Exploring Writing Anxiety and Strategies Through the Perspective of Social Cognitive Theory

Writing anxiety is a common barrier to effective academic performance. This type of anxiety often reduces learners’ confidence and their willingness to participate in writing activities. Therefore, this study investigates the relationship between writing anxiety and strategies across behavioural, personal and environmental factors using Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory as a framework. A quantitative survey was conducted using a structured questionnaire with a 46-item Likert scale instrument adapted from Bandura (1977), Cheng (2004) and Raoofi et. al. (2017). This questionnaire has been randomly distributed to 223 diploma and degree students. The results revealed that students have moderate levels of cognitive and somatic anxiety, whereas avoidance behaviours appeared less prominent. Other than that, learners also showed frequent use of metacognitive, effort regulation, and cognitive strategies, supported by social and affective support. There was a significant relationship between personal and environmental factors, but no correlation with behavioural factors. Inferential tests showed a statistically significant difference in behaviour and personal strategies across levels of study, but no differences were found across courses. These results suggest that learners’ writing strategies, particularly self‑regulation and peer support, play a crucial role in mitigating writing anxiety. The study underscores the importance of integrating strategy‑based interventions and supportive environments to enhance writing confidence and performance.

Writing Anxiety, Writing Strategies, Social Cognitive Theory

1. Ahmad, N., Alias, F.A., Hamat, M., & Mohamed, S.A. (2024) Reliability Analysis: Application of Cronbach’s Alpha in Research Instruments. SIG: e-L earning@CS, 114-119. https://appspenang.uitm.edu.my/sigcs/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self‑Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Cheng, Y. S. (2004). A measure of second language writing anxiety: Scale development and preliminary validation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 313-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.07.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Cheng, Y. S. (2004). A measure of second language writing anxiety: Scale development and preliminary validation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 313–335. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. de VicenteYagüe Jara, M. I., García-Guirao, P., JiménezPérez, E. P., & LópezMartínez, O. (2023). Editorial: Reading and writing skills: Cognitive, emotional, creative, and digital approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1279276 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. He, L. (2024) The Application of SPSS Correlation Analysis in the Study if Precision Teaching of English in Universities. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Science, 9(1), 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/amns-2024-1371 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Jasman, N. H., Rohayu, D., Khairol Anuar, N. A., & Mokhtar, M. I. (2025). Exploring academic writing through the social cognitive theory. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(9), 6694–6707. https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000547 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Mubofu, C., & Kitali, L. (2024). Causes and reduction strategies of research writing anxiety among social science undergraduate students at Mwalimu Nyerere Memorial Academy, Tanzania. East African [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 5(4), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.46606/eajess2024v05i04.0392 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Patty, J. (2025). What lies beneath writer’s block? Exploring the dimensions of writing anxiety. Pattimura University. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392734879 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Pavlov, I. (1927). Conditioned reflexes. Oxford University Press [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Rahmat, N.H. (2022) Learning Group Writing Online: The Case for Cognitive Constructivism. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(6), 1093-1108. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v12-i6/13879 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Raoofi, S., Chan, S. H., & Mukundan, J. (2017). Metacognition and second/foreign language learning. English Language Teaching, 10(5), 1–13 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Raoofi, S., Binandeh, M., & Rahmani, S. (2017b). An investigation into writing strategies and writing proficiency of university students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(1), 191. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Raoofi,S. Miri,A., Gharibi,J. & Malaki, B. (2017) Assessing and Validating a Writing Strategy Scale for Undergraduate Students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol 8(3), pp 624-633. Retrieved from http://www.academypublication.com/issues2/jltr/vol08/03/23.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Sagredo-Ortiz, S., & Kloss, S. (2025). Academic writing strategies in university students from three disciplinary areas: Design and validation of an instrument. Frontiers in Education, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1600497 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Shen, X., & Tao, Y. (2024). Metacognitive strategies, AI-based writing self-efficacy and writing anxiety in AI-assisted writing contexts: A structural equation modeling analysis. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 7(1), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.58304/ijts.20250105 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Vetter, T.R. (2017) Descriptive Statistics: Reporting the Answers to the 5 Basic Questions of Who, What, Why, When , Where, and a Sixth, So What? Anesth Analg, 12595), 1797-1802. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000002471 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(1), 1–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Ziegenfuss, J. Y., Casey A. E., Jennifer M. D., Meghan M. J., Thomas E. K, and Marna, C.. (202) Impact of Demographic Survey Questions on Response Rate and Measurement: A Randomized Experiment. Survey Practice 14 (1), https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2021-0010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study