Math anxiety, a prevalent condition characterized by tension and apprehension surrounding mathematical tasks, significantly impacts individuals' lives, leading to avoidance of math-related situations and hindering mathematical abilities. This study explored the relationship between math anxiety and inhibitory control, a key aspect of cognitive control, within the framework of the Attentional Control Theory (ACT) and the Dual Mechanisms of Control theory. ACT posits that anxiety reduces the capacity of the central executive in working memory, impairing attentional control and leading to performance decrements due to distraction from task-irrelevant stimuli. The study focuses on inhibition, a crucial executive function for suppressing dominant, automatic responses, and aims to determine the specific type of inhibition (reactive vs. proactive) affected by math anxiety. The Dual Mechanisms of Control theory differentiates between reactive control (post-interference detection) and proactive control (interference anticipation). This study hypothesized that math anxiety would differentially affect these two control mechanisms, potentially impairing either proactive control (due to reduced working memory capacity) or reactive control (due to increased distractibility). Previous research presents mixed findings on which type of inhibition is more susceptible to anxiety's influence, prompting the need for a task designed to clearly differentiate between them.

Existing research links math anxiety to cognitive deficits, including reduced working memory capacity and attentional bias towards math-related information. Studies using Stroop-like tasks have shown that high math-anxious individuals exhibit poorer performance, suggesting a domain-general problem with inhibition. However, findings on whether proactive or reactive inhibition is more affected by math anxiety are inconsistent. Some studies suggest that proactive inhibition, requiring advance suppression of irrelevant information, is more vulnerable, while others indicate a deficit in reactive inhibition, where interference suppression occurs after its onset. The current study aimed to clarify these discrepancies by using a task directly disentangling reactive and proactive control.

Ninety-eight participants (92 included in analysis after exclusion criteria) completed an arrow flanker task with manipulated interference proportions to elicit reactive (mostly congruent trials) and proactive (mostly incongruent trials) control strategies. Response times (RTs) and error rates were measured. Math anxiety was assessed using the Dutch version of the Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale (AMAS), and mathematics achievement was evaluated using two tests: the Tempo Test Rekenen (TTR) for simple arithmetic and the Cognitive Developmental skills in aRithmetics, 5th grade (CDR-5) for more complex arithmetic. Linear mixed models and generalized linear mixed models (for RT and error rates, respectively) were used to analyze the data. The models included Congruency (congruent vs. incongruent), Block (mostly congruent vs. mostly incongruent), AMAS scores, and TTR and CDR scores as predictors.

Participants' average AMAS score was 24.0 (SD = 6.8). Math anxiety did not significantly correlate with TTR or CDR scores. The linear mixed model analysis of RTs revealed a significant three-way interaction between Congruency, Block, and math anxiety. Specifically, in the reactive control context (mostly congruent block), response times on incongruent trials increased significantly with increasing math anxiety. In contrast, in the proactive control context (mostly incongruent block), math anxiety did not influence response times. The congruency effect (difference in RT between congruent and incongruent trials) increased with higher math anxiety in the reactive context only. Bayes Factors supported the presence of this interaction in the reactive context and the absence in the proactive context. Analysis of error rates showed a main effect of Congruency (more errors on incongruent trials) and Block (fewer errors on mostly congruent block).

The findings support the hypothesis that math anxiety specifically impairs reactive control, rather than proactive control. This impaired reactive control is potentially attributed to increased distractibility, heightened by both the reactive task context and math anxiety. The reactive context, with infrequent interference, allows for resource allocation away from the task between interference events, increasing vulnerability to distraction. Math anxiety, characterized by heightened distractibility, further exacerbates this vulnerability. The proactive context, with continuous task goals, appears to buffer against this distractibility, resulting in no effect of math anxiety. The absence of significant correlations between math anxiety and math achievement in this study contrasts with previous research and may be due to task characteristics. The lack of a relationship between math anxiety and TTR performance was anticipated given its limited working memory demand. The unexpected absence of correlation with CDR may be due to the test not imposing a sufficiently high working memory load for the sample.

This study demonstrates that math anxiety specifically impairs reactive inhibitory control, likely due to increased distractibility. Future research should investigate this further by manipulating working memory load to determine the impact on proactive control under higher cognitive demands. Further exploration of the interaction between math anxiety and general cognitive processes is warranted.

The lack of correlation between math anxiety and math achievement in this study differs from some previous findings and may warrant further investigation. The study only used one type of math-unrelated task, thus limiting the generalization of these findings. The absence of measures for other anxiety constructs, such as general anxiety or test anxiety, limits the ability to determine whether the observed impairment is specific to math anxiety or generalizes to other types of anxiety.