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
Featured Collection
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
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
Cite
Citation Scheme:
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>
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