THREE METHODS OF REDUCING MATH ANXIETY IN WOMEN

The following three methods of reducing math anxiety in women were compared: Ellis' Rational-Emotive Therapy, Meichembaum's cognitive behavior modification, and math skills intervention. Also to be determined was the extent of relationship between math anxiety and background variables, and between math anxiety and causal attribution variables.;A two-way analysis of variance, repeated measures design, was performed on the MARS. All groups reduced math anxiety scores significantly from pretest to posttest, from pretest to follow-up, and from posttest to follow-up, but no group emerged as the method of choice. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed for math anxiety with background variables and with causal attribution variables. The correlation of the MARS with the DAT was significant, but the MARS with Math GPA, age, number of courses, and length of time since the last math course was not. The MARS was also significantly correlated with these causal attribution variables: ability level, difficulty of math, luck, help or lack of help from others, and effort. It did not correlate significantly with mood, current achievement or the way teachers presented math.;A multiple regression analysis was performed with the MARS as dependent variable. The following variables emerged as predictors: ability level, luck, and the sum of the causes. When a multiple regression analysis was performed with the DAT as dependent variable, the predictors were age, Math GPA, and help from others.;The sample was a group of 61 women, ranging in age from 18 to 60, from a small, private college in Northeastern Ohio. Each of the three groups met for six weekly sessions, lasting 75 minutes each, in the Spring of 1982. Participants were dropped if they missed more than one session. The Differential Aptitude, Numerical Ability Subtest, Form S (DAT; Bennett, Seashore, & Wesman, 1973), was used to measure achievement; the Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale (MARS; Suinn, 1972), to measure math anxiety; and a causes assessment scale (Spies, 1981), to measure causal attribution.