Emotions and the Writing Process: A Description of Apprentice Writers

Author(s): Alice G. Brand and Jack L. Powell

Source: The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 79, No. 5 (May - Jun., 1986), pp. 280-285
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27540212
Accessed: 25-08-2016 09:51 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal
of Educational Research

This content downloaded from 142.66.3.42 on Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Emotions and the Writing Process:
A Description of Apprentice Writers
ALICE G. BRAND
JACK L. POWELL
University of Missouri-St. Louis

scribes the impact on writing of the positive affects, the

negative affects, or the positive aspects of negative af
ABSTRACT This study is a first systematic investiga fects. No research compares the emotional involvement
tion of the emotions involved in the writing process. Eighty
between required writing and self-initiated writing or
seven novice writers completed a short, paper-and-pencil in
ventory that asked them to indicate how they felt before and the emotional profiles of skilled or unskilled writers.
after self-sponsored and required writing exercises. Analyses Furthermore, no single instrument inventories a bal
investigated (a) the change in emotions during writing and anced range of emotions associated with the process.
(b) some predictors of emotional intensity and change. Results Research and personal experience demonstrate the
indicate that Positive emotions increased significantly during
unique capacity of the emotions to disable or enable
writing and Negative Passive feelings weakened. Skilled
writers experienced more Positive emotional change during human activity. In general, boredom slows people
writing and generally less Negative Passive feelings than their down. It is also associated with slower thinking
unskilled counterparts. All student writers, regardless of skill, (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Hamilton, 1981). Anxiety is
experienced more Negative Active feelings when writing on crippling, but it can also arouse (Freud, 1936;
their own than when engaged in required school writing.
Spielberger, 1972). Enjoyment energizes (Maslow, 1962)
but so does anger (Kiester, 1984). Because emotions are
implicated in virtually all human behavior, there is every
reason to believe that emotions play a central role in the
writing process as well as in writing abilities (Brand,
1980). This research reports a first systematic effort to
describe the emotions involved in writing.
Language asrecent
of much a cognitive
theoretical andprocess has been the focus
empirical explora
tion. Written discourse in particular is viewed as a men
Method
tal process that functions with sequential, deliberate,
machinelike objectivity. Each composing session is con Instrument and Scale Development
sidered a conscious, intentional, and intellectual act that
The Brand Emotions Scale for Writers (BESW Trait
can be planned, tracked, analyzed, and predicted
form and BESW State-form, Brand, 1984) is a short,
(Flower & Hayes, 1981; Newell & Simon, 1972; Olson,
paper-and-pencil inventory designed to measure the
1977; Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Goelman, 1982).
emotions involved in writing. Emotions are defined as
Despite the acknowledged importance of emotion to
qualitatively distinct feeling states that have behavioral
cognition (Lazarus & Launier, 1978; Mandler, 1975)
and physiological properties. For the purposes of this
and cognition to written discourse, surprisingly little
research has been carried out on writers' affective ex research, the subjective quality of the experience consti
tutes its central feature, and we call it feelings or emo
periences during composing. When emotion is studied,
tions. The data are expected to identify the emotions
it is studied as disruptive of the process: writer's block
that occur before, during, and after writing and thereby
(Rose, 1984), writing apprehension and its academic
track changes in these conditions.
correlates (Daly & Miller, 1975b), writing anxiety
The BESW was originally adapted from the Diff?r
(Bloom, 1980; Holladay, 1981), writing apprehension
and personality correlates (Daly & Wilson, 1983), reduc
ing writing apprehension (Fox, 1980; Powers, Cook, &
ai complete description of the scale design and development
Meyer, 1979; Smith, 1984), and measuring writing ap
as well as the factor analysis, cross-validation studies, and tests
prehension with a scale (Daly & Miller, 1975a). No of reliability may be obtained from Alice Brand, Department
research has been carried out on composing using a of English, University of Missouri-St. Louis, 8001 Natural
more balanced spectrum of emotions. No research de Bridge, St. Louis, MO 63121.

280

This content downloaded from 142.66.3.42 on Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
May/June 1986 IVol. 79(No. 5)1 281
ential Emotions Scale (Izard, Dougherty, Bloxom, &
Kotsch, 1974), which groups 30 emotion items into 10 a
priori categories and has equivalent trait and state
forms. Through early field testing with college writing
students and writing instructors, a similar bank of 20
emotion items was derived and equalized between
positive and negative tone with each item having a five
step, unidirectional frequency or intensity scale. The in
ventory provides a glossary to help limit idiosyncratic
uses of the terms and one additional space to which sub
jects may assign an emotion not listed on the form.
Emotion traits are affective characteristics of long
standing and may be likened to features of personality.
Emotion states are transitory reactions or temporary
departures from the emotional substrata. The BESW
Trait-form (T-form) is concerned with how people feel
in general when they write and asks about frequency of
emotions. The BESW State-form (S-form) is concerned
with how people feel before, during, and after writing a
particular piece and asks about the intensity of emotions
at those times.
Both trait and state versions also include narrative
questions. These questions solicit information about the
features of subjects' writing (purpose, audience, theme,
when they wrote, where, how long it took, what stage of
revision and what form the piece was in) as well as their
feelings associated with their writing (the primary emo
tion expressed in the writing, the intensity of that emo
tion, their level of satisfaction with the writing, and so
on). The T-form narrative questions ask about the
writing context and feelings when writing in general.
The S-form version seeks this information in conjunc
tion with a particular piece of writing.
Davitz (1969) identified three clusters of emotions,
Positive, Negative Passive, and Negative Active, and
pilot studies used the clusters to classify the BESW emo
tion items. The Positive emotions consist of the items
adventurous, affectionate, excited, happy, inspired,
interested, relieved, satisfied, and surprised. The
Negative Passive emotions are ashamed, bored, con
fused, depressed, lonely, and shy. The Negative Active
emotions are afraid, angry, anxious, disgusted, and
frustrated.
Validity and reliability studies were conducted using
various combinations of BESW materials and two com
mercial scales, the Profile of Mood States (McNair,
Lorr, & Droppleman, 1971/1981), and the Multiple
Affect Adjective Check List (Zuckerman & Lubin,
1965). College writing instructors, nonprofessional
adult writers, and college statistics, psychology, and
writing students took the scales. When the state items
were randomly divided within each cluster, a split-half
test of reliability for the entire subject pool (n = 133) in
dicated coefficient alphas of .87, .70, and .71, for the
items in the Positive, Negative Passive, and Negative Ac
tive clusters, respectively (Brand, 1984; Norton, 1985).
This content downloaded from 142.66.3.42 on Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Sample
Eighty-seven subjects participated in the study. Four
undergraduate English classes at the University of
Missouri-St. Louis provided 70 subjects: 12 students
enrolled in a short-fiction writing course, 17 students
enrolled in a poetry-writing course, 23 enrolled in an ad
vanced expository-writing course, and 18 students
enrolled in an American literature course. We selected
these classes in a nonrandom fashion on the basis of
those instructors agreeing to cooperate with the project.
All students from these classes participated as part of
their course requirements. Seventeen additional subjects
were volunteers from an introductory psychology
course at California State University, Hay ward. The
ages of the entire sample ranged from 18 to 65 with a
median age of 22. There were 52 females and 35 males.
Procedures
Over a two-week period in the middle of spring
semester, all subjects completed a demographic data
sheet and between one and three BESW T-forms indi
cating how they felt in general when they wrote. They
also completed a BESW S-form immediately before and
after required writing assignments that asked them to
write about personal experiences with particular emo
tional overtones. Students did these assignments either
in class or at home for between 30 and 45 minutes. We
informed the students that their responses would not be
available to their instructors nor would their responses
influence their course grades. Furthermore, the re
searchers collected all subject materials.
Eighty-seven subjects completed the questionnaire
(BESW) during at least one session, and 53 subjects
completed at least three sessions. This high attrition was
probably due to absenteeism, forget fulness, and the fact
that no incentives were offered for completing the ques
tionnaires. Whereas this attrition rate is a concern, the
results from the first session were very similar to the
average results across the three sessions. Obviously
these conditions (i.e., place of writing and topic) might
themselves affect responses of these writers. Because,
however, the subjects completed the questionnaires in
conjunction with regular class assignments, we could
not standardize conditions between them.
The two principal goals of the study were to investi
gate (a) the change in emotions during the writing proc
ess and (b) the variables associated with emotional in
tensity and emotional change.
Results
Change in emotion. A one-way repeated-measures
analysis of variance was conducted on the first writing
session of 87 subjects. The independent variable was
writing (prewriting vs. postwriting). Individual emo
 282 Journal of Educational Research

tions were rated on a five-point scale, where 1 equals not 1 along with the significance levels for the subjects'
at all and 5 equals very strongly. The average response mean difference scores (post minus prewriting).
before writing was 2.34 for emotion items in the The results based on these mean scores are very
Positive cluster, 1.67 for items in the Negative Active similar to those previously found for the first session
cluster, and 1.59 for items in the Negative Passive only. A significant change in emotion was again found
cluster. for the Positive and the Negative Passive clusters, and a
The writing itself had a significant effect on items in nonsignificant effect was found for the Negative Active
both the Positive cluster F( 1,77) = 17.35,/? < .001, and cluster. The directions of change were the same as those
Negative Passive cluster, F( 1,82) j= 6.17,/? < .05^^ in the first session: namely, the scores of the items in the
the Positive cluster increasing, X = 2.34 and X_ = Positive cluster increased with writing (X = 2.19 and X
2.66, and the Negative Passive cluster decreasing, X = = 2.48, p < .001) and the two negative clusters de
1.59 and X = 1.46, during writing. The items in the creased (Negative Passive : X = 1.61 and X = 1.49,/?
Negative Active cluster also decreased after writing but < .05; and Negative Active: X = 1.82 and X = 1.76,/?
not significantly, X = 1.61 and X = 1.64,^1,81) < 1. < .15). Subsequent analyses are based on these mean
A 3 x 2 (Sessions 1, 2, and 3 x Writing: prewriting values.
vs. postwriting) repeated-measures analysis of variance
was conducted for the 53 subjects for each of the three Predictors
clusters to determine if the findings from the first ses Predictors of emotional intensity and emotional
sion were stable across the second and third sessions.
change were obtained from responses on a
There were no significant Session x Writing interac Demographic Data Sheet and the BESW T-form. Emo
tions for any of the three clusters. This means that the
tional intensity was operationalized as the mean
session did not affect the actual difference between the
response of each emotion cluster of an individual across
pre- and postwriting emotions. The sessions were there the three sessions and across the pre- and postwriting.
fore combined to produce one pre- and one postwriting Emotional change was defined as the mean difference
mean response for each person on each individual emo
between the pre- and postwriting responses across the
tion item and cluster. These means are reported in Table sessions. The effects of three of the potentially influen
tial variables were tested on the three clusters and found
to be insignificant predictors of either emotional inten
Table 1.?Mean State Responses Across First Three Sessions sity or change. These were educational status of the stu
dent, the student's sex, and the place of writing. Two
Factor Before After Difference other factors, however, were found to be correlated
with either emotional intensity or change. These were
Positive 19.74 22.30 2.56*** student writing skill and writing sponsor.
Adventurous 2.31 2.28 -.03 Skill. There were two measures of writing skill:
Affectionate 2.22 2.34 .12 instructor-rated and self-rated skill. Instructor-rated
Excited 2.26 2.52 .26** writing skill was determined by teacher judgment and
Happy 2.59 2.83 .24**
2.15 2.47 32*** confirmed by semester grades. We considered students
Inspired
Interested 2.79 2.87 .08 receiving grades of A and B skilled writers. Unskilled
Relieved 1.59 2.73 1.14*** writers were students receiving grades of C or below.
Satisfied 2.21 2.88 .67***
Surprised 1.60 1.68 These data were unavailable for the California sample
because these students were not graded on their writ
Negative Passive 9.63 8.94 -.69* ings. According to the instructors of the University of
Ashamed 1.29 1.36 .07
Missouri students, 43 were skilled writers and 25 were
Bored 1.69 1.40 29*** unskilled writers.
Confused 1.91 1.58 33*** Students' responses to a question on the demographic
Depressed 1.69 1.61 .08*
Lonely 1.66 1.62 .04 data form that asked students to compare their writing
Shy 1.47 1.36 .11* skill with that of other students determined self-rated
writing skill. Seven students responded that they were
Negative Active 9.10 8.82 .28
less skilled than their peers, 36 responded that they were
Afraid 1.61 1.45 .16* about as skilled as their peers, and 24 felt more skilled
Angry 1.63 1.67 .04 than their peers. The correlation between the two skill
Anxious 2.36 2.14 .22*
Disgusted 1.58 1.64 .06 measures was r = .32 (p < .05).
Frustrated 2.05 1.96 .09 Because there is always a concern for the accuracy of
self-report measures due to evaluation apprehension, we
Note. N = 85 to 87 in each factor and item. tried to reduce these potential biases. We encouraged
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***/? < .001. students to be honest and assured them that their self

This content downloaded from 142.66.3.42 on Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
May/June 1986 [Vol. 79(No. 5)] 283
ratings would have no bearing on their course grade.
Furthermore, we did not allow instructors to review the
self-ratings of their students.
Instructor-rated skill was a significant predictor of
positive emotional change. An analysis of variance of
difference scores revealed a significant interaction be
tween skill and writing, F(l,66) = 5.51, p < .05. That
is, over the course of writing, positive feelings of un
skilled writers increased by an average of .50, whereas
the average positive emotion scores of skilled writers in
creased by .21. When we broke this positive factor down
into pre- and postwriting responses, we found a signifi
cant difference between instructor-rated skill and the
prewriting measure, F(l,67) = 5.39, p < .05, but not
with the postwriting measure, F(l,66) < 1. This means
that before writing unskilled writers responded much
lower than skilled writers in the Positive cluster, but that
response intensified to the level of the skilled writers
after writing.
Self-rated writing skill was significantly correlated
with emotional intensity as indicated by items in the
Negative Passive cluster (r - .27, p < .05). Writers who
rated themselves less skilled than their peers responded
higher to these items than those who considered them
selves about as skilled or more skilled than their peers
(X = 1.95, X 1.55, andZ = 1.38, respectively).
Required vs. self-sponsored writing. Twenty-six sub
jects (9 in the elective writing courses and 17 in Califor
nia) participated in one required writing session (a
writing exercise assigned by a teacher) and at least one
self-sponsored writing session (a writing initiated on
their own). A repeated-measures analysis of variance
was conducted for each cluster to test the hypothesis that
this condition could moderate the relationships between
writing and emotion. (The analyses compared the sub
jects' emotions in the required writing condition with
emotions in their first self-sponsored session.) It should
be noted, of course, that the ordering of the two dif
ferent writing assignments may be just as relevant as the
type of assignment. Again, however, because students
answered these questionnaires in conjunction with their
regular course work, we could not counterbalance the
order of teacher-assigned and student-assigned writings.
Writing condition did not predict emotional change
for any of the three clusters of emotions. It did, how
ever, predict emotional intensity on the Negative Active
cluster: that is, students in the self-sponsored condition
rated themselves much higher on this factor than they
did in the required writing condition, X = 2.68 and X
= 3.50, respectively, F(l,24) = 10.80,/? < .01.
Discussion
This study indicates that, in general, writers' emo
tions change significantly when they write. Typically,
positive feelings of writers intensify over the course of
This content downloaded from 142.66.3.42 on Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
composing. The Positive emotions most amenable to in
crease are inspiration, satisfaction, and relief. In com
parison, the Negative Passive emotions weaken during
writing. Most sensitive to this change are the emotions
of boredom and confusion. As a cluster, the Negative
Active emotions stay relatively constant or weaken
slightly during writing. The items anxiety and fear
showed the only significant decreases among the
Negative Active emotions. It therefore seems that, over
a writing session, students' boredom, confusion,
depression, shyness, anxiety, and fear weaken more
than their disgust, anger, shame, and other negative
feelings.
We also found that writing skill influences the inten
sity of these emotions. But these influences depended
upon whether the skill was determined by the instructor
or by the individual writer. As would be expected, these
two measures showed a strong but imperfect relation
ship between them, suggesting considerable overlap be
tween the instructor and student ratings but also a dis
parity in those perceptions. Specifically, the Positive
emotions of instructor-rated unskilled writers increased
significantly more than those of the skilled writers.
Also, the self-rated unskilled writers responded signif
icantly higher on the Negative Passive emotions than
did the skilled writers.
When rated as unskilled by their instructors, student
writers before writing felt much less positive than the
skilled writers. After writing, these positive feelings in
tensified to the level of their skilled counterparts,
thereby producing more overall positive emotional
change for the unskilled writers. This change was not,
however, accompanied by a corresponding decrease in
their negative emotions. Instructor-rated skilled writers
did not feel less negative across the writing task than the
unskilled writers. This is understandable. Before writ
ing, unskilled writers would be apt to feel less adven
turous, inspired, and surely less excited about or inter
ested in writing. After writing, interest and excitement
as well as relief and satisfaction intensified to the same
level as their skilled counterparts. It is interesting to
note that these unskilled writers did not feel any more
Negative Active or Negative Passive before writing than
the skilled writers.
When the data were analyzed using the self-ratings of
writing ability, students perceiving themselves as skilled
showed similar changes in emotion as those considering
themselves unskilled or moderately skilled. However,
there was one difference between skilled and unskilled
writers concerning the level of emotional intensity.
Writers perceiving themselves as skilled felt significantly
less Negative Passive than their unskilled counterparts,
both before and after writing. Perhaps writers who con
sider themselves skilled become more readily engaged in
composing and thus experience decreasing boredom and
confusion as they move through the process. The fact
284
that this relationship was not obtained with instructor
rated skilled subjects suggests that the way students feel
about themselves as writers, accurate or not, is more
personally meaningful than that information from their
instructors.
The Negative Active emotions were expected to be not
only intense but highly vulnerable to change. However,
these emotions resisted change, regardless of the writing
sponsor or skill level, suggesting that anger, fear, or
anxiety, for example, may have less to do with writing
competence than was previously believed. Skilled
writers may experience anxiety or frustration because
they have high expectations for themselves. Unskilled
writers may feel anxiety or frustration because they are
undertaking a task for which they have a strong sense of
inadequacy.
An alternate explanation is that Negative Active emo
tions mean two or three different things as student
writers experience them during the course of a writing
episode. While the bodily state and label may remain the
same, the cause of the Negative Active emotion may
shift throughout composing. This means that postwrit
ing anxiety, for example, could be as much linked to a
grade expectation as it could be linked to the writing
process itself. Future research on Negative Active emo
tions?and emotions in general?should attempt to
monitor these emotions at various points in composing.
With regard to self-sponsored and required writing
conditions, although it could be hypothesized that
students, regardless of skill, would feel Negative Active
when forced to write, the opposite occurred. When sub
jects moved from required writing to self-sponsored
writing, they became more Negative Active. This sug
gests that students may be better able to express negative
arousal or lashing-out impulses when writing on their
own than in school settings where passivity is prized.
On the other hand, students may feel more comfort
able with a teacher-sponsored topic because student
selected topics run the risk of displeasing their instruc
tors. Put another way, the responsibility of choosing the
topic may confound this interpretation.
All in all, most of these findings do not seem surpris
ing. Skilled writers would be expected to feel more
positive before writing than unskilled writers. Skilled
writers would be apt to feel less bored or upset by a
school writing activity than writers who judged them
selves as unskilled. Weak writers would tend to feel con
fused by an assignment and bored while doing it. Feel
ings of relief traditionally accompany the completion of
writing. Although anxiety, typically related to writer's
block and the opposite of relief, was found to weaken,
considering anxiety to be the principal negative emotion
involved in writing or relief to be the principal positive
outcome (Brand, 1980) may be a myopic, even simplistic
view of what happens affectively when people compose.
It seems unwarranted to make generalizations about a
This content downloaded from 142.66.3.42 on Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Educational Research
cluster of emotions from a single emotion as if it con
stituted the whole dimension. Future studies should ad
dress the role of individual emotions within each cluster.
It is apparent from these findings that different types
of writers and writing conditions may be associated with
higher levels of emotional intensity. They may even
mediate the quality of emotion as well as the extent of
emotional change during the process. Because writing
skill, for example, was found to moderate the relation
ship between writing and emotion, investigating the
emotional profiles of professional writers should yield
information about what emotional patterns are asso
ciated with well-written products. This line of inquiry
may make possible more accurate inferences about the
kinds of writing behaviors expected of students. It may
help us understand the different cognitive and affective
functions that produce certain writing behaviors: what
emotional traits and states writers bring to the task en
vironment; how emotions shape written content; what
affects are a poor fit for this cognitive activity; what af
fects are a good fit for it, and how they may be recruited
for effective writing performance; and, ultimately, how
personality influences the way writers function.
REFERENCES
Bloom, L. A. (1980, December). Teaching anxious writers:
Implications and applications for research. Composition and
Teaching, 2, 47-60.
Brand, A. G. (1980). Therapy in writing. Lexington, MA: D.C.
Heath.
Brand, A. G. (1984, Fall). Emotions and the writing process:
Developing a research methodology. Temple University working
papers in composition. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.
Csikszentmihalyi, H. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975a). The empirical development
of an instrument to measure writing apprehension. Research in the
Teaching of English, 9(3), 242-249.
Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975b). Further studies on writing
apprehension: SAT scores, success expectations, willingness to take
advanced courses and sex differences. Research in the Teaching of
English, 9(3), 250-256.
Daly, J. A., & Wilson, D. A. (1983). Writing apprehension, self
esteem, and personality. Research in the Teaching of English, 77(4),
327-341.
Davitz, J. D. (1969). The language of emotion. New York: Academic
Press.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). The cognitive process theory of
writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
Fox, R. F. (1980, February). Treatment of writing apprehension
and its effects on composition. Research in the Teaching of English,
14, 39-40.
Freud, S. (1936). The problem of anxiety. (H. A. Bunker, Trans.).
New York: Norton.
Hamilton, J. A. (1981). Attention, personality and the self-regulation
of mood: Absorbing interest and boredom. In B. A. Maher (Ed.),
Progress in experimental personality researach, 10, 282-315.
Holladay, S. A. (1981). Writing anxiety: What research tells us.
Paper presented at the annual conference of National Council of
Teachers of English. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 216 393)
Izard, C, Dougherty, F. E., Bloxom, B. M., & Kotsch, W. E. (1974).
Differential emotions scale: A method of measuring the subjective
experience of discrete emotions. Unpublished manuscript. Vander
bilt University.
May /June 1986 [Vol. 79(No. 5)] 285

Kiester, E., Jr. (1984, July). The uses of anger. Psychology Today, 26.
Lazarus, R. S., & Launier, R. (1978). Stress-related transactions
between person and environment. In L. A. Pervin & M. Lewis
(Eds.), Perspectives in interactional psychology. New York:
Plenum.
Mandler, G. (1975). Mind and emotion. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Maslow, A. (1962). Lessons from the peak-experiences. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 2, 9-18.
McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1971/1981).
Profile of mood states. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial
Testing Service.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Norton, J. (1985, March). The relationship between affective states
and writing: Pilot study. Paper presented at the Conference on Col
lege Composition and Communication, Minneapolis.
Olson, D. R. (1977). From utterance to text: The bias of language
in speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 257-281.
Powers, W. G., Cook, J. A., & Meyer, R. (1979). The effect of
compulsory writing on writing apprehension. Research in the
Teaching of English, 13(3), 225-230.
Rose, M. (1984). Writer's block: The cognitive dimension.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C, & Goelman, H. (1982). The role of
production factors in writing ability. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What
writers know: The language, process, and structure of written
discourse. New York: Academic Press.
Smith, M. W. (1984). Reducing writing apprehension. Urbana, IL:
NCTE.
Spielberger, CD. (1972). Anxiety as an emotional state. In C. D.
Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Current trends and research (Vol. 1).
New York: Academic Press.
Zuckerman, M., & Lubin, B. (1965). The multiple affect adjective
check list. San Diego, CA: EdiTS.

CALL FOR PAPERS

Proteus An Interdisciplinary Journal of Ideas
THEME: MAINTAINING SCHOOL DISCIPLINE IN A PERMISSIVE SOCIETY

Proteus, ajournai of ideas, is published semi-annually by Shippensburg University.

Each issue is devoted to a single theme. Articles exploring this topic are highlighted by
a feature article by a prominent figure in the field. Past authors have included R.
Buckminster Fuller, Leslie Fiedler, and Christoph Wolff. Our latest issue featured
David Lightfoot.

For our spring 1987 issue, we are soliciting manuscripts that address the theme of
"Maintaining School Discipline in a Permissive Society." The editors wish to consider
the distinctive perspectives of psychologists, philosophers, sociologists, teacher edu
cators and other scholars for this issue that focuses on the role of the school in society.

Manuscripts should not exceed 3,000 words; they should be typed and double spaced.
Formats for articles should follow the APA style with all references and notes appearing
at the end and all citations appearing within the text. Forward two copies plus a
stamped, self-addressed envelope by 15 October 1986 to:

Angelo Costanzo, Editor

Proteus
Shippensburg University
Shippensburg, PA 17257

This content downloaded from 142.66.3.42 on Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms