UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Student's attribution of success and self-perception of abilities in the teacher-student interaction Cartwright, Johanna S 1973

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1973_A8 C37.pdf [ 2.73MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101359.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101359-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101359-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101359-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101359-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101359-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101359-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101359-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101359.ris

Full Text

STUDENT'S ATTRIBUTION OF SUCCESS AND SELF-PERCEPTION OF ABILITIES IN THE TEACHER-STUDENT INTERACTION by  JOHANNA S. CARTWRIGHT B.A., University o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1970  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of Psychology We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1973  In  presenting  this  an a d v a n c e d  degree  the  shall  I  Library  further  for  agree  scholarly  by  his  of  this  written  thesis  in  at  University  the  make  that  it  freely  permission  p u r p o s e s may  representatives. thesis  for  partial  financial  is  of  of  Columbia,  British  available  for  for extensive  be g r a n t e d  It  fulfilment  by  the  shall  not  reference  Head o f  I  agree  and  be a l l o w e d  this  Department  of  Psychology  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, Canada  March  26,  1973  Columbia  that  thesis or  publication  without  my  permission.  S.  for  study.  my D e p a r t m e n t  copying or  Johanna  Date  requirements  copying of  understood that  gain  the  Cartwrlght  Abstract  Sevaral atudlea praaant evidence which aupporta p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t tra i n f a r o u r a t t i t u d e s a n d observation o f o a r o v e r t behaviour and  the  Internal states  f m  t h a t these inferences are  v a c a t e d t o d i f f e r e n t i a l knowladga o r a t t r i b u t i o n s about t h a f o r the behaviour*  f h i a p r o p o s i t i o n wut  s t u d e n t i n t e r a c t i o n f*©» t h a s t u d e n t s j e o t s partioi|»tad i a a ware t a u g h t by a remitting  learning  ao c a l l e d o x p a r t  h a l f were taught by a  oxasinad i n the  p o i n t o f view,  experience* teaohar  expected  tribute  teacher*  sixty  aub~  Half tha subjects  (high-axperi) and  f a l l o w atudant  s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d a u e c e a s feed-fcaok a f t e r t h e was  reasons  the  (low-expert). teaching  A l l  period*  that subjects i n tha Mgh*expert condition vould a t -  success to the  teaohar  aora- t h a n S a i n t h a l o w - e x p e r t  group*  I n a d d i t i o n i t was  predicted t h a t subjects i n tha high-axpart  would expect  poorer on a  t o do  second l a a r n i n g  teak  indicated that tha experimental  Kanipolation  ducing d i f f e r e n t i a l perception o f  teaohar  however, wera n o t c o n f i r m e d b y  o f siethodologioal and  was  The  interaction*  help  resulte  successful i n pro-  expertise* tha data*  f h a two  hy-  Several pointe  tfeeorotioal natura ware r a i s e d * which  euggset  p o s s i b l e f u t u r e avenues o f r e s e a r c h i n t h a area o f a t t r i b u t i o n aooial  group  without tha  o f t h e t e a o h a r , t h a n aftbjeeta i n t h a low-aagsert group*  potheses,  It  i n  li TABLE OP CONTENTS CHAPTER I. II.  III. IV.  Page Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11  . . . . . . . . . . .  12  . . . . . . .  20  Experiment . . . (a)  Subjects  (b)  Apparatus and Materials  (c)  Procedure  Results . . . . . . . .  1  22  Discussion * . . . . . . . .  32  Appendix I. Wechsler Intelligence Seal© f o r Children Test Form . . . . . . . .  34  Appendix I I . A t t r i b u t i o n Questionnaire  ....  35  Appendix III.Post-Experimental Questionnaire..  38  Appendix IV. Prediction o f Success Form . . . .  39  BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . APPENDICES  iii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1  Table 2  Table 3  Perceived teacher expertise scores and expectation about performance on the mental maze f o r high-expert and low-expert conditions • . . . . « . «  20  Mean ratings and S.D. of subject's a t t r i b u t i o n o f success i n low and high-expert conditions . < , . . . .  21  Prediction of success on a second learning task i n low and highexpert groups . . * . . . . . . .  22  Aoknowledge&ents I would l i k e to express vsy appreciation to Dr, Donald Dutton and Dr, Tom storm f o r t h e i r advice and helpful guidance i n the preparation of t h i s thesis* I also thank Dr, Ottfried Spreen, former Chalwaan of the Psycholo^r Departatont, a t the University of V i c t o r i a , and the Superintendent of Sooke school D i s t r i c t f o r t h e i r kind co-operation, as w e l l as the principal and the teachers of the school Involved,  Introduction The present study t*as designed to exawine the student's perception of ths> causes of successful **>rforrnnco a f t e r having part i c i p a t e d l a a l o a m i s ^ s i t u a t i o n and tfe® «ay those explanations ore related to th© student © perception of h i s own a b i l i t y .  The question  1  deals with whether the student a t t r i b u t e s success to i n t r i n s i c factors such as h i s own a b i l i t y , e f f o r t and concentration expended daring Isamirjr o r to external variables such as th® teacher's perceived «?cperiisa during the to-aching s i t u a t i o n .  An a d d i t i o n a l i n t e r e s t i s  the student*© d i f f e r e n t i a l inferences about h i s a b i l i t i e s dspandins? on whether the causas f o r success are psrcslvswi t o be i n t e r n a l to the student or «%t»rnal* the problem o f perception of i n t e r n a l vs. external causation was ajsai3ir>©d i n & study by Daviaoa and Valine (19&9)«  Their fladings  suegoet that on teSivid«al*s b e l i e f s and attitudes are c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to tho typo o f oxplamtions which he applies to h i s behaviour*  In t h i s  experiment a l l subjects underwent a pain threshold and shook tolerance t s s t * than they inchested a dru.£ (actually a placebo) and repeated the shock t e s t s with the i n t e n s i t i e s s u r r e p t i t i o u s l y halvsd. thus feslieved that the drug had ©hanged t h e i r performance  A l l subjeots subsequently  h a l f o f the subject® wars t o l d that the drug was r e a l l y a placebo*  Sub-  j e c t s i n t h i s l a t t e r g r o w who thus a t t r i b u t e d t h e i r Increased shook toleranea to theasslvea perceived shocks i n a t h i r d t e s t as l e s s p a i n f u l  2 and t o l e r a t e d more shocks than subjects who attributed t h e i r behaviour change to the drug.  In other words, subjects had the same knowledge  about t h e i r actual behaviour on the second s e r i e s , but d i f f e r i n g knowledge about the reasons f o r that behaviour.  Drug subjects would assume  the behaviour had an e x t r i n s i c o r i g i n , implying nothing about t h e i r actual a b i l i t y to withstand shock.  Placebo subjects would assume the  behaviour had a more personal o r i g i n r e f l e c t i n g a new a b i l i t y to withstand shock which l e d to increased a b i l i t y to withstand shock on a t h i r d shock s e r i e s .  Studies c a r r i e d out within the cognitive dissonance framework can be reinterpreted i n the l i g h t of the kind of reasons which the subjects can give to account f o r t h e i r behaviour.  Usually i n these  studies subjects are subtly coerced i n t o making a counterattitudinal statement (Festinger and Carlsmlth 1959* Brehm and Cohen 1962, 1962)  Brock,  and i t was consistently found that greater attitude change occurred  when subjects appeared to be performing the new behaviour (countera t t i t u d i n a l statements) out of t h e i r own free w i l l .  When subjects  believed t h e i r behaviour was under the control of external contingencies, such as monetary reward, the experimenter's request, e t c . . . attitude change was l e s s marked than under the previously mentioned conditions. Again, i n these studies subjects performed the same behaviour but they had d i f f e r e n t reasons to account f o r t h e i r behaviour, which resulted i n d i f f e r e n t i a l change of a t t i t u d e .  3  A t t r i b u t i o n theory i s relevant to the problem of perception of causation because i t deals with the causal interpretations an i n d i v i d u a l applies to h i s own behaviour as w e l l as to other people*s behaviour.  This theory evolved from Heider's (1958) work with h i s  book "The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations".  The author described  the processes and rules which govern a person*s a t t r i b u t i o n of causes f o r the behavioural e f f e c t s around him.  In a recent paper Nisbett  and Vallns (1971) examine the causal interpretations that the i n d i v i d u a l applies to himself, using Bern's (19&7) proposition as an unifying theme. Bern has proposed that Individuals come to "know" t h e i r own a t t i t u d e s , emotions and other i n t e r n a l states, p a r t i a l l y by i n f e r r i n g them from observations of t h e i r own overt behaviour and/or the circumstances i n which t h i s behaviour occurs.  Bern stated that, to the extent that i n -  t e r n a l cues are weak, amblgious or uninterpretable the i n d i v i d u a l i s f u n c t i o n a l l y i n the same p o s i t i o n as an outside observer, an observer who  must necessarily r e l y upon those external cues to i n f e r the i n d i -  vidual* s inner states*  A study by Bandler, Madaras and Bern (1968)  provides evidence f o r Bern's self-perception hypothesis, i . e . , that we get to know our i n t e r n a l states by I n f e r r i n g them from of our own  overt behaviour*  observations  The authors found that subjects rated  shocks as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more uncomfortable when they escaped them than when they endured them.  Presumably escape from shock indicated that  the shook i s strong and p a i n f u l and needs to be escaped, whereas i f the subjects endured shock they might have i n f e r r e d that the pain  was  4 not strong enough to terminate i t .  However, subjects had t o perceive  that they had some choice i n the matter.  When subjects were made t o  e i t h e r endure or escape the shock, they d i d not i n f e r pain from escape behaviour and absence o f pain from no-escape behaviour* f i c a t i o n leads t o an important questionj  This q u a l i -  When w i l l i n d i v i d u a l s i n f e r  t h e i r I n t e r n a l states from observations made about t h e i r overt behaviour, and when w i l l they assume that t h e i r overt behaviour does not Indicate anything s i g n i f i c a n t about t h e i r i n t e r n a l state?  Nisbett and Valins (1971) attempted t o define the type o f s i t u a t i o n s i n which an i n d i v i d u a l w i l l use h i s own overt behaviour to make inferences about h i s Internal state.  According t o the authors  people seem to i n f e r t h e i r b e l i e f s from t h e i r behaviour only when they have good reasons to believe that t h e i r behaviour toward a stimulus i s produced p r i m a r i l y by t h e i r f e e l i n g s about the stimulus, which the authors c a l l "stimulus attribution '. 1  A b e l i e f inference r e l a t e d to  the behaviour w i l l not take place when the person has reasons t o believe that h i s behaviour toward the stimulus was produced i n large part by circumstantial f a c t o r s e x t r i n s i c t o the stimulus, t h i s would r e s u l t i n "circumstance  attribution".  The d i s t i n c t i o n between stimulus and circumstance  attri-  bution i s not equivalent t o Kelley's (1967) "internal-external" dimension which i s concerned with the causal role o f the person vs. the causal r o l e o f the environment.  Circumstance and stimulus a t t r i b u t i o n s deal  5 with the allocation of causes between various aspects of the environment, being thus an expansion of Kelley's external category.  For  example, the shock i s a constant stimulus across both conditions i n the Davison and Valins study.  In one of the conditions (informed  placebo condition) subjects attributed their behaviour toward the shock stimulus, to t h e i r reactions to the shock I t s e l f , while i n the other condition (uninformed placebo condition) behaviour was attributed to the particular circumstance under which they were exposed to the shock, that i s to the effects of a drug which i s supposed to increase tolerance to shook. Both causes are "external" but i t made a difference which external, situational factor was perceived as causal. So f a r evidence was presented which supports the propos i t i o n that we i n f e r our attitudes from our overt behaviour and that these Inferences are related to d i f f e r e n t i a l knowledge or attributions about the reasons f o r the behaviour*  I t i s f e l t that the foregoing discussion  Is relevant to the teaching situation i n which one person, the teacher, attempts to produce change i n another person, the student.  In this  situation both the teacher and the student can search f o r explanations which might account f o r any improvement or lack of improvement i n the student's performance.  The teacher can attribute improvement to his  own teaching a b i l i t y or to the student's a b i l i t y to learn*  The student  i n turn can attribute improvement to his own a b i l i t y or to the teacher's a b i l i t y to teach.  6 Several studies deal with attribution of causality i n the teaching situation, but a l l of them fooussed on the teacher's a t t r i bution.  Ross, Bierbrauer and Polly (1971) conducted a study i n which  professional teachers and college students attempted to teach an 11 year old boy the spelling of commonly misspelled words.  Participants  tended to rate "teacher factors" as being more important i n success than i n f a i l u r e conditions*  This pattern of attribution was con-  siderably more pronounced f o r professional teachers than f o r college students*  I t i s possible that the results of t h i s study are partly  explained by the fact that teachers did not receive information on the i n i t i a l l e v e l of a b i l i t y of the student.  I f the teacher believed  that the student's i n i t i a l l e v e l of a b i l i t i e s was high then fcfe might have been more l i k e l y to attribute student's f a i l u r e to himself. Schopler and Layton (1972) examined teacher's attributions for I n i t i a l low a b i l i t y and high a b i l i t y students. They used a situation of i n t e r personal influence and found that teachers rated themselves as more i n f l u e n t i a l when a high-ability target f a i l e d than when he succeeded, and more Influence was attributed when a low a b i l i t y target person succeeded than when he f a i l e d .  These studies indicate that the student  l e v e l of success as w e l l as his i n i t i a l l e v e l of a b i l i t i e s affect the teacher's perception of the degree of influence he had over the student performance*  No studies were found which deal with the student's per-  ception of causality i n the teaching situation.  7  The present study deals with the student's perception of causes of his performance and with the student's beliefs about his a b i l i t i e s , i . e . , w i l l the student make inferences about h i s internal state of a b i l i t i e s based On his successful performance? I t was mentioned e a r l i e r that according to Nlsbett and Vallns (1971) a person w i l l i n f e r his internal state from observation of h i s overt behaviour when he has made a stimulus attribution*  No b e l i e f inference w i l l take place i f  the subject makes a circumstance attribution.  I f one analyzes the  teacher-student relationship one could say that the l a t t e r i s exposed to two sets of s t i m u l i .  F i r s t there i s the learning material and second  there i s the teacher. The student could attribute his successful performance to his i n t r i n s i c reaction to the learning material, i . e . , his a b i l i t y to understand the material, or to the circumstantial stimulus which i s the teacher and the way i n which he presents the learning material.  I f the student perceives his performance as having been  caused by the teacher's expert teaching techniques rather than by his own a b i l i t y to cope with the learning material, then he might not i n f e r that the performance reflects his internal a b i l i t y . The problem was analyzed i n a learning situation where the subject learned a mental maze which required him to remember a sequence of numbers*  The experimental design contained two levels  of teacher expertise, low-expert and high-expert. In the low-expert situation one student taught another student the task. In the high-  8 expert condition the experimenter taught the task*  The experimenter  conveyed to the subject that she was an expert i n behaviour modification. She t o l d him that she knew exactly how to manipulate reward and punishment contingencies to produce maximum learning.  In order to control  f o r the subjects' i n i t i a l expectation about t h e i r performance on the mental maze they were given a short t e s t before learning the mental maze.  This t e s t was supposed to provide a base-rate from which im-  provement was going to be evaluated, and a l l subjects were t o l d that t h e i r performance was below average.  A f t e r that, subjects learned the  mental maze and a l l were t o l d that t h e i r performance was above average. Then h a l f o f the subjects i n each group were asked to answer a questionnaire which investigated t h e i r explanations f o r t h e i r performance on the  mental maze.  The remaining subjeots i n each group were asked to  estimate how w e l l they thought they would perform without the help o f the  teacher on a task which depended on the same type o f s k i l l s which  were required to l e a r n the mental maze.  A f t e r t h e i r estimate the  subjects worked on the second task.  Information about the subject's a t t r i b u t i o n about success on the mental maze and estimate about future performance data were c o l l e c t e d from two separate groups of subjects because they might have become suspicious of the purpose of the experiment a f t e r having answered the a t t r i b u t i o n questionnaire.  I f t h i s was the case then i t  would have been d i f f i c u l t to determine whether the subject's prediction of future success was a r e s u l t of having answered the questionnaire or  9 a r e s u l t of the learning experience.  The hypotheses investigated i n the present study are as follows I 1 ) that the high-expert condition would be more conducive to external, teacher a t t r i b u t i o n s , than the low-expert s i t u a t i o n .  Three reasons  could be given i f t h i s prediction was not supported by the experimental data,  (a)  The manipulation was not credible to the subjects and they  did not believe that the i n s t r u c t o r was an expert i n behaviour modification.  In order to c o n t r o l f o r t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y a post-experimental  questionnaire was given to the subjects which inquired about the impressions of the i n s t r u c t o r ' s expertise,  (b)  The pre-experimental mani-  pulation was not successful i n making subjects believe they would not perform well on the mental maze.  I f t h i s was the case then the subject  would not need to search f o r an explanation f o r h i s successful  performance  because he f e l t he had the a b i l i t y to do w e l l on t h i s task to begin with.  For t h i s reason subjeots were asked a f t e r the learning s i t u a t i o n  how w e l l they had expected to perform on the mental maze.  Also subjects  were given a fourth a l t e r n a t i v e explanation on the a t t r i b u t i o n questionnaire, which required them to state how good they f e l t they were a t t h i s type of task,  (c)  F i n a l l y , i t could be possible that the expert  i n s t r u c t o r i s not perceived as an external c o n t r o l l i n g contingency i n t h i s type o f learning s i t u a t i o n .  Rather, the i n s t r u c t o r could be perceived  by the student as a source of information, and whether t h i s information was presented i n an expert or non-expert manner i s i r r e l e v a n t to the  10 learning process*  To obtain information about t h i s point, subjects  were asked to give reasons to explain t h e i r performance on the mental maze* before they rated the k a l t e r n a t i v e explanations presented  by  the experimenter* 2)  That subjects i n the high-expert condition would expect to do  poorer  on a second r e l a t e d learning task without the help of the teacher, than subjects i n the low-expert group.  This p r e d i c t i o n was based on the  assumption that subjects i n the high-expert condition would a t t r i b u t e t h e i r success to the teacher.  This would preclude the subject from  making inferences about h i s a b i l i t i e s based on observation of h i s overt behaviour, i . e . , success performance.  I f he now has to perform  i n a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n , but without the help of the Instructor he should p r e d i c t that he w i l l do worse than i n the f i r s t s i t u a t i o n .  Experiment Subjects.  60 Subjects (Ss), from two d i f f e r e n t types of student populations participated i n the study, (University students and grade 12 High School students).  33 Ss were male and female students attending  Summer School a t the University o f V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia,  They  were taking courses i n various f i e l d s suoh as Geography, History, English and Mathematics,  The remaining 27 Ss were male and female  grade 12 students from Belmont Senior Secondary School i n Sooke, British  Columbia.  Apparatus and Materials. A learning apparatus s i m i l a r to the one used by Lykken (1955) was employed. eabinet.  I t consisted of a black 18" x 16" x 11" wooden  The panel which faced the student S displayed 4 switches  numbered 1 to 4 and a red and white p i l o t l i g h t above each switch. The back panel of the cabinet had 4 l i g h t s which indicated to the teacher which switch the _S had depressed and 8 switches which were connected to the p i l o t l i g h t s on the student S*s panel.  The " D i g i t Symbol" subtest of Wechsler's Adult Intelligence Scale was used f o r the second learning task. (See Appendix I ) .  12 Procedure,  Learning phaset  Ss were randomly assigned t o the 2 experi-  mental conditionst Group I (high-expert i n s t r u c t o r ) and Group I I (lowexpert i n s t r u c t o r ) ,  In Group I (n=30) Ss were informed that the experi-  menter (E) was an expert In behaviour modification techniques and that she was going t o teach a task.  The instructions were approximately  l i k e the followingt "This i s a learning experiment, and you w i l l have t o l e a r n a task. In t h i s study I am interested i n f i n d i n g out how e f f e c t i v e behaviour modification techniques are i n helping people to learn.  Now, before  we continue, do you know what I mean by behaviour modification techniques?" ( I f subjects answered yes, they were t o l d that the d e f i n i t i o n was going to be reviewed very b r i e f l y ) ,  "Behaviour modification technique  r e f e r s t o a method o f teaching which has been investigated i n Psychology. Researchers have been interested i n finding out what goes on when people l e a r n and they have found that learning takes place by systematic and s p e o i f i a b l e rules*  Behaviour modification techniques take advantage  of these rules i n producing optimal conditions f o r learning*  We produce  the best conditions f o r learning by varying reward and punishment i n c e r t a i n ways.  In t h i s study you w i l l have to l e a r n a task which i s  c a l l e d a mental maze*  I have studied t h i s maze very c a r e f u l l y and  have taught i t to many people.  I have found that I can help people  l e a r n t h i s task by changing the length o f these red and white l i g h t s  13  i n a c e r t a i n way.  Now  I ' l l explain the task to you, but before we  go  on, do you have any questions so f a r ? "  In Group I I (low-expert) one S taught another S the mental maze,  A c o i n was tossed to assign the Ss to e i t h e r the teacher or the  student r o l e .  Instructions were worded more or l e s s l i k e the followingt  "This i s a learning experiment and one of you w i l l have to teach the other person.  In t h i s study I am interested i n f i n d i n g out how  effective  behaviour modification techniques are i n helping people to l e a r n .  (At  t h i s point Ss received an explanation about behaviour modification techniques which was  s i m i l a r to the one given i n Group I ) .  Now,  i n this  study you w i l l have to l e a r n a mental maze and you w i l l use t h i s apparatus here.  Before I go on to explaining the mental maze, do you have  any questions so f a r ? "  Following t h i s introduction the E explained the mental maze to the S.  Instructions f o r the high-expert  "This apparatus here i s c a l l e d a mental maze.  group were as followst  This mental maze has  ten positionsf these are the positions you have to keep i n your mind and that's why  i t i s c a l l e d a mental maze.  Each of these 10 positions  contains one of these k numbers which you can see above the For example, the f i r s t p o s i t i o n could contain #3,  switches.  the second p o s i t i o n  #1, the t h i r d p o s i t i o n #4 and so on (The E drew a diagram to explain the mental maze).  I have made up a sequence s i m i l a r to t h i s one  I  and  14  your task i s to f i n d out which number goes i n each position. t h i s by pressing any of these 4 switches. switch.  You do  Ok, now you pressed that  Let's suppose i t was the wrong number.  In t h i s case I give  you a red l i g h t , the red l i g h t means that your response was wrong. Now  t r y the number f o r the second position.  l e t ' s assume that i t was correct.  You pressed that number,  Now you get a white l i g h t , t h i s  means you made the r i g h t response and i t ' s l i k e a symbolic reward. Now you know that t h i s number i s i n the second p o s i t i o n , and whenever you come to the second p o s i t i o n you w i l l press that switch. on doing t h i s f o r each of the 10 positions and we w i l l go  You go  through  the same sequence 12 times or u n t i l you have learned i t , whichever comes f i r s t .  At f i r s t you w i l l be guessing, but the second time  through you have to t r y and remember which number belongs to each position.  Do you have any questions?"  For Group I I the i n s t r u c t i o n s were the same as f o r Group I, with the exception of the directions which were given to the teacher-S. "Your task i s to l e t him/her know whether he/she made a c o r r e c t or i n c o r r e c t choice.  These switches here w i l l turn the red l i g h t s on  and these the white l i g h t s . l i g h t 8 to help him/her l e a r n .  I want you to vary the length of these Just use your i n t u i t i o n and keep the  l i g h t s on longer or shorter i n a way than you think w i l l help him/her learn.  Here i s the l i s t of numbers which he/she has to l e a r n and  15 you just make a mark on the sheet which t e l l s i f the response r i g h t or wrong.  was  Do you have any questions?"  Base-rate measurementt  Following the i n s t r u c t i o n s about  the mental maze a l l student-Ss participated i n short t e s t of "memory f o r numbers".  This t e s t was supposed to give the E a base rate from  which she could evaluate the S's improvement.  The i n s t r u c t i o n s were  approximately as followst "Before we go ahead with the learning task we need to know how good you are a t remembering numbers, so that we can see how much you have improved on the mental maze.  We w i l l do the following, I w i l l present  to you a sequence of 15 d i g i t s containing the numbers from 1 to 4, over the white l i g h t s on the panel of the mental maze.  I want you  to watch very c a r e f u l l y and a f t e r I have presented the 15 numbers you have fco t r y and reproduce the sequence as w e l l as you can using these switches.  You probably won't remember a l l the numbers the f i r s t  time around, but Just t r y your best.  Then I ' l l present the sequence  to you again and y o u ' l l have to reproduce i t again with the switches. A f t e r the second t r i a l I w i l l count how many numbers you got correct and t h i s w i l l give us the base-rate.  Do you have any questions before  we begin?" A f t e r the i n s t r u c t i o n s the E presented the 15 d i g i t s a t the rate of one number per second.  A f t e r the second presentation E  16 counted how many correct choices the S had made and rated h i s performance on a seven point scale.  A l l Ss were t o l d that compared to  a group of people who done t h i s t e s t , t h e i r performance was below average.  The E presented the S with a seven point scale printed on  a sheet of paper and saldt " I f we were to grade your performance on t h i s seven point scale where "1" i s poor, "4" i s average and "7" i s excellent! compared to a group of people who have done t h i s task your performance was below average and i t would be about a "2". The E made a cross on #2 of the scale, and then she b r i e f l y explained the mental maze again* "Now  I w i l l teach you the mental maze.  Remember, the mental maze has  10 positions and each position has one of the numbers from 1 to k, A red l i g h t means you made a mistake, a white l i g h t means that you were r i g h t .  I w i l l change the length of the l i g h t s to help you l e a r n  (Group I ) .  You change the l i g h t s to t r y and help him/her l e a r n (Group  II)". The student S was taught the task by the E (Group I) or by the teacher-^ (Group I I ) ,  The sequence of correct numbers was  determined In a random manner but was held constant over t r i a l s and f o r a l l Ss.  A l l Ss understood the nature of the task and were able  to get a t l e a s t 6 correct answers on the 12th t r i a l .  17 Feed-back on Performance}  A f t e r completion of the learning  task a l l Ss were t o l d that t h e i r performance was above average.  They  were presented with a 7 point scale and t h e i r performance was rated at number 6.  A t t r i b u t i o n of success»  Following the feed-back on per-  formance h a l f of the Ss i n each group answered a questionnaire i n which they had to rate statements on a 7 point scale as to how much they f e l t that reason explained t h e i r performance on the mental maze.  The  statements represented d i f f e r e n t explanations which could have accounted for t h e i r successful performance on the mental maze.  They made reference  to personal and external causation as w e l l as to chance elements and past experience.  The questionnaire also contained other questions to  investigate the S's perception of the teacher and of the experiment (See Questionnaire, Appendix I I ) .  Prediction of successi I and Group I I who  The remaining 15 Ss i n eaoh Group  d i d not answer the a t t r i b u t i o n questionnaire were  t o l d that they would have to p a r t i c i p a t e i n one more short learning task, which was described to them i n the following way i "Now  you w i l l have to p a r t i c i p a t e i n one more short learning task  which depends on the same a b i l i t i e s which you applied i n learning the mental maze.  I t i s more or l e s s described on t h i s sheet here.  Xou  see, here at the top we have the positions again, but now we have 9  18 instead of 10,  Each of these positions has a d i f f e r e n t symbol instead  of a number as before,  Down here we have the numbers from 1 to 9 again,  but the symbols are missing. belong to each number.  You have to f i l l i n the symbols which  I w i l l give you 30 seconds to study the numbers  and the symbols and then I w i l l give you 90 seconds to f i l l i n the symbols.  F i l l them i n , i n the given order, don't skip any numbers.  You w i l l be able to look a t the top row w h i l s t you are working, but because t h i s i s a speed t e s t , the more symbols you remember the l e s s you have to look up and the b e t t e r you w i l l do.  Do you have any ques-  tions about t h i s task?"  Following these i n s t r u c t i o n s Ss were handed a sheet of paper with printed i n s t r u c t i o n s and normative data f o r the learning task.  The i n s t r u c t i o n s were as followsi  "The scale at the bottom of t h i s sheet gives you some idea of  how  many symbols have to be f i l l e d i n to obtain an average score, below average score and above average score.  Please examine the scale very  c a r e f u l l y and then make a mark on the 7 point scale according to  how  w e l l you think you w i l l do on t h i s task" (See Appendix I I I ) . A f t e r j> made h i s estimate of how w e l l he thought he would do, he was given 30 seconds to study the numbers and the symbols, Then he was given 90 seconds to work on the task.  Following completion  of the task he was asked to f i l l i n a questionnaire which inquired i n t o h i s perception of the two learning tasks (See Appendix IV).  A l l Ss were debriefed about the study a t the end of the experiment*  Results V e r i f i c a t i o n o f experimental manipulationt  The mean ratings  and S.D. f o r the Ss* expectation o f success on the mental maze i n both experimental groups are presented i n table I . As expected Ss rated the teacher i n the high-expert condition as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more expert than they rated the teacher i n the low-expert group (t»9.37» d.f.= 28 p<.005).  In addition, Ss i n both high and low-expert groups  expected t o perform below average on the mental maze.  The difference  between the average expectation scores was non-significant, (ts ,103, d.f•= 28) Table I ,  Perceived teacher expertise scores* and expectation about performance on the mental maze f o r high-expert and low-expert conditions.  Low Expert (n=>15)  High Expert (n=15)  How expert d i d the i n s t r u c t o r appear to you?  x 3.2U S.D. 1.32  6,33 0,61  How w e l l d i d you expect to do on the mental maze a f t e r the i n i t i a l test?  x 3.13 S.D. 1.18  3.26 1.27  * where highest r a t i n g ; * 7 A t t r i b u t i o n o f causalityt  The mean ratings and S.D. f o r  the k a t t r i b u t i o n alternatives f o r low and high-expert Ss are presented i n table 2.  I t was hypothesized that Ss i n the low-expert group would  21 a t t r i b u t e success to t h e i r own e f f o r t to a s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater extent than $s i n the high-expert group. no difference between means was tested.  The n u l l hypothesis o f No s i g n i f i c a n t differences  were found between s e l f - a t t r i b u t i o n ratings o f high-expert and lowexpert Ss, (t= .1?,  Table 2.  d,f,« 28, n.s.)  Mean ratings and S.D. o f subject's a t t r i b u t i o n o f success i n low and high-expert conditions.  High-Expert  Low-Expert  1,  I have always been good a t t h i s type o f task.  X S.D.  3.53 1.45  3.73 1.27  2.  I put a l o t o f e f f o r t and concentration i n t o learning the mental maze.  X S.D.  5.3 1.11  5.13 1.06  3.  The i n s t r u c t o r taught me the task very w e l l and timed the reward so that I could l e a r n better.  X S.D.  3.9 1.89  5.8 1.08  4.  I was j u s t lucky to get the r i g h t answer.  x S.D.  3.36 1.54  3.2 1.52  A second hypothesis predicted that the high-expert Ss would rate the teacher's influence on t h e i r successful p e r f o r mance as greater than Ss i n the low-expert group. however, was not confirmed (ts= 1.19,  This hypothesis,  d.f .= 28, n.s.)  22 No s i g n i f i c a n t differences between groups were observed i n the Ss' perception o f chance as cause f o r t h e i r (t= ,101, d.f.= 28,  performance  n,s.)  The difference between groups of Ss' ratings to the statement "I have always been good a t t h i s type of task" was found to be non-significant (t= ,14, d.f, 28,  n.s.)  Expectation of future successt  I t was predicted that  _Ss i n the low-expert condition would expect to perform better on the second task thaft Ss i n the high-expert group.  The mean p r e d i c t i o n  of success scores and the S.D. are presented i n table 3*  The r e s u l t s  d i d not support t h i s prediction. (t= ,1376, d.f.e 28, n.s.). Table 3.  Prediction of success on a second task i n low and high-expert groups.  Low-Expert  Prediction of success  x 4,433 S.D. 0.6629  High-Expert  4.33 0.8193  Discussion  The objective of t h i s study was to examine the student' perception of i n t e r n a l vs. external control o f h i s behaviour and i t r e l a t i o n to self-perception o f a b i l i t i e s i n the teaching s i t u a t i o n . I t was hypothesized that Ss i n the low-expert group would a t t r i b u t e success to t h e i r own e f f o r t to a greater extent than Ss i n the highexpert group, and that high-expert Ss would rate the teacher's i n fluence on t h e i r performance as greater than Ss i n the low-expert group. (Hypothesis I)  In addition i t was predicted that Ss i n the  low-expert condition would expect to perform better on the second task than Ss i n the high-expert group. (Hypothesis II) The r e s u l t s indicate that the experimental manipulation was successful i n producing the desired e f f e c t s on perception of teacher's expertise.  Ss d i d believe that the i n s t r u c t o r i n one  condition was more expert than the i n s t r u c t o r i n the second condition.  In addition, a l l Ss expected to perform below average on  the f i r s t learning task, thus s t a r t i n g with comparable expectation l e v e l s about success.  The two hypotheses, however, were not supported by the data.  The d i f f e r e n t i a l perception of teacher's expertise d i d not  r e s u l t i n the predicted differences i n the student's perception o f causes f o r t h e i r performance.  Ss i n the high-expert condition d i d  2k  not rate tho teacher's contribution AO more important than Sa I n the low-expert group.  In addition no differences i n attribution to s e l f tiara  observed between both groups. ¥ith regard to tha second hypothesis i t was found that tha Sa perception of t h e i r own a b i l i t y d i d not d i f f e r 1  s i g n i f i c a n t l y from tha low-expert to the high-expert condition*  Sub-  jects i n both groups tended to converge on the average range of the seven point auceeea-failura rating scale* The lack of support f o r the second hypothesis i s not surprising i n view of i t s being contingent upon the f i r s t hypothesis* I t was expected that Ss would make d i f f e r e n t i a l inferences about t h e i r a b i l i t i e e depending on whether they perceived the cause of t h e i r performance to be internal or external*  However, as no differences i n  attribution were obtained, the basis f o r tha second prediction was absent*  The results suggest that the manipulation of perceived teacher  expertise d i d not d i f f e r e n t i a l l y succeed i n changing the Ss* perception of t h e i r own a b i l i t i e s .  I t was also observed that Ss tended to Interpret  the request to estimate their future success i n different ways* Most of them seemed to be reluctant to evaluate themselves*  I t also was  observed that Ss interpreted the request i n a more general sense, as i f they ware aaked "How i n t e l l i g e n t do you think you are?" (Sows comments made by Ss which i l l u s t r a t e t h i s point were, f o r examplet "1 have alwaya been an average etudent, ao I guess, I ' l l be average**t  "Do you want to  know i f I'm on an ego-trip?"t "Ok, I ' l l be conceited and rate myself  25  above average*") I t i s possible that sons of these d i f f i c u l t ! * ! night have bean reduced i f Ss had been t o l d that the purpose of the estimate was to see how accurately they could predict their sueoese rather than to see how able or i n t e l l i g e n t they thought they vara,  t h i s approach  might be helpful i n self-perception studies which require th« £ to sales an evaluative statement about himself* The f i r s t hypothesis was formulated on the basis of ex» ternal contingency manipulations, i * e * , degree of teacher expertise, but t h i s mnipulation did not succeed i n producing the predicted attributional differences* One of KeHey's (1971) assumptions about attrlbutlen of causality i s f e l t to be related to the f i r s t hypothesis and i t ' s outcome. According to Kelleyt "Attribution processes are to be understood not only as a Keens of providing the i n d i vidual with a v e r i d i c a l view of hie world, but as a raeans f o r encouraging and main* taining h i s effective exerelse of control In that w o r l d , H i s latent goal In gaining knowledge i s that of effective management of himself and bis environment* Be i s not a pare s c i e n t i s t , but an applied one," (p.22) I f one accepts Seller's notion of the person as an applied s c i e n t i s t then the results of the present study could be viewed i n a different light*  I f the individual needs to control his environ*  ssent he needs to leant about i t *  Increasing knowledge and Increasing  s k i l l would widen the Individual's scope of control* In the present  26 study Ss might cot have attributed suoeess to the isanlpulatione of the expert teacher mere than to themselves because this Mould imply that they would lose control i n similar eireumataneee unless the taaoher was present*  However* even though t h i s i s a plausible  explanation i t l a only speculative alnee i t i s not known how iraportent i n terms o f "future control" the learning aituation waa to the Sa* toae, Eierbrauer and Polly (1971) reported findings which might be interpreted i n the l i g h t of the foregoing discussion* They found that tha trend of attributing success to student factors and f a i l u r e to teacher factors waa more pronounced f o r professional teachers than f o r college atudenta*  I t l a possible that the l a t t e r  thought that t h e i r teaching a b i l i t y waa being evaluated by the student's success or f a i l u r e rate and t o l a "apprehenalen might have lead than n  to attribute f a i l u r e to the student to a greater extent than the pre** fessional teacher* did*  This study, however, provides only indirect  aupport f o r the notion that perception of consequences of behaviour could affect a person's attribution,  h study by Walster (1966) provides  more d i r e c t evidence for t h i s proposition*  she found that manipulations  of the perceived consequences of behaviour (serious or minor harm to another) resulted i n d i f f e r e n t i a l perception of the causes of behaviour (criminal negligence va* forgivable thoughtlessness). deleter's study however, dealt with observer's attribution of causality*  I t would be  27  interesting to examine these attributional differences from the as tor'a point of view* the foregoing discussion suggests that the analysis of the attribution process i s sore complex i n a situation of s o c i a l i n t e r action than i n a setting where as individual responds t o non-personal* environmental forces* as f o r example, i n the Davison and valina (19^9) study*  In t h i s l a t t e r situation the temporal sequence between cause  and effect was presented i n  a  f a i r l y clear out Banner*  Ss ingested  a drug and subsequently observed an increase i n shook tolerance*  It  was f a i r l y easy for Ss to attribute behaviour change to the immediately preceding event* i«e*. Ingestion of a drug*  %he temporal cause-effect  sequence i n the learning situation* however* Is not that easily identifiable*  The student does observe a change i n performance but t h i s  eheage Is gradual* I t can be viewed as the end result of an ongoing give and take between teacher and student*  In this type of interaction  the student can view h l s s e l f as being influenced by the teacher* but he also sees himself responding* which i n turn e l i c i t s a new response l a the teacher* f a such an interaction situation where the cause and effect relationship Is ambiguous, attributions might be particularly susceptible to Influences by motivational factors etieh i n the same way that per* eeption ef ambiguous stimuli i s susceptible to Ss* motives* expectations*  28  etc. (Sruner end Goodman, 19 *?* 4  Hastorf end C a n t r i l , 195**). However,  very l i t t l e attention has been paid to motivational faetora i n the attribution l i t e r a t u r e *  Jones and liiabett (1971) i n t h e i r paper on  d i f f e r e n t i a l actor-observer attribution processes b r i e f l y mention the role of motivational faetora, but tend to emphaaiee the role of cogn i t i v e factors. They statei "We have emphasised -perhaps ©veremphasisedthe role o f cognitive and perceptual faetora i n developing our major theme* We have a r gued that both actors and observers are concerned with processing useful information and auggested that action cues and situation cues are u t i l i z e d d i f f e r e n t i a l l y by them* We would now l i k e to acknowledge that motivational factors may often serve to exaggerate i the broad tendencies that we t r i e d to describe* At the same time, however, we would also l i k e to express the opinion that motivational faetora my often Bute those tendencies"* (pp. 14-15) Contrary to Jones and l i s b e t t ' s opinion the present study suggests that i t might be perhaps simple minded to consider attribution primarily a cognitive matter*  I t i s f e l t that i n conditions where  the temporal cause-effect relationships are more ambiguous, the purely l o g i c a l inferencea could be more eaelly affected by motivational aspects. For example, I f one considers a situation o f group decision making, i t would be interesting to examine the participant's perception o f their own contribution toward the f i n a l decision i f the outcome i s positive or negative*  I t I s possible that a person would tend t o blame a poor  29  outcoas on other group washers, while taking personal credit f o r e good outcome. One point of theoreticel relevance was raised by t h i s study and i t refers to the questioni "Do people attempt to explain t h e i r behaviour?" In the present study Ss were asked i f they had attempted to explain their successful performance, and 1? out c f 30 Ss answered "no*.  This finding subsets that individuals do  not always search f o r explanations c f t h e i r behaviour, or at l e a s t they ar© not aware of i t .  I t also questions the v a l i d i t y of inferring  sssdiating attributions rather than treasuring them e x p l i c i t l y .  Keay  studies reported i n the attribution l i t e r a t u r e ere primarily concerned with other dependent variables, end only incidentally with attributions (Stoma and Blsbett 1970, Davison and Valine 19&8, Festinger and Carlsmith 1956, Bo«art, Loeb and Rutman 19&9)» I f the finding of the present study holds f o r other situations i t seems necessary to c o l l e c t e x p l i c i t information about attributions.  Other-  wise i t i s possible that a process ether than attributions might have been responsible f o r the changes i n the dependent variable.  The  method f o r collecting e x p l i c i t attribution data used In t h i s study wss found to be valuable.  By collecting attribution data from one  group of Ss and self-perception information from another group, one avoids the problem of sensitising tbe l a t t e r group to the hypothesis of the experiment.  3§ I t also nightfeeuseful to identify th# conditions i n which individuals w i l l seek to explain t h e i r behaviour*  One possi-  b i l i t y i s that people are more l i k e l y to search f o r reasons f o r t h e i r behaviour i f the event i s unusual and does not f i t into the general pattern of behaviour*  I f one applies t h i s notion to the results of  t h i s experiment, i t i s possible that some Ss d i d not attempt t e exp l a i n t h e i r performance beoauee suecsss i n a learning experience did not constitute an unusual event f o r them* t h i s explanation, however* i s purely speculative since the Ss were not grouped into different l e v e l s of past academic achievement, which could have given some indication about the Ss' paat pattern of success, A more direct way of teetlng f o r t h i s notion could be carried out by manipulating the frequency of occurrence o f a certain event. For example, a group of i s could be taught a certain task and a f t e r the i n i t i a l learning period a l l Ss would receive f a i r l y consistont feed-back of success* In the second stage, half o f the 5 s would s h i f t to s f a i l u r e pattern and the other half would continue with success feed-back*  Following  t h i s experience a measure could be taken of the extent t o which Ss had attempted to explain t h e i r performance*  I would be predicted  that more Ss i n the f i r s t than i n the second condition would answer the question affirmatively. In conclusion, the present study was designed to examine attributions! processes from the student's point o f view i n the student-  31 teacher interaction*  the predicted attributions! and self-par-  caption differences wore not obtained, but several points of methodological and theoretical natura vara raised which could suggest possible future avenues of research i n the area of a t t r i bution i n social interaction* Pr©eeduree\*were suggested which could be used to collect explicit attribution and evaluative selfperception data*  The importance of including motivational aspects  i n the analysis of the attribution processes was discussed*  In  addition, the desirability of obtaining explicit information about $s* attributions, rather than inferring them, was pointed out*  Bandler, R.J., Kadera, G.R.,ftBen, D.J, self-observation as a source o f pain perception. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology. 19&8, £, 205-209, Bess, D.J, An axperlsantal analysis of self-persuasion. Joarnal of fxpcrlaantal Soeial Psychology. 196?, 70?-?10. Bea, D.J. S e l f •perception theory, i n L, Berkowits (ed,) Advances In axpeylgental Social .Psyeholoy, v o l , 6, Eew Yorki Aeademlo Press, 1972, Bogart, Km Loeb, A,» & Ratea**, 2,D. Behavioural consequences o f cognitive dissonance. Paper presented et Eastern Psychological Association t&eetlsg, 19&9* Brehis, J,&», & Cohen, B , a , Emigrations In cognitive dissonance. Hew l o r k j wlley, 19&2* Brock, T,C, Cognitive re-structuring and attitude change, Journal of Abnormal s o c i a l Psychology. 1962, 6f», 264-271, Bruner, J.S,, & Goodraan, C,C, 7eluec.rand need as organising factors In perception, Joarnal c f Abnortsal and Social Psychology. 19$?, Davison, G.C, and Valine, S. Maintenance o f self-attributed and drug-attributed behavicttr change, Joarnal of Personality and Social PsvchelCCT. 19&9» 11, 25*33* Festinger, L«« & Carlss&th, J«K« Cognitive consequences o f forced eoapllanes. Journal c f Abnormal and s o c i a l Psychology, 1959, 2-3-210, Hastorf, A., & C a n t r l l , H, They saw a gaaet A ease study, of Abnoraal and Social.Psychology. 195^» ^ 2 , 129-13**, Selder, P. ffee peycholoy c f Interpersonal relations. Wiley, 1958.  Journal  )4ew fork*  Jones, S«S, & Mabetfc, R,S. The actor and the cbservert Divargent l»rceptlcii8 c f the causes of behamcnr* New YorbtOenaral Learning Press, 1971*  Kelley, B*S* Attribution theory l a social psychology* l a B. Levine (ed,) Nebraska eyysl«m on motivation. lf6>, Unoolm University of Nebraska Press, 196?, pp. 192*233* Kelley, S*H, Attribution In social interaction. General Learning Frees, 1971*  Eew f o r k i  Lykken* S*T*A* A study of anxiety In the soeiopathle personality* Journal o f Abnormal and Social Psychology* 1957* Jg^t 6*10* Kisbstt, E*F*« & Valins, 8* PereelvinK the causes of one's own behaviour, Hew Xorfct General Learning Press* 1971* Ross* L*» Bierbrauer, G.A. and Polly, S* The attribution o f success and f a i l u r e I n student-teacher Interaction* Unpublished manuscript* Stanford University* 1971* Sohopler, J H Leyton, B« Determinate of the s e l f attribution of having Influenced another person* Journal o f personality and Social Psychology. 1972* 22, 326*332* . M  Stores, M.D* * & Kisbett, R*E* Xnscmnia and the attribution process* Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1970. li» 3319*328* ' Halster* E* Assignment c f responsibility f o r an accident* •Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology* 19&6* 2* 72*79.  APPENDIX I W I S C  R E C O R D  F O R M  _SEX  _AGE_  NAME_  34  Raw  Scaled  Score  Score  VERBAL TESTS  ADDRESS-  Information PARENT'S N A M E _  Comprehension Arithmetic  _GRADE_  SCHOOL  Similarities REFERRED BY_  Vocabulary (Digit Span) Sum of Verbal Tests Scaled Score  Year Month Day Date Tested  Verbal Scale  Date of Birth  Performance Scale  Age  Full Scale  IQ  *  *Prorated if necessary  PERFORMANCE TESTS Picture Completion Picture Arrangement Block Design Object Assembly  .  Coding (Mazes) Sum of Performance Tests  NOTES  Examiner  C o p y r i g h t 1949 by The P s y c h o l o g i c a l  Corporation.  All r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . No p a r t of t h i s r e c o r d f o r m may be r e p r o d u c e d in any f o r m of p r i n t i n g or by any o t h e r m e a n s , e l e c t r o n i c or m e c h a n i c a l , i n c l u d i n g , b u t not l i m i t e d t o , p h o t o c o p y i n g , a u d i o v i s u a l r e c o r d i n g and t r a n s m i s s i o n , and p o r t r a y a l or d u p l i c a t i o n in any i n f o r m a t i o n s t o r a g e a n d r e t r i e v a l s y s t e m , w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n in w r i t i n g f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r . See C a t a l o g f o r f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n .  Printed in U. S . A.  The Psychological Corporation,  70-260 A S  1.  Score 1 o rO  Score 1 o rO  Score 1 o rO  INFORMATION  1. Ears  11. Season—Year  2 1 . Pounds—Ton  2. Finger  12. C o l o r — R u b i e s  22. C a p i t a l — G r e e c e  3. Legs  13. S u n — S e t  23. Turpentine  4. A n i m a l — M i l k  14. Stomach  24. New Y o r k — C h i c a g o  5. W a t e r — B o i l  15. O i l — F l o a t  25. Labor Day  6. S t o r e — S u g a r  16. R o m e o — J u l i e t  26. South Pole  7. Pennies  17. F o u r t h — J u l y  27. Barometer  8. D a y s — W e e k  18. C . O . D .  28. Hieroglyphic  9. Discoverer—America  19. A m e r i c a n — M a n  29. Genghis Khan  20. Chile  30. Lien  10. Things—Dozen  2.  Score or 0  COMPREHENSION  2, 1  1. C u t — F i n g e r 2. Lose—Balls (Dolls) 3.  ARITHMETIC  3. L o a f — B r e a d  Problem 4. Fight  1. 4 5 " 2. 4 5 "  5. T r a i n — T r a c k  3. 4 5 " 6. House—Brick  4. 3 0 "  7. Criminals 8. W o m e n — C h i l d r e n 9. Bills—Check 10. C h a r i t y — B e g g a r 11.  5.  30"  6.  30"  7.  30"  8.  30"  9.  30"  10.  30"  11. 3 0 "  Government—Examinations  12. 6 0 " 12. C o t t o n — F i b e r  13.  30"  14. 6 0 "  13. Senators  15. 120" 16. 120"  14. Promise—Kept  2  core Response Time S 1 o rO  4.  SIMILARITIES  SUPPLEMENTARY TESTS  Score  DIGIT SPAN  1. L e m o n s — S u g a r  3. B o y s — G i r l s  4. K n i f e — G l a s s  5. Plum—Peach  6. C a t — M o u s e  Score 2, 1 o r0  Score (Circle)  VOCABULARY  2. Knife 3. H a t  3-8-6 6-1-2  3 3  2-5 6-3  2 2  3-4-1-7 6-1-5-8  4 4  5-7-4 2-5-9  3 3  8-4-2-3-9 5-2-1-8-6  5 5  7- 2 - 9 - 6 8- 4 - 9 - 3  4 4  6. Cushion  3-8-9-1-7-4 7-9-6-4-8-3  6 6  4-1-3-5-7 9-7-8-5-2  5  5  7. Nail  5-1-7-4-2-3- 8 9-8-5-2-1-6- 3  7 7  1-6-5-2-9-8 3-6-7-1-9-4  6 6  1 - 6 - 4 - 5 - 9 - 7 - 6-3 2- 9 - 7 - 6 - 3 - 1 - 5 - 4  8 8  8-5-9-2-3-4- 2 4-5-7-9-2-8- 1  7 7  10. Diamond  5-3-8-7-1-2- 4-6-9 4-2-6-9-1-7- 8-3-5  9 9  6 - 9 - 1 - 6 - 3 - 2 - 5-8 3 - 1 - 7 - 9 - 5 - 4 - 8-2  8 8  12. Spade  7. B e e r — W i n e  5.  1. Bicycle  Score (Circle) Digits Backward  Digits Forward 2. W a l k — T h r o w  Score 2or0  1 orO  F  + B  =  Highest numbers circled  4. Letter 5. Umbrella  Score or 0  2, 1  8. Donkey 9. Fur  11. Join  13. Sword 14. Nuisance 15. Brave 16. Nonsense  8. P i a n o — V i o l i n MAZES  9.  Paper—Coal  10. P o u n d — Y a r d  11. Scissors—Copper Pan  Max. Maze Errors  Errors  17. H e r o  Score  18. G a m b l e  A. 30"  2  01 2  19. Nitroglycerine  B. 3 0 "  2  01 2  20. Microscope  C. 30"  2  01 2  2 1 . Shilling  1. 3 0 "  3  0 12 3  22. Fable  2. 4 5 "  3  0 12 3  23. Belfry  3. 6 0 "  5  0 12 3  4. 120"  6  0 12 3  5. 120"  8  0 12 3  12. M o u n t a i n — L a k e  24. Espionage 25. Stanza 26. Seclude 27. Spangle 28. H a r a - K i r i  13. S a l t — W a t e r  Notes:  29. Recede 30. Affliction 3 1 . Ballast  14. L i b e r t y — J u s t i c e  32. C a t a c o m b 33. Imminent 34. Mantis  15. First—Last  35. Vesper 36. Aseptic 37. Chattel  16. 4 9 — 1 2 1  38. Dilatory 39. Flout 40. Traduce  4  6.  7.  PICTURE C O M P L E T I O N  PICTURE A R R A N G E M E N T 3 M O O S  T i m e  A r r a n g e m e n t  1. C o m b  A . Dog  75"  2. Table B. Mother  3. Fox  Order  1 2  6. Door  0  60"  D. Scale  A2 BC  1  2  OYT  TOY  1  2  V  7. H a n d (Fight)  8. C a r d 9. Scissors  1.  10. C o a t  Fire  11-IS  45"  2. 3. 4.  15. Profile  Picnic  16. Thermometer 17. H a t  6  5  7.  Rain  M EAR R A STSETM  9. BLOCK DESIGN  Design  Pass-Fail  Object Score  0  12  3  4  5  1  B. 4 5 ' 0  1  0  1  C. 4 5 "  I Io r s e -L  a c e  A.  uto  4  5  180  0 1 2 3  0  4  5  217 - 5 162 - 0 111 .5  2. 7 5 " 0  4  5  6  267 - 5 212 . 5 162 -0  3. 7 5 '  4  5  6  217 - 5 162 - 0 111 -5  4. 7 5 " 0  4  5  6  661 - 50 466 - 5 364 -5  5. 150" 0  4  5  811 - 50 668 -0 4  5  6  66 -5 6  911 - 50 669 - 0 566 -5 4  5  6  5  0 1 2 3  4  5  o  o  •  V •  •  •  V  •  |V  o o  31dkNVS U-s)  HO # V © &  6  11 -0  v ONiaoo  6  7  8  9  6  7  8  9  6  7  8  8  )  7  461 - 80 314 - 5 263 - 0 12 -5  180"  6  4  V  ( 8 1 5 )  711 - 80 467 - 0 364 - 5 13 -5  21 -75 162 - 0 111 -5  1. 75"  0 1 2 3  • V V •  o  •  1 1 -5  311 - 80 213 - 0 162 - 0 11 -5  180"  o  •  V  CODING B  211 - 20 162 - 0 111 -5  anikin -LVJL 1 2 0 "  •  V  7J  Score  A. 4 5 " 0  6  OBJECT ASSEMBLY  T i m e  o  21 3 -E0R OR 162 -0 1 -5 FIS H S1HER71 5 6F 1  0 2  75"  o  7 I  213 - 0 162 -0  Gardener 7 5 "  19. Cow 20. House  15 -  1E6F2 -G0H OR 111 -E5FHG I'lO  Sleeper 6 0 "  6.  o  7 1  6  5  18. Umbrella  7 |  RT 1Q 1R 1 -S 5T OR 61 -SO 0  45'  I  15 -  6  5 5.  15 7  61 -0  5  14. Rooster  7 1  6  111 -5  Farmer 4 5 "  15 -  6-IO  5  13. Fly  7. 150"  6  111 -3  Burglar 4 5 "  12. Screw  6. 150"  61 -0  5  11. Fish  ( . . 0 3 1 )  • V  R I ON  IR ON 2 AB C  0  45"  1  ABC  0  75"  C . Train  5. C a t  Score 0  4. Girl  8.  iHOIa " O N  _  Score 1 orO  (  SAMPLE  2 14 6 3 5 2 13 4 2 1 3 1 2 3 14 2 6 3 1 2 5 1  9  3 1 5 4 2 7 4 6 9 2 5 8 4 7 6 18 7 5 4 8 6 9 4 3  11 -0 7  Notes:  11 -0 7  11 -5 7  •  1 8 2 9 7 6 2 5 4 7 3 6 8 5 9 4 1 6 8 9 3 7 5 14  11 -0 7  9 1 5 8 7 6 9 7 8 2 4 8 3 5 6 7 19 4 3 6 2 7 9 3  13 -5 7  15 -5 7  15 -5  T I M E ( 1 2 0 " )  7 5  SCORE (NO. RIGHT)-  1«  Hsieh are the raaeona that you could give ihat explain your performance es the cental ssase* Imp!*!* briefly*  Tha following atatameBts represent various reasons which could have caused you* perforawsee on the mental aaae*  Please read eaoh  statement carefully and mftlfe a aark on the seven paint scale beside eaeh one of the* as to how much you feel that particular reason i s applicable* !• * I have always bees good at this type of task* / definitely yea 2* » 1 put a lot of effort and concentration into learning the  / definitely yes %  * the Instructor taught se the task very well and timed the reward s o that 1 could learn better*  ne  / definitely yes  just lucky to get the right answer* / definitely 3»s  1, - Had you attempted to find reasons for your i s p s w e s a n t on the- nantol ESS© boforo yo« vore e x p l i c i t l y asked about i t ? Yes  Lo  2» - On the following sovsa point seal© f a t o , how export the i n s t r u c t o r appeared to fe© to you.  1*•««2,,3**«•&,••«5*#••&«•*»7 not expert  a-swrage  highly export  3* - \Tow t«ell d i d you expect t o do on tho r e n t a l case a f t e r the i n i t i a l test?  1»»»«2«»««3, •••-•**»»«5«»»» ^««»«7 i  jsoorly  avprarj©  - aid you f e s l that tho h&m  ©seollent  rat® tssasurersont «as an adequate  r e f l e c t i o n o f your a b i l i t y to porfora on the mental »ase at teat tie®? 'iee  «©  5» * I f your ansaor was •»no t e tfco provlous question, stato why w  you thought that your jperforoanee on ts© base rate a©asxis*oc©at d i d not j*ofleet your actual a b i l i t y a t that tisao. 6, * Did you thick that tho behaviour n c d l f i e a t l c n tsehnio;uas used by the i n s t r u c t o r tier© i n largo part responsible f o r your isnprov©s»nt?  It you answered "yes" to the previous question, d© you feel that you have learned the ssase and that you are now able to do well on your own on the cental snase?  les  So  AFFB8SDE XXt Po0t-Sxperlra»nt«l Questionnaire Bid you think thai this lust task required stellar s k i l l s to those needed to pbtiem on the E*»tal isaae? les  Be  Did yea feel that yea had cade a noticeable improvement m the cental Ease  after  the Instruction? les  Ke-  en th» following scale raark how such you feel you improved on the senta! ssase*.  K© laqsroveaent  Excellent iBsproveesnt  So you have any other eoEsents about the experiment l a general? I f so, please explain briefly.  39  The following scale shove you tho approximate nusfcer of symbols which have to bo eonpleted to obtain sad average score*  I t also  shews you the sores for above average end below average perfortaar.ee* lising these norms as a frane o f reference* sake a eark on the seven point scale which Indicates hew well you think you will do* excellent  ®2-$0  wry good  71-82  above average  61-71  average  *»7*£l  belew average  3*»-3o  deffielent  17-23  poor  0-23  1****2*«**3»*«**>«***5****&**»«7 poor average excellent  

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.831.1-0101359/manifest

Comment

Related Items