ANXIETY IN LATVIANS AND RUSSIANS RESIDING IN LATVIASUMMARY OF PROMOTIONAL STUDY

State and trait anxiety6 has been extensively investigated in a number of intra-cultural and cross-cultural studies (e.g., Bergeron, 1983; Magnusson, Stattin & Iwawaki. 1983; Emmite & Diaz-Guerro, 1983; Ahlawat, 1986; Napurahki & Brooks, 1995; Iwata & Higudci 2000; Rimoldi, Raimondo. Erdmann & Hojat, 2002; Poltavski & Ferraro, 2002. etc). To investigate anxiety in two major ethnic groups in Latvia, i.e., Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia, the author has set the purpose of the promotional study: to investigate the features of anxiety in Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia according to a breakdown by sex, age and occupation groups.

The theoretical basis of the promotional study "Anxiety in Latvians and Russians Residing in Latvia" is the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory developed by Charles Spielberger (Spielberger, O'Neil & Hansen, 1972; Spielberger, 1972b; Spielberger, 1972c; Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lusbene, Vagg & Jacobs, 1983).

Subject matter of research: anxiety (anxiety as an emotional state and anxiety as a personality trait).

Research subjects: Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia between the ages of 19 and 69. The total sample comprises 1610 respondents, of which the Latvian sample is represented by 514 males and 695 females. The Russian sample comprises 216 male and 185 female respondents. The ethnic origin of respondents has been determined on the basis of information provided by them.

Key questions:1. What are the A-State and A-Trait scores of Latvians, according to sex and

age categories?2. What are the A-State and A-Trait scores of Russians residing in Latvia,

according to sex and age categories?3. What differences exist between A-State and A-Trait scores of Latvians and

Russians residing in Latvia?

6 Statt-Trait anxiety model developed by Charles D. Spielberger and colleagues distinguishes between situational anxiety, i.e. state anxiety and anxiety as a personality trait (trait anxiety). For the purposes of this study situational anxiety or stale anxiety shall be denoted as A-State, while the concept anxiety as a personality trait shall be designated as A-Trait.

To provide the answers to the above questions, the author set the objective to adapt the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsiuh, Lusbene, Vagg & Jacobs, 1983) developed by Spielberger and colleagues. In addition, the following research question was addressed:

Do the psychometric indices of the Latvian and Russian versions of the STAI-Y correspond to the psychometric indices of the original sample7?

In order to achieve the objective of the promotional study and find the answers to the questions put forward in this research, the following tasks were identified and set:6. Analysis of reference literature and latest research on the concept of anxiety in

psychology.7. Collection, processing and analysis of data regarding the STAI-Y adaptation in

Latvian and Russian.8. Comparison of A-State and A-Trait in Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia

(by categories of sex, age and occupation).6. Psychological interpretation of results.9. Summary of results and conclusions and discussion of practical application of

the promotional study.

Methods of research:• State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y), Spielberger,

Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg & Jacobs, 1983),• Taylor's Manifest Anxiety Scale. (Taylor, 1953;A personality scale of manifest

anxiety,).• Subjective locus of control (Бажин, Голыкина & Эткин, 1993; Reņģe, 1999).

Topicality and novelty of research.1) In the course of this study the globally applied anxiety identification method

(STAI-Y) has been adapted in the Latvian and Russian languages, thus enabling further application of the method for the purposes of future research work and psychological diagnostics in Latvia.

7Original sample - the sample of US students and employed persons (Spielberger, Gorruch. Lusbene, Vagg & Jakobs. 1983)

2) As the STAI has been adapted in more than 50 different languages in theworld, its adaptation in Latvian and Russian will enable researchers to carryout cross-cultural studies, allowing the comparison of the results derived inLatvia with those obtained in other countries.

3) To date, cross-cultural research on anxiety scores has been carried out invarious ethnic groups, (e.g., Diaz-Guerrero, 1981; Endler & Magnusson, 1981;Bergeron, 1983; Magnusson, Stattin & Iwawaki, 1983; Emmite & Diaz-Guerrero,1983; Ablawat, 1986; Napieralski & Brooks, 1995; Iwata &Higuci, 2000, etc.),however, none of the previous studies have focused on Latvian respondentsand Russians residing in Latvia. The obtained results would allow one to drawconclusions on anxiety scores of Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia, tocompare the anxiety scores of Latvians with those of Russians residing inLatvia, and to compare the results with the anxiety scores of respondentsrepresenting other cultures. The subject issue is of special importance in thepresent-day situation in Latvia, which is marked by ongoing communityintegration processes.

Practical application of research3) The summary of theoretical assumptions and empirical research on A-State

and A-Trait in Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia, drawn within theframework of this study may serve as a substantial informative base for thepsychological research field in Latvia.

4) The globally applied State-Trait Anxiety Inventory method (STAI-Y) has beentranslated and validated in Latvian and Russian, thus providing theopportunity to apply this method in future research work in Latvia, as well asfor the purposes of psychological diagnostics.

3) The study contributes to the research carried out in Latvia on ethnic differences of Latvians and Russians enabling a better understanding of ethnic differences.

Structure of studyThe study consists of 2 parts, each of them comprising four chapters.The first chapter of the theoretical part comprises an insight into the anxiety

concept in psychology by looking at various theoretical approaches (psychodynamic, existentialist and humanist, behavioural, biological, cognitive and

trait approach), and through the analysis of another concepts close to anxiety in their meaning: fear, threats, stress, panic and depression. Chapter two presents the differences in the manifestation of anxiety between different age, sex and ethnic groups. The author analyses intra-cultural as well as cross-cultural studies of anxiety.

In chapters three and four, the author presents the research on anxiety in Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia, carried out within the framework of this study. Chapter three includes a description of the research sample, instruments and procedures. Chapter four comprises the analysis and psychological interpretation of the research results. The author describes the process of STAI-Y adaptation in the Latvian and Russian languages. Differences and common tendencies of anxiety scores between Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia have been explored. The final part of the study presents the author's conclusions drawn in the course of the study, suggestions developed by the author, the relevance of the study, and points out the limitations of the research.

The volume of study: 131 pages. The paper includes 31 tables and 3 figures. The bibliography consists of 226 reference sources. The study contains 15 annexes.

Theoretical partAnxiety concept in psychologyThe subject of anxiety has been addressed by representatives of various theory

schools, however, this results in rather contradictory views on anxiety, its causes and its manifestation. The chapter "Concept of Anxiety in Various Theoretical Approaches" focuses on theoretical approaches regarding the concept of anxiety in psychology: psychodynamic, behavioural, biological and cognitive approaches, as well as existentialist and humanist psychology and trait theory approaches. The promotional study primarily focuses on the views of personality trait theory authors and representatives of the cognitive-behavioural approach.

According to the standpoint of the authors of personal trait theories, individuals differ in the intensity of traits that may vary over certain intervals. Trait

factors allow one to forecast behaviour with more precision than do state factors, although in extreme situations the state factors may have a crucial effect on the individual's behaviour. Anxiety as one of the most important personality traits is looked at in a number of personality trait models. The Eysenck Personality Profile assigns five primary factors to neuroticism: inferiority, unhappiness, anxiety, dependence (addition), obsessiveness. The Cattell 16 Personality Factor model treats the factors QI (extraversion/ intraversion) and QII (anxiety) as important and the most important and easily identifiable second order bask traits. One of the five basic factors underlying the recendy popular Five-Factor Model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1992) - neuroticism - represents the emotional instability of an individual, which is related to negative emotional states - fear, anger, unhappiness, anxiety, sense of guilt. Construct validity tests with the NEO—PI-R8 have shown the existence of the following sub-factors that underlie the neuroticism factor: anxiousness, depression, impulsiveness, sense of guilt, vulnerability, self-consciousness (Costa &McCrae, 1992).

Matthews & Deary (Matthews & Deary, 1998), after summarizing the views of trait theory audiors, have come to the conclusion that a causal relationship exists between personality traits and behaviour: personality traits can be regarded as a cause, whereas behaviour - as a consequence.

Within the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory model (Spielberger, 1985) anxiety state (A-State) is seen as an unpleasant emotional state when an individual experiences subjective feelings of tension, nervousness, apprehension, heightened activity of the autonomic nervous system. Anxiety as a personality trait (A-Trait) comprises an acquired behavioural disposition to perceive an objectively safe object as threatening and dangerous and respond to it with A-State anxiety, the intensity of which is not adequate to the objective situation.

The analysis of anxiety as a state and anxiety as a personality trait leads to the conclusion that the intensity and duration of A-State anxiety is the consequence of one's cognitive evaluation. This, to a large extent, depends on four determinants: 1) the external features of a situation; 2) the A-trait of an individual; 3) the

8 NEO-P-R - che leading personality five-factor model identification method (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

individual's evaluation of how successful he will be in reacting to the situation; 4) the impact of feedback from the situation on the current A-Trait of the individual. (Spielberger, Ritterband, Sydeman &Unger,1995).

In the conclusion of Chapter one the author analyses the relationship between fear, stress and depression and A-State and A-Trait.

Anxiety in various age, sex and ethnic groupsChapter two of the theoretical part of the promotional study is aimed at

summarising the theoretical statements and empirical research on anxiety by different age, sex and ethnic categories.

A higher anxiety level is characteristic of young people, while anxiety levels tend to fall around the age of 30. At the age of 60 and over, anxiety levels tend to grow again (Cattell, 1965). Trait theory authors (i.e., McCrae & Costa, 1994) have concluded that Big Five Factor changes are taking place before the age of 30, when stable factor scores become characteristic. Studies on the stability of anxiety (Costa, McCrae, Zonderman, Barbano, Lebowitz & Larson, 1986; Nakazato & Shimonaka, 1989) have shown that anxiety tends to decrease gradually and smoothly as age advances. The authors point out that the anxiety changes to a large extent depend on the peculiarities of the sample, though they stress that the obtained results largely conform with Erikson's idea that old age is the time of ego integrity, when individuals are comparatively free of neurotic anxiety (Costa, McCrae, Zonderman, Barbano, Lebowitz & Larson, 1986; Nakazato & Shimonaka, 1989).

Sex differences in anxiety scores reported in a number of studies (Laux, Glanzmiann, Schaffer & Spielberger, 1981; Van der Ploeg, 1985; Virella, Arbona & Novy, 1994; Nakazato & Shimonaka, 1989) are, in the majority of cases, explained by culturally accepted stereotypic views of socially desirable behaviour of men and women. Nakazato and Shimonaka (Nakazato & Shimonaka, 1989) explain the sex differences in anxiety according to traditional perceptions of sex-roles, Maccoby andjacklin conclude that the causes of sex differences in anxiety are to be sought in childhood experiences, whereas Nolen-Hoeksema believes that the responses of men and women to stress caused by complicated circumstances are best

demonstrated by the methods they choose to cope with negative emotions and anxiety arising from such emotions.

Though anxiety is considered to be a universal psychological phenomenon, the experience and interpretation of anxiety, as well as the distribution of different anxiety types, differ across cultures. Magnusson, Stattin and Iwawaki (1983) have concluded that people representing different cultures see threat and danger in quite the same situations, but the intensity of their anxiety responses to such situations differ. The reason for anxiety level differences between various cultures or ethnic groups might relate to different traditional views inherent to particular cultures regarding socially desirable behaviour in given situations. Cross-cultural or ethnic differences in anxiety levels may also be related to differences in goals and evaluation of priorities inherent to different cultures (Diaz-Guerrero, 1981).

Although previous research carried out in Latvia demonstrated that the causes of anxiety in citizens and non-citizens do not fundamentally differ, neither in their perception of threats at a national and community level nor in their perception of threats at an individual level. However, differences have been found in the average intensity of feeling endangered. Major differences are demonstrated in the perception of various possible direats on a national or community level - 64% of citizens still fear that Latvia may again be occupied by a foreign powers, whereas the same fear is experienced by only 34% of non-citizens (Latvija. Pārskats par tautas attīstību 2002/2003). In addition, insufficiency of social guarantees is the cause of worry for a higher percentage of non-citizens.

Research carried out in Estonia (Ott, Clark & Ennuste, 1996) has led to the conclusion that anxiety caused by economic reforms is correlated to ethnic group, age and income level of respondents: Estonians are less anxious about possible unemployment than are Russians living in Estonia; elderly respondents and Russians living in Estonia are less supportive of economic and political reforms and are more worried about their consequences. Both Estonians and Russians living in Estonia show anxiety about their social status in this time of economic and political changes.

The above-mentioned theories and research results have led the author to put forward several questions - what are the A-State and A-Trait scores of

Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia, and what differences exist between A-State and A-Trait scores of Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia?.

MethodParticipantsThis research sample consisted of respondents whose demographic

particulars met the following criteria: age - 19 to 69 yrs, ethnic orig in - Latvians or Russians, occupation — students or working adults. Ethnic origin was determined according to information provided by respondents.

In total, the sample consists of 1610 respondents (see Table 1).

InstrumentsState-Trait Anxiety Self-Evaluation Questionnaire . (Spielberger, Gorsuch,

Lushene, Vagg & Jacobs, 1983). The questionnaire consists of two scales. The first scale indicates A-State, the other scale A-Trait. Each scale consists of 20 statements that must be evaluated by respondents according to Likert scale.

Within the promotional study framework the adaptation of STAI-Y Latvian and Russian versions was performed.

Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (TMAS, Taylor,1953). When completing the TMAS, a respondent must evaluate 50 statements, indicating which statement in the respondent's view is correct and which is incorrect. Each answer may account for 1 score point of the total anxiety score, which may range from 0 to 50. The scale demonstrates the frequency of an individual's feelings related to the presence or absence of anxiety. TMAS treats anxiety as a personality trait. Within the framework of this study, the Taylor scale has been translated from the original, and the internal consistency of the Latvian and Russian versions was determined. According to the Kuder-Richardson formula, in the Latvian sample the internal consistency was 0.84 and in the Russian sampleit was 0.86.

Subjective Locus of Control Scale. (Бажин, Голыкина & Эткин, 1993; Reņģe, 1999). This questionnaire was developed in accordance with the concept worked out by J.B. Rotter on external and internal locus of control. The scale consists of 44 items, to which respondents answer "agree" or "disagree". The internal consistency of the sub-scale I,, (overall internal locus of control scale) was found to be 0,80, and the correlation of the sub-scale I o with the Roter test was 0,70 (Бажин, Голыкина, Эткин, 1993). In this promotional study, it was found that the internal consistency (according to the Kuder-Richardson formula) is 0,78 for the Latvian sample and 0,80 for the Russian sample.

ProcedureThe research data was collected over the period from 2000 through 2003.

Students completed the questionnaires in auditoriums (usually in groups of 40-50 students). The working respondents completed the questionnaires in company training centres, when they attended qualification improvement courses (usually in groups of 10-12 individuals).

Results

Psychometric properties of the Latvian and Russian Versions of the

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y)Descriptive statistics were calculated for the STAI-Y Latvian version and the

STRAI-Y Russian version.The internal consistency of the Latvian and Russian versions was evaluated

using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. As seen in Table 2 and Table 3, the internal consistency coefficients are high, and similar to the original sample - the alpha coefficients ranged from .83 to .92 in the Latvian sample, and from .76 to .94 in the Russian sample (Tables 2 and 3).

Test-retest reliability was examined for the STAI-Y Latvian and Russian versions completed by the student group. It was found that the test-retest correlation coefficients for T-anxiety were between .85 and .87 in the Latvian student group and between .79 and .87 in the Russian student gtoup, results that are similar to the results from the original sample (.65 to .75).

Table 2. Descriptive properties of the STAI-Y Latvian version in various age groups.

Table 3. Descriptive properties of the STAI-Y Russian version in various age groups.

Both the concurrent validity and the construct validity of the STAI-Y Latvian and Russian versions were examined. The concurrent validity was determined by examining the correlation between the STAI-Y and the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (TMAS). In the original sample, the correlation between the STAI-X and the TMAS was found to be between .79 and .83. In the current Latvian sample, the correlation between the STAI-Y and the TMAS was found to be between .74 and .75, while in die Russian sample it was found to be between .73 and .76 (p<0.001). The internal consistency of the TMAS, according to the Cooder-Richardson formula, was .84 for the Latvian sample and .86 for the Russian sample. This indicates that both the STAI-Y and the TMAS are equally good measures of anxiety as a personality trait.

The factor analysis of the STAI-Y Latvian version resulted in four factors, similar to what was reported in the STAI-Y test manual (Spielberger et al, 1983) and similar to what was reported in a study by Suzuki et al (Suzuki, Tsukamato & Abe, 2000). In the original sample, a two-factor model was formed from statements about situadonal anxiety and statements about anxiety as a personality trait. The four-factor model consisted of positive and negative S-anxiety and T-anxiety

statements. In contrast to the original sample, the statements in the first factor of the Latvian version factor analysis did not separate into positive statements and negative statements, not for the male sample, nor for the female sample. It is possible that there are cultural differences between the Latvian and the American respondents, in the way that they evaluate positive and negative statements. Similar cultural differences between Japanese and American respondents were reported by Iwata & Higuchi (2000).

Special attention should be paid to the use of Item 24. This item has a moderate correlation with other items and it is also used on the MMPI and the TMAS as an indicator of anxiety. However, we believe it is necessary to reconsider the inclusion of this item. Item 24 was found to have a very low value in the 4-factor factor analysis in the Latvian sample, similar to what was reported in the original sample and in other studies (Suzuki, Tsukamoto & Abe, 2000; Virella, Arbona & Novy. 1994).

The overall goals of this study were achieved. It was found that the psychometric properties of the STAI-Y Latvian and Russian versions are consistent with the psychometric properties of the original American version. Therefore, the STAI-Y Latvian and Russian versions are suitable for use in research and clinical work in Latvia.

Anxiety scores of Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia by age and sex categories

To analyze A-State and A-Trait scores by sex and age categories, the author has utilized analysis of variance. To compare the mean scores of A-State and A-Trait according to age categories, the Least significant difference (LSD) method from General Linear Model (GLM) was used. To compare the mean scores of A-State and A-Trait according to sex and occupation categories, T-test analyses were used.

A-State and A- Trait in Latvians by sex and age groups

The analysis of descriptive and comparative statistics leads to the followingconclusions:

1)The mean scores of A-State and A-Trait for men and women have atendency to form a U-shaped curve (see Tables 4 and 5).

2)The results of analysis of variance in the Latvian subgroup indicate thatage has a significant effect (p<.01) on A-state and A-Trait scores (F A-state males = 7,18 , p<.01; FA-trate males =10,37, p<.01; F A-state females =7,6, p<.,01; F A-Trait.males =5,71, p<.0l).

The comparison of A-state and A-trait mean scores by age group shows that: A-State and A-Trait scores in the Latvian female sample in the age group 19

to 25 yrs is significantly higher that for the age groups 26-35 yrs (p<.01) and36-45 yrs (p<.05);

The male sample shows higher A-State and A-Trait scores in the age group19 to 25 than in the groups aged 26 to 35 yrs (p<.01), 36 to 45 yrs (p<.01)and 46 to 5yrs 5 (p<.05), while the A-Stat e score for the group ofrespondents aged 56 to 69 is considerably higher than for the group 26 to 35yrs (p<.05);

3)Although the analysis of variance did not show any substantial effect ofsex on A-State and A-Traits cores in the Latvian sample (F A-State =.529, p>.05; F A-Trait =-993, p>.05), there are several significant A-State and A-Trait sexdifferences both in the overall Latvian sample and according to separate agegroups. Significantly higher A-state scores for women were found in the agegroups of 26-35 yrs (p<.05) and 36-45 yrs (p<.05) and higher A-Trait scores werefound in the group of 19-25 yrs (p<.0l), 26-35 yrs (p<.0l), 36-45 yrs (p<.0l) and46-55 (p<.05).

A-State and A- Trait in Russians residing in Latvia by sex and agegroups

The analysis of A-State and A-Trait scores of Russians residing in Latvia bysex and age groups leads to the following conclusions:

1) A-State scores of Russian women living in Latvia tend to grow as the age of respondents advances (See Tables 4 and 5). A-Trait scores of Russian women by age groups have a tendency to form a U-shaped curve. The same A-State and A-Trak tendency towards a U-shaped curve is seen also in the sample of Russian men living in Latvia.

2) The analysis of the sample of Russians residing in Latvia indicates a significant impact of age on State-Trait anxiety scores (F A-State male =.99, p>.05; FA-Trait male = 3,55 p<.05; F A-State female. = 10,36, p<.01; F A-Trait male = 13,59, p<.01).

The comparison of A-State and A-Trait mean scores by age group shows that: A-State scores in the Russian female sample in the age group of 46-5 5

(p<-05) were higher than in the other age groups. A-Trait scores in theRussian female sample in the age group of 46-55 yrs are considerably higherthan for the age groups of 19-25 yrs (p<-01) and 26-35(p<.01) yrs;

A-State scores in the Russian male sample in the age group 46-55 yrs werehigher than for the age group of 26-35 yrs (p<.05). A-Trait scores in theRussian male sample in the age groups 19-25 (p<-05) and 45-55 (p<.05) aresignificantly higher than for the age groups 26-35, 36-45 yrs.

3) A significant impact of sex on A-State and A-Trait scores was found in the sample of Russians residing in Latvia (FA-State = 6,031; p<.05; FA-Trait =11,057; p<.05): Sex differences are demonstrated in A-State scores of the 46-55 yrs age group (p<.01) and A-Trait scores of the 36-45 yrs (p<01) and the 46-55 yrs (p<-05) age groups.

Comparison of A-State and A-Trait in Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia

In the course of the study, the author examined differences between the A-State and A-Trait scores of Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia, according to sex, age and occupation groups.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of A-State and A-Trait by age groups of Latvian and Russian men living in Latvia.

The comparison of the state and trait anxiety scores of Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia shows several significant differences across age groups. Russian_men score significantly higher for A-state in the age groups of 36-45 yrs (p<.05) and 46-55 yrs(p<.05). Latvian women obtain higher A-state scores in the age group of 19-25 (p<-01), whereas Russian women score higher in the age group of 46-55 yrs (p<.0l).

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of A-State and A-Trait by age groups of Latvian and Russian women living in Latvia.

In the male sample, the Russian men score higher for A-trait in the age group 46-55 (p<01). In the fem ale sample A-.trait scores, in the age group of 19-

25 (p<.01) are highest among Latvian women, while Russian women score higher in the age group of 46-55 yrs (p<.01).

When performing cluster analysis of anxiety within the sample of Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia, respondents were grouped into six clusters: two clusters consisted of students (54.3% Latvians and 45,7% Russians residing in Lama), the remaining clusters comprised working respondents, which allowed an analysis of results by occupation group. In the age group of 19-25 yrs, which contains the largest number of students, comparison of A-Trait and A-State scores of working individuals and students was performed in order to see if there was overlap between the groups. It was found that there was no overlap between the groups.

The comparison of state and trait anxiety scores of Latvians and Russians living in Latvia indicates a number of significant differences according to occupation group. In the sample of working men and working women A-state scores of Russian respondents living in Latvia are higher (p<.01) than the A-state scores of Latvians. Among the sample of working women, Russian women scored higher than Latvian women for A-Trait (p<.05). In the female student sample anxiety (A-state) scores of Latvian students are higher (p<.01) than Russian students.

The comparison of A-state and A-Trait mean score items in Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia shows that scores on anxiety-present items related to self-acceptance (Item #24) and cognitive problems (Item #29, 34, 37, 40) are higher among the sample of Latvian women than Russian women, whereas Russian women scored higher than Latvian female respondents on different items related to self-acceptance (Item #21) and cognitive problems (Item #31). In addition, Russian women scored higher than Latvian women on Item #33, which measures an unsatisfied need for security.

The scores of the Latvian male sample exceed the scores of the Russian male sample on anxiety-present items related to self-acceptance (Items #23, 24.) and lack of rest (Item #26.). Russian men scored higher than Latvian men on different items related to self acceptance (Item #21., 25., 36.), as well as on items related to

emotional control (Item #27), cognitive problems (Item #31., 34., 40.), unsatisfied need for security (Item #33), and inability to cope with problems (Item #28).

A comparison of the STAI scores of working Latvians, Russians living in Latvia, Russians living in Russia (Hanin & Spielberger, 1983), Americans (Spielberger, Corsuch, Lushene, Vagg & Jacobs, 1983) and Germans (Laux, Glanzmann, Schaffer & Spielberger, 1981) was performed using T-test analyses. These comparisons were made taking into account the time of data collection, occupation, age and sample volume of respondents. The results show that there is a tendency towards similarity in A-trait scores between Latvian working male respondents and German working male respondents, both of which are higher than the A-trait scores of American working men. The mean A-Trait scores of Russian working women living in Latvia are higher than the A-Trait scores of German and American working adults.

The A-Trait scores of Latvian and Russian students living in Latvia slighdy exceeded the A-trait scores of Lithuanian students (Al. Balaisis9). The A-State and A-Trait scores of Latvian female students are similar to the scores of Lithuanian and Japanese (Iwata & Higuci, 2000) female students, though higher than the respective scores of the original American sample. Discussion

It has been stated that the age of Latvian and Russian women and men living in Latvia has a significant correlation with A-State and A-Trait scores. The obtained results are similar to those acquired by McCrae and Costa {McCrae & Costa, 1994) proving that within Personality Trait Five Factor Model the indices of neuroticism factor (sub-factor - anxiety trait) are higher at the age of 20-25 yrs.

A-State and A-Trait scores of Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia by age category tend to form a U-shaped curve. This corresponds to the type of anxiety ontogenesis described in theory sources (Cattell, 1965), and means that higher A-State and A-Trait scores are seen in youth, with a tendency to decrease over the life span at mid-age, and again increasing in later years. Moreover, the increase of

9STAI-Y scores of Lithuanian students have been acquired with the kind assistance of Canada Toronto University doctoral candidate M. Balaisis, who in spring 2003 performed anxiety inventory in Vilnius University (unpublished material).

State-Trait anxiety scores of Russian respondents tends to grow at an earlier age compared with the data presented in other studies, i.e. already at the age of 36-45. Lievegoed (Lievegoed, 1994) points out that after the middle-age crisis individuals may develop a tendency to engage increasingly in their professional career wishing to gain stable positions there. This may lead to a situation when any changes, new developments, even new people related to these changes are perceived as personal threats, which, in turn act as stressors, thus being anxiety facilitating factors. We can assume that inhabitants of Latvia aged 40-50, who have acquired their education and professional training already in the Soviet period, feel that their position is more threatened than the respondents of the same age group from USA, Japan and other countries whose anxiety scores have been studied in the aforementioned studies (Costa, MeCrae, Zonderman, Barbano, Leboiviz & Larson, 1986; Nakazato & Shimonaka, 1989). This facilitates the increase of State-Trait anxiety scores at the middle age.

There are considerable sex differences in state and trait anxiety scores of Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia, both within the total sample and by age groups, in that the respective female scores are higher. Perhaps the cause of these differences can be sought in childhood experiences when an individual forms his/her views on sex- roles, socially desirable behaviour, as well as methods of coping with stress. The studies carried out in other cultures also demonstrate sex differences in A-state and A-trait scores (Laux, Glanzmann, Schaffer & Spielberger, 1981; Van der Ploeg, 1985; Virella, Arbona & Novy, 1994; Nakazato & Shimonaka, 1989; Poltarski & Ferraro, 2002; u.c).

The anxiety scores of individuals in Latvia are correlated with individual perception of a situation, which in turn, may differ between individuals belonging to different ethnic groups, as the results of the study showed significant differences in A-State and A-Trait scores of Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia. It is interesting to note that among the female sample, A-Trait scores are significantly higher for Latvian women in the age group of 19-25 yrs, and among Russian women of age 46-55, whereas among the sample of working men and women, the A-state scores of Russian respondents living in Latvia are significantly

higher than Latvian respondents. Among working women A-Trait scores are higher for working Russian women.

These differences in A-State and A-Trait anxiety scores support the conclusions drawn by Magnusson, Stattin and Iwawaki (Magnusson, Stattin & Iwawaki. 1983) which are that representatives of different ethnic groups see threats in similar situations, but the intensity of their anxiety responses is different. Latvian citizens and non-citizens score differendy on the intensity of feeling exposed to threats and the mean sense of being endangered. (Latvija. Pārskats par tautas attīstību 2002/2003).

In the student sample significant differences exist in A-State and A-Trait scores of female students: Latvian female students score higher for anxiety scores. The explanation can be found in several studies (Diaz-Guerrero, 1981; Rimoldi, Raimondo, Erdmann & Hojat, 2002), which lead to the conclusion that die cause of cross-cultural anxiety differences lies in different views on socially desirable behaviour in particular situation acquired during the process of socialisation, which may differ among various cultures. Ethnic differences in anxiety manifestations may be related to the choice of goals and evaluation or priorities characteristic of each particular culture.

The comparison between A-State and A-Trait anxiety scores of Latvian sample with the scores of other cultures shows, that working Latvian respondents have approximately the same scores as working respondents in Germany, and are slightly below the anxiety scores of American respondents.

Russian men and women living in Latvia, just the same as original sample from Russia10, score higher in A-State and A-Trait than the working respondents in Germany and USA.

Consequently, here we may talk of the tendency showing that A-State and A-Trait scores of Russians residing both - in Latvia and in Russia are higher than the scores of respondents representing other countries. The results of research carried out in Estonia (Ott, Clark & Ennuste, 1996) proved that the anxiety score of Russians living in Estonia exceed the anxiery scores of Estonians.

10 Scores of Russian original sample – STA I-X adaptation scores (Hanin & Spielberger)

Consequently, it can be presumed that anxiety level of Russian respondents may be attributable to their ethnocultural group. This might be related to differing views on social behaviour patterns in specific situations inherent to the particular ethnocultural group (Magnusson, Stattin & Iwawaki, 1983), which, in turn is closely related to socially acquired knowledge of behaviour in threat situations. However, here reference should be made to a significant difference identified as a result of analysis of A- State and A-Trait manifestations of Americans, as well as Latvians and Russians living in Latvia. Unlike the original sample, neither the sample of Latvians, nor the sample of Russians living in Latvia have classified the items forming factor 1 into positive and negative items (statements). This leads to the conclusion, that just the same as comparison of the respective scores of Japanese and American respondents presented in the study carried out by Iwata and Higuci (Iwata & Higuci, 2000), there are also cross-cultural differences between Latvian respondents, Russians living in Latvia and Americans, these differences being affected by socio-cultural norms on evaluating positive and negative items. Latvians and Russians living in Latvia do not select the positive items as frequently as Americans, and do not choose the negative items as frequently as Japanese respondents.

Anxiety scores of Latvian male students and Russian students living in Latvia are quite similar to A-trait scores of Lithuanian and American students, although much lower than the scores of Japanese. Latvian female students, like Lithuanian female students, score higher than Russian female students residing in Lama, American and Russian female students.

On the basis of theoretical background presented in this paper, the fact that A-State and A-Trait scores of Latvian and Lithuanian students are quite similar can be explained by the assumption that the shared historic background and the similar social, economic and political conditions of our nations have influenced similar perception of threatening situations by students living in Latvia and Lithuania, moreover, students living in Latvia and Lithuania have developed the same anxiety control mechanisms, though this assumption should be tested on the basis of a more extensive sample also in other occupation and age groups.

Another research limitation of this study was the selection of respondents -Russians living in Latvia, Respondents in majority of cases had jobs or studied in institutions the internal culture and environment of which could be treated as Latvian, i.e. internal communication in these organisations is performed in the state language, about 60 % of personnel or students are Latvians. It would be preferable to test also the respondents from institutions with Russian cultural environment, i.e., organisations with predominantly Russian personnel, internal communication and largely influenced by the Russian media. Another limitation of the research is the applied self-evaluation methods which do not allow sufficiently consider the possible psychological defence mechanisms of respondents. It would be advisable to carry out longitudinal studies in Latvia, enabling to collect more detailed information on A-State and A-Trait features among various age, sex and national groups, including also the interview method.

Individuals with higher anxiety level experience anxiety more often, but not necessarily with more intensity than the individuals with lower anxiety level. Therefore, increased anxiety, constant self-analysis and analysis of one's actions may interfere with adequate evaluation of on-going processes, analysis of objective, unbiased information and appropriate conclusions. Therefore it is essential to understand A-State and A-Trait manifestations of oneself and other people in order to adjust and control the individual's anxiety and to understand the true reasons of actions of the other people.

ConclusionsWithin the framework of promotional study, the author has overviewed the

anxiety concept presented in the studies of authors supporting psycho-dynamic, existential and humanist, behavioural, biological, cognitive and trait approach, particularly focusing on cognitive and trait approach, which treat anxiety as the chain of successive cognitive, affective and behavioural responses manifested under the influence of different stressors. There is a distinction between anxiety evoked by specific situation (A-State) and anxiety as a personality trait (A-Trait).

The objective set in the opening part of the study — to identify what are the anxiety scores of Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia - has been completed. The concept of anxiety in different theoretical approaches has been analysed. The

author has analysed the studies on state and trait anxiety by different age, sex, occupation and ethnic groups, as well as found the answers to the questions put forward in this study.

Conclusions of the promotional study1.1.Belonging to certain age group has a significant impact of A-State and

A-Trait scores of Latvian female sample. The mean A-State and A-Trait scores ofLatvian female and male samples by age profile has a tendency to form a U-shaped curve.

1.2. Although the variance analysis did not show significant impact of sex onanxiety scores in Latvian sample, there are certain substantial sex differences in A-State and A-Trait scores both for the overall sample and by separate age groups.

2.1. The sample of Russians residing in Latvia is characterised by significantimpact of age on A-State and A-Trait scores. A-State score of Russian womenliving in Latvia tends to grow as the age of respondents advances. A-trait scores ofRussian women by age group profile tend to form a U-shaped curve. The A-Stateand A-Trait scores of the sample of Russian men living in Latvia tend to form aU-shaped curve.

2.2. The sample of Russians living in Latvia exhibits significant impact ofsex on A-State and A-Trait scores.

3.1. A-State and A-Trait scores of individuals in Latvia are related toindividual perception of a situation, which, in turn, may differ across variousethnic groups. This is demonstrated through the results of research indicating anumber of significant differences in A-State and A-Trait scores of different ageand occupation groups of Latvians and Russians living in Latvia .

3.2. A number of similar tendencies in A-State and A-Trait scores ofLatvians and Russians residing in Latvia have been identified:

• The age of Latvian women and men, as well as Russian men and women living in Latvia substantially affect the anxiety scores of the relevant group.• The A-State and A-Trait scores of Latvians and Russians residing in Lama, both - men and women, have the tendency to form U-shaped

curve. State and trait anxiety scores in the given sample tend to grow earlier than for the sampled subjects in other countries. • Sex differences exist in A-State and A-Trait scores of the samples of Latvians and Russians living in Latvia.

4. The adaptation of STAI-Y Latvian and Russian versions shows thatLatvian and Russian version of STAI-Y can be applied for the purposes of stateand trait anxiety research and psychodiagnostics in Latvia.

5. It would be necessary to study the causes of state and trait anxiety,involving the experts representing other social sciences (sociologists, economists,political scientists, culture anthropologists, pedagogues), who would facilitate acomplex understanding of the causes of state and trait anxiety in Latvia, in view ofthe socio-cultural environment of Latvia and Latvia's integration in Europe.

1. In view of the fact that the results of research demonstrated differences inA-state and A-trait scores of Latvians and Russians residing in Latvia by age andoccupation groups, it would be necessary to present the results of the study togeneral public, providing an explanation on possible perception differences rootedin varying anxiety scores. More informadon should be provided on anxietycontrol and management possibilities.

4. ReferencesAhlawar K. S. (1986). Cross-cultural comparison of anxiety for Jordanian and U.S.

high school students. In Spielberger C.D.& Diaz-Guerrero R. (1983). Cross-cultural Anxiety . Vol. 2. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation

Bergeron J. (1983). State-trait anxiety in french-englich bilinguals: Cross-cultural considerations. In Spielberger CD. & Diaz-Guerrero R. (1983). Cross-cultural anxiety. Vol. 2. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

Cattell R. B. (1972). The nature and genesis of mood states: a theoretical model with experimental measurements concerning anxiety, depression, arousal, and other mood states. In Spielberger C. D. (Ed.). Anxiety. Current Trends in Theory and Research. Vol. 1., New York: Academic Press.

Costa P., McCrae R., Zonderman A., Barbano H., Lebowitz B. & Larson D. (1986). Cross-sectional studies of personality in a national sample: 2. Stability in neuroticism, extraversion, and openness. Psychology and Aging. Vol. 1., pp. 144-149.

Costa P. & McCrae R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R1) and NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: psychological Assessment Resources.

Diaz-Guerrero R. (1981). Test Anxiety and General Anxiety in Mexican and American School Children. In Spielberger C.D.& Diaz-Guerrero R. (1981). Cross - Cultural Anxiety . Vol. 1. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, p. 135-142.

Emmite P.L. & Diaz-Guerrero R. (1983). Cross-cultural differences and similarities in coping style, anxiety, and success-failure on examinations. In Spielberger C.D.& Diaz-Guerrero R. (1983). Cross-cultural Anxiety . Vol. 2. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, p. 191-203.

Endler N.S.& Magnusson D. (1981). Multidimensional aspects of state and trait anxiety: A cross- cultural study of Canadian and Swedish college students. In Spielberger C.D.& Diaz-Guerrero R. (1981). Cross-cultural anxiety . Vol. 1. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, p.143-170.

Hanin J.L. & Spielberger CD. (1983). The development and validation of the Russian form of the state-trait anxiety inventory. In Spielberger C.D.& Diaz-Guerrero R. (1983). Cross-cultural anxiety . Vol. 2. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, pp. 15-25.

Iwata N.& Higuci H.R. (2000). Responses of Japanese and American university students to the STAI items that assess the presence or absence of anxiety. Journal of Personality Assessment . Vol. 74 (1), pp.48-62.

Latvija. Pārskats par tautas attīstību 2002/2003.Laux L., Glanzmann P., Schaffer P. & Spielberger CD. (1981). Das State-Trait

Angstinventar. Theoretische Grundlagen und Handanweisung. Weinheim: Beltz Testgesellschaft

Lievegoed B. (1994). Lebenskrisen - lebenschancen. Rotterdam: Geistige Erkenntnis.Magnusson D., Stattin H. & Iwawaki S. (1983). Cross-cultural comparisons of situational

anxiety reactions. In Spielberger C.D.& Diaz-Guerrero R. (1983). Cross- cultural anxiety. Vol 2. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, pp. 177-189.

Matthews G. & Deary I.J. (1998). Personality traits . New York: Cambridgeuniversity Press XX, http://search .epnet.com. McCrae R. & Costa P. (1994).

The stability of personality: Observations andevaluations. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 3, pp. 173-175.

Napieralski, L. P. & Brooks C.I (1995). The effect of duration of eye contact onAmerican college students' attributions of state, trait and test anxiety.journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 135, Issue 3, pp. 273 -281.

Nakazato K. & Shimonaka Y. (1989). The Japanese state-trait anxiety inventory:age and sex differences. Perceptual and Motor Skills . Vol. 69, pp.611-617.

Ott A., F., Clark U. & Ennuste U. (1996). Anxiety as a consequence ofliberalization: An analysis of opinion surveys in Estonia. Social ScienceJournal. Vol. 33 (2), pp. 149-164.

Poltavski D. & Ferraro F,R. (2002). Stress and illness in American and Russiancollege students. Personality and Individual Differences . Vol. 34, pp. 971-982.

Rimoldi H.J.A., Raimondo R., Erdmann J.B. & Hojat M. (2002). Intra- andintercultural comparisons of the personality profiles of medical studentsin Argentina and the United States. Adolescence. Vol. 37(147), pp.477-494.

Spielberger C.D. (1972b) Anxiety as an emotional state. In Spielberger (Ed.).Anxiety. Current Trends in Theory and Research . Vol.1. New York:Academic Press.

Spielberger C.D.(1972c). Conceptual and methodological issues in anxietyresearch. In Spielberger (Ed.) Anxiety. Current Trends in Theory andResearch . Vol 2., New York: Academic Press.

Spielberger C.D., Gorsuch R.L., Lushene R., Vagg P.R.& Jacobs G.A.(1983).Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory (formY). ("Self-evaluationQuestionnaire"). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Spielberger C.D. (1985 a). Assessment of state and trait anxiety: Conceptual andmethodological issues. The Southern Psycholog ist. Vol. 2., pp. 6-16.

Spielberger C.D., Sarason I.G. & Defares P.B. (1985 b). Stress and Anxiety . Vol.9., New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

Spielberger C.D., Ritterband L.M., Sydeman S.J. & Unger K. K. (1995).Assessment of emotional states and personality traits: measuringpsychological vital signs. In J. I. Butcher (Ed). Clinical Personalit yAssessment: Practical Approaches . New York: Oxford University Press.

Taylor J. A. (1953). A personality scale of manifest anxiety. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Vol. 48., No 2., pp. 285.-290.

Van der Ploeg H. M. (1985) The Development and Validation of the Dutch State - TraitAnxiety Inventory. In Spielberger CD., Sarason I.G-& Defares P.B. Stress and Anxiety. Vol. 9. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. Virella B.,

Arbona C. & Novy D.M. (1994). Psychometric properties and factor structureof the Spanish version of the state-trait anxiety inventory. Journal ofPersonality Assessment. Vol. 63 Issue 3, pp. 401-412.

Бажин Е.Ф., Голынкина Е.А. & Эткин А.М. (1993). Опросник уровня субъективного контроля. Москва: Смысл.