UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effect of two different stress situations on the performance and learning of a pursuit rotor task Wenger, Howard Allan 1969

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1969_A7_5 W46.pdf [ 3.26MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077214.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077214-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077214-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077214-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077214-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077214-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077214-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077214-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077214.ris

Full Text

THE  EFFECT  O F TWO D I F F E R E N T  THE  PERFORMANCE PURSUIT  STRESS  SITUATIONS  AND L E A R N I N G ROTOR  OF A  TASK  by  Howard A l l a n B.P.E.,  A  THESIS THE  Wenger  University  of  British  Columbia,  SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  REQUIREMENTS MASTER  FOR THE D E G R E E  OF P H Y S I C A L  in  the  1967  OF  OF  EDUCATION  School  of Physical  Education  and Recreation  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s required standard  THE  as  conforming to  U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H August,  1969  the  COLUMBIA  ON  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the r e q u i r e m e n t s  an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e I further agree that permission f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  /^V*'C^<-  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, C a n a d a Date  Columbia  thesis or  publication  g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t  Sz>o>e<*>7VO~J  that  Study.  Department  It i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r  permission.  Department of  and  copying of this  be g r a n t e d b y t h e Head o f my  of this thesis for f i n a n c i a l written  for extensive  I agree  for  my  ABSTRACT Thirty on t h e  volunteer  pursuit  and t e n  further  hours  later.  three  groups:  directed  The  the  were  used to  The  toward  pursuit  rotor  direction  to  there  no d i f f e r e n c e  was  showed trol  group.  i n g between  the  two  g r o u p ; . 2)  control the  the  group.  stress  in  directed  the  subjects'  The  the  not  performance  due t o  the  group.  later, in  stress attention to  give that  either  stress  However,  stress  learning  no s i g n i f i c a n t groups.  both  and  two  designed to showed  of  non-  instructions  results  control  one  Shock  the  directed  while  day  twenty-four  the  hours  stress  on one  to  improvements  T h e r e was  given  trials  randomly assigned to  g r o u p were  in  were  thirty  approximately  the  attention.  twenty-four  significant  3)  given  stress  task,  c o n d i t i o n when c o m p a r e d t o when t e s t e d  were  induce  have  stress  their  given  instructions  assumed t o  non-directed  and  were  trials  directed  group;  group were  the  were  subjects  1)  groups.  the  Twenty  trials  stress  instructions stress  rotor.  subjects  over  difference  groups the in  conlearn-  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  CHAPTER I.  PAGE  S T A T E M E N T O F THE  1  Introduction  1  The  6  Problem  Definition  II.  PROBLEM  of  Terms  7  Theoretical  Expectations  Limitations  of  the  Delimitations  of  References  .  .  Study  the .  8 .  .  .  .  .  .  9  Study  .  9  .  11  REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E Some  General  The E f f e c t s  Theories of  Non-Directed of  Motor  Directed Motor Transfer  Stress  Stress  12 of  Behavior  on V e r b a l  and the  .  .  Tasks  .  .  .  Tasks  Stress  Directed  and the  Performance  17  of  a 20  Stress  Effects  to  Post  Stress 20  and N o n - D i r e c t e d  Learning  .  12  18  Task of  .  Performance  Performance  of  a Motor  References III.  .  Task  Stress  and  the 21 22  METHODS AND PROCEDURES Subjects  24 24  Experimental  /  Design  24  iv  CHAPTER  PAGE Apparatus  28  Procedures  30  Statistical  Analysis  References IV.  V.  33 35  R E S U L T S AND D I S C U S S I O N  36  Results  36  Discussion  46  References  53  SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S I O N S Recommendations  54 55  BIBLIOGRAPHY  56  APPENDIX A  Statistical  APPENDIX B  Raw  Data  Treatments  61 62  LIST  OF  TABLES  TABLE I. II.  PAGE Summary  of  Experimental  A Comparison of Deviations  III. IV.  the  for  the  Design  G r o u p Means  25 and  Standard  Various  Conditions  .  Analysis  of  Variance  for  the  Initial  Analysis  of  Variance  for  the  Performance  .  Scores  38  Scores  40  V.  Analysis  of  Variance  for  Transfer  Scores  .  VI.  Analysis  of  Variance  for  Learning  Scores  One  (LSI) VII.  Analysis  t-Tests  42  44 of  Variance  for  Learning  Score  Two  (LS2) VIII.  37  44 for  Learning  Differences Scores  Between Groups  in 46  LIST  OF  FIGURES  FIGURE 1.  PAGE The A p p a r a t u s  29  LIST  O F GRAPHS  GRAPH I. II. III. IV.  PAGE Mean  Initial  Scores  Mean P e r f o r m a n c e Mean F i n a l Mean S c o r e s Trials  Scores  For A l l  Scores  For A l l  For A l l  For A l l  Three  Three  Groups  Three  Groups  Groups  Groups Over A l l  .  .  .  39 41 43  The 45  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT William appreciation I  received  I  appreciated  Dr.  S.R.  Mr.  N.  Thackery  of  it."  The  "Next  guidance  f r o m my c o m m i t t e e it  Brown,  very Dr.  Korchinsky,  committee  said  chairman,  I  Lee,  and  would Mr.  and e s p e c i a l l y for  excellence  their  A. Dr.  is  assistance  members was  much.  S.S.  to  which  excellent  like  to  the  and  thank  Bakogeorge, R.G.  many h o u r s  Marteniuk,  of  time  my  and  effort. I this  would  my m o s t A very  devotion  and  also  like  enjoyable special  to  year thank  inspiration  thank  my c l a s s m a t e s  who  made  yet. you  to  made t h i s  my w i f e , possible.  Janet,  whose  CHAPTER  I  S T A T E M E N T OF T H E  PROBLEM  .  Introduction To problem, of  fully an  introduction  human b e h a v i o r  The  following  theoretical  developed havior  (1:133),  a theory  patterns.  to  that  the  the  incentive  a  the  facilitated  habit  product  the  theory, by  the  a high  habit  was  or,  to  tendency  response drive  (D)  develop  the  that  all A  response to  to  a des-  intervening drive  (D),  framework,  the  words, of  be-  independent  via  to  the  behavior,  response  strength  other  a given  necessary.  equations  this  equal  in  a  (sHr),  Within  of  total  response  linked  variables  (K).  is  explain  always  present  constructs  connections.  strength  motivation  x K was  Hullian  dependent  individual  given  He  the  thesis.  premise  mathematical  motivation  make  to  utilized  incentive  x D  attempt  is  best  this  Hull  s u c h as  sHr  an  to  bf  basic  drive)  it  variables  of  in  in  stimulus-response  to  tial  thought  involved  the  (or  based upon the  variables  and  some o f  emitted;  behavior  stated  implications  simply  stimulus. cribe  to  a p p r o a c h was  involves  never  the  and m o t i v a t i o n  framework  Hull  is  understand  the  stimulus.  (sHr),  he drive  reaction the  Thus  performance  if  the  correct  (D)  poten-  product  organism  or  and  of  to  according  would habit  be  2 strength weak  was  strong.  and thus  would  be  there  status  that  there  response which  related Spence  to has  incentive not  the  Spence  related  K purely  to  for  certain  clarified strength  (K)  in  the  (sHr)  of  Spence  only  (K)  and b e h a v i o r either  altered  drive  an  Hullian  additive  could then (D) o r  Hullian  and  Spencian  have  tions  human b e h a v i o r .  of  neglect  not  incentive  concerning the  not  theory  One  role  occur  by  the  in  in  for stimulus,  between  making  the  sEr  that in  habit  the  strength  incentive = H (D+K)  absence  of  (K).  recent  r e a s o n was  was  reinforcement.  and t h u s  accepted  that  rather  made  upon  the  x K  habit  motivation  theory  been r e a d i l y  x D  stating  the  was  Thus  K to  r e s p o n s e was  element  s t i l l  however,  sHr  K  produce  however,  relationship  upon p r a c t i c e ,  to  (1),  stimulus.  Thus  stated  served  relating  certain^stimulus.  further  motivation  a  clarifying  incentive  Hull  reinforcement,  presence  depends  to  connection;  quantitative  i n c r e a s e d whenever  (sHr)  For  by  response but  By  was  performance  Spence  equation  making a  and  (K).  the  the  strength  a  to  stimuli.  theory  motivation  reinforcing.  component  strength  level.  related  stimulus-response  incentive  getting  habit  the  process  incentive  is  habit  competing responses,  motivation  a bodily  and t h a t  the  modified Hull's  incentive  was  if  a high drive  (2:77)  of  motivation a  were  hindered by  Spence the  However,  as an  attention  years,  valid  explana-  apparent played  in  3 determining behavior.  In  this  developed  a two-dimensional  suggested  that  behavior  there  of  fact  behavior  that  behavioral  A n o r g a n i s m may situation, be  and  described vior.  Her  derived is  this  activation  concepts  covert the  level,  energy as  drives,  activation.  pressure,  (G.S.R.);  and  (c)  Activation intensity,  intensity.  derived shows from a  stimulus conceived  of  theory,  this  Duffy  a ..determinant  behavior, fact  that  a  the  are:  in  which tension  pressure,  (E.M.G.);  the  (b)  level  changes  Galvanic  has  appeared  coordination  of  to  all  of  (3:3),  are  in  of correct-  amount  such  analagous  activation  electroencephalogram  itself  of  more  Duffy  and m o t i v a t i o n  organism  release  or  the  According to  (a)  point  intensity,  was  living  requires  concerned with  beha-  intensity,  overt,  was  has  of  or  of  the  selectivity.  inclusion  as  The  from  w i t h d r a w a l was By  which  which  Activity  concept  and t h e  in  system.  stress,  an  behavior,  energy  Some w a y s  been measured grip  of  (3:5)  an  released.  an e l e c t r o m y o g r a m  the  direction  characteristically  potential  by  of  f r o m and emphas.izes the  and hence  was  a behavioral  s e c o n d component  energy  has  into  role  whether  to  approach or  of  and  withdraw  goal-oriented.  types,  ly  direction  Duffy  aspects  characteristically  factor  the  basic  direction  approach or  basically  directional  hypothesis  two  showed v a r i a t i o n :  construct  to  were  respect,  the  level muscle  in thickness, Skin  or  response  (E.E.G.). affect  the  responses.  speed, In  4 general, be  the  optimal  a moderate  relationship has  one,  and the  between  of  behavior  has  suggested  that  aspect  behavior  of  determining goal  might be  while (4) tion  the  as  the  ability  of  different  Eason dimensional indicated effort same  has  stated  that  tively  or  task  an  was the  a high  muscle  whether  negatively dependent  change  increase  extraneous  in to  in  the  activation the  task  that level  level  aspect  level  in which  in defined  responses Ryan  of  with  activa-  such  p e r f o r m e d and  recent  and  the  coordinate  of  would  or  two-  literature the  a task  and at  correlate on a  factors For  has  amount  Further,  level  level. was  Duffy's  reflects  level.  factor  activation  (3:193)  directional  clearly  inhibit  performance  upon the  the  degree  testing  activation  with  be  performance  tension  direc-  disruption.  vary  the  activation.  while  tension  indicated  to to  of  stated  d u r i n g the  to  given  task  (5),  a  the Duffy  of  to  performance  organization of  any  degree  of  arousal  appeared to the  expressed  (3:8).  example,  lead  of  appeared  " U " when  the  individuals  hypothesis,  exerted  time  of  and Branks  that  the  could  has  nature  under  For  to  has  features  with  has  level  controlled  effect  factors  and  certain  goals  that  inverted  interact  upon performance  responses  an  been  conducive  that  activation  curve  outcomes."  conflicting  stated  be  "Perhaps  the  of  activation  been t h e o r i z e d to  tion  for  degree  of the  they posi-  given  responsible example,  produced by  p e r f o r m a n c e was  if  factors being  5 measured,  then  correlate  negatively  but  if  the  degree level  of  the  resultant  increased  however,  skill  level  tension  performance level  reflected  greater  then  tension  positively  with  performance.  then  hand,  an e x c e p t i o n  already  to  this  performing at  a decrement  in  task;  a  at  that  may  on t h a t  task  o n e was  and  in  on t h e  showed  e x p e c t e d when  the  activation  concentration  may c o r r e l a t e  (10),  with  increase  Eason might  his  be  maximal  performance  might  occur. Klein task  there  might  below  which  level  of  upon the  optimal  not  (3),  in  tell  both  tion  performance of  skills (8:3)  behavior  one's  given  is  behavioral  studies  have  been  defined  many v a r i a b l e s .  which  have  a  These  has  activity  studies  tasks  was  manifested  alone  at  the  9,  one  could the  deteriorated,  upon the  direc-  time.  performance  (4,  that  behavior  whether  activation  change  i.e.  Thus  dependent  temporary  the  stressed  aspects,  improved or  dealing with  or  and t h a t  performer  intensity.  also  every  occasion.  two  has  for  above  motor  earlier,  concerned with as  the  activation  task  level  Most  has  in  skilled  given  and  levels  impaired  in  mentioned  direction  on a  to  on any  from changes  performance since  in  suggested that  would be  extent  as  (7)  optimum t e n s i o n  (Klein)  levels  variations  varies  exist  performance  Duffy all  and Freeman  performance  dependent these  (6)  in  10)  and  motor  which  Singer  behavior have  shown  due  to  that  6 increased motor  performance.  to  study  to  only  sion it  activation,  of  has  been  performance the  in  both  of  were  that few  the  problem of  ing  a motor  in  influence  nature these  changes  those  (4,  effects  in  or  ignore  i.e.  the  dimen-  theory.  Thus  changes  activation,  to  though,  construct,  Duffy's  to  simultaneous  studies  in  changes changes  due  to  have  have  of  learning, the  past  (e.g. may  has  had  unlike  determine time test  for  learnof  The knowledge  temporary  in  effects  that  the  must  on  permanent  (10:3).  be  with  that  fatigue,  only  level,  concerned  relatively  experience  variables  to  been  activation  on l e a r n i n g ,  a performance  investigated  11) that  this,  have  had on performance  on p e r f o r m a n c e of  that  has  study  certain  variables  and t o in  improved  tendency,  e s t a b l i s h e d whether  concerned with  have  be  test  and  a  (3:193)  has  suggested that  interpolated  learning.  Problem Since  behavior  Duffy  and the  performance the  to  The  and because  between  The  the  that  level  behavior,  studies  is  the  a unidimensional  activation  behavior  results)  to  limits,  variables.  task.  performance,  of  due of  been  postulated  clearly  contrast  relatively  change  as  these  effect  as  certain  has  intensity  direction  In the  the  direction not  in  There  performance vary  within  level  level,  direction  of  this  of  activation  study  behavior  interact  endeavored  affected  to  direction to  determine  determine  performance  of  and  if  learning  7 under this  an  induced  study  level tion  was  it  task,  had  activation.  assumed t h a t  Thus  the  motor  For  shock  studied  effects  performance  the  and  a  situa-  (refer  to  were:  that  to  of  activation  produced by  electric  attention  purposes  induced  stress  of  the  subjects'  on the  the  problems  To d e t e r m i n e the  the  application  (3:3)).  direct  of  synonymous w i t h  1. to  was  involving  Duffy  level  stress,  designed  demands  of  learning  of  the that  task. 2. only  to  activate  directing motor  To d e t e r m i n e  their  the  performance  determining  situation  and  that  the  potential  but to  the  learning A  not  motor  of  stress,  task,  that  had on  the  task. problem  produced by  performance  designed  necessarily  secondary  effects  affect  of  a  consisted  stressful  immediately  following  Terms  Activation.  no  while  that  situation.  Definition  this  to  Problem.  if  would  effects  subjects  attention  Subsidiary of  the  is  energy  shown  attempt the the  stored  in  made  to  the  extent  the  tissues  or  measure  created  from time  by ". to  was  shock .  . a time  of  release  of  response"  activation  activation  . Performance. fluctuating  in  activity  increased stress  " . . .  the  of  organism,  (3:17).  There  was  level  in  this  assumed t o  be  analogous  and  as  study  instructions.  temporary because  of  change many  in  behavior,  potentially  8 operating  variables"  •Learning. behavior  due  to  differentiate  ".  tion  and  fatigue,  were  controlled.  day  The  scores  can  scores such  two  scores minus  were  in  study,  (temporary) as  effect  the  change  this  factors  temporarily  learning  on day  In  (8:3).  performance  which  permanent  to  and  motiva-  performance,  the  difference  initial  scores  on  one.  created  by  In  the  attention tions  by  this  was  (a)  stress.  stress  task  directed  the  stress  instructions.  task  group had  their  through verbal  The  other  directed  motor have  will  because  towards  Non-directed  will  (a)  the  to  instruc-  stress  toward  the  group's  atten-  task.  Expectations  Directed  the  stress  purposefully  motor  (b)  One  refers  experimenter.  not  Theoretical  and  toward  Non-directed tion  stress  shock  stress.  directed the  study,  electric  Directed  2.  relatively  (more p e r m a n e n t ) ,  Stress.  1.  . a  experience"  between  scores  the  .  past  learning  between  (8:3).  the  will  because  no d i r e c t i o n  impair  the  of  effect  of  directed  attention  will  be  the  and hence  There  absence  the  literature  stress  response, performance  subject's  responses.  an  on  correct  c o m p e t i t i o n between is  performance  subject's  making the  stress  task  facilitate  on the  there  attention will  regarding learning  of  be  the a  on  9 motor  task.  learning on t h e (b)  Ryan  1.  Thirty  volunteer  used  right-handed,  3.  Each  subject  ties 4.  The  was  no  5.  the  naive  the  emphasis  (11) will  have show  indino  effect  task.  was  physical  subjects o n two  to  education  were  used.  consecutive  control  the  days  subjects'  but  activi-  interval.  subjectively  through  was  to  that  subjects.  intervening  shocking  Direction  a motor  tested  level  experimenter of  as  attempt  during the stress  of  stress  undergraduate  Only  was  due  expected  Study  2.  there  be  and M o r f o r d  non-directed  the  might  response,  learning  were  it  facilitated  and C a r r o n  that  of  students  be  correct  on the  Limitations  will  (4)  cated  However,  adjustments  controlled by to  the  voltage  the output  apparatus.  given  to  the  subjects  verbally  by  the  experimenter. 6.  Stress  was  effects  operationally  resulting  electrodes, instructions  Delimitations 1.  The  only  tracking  of  the  from the  receiving  from the  the  motor skill.  defined  as  the  placement of  electric  of  combined the  shock,  shock. and  the  experimenter.  Study  skill  s a m p l e d was  the  pursuit  rotor  10 2.  Although after the  the  important  learning  effects  practice  sessions  provided by  investigation  delimited  to  of  the  permanence  approximately  may h a v e  of  twenty-four  this  occurred study,  learning hours.  was  11  REFERENCES 1.  Hull, C L . Principles of Behavior, a s q u o t e d byW i n i f r e d H i l l in. L e a r n i n g : A Survey of Psychological Interpretations, San F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a : Chandler P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1963.  2.  S p e n c e , K.W., i n M.H. Marx and T . N . Tombaugh, M o t i v a t i o n : P s y c h o l o g i c a l P r i n c i p l e s and E d u c a t i o n a l Implications, San F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a : Chandler P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1967.  3.  D u f f y , E. W i l e y and  4.  Ryan, E . D . , "Effects of and L e a r n i n g , " Research pp. 111-119.  5.  Eason, R.G., Branks, J . , " E f f e c t of Level of A c t i v a t i o n on the Q u a l i t y and E f f i c i e n c y of Performance o f V e r b a l a n d M o t o r T a s k s , " P e r c e p t u a l a n d M o t o r S k i l l s , v o l . 16 (1963), p p . 523-543.  6.  K l e i n , S.J., "Relation of Muscle A c t i o n Potentials V a r i o u s l y I n d u c e d t o Breakdown o f Work i n T a s k - O r i e n t e d Subjects,"-Perceptual a n d M o t o r S k i l l s , v o l . 12 (1961), pp. 131-141.  7.  Freeman, G . L . , "The O p t i m a l M u s c u l a r T e n s i o n s f o r Various Performances," American Journal of Psychology, v o l . 51 ( 1 9 3 8 ) , p p . 1 4 6 - 1 5 0 .  8.  S i n g e r , R . N . , M o t o r L e a r n i n g a n d Human P e r f o r m a n c e , New Y o r k : The M a c m i l l a n Company, 1968.  9.  Carron, . Research  Activation Sons, Inc.,  A.V.,  "Motor  Quarterly,  and B e h a v i o r , 1962.  S t r e s s on Motor Quarterly, vol.  Performance vol.  New Y o r k :  39  Under  (1968),  pp.  John  Performance 33 (1962),  Stress," 463-469.  10.  Eason, R.G., " R e l a t i o n s h i p Between E f f o r t , Tension L e v e l , S k i l l , and Performance E f f i c i e n c y i n a Perceptual M o t o r T a s k , " P e r c e p t u a l a n d M o t o r S k i l l s , v o l . 16 (1969), pp. 297-317.  11.  C a r r o n , A . V . , M o r f o r d , W.R., " A n x i e t y , S t r e s s and Motor L e a r n i n g , " P e r c e p t u a l a n d M o t o r S k i l l s , v o l . 27 (1968), pp. 507-511.  CHAPTER REVIEW O F T H E The six 2)  literature  headings: the  effects  non-directed 4)  the  motor  effects task;  performance; directed  Some  behavior;  on the  on the  mentioned  of  a motor  in  the a)  (1)  He  stimuli;  the  (2)  of  task; of  a  post-stress non-  task.  and t h e y  of  of  theorists between  tend  has to  functions. originated  intervening  of  behavior  stress  kinds  on  related  motor  stimulus-response  theory  attention  I,  to  and  two-dimensional  considered three 2)  theories  effects  relationships  Chapter  effects  Behavior  general  Leuba's  and c o g n i t i v e  effects  learning  Duffy's  events  stress  the  performance  directed  regards  Their  on t h e  following  a motor  of  of  three  of  3)  of  the  behavior;  effects  learning:  b)  stress  transfer the  tasks;  performance  directed  6)  as  on v e r b a l  stimulus-response  observable  or  stress  are  responses.  theory.  of  the  functional  cessing  of  a n d c)  The  and  theories  and  behavior;  with  some g e n e r a l  Theories  study  performance of  1)  stress  General  this  under  and  There to  reviewed  of  5)  LITERATURE  been  stress  has  II  theory  optimal  different  ignore Clarke  of  stimulation.  have been  been  theory  concerned stimuli  directed  toward  information Hull  pro-  (3),  stimulus-response of  variables;  variables: and  3)  1)  outputs  input or  13 responses.  Thus  between the  stimulus  intervening  variables,  and h a b i t Hull was a  was a  strength a  function  the  intervening  of  of  incentive  of  the  reward.  and h a b i t  reinforced (i.e.  sHr  to  the  reaction  potential  or  individual's  tendency  to  the  inhibitory  potential  deterrent reaction (sEr).  or  the  inhibitory  rest)  becomes  habit  forms—this between the  tory  potential  factors tion  of  Thus  This  of  give  potential which (sir).  was  reaction (sir)  in  equalled  Hull's  were b a l a n c e d  the  theory, against  individual  Hull  also  motivational acted  the  net  was  to  in  Chapter  in  (4)  as.mentioned  1,  with  the  differinhibi-  potential  inhibitory the  determina-  behavior. Spence  and  negative The  reaction  other  of  (usually  and  each  potential  fatigue  and a  and  the  associated  (Ir)  (sEr)  a  product  inhibition.  excitory  as from  the  analagous  net  construct,  reaction  stimulus  the  was  hypoth-  subtracts  potential  (sHr)  was  and  conditioned  (D)  x D x K)  inhibition its  Drive  product  of  (sir)  to  The  element  was  (K)  (D),  trials.  W h a t e v e r was  reactive  conditioned to  ence  (sEr).  to  (Ir)  inhibition  dissipitation  another  drive  strength  respond.  motivation  (sEr)  inhibition  conditioned  of  (sir).  negative  potential The  reactive  existence  link  three  (K),  amount  of  the  listed  motivation  variables  postulated  He  motivation  esized the  made  Incentive  number o f  intervening  variables  response.  deprivation  the  equal  and the  (sHr).  function  function  of  the  made  three  14  important habit  changes  strength  instead  in  (sHr)  Hullian to  a  of  the  number o f  eliminated  the  dependence  reward with  and d r i v e  the  first  motivational He  associated  so  that  but  it  of  reduction.  incentive not was  = sHr  Thus the  in  motivation  the the  incentive incentive  clarified and  the  incentive  Spence  x D x K,  Spencerian  absence  of  (sEr)  but  (K) (K)  for for  into with  in  to  certain  between  in  practice  that  and  habit  habits  in  an  the  absence  additive  determining  Spence  advocated  that  theory,  behavior or  theory.  response  motivation  (D)  his  the  making the  Hull's  drive  conjunction  stimulus  Whereas  either  of  the  changed K to  .  trials  change  fully  getting  element  of  presence  in  more  relationship  just  a multiplicative  r e a c t i o n ^potential sEr  Secondly,  changed  This  on t h e  incentive  Thirdly,  than  learning  of  strengthened with  reward.  rather  of  he  number  trials.  construct  (sHr)  c o u l d be  reinforced  the  incorporated  This  strength  of  he  it  stimuli.  function  Firstly,  change,  was  rather  theory.  could  system sEr  the  had  = H (D+K) .  still  incentive  occur  in  motivation  (K). Dollard within dary  drives  The  secondary were  (5:179)  stimulus-response  drives.  while  to  the  and M i l l e r  primary  drives  powerful  respond u n t i l  the  theory  drives  were  stimuli  described as  being  learned which  stimulation  primary innate  ones. impelled  was  motivation and or  The the  reduced.  secon-  unlearned  primary organism They  15 activated  behavior  activity;  direction  Duffy suggested behavior  at  there  withdrawn  Approach  the  intensity,  intermediate concept  of  intensity  construct  responses.  Such  within  activation  level  was  the  a  the or  of  a  This  to  concept  a  and  be  from  also  be  of  of  degree  the  of For  always  of  intensity. at  a  low  or  at  purposes,  useful  of  psycholo-  force  degree  of  of  overt  energy  as  Duffy's to  The  as  of  most  conceived  some  behavior.  on t h e  arousal.  to  intensity,  to  and  or  respect  measurement  referred  condition  situations,  example,  a more  based  is  intensity.  described  for  degree  be  of  a  might  approached  direction  (i.e.  organism),  as  degrees  which  and  characteristic  based upon the  degree  in  organism could  intensity.  concept  the  described  a high  appeared  than  the  could occur,  at  degree  processes  might  some p a r t i c u l a r  withdrawal  respects  withdrawal with  organism might  always w i t h  of  as  behavior  or withdraw  persons,  of  environment.  designated  learning.  approach or withdrawal  which  approach or  the  approach  many o b j e c t s ,  behavior  of  the  direction  many p o s s i b l e  the  or  internal  of  basic  These were  from,  of  release  two  and t h i s  one  through  only  these  behavior  of  any  were  of  occurring  achieved  direct  observation  all  was  gical  were  initially  that  of  behavior  a  there  d e s c r i b e d as  condition  an  later  stated  situation,  place  degree  was  not  An organism might  many a s p e c t s  be  did  showed v a r i a t i o n .  stimulus  While  (1:5)  that  intensity.  take  but  the  level  activation vary  in  a  16 continuum from a in  extreme  attempted  low  effort to  point  or  intense  incorporate  "motives,"  "emotions,"  concept  activation  of  organism has because  been  can be  energy,  has  direct  measure  of  ways  the  of  and  of  activation  coordination  low  very  acquire  was  low,  the  (2:29)  those  were  when o v e r a l l were  level  (2:30)  tended than  direction,  stated  stimulation  has  minimal  pleasant  of  that  as  of  of  and  locomotion  increased  level  energy. has  (1:10)  stated  of  as  a  Some  been  measured that  seem l e s s  activation  and  release  activation  of  behavior  likely  was  said  or  to  be  the  high,  maintain if  we  excessive  those  then  was  concept  when o v e r a l l  very  to  acquire  stimulation. an  optimal  stimulation as  with of  more  tendency  stimulation  those In  and which  other  words,  stimulation  level.  changes toward  from  an  optimal  satisfying  changes  optimal  a  stimulation  assumed t h a t  experienced involved  organism has  increasing  decreasing to  the  which,  accompanied by  organism seeks  either  Duffy  degree  reactions  accompanied by  Leuba  living  high.  Leuba to  I.  m a i n t a i n e d when t h e  or  the  release  internal  integration be  Because  this  Chapter  "stress," dual  well  involve  has  her  theory  in  (1:16)  an e n e r g y - s y s t e m , as  point  into  developed her  were mentioned  to  as  a high  Duffy  etc.  and d i r e c t i o n .  the  to  "tensions,"  "libido"  shown t o  in which  or  sleep  excitement.  and t h i n k i n g ,  manipulation, Duffy  deep  "drives,"  thought  attending  in  in  the  and opposite  stimulation  could  17 be  stated  in  reactions ones. best  familiar  c o u l d be  Leuba when  The  In been  shown  tasks  task jects  the  7,  habit the 8,  (10)  high  of  a mixed  list  (5  pairs  and  was  a high  however,  when  drive  level  of low  anxious  has  also  subjects  were  the  of  strongest. the  effects  of  paired-associates subjects.  All  sub-  and then  they  unchanged p a i r s  from the  first  from the  Half  each  of  while when  level  the  response  performance  determine  a verbal  It  first  the  other  half  dominant  improved the habit  list  group received the  was  performance.  have  subjects  pairs  dominant  impaired  were  it  subjects  correct  on the  5 pairs  drive  maximum  learning,  low-anxious  responses.  adjective  interval,  the  than  habits  found that  correct,  verbal  high-anxious  to  occur  disruptive."  high-anxious  subjects  and  list  It  that  may  pleasant  provide  be  making the  study  a  inter-trial  shock.  a  anxious  changed p a r t n e r s ) . the  9)  performance  learned  5 new  of  incorrect did  that  incorrect  low-anxious  Lee  learned and  8,  better  less  Tasks  7,  the  by  enough to  (6,  than  on the  enough t o  on V e r b a l  9)  over  "learning  paired-associate  where  stress  strong  strong  Agreeable  priority  of  (6,  to  gain  area  where  inferior  is  significantly  stronger  been  not  Stress  shown  tasks  was  of  the  performed in  but  to  terms.  concluded that  stimulation  Effects  has  said  (2:32)  reinforcement  subjective  list  with shock  in  received  habit  was  performance;  incorrect,  the  high  no  18 Non-Directed  Stress  Within habit  correct  habit  than  strength  was  weak.  a  the  to  of  threat the  induced  the  suggested habits  when  anxious  induced  for  part  shock) habit  practice  early  high  in  been  a  low  up  late  both high  experiment  because  the  correct  late  practice  did  habit  and t h u s ,  facilitated  and not  low  there  anxious  incorrect (in With  the shock  decrement  strong  However,  theory  enough  high it  in  This  Hullian  combination with  performance.  Scale)  groups.  substantiate been  found  level  a  the  This  and  was  was  anxious  performance.  s h o u l d have in  He  group.  activation  practice,  stress  Anxiety  correct  the and  g r o u p when  Manifest  would.impair in  The  a high  anxious  a high  stress  been b u i l t  caused  be  (11)  when  strengthened.  Taylor  to  Carron  practice  another  the  correct  induced  in  and  would  and t h e  above,  and  not  c o m p e t i t i o n between  the  s h o u l d have  determined  was  high  the  had  condition  of  in  was  Tasks  performance,  performance  early  in  group),  performance  strong,  of  coupled with  stress  level  task  inferiorily that  jointly  balancing  m e a s u r e d b y .the  perform  (D)  level  s h o u l d have  stress  (as  and  learning  Motor  r e s p o n s e s were b e i n g made.  late  habit  of  substantiate  correct  incorrect  group  high  study  stabilometer  correct  to  a  of  (stress)  s t r e n g t h was drive  strength  that  drive  the  (through  also  if  Performance  and d r i v e  if  In  hence  theory  (sHr)  Thus  habit  better  used  Hull's  strength  behavior.  and the  is  stress,  19 possible  that  strengthen would also  the  the  correct  have been have been  (stress) tended  was  to  avoidance  vs.  the  amount  in  of  was  hand matching physical and  away  from the  and  a  mance  induced with  task (13)  in  when t h e r e  and hence  the  considered.  at an  were He  The  to  that  the  to  performance  effect  could  activation and  responses,  induced  three  of  verify  as  thus  i.e.  shock  the  could  tension the  a  function did  tension  subject's  while  phenomena  tension,  different  foot  taken  the  impairment)  results  groups.  holding  performing have been  level  not  due  causing  subject's  a  a  down twoto  distrac-  attention  hand. attempt  to  performance  task,  the  of  simple  competing to  were  show few  application  directional  show  found t h a t  many  failed  when t h e r e  task).  (or  their  His  on the  complex motor  complex t a s k ) .  simple  that  between  through  c o u l d have  stress  performance  extent  random s h o c k i n g )  attempt  between  test.  this  Ryan induced  an  maintenance  tion  fact  (by  insufficient  impairment  experimentally  required weight  the  the  facilitation  difference  tension  the  This  competition  (12),  of  a  caused by  to  was  performance.  performance  The  practice  habit  improved.  create  of  any  of  non-directed  Adams  show  amount  a  stress  that  the  aspect  shock of  of  motor  (in  stress  behavior  was  perfor-  the improved  responses  (stress)  shock task  impaired  responses  competing of  effect  was not  (in  the  random  20 Farber task,  which  was  subjects  was  subjects  with  the  greatest  stated  and Spence  considered  significantly the  most  difference the  effects  performance  was  a  to  given be  task.  Directed  Stress  Eason tion  by  and the  measured by  direction  of  one  of  two  (15)  level  was  directing  tasks  (one  level  dependent  as  were  being  have  been  do  not  the  level  Transfer  of  Henry  Stress (16),  a Motor  incentive (E.M.G.) This  attention  They  other  Task  to  study  of  of  their  the  performance.  the was  subjects  to  being  performance  attention the  as  two_tasks  results  aspect  Stress  activa-  condition  motor)  activation  Post  of  direction  Because  directional  Effects  of  Duffy  and o n l y  showed t h a t  direction  the  upon  (1:3).  good  the  They level  for  each  providing  characteristics  of  simultaneously,  a  drive  incentives in  anxious  hypothesized by  changed.  the  choice  groups.  in  maze  non-anxious  level  involve  in  two  level  activation.  explained by  of  the  of  of  the  upon the  performed  necessarily  of  specific  verbal,  simultaneously.  well  points  was  stylus  adjusted  the  performed was  that  electromyogram  behavior  manipulated by  than  Performance  different  an  of  on a  performance  variations  level  and Branks  offering  poorer  activation  A uniform activation was  of  function  with  complex,  between  Anxiety  analogous  showed t h a t  difficult  that  the  (14)  could  solely  and  level.  Performance  on m o t i v a t i o n a l  transfer,  showed  that  (during  motivation  the  period  complex than from a  simple  speed-up or least to  the  reaction  a  to  limits,  and  time  administering  reaction  required  task  to  a more  movement can be  shown t o type  stimulus  a n d movement  electric that  time  be  of  less  transferred The  transferable,  reaction  mode t o tasks  shock  is  c o m p l i c a t e d movement.  f r o m one  f r o m one  or  reaction)  i m p r o v e m e n t was  within  another  of  due  or  movement  another.  were  at  The  discrete  in  nature. Fairclough that the  motivated body  ment  in  Fairclough  in  can  in  another  utilized  Directed  and N o n - D i r e c t e d  show  Ryan  any  could  (13)  learning  performing a  experiment, also  a n d movement  of  task  to  Henry  involving  cause  of  the  types  time  Stress  a  the  showed  one  part  significant  body  of  of  (16),  improve-  (foot).  tasks  involving  hands  and the  of  and  feet.  Learning  of  a  Task Both  while  a  part  discrete  time  to  in  transfer  reaction  Motor  support  improvement  (hand) speed  (17),  their have  fatigue  and/or  of  and M o r f o r d  resulting  stabilometer  learning  There effects  effect  however,  failed  and C a r r o n  scores  to  were  eliminate  from the  balancing  used non-directed taken  (18) use  task.  shock  of  stress  Their  (random)  from day  temporary  failed  one  effects  and  and  due  to  motivation.  has  been  directed  an  absence  stress  on the  of  literature  learning  of  on  the  a motor  task.  22  REFERENCES 1.  Duffy, E., Activation W i l e y and Sons, I n c . ,  and B e h a v i o r , 1962.  2.  Leuba, C , " T o w a r d Some I n t e g r a t i o n o f L e a r n i n g T h e o r i e s : The C o n c e p t o f O p t i m a l S t i m u l a t i o n , " • P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , v o l . 1 (1955), p p . 27-33.  3.  H u l l , C . L . , i n W. H i l l , L e a r n i n g : A S u r v e y o f P s y c h o logical Interpretations, San F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a : Chandler P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1963.  4.  S p e n c e , K.W., i n M.H. Marx and T . N . Tombaugh, M o t i v a t i o n : P s y c h o l o g i c a l P r i n c i p l e s and E d u c a t i o n a l Implications, San F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a : C h a n d l e r P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1967.  5.  Dollard, J., M i l l e r , N.E., i n M.H. Marx and T . N . Tombaugh, M o t i v a t i o n : P s y c h o l o g i c a l P r i n c i p l e s and Educational Implications, San F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a : Chandler P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1967.  6.  S p e n c e , K.W., Behavi orMTheory Haven: Yale University Press,  7.  S p e n c e , K.W., F a r b e r , I.E., McFann, H . H . , "The Relation of Anxiety (Drive) L e v e l to Performance i n C o m p e t i t i o n a l and N o n - C o m p e t i t i o n a l P a i r e d A s s o c i a t e s L e a r n i n g , " J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , v o l . 52 (1956), pp. 296-305.  8.  Spence,  T  K.W.,  Taylor,  J.A.,  New Y o r k :  and C o n d i t i o n i n g , 1956.  Ketchel,  R.,  John  New  "Anxiety  (Drive) L e v e l and Degree o f C o m p e t i t i o n i n Paired Associates Learning," Journal of Experimental Psychology, v o l . 52 ( 1 9 5 6 ) , p p . 3 0 6 - 3 1 0 .  9.  Taylor, J.A., Chapman, J . P . , "Paired Associate Learning as R e l a t e d t o A n x i e t y , " A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f Psychology, v o l . 68 ( 1 9 5 5 ) , p p . 6 7 1 .  10.  Lee, L.C., "The E f f e c t s o f A n x i e t y L e v e l and Shock on a Paired Associate Verbal Task,"• Journal of Experimental P s y c h o l o g y , v o l . 61 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , p p . 2 1 3 - 2 1 7 .  11.  C a r r o n , A . V . , "Motor Performance Under S t r e s s , " Q u a r t e r l y , v o l . 39 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , p p . 4 6 3 - 4 6 9 .  12.  Adams, J . A . , "The E f f e c t of E x p e r i m e n t a l l y Induced . . M u s c u l a r T e n s i o n on Psychomotor P e r f o r m a n c e , " J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , v o l . 48 (1954), p p . 1 2 7 - 1 3 0 .  Research  23 13.  R y a n , E.D., "Effects of and L e a r n i n g , " R e s e a r c h pp. 111-119.  S t r e s s on Motor Quarterly, vol.  Performance 33 (1962),  14.  F a r b e r , I.E., Conditioning Experimental  15.  Eason, R.G., Branks, J . , "Effect of Level of A c t i v a t i o n on t h e Q u a l i t y and E f f i c i e n c y o f Performance o f V e r b a l and Motor T a s k s , " P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , v o l . 16 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , p p . 5 2 3 - 5 4 3 .  16.  Henry, F.M., " I n c r e a s e i n S p e e d o f Movement b y M o t i v a t i o n and b y T r a n s f e r of M o t i v a t e d Improvement," Research Quarterly, v o l . (1951), p p . 219-228.  17.  F a i r c l o u g h , R.H., "Transfer of Motivated Improvement i n the Speed o f R e a c t i o n and Movement," • Research Q u a r t e r l y , v o l . 23 ( 1 9 5 2 ) , p p . 2 0 - 2 7 .  18.  C a r r o n , A . V . , M o r f o r d , W.R., "Anxiety, Stress Motor L e a r n i n g , " P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , (1968), p p . 507-511.  S p e n c e , K.W., "Complex L e a r n i n g and as a F u n c t i o n o f A n x i e t y , " J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , v o l . . 45 ( 1 9 5 3 ) , p p . 1 2 0 - 1 2 5 .  and vol.  27,  CHAPTER  METHODS AND  III  PROCEDURES  Subjects The students  subjects  from the  Recreation 1968-1969 subjects the  at  appear  in  Experimental A presented A  that  summary o f in  randomly  placed  females  and  experimental  d e s i g n was  repeated  the  and e i g h t e e n  male  of  three  groups  six  males  had  twelve  female  into  subject  trials  on day  two,  certain  (1)  group,  within  pursuit  used—trials, on the  and e i g h t e e n  either  on the  S h o c k was  d e s i g n has  measurements  non-directed stress  one.  Columbia i n  female one  and  with  to  been  I.  trials  on day  Education  British  assigned to  the  Table  The  following  of  Twelve  four  three-factor  Each  Physical  undergraduate  Design  trials.  a  volunteer  group.  and groups--with  (2)  year.  randomly  each  of  University  academic  restriction  thirty  School  the  were  were  rotor  each  a  male  directed or  (3)  a  given  one and  trials  the  from t r i a l  two six  subjects  stress  then  approximately twenty-four  administered to  subjects  to  trial  were or  group.  twenty ten  hours  stress  over  group  control  g r o u p was  on day  subjects,  further later.  groups fifteen  TABLE  I  SUMMARY O F E X P E R I M E N T A L N = 30 M a l e s - 18 F e m a l e s - 12  DESIGN  g i v e example shock to D.A. & N.D.A. group to adjustj intensity r  V  Treatment A I n i t i a l Scores  Treatment B Performance Scores (shock c o n d i t i o n )  ( D . A . ) N=10 DIRECTED STRESS  -5 t r i a l s -no t r e a t m e n t -instructions t o do b e s t  -10 t r i a l s -5 t r i a l s -have b e e n i n s t r u c t e d -no t r e a t m e n t d u r i n g i n t e r v a l t h a t shock -do b e s t w i l l be a p p l i e d i f p e r f o r mance i s n o t a t l e a s t 5% better than best previous performance. -shock a d m i n i s t e r e d immediately after trial  (N.D.A.) NONDIRECTED STRESS  -5 t r i a l s -no t r e a t m e n t -instructions t o do b e s t  N=10  (C) N=10 CONTROL GROUP  -10 t r i a l s - i n s t r u c t e d that shock w i l l be random and u n a v o i d a b l e - i n s t r u c t e d t o do b e s t • -shock a d m i n i s t e r e d immediately after trial  • -5 t r i a l s -10 t r i a l s -no t r e a t m e n t -no s h o c k -instructions -instructions t o do b e s t A - p l a c e e l e c t r o d e s on D . A . & N . D . A . -give c o n t r o l equal time r e s t  KEY  -  see  page  26.  to  Treatment D Final Scores  Treatment C T r a n s f e r Scores  -5 trials -no t r e a t m e n t -do b e s t  24 hours inte trpolated rest  GROUPS  -5 t r i a l s -no t r e a t m e n t -do b e s t  do b e s t 1  groups  -remove e l e c t r o d e s from D.A. & N.D.A. groups  -10 -no -do  trials treatment best  -10 -no -do  trials treatment best  -10 -no -do  trials treatment best  26  KEY Initial one  Score  (I-.S.)  to  TABLE  - average  Performance Score (P.S.) t e e n on day one  I  of  first  - average  of  five  trials  Transfer Score (T.S.) t w e n t y on day one  - average  of  trials  F i n a l Score d a y two  One  (FS1)  - average  of  first  F i n a l Score two  Two  (FS2)  - average  of  last  Learning (LS2)  Score = FS2  o n e (LSI) I.S.  = FSl  -  I.S.;  trials  six  sixteen  five  five  to  o n day-  fif-  to  trials  trials  on  on  Learning Score  day  two  27 The for  all  each  subjects,  subject's  Trials what  six  stress  average  (FS^)  being  used  scores  initial  scores  average  for  of  each  score  used  determine  to  being  on  if,  transfer  two the  parts  of  five  The  scores learning  obtained by  group  the  final  Two  2  the  with  first  (FS )•  group were each  twenty  were  performance.  second  score  and thus  to  any  into  the  for  to  determine  post-stress divided  indicating  rotor.  was  was  made  to  equate  by  subjects  in  the  directed  yoking in  the  non-directed  shocks  stress  period,  directed random  five  there  one,  pursuit  sixteen  An e f f o r t  number o f  shock  were  score  performance  scores  second f i n a l  and LS2)  the  transfer  two  first  the  on t h e  Trials  immediate  and the as  initial  on day  from both  subof  the  scores.  subjects the  the  (LS^  tracting  scores.  trials  one were  conditions,  to  the  ability on day  five  had on motor  u s e d as  on day  of  score  groups  fifteen  effects  first  u s e d as  initial  stress  trials  the  was  stress  one were  final  of  performance  following  ten  to  effects  called day  average  g r o u p was  a n d h e was  stress  group,  i.e.,  shocked  the  group if  four  yoked w i t h  then  two  directed  stress  received,  the  stress in  times  would  group  relation  subject  subject  latter  experimental  A  in  during A  in  with to  the the  the  non-  receive  four  shocks. Attention  instructions  were  served  as  given by  an the  independent  variable  experimenter  to  the  in two  that  28 experimental  groups  either  attention  toward  the  direction  to  subject's  In the  the  order  practice  ratio  of  serving  rotary  that  pursuit  was  20 s e c s . / 2 0  direct  task  or  the  subject's  giving  no  attention.  fatigue  schedule  to  did  not  influence  distributed  with  a  the  results,  work/rest  sees.  Apparatus Pursuit Instrument mounted  Co.  with  experiment. the  the  disc  a  sixty  rotor,  a  the  circuit  • The Hunter  Mfg.  target  to  1/100  the  Lafayette  constant were  current  attached  trials  six  to  to  of  this  was  disc  in  was  speeds  for  the an  in  the this  turntable electrical  stylus with  was  connected  the  metal  recorded contact  the  with  time the  It  - Model  120A.-made  recorded  the  time  by on  second.  Current  Shocker.  Instrument usage  fifteen  had  in  turntable  open.  employed.  the  in  timer  not  Lafayette  speed used  contact  A Klockounter  a  four  the  tipped  and the  stylus  C o . was  Constant by  and  A metal  was  Timer.  were  inserted  was  made b y  electrical  disc  closed  When t h e  There  an  being  timer.  was  a n d was  was  R.P.M.'s  and when i t  circuit  apparatus  frame.  A metal  to  on t a r g e t . disc,  1)  circumference  connection to  This  (Figure  on a wooden  turntable  near  Rotor.  of  index  Co.  This  apparatus  - Model  5226 -  5 milliamperes. finger  and the  of  the  s h o c k was  Two left  was  made  and had  a  electrodes hand  during  administered  by  FIGURE 1 THE A P P A R A T U S  30  the  experimenter  through  flipping a  switch.  Procedures The as  follows.  the  Each  apparatus  then to  standardized procedures  told  their ject  stylus  was  hand.  to  in  it  face a  was  told  the  pursuit  rotary  wooden h a n d l e  right was  and t o  that  h o l d the  subject  of  the  contact  metal  with  it  as  time  spent  on t a r g e t .  hard  on the  by  s p r i n g mechanism and t r a c k i n g s p r i n g was  position  for  table  was  switch.  The  were  to  experimenter beside  the  returned turntable relaxed repeat  in  until the  the  start said  rotor,  the  by  disc a  disc  whole  was  and the the  to  starting  'get  the  procedure.  After  press  it,  off,  The  of too  handle  facilitated starting The  the at  turn-  starting stylus  which  a trial, the  the down  then  rotating  subject  the  then  and p r o c e e d e d  instructing  time  stylus  and  p o s i t i o n by  signal,  during  the  hold  put  ob-  metal  disc.  end o f  turntable  direction.  ready'  to  of  the  f l i p p i n g the  subject  turned its  to  and  amount  The  from the  around to At  that  to  c o u l d be  instructed  tracking. stop  attached  were  palm  the  not  of  task  possible  stretched.  180°  came  the  record  experimenter  were  clockwise the  it  was  the  subjects  until  would  completely  stylus  started  stationary they  the  in  They were warned  because  They  tracking  l o n g as  and t h a t  when t h e  rotor.  were  front  by keeping the  trial  a  timer  in  instructed  each  stylus  the  disc  subjects  stand  stylus  then  for  to  all  pursuit  the  They were  track  for  the  to subjects  31  in  these  procedures,  subjects  all  q u e s t i o n s were  completely understood the  In  the  interval  between  score  condition  (trial  5)  shock  condition  (trial  6),  the  subjects  of  the  two  they  were  were  which  twenty  were  told  as  that  how t h e refer  same  subjects the  on day  there  to  then  transfer  one,  would be  32 a n d  was  occupied  the no  given  condition,  were  be  pages  then  ten  the  given  33).  The  in  trials.  electrodes  five  scores.  to  given  shock would  interval,  groups were  constituted  trials  to  experimental  removed and a l l  trials the  three  the  experimental  groups and  during this  Following  the  stress  instructions  All  of  initial  attached  these  conversation.  start  the  were  applied  group,  end of  electrodes  instructions  control  the  the  differential (for  until  task..  the  and the  answered  further  Following  experimental shock on the  subjects following  day. On d a y bered  the  time  subjects  spent  the  and p l a c e m e n t control  or  group.  in  rest groups  removal  the  possibility  rehearsal.  mental  groups  directed  did  toward  control  not  the  by  the  for of  rehearse  was  ten  they  final  time, to  the  stress  was  assumed t h a t  given  by  instrucalso  given  any  the  experi-  attention the  or  experimenter  eliminate  their  rememtrials.  purpose of  electrodes  since  instructions  if  directed  the  subjects It  asked  given  During this  conversed with of  were  and then were  non-directed stress  tions to  all  procedure  Any the  two,  was  experimenter  32 regarding the is  difficult  (1,  2)  that  shock to  in  situation.  assess verbal  interval  between  improved  performance  of  verbal  been and  Posner  does  not  pursuit that  in  exist  in  tracking  are  that  best  However,  if  over  previous  iately  the  tasks,  an  uninterrupted in  However, rotor  shown  an  the  task  use has  Adams a n d D i j k s t r a  the  phenomena o f  motor  tasks  but  (3)  rehearsal  the  rotary-  completely kinesthetic  Group I n s t r u c t i o n s . he  improved f i v e  he w o u l d be  subject best the  not  results  pursuit  denied.  been  in  present.  if  score,  following  determined  is  Stress  previous  has  rehearsal.  kinesthetic  rehearsal  It  and r e c a l l  shown t h a t  task  cues  instructed  his  due t o  question of  task.  performing a  have  Directed was  learning  confirmed nor  (4)  visual  this  presentation  labels  neither  in  The  did  not  score,  trial.  from a p i l o t  able  percent  to  improve  avoid the  he w o u l d be This  study  five  Each  subject over  the  five  his  shock.  percent  shocked immed-  percent  conducted p r i o r  figure to  was  this  experiment. Non-Directed ject  was  receive was of  told  that  an e l e c t r i c  obtained  from a  random shocks  stress  Stress  Group I n s t r u c t i o n s .  following shock. table  given  to  certain The  of  in  the  each  directed  they  random o r d e r  random numbers.  group depended upon the  counterpart  trials  subject  in  number o f  stress  group,  Each  the  of  sub-  would the  The  shock  number  non-directed  shocks  their  w i t h whom  they  33  were  yolked,  From a was in  had  Shock  Conditions  pilot  study  also  not  to  that  any  exceed  Common t o  conducted  determined  succession  shocks  received.  subject  found  to  technique.  As  turned  were  given  tions  of  sample the  to  the  of  each  the  number  of  The  experimenter  was  so  hoped t h a t  directed one  second  the to  total  two  did  range  subjects  not of  of  the  225 t o  the  duration  for  all  subjects.  experimenter  seeing  the  device  by  screen  situated  three  The  between  shocks  given  trials  adjust in  adjusted  operate  by  the  were It  equate and  the  subjects  the  total  groups.  directed  allow  the  shock  would  all  a  to  the  the  stress  of  condi-  275 v o l t s ,  to  of  this  s h o c k was  adjustment  between  from  the  given  number  of  were  count  two  be  experimental  responses  in  The  of  subjectively  similar  level  average  it  experimental  experimental  intensity  vented  a  All  shock  groups.  the  the  subjective  stress  stress  an  in  subjects  this  that  shocks  good  the  that  from a l l  experimental  was  within  three  to  before  The  than  detrimental out,  Groups.  experiment,  excess  study.  sample  this  in  chance  shocks.  subjectively,  obtained  a  to  shocks  subject  shock  experimenter  intensity.  be  present  and  Any  number were  it  prior  no more  four.  Both Experimental  non-  shocks  were  the  subjects  the  pre-  shock and  the  device.  Statistical  Analysis  An a n a l y s i s  of  variance  was  employed  to  determine  34 if  there  two  were  scores,  scores,  If  the  appropriate mine of  the  the  i.e. the  3)  any  differences  error  sis  of  scores,  transfer  scores,  a n d 4)  overall  F  for  were  differences in  square  variance,  freedom.  day  initial  t-tests  mean  the  the  1)  difference,  the  in  between  used  between this for  (see  the  divided by  the  2) the  A p p e n d i x A)  was  The the  appropriate  scores.  significant, to  deter-  standard square  day  performance  learning  group e f f e c t  the  and the  g r o u p s was  groups.  case,  one  error  root  from the degrees  of analyof  35  REFERENCES 1.  Murdock, B.B., "The Retention of I n d i v i d u a l - J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , v o l . 62 pp. 615-625.  Items," (1961),  2.  Peterson, L.R., Peterson, M., Individual Items," Journal of v o l . 58 ( 1 9 5 9 ) , p p . 1 9 3 - 1 9 8 .  "Short-term Retention of Experimental Psychology,  3.  Adams, J i A . , D i j k s t r a , S., " S h o r t - t e r m Memory f o r Motor Responses," J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology, v o l . 71 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , p p . 3 1 4 - 3 1 8 .  4.  Posner, M.I.,' " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of V i s u a l and K i n e s t h e t i c Memory C o d e s , " J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l Psychol o g y , v o l . 75 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , p p . 1 0 3 - 1 0 7 .  CHAPTER  IV  R E S U L T S AND D I S C U S S I O N Results Probability the  probability  for  a  level  two-tailed  each  of  Table the  score  II.  of  groups  Three  and  (LSI)  being  (average  difference  score.  of  conditions  the of  The  between  one  all  the  ten  A Comparison of  the  Initial  listed  between  to  on day  for in  determined  five  second f i n a l  to  the  deviations  second learning  with  final  on day  two)  score  (LS2)  score  (FS2)  two)  and  the  score.  determine  whether  groups were  the  an a n a l y s i s  the  scores.  to  initial  between  groups  nonsignificant  over  scores  trials  six  order  for  analyses  significance  are  difference  trials  initial  F  standard  learning  average  of  Groups Over  two  was  In  the  There were  (FSl)  statistical  5% l e v e l  the  initial  (the  the  all  and the the  all  in  one  one  at  T h e mean s c o r e s  the  first  was  For  test.  Comparison Conditions.  Levels.  trials the  five  same,  in F  T h e r e was  the for  (Table trials  the  initial groups  III)  Abilities initial of  no  (Table  indicated I  variance  as III). that  shows  the  abilities  significant  score  and Graph  of  was  there that  of  done  all on  difference  indicated by The  Groups.  the  significant was  this  a was  change an  TABLE  II  A COMPARISON OF THE GROUP MEANS AND STANDARD D E V I A T I O N S FOR THE V A R I O U S C O N D I T I O N S Initial Score IS  Performance Score PS  Transfer Score TS  Final S c o r e One FSl  Final S c o r e Two FS2  Learning S c o r e One LSI  Learning S c o r e Two LS2  Mean  4.22  7.36  8.89  10.93  12.22  6.71  S.D.  1.84  2.24  2.99  2.13  2.31  1.30  Mean  4.44  7.90  9.36  10.79  11.91  6.35  7.48  S.D.  2.08  2.37  2.85  1.78  2.16  1.46  1.62  Mean  3.91  7.73  8.95  8.63  9.71  4.72  5.79  S.D.  1.90  2.42  2.39  2.25  2.85  1.72  2.65  8.00  DIRECTED STRESS GROUP .....  . 1.4.6  NON-DIRECTED STRESS GROUP  CONTROL GROUP ,  38 improved  performance  significant that  all  F  the  for  displayed by  groups by  groups were  trials  OF V A R I A N C E  Source of Variation  Subjects  x  the to  groups the  groups  of  over  18.821  4  in  of  indicated  ten  all  F  Probability  <.05  8  .679  .38  ?.05  108  1.808  IV)  F  an for  the Performance was t h e n there  The  groups  showed t h e r e for  all  the  improvement b y groups by  of  scores  that  six-  was  non-significant  The was  all  to  between attributable  F  significant a  Group;  for  between  approximately the  change  groups which  trials  the  any d i f f e r e n c e  achieved  IV).  Scores  done on t r i a l s  was  performance  (Table  trials  2 as  significant  SCORES  18.08  stress.  levels  (Table  Graph  rate.  37.831  variance  on t h e i r  effects  the  Mean Square  27  determine i f  performance trials  same  (Groups)  analysis to  indicated  >.05  Trials  Trials  fifteen  III)  INITIAL  3.574  - A Comparison of An  the  non-  .19  (Groups)  Subjects x  FOR THE  2  Trials Groups  (Table  The  III  df  Groups  groups.  improving at  TABLE ANALYSIS  all  the  in  F  for  performance  is  groups.  indicated  same  the  demonstrated The rate  nonof  39  GRAPH  MEAN  INITIAL  SCORES  THREE  6  FOR  ALL  GROUPS  R  TIME ON TARGET DIRECTED  (SECSJ  NON ©  2 TRIALS  DIRECTED  ©CONTROL  3  STRESS STRESS  40  improvement (Table  IV)  for  all  g r o u p s was  A N A L Y S I S OF V A R I A N C E  Source of Variation  Subjects  Mean Square  An a n a l y s i s  Probability  9  9.746  5.30  18  1.007  .55  243  1.838  .14  of  the Transfer  variance  determine  stress  condition immediately F  transfer  V).  (Table (Table  over  the  their  significant  V)  F  for  five  scores for  tended to  there  was  groups  >.05  < .05 >.05  level  off  from  was  also  trials the  a  there  was  all  The  no  such  five  trials.  (Table same  no c h a n g e  groups  V)  time.  F  for  in  the  failed The  shows  to  the  non-significant  there  and t h a t  at  transfer  sixteen  indicated  during these  groups by  trials  Groups.  trials.  indicates  trials  any  of the  preceding these  T h e r e was  which  Scores  computed f o r  to  non-significant  if  was  twenty  groups  F  55.005  A Comparison of  improve  SCORES  (Groups)  Trials  scores  PERFORMANCE  27  Trials  Subjects  THE  7.436  Trials  trials  same  '  2 (Groups)  by  IV  FOR  df  Groups  x  the  . TABLE  Groups  statistically  to  nonall  41  GRAPH  MEAN  PERFORMANCE  THREE  2  SCORES  GROUPS  I2  r  ll.  10. 9. TIME ON TARGET (SECSU  TRIALS  FOR  ALL  42  TABLE ANALYSIS  OF V A R I A N C E  Source of Variation  Subjects  (Groups)  Groups by  27  37.865  4  Trials  ten  trials  different one  to  second these give  final final  variance  1.470  .92  >.05  8  2.324  1.45  >.05  108  1.606  to  fcraph  study  averaged  six  to  score  were  the  then  The  then  to  determine  learned.  obtained (Table  for VI  Significant  both  the  two  between  The groups  experimental  score  give  was  for  the  each  then  taken  An a n a l y s i s  learning  scores  and T a b l e V I I ) .  calculated  between  learning  to  two Trials  between  s c o r e was  F's  in  final  averaged  there  Groups.  effect.  first  and L S 2 ) .  if  of the  treated  difference  initial  (LSI  Scores  learning  give  t e n were  and t h e  3)  the  to  (FS2).  scores  groups  A p p e n d i x A) ences  two  performed on b o t h  amount  groups  the Learning  was  the  Probability >.05  scores  three  F .07  learning  the  were  were  Trials  two  on day  sections  five  (FSl).  SCORES  (Groups)  A Comparison of The  Mean Square 2.594  Trials  Subjects  TRANSFER  2  Trials  x  FOR  df  Groups  V  scores  among t h e t-tests  to  of for  a difference  between  of  in  groups three  (see  showed t h a t  differ-  groups and the  control  43  GRAPH  MEAN  3  SCORES  FINAL  THREE  FOR  ALL  GROUPS  13 12 11 10 TIME ON TARGET  9 1  81  (SECS.) DIRECTED  STRESS  NON D I R E C T E D ©CONTROL  G  3  4  T R IALS  STRESS  5  6  ( DAY TWO )  8  ro  44 group were learning stress  score  but  for  T h e r e was for  no  the  at  only  g r o u p and the  nificant  groups  significant  the  second l e a r n i n g  Source of Variation Between Within  df  Groups Groups  Source of Variation Between  Within  Groups  Groups  between  first the  directed  statistically (see  Table the  L E A R N I N G SCORE  ONE  sig-  VIII).  two  stress  FOR  VI  Mean Square 11.239  27  2.253  df  the  between  2  OF V A R I A N C E  for  score.  TABLE ANALYSIS  score  difference  learning  OF VARIANCE  level  g r o u p was  TABLE ANALYSIS  5%  difference  control  significant  either  the  FOR  F  (LSI)  Probability  4.99  <.05  VII L E A R N I N G SCORE  Mean • Square  2  13.35  27  3.88  F 3.44  TWO  (LS2)  Probability < .05  46  TABLE T-TESTS  FOR D I F F E R E N C E S  Learning  Score  VIII  B E T W E E N GROUPS  t-for difference between directed s t r e s s and control  IN  t-for difference between non-directed s t r e s s and control  Learning Score One L S I = F S l - JUS  3.25*  2.45*  Learning Score Two L S 2 = F S 2 - IS  2.50*  1.92  *  Significant  at  the  .05  LEARNING  level  of  SCORES  t-for difference between d i r e c t e d and non-directed stress  ,52  58  confidence  Discussion Since cant  the  differences  groups,  it  groups  were  further  was  among t h e  variance  initial  assumed t h a t  assumed t h a t  the  these  affect  revealed  scores  initial  same.  initial  of  this  abilities  subsequent  the  analysis  signifi-  the  three  abilities  For  any  no  of  these  reason would  performance  it  was  not  or  learn-  to  fifteen  scores. The  results  showed t h e r e to  of  approximately the  differentially ing  analysis  either  type  mance  scores  shown  in  Lewin  were  no  of  significant  stress  (Table  spite  (2),  of  of  IV).  the  and Eason  differences,  among t h e This  theory  groups  lack  and  and Branks  on t r i a l s  of  attributable the  perfor-  difference  research (3).  in  six  of  Leuba  Leuba (1:29)  was (1), stated  47 that .  .  "the .  organism tends  when  overall  decreasing created this  to  and  high  level have  positive  was  valence  increased,  the  The  the a  Ryan of  of  discrete  present  this a  task,  the  perhaps  performance  a  that  be  the  rotary  effect  lack due task  factors  of in  directed  there to  are  to  stress and  attention was  of  of  the  task  a to  stress  vary (5)  to  on  the  and  the  a  continuous  between type  with  improves  situation is  per-  given  similar  usually  concentrate  conceiv-  Marteniuk  task  difference part,  level  appears  shock  pursuit  Eason  type  performed.  and u s i n g  hence  directed  experiment  the  the  and  a  improved.  this of  According  subject's  non-directed stress  the  bf  when  terms  shown t h a t  e x p e r i m e n t was type  to  task,  a  the  upon performance  task  has  over  in  they  s h o u l d have  desirable.  in  reduce  group,  and a c t i v a t i o n  difference  of  in  performance  reported  Because  discrete  few  (4)  method t o  situations,  task  been very  level  performance.  stressful  which  a c c o m p a n i e d by-  stress  stress  improve  rotor  explained  study,  control.  of  type  performance  nature,  in  a  activation  nature  high  reducing actions  subject's  lack  a b l y would be  degree  the  showed t h a t  toward  reactions  h i g h are  directed  to  on the  actually  directed  formed.  the  s h o u l d have  (3)  With  tension  good performance  Branks  for  sought  (2:66),  situation  is  those  good performance b e i n g the  then  Lewin  acquire  stimulation  stimulation."  stress  should  to  groups  of  only  task. a  on and t h u s  in  in In  relatively direction  48 could task ing to  improve there  are  and thus all  the  early  many  factors  even w i t h  Further  to  in  practice. habit  strength.  early  in  practice  when  weak,  there  situation  performance it  was  stress task  can be  possible  s t r e n g t h was responses  that  that  c o u l d be  no  even  there  no  designed  toward that  this  only  reflected  study.  It  stated is  the  was  the  directed  fact  stress  the  habit competing  improve. (Table  in  effects That  and  performance,  scores  that  level,  incorrect  effects  the  in  not  to  experiment,  correct  trend  the  the  produced in  the  drive  present  did  com-  low  (response)  a high  the  situation.  influenced by  effects in  to  not  multiplied  Carron  better  transfer  attributable  may h a v e  stress  the  systematic  preceding stress  apparently  are  s t r o n g enough and thus  on the  is  competing responses  In  vary-  attend  was  theory,  though subjects  directed  was  cannot  level  habit  combined w i t h  impaired.  results  cate  ditions  level  correct  s o many f a c t o r s not  skill  o c c u r r e d and p e r f o r m a n c e  The  not  is  and  performance  From t h i s ,  incorrect  that  group were  involved  iately  many  the  continuous  involved  Hullian  and d r i v e  a  (6) r e a s o n e d t h a t  when  According to  response  this  Carron  present  in  subjects  and t h e r e f o r e  the  when  constantly  this,  strength  are  However,  direction,  cues  r e s p o n s e s were  correct give  performance.  relevant  improved. peting  the  V)  these of  of  scores  the  these  immed-  scores  the  that  indi-  stress  there  situation  assumed, however,  were con-  were as that  49 there  w a s some t y p e  analysis  of the results  groups were  superior  was  concerned  did  not improve  day  one,  tive  directed the  improved  by  Table  IV)  as l e a r n i n g  VIII).  The r e a s o n why t h i s scores  that  both  that  strong  enough t o p r o v i d e  strong  enough t o be d i s r u p t i v e . "  to  the control  in  the stress  Since the  there  levels  i t  seems  that  the pursuit • In terms  scores  there  for learning rotor  (Table  Because  rotor  task  but there  Leuba  is  but not  l e a r n i n g was as compared  the stimulation range.  was a  VI, VII,  performance,  optimal  this  stimulation  at least  (9) h y p o t h e s i s  differ-  VIII),  i s concerned.  of Duffy's  (1:32)  any o f the groups on  are different  versus  learned  optimal  and there  (Tables  task,  stimulation  groups  that  Leuba's  between V)  and non-  VIII).  when  likely  g r o u p s was w i t h i n  scores  stress  maximum r e i n f o r c e m e n t ,  was no d i f f e r e n c e  suggest  (Table best  specula-  t h e amount  i n t h e two s t r e s s  group,  i n the learning  might  as  greater  performance  ence  may o c c u r  6-15 o n  significantly  rotor  between  stated  stress  i s only  of the pursuit  groups  rotor  elsewhere.  conditions  difference  "Learning  (trials  of directed  of the pursuit  two e x p e r i m e n t a l  the pursuit  scores  discussed  on t h e l e a r n i n g  the learning  significantly  t h e two s t r e s s  insofar  the effects  showed  produced since the  that  or the transfer  no s i g n i f i c a n t these  revealed  and has been  stress  effect  the performance  regards  results  was  (Table  i n nature As  of stress  o ftwo-  insofar  50  dimensional  behavior,  between  directed  the  stress  group might  stress  group had  aspect  of  (Table  experimental  between  lack  due  This  a)  alone  and  that  toward the  stress  task  task  except  for  stress  the  experimental  may a l s o as  they  direct these not  have were  or two  be  not  the  non-directed  the  little the  or  the  subjects'  actually the  present  also  stress  in  this  experiment  shock;  or 2)  a the  electrodes.  be  combination of verbal It  was  for  the  three  a  at  attention  the  in  increasing  learning  the  and  learning  this  this  time  1)  the  combination of  to  Which  of  study  can-  design.  have been  3)  the  between  experimenter,  in  of  instructions,  factors: or  learning  in  attention.  could  instructions; probably  subjects'  difference  of  of  increased  experimental  noted  differ-  things:  occurred  must  one  by  no  two  performance  given  was  of  the  failure  performance,  types  of  the  in  two  two  lack in  the  the  the  groups  as  there  play  b)  not  between  they  it  any  case  no p a r t  Accordingly, level  the  part  d e s i g n e d and  determined.by  was  one  direct  directed  directional  well  responsible  the  the  that  suggest  which  reflected  conditions  fact  as  learned  utilize  produced by  would is  to  difference  to  level;  direct  expected because  learning,  play  overall two  group and  in  instructions  the  amount  however,  of  effects  instructions. that  the  opportunity This,  groups  the  in  have been  the  The  c o u l d have been ence  stress  behavior.  VIII).  a difference  that  the  caused the  electric  presence all  by  of  three  51 factors  but  there  them b e c a u s e stress  was  there  level.  contribution  no a t t e m p t  was  to  differentiate  no m e t h o d a v a i l a b l e  When s u c h m e a s u r e m e n t played  by  the  above  is  to  between  measure  possible,  factors  the  the  c o u l d be  deter-  mined. When d e t e r m i n i n g initial first  score  learning  calculated that  the  control  g r o u p and  stress  than  by  the  group,  significant The  the  lack  a  that  score  there  - IS)  df  was  In  the  increases  stress  (LSI)  learning  no d e c r e a s e of  between  the the  only  over  stress  the  score  was  it  was  found  than  the  learned  meaningful  learning  which  15.7% superiority the  difference control be  between  effect.  in  the  in  non-directed  amount,  was  between  the  not  significance.  might  was  are  over of  group  appreciable  group and the  difference  way  group over  an of  A  ratio  38% more  These  stress.  (LS2)  this  stress  group.  level  the  initial  learned  significant  score  scores  difference  to  a  the  100.  significant  5%  to  group  control  improvement  learning,  non-directed  directed  one  permanent  second day of  the  stress  significant  not  the  the  learning  learning  to  although being  at  non-directed second  (FSl  stress  attributable  learning  due  percentage  and m u l t i p l i e d b y  statistically  can be  was  score  directed  2 2 . 3 % more and  that  the  group on  construed  these  two  the  ten  groups  the  second l e a r n i n g  and  results of  that scores  that  on  effect  trials and  show  groups  a temporary However,  to  the  show  the  the of  lack the  52 non-directed by  an  stress  increase  in  the  scores  V  and V I ) .  3 and 4 and T a b l e s the  stress  began to  to  groups  close  mean t h a t  maximum a t the an  the  The  investigation  under  fact  scores two  rest  a  continue  but of  stress the  whether  c o u l d be  of  this  of  level Thus  that  group  interpreted  a  task  to  of  the  who  characterisrate  is  really  over  subjects  one  a  but  and t h u s ,  learning is  that  condition  improve  the  may b e  amount  control  control  to  (Graphs  of  learn-  unaffected.  so must be  left  research.  The  was  than  caused  therefore,  learning  stress.  increased  shock  rate  the  group  and the  results  under  is  VII)  ceiling  These  g r o u p was  control  seems,  worked  ing  by the  It  reach  learning  mance  may  the  time,  of  future  of  control  of  tic  the  rapid  extended period  a  the  can b r i n g  subjects  previously  VI,  gap.  stress  had  to  reached  a more  control  g r o u p and  that  on day  stress  might an  there one  groups  also  period.  (Table after  suggest  inhibitory  was  no d i f f e r e n c e TV)  twenty  that  factor  but  the  which  in  the  a distinct four  hours  aversive was  perfor-  improvement rest  nature  dissipated  (Tables of  the  during  53  REFERENCES 1.  Leuba, C , " T o w a r d Some I n t e g r a t i o n o f L e a r n i n g . . T h e o r i e s : The C o n c e p t o f O p t i m a l S t i m u l a t i o n , " Psychol o g i c a l R e p o r t s , v o l . 1 (1955), p p . 27-33.  2.  L e w i n , K., In M.H. Marx and T . N . Tombaugh, M o t i v a t i o n : P s y c h o l o g i c a l P r i n c i p l e s and E d u c a t i o n a l Implications, San F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a : Chandler Publishing Co., 1967.  3.  Eason, R.G., Branks, J . , "Effect of Level of A c t i v a t i o n on t h e Q u a l i t y and E f f i c i e n c y o f Performance o f V e r b a l a n d M o t o r T a s k s , " P e r c e p t u a l a n d M o t o r S k i l l s , v o l . 16 (1963), p p . 523-542.  4.  Ryan, E . D . , "Effects of and L e a r n i n g , " Research pp. 111-119.  5.  Marteniuk, R.G., Unpublished paper, B r i t i s h Columbia.  6.  7.  S t r e s s on Motor Quarterly, v o l .  Performance 33 (1962),  University  C a r r o n , A . V . , "Motor Performance Under S t r e s s , " . Q u a r t e r l y , v o l . 39 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , p p . 4 6 3 - 4 6 9 . Duffy, E., A c t i v a t i o n and B e h a v i o r , W i l e y and Sons I n c . , 1962.  New Y o r k :  of  Research  John  CHAPTER  SUMMARY AND The effects mance  of  and  Eighteen  male  groups:  tric the  directed learning  education  group;  purpose of  of  two  control  The d i r e c t e d  they  not  group  they  improve would be  received  distributed  trials)  scores  for  scores  to  to  female each  to  The  the  final  1.  Stress, or  impair  stress by  one  with of  that  if  previous  shock.  were  scores.  high  stress  After  and t h e n  subtracted  elec-  numbers  their  subjects  their then  on day  non-directed  rest  learning  whether  all  three  instructed  over  hours  group were  physical  initiated  equal  g r o u p was  one,  c o n c l u s i o n s were  task.  was  perfor-  task.  non-directed  receiving  shocked.  on day  tracking  fifteen  percent  The  tracking  to  stress  determine  each  facilitate  a  the  on the  undergraduate  Stress  six  five  stress  pursuit  group;  groups  investigate  randomly assigned to  group.  twenty-four  give  to  random and u n a v o i d a b l e  trials  approximately (ten  rotary  during trials  shocks.  score,  s t u d y was  stress  experimental  did  a  were  a directed  shock  CONCLUSIONS  and n o n - d i r e c t e d  and t w e l v e  students  and a  this  V  twenty  given  retested The  initial  from the  final  scores. as  follows:  directed  performance  or  non-directed,  on the  rotary  failed  pursuit  55 2. in  Stress,  superior 3.  between  both  learning There  the  was  directed  directed  and n o n - d i r e c t e d ,  of  the  pursuit  no  significant  stress  rotor  resulted  tracking  difference  and n o n - d i r e c t e d  in  task. learning  stress  groups.  Recommendations 1.  When t e s t i n g in  the  context  must be and  adjusting at  When t h e  If  this  two  motor  this  dimensional performance  for  measuring  level  so t h a t  approximately  activation  - desirable 3.  of  some m e t h o d  forming 2.  Duffy's  to  level  know w h a t  study  were  the  all  a  larger  behavior  learning,  subjects of  measured, an  of  activation  level  constitutes  repeated,  and  the  same  can be  theory  there level  are  per-  activation. it  would  optimal N would  be  level. be  desirable. 4.  Extend  the  duration the ing.  of  control  scope the  of  the  experiment  superiority  group in  of  relation  the to  to  determine  stress  groups  differences  in  the over learn-  BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams,  J.A., " E f f e c t of E x p e r i m e n t a l l y Induced Muscular T e n s i o n on Psychomotor P e r f o r m a n c e , " J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , v o l . 43 ( 1 9 5 4 ) , p p . 1 2 7 130.  Adams,  J.A., D i j k s t r a , S., Responses," Journal v o l . 71 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , p p .  Adams,  J.P., vol.  " S h o r t - t e r m Memory f o r M o t o r of Experimental Psychology, 314-318.  "Motor S k i l l s , " Annual 15 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , p p . 1 8 1 - 1 9 7 .  Review  of  Psychology,  Bartoshuk, A.K., " E l e c t r o m y o g r a p h i c G r a d i e n t s as Indicants of M o t i v a t i o n , " Canadian Journal of Psychology, v o l . 9 (1955), p p . 215-230. Bartoshuk, A.K., "Electromyographic Gradients in GoalDirected A c t i v i t y , " Canadian Journal of Psychology, v o l . 9 (1955), p p . 21-28. Bell,  H.A.,  "Effects  of  Experimentally  Induced  Muscular  T e n s i o n and F r e q u e n c y o f M o t i v a t i o n a l Instructions on P u r s u i t Rotor P e r f o r m a n c e , " P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , v o l . 9 (1959), p p . 111-115. Carron,  A . V . , "Motor Performance Under S t r e s s , " Q u a r t e r l y , v o l . 39 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , p p . 4 6 3 - 4 6 9 .  Carron,  A . V . , M o r f o r d , W.R., Learning," Perceptual (1968), p p . 507-511.  Coombs,  A.W., Taylor, C , "The E f f e c t o f the P e r c e p t i o n of M i l d D e g r e e s o f T h r e a t on... P e r f o r m a n c e , " J o u r n a l o f A b n o r m a l S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , v o l . 47 ( 1 9 5 2 ) , p p . 4 2 0 424.  Courts,  F.A.,  "Relations  Performance," pp. 347-367.  "Anxiety, and M o t o r  S t r e s s and Motor S k i l l s , v o l . 27  Between M u s c u l a r  Psychological ~  Research  Tension  Bulletin,  vol.  and 39  (1942),  Duffy,  E., "The Concept of Energy M o b i l i z a t i o n , " Psychol o g i c a l R e v i e w , v o l . 58 ( 1 9 5 1 ) , p p . 3 0 - 4 0 .  Duffy,  E;.,"The Psychological S i g n i f i c a n c e of Arousal or A c t i v a t i o n , " Psychological 67 ( 1 9 5 7 ) , p p . 2 6 5 - 2 7 5 .  the Concept of Review, v o l .  57 Duffy,  Ei.,  Activation  and B e h a v i o r ,  New Y o r k :  Wiley,  Eason,  R.G., "The S u r f a c e E l e c t r o m y o g r a m Gauges Subjective E f f o r t , " P e r c e p t u a l a n d M o t o r S k i l l s , v o l . 9 (1959),  1962.  pp..-359-361.  Eason,  R.G., " R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between E f f o r t , T e n s i o n L e v e l , S k i l l , and Performance E f f i c i e n c y i n a P e r c e p t u a l Motor T a s k , " P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , v o l . 16  (1963), p p . 297-317.  Eason,  R.G., "Muscular T e n s i o n , E f f o r t , and T r a c k i n g D i f f i c u l t y : Studies of Parameters which A f f e c t T e n s i o n L e v e l and Performance E f f i c i e n c y , " Perceptual  and Motor S k i l l s ,  Eason,  v o l . 12  (1961), p p . 331-372.  R.G., Branks, J . , " E f f e c t o f L e v e l o f A c t i v a t i o n on t h e Q u a l i t y and E f f i c i e n c y o f Performance o f V e r b a l and Motor T a s k s , " P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , vol.  16  Eason,  (1963), p p . 523-543.  R . G . , White, C . T . , " R e l a t i o n s h i p Between M u s c u l a r T e n s i o n and Performance D u r i n g R o t a r y Pursuit," P e r c e p t u a l a n d M o t o r S k i l l s , v o l . 10 (1960), p p .  199-210.  Eysenck, J.J., Experiments in Macmillan Co., 1964. Fairclough,  Speed  vol. Farber,  R.H., of  23  "Transfer  Reaction  Motivation,  New Y o r k :  The  Motivated  Improvement  in  of  and Movement,"  (1952), pp. 20-27.  Research  Quarterly,  I.E., S p e n c e , K.W., "Complete L e a r n i n g and C o n d i t i o n i n g as a F u n c t i o n o f A n x i e t y , " J o u r n a l o f  Experimental  Psychology,  v o l . 45  (1953), p p . 120-125.  Freeman, G . L . , "The F a c i l i t a t i v e and I n h i b i t o r y E f f e c t s o f M u s c u l a r T e n s i o n Upon P e r f o r m a n c e , " A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , v o l . 45 (1933), p p . 17-52. Freeman, G . L . , "The O p t i m a l Muscular T e n s i o n s f o r V a r i o u s Performances," American Journal of Psychology, v o l .  51  (1938), p p . 146-150.  Freeman, G . L . , "The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Performance Level and B o d i l y A c t i v i t y L e v e l , " J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l  Psychology,  Hebb,  D.D.,  "Drives  v o l . 26 (1940), p p . 602-608.  Psychological  and the  Review,  C o n c e p t u a l Nervous  v o l . 62  System,"  (1955), p p . 243-253.  58 Henry,  Hill,  F.M., "Increase in and by T r a n s f e r of Quarterly, (1951),  S p e e d o f Movement b y M o t i v a t i o n Motivated Improvement," Research pp. 219-228.  W.F., Learning: A Survey of P s y c h o l o g i c a l Interpret a t i o n s , San F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a : Chandler P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1963.  Horvath,  F.E.,  Psychological  Stress:  A Review  D e f i n i t i o n s and E x p e r i m e n t a l R e s e a r c h , U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, 1959.  Howell,  Hull,  of  Ann  Arbor:  M.L., " I n f l u e n c e o f E m o t i o n a l T e n s i o n on Speed o f R e a c t i o n a n d M o v e m e n t , " R e s e a r c h Q u a r t e r l y , v o l . 24 (1953), pp. 22-32.  C.L., Principles Century-Crofts,  of Behavior, 1943.  New Y o r k :  Appleton-  Kauster, D.H., Trapp, E.P., " M o t i v a t i o n and Cue U t i l i z a t i o n i n I n t e n t i o n a l and I n c i d e n t a l L e a r n i n g , " Psychol o g i c a l R e v i e w , v o l . 67 (1960) , p p . 3 7 3 - 3 7 9 . Klein,  Kling,  Kling,  S.J., "Relation of Muscle A c t i o n P o t e n t i a l s Variously I n d u c e d t o Breakdown o f Work i n T a s k - O r i e n t e d S u b j e c t s , " P e r c e p t u a l a n d M o t o r S k i l l s , v o l . 12 (1961), pp. 131-141. sJ..W., " R e l a t i o n o f S k i n C o n d u c t a n c e and R o t a r y Pursuit During Extended P r a c t i c e , " Perceptual and M o t o r S k i l l s , v o l . 12 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , p p . 2 7 0 . J.W., S c h l o s b e r g , H., "The R e l a t i o n s h i p between T e n s i o n and E f f i c i e n c y , " P e r c e p t u a l and Motor Skills, v o l . 9 (1959), p p . 595-597.  L a z a r u s , R.S., E r i k s o n , C.W., "Effects of Failure Stress Upon S k i l l e d P e r f o r m a n c e , " J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , v o l . 43 ( 1 9 5 2 ) , p p . 1 0 0 - 1 0 5 . Lee,  L.C., "The E f f e c t s o f A n x i e t y L e v e l and S h o c k , o n . a Paired-Associates Verbal Task," Journal of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , v o l . 61 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , p p . 2 1 3 - 2 1 7 .  Leuba,  C , " T o w a r d Some I n t e g r a t i o n o f L e a r n i n g T h e o r i e s : The C o n c e p t o f O p t i m a l S t i m u l a t i o n , " Psychological R e p o r t , v o l . 1 (1955), p p . 27-33.  Lindsley, of  D.B., "Physiological Psychology," Annual P s y c h o l o g y , v o l . 7 (1956), p p . 323-348.  Review  59 Lindsley,  D.B.,  Nebraska 103.  "Psychophysiology  and  Motivation,"  Symposium on M o t i v a t i o n ,  (1957),  pp.  44-  Malmo,  R.B., "Measurement o f D r i v e : An U n s o l v e d Problem i n P s y c h o l o g y , " N e b r a s k a Symposium on M o t i v a t i o n , (1958), p p . 224-265.  Malmo,  R.B., "Activation: A Neuropsychological Dimension," P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e v i e w , v o l . 66 ( 1 9 5 9 ) , p p . 3 6 7 - 3 8 6 .  Marteniuk, R.G., "Motor Performance S t r e s s , " Research Quarterly, 1025-1031.  and Induced M u s c u l a r v o l . 39 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , p p .  Marteniuk, R.G., Columbia.  University  Marx,  Unpublished paper,  of  British  M . H . , Tombaugh, T . N . , M o t i v a t i o n : Psychological P r i n c i p l e s and E d u c a t i o n a l I m p l i c a t i o n s , San Francisco: C h a n d l e r P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1 9 6 7 .  Meyer,  D.R.,  "On the  Psychological  Interaction Bulletin,  of  vol.  Stimulus-Responses," 50  (1953),  Murdock, B.B., "The R e t e n t i o n of I n d i v i d u a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , v o l . 62 625. Noble,  pp.  204-220.  Items," Journal (1961), p p . 618-  C.E., "An Attempt to Manipulate I n c e n t i v e Motivation i n a C o n t i n u o u s T a s k , " P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , v o l . 58(1955), p p . 65-69.  Peterson,  L.R.,  Peterson,  N.,  "Short-term  Individual Items," Journal of v o l . 58 ( 1 9 5 9 ) , p p . 1 9 3 ^ 1 9 8 .  Retention  Experimental  of  Psychology,  Pinneo,  L.R., "The E f f e c t s of Induced Muscle T e n s i o n D u r i n g T r a c k i n g on L e v e l o f A c t i v a t i o n and on P e r f o r m a n c e , " J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , v o l . 62 (1961), pp. 523-531.  Posner,  N.I., " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f V i s u a l and K i n e s t h e t i c Memory C o d e s , " J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l Psychology, v o l . 75 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , p p . 1 0 3 - 1 0 7 .  Ryan,  Ryan,  . E . D . , "The E f f e c t o f D i f f e r e n t i a l M o t i v e - I n c e n t i v e C o n d i t i o n s on P h y s i c a l P e r f o r m a n c e , " Research Q u a r t e r l y , v o l . 23 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , p p . 8 3 - 8 7 . E.D., "Relationship A r o u s a l , " Research 279-287.  Between Motor Performance and Q u a r t e r l y , v o l . 33 ( 1 9 6 2 ) , p p .  60  Ryan,  E.D., " E f f e c t s o f S t r e s s on Motor Performance and L e a r n i n g , " R e s e a r c h Q u a r t e r l y , v o l . 33 (1962), pp. 111-119.  Schaffer,  H.R.,  logical (1964),  "Behavior  Under  Hypothesis," p p . 323-333.  Stress:  Psychological  A NeurophysioReview,  vol.  Singer,  R.N., York:  Spence,  K.W., Behavior Yale University  Spence,  K.W., F a r b e r , I.E., McFann, H . H . , "The R e l a t i o n of A n x i e t y (Drive) L e v e l to Performance i n C o m p e t i t i o n a l and N o n - C o m p e t i t i o n a l P a i r e d - A s s o c i a t e s L e a r n i n g , " J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , v o l . 52 (1956), pp. 296-305.  Spence,  K.W.,  M o t o r L e a r n i n g a n d Human P e r f o r m a n c e , The M a c m i l l a n Company, 1 9 6 8 .  61  Taylor,  Theory Press,  J.A.,  New  a n d C o n d i t i o n i n g , New 1956.  Kefchel,  R.,  L e v e l and Degree o f C o m p e t i t i o n i n Learning," Journal of Experimental 52 ( 1 9 5 6 ) , p p . 3 0 6 - 3 1 0 .  "Anxiety  Haven:  (Drive)  Paired-Associates Psychology, v o l .  Stennett, R.G., "The R e l a t i o n s h i p s o f Performance Level of A r o u s a l , " Journal of Experimental l o g y , v o l . 54 ( 1 9 5 7 ) , p p . 5 4 - 6 1 .  Level to Psycho-  :  Taylor,  J . A . , Chapman, J . P . , " P a i r e d - A s s o c i a t e L e a r n i n g as Related to Anxiety," American Journal of Psychology, v o l . 68 ( 1 9 5 5 ) , p p . 6 7 1 .  APPENDIX  APPENDIX  A  61  STATISTICAL  1.  The r e q u i r e d  TREATMENT  means, s t a n d a r d  deviations,  were c a l c u l a t e d a t t h e c o m p u t i n g c e n t r e , using  2.  t h e BMD08V  and F r a t i o s U.B.C. Campus,  program.  A t - t e s t was u s e d t o t e s t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e means where t h e a p p r o p r i a t e formula  F was s i g n i f i c a n t .  The  f o r t h e t was: t  where x  x  l  the  " *2  g r o u p means  pooled estimate of the error v a r i a n c e o f t h e mean s q u a r e  APPENDIX B  62 RAW D A T A MEANS  FOR A L L  THREE  GROUPS  F O R THE T H I R T Y  Stress Non-Directed Group Mean Mean Day 2 Day 1 Score Score  Stress Mean Day 2 Score  TRIALS  ?rial  Directed Mean Day 1 Score  1  2.55  9.69  2.52  9.59  2.05  8.35  2  3.56  10.87  4.46  10.28  3.57  8.46  3  4.62  11.04  5.06  11.59  4.52  8.62  4  4.83  11.53  4.87  11.03  4.71  8.19  5  5.54  11.51  5.28  11.47  4.69  9.51  6  6.03  11.25  6.68  11.87  6.22  8.71  7  6.70  11.84  7.10  12.28  7.91  9.49  8  7.26  12.69  8.15  10.83  7.76  9.59  9  7.60  12.13  8.09  12.09  7.81  9.41  10  7.41  13.18  7.34  12.47  7.79  11.35  11  7.43  8.74  12  7.24  7.95  7.49  13  8.26  8.08  8.08  14  7.93  8.31  8.50  15  7.77  8.52  7.75  16  9.08  0.74  7.90  17  9.20  9.37  9.34  18  9.12  9.82  9.14  19  8.72  9.25  9 . 23  20  8.84  8.64  9.15  Control Mean Day 1 Score  i  8.03  Group Mean Day 2 Score  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077214/manifest

Comment

Related Items