.56*** -.12* -.22* .01 .03
Depression (BDI) .64*** .58*** .07 .15 .00 .01
Tension (POMS) .59*** .55*** .11 .08 .00 .00
Anger (POMS) .54*** .50*** .04 .03 .00 .00
Fatigue (POMS) .57*** .51 *** .01 .04 .00 .00
Depression (POMS) .69*** .52*** .28* .15 .01 .00
Vigor (POMS) -.49*** -.45*** -.06 -.09 .00 .00
Confusion (POMS) .59*** .54*** .12 .14 .00 .01
Gender -.16*** -.25*** .02 .05
First: R = .84; R2 = .71; adj. R2 = .69; F(11, 153) = 34.19, p < .0001
Second: R = .89; R2 = .80; adj. R2 = .77; F(11, 153) = 34.75, p < .0001
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 2
Pearson correlations between trait anxiety and biological variables, and regression statistics (~. sr2 , p, R, R2, adjusted
R2, and F) of trait anxiety on gender and biological variables, corresponding to the first and the second assessments
(of all variables).
Biological Correlations with
variables Trait Anxiety ~ sil
First Second First Second First Second
Psychosomatic symptoms
Sleep disorders .40*** .50*** .22* .23* .03 .03
Gastrointestinal .45*** .49*** .09 .15 .01 .01
Cardiovascular .18 .24* .04 .08 .00 .00
Respiratory .46*** .53*** .20* .26** .02 .04
Vitality -.15 -.04 .08 .07 .00 .00
Other .37*** .46*** .14 .14 .01 .02
Gender -.17* -.22** .03 .04
First: R = .57; R2 = .33; adj. R2 = .28; F(7, 157) = 6.81, p < .0001.
Second: R = .66; R2 = .43; adj. R2 = .40; F(7, 157) = 11.04, p < .0001.
Physical capacity and ski/Is: No significant linear equation
Cardiovascular measures: No significant linear equation
Biochemica/ measures: No significant linear equation
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Pairwise correlations between trait anxiety and the
psychological, biological, emotional reactivity, and task
performance variables were computed, both on the first
and the second (90 days later) assessment. There was a
highly significant correlation between both assessments
of trait anxiety (r(162) = .84, p < .0001).
306
As there were significant correlations between anx-
iety and a lot of the variables, standard multiple regres-
sion analyses were performed, in arder to remove re-
dundancy and examine the best components associated
with anxiety. Trait anxiety was the criterion or depend-
ent variable. The predidors consisted of the variables
European Psychologist, Vol. 2, No. 4, December 1997, pp. 301-312
1997 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 The Nature of Trait Anxiety

Table 3
Pearson correlations between trait anxiety and emotional reactivity variables under stress, and regression statistics (~,
sr 2, p, R, R2, adjusted R2, and F) of trait anxiety on gender and emotional reactivity variables, corresponding to the first
and the second assessments (of trait anxiety; about 90 days befare the ern9tional reactivity measures).
Emotional reactivity Correlations with
variables Trait Anxiety ~ sr2
First Second First Second First Second
Self-reported anxiety
Cognitive .42*** .44*** .32** .29* .04 .04
Somatic .34*** .38*** .05 .13 .00 .01
Gender -.22** -.16* .04 .02
First: R = .47; R2 = .22; adj. R2 = .20; F(3, 82) = 11.66, p < .0001
Second: R = .48; R2 = .23; adj. R2 = .21; F(3, 82) = 11.60, p < .0001
Behavioral anxiety during the anticipation phase: No significant linear equation
Behavioral anxiety during the speech phase
Facial tics .22* .24* .11 .10 .01 .01
Touchobjects .22* .24* .17 .16 .02 .02
Touch clothes/body -.22* .03 -.02 .03 .00 .00
Avoidance comments .20 .23* .02 .09 .00 .01
Gaze avoidance .33** .38*** .27* .34 .06 .10
Gender -.27* -.21 * .06 .04
First: R = .47; R2 = .22; adj. R2 = .15; F(6, 77) = 3.18, p < .01
Second: R = .50; R2 = .25; adj. R2 = .18; F(6, 77) = 5.64, p < .01
Physio/ogica/ measures
Baseline heart rate .22 * .22 * -.21 -.21 .02 .02
Anticipation heart rate .35** .33** .32 .27 .04 .02
Recovery heart rate .40*** .43*** .29* .36** .05 .08
Gender -.27** -.21 * .07 .04
First: R = .52; R2 = .27; adj. R2 = .23; F(4, 79) = 7.05, p < .0001
Second: R = .51; R2 = .26; adj. R2 = .22; F(4, 79) = 6.88, p < .0001
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Note. Emotional reactivity variables not correlated significantly with trait anxiety either far males or females are omitted.

which had shown significant pairwise correlations with
anxiety (see Tables 1-4). These predictors were grouped
according to the category of measures to which they be-
longed. Severa! groups of predictors were used: (a) psy-
chological variables (Table 1), (b) self-repotted psycho-
somatic symptoms and objective measures of biological
health (Table 2), (e) self-reported cognitive and somatic
state anxiety under stress (Table 3), (d) behavioral anxi-
ety during speech (Table 3), (e) physiological reactivity.
under stress (Table 3), and (f) performance under stress
(Table 4). Gender (females coded as O, males as 1) was
included as a predictor in ali of the regression analyses,
because of its correlation with anxiety (r = -.33, p < .001)
and sorne of the predictors. The analyses were per-
formed separately for the first and the second assess-
ments.
European Psychologist, Vol. 2, No. 4, December 1997, pp. 301-312
1997 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
In order to interpret the analyses, the following sta-
tistics from the tables are especially useful in standard
regression (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989): (a) The
squared multiple correlation, or R2, which is the propor-
tion of the variation in the dependent variable that is
accounted for the best linear combination of all predic-
tors (joint and unique contributions); (b) the beta coeffi-
cients, expressing the standardized slope or estimate of
the change in .the dependent variable with each unit of
change in the predictor; (e) and the squared semipartial
correlation, or sr2, which indicates the unique contribu-
tion of the predictor to R2, after the contribution of the
other predictors in the equation is taken out. Therefore,
the difference between R2 and the sum of the sr2 repre-
sents the variance in the dependent variable that ali the
predictors jointly contribute.
307
Manuel G. Calvo and Antonio Cano-Vindel
Table 4
Pearson correlations between trait anxiety and performance under stress, and regression statistics (B. sr. p, R. R2 , adjusted
R2, and F) of trait anxiety on gender and performance, corresponding to the first (first) and the second (second) assess-
ments (of trait anxiety; about 90 days befare the performance measures)...
Performance Correlations with
variables Trait Anxiety
First Second
Mental arithmetic -.04 .01
Steadiness test(errors) .20* .23*
Speaking time -.31 ** -.36***
Gender
First: R = .50; R2 = .25; adj. R2 = .22; F(4, 81) = 6.90, p < .0001
Second: R = .55; R2 = .30; adj. R2 = .27; F(4, 81) = 8.76, p < .0001
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Multiple Regression Analyses
Psychological Variables (see Table 1). The combined predic-
tors accounted far 71 % or 80% of the variance in trait
anxiety in the first and the second assessments, respec-
tively (both, p < .0001). The unique contribution of the
variables was low, and only satisfaction with life (2% vs
6%), general health (2% vs 1%), and self-efficacy (1 % vs
3%) showed significant (negative) relationships on both
occasions, and mild transitory depression (1%), as mea-
sured by the POMS, only on the first assessment. This
implies that most of the variance in trait anxiety was
accounted far by shared (including gender) contribu-
tions (63% on both assessments).
Biological Variables (see Table 2). Only the self-reported
psychosomatic symptoms were used as predictors in a
multiple regression analysis. No regression analyses
were computed far groups of variables in which no mea-
sure was significantly correlated with anxiety, i. e., car-
diovascular fitness and physical capacity and skills. Far
biochemical measures, although there were sorne signif-
icant pairwise correlations with anxiety (i. e., choles-
terol, alanine-aminotransferase, hematocrit, and triglyc-
erides were negatively related to trait anxiety), the gen-
eral linear equation was not significant; therefare,
regression analyses are not included. The psychoso-
matic symptoms in combination contributed 33% and
43% to trait anxiety variability in the first and the second
assessments, respectively (both, p < .0001). There was
only a significant unique contribution far sleep disor-
ders (3% on both assessments) and respiratory problems
(2% vs 4%). The shared contributions (including gender)
were 23% vs 29%, respectively.
308
~ sr2
First Second First Second
.05 .09 .00 .00
.29** .35*** .08 .12
-.29** -.37*** .08 .13
-.34** -.30** .10 .08
Emotional Reactivity Variables (see Table 3). There was
common variability between trait anxiety and self-re-
ported state anxiety under stress on both the first (22%)
and the second (23%) assessments (both, p < .0001).
However, only the cognitive component of state anxiety
showed a genuine relationship to trait anxiety (4% of the
variance), but not the somatic component. In any case,
most of the variance (14% vs 16%) was shared between
both components and gender.
There were no significant correlations between trait
anxiety and behavioral anxiety during the anticipation
phase in the stress condition, and therefare no regression
analyses were perfanned. In contrast, behavioral anxi-
ety during the delivery of the speech was significantly
related to trait anxiety (22% vs 25% of the variance in the
first and the second assessments, respectively; both, p <
.01). However, only one index of behavioral anxiety
showed a significant unique contribution: Avoidance of
gaze contact with the camera was related to trait anxiety
on both occasions (6% vs 11 % of the variance), which
means that high-trait-anxiety participants made less eye
contact with the camera during speech than those low in
trai t-anxiety.'
Baseline heart rate, the increase in the first 2 minutes
of the (5-minute) anticipation phase (anticipation- base-
line), and the decrease in HR in the last two minutes of
the (5-min) recovery phase (recovery - baseline) were
included as predictors. The combined physiological
measures accounted far 27% and 26% of the variance in
the first and the second assessments, respectively (both,
p < .0001). However, only HR anticipation (4%) and re-
covery (5%) in the first assessment, and only HR recov-
ery (8%) in the second assessment, had significant
unique contributions to trait anxiety. The HR recovery
European Psychologist, Vol. 2, No. 4, December 1997, pp. 301-312
1997 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

effect means that the higher the trait anxiety, the slower
the recovery. With regard to skin resistance, no signifi-
cant relationship with trait anxiety was observed.
Performance Variables under Stress (Table 4). Accurate re-
sponses in mental arithmetic, errors in the steadiness
test, and speaking time were included as predictors. Al-
together, 25% and 30% (first and second assessment;
both, p < .0001) of the variability in trait anxiety was
predicted. There were significant unique contributions
of performance in the steadiness test (8% vs 12%) and
speaking time (8% vs 12%).
Discussion
To summarize the majar results of this study:
There was a highly significant relationship between
trait anxiety and self-reported measures of both psy-
chological health and psychosomatic disorders (par-
ticularly sleep and respiratory problems).
In contrast, there were no objective differences in bio-
logical characteristics, including physical capacity and
skills, cardiovascular fitness, and biochemical param-
eters, as a function of trait anxiety.
Under stress conditions, trait anxiety was associated
with elevated self-reported cognitive and somatic dis-
tress, but not with behavioral anxiety (except far
avoidance of eye contact with the camera during
speech) nor with physiological arousal (except far
slow heart rate recovery).
Under stress conditions, trait anxiety was character-
ized by reduced performance both in a fine psychomo-
tor task (more errors) and in speech (less speaking
time).
The reliability of the findings is strengthened by the
stability of trait anxiety and, most importantly, the
consistency of the relationships between trait anxiety
and the other variables across the two assessments in
the 3-month period.
Finally, there was a consistent pattem far both sexes,
except far sorne biochemical parameters (cholesterol,
triglycerides, and alanine-aminotransferase were neg-
atively related to trait anxiety only in males), behav-
ioral indices (avoidance comments and touching ob-
jects were related to trait anxiety only in females), and
performance measures (motor errors were related to
trait anxiety only in females).
Regarding relatively stable characteristics in nonstress
conditions, the evidence supports a cognitive, rather
European Psychologist, Vol. 2, No. 4, December 1997, pp. 301-312
1997 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
The Nature of Trait Anxiety
than a biological, explar;1.ation of trait anxiety. Trait anx-
iety was related to self-reported negative (or absence of
positive) health, both at the psychological and biological
(perceived psychosomatic symptoms) levels. This is en-
tirely consis,tE'.nt'with previous research, according to
which trait anxiety and neuroticism were related to sev-
eral indices of negative affectivity (e. g., Watson & Clark,
1984) and to somatic complaints (Costa & McCrae,
as
1987), assessed by questionnaires. In contrast, objec-
tive bological measures were not related to trait anxiety,
except far a few biochemical parameters (normally indi-
cating better health in high-anxiety participants), which
do not constitute a meaningful pattem and are inconsis-
tent across both sexes and assessment times. Neverthe-
less, it can be argued that the physical capacity, cardio-
vascular fitness, and biochemical indicators which have
been used provide only indirect evidence of neurophys-
iological activity. Even if these measures do not directly
reflect the processes occurring in structures such as
the"visceral brain" (H. J. Eysenck, 1967) or the septohip-
pocampal system (Gray, 1982; Gray & McNaughton,
1996), or in neurotransmitters (Pi et al., 1994; Zucker-
man, 1995), they undoubtedly represent important fac-
tors concemed with biological deficits or dysfunctions.
With respect to reactivity under psychological
stress, the fact that self-reported cognitive and somatic
state anxiety were related to trait anxiety, whereas there
were only slight relationships with actual behavioral
and physiological anxiety, is also favorable to a cognitive
conceptualization of trait anxiety. High self-reported
distress in high-trait-anxiety individuals is a common
research finding (e. g., Baggett et al., 1996; Calvo et al.,
1990). Previous research data conceming actual behav-
ioral anxiety are much less consistent (Gilbert, 1991),
and more often than not they show weak or no differ-
ences as a function of trait anxiety (Craske & Craig, 1984;
Lamb, 1978). In accordance with our findings, Segrin
and Kinney (1995) observed similar social skills in high-
and low-anxiety participants under social-evaluative
conditions, though the former showed a tendency to
negatively misperceive their own behavioral skills. The
only lioteworthy exception regarding behavioral mea-
sures is gaze avoidance: In our own study, as well as in
previous research, trait anxiety was associated with this
measure of social anxiety (Baggett et al., 1996; Farabee et
al., 1993). With respect to physiological indicators, there
is sorne evidence consistent with a biological explana-
tion. Trait anxiety was associated with slower recovery
from stress, although this only applied to the heart rate,
and not to skin resistance. Most previous studies found
no relationship between trait anxiety and resting physi-
309
Manuel G. Calvo and Antonio Cano-Vindel
ological activity, or reactivity during anticipated or ac-
tual stress (see Fahrenberg, 1992; Baggett et al., 1996;
Dua & King, 1987; Holroyd et al., 1978; Steptoe & Vogele,
1992; Walsh et al., 1994). Nevertheless, on-task habitua-
tion may discrimina te better between individuals differ-
ing in trait anxiety (Beidel et al., 1985; Tremayne & Barry,
1990), which is consistent with our data conceming
heart rate recovery after the task. Finally, the negative
correlations with performance in a fine motor task
(which was cognitively very simple), are also compati-
ble with a biological interpretation involving altered
physiological mechanisms in neuromuscular control
(though this effect was restricted to females). Previous
research has also provided sorne evidence of a negative
effed of trait anxiety on fine motor tasks, regardless of
their cognitive demands (Calvo & Alamo, 1987).
As a whole, these findings are mainly consistent
with a cognitive, rather than a biological, notion of trait
anxiety, as most characteristics associated with trait anx-
iety are concerned with perceived rather than actual
measures. The cognitive nature of trait anxiety means
that it is characterized by biases to attend to potentially
threatening information and to interpret ambiguous in-
formation as threatening. This selective and preferential
processing of threat-related information has been well
documented with regard to external stimuli (see Ey-
senck, 1992; MacLeod, 1996; Mathews & MacLeod,
1994). An implication is that these biases could also ex-
tend to internal sources of information. As Eysenck
(1997) has recently argued, persons high in trait anxiety
possess cognitive biases with the processing of informa-
tion about their own physiological activity, behavior,
and cognitions, which lead them to exaggerate the
threateningness of intemal stimuli. Accordingly, in our
study, this can explain (a) why high trait anxiety was
associated with self-report of intemal negative symp-
toms both of psychological and biological health, where-
as no objective manifestations appeared; and (b) why it
was associated with subjective cognitive and somatic
distress under ego-threat conditions, while only minor
physiological and motor alterations were actually ob-
served. This interpretation is also in line with findings
revealing that high-anxiety individuals report focusing
intemally and having greater awareness of their distress
feelings (Baggett et al., 1996), and that they are more
likely to monitor their intemal psychophysiological
states (Walsh et al., 1994). Presumably, the actual behav-
ioral and physiological changes are important in so far
as they feedback to perception (see hman's model,
1996), but they hardly contribute to trait anxiety on their
own. Therefore, biased attention to and interpretation of
310
potentially threatening information coming from one-
self (or from the environment) play a central role in the
definition of trait anxiety.
This cognitive view of trait anxiety is also compati-
ble withth9ry nd findings on the mechanisms respon-
sible for the~ffects of anxiety on performance and effi-
ciency (Calvo & Castillo, 1995; Eysenck & Calvo, 1992),
which constitutes a main line of research within the anx-
iety area. The agreement is particularly noteworthy with
regard to }he notion concerning biased processing of in-
temal information. lt is generally accepted that anxiety
impairs performance and/ or efficiency beca use highly
anxious persons genera te and attend to interna! aversive
or threatening information (e. g., self-deprecatory
thoughts about one's own capacity, expectations of fail-
ure, focus on one' s own physiological and behavioral
reactions, etc.) during task performance (e. g., Sarason,
1984). This biased processing of internal sources of infor-
mation with threatening content would give rise to the
high levels of cognitive interference experienced by
high-anxiety persons. As a consequence of this interfer-
ence with central processing systems, such as working
memory, either (a) performance would be impaired, or
(b) efficiency would be reduced, because anxious indi-
viduals would have to use compensatory resources, or
both.
In conclusion, trait anxiety involves cognitive
rather than biological vulnerability to anxiety disorders.
No actual biological deficit or dysfunction has been
found to be associated with trait anxiety. Only slightly
slower physiological recovery after stress and interfer-
ence with motor performance could be (indirectly) re-
lated to biological vulnerability. This absence of biolog-
ical differences cannot be attributed to low levels of trait
anxiety in our sample. The fact that trait anxiety was
negatively related to both cognitive and motor perfor-
mance under stress, and that participants belonged to
the same population as those who .have shown strong
cognitive biases in previous experiments (e. g., Calvo &
Castillo, 1997; Calvo et al., 1994), ensures that we are
dealing with significant levels of trait anxiety. The
cognitive vulnerability interpretation rests on the fact
that trait anxiety was related to perceived (rather than
actual) poor biological health and perceived high reac-
tivity to stress. Previous researeh with fine-grained ex-
perimental paradigms has documented this type of vul-
nerability with regard to attentional and interpretative
biases to potentially threatening external stimuli (e. g.,
Calvo & Castillo, 1997; MacLeod & Cohen, 1993; Mogg
et al., 1994). In this study, the evidence suggests that hy-
pervigilance to threat-related internal information is
European Psychologist, Vol. 2, No. 4, December 1997, pp. 301-312
.1997 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

also involved. This self-focusing bias has been found in
several anxiety disorders and other psychopathological
states (Wells & Matthews, 1994, pp. 212-226; Woody,
1996). Therefore, vulnerability in trait anxiety is con-
cemed with biased processing of both extemal and in-
terna! threat-related stimuli.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by Grant PS94-0079 from
the DGICYT, Ministerio de Educacin y Ciencia. We
thank Alicia Rodrguez Barrera, Carmen Irene Prez
Garca, Alejandro Jimnez Sosa, and Pedro Avero Del-
gado, for their assistance in data collection. We are also
grateful to Monique de Bonis, Michael W. Eysenck, Al-
fons Hamm, Andrew Mathews, and Ame hman, for
comments on this paper during the symposium on
"New Developments of Anxiety Research: Mechanisms
of Anxiety," Lisbon, Portugal, November 14-16, 1996.
References
Baggett, H.L., Saab, P.G., & Carver, C.S. (1996). Appraisal, coping,
task performance, and cardiovascular response during the
evaluated speaking task. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 22, 483-494.
Beck, A.T. (1978). Depression inventory. Philadelphia: Center for
Cognitive Therapy.
Beidel, D.C. (1988). Psychophysiological assessment of anxious
emotional states in children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97,
80-82.
Beidel, D.C., Tumer, S.M., & Dancu, C.V. (1985). Physiological,
cognitive and behavioral aspects of social anxiety. Behavior Re-
search and Therapy, 23, 109-117.
Bemstein, D.A., Borkovec, T.D., & Coles, M.G.H. (1986). Assess-
ment of anxiety. In A.R. Ciminero, K.S. Calhoun, & H.E.
Adams (Eds.), Handbook of behaviora/ assessment, (pp. 353-403).
New York: Wiley.
Blazquez, D. (1990). Evaluar en educacion fsica [Physical education
assessment]. Barcelona: Inde.
Calvo, M.G., & Alamo, L. (1987). Test anxiety and motor perform-
ance: The role of muscular and attentional demands. Interna-
tional /ournal of Psychology, 22, 165-178.
Calvo, M.G., Alamo, L., & Ramos, P.M. (1990). Test anxiety, motor
performance and learning: Attentional and somatic interfer-
ence. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 29-38.
Calvo, M.G., & Castillo, M.D. (1995). Phonological coding in read-
ing comprehension: The importance of individual differences.
European /ournal of Cognitive Psychology, 7, 365-382.
Calvo, M.G., & Castillo, M.D. (1997). Mood-congruent bias in in-
terpretation of ambiguity: Strategic processes and temporary
European Psychologist, Vol. 2, No. 4, December 1997, pp. 301-312
1997 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
The Nature of Trait Anxiety
acti;vation. Quarterly /~urna/ of Experimental Psychology (A),
163-182.
Calvo M.G., Eysenck, M.W., & Estevez, A. (1994). Ego-threat in-
terpretive bias in test anxiety: On-line inferences. Cognition and
Emotion, 8, 127::>146.
Calvo M.G., Ramos, P.M., & Estevez, A. (1992). Test anxiety and
comprehension efficiency: The role of prior knowledge and
working memory deficits. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 5, 125-
138..
Clark, .:A., Watson, D., & Mineka, S. (1994). Temperament, per-
soralit). ..and the mood and anxiety disorders. fournal of Abnor-
mal Psychology, 103, 103-116.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1987). Neuroticism, somatic com-
plaints, and disease: Is the bark worse than the bite? Journal of
Personality, 55, 299-316.
Craske, M.G., & Craig, K.D. (1984). Musical performance anxiety:
The three-systems model and self-efficacy theory. Behavior Re-
search and Therapy, 22, 267-280.
DeBusk, R.F. (1990). Techniques of exercise testing. In J.W. Hurst
& R.C. Schlant (Eds.), The heart (pp.1825-1834). New York:
McGraw Hill.
Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M.W. (1996). Interpretive biases Jor one's
own behavior in high-anxious individuals and repressors. Submit-
ted for publication.
Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., & Griffin, G. (1985). The
satisfaction with life scale. /ournal of Personality Assessment, 49,
71-75.
Dua, J.K., & King, D.A. (1987). Heart rate and skin conductance
as a measure of worrying. Behavior Change, 4, 26-32.
Eysenck, H.J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield,
IL: Thomas.
Eysenck, M.W. (1992). Anxiety: The cognitive perspective. Hove, UK:
Erlbaum.
Eysenck, M.W. (1997). Anxiety and cognition: A unified theory. Hove,
UK: Psychology Press.
Eysenck, M.W., & Calvo, M.G. (1992). Anxiety and performance:
The processing efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 409-
434.
Eysenck, M.W., Mogg, K., May, J., Richards, A., Mathews, A.
(1991). Bias in interpretation of ambiguous sentences related
to threat in anxiety. /ournal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 144-
150.
Fahrenberg, J. (1992). Psychophysiology of neuroticism and anx-
iety. In A. Gale & M.W. Eysenck (Eds.), Handbook of individua/
differences: Biological perspectives (pp. 179-226). London: Wiley.
Farabee, D.J., Holcom, M.L., Ramsey, S.L., & Cole, S.G. (1993). So-
cial anxiety and speaker gaze in a persuasive atmosphere. /our-
nal of Research in Personalih;, 27, 365-376.
Gilbert, B.O. (1991). Physiological and nonverbal correlates of ex-
traversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism during active and
passive coping. Personality Individual Differences, 12, 1325-1331.
Goldberg, D. (1978). Manual of the General Health Questionnaire,
Windsor, UK: NFER.
Gray, J.A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety. Oxford: Claren-
don.
311
Manuel G. Calvo and Antonio Cano-Vindel
Gray, J.A., & McNaughton, N. (1996). The neuropsychology of
anxiety: Reprise. In D.A. Hope (Ed.), Perspectives on anxiety,
panic, and fear. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 13,
pp. 61-134). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Holroyd, K., Westbrook, T., Wolf, M., & Badhom, E. (1978). Per-
formance, cognition, and physiological responding in test anx-
iety. fournal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 442-451.
Lamb, L. (1978). Use of behavioral measures in anxiety research.
Psychological Reports, 43, 1079-1085.
Lorr, M., & McNair, D.M. (1984). Profile of Mood States Manual. San
Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
MacLeod, C. (1996). Anxiety and cognitive processes. In I.G. Sara-
son, G.R. Pierce, & B.R. Sarason (Eds.), Cognitive interference:
Theories, methods and findings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
MacLeod, C. & Cohen, l. (1993). Anxiety and the interpretation of
ambiguity: A text comprehension study. fournal of Abnormal
Psychology, 102, 238-247.
Marks, I.M., & Nesse, R.M. (1994). Fear and fitness: An evolution-
ary analysis of anxiety disorders. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15,
247-261.
Mathews, A. (1993). Anxiety and the processing of emotional in-
formation. In L. Chapman & D. Fowles (Eds.), Progress in ex-
perimental personality and psychopathology research, Vol. 16
(pp. 254-280). New York: Academic Press.
Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (1994). Cognitive approaches to
emotions and emotional disorders. Annual Review of Psycholo-
gy, 45, 25-50.
Mathews, A., May, J., Mogg, K., & Eysenck, M.W.. (1990). Atten-
tional bias in anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 166-
173.
Mineka, S., & Sutton, S.K. (1992). Cognitive biases and the emo-
tional disorders. Psychological Science, 3, 65-69.
Mogg, K., Bradley, B., & Hallowell, N. (1994). Attentional bias to
threat: Roles of trait anxiety, stressful events, and awareness.
Quarterly fournal of Experimental Psychology, 47(A), 841-864.
hman, A. (1996). Preferential preattentive processing of threat in
anxety: Preparedness and attentonal biases. In R.M. Rapee
(Ed.), Current controversies in the anxiety disorders (pp. 253-290).
New York: Guilford.
Palenzuela, D.L. (1991). Un estudio psicometrico de tres medidas
sobre el self: Autopunitividad, autoeficacia y autoestima [A
psychometric study on three measures of the self: Self-puni-
tivity, self-efficacy, and self-esteem]. Qurriculum, 1/2, 215-218.
Pi, E.H., Gross, L.S., & Nagy, R.M. (1994). Biochemical factors in
anxiety and related disorders. In B.B. Wolman & G. Stricker
(Eds.), Anxiety and related disorders (pp. 112-131). New York:
Wiley.
Sarason, I.G. (1984). Stress, anxiety and interference: Reactions to
tests. fournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 929-938.
312
Schwartz, G.E., Davidson, RJ., & Goleman, D.J. (1978). Patteming
of cognitive and somatic processes in the self-regulation of
anxiety: Effects of meditation versus exercise. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 40, 321-328.
Segrin, C.,,& Knney, T. (1995). Social skills deficits among the so-
cially anxiou.s': Rejection from others and loneliness. Motivation
and Emotion, 19, 1-24.
Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., & Lushene, R.E. (1970). Manual
far the:State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychcilogist Press.
Spielberger,('.:.D., Gorsuch, R.L., & Lushene, R.E. (1982). Cuestion-
ario de Ansiedad Estado-Rasgo [State-Trait Anxiety Inventory].
Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
Steptoe, A., & Vogele, C. (1992). Individual differences in the per-
ception of bodily sensations: The role of trait anxiety and cop-
ing style. Behavior Resea'rch and Therapy, 30, 597-607.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics.
New York: Harper Collins Pub.
Tremayne, P., & Barry, R.J. (1990). Repression of anxiety and its
effects on psychophysiological responses to stimuli in com-
petitive gymnasts. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 12,
333-352.
Thurstone, L.L., & Thurstone, T.G. (1979). Priman; Mental Abilities
Test. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
Walsh, J.J., Eysenck, M.W., Wilding, J., & Valentine, J. (1994). Type
A, neuroticism, and physiological functioning (actual and re-
ported). Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 959-965.
Watson, D., & Clark, L.A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The dispo-
sition to experience aversive emotional states. Psyclwlogical
Bulletin, 96, 465-490.
Wells, A., & Matthews, G. (1994). Attention and emotion. Hove, UK:
Erlbaum.
Williams, J.M., Watts, F.N., MacLeod, C., & Mathews, A. (1997).
Cognitive psychology and emotional disorders (2nd ed.). Chiches-
ter: Wiley.
Woody, S. (1996). Effects of focus of attention on anxiety levels and
social performance of individuals with social phobia. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 61-69.
Zinbarg, R.E., & Barlow, D.H. (1996). Structure of anxiety and the
anxiety disorders: A hierarchical model. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 105, 181-193.
Zuckerman, M. (1995). Good and bad humors: Biochemical bases
of personality and its disorders. Psychological Science, 6, 325-
332.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D.M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M.
(1993). A comparison of three structural models for personal-
ity: The big three, the big five, and the altemative five. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 757-768.
European Psychologist, Vol. 2, No. 4, December 1997, pp. 301-312
1997 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers