Results

Table 2.1 shows the descriptive statistics and within-subject correlations of variables for trait and state data. In both trait and state data, boredom was the most intensely rated emotion and anxiety the least intense. Within-subject correlations were low to medium in size with correlations between appraisals and emotions going in the expected direction.

Control and Value Antecedents of Academic Emotions Table 2.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Note. Descriptive statistics and within-subject correlations of variables are displayed. The hierarchical structure of data was accounted for. Trait correlations are shown above the diagonal (Level 1: N = 480; Level 2: N = 120) and state correlations are shown below the diagonal (Level 1: N = 1510; Level 2: N = 120).

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

The results of the hierarchical linear regressions of the three models are shown in Table 2.2. In the upper part of Table 2.2 the results of the regression analyses for the predictors in state data are shown. Furthermore, the differences in the effects between trait and state data are modeled by introducing the dummy variable for trait vs. state (trait dummy;

1 = trait, 0 = state) and the respective interaction terms (C x T, V x T, C x V x T). These results are shown in the middle part of Table 2.2. Standard errors of the coefficients and residual variances of level 1 and level 2 for every model are indicated in the lowest part of Table 2.2.

Trait State Correlations

M SD M SD Pride Anxiety Boredom Control Value Pride 2.45 1.23 1.66 1.07 -- -.14* -.27*** .33*** .32***

Anxiety 1.74 1.16 1.42 0.95 .01 -- .14** -.29*** -.06 Boredom 3.40 1.28 3.05 1.45 -.14*** .08* -- -.18*** -.30***

Control 3.08 1.25 2.87 1.33 .32*** -.09** -.08 -- .42***

Value 3.61 1.20 2.74 1.52 .23*** .10* -.11** .29*** --

Control and Value Antecedents of Academic Emotions Table 2.2. Hierarchical Linear Models

Note. All outcome and predictor variables, except for dummy variables, were first z-standardized (M = 0, SD = 1) across the entire sample. In constructing the product terms, the product of individual (z-scored) standardized variables was used. The product terms were not restandardized. All predictors were group-mean centered, that is, for each individual on their mean.

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Pride Anxiety Boredom

b SE b SE b SE

Intercept 0.03 0.04 -0.01 0.04 -0.00 0.04

Control (C) 0.24*** 0.02 -0.13*** 0.03 -0.07* 0.03 Value (V) 0.15*** 0.03 0.11*** 0.03 -0.11*** 0.03 C x V 0.05* 0.02 -0.05* 0.02 -0.13*** 0.02

Trait Dummy (T) 0.50*** 0.05 0.32*** 0.06 0.38*** 0.06 C x T -0.04 0.06 -0.18** 0.06 0.01 0.06 V x T 0.13* 0.06 0.03 0.07 -0.20** 0.07 C x V x T -0.01 0.05 0.00 0.06 0.15* 0.06 Residual variance

Level 2 0.16 0.09 0.12

Level 1 0.70 0.86 0.84

Control and Value Antecedents of Academic Emotions 2.6.1 Hypotheses 1 and 2 - Control, Value, and Control × Value Effects

In line with our hypotheses, the conditional effects⁵ of control (b = .24, p < .001) and value (b = .15, p < .001) and the Control × Value interaction effect (b = .05, p < .05) were positive and significant for state pride. The significant interaction can be interpreted such that the relation between control and pride was stronger in situations with higher value appraisals.

In the first panel of Figure 2.2 there is a graphical depiction of the interaction.

As expected, control negatively predicted state anxiety (b = -.13, p < .001) whereas it was positively predicted by value (b = .11, p < .001). The Control × Value interaction also significantly predicted anxiety (b = -.05, p < .05). As shown in the second panel of Figure 2.2, the interaction can be interpreted such that there was a stronger negative association between control and anxiety in cases of high value.

With respect to state boredom, the conditional effects of control (b = -.07, p < .05) and value (b = .11, p < .001) were significant as was the Control × Value interaction effect (b = -.13, p < .001). The appraisal antecedents predicted boredom in the assumed negative direction. As depicted in the third panel of Figure 2.2, the significant interaction effect showed the relation between control and boredom to be different depending on the value appraisal.

5 It should be noted that “conditional effect” is the precise notation for the effects of control and value when an interaction is present in the equation (Aiken & West, 1991). In the present study, additional analyses without interaction terms showed that the independent effects of control and value (i.e., main effects) were also significant.

Control and Value Antecedents of Academic Emotions

Figure 2.2. Graphical display of significant Control × Value interactions in predicting pride, anxiety, and boredom

Note. The graphs were created using the graph modeling function of HLM 6.08 (Hierarchical Linear Modeling; Raudenbush et al., 2009). On the x- and y-axes, z-values are shown. On the x-axis, the 5^th to 95^th percentiles are depicted in order to exclude outliers. The achievement value variable was dichotomized based on the averaged lower (Low Value) and upper (High Value) quartiles. Post-hoc simple slope analyses (Sibley, 2008) were conducted for each low and high value group (-1 SD / +1 SD; pride: p < .001 / p <

.001; anxiety: p = .017 /p < .001; boredom: p = .070 / p < .001).

Control and Value Antecedents of Academic Emotions

2.6.2 Structural Differences between Trait and State

As can be seen in the coefficients of the interactions with the trait dummy, which can be interpreted as reflecting the differences between the predictors in trait versus state assessments, the effects of control, value, and the Control × Value interaction were similar for trait and state emotions concerning the direction of the effects. This is completely in line with our hypotheses, however, the strength of the effects for some appraisals was found to differ between trait and state emotions. For pride, the significant Value x Trait interaction showed that for trait reports, the influence of value was stronger than for state reports (b = .13, p <

.05). For anxiety, there was a significant Control × Trait interaction indicating that for trait reports, the negative influence of control on anxiety was significantly stronger than for state ratings (b = -.18, p < .01). Unexpectedly, the three-way-interaction (C x V x T) for boredom was significant and showed that the Control × Value interaction for trait ratings was significantly lower than for state ratings (b = .15, p < .05). Further analysis revealed that the multiplicative effect of control and value on boredom was not significant in trait data.

Furthermore, the Value × Trait interaction effect on boredom was significant (b = -.20, p <

.01), indicating a stronger negative effect of value on trait boredom.

2.7 Discussion and Implications