More Balanced Motivation,Less Anxiety? Exploring EFL Learners’ Motivation and Anxiety With Q Methodology

Abstract

Second language (L2) anxiety can undermine learners’ performance and disrupt cognitive processing, while reducing their confidence and engagement. English majors are particularly vulnerable to L2 anxiety due to the strong link between L2 proficiency and their academic and career expectations. Motivation may help regulate anxiety, highlighting their close interplay in L2 development. Existing research has relied on variable-centered quantitative approaches to investigate motivation-anxiety relation, which reveal general patterns across large samples but overlook learners’ perception and interpretation. Consequently, learner subgroups with distinct motivational and emotional profiles remain underexplored. This study employed a mixed methods approach, that is, Q methodology, to explore L2 motivation and anxiety among sophomore English majors at a university in Southern China. Q sorts were collected from 40 participants, and nine of the participants were interviewed to interpret the findings. Three main profiles emerged as a result: (1) extrinsically motivated while fearing negative evaluation in employment, (2) intrinsically motivated with high peer pressure and fear of negative classroom feedback, and (3) both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated with low L2 anxiety. By juxtaposing motivation and anxiety with Q methodology, this research offers a nuanced understanding of English majors’ motivational and emotional profiles, underscoring the need to help L2 learners develop more balanced motivational orientation and empower them in the face of negative emotion.

Plain Language Summary

Examining the Link Between Motivation and Anxiety in EFL Learners: A Q Methodology Approach

We used Q methodology with 40 sophomore English majors at a university in Southern China and interviewed nine students to interpret the results. Three profiles emerged: learners motivated mainly by external goals (jobs, grades) who worry about employer evaluation; learners driven by personal interest but feeling strong peer pressure and fear of negative classroom feedback; and learners with both internal and external motivation who report low anxiety. These patterns show motivation and anxiety cluster differently across students, so teachers and program designers should help learners develop a balanced mix of motivations and give them tools to cope with negative emotions, especially as AI reshapes how language skills are used.

Introduction

Language learning anxiety, defined as “the feeling of tension and apprehension specifically associated with second language contexts” (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994, p. 284), can negatively influence language learning by impairing language performance, impeding cognitive processing, reducing self-confidence and participation (Abdi Tabari et al., 2025; Hamada & Takaki, 2021; MacIntyre, 2017). English major students are more susceptible to language learning anxiety than other second language (L2) learners, because their future career is more closely linked with their L2 ability and they need to meet higher expectations imposed upon them both internally or externally (S. Zhang & Lai, 2023). Motivation, which involves the mental processes that trigger and sustain the learning of a second language (Dörnyei, 1998; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996), can help learners regulate anxiety ( S.Zhang & Lai, 2024). Therefore, L2 learners do not experience motivation and anxiety in isolation; rather, the two are likely to shape one another during the learning process and work in tandem to influence L2 learning (Jiang & Papi, 2021).

The situation of L2 learning, however, is now facing an important change with the arrival of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). When simple language-related tasks can be accomplished by GenAI tools, the need to master a second or foreign language through arduous work is seemingly diminished (Liao et al., 2024). This technological shift is likely to influence both learners’ motivation and their anxiety, potentially altering the way these two constructs interact (Chen, 2025). Existing research, nonetheless, has largely relied on quantitative methods to establish statistical correlations between motivation and anxiety. Relatively little attention has been paid to how learners make sense of the interplay between these constructs, and even less is known about how such interaction varies across different groups of learners. The lack of learner-centered perspectives limits our understanding of the diversity and complexity of L2 learners’ psychological profiles. To address this gap, the current study employed Q methodology, a by-person mixed methods approach, to investigate Chinese English major students’ motivation-anxiety profiles. By unraveling distinct configurations of these constructs, the study provides a more nuanced account of L2 learners’ psychological and emotional experience and offers empirically grounded insights for better supporting learners in the evolving landscape of GenAI.

Literature Review

Second Language Learning Anxiety

Anxiety refers to “the subjective feeling of tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry associated with an arousal of the autonomic nervous system” (E. K. Horwitz et al., 1986, p. 125). As a situation-specific form of anxiety, language learning anxiety distinguishes itself from other anxiety types for originating from the negative experiences related to learning a new language (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991). Mindful of the incompetence in meeting unfamiliar norms and the presence of potentially frustrated communication, L2 learners’ self-concepts are constantly challenged during the process of language learning and thus subjected to anxiety (E. K. Horwitz et al., 1986; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991). For example, in Fang and Tang’s research (2021), Chinese English major students demonstrated a moderate level of anxiety.

Language learning anxiety is a multifaceted construction. E. K. Horwitz et al. (1986), who developed one of the most widely used questionnaires on language learning anxiety, conceptualized anxiety in terms of three dimensions: (1) communication apprehension, denoting the anxiety about communicating with others; (2) test anxiety, concerning the anxiety about failing in test performance; (3) fear of negative evaluation, reflecting the anxiety about receiving negative feedback (E. K. Horwitz et al., 1986). It is noteworthy that fear of negative evaluation can occur in “any social evaluative situation” such as a job interview (E. K. Horwitz et al., 1986, p. 128). Language learners who pursue a degree in a language (e.g. English majors) are arguably more likely to suffer from this type of anxiety, since they deeply engage in studying that language and connect language ability with their future career goal. The fear of negative evaluation concerning career prospect, nevertheless, has not been indicated in E. K. Horwitz et al.’s scale (1986), and it is also underexplored in extant literature. Additionally, E. K. Horwitz et al. (1986) did not categorize items into specific dimensions, resulting in the inconvenience of interpreting learners’ anxiety. In light of this limitation, S. Zhang and Lai (2023) revised the formative scale via the integration of interview data. As reported by the participants, language learning anxiety also arose when they compared their language ability with peers and found themselves inferior. Peer pressure therefore emerged as a new dimension of L2 anxiety (S. Zhang & Lai, 2023).

Abundant empirical evidence attests to the negative role of anxiety in language learning performances and achievements (E. Horwitz, 2001; Teimouri et al., 2019; X. Zhang, 2019). For instance, Dewaele et al. (2023) identified anxiety as the only foreign language emotion that negatively influenced the participants’ general academic achievement by mean of structural equation modeling (SEM). Anxiety also impedes the acquisition of basic language skill. It can impair the learning of receptive skills, as a higher level of anxiety caused a poorer performance in listening test (X. Zhang, 2013) and reading test (Zhao et al., 2013). As for productive skills, anxiety has been found to negatively correlate with learners’ oral exam performances (Tahmouresi & Papi, 2021) and writing course grades (Hewitt & Stephenson, 2012). In addition to the effect on learning outcomes, anxiety is closely associated with the way learners engage themselves in language learning process. Gregersen and Horwitz (2002), for example, found that anxious L2 learners set higher standards for their own performances and distressed themselves for errors and others’ opinions, which could lead to unpleasant and fruitless language learning experiences. These potential hazards warrant further examination of anxiety in the context of language learning to empower L2 learners in the face of negative emotions.

Second Language Learning Motivation

Self-determination theory (SDT) posits that motivation resides in human’s innate propensity for “psychological growth and integration” and it is influenced by the degree to which an individual’s basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are fulfilled (Ryan & Deci, 2020, p. 1). The SDT made an influential distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is driven by internal satisfaction and interest, manifesting itself in an active involvement with the target behavior for its own sake (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Whereas, extrinsic motivation is driven by external rewards or pressures, with the individual performing the target behavior as a means to an end (Deci & Ryan, 2000). From the SDT perspective, extrinsic motivation is categorized into four types along a spectrum, including external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and integrated regulation (Dörnyei, 1998; Ryan & Deci, 2020). External regulation, functioning as the least self-determined and the most controlled form of extrinsic motivation, pertains to actions that are initiated for the promise of rewards or the possibility of punishments; introjected regulation, which is partially internalized, concerns the need to preserve self-esteem and avoid sanction; identified regulation involves an individual consciously identifying himself or herself with the value of the target activity; integrated regulation entails not only the identification with the value of the activity but also the full integration of it into one’s own value and interest (Deci et al., 1991; Dörnyei, 1998; Ryan & Deci, 2020). In some cases, extrinsic motivation can make the agent less intrinsically motivated for thwarting the sense of autonomy; whereas in other cases extrinsic motivation can bolster intrinsic motivation because external incentives entail competence boosting (Cerasoli et al., 2014; Ryan & Deci, 2000). In the absence of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, individuals perceive no connection between their actions and the outcomes of those actions, which leads to amotivation (Noels et al., 2003).

Numerous studies have been conducted to investigate motivation in language learning contexts. You and Dörnyei (2016), for example, studied English language learning motivation among Chinese secondary and university students. They found that Chinese learners were generally motivated to learn English as a foreign language. Some researchers explored the relation between motivation and various variables. For instance, Takahashi and Im (2020) investigated the causal relationship between L2 motivation and the efforts intended by learners as well as L2 proficiency. The analysis of SEM showed that intrinsic motivation was the strongest predictor of intended effort, with identified regulation following and introjected regulation having a considerably weaker effect, and more internalized forms of motivation predicted L2 proficiency (Takahashi & Im, 2020). In summary, the empirical evidence buttresses the facilitative effect of motivation in L2 learning, which points to the significance of further research on L2 motivation to enhance learners’ achievements.

L2 motivation differs when learners engage in language learning in different ways. For example, Ngo et al. (2017) postulated that L2 motivation should differ between English major students and non-English major students, as the former chose to learn English while the latter were required to do so. It turned out that English major students demonstrated significantly more intrinsic motivation and significantly less external or introjected regulation than non-English students (Ngo et al., 2017). However, this research was conducted before the advent of GenAI. Aware that GenAI is causing job displacement and posting a new challenge to their future career (Demirci et al., 2025), English major students may well undergo a transformation in L2 motivation, which has not yet been touched upon in existing research.

Motivation and Anxiety in L2 Learning

Motivation and anxiety are two interrelated constructs investigated in L2 learning. Several strands of evidence suggest that extrinsic motivation positively predicts anxiety while intrinsic motivation negatively influences anxiety. With an SEM analysis, Papi (2010) found Iranian high school students’ ideal L2 self, that is, the more intrinsically oriented motivation, decreased anxiety; meanwhile, ought-to L2 self, that is, the more extrinsically oriented motivation, increased anxiety. Another key study by Peng (2015) further confirmed Papi’s findings (2010) among Chinese university students via SEM. Focusing on out-of-class English learning, S. Zhang and Lai’s SEM analysis (2024) also reported a negative impact of ideal L2 self and a positive impact of ought-to L2 self on anxiety among Chinese English major students. When the abovementioned research tended to treat extrinsic motivation as a unitary construct, Teimouri (2017) further distinguished two types of ought-to L2 self, namely ought-to L2 self/own and ought-to L2 self/others, which reflect the personal and social dimensions of obligations related to L2 learning, respectively. Both were positively associated with L2 anxiety, although the association was stronger for ought-to L2 self/others than for ought-to L2 self/own. This finding suggests that internally and socially grounded motivational orientations may be associated with anxiety in different ways. Apart from testifying to the correlation between motivation and anxiety, F. Zhang and Wu (2024) used an idiodynamic technique to investigate five EFL learners’ listening process, and discovered the motivation-anxiety relation varied across individuals and tasks. Even if these learners were performing the same listening task, their L2 motivation could correlate with anxiety negatively, positively, or non-significantly. Taken together, these studies suggest that motivation and anxiety are closely intertwined in L2 learning, with different types of motivation potentially co-occurring with different forms of anxiety. Their interaction, notably, is neither fixed nor uniform, but shifts across individuals and learning contexts.

Although the extant literature has revealed a statistical association between motivation and anxiety, it has relied heavily on variable-centered quantitative approaches (e.g. SEM and correlation analysis) that primarily generalize patterns across large samples. Consequently, it offers only limited insight into how L2 learners subjectively experience and interpret the interplay between these two constructs, while important learner subgroups with distinct motivation–anxiety profiles may remain overlooked. This, in turn, reduces the explanatory depth of existing findings and weakens their pedagogical relevance. Thus, the current study adopted a mixed methods approach, that is, Q methodology, to illuminate subtle differences of motivation and anxiety existing in multiple subgroups of L2 learners that have been overlooked by previous quantitative research. As a mixed methods approach, Q methodology “balances a statistical approach with qualitative data to identify perspective profiles” (Thumvichit, 2024, p. 532). It aims to cast light upon “the key viewpoints extant among a group of participants and allows those viewpoints to be understood holistically and to a high level of qualitative detail” (Watts & Stenner, 2012, p. 4). In the present study, Q methodology is particularly suitable because motivation and anxiety are closely related psychological experiences whose multiple dimensions may intertwine with each other. By identifying shared yet distinct viewpoint patterns, Q methodology can uncover unique motivation-anxiety profiles hidden across different subgroups of L2 learners, which can help teachers design more targeted support for their motivation and anxiety regulation. The present inquiry was guided by the following research question:

• RQ : What are the psychological profiles of Chinese English learners in regards to motivation and anxiety?

Method

Research Design: Q Methodology

The current study employed Q methodology to explore Chinese English majors’ profiles of L2 motivation and anxiety. The procedure of Q methodology consists of five steps: (1) generating the Q set, which is a concourse of statements about the particular subject matter; (2) selecting the P sets, which refer to participant samples; (3) gathering the Q sorts, that is, to have the participants rank-order items of the Q set in a sorting grid to express their subjectivity; (4) conducting a factor analysis on the Q sorts to generate a set of factors representing the shared viewpoints of different groups of participants; and (5) interpreting the factors by examining the statements that differentiate or represent the factors (McKeown & Thomas, 2013; Thumvichit, 2024; Watts & Stenner, 2012). Focusing on human’s subjectivity, Q methodology allowed the present research to reveal the common patterns of motivation and anxiety experienced by different subgroups of English majors.

Context and Participants

The current study was conducted in the English department of a university in Southern China. The undergraduate program for English majors in this university spans 4 years, which includes eight semesters. About 180 to 200 new students were admitted into this program each year. The participants were 40 English-major sophomores, including 31 females and nine males. The average age of the participants was 20.6 years. They had been taking courses in receptive skill training (e.g. English reading and listening), productive skill training (e.g. English speaking and writing) and English language literature in their freshman year. We recruited the second-year students because their anxiety and motivation at this time had relatively stabilized after their regular engagement in the curriculum of English major. All the participants were L1 (the first language) speakers of Mandarin Chinese, and they had been studying English as their L2 (the second language) for 8 to 15 years. In line with the curriculum planned for the 4-year English major undergraduate program, the participants’ English proficiency attained A2 on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) at the time of data collection.

After the analysis of Q factors, nine participants were invited for follow-up interviews according to the analysis results. These interviewees were selected for their significant and high loadings on one of the factors, with three interviewees invited for each factor. The interviewees of Factor 1 included F01, F05, F12; those of Factor 2 were F26, F39, M37; those of Factor 3 were F15, F34, M20 (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Interviewees.

Factor	Code	Gender	Age
Factor 1	F01	Female	20
Factor 1	F05	Female	21
Factor 1	F12	Female	21
Factor 2	F26	Female	20
Factor 2	M37	Male	23
Factor 2	F39	Female	20
Factor 3	F15	Female	22
Factor 3	M20	Male	20
Factor 3	F34	Female	20

Note. The participants were anonymized with codes. F = female participant; M = male participant.

Data Collection and Analysis

The Q statements employed in the current study comprised 46 items (see Appendix A for the complete Q set). The Q statements concerning anxiety were developed from the adapted Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (S. Zhang & Lai, 2023). Twenty-three statements out of 46 reflect four dimensions of L2 anxiety, namely communication apprehension, self-confidence in speaking English, peer pressure, and fear of negative evaluation. Based on our observations, two statements reflecting job anxiety (e.g. “I feel anxious about the employment prospects of English majors”) were devised to make the Q statements of L2 anxiety more up-to-date and comprehensive. Among the 46 items, 21 were about L2 motivation, which were adapted from Language Learning Orientations Scale (Noels et al., 2003) and L2 Regulatory Styles Survey (Yu, 2020) to reflect multiple facets of L2 motivation. The resultant statements were translated into Chinese by the first author and the third author with reference to relevant literature (Yu, 2020). They reviewed the translation of each other and discussed to reach consensus about the translation. Then ten English major undergraduates, who were not the participants of the main study, were invited to read through these statements and comment when they thought these statements vague or confusing. Wording of the items was modified in accordance to their comments to make the Q statements more easily comprehensible.

Each Q statement was printed out on one side of a paper card measuring 50 × 50 mm and a 11-point Q sorting grid was printed on a carboard measuring 700 × 650 mm (see Figure 1). In the Q sorting task, each participant was given a pile of 46 item cards and a sorting grid. They were asked to assign each item card a ranking position according to the strength of agreement or disagreement within the forced-choice distribution presented in the sorting grid (Watts & Stenner, 2012). Forty Q sorts were generated by the participants.

Figure 1.

The blank sorting distribution for 46 cards.

After the collection of Q sorts, the qmethod package in R (Zabala, 2014) was run to conduct a principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation. PCA was selected as the extraction method to identify the primary patterns of variation in the dataset. Factor retention was determined through a combined consideration of statistical adequacy and interpretability. We examined candidate solutions with two, three, four, and five factors and compared them in terms of the variance explained, the number of clearly defining Q sorts, the extent of confounding (cross-loading), and the conceptual coherence of the factor arrays. Based on these criteria, a three-factor solution was selected as the most parsimonious and interpretable representation of the data, accounting for 57% of the total variance.

To evaluate meaningful factor loadings, we followed the Q methodological instruction that the standard error (SE) of a loading can be approximated as 1/√N, where N is the number of statements (N = 46). This yields an estimated SE of ∼0.147 (Watts & Stenner, 2012). Although a loading of 0.38 would be statistically significant at p < .01 (2.58 × 1/√N), we adopted a more conservative threshold and treated loadings of 0.45 or higher as meaningful. This decision was intended to reduce confounded Q sorts and strengthen factor purity (Peng & Wu, 2024; Watts & Stenner, 2012). Q sorts meeting this threshold on one factor, without a comparable loading on any other factor, were treated as defining sorts and used to compute statement factor scores (z-scores) and construct the factor array for each factor. Using qmethod procedures, statements were further examined as distinguishing or consensus statements based on statistical comparisons of statement z-scores across factors (Watts & Stenner, 2012; Zabala, 2014). Factor scores were calculated to create a factor array for each factor (see Appendix A).

In order to better understand the nature of each emergent factor, semi-structured one-on-one interviews were conducted with nine participants. The interviewees were asked about their experience of English learning, their perception of motivation and anxiety, and the rationale behind their Q sorting. The interviews were audio-recorded after the informed consents of the participants were obtained. A total of 460 minutes of interview data were collected. The recordings of interviews were transcribed verbatim, and then the interview transcripts were inductively analyzed by the first author. The interviewees’ words or phrases that reflected their perception about English learning were first extracted as in vivo codes (Saldaña, 2013). Later, these in vivo codes were grouped into themes in relation to the motivation and anxiety in order to provide an interpretation for the emergent factors. To ensure intra-coder reliability, the first author coded the interview transcript again 1 month after the first coding. The agreement rate for intra-coder reliability exceeded 95%.

Results

Three factors with distinct motivation-anxiety profiles have been identified in the current study. Factor 1 was primarily extrinsically motivated but anxious about future employment; Factor 2 was intrinsically motivated but susceptible to peers’ and teachers’ negative feedback; and Factor 3 combined intrinsic and extrinsic motivation with lower anxiety than the other two factors.

Factor 1: Extrinsically Motivated While Fearing Negative Evaluation in Employment

Factor 1, which distinguished from the other two factors for being chiefly extrinsically motivated and fearing negative evaluation in future employment, was composed of 12 Q sorts (nine females, three males) and accounted for 21% of the variance. The participants in this group entertained more externalized motivation than the other groups. They barely gained from English learning itself such positive sensations as enjoyment (Statement 34: Factor array ranking 0; only the ranking score shown hereafter), fulfillment (Statement 36: 0), satisfaction (Statement 39: 0). In contrast to a rather weak internalized motivation, these participants attached great significance to the extrinsic utility value of English learning. They were the only group that identified external expectations as the motive for learning English (Statement 21: +1). They perceived English learning as an integral part of their personal development (Statement 17: +4), associating English learning with academic achievement (Statement 26: +3) and professional development (Statement 28: +3). The practical significance of English learning, such as helping them find a prestigious job (Statement 5: +3) and enabling them to earn a better salary (Statement 7: +3), was stressed by this group of learners. External demands and rewards jointly acted as a significant stimulus during their English learning, which can be exemplified in the following excerpt:

Excerpt 1

When I was filling in my application for my major in the university, my mom kept telling me to choose English as my major. She wanted me to learn English and become an English teacher, because she thought teaching was an easy profession and teachers have winter and summer vacations. I was persuaded by her in the end and chose the English major in my application. So, for me, learning English is for finding an ideal job. (Interview with F01)

In the above excerpt, F01 explained the reason for choosing English as her major. She made the decision to meet the expectation of her mother, who favored the English major for its employment prospect. English learning was therefore reckoned as a means to achieve a utilitarian end, testifying to an extrinsic motivational orientation. In the lack of internal impetus, this group had more doubts about the inherent value of English learning than the other groups (Statement 3: −1), and they also lost their own initiative in the learning process (Statement 11: 0), as seen in the narrative of F05:

Excerpt 2

I didn’t choose to become someone who can speak a second language. It’s just that I was taught a second language since I was a child. I don’t know why I should learn that, anyway. I just learned what I was taught. (Interview with F05)

By way of illustration, Excerpt 2 indicates the passivity of the participants loading on Factor 1, for whom learning a second language itself was not an attraction but an obligation. As indicated by the negation of an active verb (i.e. “I didn’t choose”) and the use of passive verb (i.e. “I was taught”), an internal engine to fire English learning is notably absent among this group of participants. With hidden doubts about the meaning of the learning activity, they learned English because they were externally mandated.

As for language learning anxiety, the participants of Factor 1 reported a moderate level of self-confidence in speaking English (Statement 22: 0). Likewise, they experienced a moderate level of peer pressure. Although they acknowledged the existence of peer pressure (Statement 16: +2; Statement 44: +2), they tended not to regard themselves as inferior to peer learners in terms of oral English (Statement 43: −1) or English ability in general (Statement 42: 0). The factor array of Factor 1 revealed that the fear of negative evaluation from the job market was their major source of L2 anxiety. They were acutely anxious about not being able to find a satisfactory job after graduation (Statement 45: +5) and they were also worried about the employment prospects of English major graduates (Statement 25: +4). F12’s interview data can illustrate their anxiety over employment:

Excerpt 3

The competition in the job market is intense. The employment scope of English majors is quite narrow and there are so many graduates. Also, AI is highly developed now. (Interview with F12)

F12 envisioned a gloomy outlook for the employment of English majors. The source of her anxiety resided in the fierce competition among graduates, the lack of suitable positions, and the development of artificial intelligence. As far as F12 was concerned, there were few employment opportunities in need of English major graduates, which could make the labor market fiercely competitive. To make matters worse, the development of large language models and the advancement of GenAI intensify job competition.

To sum up, the participants of Factor 1 was primarily extrinsically motivated, with the practical benefits of English learning and external expectations serving as the main driving force. Viewing English learning as a means to achieve professional success or satisfy external demands, they experienced intense anxiety about the career prospect of English majors.

Factor 2: Intrinsically Motivated With High Peer Pressure and Fear of Negative Classroom Feedback

Factor 2, whose feature was internal motivation with high peer pressure and fear of negative classroom feedback, was composed of five Q sorts (four females, one male) and accounted for 14% of the variance. Placing the positive valence of English learning on the learning process itself, this cohort engaged in English learning because they enjoyed surpassing themselves (Statement 34: +3), exploring new knowledge (Statement 39: +2), and accomplishing tasks (Statement 46: +2). Factor 2 was the only factor that tended not to perceive English learning as instrumental in individual development (Statement 17: 0). These learners preferred not to draw a link between English learning and their academic performance (Statement 26: 0) nor career advancement (Statement 28: −1). They did not learn English for the utilitarian purpose of getting a good job (Statement 5: −2) or earning a satisfactory income (Statement 7: −2). These participants did not learn English in a hope of reaping external rewards:

Excerpt 4

I don’t learn English for a better job. As we all know, the job market is not good now. If it was for getting a job, I should have chosen Computer Science as my major, I wouldn’t have chosen English. I chose it just because I like it. I even had a fight with my parents over the issue of major. (Interview with M37)

In the above excerpt, M37 made a comparison between different majors, suggesting that he took a pessimistic view about the job prospect faced by English major graduates. Mindful of such a bleak prospect, he chose to learn English of his own volition. Therefore, the motivational feature of Factor 2 differentiates from the other two factors as their English learning was chiefly internally stimulated with scant regard for external demands or practical benefits.

For the students loading on Factor 2, the employment outlook of English majors did not cause much anxiety (Statement 25: 0). Instead, they seem to experience more anxiety in English classrooms. Having English classes is not a comfortable and relaxing experience for them (Statement 14: −1). The main sources of their language learning anxiety turned out to be peers and teachers. On the one hand, anxiety originated from the excellence of peer learners. When they could not understand the knowledge points in the English class but their peer learners could, they felt very anxious (Statement 44: +5). The idea that peer learners were good at English also brought them a feeling of tension (Statement 16: +4). On the other hand, teachers’ possible negative evaluation made them nervous. They were afraid of making mistakes in English class (Statement 35: +4) and being corrected by English teachers (Statement 4: +2). The fear of being negatively evaluated in English classrooms was linked with a lack of confidence (Statement 6: +3). This factor was the only group that expressed a vigorous denial of their self-confidence in speaking English (Statement 22: −4). The narrative of F39, who significantly loaded on this factor, serves as an illustration:

Excerpt 5

I thought my spoken English was good at first, but my teammates said my regional accent was too heavy. Since then, I dare not speak anymore…I am ashamed of making mistakes, because I feel like classmates will speak ill of me, and teachers will think I am terrible. I care about others’ comments very much, and I will remember negative comments for a long time. (Interview with F39)

As shown in the above interview extract, F39 tended to consider making mistakes a face-threatening situation and connect it with unfavorable comments. F39 was deeply concerned about being negatively evaluated by others. Peer students’ negative comment about her accent damaged her self-image as a competent English speaker. Negative comments kept haunting her and undermining her self-confidence. Upon making a mistake in English class, she felt herself judged and disdained by peers and teachers.

Overall, the motivational orientation of Factor 2 was mainly intrinsic, attaching greater importance to the learning process itself than external rewards. Yet, this group experienced significant anxiety due to possible negative feedback in English classrooms.

Factor 3: Motivated Both Intrinsically and Extrinsically With Low L2 Anxiety

Factor 3, which was characterized by the mixture of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and relatively low language learning anxiety, was composed of 14 Q sorts (10 females, four males) and accounted for 22% of the variance. The participants loading on this factor demonstrated the least amotivation (Statement 1: −5), indicating the least possibility of lacking intentionality to learn English. This cohort first demonstrated a clear intrinsic motivational orientation. They found English language learning pleasant (Statement 34: +3), interesting (Statement 31: +3), and fulfilling (Statement 39: +3), thus enjoying learning English for the pure pleasure that came along with the learning process. For instance, F34 derived sheer enjoyment from decoding a second language:

Excerpt 6

When I analyzed the components of a sentence, when I managed to tease it out, I would feel very happy… By analyzing the sentence structure, I was able to see the logic behind the sentence, and I came to understand what information the sentence was conveying. This is the biggest part of the happiness I felt. (Interview with F34)

Their intrinsic motivation worked in conjunction with extrinsic motivation. These participants regarded English learning as significant and meaningful by expressing a strong willingness to become the kind of person who can speak a second language apart from the first language (Statement 11: +5; Statement 15: +4). F15, for example, believed it was important to learn English because English enabled “the communication of thoughts and cultures” (quoted from the interview with F15) between people of different mindsets from different regions. Although they seemed unsure about whether learning English might bring them practical benefits such as better jobs (Statement 7: 0) or higher salaries (Statement 5: 0), they acknowledged its instrumental value in relation to their academic achievement (Statement 26: +2) and vocational success (Statement 28: +2). M20 thought English, as the lingua franca, would enable him to acquire the most cutting-edge knowledge of a field, thereby the development of his future career. This was illustrated in the following interview excerpt:

Excerpt 7

Much advanced knowledge needs to be learned through English. For example, when working on the paper materials relevant to a certain field, if your English is not good, it must be very difficult. (Interview with M20)

Driven by a combination of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, the participants of this factor appeared to be more relaxed and experienced less anxiety. They were the only cohort that felt comfortable about communicating with others in English (Statement 18: +2) and relaxed about having English classes (Statement 23: +1). They would not feel nervous or frightened when they failed to understand the English teacher (Statement 10: −2; Statement 20: −1), implying that they were less likely to be troubled by communication apprehension.

Among the three factors, this cohort also reported the least fear of negative evaluation of their classroom performances. They were not afraid of making mistakes in English class or being corrected by the English teacher (Statement 32: −1; Statement 35: −1). In M20’s opinion, language learning is “a process of constantly making mistakes and then correcting them” (quoted from the interview with M20) so he believed it was beneficial to be corrected when making mistakes. Also, they reported the least peer pressure. They were not worried about peer learners knowing more than they did (Statement 44: −1). The thought that others were excellent in English would not stress them out (Statement 16: −2). Such a sense of ease could be attributed to their self-confidence (Statement 22: +1), which could be confirmed in the interview with F34:

Excerpt 8

I did feel a little peer pressure, but it will not affect my own path. It is not enough to make me bend on my path. I emulated the peer who is good at speaking English by practicing my speaking more, for example. But I don’t feel a lot of pressure, because learning a language requires confidence. If you don’t have confidence, you dare not speak, dare not believe in yourself, then you lose your core strength. (Interview with F34)

As shown by F34’s narrative in Excerpt 8, peer pressure is not a source of distress but an impetus to make progress. Viewing peers’ excellence as a goal to be emulated, she was motivated to improve herself by working harder in English learning. In a similar vein, F15 “would not bother [herself] with peer comparison” (quoted from the interview with F15), since everyone could have their own strong point in a certain aspect of English competence and she could readily accept that peers were better at some aspects than her. With a faith in their own strength, the group of participants were able to deal with external pressure with calmness and even convert it into the motivation.

In summary, the participants of Factor 3 enjoyed learning English for personal fulfillment while also acknowledging its instrumental significance. Stimulated by both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, they had higher self-confidence and experienced minimal anxiety and pressure.

Discussion

The present research sought to profile motivation and anxiety of English major sophomores in L2 learning context with Q methodology. Three distinct profiles emerged as a result. Among the three factors, the first one was extrinsically motivated by external demands or rewards, experiencing acute anxiety over future employment; the second one was intrinsically motivated for pleasures inherent in the English learning process yet worried for peer pressures and teachers’ negative feedback; the third one, motivated by intrinsic and extrinsic factors simultaneously, reported anxiety of a lower level than the other two factors. It furthers the existing research by unveiling the diversity as well as complexity of motivation and anxiety among L2 learners.

Different sources of L2 anxiety have been found to feature in three factors identified by the current study. Divergent from Fang and Tang’s conclusion (2021) that Chinese English major students had a moderate level of foreign language anxiety, we found that some subgroups of these learners, as in the case of Factors 1 and 2, were undergoing intense anxiety from various sources when learning English. Research methods might account for the different findings. In Fang and Tang’s study (2021), the level of anxiety was aggregated across participants, generating an overall mean score that may obscure important within-group variation. Q methodology, contrarily, is designed to capture subjectivity by identifying clusters of individuals who share similar patterns of feelings and thoughts. The present Q study thus managed to reveal qualitatively distinct anxiety profiles, highlighting how learners may experience anxiety in fundamentally different ways. This person-centered approach provides nuanced insights into L2 anxiety experienced by different subgroups, which may be overlooked by survey-based methods. Furthermore, this study also adds to the current knowledge of language learning anxiety by revealing career anxiety as an important source of anxiety for L2 learners, in addition to those sources identified in previous research such as communication apprehension, fear of negative evaluation in class, lack of confidence, and peer pressures (e.g. E. K. Horwitz et al., 1986; S. Zhang & Lai, 2023). As shown in the profile of Factor 1, the fear of being negatively evaluated in employment predominated other sources to become the major cause of their anxiety. It may be due to the participants’ narrow employment scope, which has limited their perception of English majors’ career options. This finding also reflects a worry of job displacement caused by the transformative power of GenAI (Demirci et al., 2025).

Regarding L2 learning motivation, the three factors were stimulated by at least one type of motivation and none was predominated by amotivation. This finding is in line with the previous finding that Chinese L2 learners had a generally positive attitude towards English learning (You & Dörnyei, 2016). It implies that Chinese L2 learners, especially the cohort of English majors, still acknowledge the value of English as the lingua franca and are willing to devote efforts to learning it. The diverse motivational profiles discovered in the current research echoes the results of Ngo et al.’s research (2017), which identified multiple types of motivation in the questionnaire responses of English major students. The present study, meanwhile, has taken the exploration one step further for uncovering motivational orientation salient in different subgroups of English majors, hence a more nuanced understanding of their L2 motivation. Using a two-way MANOVA, Ngo et al. (2017) found that English majors reported significantly more intrinsic motivation than non-English majors. The current mixed methods study coincided with this finding and further confirmed that intrinsic motivation played an important part in English majors’ language learning, given that intrinsic motivation featured in two of the three factors, namely Factors 2 and 3. However, the current study also found that some English major students, as exemplified in the motivational orientation of Factor 1, were socially mandated and engaged in English learning to meet parental or societal demands and obtain practical benefits. Therefore, the findings of the present research show that English majors are not a homogeneous group in terms of their L2 motivation, since social expectations and practical considerations could play an important role in their L2 learning, which further informed their experience of anxiety. The motivation of Factor 3, which contained both intrinsic and extrinsic motive forces, resonates with Cerasoli et al.’s proposition (2014) that the relationship between external incentive and intrinsic motivation is not necessarily an antagonistic one and they can work in conjunction instead. Factor 3’s extrinsic motivation did not prevent them from being intrinsically motivated. One possible explanation is that their extrinsic motivation, as reflected in their acknowledgment of English learning’s utilitarian value, “impart[s] a competence-boosting message” (Cerasoli et al., 2014, p. 4), which points to internal fulfillment and intrinsic motivation.

By juxtaposing motivation with anxiety in Q methodology, the current study unmasks the intricacy of their connection. The identification of Factor 1 coheres with the findings of previous research that extrinsic motivation, which puts great emphasis upon the utilitarian worth of L2 learning, could cause anxiety (Peng, 2015). What is inconsistent with existing studies is the identification of Factor 2. When extant research found more intrinsically oriented motivation associated with less anxiety (e.g. S. Zhang & Lai, 2024), the participants of Factor 2, who were characterized by their intrinsic motivation, are subject to acute anxiety in L2 classrooms. This finding may be explained by the fact that intrinsically motivated learners tend to be more reflective about and devote more emotional investment in the process of L2 learning. This could make them more conscious of their errors and gaps as well as difficulties and failures, hence the increase of anxiety. One interesting finding lies in the emergence of Factor 3, whose participants were both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated and experienced less anxiety than those of Factors 1 and 2. It implies that a broader range of motivation can enable L2 learners buffer anxiety. Intrinsic motivation offers internal drivers and personal satisfaction, fostering confidence and engagement; whereas, extrinsic motivation promises external rewards or recognition, reinforcing their engagement. With the co-occurrence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, L2 learners may feel more supported and secure, thus the reduction in stress and worry.

Conclusion

With an aim to explore the interplay of motivation and anxiety among L2 learners, the present research utilized Q methodology to uncover learner profiles among Chinese English majors. Three types of profiles have been identified—each characterized by different types of motivation and different sources of anxiety. These findings yield several important practical implications. Given that the anxiety over employment prospect has been identified as an important source of language learning anxiety, explicit support for career development should be provided for L2 learners, especially those who learn the language as their major, to help them buffer career-related anxiety. For example, teachers can promote the integration of GenAI tools into L2 classrooms to help learners familiarize and optimize these tools to learn and apply their language knowledge. Considering the finding that the combination of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation connects with a lower level of anxiety, teachers need to help L2 learners promote a wider range of motivation. For learners who are predominantly extrinsically motivated, teachers can build their intrinsic motivation by offering feedback on their efforts rather than outcomes to foster self-efficacy or designing teaching materials related to learners’ interests and hobbies to ignite inner passion. For learners who are chiefly intrinsically motivated, teachers can facilitate their extrinsic motivation by integrating such activities as presentation and teamwork into L2 class to link language learning with tangible career preparation.

Finally, some limitations need to be noted regarding the current study. First, Q methodology only identifies profiles in a given sample. The participants were recruited from one single institution and one region, which may restrict the diversity of perspectives. Future study can adopt larger and more diverse samples across institutions and regions to draw a fuller picture of L2 learners’ motivation and anxiety. Second, our study has only focused on the cohort of sophomores without examining freshmen, juniors, or seniors, whose motivation and anxiety may vary with the years. A comparative research design is thus recommended for future study to investigate and compare L2 learners of different years in terms of the interplay of motivation and anxiety (e.g. Peng & Wu, 2024). Third, the cross-sectional design did not track the evolution of motivation and anxiety over time and is therefore unable to capture the patterns of their developmental trajectories. Further work needs to be done by employing a longitudinal Q methodological design to chart the development of L2 learners’ motivational and emotional profiles (e.g. Zheng et al., 2020).