2.4 Self-perceived Affective Experience and Objective Learner
2.4.2 Three Types of Relationships
Three different types of relationships between the self-perceived affective
experience and the objective learner performance have been identified in the
major SL/FL studies. To be specific, the Yerkes–Dodson Law (1908) suggested
an inverted U-shape relationship between emotions and performances. Krashen’s
Affective Filter Theory (1982) suggested that emotion was a causal factor in the
2In this study, the terms of self-perceived, self-evaluated, self-reported, self-rated, self-assessed
performance. Sparks’ and Ganschow’s Linguistic Coding Deficit Hypothesis
(1991) suggested that emotion was a side effect to the performance.
2.4.2.1 An Inverted U-shape Relationship
The Yerkes–Dodson Law (1908) originally described the relationship between
arousal and performance (Figure 2.4.1). Arousal referred to the physiological and
psychological state of ‘being awake or reactive to stimuli’ (Yerkes & Dodson,
1908, p. 472). The arousal system consisted of several different neural systems
and was an essential element in many theories of emotion, such as Component
Process Model (Scherer, 2009c). This Law was widely applied in the
psychological field to describe the relationship between emotions, such as stress
or anxiety, and performances of different tasks.
The vertical axis (Figure 2.4.1) refers to the performance level and the horizontal
axis refers to the arousal level. Yerkes and Dodson (1908) identified that
different tasks required different levels of arousal for optimal performance. The
shape of the curve can vary greatly according to the differences between the
tasks (Diamondet. al.,2007). The Yerkes–Dodson Law suggests that for simple
tasks, the relationship between arousal and performance could be considered as
linear, that is, when the arousal increases, the performance will improve.
For difficult, complex tasks, there are three levels of Yerkes–Dodson Law: low
arousal level, optimal arousal level, and over-aroused level. The relationship
between arousal and performance can be described as an inverted U-shape curve.
Greenet. al.(1996) illustrated that in the low arousal level, individuals were
more likely to have low motivation to perform the task, and felt fatigue or less
stressful. At the optimal arousal level, the individual reached his/her optimal
amount of arousal to create the best performance. In the over-aroused level, the
individual was over reacting, panicking and physically tense, which may result in
mistakes and declines in performance.
In the SL/FL area, researchers have used the Yerkes–Dodson Law to explain the
facilitating and debilitating emotions in language learning. For example,
Nishimata (2008) applied the Figure 2.4.2 below to illustrate the relationship
between FL anxiety and objective learner performance. Nishimata (2008) argued
that the FL learner’s performance improved as his anxiety level increased till the
mid-point, and afterwards, the performance started to deteriorate as the anxiety
Figure 2.4.2 FL Anxiety and Learner Performance
Another feature of the application of Yerkes–Dodson Law in SL/FL learning is
that researchers refer more to negative emotions, especially L2 anxiety, rather
than to other kinds of negative emotions or positive emotions. For example,
Chastain (1975) argued that ‘perhaps some concern about a test is a plus while
too much anxiety can produce negative results’ (p. 160). Chastain’s argument
agreed that the level of anxiety could have a facilitating or debilitating effect on
the learner’s performance. Similarly, MacIntyre and Serroul (2014) argued that
rather than the minimum or the maximum anxiety, the learner’s best performance
occurred at the mid-point of the inverted U-shape model.
Considering studies on Chinese FL learners, the findings from a number of
studies which have focused on the investigation of the relationship between
(Chiang, 2006; Hu & Reiterer, 2009; Shih, 2010; Chen, 2012; Lou & Wu, 2012;
Xiaet. al.,2014; Jie, 2015). Researchers who adopt the Yerkes–Dodson Law to
explain their findings agree that neither too much nor too little emotion is good
for FL learners’ performances. However, their interpretations of the identified
relationship vary.
For example, Jie (2015) argued that both low level and high level anxiety would
cause low performance because of the effects of time pressure during the test.
Learners felt too relaxed to concentrate on their tests when their anxiety level
was low, and they may not finish their test when the time runs out. On the other
hand, they may feel too stressful to recall what they have learnt previously when
their anxiety level was high, and their constant focus on the clock may distract
them from the test. In contrast, Lou and Wu (2012) argued that the intensity of
emotions affected Chinese learners’ choices of their L2 strategies. The
facilitating emotions at the mid-point could lead to a better choice of L2
strategies, which would in turn lead to better test performances. These findings
and arguments related to Tóth (2010) who argued that although the uniformity of
the relationship between emotions and performances had been identified, no
consensus has been reached on the interpretation of the results.
2.4.2.2 Emotion as a Causal Factor
As Tóth (2010) argued, the reason for the inconsistent interpretation of the
relationship between emotions and performances was because some researchers
side effects. The following theories provide examples to elaborate the two
conflicting views, respectively.
Krashen’s (1982) Affective Filter Hypothesis was one of those theories which
considered emotions as causal factors of performances. Krashen’s (1982)
Affective Filter Hypothesis was widely examined by Chinese FLA researchers
(Wang, 2007; Penget. al.,2008; Du, 2009; Yang, 2010; Liu, 2011; Huang, 2012;
Wu & Lin, 2014).
Krashen's (1982) five hypotheses are as follows:
the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis;
the Monitor hypothesis;
the Input hypothesis;
the Natural Order hypothesis;
the Affective Filter hypothesis.
The fifth hypothesis, Affective Filter Hypothesis ‘captures the relationship
between affective variables and the process of second language acquisition by
positing that acquirers vary with respect to the strength or level of their Affective
Filters’ (Krashen, 1982, p. 31). In his vision, a filter (in Figure 2.4.3) was
being used in SLA. An affective filter could be considered as a mental block that
can control ‘the access of comprehensible input to the Language Acquisition
Device (LAD) for acquisition’ (Liu, 2015, p. 140). Moreover, the affects often
referred to negative ones, such as boredom, fear, anxiety or stress. Higher or
stronger affective filter could lead to less input; whereas lower or weaker
affective filter could possibly lead to more comprehensive input (Krashen, 1982;
2009). In other words, a negative correlation between emotions and
performances was identified by Krashen. Affective Filter Hypothesis suggests
that L2 learners with stronger input may have weaker affective filter, which will
ultimately result in better performance.
Figure 2.4.3 Affective Filter Hypothesis
Another example is Horwitzet. al.’s (1986) establishment of Foreign Language
Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS). In their vision, FL anxiety is considered as a
casual factor. FLCAS is utilised to measure the amount of learner’s FL anxiety
through learning. FL anxiety was considered as a particular phenomenon that
could cause the different performances between individuals (Horwitzet. al.,
1986). FLCAS consists of the three components: communication apprehension,
5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. FLCAS
has been found to be a highly reliable instrument to measure FL anxiety.
Both Krashen’s (1982) Affective Filter Hypothesis and Horwitzet. al.’s (1986)
FLCAS are widely examined in studies conducted by Chinese researchers.
MacIntyre and Gregersen (2012) argued that current SL/FL studies usually
focused on the role of FL anxiety in language speaking. Other emotions,
especially positive emotions and other language skills, such as reading or writing
were far less studied. The negative correlation between FL anxiety and speaking
performances has been found in many studies (MacIntyre, 2002; Nishimata, 2008;
Tóth, 2010; MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012; Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014;
Dörnyeiet. al., 2014). The interpretation of such relationship concentrated on the
effect of the learner’s willingness to communicate (Tóth, 2010). For example,
Liu and Jackson (2008) identified that there was a negative relationship between
the learners’ anxiety level and their speaking performances. Their findings
suggested that more anxious learners were less willing to use the L2 to
communicate. Similarly, Dörnyei (2005) argued that L2 learners with higher
level of anxiety appeared to be reluctant to interact in the L2, which ultimately
resulted in the failure of improving their speaking performances. In general,
theories that consider emotions as causal factors place emphasis on how
emotions trigger performance, especially on how higher level negative emotions
2.4.2.3 Emotion as a Side Effect
In contrast, Sparks and Ganschow (1991) held an alternative view of the
relationship between FL learners’ perceived affective experiences and their
objective performances. Their Linguistic Coding Deficit Hypothesis (LCDH)
suggests that emotions could be considered as side effects of the performances.
LCDH provided ‘a viable alternative to affective explanations for FL learning
problems’ (Sparks & Ganschow, 1991, p. 9). LCDH assumed that ‘FL learning…
is enhanced or limited by the degree to which students have control over the
phonological, syntactic, and semantic components of the linguistic code. A
deficiency in one or more of the components is likely to affect the student’s
ability to learn a FL’ (Sparks & Ganschow, 1991, p. 10). Sparks and Ganschow
(1991) believed that FL learning was built on native language skills. Learner’s
FL competence was based on three linguistic codes, namely, phonological code,
syntactic code and semantic code in the native language. In their vision, learner’s
affective experiences were merely a side effect caused by the linguistic
deficiency through learning.
This alternative perspective was also empirically validated by several studies
(Ganschow & Sparks, 1996; Sparkset. al.,2000; Sparks & Ganschow, 2007, Hu,
2008). The findings from above studies concentrated on the emotion of anxiety
and FL performances. For example, Sparks and Ganschow (2007) found out that
FL learners with lower language aptitude tended to report anxiety at a higher
language skills influenced the performances. The learners’ perceived emotions
‘may reflect students’ levels of native language skills and foreign language
aptitude’ (Ganschow & Sparks, 1996, p. 208).
LCDH was validated by many studies. Ganschow and Sparks (1996) argued that
LCDH was a reliable tool to investigate how the L1 linguistic deficiency could
possibly result in SL/FL learning difficulties. However, MacIntyre (1995) in his
paper,How Does Anxiety Affect Second Language Learning? A Reply to Sparks
and Ganschow, argued that LCDH ‘makes a significant omission by assigning
mere epiphenomenal status to affective variables in general and language anxiety
in particular’ (p. 90). MacIntyre (1995) also argued that there was no doubt that
learner performances could trigger affective changes; however, it should not be
neglected that affective variables would influence language aptitude and
language achievement. All in all, in MacIntyre’s vision, it is questionable to
consider emotions as side effects. On the other hand, Sparks and Ganschow
(1995) in their paper,A Strong Inference Approach to Causal Factors in Foreign
Language Learning: A Response to MacIntyre,defended themselves that,
‘language aptitude is likely to account for the largest part of the variance in FL
learning… affective variables can influence FL learning, although the instances
in which they play a causal role is likely to be small’ (p. 235). Sparks and
Ganschow (1995) insisted on their views of considering emotions as side effects.
2.4.2.4 Emotions as Causes or Effects?
As Tóth (2010) argued, the question of whether to consider emotions as casual
controversial issue, no consensus has been reached till now. The inverted U-
shape relationship between emotions and performances belongs to the view of
considering emotions as casual factors. So the question here is, emotion and
performance, which one happens first? For example, does an individual perform
badly in an exam because he or she feels very anxious; or the other way around?
A logical solution to this conundrum is that both factors are operating in a
vicious cycle. Coulson and Duff (1998) argued that an emotion is ‘both cause
and effect of intentional behaviour [performance]… [and] arises as a direct result
of behaviour [performance], but then acts to modify that behaviour [performance]
through perception and inference. None of these systems can act in isolation
from the others’ (p. 69). The behaviour that Coulson and Duff mentioned can
refer to the learner’s performance in the SL/FL area. In other words, emotions
and performances are suggested to be considered as happening and operating at
the same time as a whole unit. On the other hand, Hegel (1807) illustrated a
similar issue from a dialectical perspective in his famous bookThe
Phenomenology of Spirit.The nature of the two conflicting views is because we
are approaching a linear cause-and-effect relationship. The reason for we are
reaching such a paradox is because we only see things from a 'this causes that'
perspective.
‘The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that
the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the
blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant’s existence, for the fruit
But the ceaseless activity of their own inherent nature makes them, at the same
time, moments of an organic unity, where they not merely do not contradict one
another, but where one is as necessary as the other; and this equal necessity of all
moments constitutes alone and thereby the life of the whole.’ (Hegel, 1807, 2006,
p.68)
Hegel’s illustration describes that two opposing parts can be mutually exclusive;
however, one of the two parts can only depend on the other's existence for its
own existence to make sense. It might be possible to draw on Hegel’s illustration
to describe the relationship between self-perceived affective experiences and
objective learner performances. Both self-perceived affective experiences and
objective learner performances exist and operate in an iterative system as a whole.
Emotions can cause performances just as much as performances can cause
emotions.
In section 2.4, I have discussed the relationship between the self-perceived
affective experiences and objective learner performances. Comparing to the
relatively substantial studies with a focus on the exploration of self-perceived
affective experiences’ relationship with objective learner performances in
SLA/FLA, few studies can be found with a focus on its relationship with self-
evaluated learner performances. Can we use the self-evaluation as a proxy for the
objective performance to identify whether the relationship between the self-
perceived affective experiences and the self-evaluations follows the inverted U-
2.5 Self-perceived Affective Experience and Self-evaluated Learner