UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Social facilitation through a one-way screen Criddle, William David 1969

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1969_A8 C75.pdf [ 3.67MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104048.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104048-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104048-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104048-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104048-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104048-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104048-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104048-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104048.ris

Full Text

SOCIAL  FACILITATION  THROUGH  WILLIAM B.S.,  A  THESIS THE  DAVID  University  SUBMITTED  ONE  IN  PARTIAL FOR  MASTER  OF  - WAY  SCREEN  CRIDDLE  o f Washington,  REQUIREMENTS  in  A  THE  1967  FULFILMENT DEGREE  OF  ARTS  t h e Department of Psychology  We  accept  required  THE  this  thesis  as conforming  to the  standard  UNIVERSITY  OF  September,  BRITISH 1969  COLUMBIA  OF  In p r e s e n t i n g an the  thesis  advanced degree at Library  I further for  this  shall  the  agree that  his  permission  of  this  written  representatives. thes.is f o r  be  British  available for for extensive  g r a n t e d by  the  It i s understood  financial  gain  permission.  Department 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  f u l f i l m e n t of  U n i v e r s i t y of  make i t f r e e l y  s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may  by  in p a r t i a l  Columbia  shall  requirements  Columbia,  Head o f my  be  I agree  r e f e r e n c e and c o p y i n g of  that  not  the  that  Study.  this  thesis  Department  c o p y i n g or  for  or  publication  allowed without  my  Abstract  The one-way  study  screen  examines  on i n d i v i d u a l s '  non-competitive design  the effects  associates.  with  different  subjects  experimental  with  male  groups.  business  The  a n d was r e p e a t e d  of  Columbia.  Scale  were  behind  one-way  more  a  Scale  were  screen  also  mental males ly  1969).  task  and the  when  were  found  showed  made  observed  Implications  Scale  t o t h e number  experimental  approached  Scale  groups  the  that  t h e male  significance  scores  significantly as opposed  f o r further research  l i s t  to  the  females.  on t h e e x p e r i f o r either  were  significant-  o f e r r o r s made  f o rthe  from  f o rthe  scores  were  :  but the overall  performances  Anxiety  o f  Suspiciousness  significant  between  Suspiciousness  and n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d the four  was  out  a t the University  administered  t h e females  l i s t  interaction  and the Manifest  relationship  carried  a f f e c t e d by o b s e r v a t i o n  but that  o f the  a t the University  nurses  The r e s u l t s  and  between-groups  i n i t i a l l y  n o t a f f e c t e d by- o b s e r v a t i o n ,  o r females.  males when  A  I n learning the non-competitive  observation-by-list relationships  student  1953)  not significantly  when n o t observed.  No  (Taylor,  e r r o r s on t h e c o m p e t i t i v e  females  was  .All subjects were  (Endicott et a l . ,  subjects  with  v i a a  s e r v i n g i n each  administration students  Washington  Anxiety  study  observed  to learn competitive  o f paired  four  Manifest  a b i l i t y  l i s t s  was used,  B r i t i s h  o f being  combined; females.  are discussed.  by t h e this  iii  TABLE  OP  CONTENTS  Chapter  I  II  III  IV  V  Page  REVIEW  OP ' THE  RATIONALE AND PRESENT STUDY  LITERATURE  HYPOTHESES  1  OP  THE  12  METHOD  16  RESULTS  23  DISCUSSION  37  BIBLIOGRAPHY  53  APPENDICES  57  iv  LIST  OP  TABLES  Table I II  III IV  V VI  VII  VIII  IX  X  Page Mean number o f e r r o r s on l a s t Summary errors  o f analyses  two p r a c t i c e  o f variance  Mean number o f e r r o r s on  experimental  Summary o f a n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e males on e x p e r i m e n t a l task Mean  number o f e r r o r s on  Summary females  oh  Multiple-Range data  C o r r e l a t i o n s between Manifest and t o t a l e r r o r s made  task:  24  l i s t  24  males  25  e r r o r s made  experimental  o f analysis o f variance on e x p e r i m e n t a l task  Summary o f D u n c a n experimental task  on p r a c t i c e  t r i a l s  task;  females  o f e r r o r s made  Test  Anxiety  on  by  by  female  Scale  scores  26  26 27  29  30  C o r r e l a t i o n s ( r and rho) between Suspiciousness S c a l e s c o r e s a n d t o t a l e r r o r s made  31  Summary o f mean r e s p o n s e s t o q u e s t i o n s post-experimental questionnaire  32  on  V  LIST  OF  FIGURES  Figure  Page  1  Sequence o f Events Situation  i n the Experimental  2  Graph o f Female Experimental R e s u l t s and Male v e r s u s Female R e s u l t s o n Number o f E r r o r s Made on I n i t i a l 15 T r i a l s  22  28  C H A P T E R REVIEW  OP  I  THE LITERATURE  The presence of others a f f e c t s the behaviour o f i n d i v i d u a l s , and t h i s phenomenon has been c a l l e d " s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n " ( A l l p o r t , 1924)-  The concept o f s o c i a l f a c i l i -  t a t i o n encompasses two d i f f e r e n t types of s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s , the audience s i t u a t i o n and the coaction s i t u a t i o n .  In the coaction  s i t u a t i o n other i n d i v i d u a l s are present behaving  simultaneously  and independently o f the subject, but are p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the same a c t i v i t y ( A l l p o r t , 1924).  In the audience  situation  passive spectators observe the subject ( C o t t r e l l , i n Simmel, 1968).  This study focuses on the audience s i t u a t i o n and a l l  f u r t h e r references to s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n w i l l r e f e r to the audience s i t u a t i o n unless otherwise s p e c i f i e d . S o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n w i t h i n the audience s e t t i n g has been the focus o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l research p e r i o d i c a l l y since 1925 when T r a v i s found that an audience improved the subjects' a b i l i t y to perform a p u r s u i t r o t o r task.  Wapner and Alper  (1952) obtained s i m i l a r r e s u l t s using a choice s i t u a t i o n as the task.  Contrary to these f i n d i n g s , Pessin (1933) found that an  audience impaired the subjects' l e a r n i n g o f nonsense s y l l a b l e s , and Husband (1931) obtained s i m i l a r r e s u l t s w i t h f i n g e r maze learning.  C o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s have alap been obtained from  co-action studies (e.g., A l l p o r t , 1924; Lashre\ll, 1930) .  2  Zajonc  (1965)  formulated a hypothesis based on H u l l -  Spence d r i v e theory to account f o r the apparently c o n t r a d i c t o r y results.  He suggested that the presence of others increases an  i n d i v i d u a l ' s general d r i v e l e v e l , thus enhancing  the most  dominant responses at the expense of l e s s dominant responses. I t f o l l o w s from t h i s hypothesis that behaviours w e l l - l e a r n e d and f a m i l i a r to i n d i v i d u a l s would be enhanced by the presence others.  of  When such behaviours are demanded by a given task, the  i n d i v i d u a l ' s performance would therefore be improved. other hand, i f new,  On the  l e s s f a m i l i a r behaviours were required for  the performance of a given task, f a c i l i t a t e d , dominant behaviours would i n t e r f e r e w i t h these and thus hinder the subjects' performance.  This hypothesis seemed to account f o r the e x i s t i n g  seemingly c o n t r a d i c t o r y r e s u l t s .  Audiences had enhanced  i n d i v i d u a l s ' performances i n such f a m i l i a r and/or h a b i t u a l tasks as l i f t i n g a weight (Meumann, i n Zajonc, task a f t e r extensive t r a i n i n g ( T r a v i s , multiplication (Dashiell,  1930).  1968),  1925),  a pursuit rotor  and simple  Passive spectators have been  found to impair i n d i v i d u a l s ' performances on tasks r e q u i r i n g l e s s f a m i l i a r behaviours and/or responses such as the l e a r n i n g of nonsense s y l l a b l e s ( P e s s i n , 1933) and the l e a r n i n g of a f i n g e r maze (Husband,  1931)-  More r e c e n t l y research has s p e c i f i c a l l y focused on t e s t i n g Zajonc's hypothesis. Sales  (I966).  I t was f i r s t tested by Zajonc and  They used a pseudo-recognition task i n which  subjects were i n s t r u c t e d to guess at the r e c o g n i t i o n of a word supposedly  flashed by a tachistoscope on a screen.  Since on  3 the c r i t i c a l t e s t t r i a l s no word was a c t u a l l y exposed, the subjects' responses were a f u n c t i o n of t h e i r previous d i f f e r e n t i a l t r a i n i n g which had been used to e s t a b l i s h h a b i t s of d i f f e r i n g strengths.  The r e s u l t s obtained were consistent w i t h  Zajonc's  hypothesis; "the p r o b a b i l i t y of dominant responses was  found to  be higher f o r subjects working i n the presence of an audience than f o r those working alone. for subordinate responses"  The opposite r e s u l t was  (Zajonc & Sales, 1966,  observed  p.160).  C o t t r e l l et a l . (1967) tested the same hypothesis using a d i f f e r e n t task which f i t t e d t h e i r s p e c i f i c a l l y stated c r i t e r i a ; "the task must have c l e a r - c u t accuracy c r i t e r i a ; i t must be independently  c l a s s i f i a b l e as e i t h e r having correct responses i n  a p o s i t i o n of dominance or as e l i c i t i n g strong, i n c o r r e c t response tendencies; and i t must have been independently v a l i d a t e d as a behavioural i n d i c a t o r of v a r i a t i o n s i n general d r i v e l e v e l " ( C o t t r e l l , et a l . , 1967, p.426).  The task used was  the l e a r n i n g of competitional and non-competitional l i s t s of paired a s s o c i a t e s that had been developed by Spence et a l . (1956). Spence et a l . had demonstrated that under high d r i v e l e v e l s (as determined by the Manifest Anxiety Scale, h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d to as the MAS)  subjects made more errors on the competitional l i s t s  (where dominant responses were not correct) and fewer errors on the non-competitive  l i s t (where dominant responses were c o r r e c t ) .  Thus the task met a l l three requirements stated above.  of C o t t r e l l e_t a l .  Spence _et a l . had met the c r i t e r i a by examining  the performances of subjects scoring high versus low on the Those scoring high, i n d i c a t i n g a high d r i v e l e v e l , performed  MAS.  4  b e t t e r on the non-competitive l i s t and worse on the competitive l i s t than d i d those subjects scoring low on the MAS -  This  f i n d i n g has been r e p l i c a t e d by others who used the MAS as a measure of d r i v e l e v e l .  I t has also been r e p l i c a t e d using  drugs and e l e c t r i c shock to manipulate d r i v e l e v e l ( C o t t r e l l e_t al.,  1967)•  In the C o t t r e l l e_t a l . study the paired a s s o c i a t e s were presented on a memory drum.  The experimenter was always  present and the audience was introduced as "some people i n t e r e s t e d i n t h i s (experiment)".  They did not obtain the  predicted r e s u l t s w i t h a l l t h e i r subjects; but had to s p l i t t h e i r experimental groups i n t o slow, medium, and f a s t l e a r n e r s . This d e c i s i o n was based on work by Katahn (1966) i n d i c a t i n g that f o r some present-day c o l l e g e students who are e x c e p t i o n a l l y good at paired associate l e a r n i n g , the older competitive l i s t s of Spence _et a l . (1956) are not s u f f i c i e n t l y competitive.  This  d i v i s i o n y i e l d e d s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s , as p r e d i c t e d , f o r slow and medium speed l e a r n e r s .  Under observed conditions these  tended  to do b e t t e r on the non-competitive l i s t and worse on the competitive l i s t than when not observed.  Level of performance  was determined by the number of errors made i n reaching a c r i t e r i o n of two consecutive e r r o r l e s s t r i a l s . C o t t r e l l , Wack, Sekerak, and R i t t l e (1968)  attempted  to r e f i n e Zajonc's o r i g i n a l hypothesis which stated that the "mere presence" of others elevates an i n d i v i d u a l ' s d r i v e l e v e l and thus induces s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n .  They incorporated two  types of observation conditions using the pseudo-recognition  5  task o r i g i n a l l y employed by Zajonc and Sales (1966).  Under one  audience c o n d i t i o n the audience confederates entered as subjects f o r another experiment and obtained permission to watch the experiment i n progress.  Under the a l t e r n a t i v e audience  c o n d i t i o n the confederate subjects were b l i n d f o l d e d on the pretense of having to adapt to dark conditions f o r a subsequent c o l o r - p e r c e p t i o n exiDeriment, "present i n a l l c o n d i t i o n s .  Again the experimenter was They found that the mere presence  of non-observing i n d i v i d u a l s d i d not enhance the emission of dominant responses but that the presence of those who could evaluate the subjects' performances d i d enhance dominant responses.  The r e s u l t s of the mere presence c o n d i t i o n were  very s i m i l a r to those of the alone c o n d i t i o n . C o t t r e l l ( i n Simmel e_t a l . , 1968) explains these r e s u l t s i n terms o f s o c i a l l e a r n i n g theory and c o n d i t i o n i n g . "I b e l i e v e the a d d i t i o n a l process involved (besides the mere presence of others) i s the a n t i c i p a t i o n o f p o s i t i v e or negative outcomes; the presence of others has n o n d i r e c t i v e energizing e f f e c t s upon performance only when t h e i r presence creates a n t i c i p a t i o n of p o s i t i v e or negative outcomes" ( C o t t r e l l , i n Simmel et a l . , 1968, p.103).  He suggests that i n d i v i d u a l s  l e a r n through experience (e.g., i n school, w i t h parents, etc.) that those observing one's performance u s u a l l y express an evaluation of i t .  He hypothesizes further that t h i s a n t i c i -  patory r e a c t i o n to observer evaluation i s established through c l a s s i c a l conditioning.  He supports t h i s suggestion w i t h  evidence from animal research which i n d i c a t e s that s o c i a l  6  f a c i l i t a t i o n of eating responses i s a learned behaviour  (James  and G i l b e r t , 1955; Harlow, 1932; James, I960; a l l i n Simmel et a l . , 1968). adequately  He a l s o points out that h i s explanation f i t s more the f i n d i n g s of D a s h i e l l (1930) that subjects  working under coaction conditions but assured o f no i n t e r personal comparisons of performance did not y i e l d the s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n e f f e c t s found when i n t e r p e r s o n a l competition emphasized.  was  This learned d r i v e hypothesis appears to be the  most parsimonious explanation f o r the phenomenon of s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n at the present  time.  Outside t h i s nucleus of basic studies focusing on s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n by Zajonc and C o t t r e l l and t h e i r colleagues, there are a number of more i s o l a t e d but i n t e r e s t i n g relevant studies.  Wilson (1968) examined the e f f e c t s of observation on  groups w r i t i n g human r e l a t i o n s s t o r i e s .  I t was  found that  under observation (the observer s i t t i n g i n the room w i t h the group) there were higher rates of communication and of "taskoriented i n t e r a c t i o n " than i n the non-observed groups, but that a c t u a l p r o d u c t i v i t y was higher i n the non-observed groups.  If  i t i s assumed that task-oriented responses are most dominant i n such s i t u a t i o n s , t h e i r f a c i l i t a t i o n by an observer f i t s the model suggested by Zajonc (1965) and C o t t r e l l (1968).  Chase  (1967) studied the e f f e c t s of d i r e c t observation on f o u r t h grade boys' performances on the Information, A r i t h m e t i c , and Vocabulary Children.  items of the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale f o r No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between observed and  observed conditions were found.  non-  On these tasks there are both  7  very easy items (non-competitive)  and very hard  items  (competitive) and thus the d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s o f observation could have cancelled each other out. mention t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , but concluded  The author does not that "the presence or  absence o f an i n a c t i v e observer d i d not a f f e c t problem s o l v i n g behaviour  f o r 'normal  1  boys i n a structured t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n "  (Chase, 1967, p.3322). In the studies reviewed up to t h i s point, i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and r e s u l t i n g d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s o f being observed have l a r g e l y been ignored; and the observer(s) has always been p h y s i c a l l y present to the subjects during the observation.  A number of studies have  examined the e f f e c t s o f being observed by i n d i v i d u a l s who are not p h y s i c a l l y present and the d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s o f such observation on i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h varying scores on p e r s o n a l i t y scales.  Ganzer (1968) examined the e f f e c t s o f observation from  behind a one-way screen on the s e r i a l l e a r n i n g o f nonsense s y l l a b l e s by i n d i v i d u a l s as a function o f t h e i r Test Anxiety Scale score ( h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d to as the TAS; Sarason, I960). The performances of subjects w i t h high and middle TAS scores were impaired by observation from behind a one-way screen, the subjects w i t h the high TAS scores being impaired the most. The performance o f the low TAS scorers was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d by such observation.  (The f a c t that the low TAS  scoring subjects d i d best i n a l l conditions suggests that C o t t r e l l (1967) may have unknowingly separated out low-anxious i n d i v i d u a l s v/hen he found that h i s f a c i l i t a t i o n r e s u l t s held  8 only f o r h i s slow and medium learners and not f o r h i s f a s t learners).  Ganzer (1968) explains h i s r e s u l t s i n terms o f a  ". ... habit i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f anxiety ( C h i l d , 1954; Sarason, I960) which states that high and low scorers on anxiety scales d i f f e r i n the kinds o f response tendencies aroused by evaluative or personally threatening s i t u a t i o n s . High scorers respond to threat w i t h h a b i t u a l , personalized responses o f a self-deprecatory, c r i t i c a l nature. These s e l f preoccupations are e s s e n t i a l l y task i r r e l e v a n t and i n t e r f e r e w i t h e f f i c i e n t l e a r n i n g and performance. On the other hand, low scorers do not respond i n t h i s manner and may be expected to react to threat or s t r e s s w i t h increased e f f o r t and a t t e n t i o n " • (pp.197-198).  This hypothesis complements C o t t r e l l ' s  hypothesis i n terms of a n t i c i p a t i o n or threat o f evaluation and social facilitation.  A further i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t of t h i s  study was that the e f f e c t s o f observation were not found when subjects relearned the same m a t e r i a l on a second day. t h i s was due to adaptation to the experimental  Whether  s i t u a t i o n or to  the f a c t that the task was s i g n i f i c a n t l y easier on the second day (the required responses being more dominant) i s not known. However, Ganzer suggests the adaptation i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . two p o s s i b i l i t i e s could be complementary to the change i n dominant responses.  These  i f adaptation was due  Robe (1967) also attempted  to examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t e s t anxiety and the e f f e c t s of being observed but obtained no s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s . Moos (1968) studied the e f f e c t s o f observation v i a a w i r e l e s s radio t r a n s m i t t e r on i n p a t i e n t s ' behaviour i n a h o s p i t a l ward s e t t i n g .  Ke found very minor e f f e c t s but there  was a tendency toward more purposeful and l e s s behaviour when being so observed.  purposeless  Also the r e s u l t s suggested  that observation had the greatest e f f e c t on i n d i v i d u a l s scoring  9 lower  on t h e C o r r e c t i o n  Deviate (Ma)  (Pd),  scales  (Hathaway of  Paranoia  (K) s c a l e (pa),  individual Wapner  differences  ( i . e . subjects  observation  from  employed  Under  behind  so  under  the unseen  The  oriented,  than  and  females  two  a l t e r n a t i v e words  and  observers  that  the task  himself;  The  task  to complete  d i f f i c u l t y  (easy  a  late  be  longest  no  audience,  t r i a l s ) when  intermediate the f i r s t  were  could  the results  between h a l f  was  covered be  these  were  were  was  seen  t h e focus  being  o f choosing The  males  one o f  phrases  discriminations)  time  not visible  f o r the v i s i b l e  o f the  Both  discrimina-  to observation  Decision  task-  emphasiz-  assessed.  phrase.  dark  by t h e  either  and impersonal  o f the experimental  seen  or ego-oriented,  given  two groups.  by  room was  n o t be  and d i f f i c u l t  examined.  the observers  with  times.  could  consisted  and adaptation  o f  room was i l l u m i n a t e d ;  i t s e l f  p e r s o n a l i t y was  time  those  condition the observation the screen  direct  conditions  at a l l  the screen  the observation  participated.  Decision  with  Three  present  orientation (personality oriented  versus  for  screen.  evidence  observed.  the effects o f  see observers)  conditions  behind  the subject's  tions).  i l l u s t r a t e s  to being  compared  could  the subject  that  i n both  this  instructions•to the subjects  ing  varied  Again  one-way  audience  emphasizing  rather  Inventory  observation,  since  the observers  subjects.  Multiphasic Personality  the experimenter  direct  the mirror  that  study  with  a  the non-observation  curtains;  under  behind  Psychopathic Hypomania  i n reactions  (1952)  and Alper  on the  (Sc) , and  1942).  observation  were  Schizophrenia  o f the Minnesota  and McEinley,  and higher  was  (early found  and shortest audience  These session,  results  to with  being held  indicating  only  10  adaption  to the o b s e r v a t i o n  and/or t h a t the i n i t i a l l y  t a s k had  become more h a b i t u a l .  There were no  significant  i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s between the type o f audience and variables.  These r e s u l t s do not o b v i o u s l y  s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n hypothesis.  unfamiliar  f i t the  the  other  Cottrell  However, i f i t i s assumed  t h a t a dominant response f o r c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s i s to stop t h i n k about d e c i s i o n s , then these r e s u l t s do f i t the  and  hypothesis.  A p a r t from the experiments mentioned above, a  few  s t u d i e s have been c a r r i e d out i n p s y c h i a t r i c s e t t i n g s which have examined the e f f e c t s o f b e i n g observed through r e c o r d i n g s f i l m s (Haggard a 1. , 1950;  et a l . , 1965;  Sternberg  Lamb and Mahi, 1956;  e_t a l . , 1958) .  these f i n d i n g s ( C r i d d l e , 1968)  and  R e d l i c h et  An u n p u b l i s h e d summary o f  revealed  t h a t p a t i e n t s are l e s s  d i s t u r b e d than are t h e r a p i s t s by the r e c o r d i n g d e v i c e s .  As  w e l l as being'more d i s t u r b e d themselves, t h e r a p i s t s tend to exaggerate the p a t i e n t s ' a n x i e t y , but t h e r e i s no evidence t h a t the d e v i c e s  d i r e c t l y hinder p a t i e n t - t h e r a p i s t i n t e r a c t i o n .  There i s some evidence t h a t both p a t i e n t s and q u i t e q u i c k l y to such d e v i c e s .  t h e r a p i s t s adapt  However, most o f the above  mentioned s t u d i e s f a l l s h o r t o f s t r i c t e x p e r i m e n t a l  criteria.  Haggard e_fc a l . (1965) used o n l y f o u r s u b j e c t s ( t h r e e e x p e r i m e n t - , a l , one  c o n t r o l ) and  (1950) and  four d i f f e r e n t therapists.'  R e d l i c h et a l .  Lamb and Mahi (1956) p r e s e n t e d no q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a ,  but o n l y s u b j e c t i v e i m p r e s s i o n s  of their subjects.  Sternberg  et a l . (1958) d i d not a c t u a l l y r e c o r d or observe t h e i r but q u e s t i o n e d them about the h y p o t h e t i c a l s i t u a t i o n o f observed.  Only one  study (Haggard et a l . , 1965)  subjects, being  used the  two  11  conditions o f being observed and not being observed f o r comparison.  Thus those who advocate or oppose the use o f  s p e c i f i c types of recording techniques i n p s y c h i a t r i c s e t t i n g s are basing t h e i r bias on assumptions which almost completely lack any w e l l c o n t r o l l e d experimental data f o r support. This concludes a review of the l i t e r a t u r e on the e f f e c t s o f being observed and s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n . i t may have to be i n t e r p r e t e d rather l i b e r a l l y  Although  i n some  instances, Zajonc's Hull-Spence drive hypothesis, further r e f i n e d by C o t t r e l l w i t h h i s a n t i c i p a t e d evaluation hypothesis, accounts f o r most of the experimental r e s u l t s reasonably w e l l .  12 C H A P T E R RATIONALE  AND  HYPOTHESES  II OP  THE PRESENT  STUDY  The primary purpose o f the p r e s e n t study i s t o examine the e f f e c t s on dominant responses o f b e i n g observed one-way s c r e e n .  through a  V/apner and Alp:er (1952) i l l u s t r a t e d  d e c i s i o n time may be l o n g e r when s u b j e c t s a r e observed b e h i n d a one-way s c r e e n than when they a r e d i r e c t l y  that from  observed,  but no a c c u r a c y data were a v a i l a b l e from t h e i r study nor was any attempt made t o study dominant v e r s u s non-dominant r e s p o n s e s . Thus i n t e g r a t i o n o f the r e s u l t s w i t h s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n t h e o r y Ganzer (1968) o b t a i n e d a c c u r a c y d a t a ,  was not r e a d i l y p o s s i b l e . but d i d not e x p l i c i t l y  examine the e f f e c t o f one-way s c r e e n  o b s e r v a t i o n i n l i g h t o f Zajonc's and C o t t r e l l ' s The p r e s e n t study does b o t h .  Thus one secondary  study i s t o determine whether o r not the s o c i a l e f f e c t h o l d s when the audience  purpose o f t h e facilitation  i s not p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t but i s  capable o f o b s e r v i n g the s u b j e c t ' s performance. secondary  hypotheses.  Another  purpose i s t o b e g i n t o e x p l o r e e m p i r i c a l l y t h e  v a l i d i t y o f one assumption  b e h i n d the use o f one-way s c r e e n s :  t h a t t h e i r u s e does not s i g n i f i c a n t l y change the b e h a v i o u r o f the i n d i v i d u a l s observed by t h i s means. The  e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n o f the p r e s e n t study i s v e r y  s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f the C o t t r e l l e t a l . study (1967) where t h e e f f e c t s o f b e i n g d i r e c t l y observed  on the l e a r n i n g o f the  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 l i s t s were examined.  The  same t a s k i s used i n t h i s study because i t meets the t h r e e r e q u i r e m e n t s proposed  by C o t t r e l l (see page 3 ) .  In a d d i t i o n ,  13  the task requires no i n i t i a l t r a i n i n g to e s t a b l i s h dominant and non-dominant responses, and i s r e l a t i v e l y easy to s e l f administer.  The combination  of two types of tasks plus the  two observation c o n d i t i o n s , alone and observed through a oneway  screen, r e s u l t e d i n four separate experimental groups: non-  observed - competitional, observed - competitional, non-observed - non-competitional, and observed - non-competitional.  A basic  change i n procedure from most previous s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n studies i s that i n the present study the non-observed subjects perform completely alone w i t h no experimenter present.  It i s  f e l t that t h i s procedure w i l l y i e l d data l e s s contaminated by the observation done by the experimenter himself.  Of  course,  t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s not completely free from "observation" since the recording of the performance i s a kind of observation.  For  p r a c t i c a l purposes, however, some recording of i n d i v i d u a l s ' performances when alone had to be obtained and the task had to be c a r r i e d out i n the absence of the experimenter.  Such  requirements could best be met by using tape recorders. Previous studies were u s u a l l y c a r r i e d out w i t h subj e c t s of only one sex.  Most of these involved males,  i n c l u d i n g the studies by C o t t r e l l ejb a l . (1967, 1968) Zajonc and Sales (1966).  and  In our s o c i e t y there are s p e c i f i c  expectations based on sex r o l e which would be predicted to operate i n s c c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n studies ( M i s c h e l , 1968; Kagan i n Hoffman and Hoffman, 1964).  Rosenthal  (1966) and Lindzey  Aronson (1968) have presented reviews of e m p i r i c a l evidence suggesting that females are more s u s c e p t i b l e to s o c i a l  and  14  i n f l u e n c e than are males.'  I t was o r i g i n a l l y planned to use  comparable groups of both males and females i n the present study to t e s t the g e n e r a l i t y of these f i n d i n g s to the one-way screen s i t u a t i o n .  Due to p r a c t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , discussed  l a t e r , comparable groups of males and females were not obtained and although sex d i f f e r e n c e s were explored, the comparisons were l e s s r i g o r o u s than o r i g i n a l l y a n t i c i p a t e d . I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s have also been ignored i n most previous s t u d i e s , e s p e c i a l l y i n those focusing d i r e c t l y on social facilitation.  However, i t could be hypothesized that  suspicious i n d i v i d u a l s or i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h paranoid tendencies would be more a f f e c t e d by unseen observers than those not having such tendencies.  Moos (1968, see page 8) found that observ-  a t i o n a f f e c t e d the behaviour of p a t i e n t s who  tended to have  high Paranoia Scale scores on the Minnesota M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory.  To examine the relationship between such  a p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e and s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n , a r e c e n t l y developed Suspiciousness Scale (Endicott et a l . , 1969)  was  administered to a l l subjects and the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e i r scores on t h i s scale and the degree of s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n  was  examined. Ganzer (1968) and Robe (1967) have examined the e f f e c t s of being observed on-subjects scoring high, average, and low on t e s t anxiety, but obtained no c l e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n and anxiety (see pages 7 and 8). Subjects i n the present study were administered the (Taylor, 1953)  MAS  to explore f u r t h e r the anxiety - s o c i a l  15  f a c i l i t a t i o n relationship. The hypotheses of the present study are based on the e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s reviewed a t i o n s discussed above.  in:Chapter I and on the consider-  Three major hypotheses were formu-  lated ; 1. Subjects' dominant responses w i l l be f a c i l i t a t e d , a t the expense o f l e s s dominant responses, under observed conditions compared to non-observed c o n d i t i o n s .  This r e s u l t s i n two  subrhypotheses; (a) Where dominant responses are c o r r e c t , on the non-* competitional l i s t , subjects' performances w i l l be f a c i l i t a t e d by observation. (b) Where dominant responses are not c o r r e c t , on the competitional l i s t , the subjects' performances w i l l be impaired by observation. 2.  Females w i l l be influenced by observation more than males i n the l e a r n i n g o f l i s t s .  3- Subjects' scores on the Suspiciousness Scale and the MAS w i l l be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the degree to which t h e i r performances are a f f e c t e d by observation.  16 C H A P T E R  I I I  METHOD Sub j ects"^ The subjects were 40 male and 63 female undergraduates.  A l l but two of the males were business a d m i n i s t r a -  t i o n majors at the U n i v e r s i t y o f V/ashington, and a l l but two o f these r e c e i v e d as an i n c e n t i v e to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the experiment an e l e v a t i o n o f t h e i r lowest weekly quiz score i n a personnel c l a s s to 100$. their class.  These males were s o l i c i t e d by the professor o f Two o f the business a d m i n i s t r a t i o n students were  volunteers w i t h no stated i n c e n t i v e and two other p a r t i c i p a n t s were from introductory psychology classes where p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l research was mandatory.  They ranged i n age  from 19 to 37 (mean = 23-2; 3D = 3-82) and were a l l t h i r d or f o u r t h year students except f o r the two non-business administra t i o n students who were second year students.  The females  were a l l volunteers from the School o f Nursing at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, a l l but one - a second year student - being f i r s t or t h i r d year students. 25 (mean = 19-3; SD = 1.84).  They ranged i n age from 18 to The females were s o l i c i t e d by  the experimenter who asked f o r volunteers both i n classes and on p s y c h i a t r i c wards where the student nurses were t r a i n e d . They were t o l d that they would receive a summary o f the  The author would l i k e to thank a l l the subjects who p a r t i c i p a t e d as w e l l as Miss Mary L . Richmond, D i r e c t o r of Nursing, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, and Drs. Kent C o l l i n g s and Lance K. Canon, both o f the U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, who made the necessary arrangements i n making the subjects a v a i l a b l e .  17  r e s u l t s and that i t was hoped the r e s u l t s would have, some relevance to procedures used i n the h o s p i t a l . Pour male and three female subjects were discarded for  various reasons.  Two males and one female were discarded  because they d i d not meet the minimum requirement of one correct response on the p r a c t i c e l i s t of paired a s s o c i a t e s . One male was  eliminated due to a complete l a c k of motivation  (he made very few attempts to respond and admitted h i s l a c k of motivation) and one was randomly eliminated for s t a t i s t i c a l purposes ( i . e . to obtain an equal number of subjects i n each group).  One  female was discarded because a jack-hammer next to  the experimental room made such excessive noise during the experimental session that she often could not hear the tape; another was discarded because, rather than l i s t e n i n g on the f i r s t presentation of the l i s t , she guessed w i l d l y and thus had to l i s t e n on the second t r i a l , automatically g i v i n g her twelve more e r r o r s than a l l other subjects. responded i n t h i s manner i t was  Since no other subject f e l t that her performance was  not v a l i d l y comparable to the other subjects' performances. O r i g i n a l l y i t was hoped that comparable samples of males and females could be used i n the study i n order to examine sex d i f f e r e n c e s since the majority of the studies i n the past have used only males or females. unavoidable  Because of  p r a c t i c a l l i m i t a t i o n s set by subject a v a i l a b i l i t y ,  t h i s was not p o s s i b l e .  E s s e n t i a l l y the study was run w i t h  males and then repeated w i t h a non-comparable sample of females.  18  Apparatus and Experimental S e t t i n g The  i n i t i a l part.of  the  study  conducted i n a small experimental  (using  male subjects) was  room i n the b u i l d i n g housing ,  the Psychology Department at the U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington. The one-way screen covered most o f one w a l l and when not i n use was covered w i t h a piece of fiberboard.  The second part o f  the study (using nurses) was c a r r i e d out i n a large room i n the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Faculty o f Medicine H o s p i t a l , a room often used f o r psychological t e s t i n g .  The one-way  screen  again covered most o f a w a l l but i n t h i s room was covered w i t h c u r t a i n s when not i n use.  For both groups two e a s i l y operated  portable tape recorders were used i n the l e a r n i n g o f the paired a s s o c i a t e s , one to present them and one to record the responses of the subjects.  The l i s t s o f paired a s s o c i a t e s , i n c l u d i n g  the p r a c t i c e l i s t , were those developed by Spence et a l . , (1956) 2  described e a r l i e r  (page 3).  The p e r s o n a l i t y scales were the  Manifest Anxiety Scale (Taylor, 1953) and the Suspiciousness Scale (Endicott et a l . , 1969).^ Post-experimental a l l subjects.  4  See ^See 4  See  questionnaires.  questionnaires were administered to  These had three purposes.  P r i m a r i l y they were  Appendix A f o r copy of paired associate l i s t s . Appendix D f o r copy o f p e r s o n a l i t y inventory. Appendix C f o r copy o f  post-experimental  19  an attempt to determine whether or not subjects (both observed and non-observed) f e l t they were a c t u a l l y being observed, since t h i s was the c r u c i a l independent v a r i a b l e .  Secondly, they were  an attempt to o b t a i n the subjects' subjective opinion on how nervous they f e l t , how they f e l t t h e i r performance had been (or would have been) a f f e c t e d by both observation and the taking of the p e r s o n a l i t y questionnaire.  L a s t l y , the questionnaires  gave the subjects an opportunity to s t a t e what they thought the purpose of the study was, which at l e a s t suggests the extent to which t h i s knowledge could have a f f e c t e d the performances of the subj ects.  Procedure Subjects were assigned to experimental groups i n sequential order such that each male group had 9 subjects and each female group had 1 5 su b j e c t s . Each subject was met at the door of the experimental room by the experimenter and the experimenter obviously glanced around the h a l l e x p l a i n i n g that he was expecting some f e l l o w graduate students who had made arrangements to observe h i s study that day.  He explained that they might as w e l l get s t a r t e d  even though the observers had not a r r i v e d yet.  The subject was  taken i n t o the room and t o l d thai: the study involved an examination of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c e r t a i n aspects of v e r b a l l e a r n i n g and p e r s o n a l i t y and was then i n s t r u c t e d to f i l l out the p e r s o n a l i t y inventory.  The one-way screen was  covered  20  at t h i s point i n a l l conditions. anonymity.  S u b j e c t s were a s s u r e d o f  W h i l e t h e s u b j e c t s worked on t h e p e r s o n a l i t y  i n v e n t o r y t h e experimenter g o t up and l o o k e d out i n t o t h e h a l l , again pretending  to l o o k f o r t h e mentioned o b s e r v e r s .  After  f i n i s h i n g t h e p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n t o r y , t h e s u b j e c t s were shown how to work t h e two r e c o r d e r s and t o l d t h e n a t u r e o f t h e l e a r n i n g task.  Each s u b j e c t completed the f i r s t t a s k o f f i v e t r i a l s on  the p r a c t i c e l i s t w h i l e t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r scored t h e i r r e s p o n s e s and made sure t h e s u b j e c t worked t h e r e c o r d e r s p r o p e r l y . At t h i s p o i n t t h e r e was a b r i e f r e s t p e r i o d d u r i n g w h i c h t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r l o o k e d out i n t o t h e h a l l a g a i n c l a i m i n g to be l o o k i n g f o r t h e expected o b s e r v e r s .  I n t h e observed  c o n d i t i o n s he l o o k e d back i n t o t h e room s t a t i n g t h a t t h e observers The  had a r r i v e d and t h a t he would r e t u r n i n a minute.  e x p e r i m e n t e r then went behind  t h e s c r e e n and made v a r i o u s  n o i s e s (moving c h a i r s i n t h e case o f t h e male s u b j e c t s , o r p u l l i n g a s l i d i n g blackboard  up and down over t h e o p p o s i t e  side  o f t h e s c r e e n f o r t h e female s u b j e c t s ) and s w i t c h e d t h e l i g h t s on and o f f q u i c k l y t o i n d i c a t e the presence o f o b s e r v e r s the s c r e e n .  behind  The e x p e r i m e n t e r then r e t u r n e d and t o l d t h e s u b j e c t  t h a t f o r t h e next l e a r n i n g t a s k he would be l e f t a l o n e and t o proceed t h e same as he had b e f o r e w i t h t h e pra.ctice l i s t to r e c o r d h i s r e s p o n s e s t h i s time.  except  A second microphone was  p l a c e d on t h e desk w i t h the e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t i t was t h e r e so the o b s e r v e r s  could hear.  the e x p e r i m e n t e r went behind  Each s u b j e c t was then l e f t alone and the screen t o observe and r e t u r n e d  a f t e r t h e s u b j e c t had f i n i s h e d the t a s k .  21  All lists  male s u b j e c t s w e r e g i v e n t w e n t y t r i a l s  o f paired associates regardless o f their  on t h e  performance.  B e c a u s e t h i s was f o u n d t o be a n e x t r e m e l y b o r i n g t a s k f o r t h e s u b j e c t s a n d s i n c e most h a d l e a r n e d t h e l i s t s by t h e f i f t e e n t h trial,  t h e number o f t r i a l s  f o r a l l f e m a l e s was c u t t o f i f t e e n .  When t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r r e t u r n e d t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l room a f t e r  t h e s u b j e c t h a d c o m p l e t e d t h e t a s k , he a s k e d  subject to f i l l felt  each  o u t a b r i e f q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o c u s i n g o n how h e h a d  about b e i n g observed and a t t e m p t i n g t o t a p h i s b e l i e f  someone was a c t u a l l y t h i s was c o m p l e t e d  w a t c h i n g from behind t h e s c r e e n .  that  When  e a c h s u b j e c t was t h a n k e d a n d t o l d h e w o u l d  r e c e i v e a summary o f t h e r e s u l t s  o f the study.  w e r e a s k e d two o r t h r e e a d d i t i o n a l  ' The f e m a l e s  q u e s t i o n s (two i f n o t  observed; t h r e e i f o b s e r v e d ) : 1 ) what, i f any, s p e c i a l t y o f n u r s i n g t h e y p l a n n e d t o go i n t o ,  2 ) i f they r e a l l y b e l i e v e d  that  they were b e i n g o b s e r v e d from b e h i n d t h e s c r e e n ( o n l y asked o f observed s u b j e c t s ) , and 3 ) i f t a l k i n g bothered  into  the recorder  them. The p r o c e d u r e f o r t h e s u b j e c t s i n t h e n o n - o b s e r v e d  g r o u p s was i d e n t i c a l e x c e p t t h a t t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r r e t u r n e d a f t e r his  second  exit  f r o m t h e room s a y i n g t h a t t h e s t u d e n t s w e r e n o t  a r o u n d a n d w o u l d h a v e t o o b s e r v e some o t h e r t i m e .  The p o s t -  e x p e r i m e n t a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r t h e s e s u b j e c t s was s l i g h t l y different, have f e l t  a i m e d a t t a p p i n g how t h e s u b j e c t s t h o u g h t t h e y w o u l d i f they had been observed and i f they thought  they were a c t u a l l y  b e i n g o b s e r v e d i n some way.  "'A t e x t o f i n s t r u c t i o n s  5  a p p e a r s i n A p p e n d i x A.  that  22  A summary o f the sequence o f s t e p s appears i n F i g u r e 1 below.  Step 1; The s u b j e c t i s met a t the door o f the e x p e r i m e n t a l room and informed t h a t some graduate s t u d e n t s a r e expected by the e x p e r i m e n t e r to observe the s t u d y . Step 2: The s u b j e c t i s seated and f i l l s out p e r s o n a l i t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e (MAS and S u s p i c i o u s n e s s S c a l e ) d u r i n g w h i c h the experimenter l o o k s i n h a l l once f o r o b s e r v e r s . Step 3' E x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k i s e x p l a i n e d and l i s t i s r u n through.  practice  Step 4; The experimenter l o o k s a g a i n f o r o b s e r v e r s and i n f o r m s t h e s u b j e c t whether o r not he o r she w i l l be observed; i f observed, the e x p e r i m e n t e r goes b e h i n d s c r e e n and makes noises i n d i c a t i n g observers g e t t i n g s e t t l e d ; i f not observed, the experimenter merely r e t u r n s s t a t i n g no o b s e r v e r s have a r r i v e d . Step 5: The experimenter e x p l a i n s e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k which the s u b j e c t completes a f t e r the e x p e r i m e n t e r l e a v e s the room. Step 6: The experimenter r e - e n t e r s and a d m i n i s t e r s f i n a l p o s t - e x p e r i m e n t a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e , thanks s u b j e c t and asks him o r her not to t e l l o t h e r p r o s p e c t i v e s u b j e c t s about the s t u d y . F i g u r e 1; Sequence o f s t e p s i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n  23  C H A P T E R  IV  RESULTS Performance on Learning Task A two by two f a c t o r i a l design a n a l y s i s of variance was used.  The d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of observation on the  l e a r n i n g of the two types of l i s t s of paired associates  was  tested as was performance on the p r a c t i c e l i s t i n order to check for any i n i t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s between groups i n a b i l i t y to l e a r n paired a s s o c i a t e s .  The measure of performance l e v e l used i n  these analyses was  the mean number of errors made on the given  task.  For the p r a c t i c e l i s t , those errors made on the f i n a l  t r i a l s were used since a number of subjects asked  two  questions  during the f i r s t three of the f i v e t r i a l s i n d i c a t i n g that they did not exactly understand what was  expected of them.  However,  a l l subjects understood the task by the beginning o f the t h i r d trial.  This procedure does not make a l l subjects' performances  on the l a s t two t r i a l s s t r i c t l y comparable since some were t o t a l l y confused for the i n i t i a l t r i a l s while others were performing as expected and hopefully l e a r n i n g .  However, t h i s  f a c t o r would only lead to greater d i f f e r e n c e s between groups and thus i f no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found i n i n i t i a l a b i l i t y measured i n t h i s way  i t would strengthen rather than weaken an  assumption of equal i n i t i a l a b i l i t y . v a r i a t i o n s .in understanding what was d i s t r i b u t e d among the experimental  Also i t i s assumed that expected were randomly  groups.  Table I shows the  mean number of errors for each group on the l a s t two t r i a l s of the p r a c t i c e l i s t .  Table II summarizes the analyses  of  24 TABLE I (a & b ) Mean number o f e r r o r s on l a s t two p r a c t i c e  b - Females  a - Males i ' Not tQbserved j observed 18.3 | 16.6 Competit- i ional < i I j | 19.6 Non-comp- | 20.8 etitional \ ) j  <  !  \  t  \  trials  |Observed  Competit-i  21.5  S  ional  Non-comp-j etitional]  1  1  Not observed 19-1 18.0  17.7  1  TABLE I I (a & b) Summary o f a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e on p r a c t i c e l i s t  Males Source  ss  Total  637 .6  List  66 .7  Observation L x Ob.  20 .2  0. 69 550 .0  Error  i  | I  df  (  35  I  1  i i  i  I 1  1 3  2  m  '  s  -  i  j) I 1  20 0.69  ;  17 .2  i  j  F  66  i  p  .7  3.88  .2  1.17  ns ns  0.04  ns  _  b - Females Source Total List Observation  |  ss  997.4 j 91.26  L x Ob.  17.06 26.68  Error  862.4  d f jj 59 1 j .  1 56  ms  F  91.26| 5.93 17 .06 | 1.11  26.68 : 1.73 15.4 j  -  P  C025 ns ns  errors  25  variance i n d i c a t i n g that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between observed and non-observed groups on a given type o f l i s t male " ' " female ' S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n i n i t i a l a b i l i t y d i d e x i s t between (l  1 > 1 7  d f  l / 3 2 ;  P  =  d f  the competitional and non-competitional  =  l / 5 6 ;  b o t h  n s )  groups o f females  (P = 5-93, df = 1/56, p<.025), a d i f f e r e n c e that can only be explained by chance groupings since up to the time o f the p r a c t i c e l i s t a l l subjects had undergone i d e n t i c a l treatment.  experimental  However, these d i f f e r e n c e s do not i n t e r f e r e w i t h  the' t e s t i n g o f the main hypotheses as would a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n i n i t i a l a b i l i t y between those i n the observed versus non-observed c o n d i t i o n s . Tables I I I and I V summarize the means and a n a l y s i s o f variance for the t e s t t r i a l s o f the males.  Observation had no  s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the male subjects l e a r n i n g e i t h e r type o f l i s V o ' f p-aired"'associate's'' ('F'= .141 df^ = '1/3-2, ns) i !  :  TABLE I I I Mean number o f errors on experimental  task by males.  Not ! Observed observed Competitional  92.0  89-3  Hon-competitional  28.3  21.9  26  TABLE IV Summary o f a n a l y s i s o f variance on errors made by males on experimental task  Source Total List Observation L x Ob. Error  ss  df  72791-6 38677.8 186.8 32.1 33894-9  35 1  ms !  38677.8 | 28.2 186.8 1 0.14 i 0.02 32.1 1371.7  1  1 1 s  TABLE  P  P  <.001 ns ns  V  Mean number o f errors on experimental task by females J  j  L  Observed Competitional S 95.2 {  Non-competit\ ional f  21.9  Not observed 65.1 16.9  27 TABLE  VI  Summary o f a n a l y s i s o f variance o f errors made Toy females on experimental task  Source j  df  ss  i  ms  I  F  P  r  Total List Observation L x Ob. Error  | 89,658.18 j 55,388.81 4,628.81 j 2,343-76 J 27,296.8  59 55,388.81 113-63 1 4,628.81 ; 9.50 1 2,343-76 I 4.81 1 ' 56 j 487.44 j  <..001  <.005 <.05  !  Tables V and VI and Figure 2 summarize the e f f e c t s o f observation on the performances o f the females.  Both main  e f f e c t s are s i g n i f i c a n t ( F = 113, df = 1/56, p<.001, F = 9-5, df = 1/56, p < .005) as w e l l as the i n t e r a c t i o n o f observation and l i s t type ( P = 4.81, d f = 1/56, p<.05).  These r e s u l t s  i n d i c a t e that o v e r a l l observation hindered the performance o f females, doing so on both types o f l i s t s , impairing t h e i r performance more on the competitive l i s t than on the noncompetitive l i s t .  A Duncan M u l t i p l e Range Test (Brunning and  K i n t z , 1968) was applied  to these r e s u l t s to c l a r i f y more  exactly the intergroup r e l a t i o n s h i p s . the r e s u l t s o f t h i s t e s t .  Table V I I summarizes  They indicated that observation  s i g n i f i c a n t l y impaired the performance o f the females on the competitive l i s t ( p < . 0 l ) but d i d not do so on the noncompetitive l i s t ( p i s n s ) .  28  901  80 female competitional 70  male competitional  60 50 40 _female - noncompetit i o n a l male - noncompetitions!  30  20  10  0 -  Not observed  Observed  Figure 2i Female Experimental Results and Male versus Female Results on the Number o f Errors Made on I n i t i a l 15 T r i a l s .  29  TABLE V I I Summary o f Duncan Multiple-Range Test on female experimental task data  Comparison  1  *0bserved-Competitional vs Non-observed-Competitional Observed-Competitional vs Non-observed-Non-competit Observed-Competitional vs Observed-Non-competitional Non-observed-Competit. vs Observed- on-competitional Non-observed-Competit. vs Non-observed-Non-competit. *Non-observed-Non-competit. vs Observed Non-competit. ;  x  P  2  01  30.1  <•  78.3 73.3 43.2 48.2 5.0  001 <. 001 001 yv. •001 N-  V  Q  ns  ^ C r i t i c a l comparisons f o r hypotheses o f study,  To help c l a r i f y more e x a c t l y how the females d i f f e r e d from the males the mean number o f errors made by the males on the  f i r s t f i f t e e n t r i a l s was c a l c u l a t e d .  A graph o f the male-  female comparison i s presented i n Pigure 2 (see page 28) which i n d i c a t e s that the males i n general made more errors than the females i n a l l conditions except that o f observed-competitional where the males made fewer e r r o r s .  None o f these d i f f e r e n c e s  are s i g n i f i c a n t however(t's = .45, .34, .88, .88; d f - 22 f o r a l l ) .  P e r s o n a l i t y Scales On the MAS the females scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than d i d the males (female mean = 16.9, male mean = 11.9, t = 3.38, df - 95, p < . 0 0 l ) .  However no s i g n i f i c a n t  relation-  30  ship was found between an i n d i v i d u a l ' s score on the MAS and the number o f errors made; t h i s r e s u l t held f o r both males ( r - -.31, z = -1.83, ns) and females ( r = -.18, z =  -1.38,  ns)  and f o r the i n d i v i d u a l experimental groups (see Table V I I I ) .  TABLE  VIII  C o r r e l a t i o n s between MAS scores and T o t a l E r r o r s made r %  _ Group, Male: Observed-Competitiona1 Observed-Non-competitional Non-observed-Competitional Non-observed-Non-competitional Overall  r r r r r  -.18 -.18 -.12 + .10 -.31  t t t t  Female s Observed-Competitional Observed-Non-competitional Non-observed-Competitional Non-observed-Non-competitional Overall  r r r r r  + .006 + .14 -.34 + .28 -.18  t t t t  0.48 0.48  p ns ns ns ns ns  7 7  0.32  0.27  !?  -1.83 ! -  3  .02  |l3  .51  13  -1.3  13  +1.05  13  -1.38  ns ns ns ns ; ns  1  i  The females also scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on the Suspiciousness Scale than d i d the males (female mean = 2.5, male mean = 1 . 3 , t = 3.33, df = 94, P <.01). A s i g n i f i c a n t inverse r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between scores on the Suspiciousness Scale and the t o t a l number o f errors made f o r the males ( r = 0.41, rho = -.37, z = 2.19, p < . 0 3 ) . This r e l a t i o n s h i p approached s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the females ( r = -.30,  31  rho m -.23, z = 1.77, p <.08).  The Spearman Rank Order  C o r r e l a t i o n (rho) was used here f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e t e s t s because of the very l i m i t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n of the Suspiciousness scores (Hayes,  1963).  Again no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was  found  between Suspiciousness Scale scores and error scores w i t h i n the experimental groups, as i s shown i n Table I X .  TABLE  IX  C o r r e l a t i o n s ( r & rho) between Suspiciousness Scale scores and t o t a l errors made  rho  Group Male: Observed-Competitional Observed-Non-competitional Non-observed-Competitional Non-observed-Non-competit. Overall  Female; Observed-Competitional Observed-Non-competitional Non-observed-Competitional Non-observed-Non-competit. Overall  t or 2  + .11  t t t t  = = =  -.37  % =  2.19  -.08  t t t t  -.21 -.49 + .19  + .13 |  -.09 +  .24  -.23  j  = = = =  a •n  =  df  0.57  7  1.49  7  0.51  7  0.29  7  0.29  13  0.33  13  0.46 0.92  13  1.77  13  P  ns ns ns ns <.03  r r r r r  ns ns ns ns <.08 .  r r r r r  -.58 -.61 -.34 -.02 -.41  - -.31 = -.02 = -.25 = -.004 - -.30  32  Post-experimental Questionnaire A l l scores and means i n the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n are based on a numbering system which designates the i n i t i a l space of the r a t i n g scales used^ as having a value o f 0, the second space a value o f 1, ... up to 6.  The only exception i s  question three on the non-observed questionnaire on which the range i s from 0 to 7 rather than 6.  TABLE  X  Summary of mean responses to questions on post-experimental questionnaire' i  Question  ;,  Sex  Observed;  2 A.  4  t  df  2.2  46  <.05  .27  46  ns  2.45  46  <.02  .34  46  ns  3.17  46  <.01  2.11  46  <.05  -Mean r a t i n g  P  \ i : i  male female male female male female male female  1  j  2.4  3.5 3.8 3.7 2.4 3.7 2.3 2.1  Non-observed: 1 2 3  male female male. female male female  3.7 5.0 3.2 4.4  5.9 5.4  •  .78  46  I j  ns  See Appendix C f o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . 7 'Male and female responses to t h e l a s t two q u e s t i o n s on both q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were almost i d e n t i c a l : 6.'3 v e r s u s 6.2 and 4.0 v e r s u s 4.1 f o r males v e r s u s females r e s p e c t i v e l y .  33  Observed Subjects'  Questionnaire  As the tabled summary o f questionnaire r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e s , the males d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the females i n t h e i r answers to two o f the s i x questions.  The females rated  themselves as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more nervous due to the observation than d i d the males ( t = 2.20, d f = 46, p <.05).  The females  a l s o rated themselves as being s i g n i f i c a n t l y more aware o f the observers than d i d the males ( t = 2.45, df = 46, p <.02). Comparisons were also made between male and female questionnaire responses w i t h i n the observed-competitional  groups alone since  i t was i n these groups that the pattern o f results- o f the two sexes appeared to deviate on the r e s u l t s o f the l e a r n i n g task (see Figure 2).  Comparing only the observed-competitional  groups, the means o f the males were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from those o f the females on questions 1, 2 and 3- i n d i c a t i n g again that the males rated themselves as being l e s s nervous (t = 2 . 6 0 , df = 2 2 , p-r; .-02), l e s s hindered i n t h e i r performance by the observation ( t = 2.50, d f - 22, p <..02) and again l e s s aware o f the observers than the females ( t = 2-31, d f = 22, p <.05).  Males and females d i d not d i f f e r i n how they  perceived t h e i r performances as a f f e c t e d by observation and by t a k i n g the p e r s o n a l i t y questionnaires.  Neither d i d they  d i f f e r on the extent to which they could detect the presence of observers, nor i n t h e i r r a t i n g o f the extent to which they were annoyed by the content o f the p e r s o n a l i t y questionnaire. In a d d i t i o n , females who rated themselves higher i n nervousness due to observation (4 to 6 on the scale) made more e r r o r s than those who rated themselves lower i n nervousness  34  (0 to 3 on the s c a l e ) ; t h i s f i n d i n g approached s i g n i f i c a n c e for the non-competitional group ( t = 2.12, d f = 13, p<.06) hut was not s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the competitional group.  Also  those females i n the competitional group rated t h e i r performances  as "being hindered by observation (mean = 2-.8)  whereas those i n the non-competitional group rated t h e i r performance as being r e l a t i v e l y unchanged (mean = 4.5, t = 4.15, df = 28, p <.001).  Non-Observed Subjects' Questionnaire On the non-observed post-experimental questionnaire the males d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the females i n t h e i r s e l f r a t i n g s on questions 1 and 2.  On question 1 the males f e l t  that they would be l e s s hindered by observation than d i d the females (female mean - 5.0, male mean = 3»7, t = 3.17, df = 46, p <.01).  The sexes also d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r estimate o f how  nervous such observation would make them, the males r a t i n g themselves as being l e s s so than the females (female mean = 3.2, male mean = 4-4, t = 2.11, d f = 46, p<".05).  The males and  females d i d not d i f f e r i n t h e i r s e l f r a t i n g s concerning being annoyed by the p e r s o n a l i t y inventory nor i n how i t a f f e c t e d t h e i r performance;  they were minimal f o r both sexes.  Since a c t u a l observation did a f f e c t the performance of the females on the competitive l i s t and since some nonobserved females d i d i n d i c a t e that they f e l t they were being observed, a comparison was made o f the mean number o f e r r o r s  35  made by those who f e l t that they might have been observed ( 0 to 3 scale r a t i n g s ) w i t h those who were more sure that they were not being observed ( s c a l e r a t i n g s of 4 to 7 ) .  No s i g n i f i c a n t  d i f f e r e n c e s were found f o r e i t h e r the competitive or the noncompetitive 'groups (competitives t = .13, d f = 13, ns; noncompetitives t = 1.23, d f <= 13, n s ) . The f i n a l question of both questionnaires concerned what the  subject f e l t was the purpose o f the study.  Ten males and  seventeen females i n d i c a t e d that they f e l t the purpose was to study the e f f e c t s o f observation on one's performance.  This  f i n d i n g i s not s u r p r i s i n g since the nature o f the previous questions on the questionnaire strongly suggest t h i s f a c t . Five males and four females mentioned the e f f e c t s o f s t r e s s i n general as a p o s s i b l e focus o f the experiment.  Nineteen males  and t h i r t y females gave some other unrelated explanation and seven males and nine females e i t h e r stated they d i d not know the purpose o f the study or l e f t the question blank (two females). As mentioned i n the procedure s e c t i o n , a l l female subjects were asked e i t h e r two or three questions at the end o f the  study.  All females were asked what s p e c i a l t y o f nursing  they v/ere planning to enter and i f t a l k i n g into the recorder bothered them at a l l .  Observed female subjects were asked i f  they ever doubted the existence o f a c t u a l observers behind the screen.  Most o f the nurses r e p l i e d to the f i r s t question that  they had made no d e f i n i t e d e c i s i o n on a nursing s p e c i a l t y . Concerning the recorder, f i f t y - f i v e said i t d i d not bother them at a l l , three said i t d i d a l i t t l e , and two stated that i t bothered them considerably.  Most o f the observed females  36  stated that they believed someone was a c t u a l l y behind the screens twenty-four reported no doubts, f i v e reported that a doubt had at l e a s t passed through t h e i r mind, and one doubted i t very much.  37  C H A P T E R  V  DISCUSSION T h e o r e t i c a l Discussion The major hypothesis (Hypothesis 1, page 15)  was  supported p a r t i a l l y by the female sample but not at a l l by the male sample.  The performance of the females on the more  d i f f i c u l t competitive task was considerably impaired by observation from behind a one-way screen whereas t h e i r performance on the easy, non-competitive  task was n e i t h e r  improved nor impaired by the observation.  The performance of  the males was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d on e i t h e r task.  The  r e s u l t s of the female sample on the competitive l i s t f i t the p r e d i c t i o n s from s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n theory.  The l a c k of  s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n on" the easy, non-competitive  task and i t s  presence on the competitive task suggest f i r s t , that the p h y s i c a l presence of the audience may  be necessary i n some  s i t u a t i o n s to produce s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n but not i n other s i t u a t i o n s and secondly, that one dependent v a r i a b l e f u n c t i o n ing i s the nature of the task being performed.  This suggest-  ion which focuses on the importance of the p h y s i c a l presence of the observers i s not i n accord w i t h C o t t r e l l ' s hypothesis which considers the a b i l i t y o f the audience to evaluate the subject's performance to be the c r u c i a l f a c t o r i n the production of s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n .  But i t i s obvious that  an i m p l i c i t c r i t e r i o n f o r s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n i n any  situation  i s that the subjects or performers be aware of the observers. In C o t t r e l l ' s hypothesis, the subject's awareness of the observer's a b i l i t y to be p o t e n t i a l l y evaluative i s the c r u c i a l  38  factor.  This awareness f a c t o r i s the c r u c i a l v a r i a b l e  manipulated by the one-way screen since i t i s obvious that on a purely o b j e c t i v e l e v e l the p o t e n t i a l degree of sensory awareness i s reduced by the screen to a l a c k o f a c t u a l v i s u a l awareness of observers.  Since t h i s reduction i n awareness was  equal f o r the competitive and non-competitive l i s t groups,  and  s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n s t i l l occurred, some other f a c t o r must have been operating to e l i m i n a t e s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n i n the noncompetitive s i t u a t i o n . I f the s o c i a l l e a r n i n g and. c o n d i t i o n i n g b a s i s f o r C o t t r e l l ' s hypothesis i s accepted, the explanation f o r the obtained r e s u l t s may l i e i n a. d i f f e r e n c e between how  individuals  l e a r n to perceive p o t e n t i a l negative evaluation of a poor p e r f o r mance versus p o s i t i v e evaluation of a. good performance.  A  suggestion by t h i s author focuses on what might be c a l l e d the amount of "ego involvement" of the task, "ego involvement"  being  defined as the amount of s e l f esteem the subject attaches to h i s a b i l i t y to perform or not perform w e l l on a given task.  It  seems reasonable that c o l l e g e students would consider the l e a r n i n g of paired a s s o c i a t e s as a rather mundane, simple minded task that they should be able to handle quite r e a d i l y ; therefore i t would be very embarrassing, u p s e t t i n g , or s e l f esteem reducing not to be able to do reasonably w e l l on such a task.  On the  other hand a, very superior performance would not be considered as a great, s e l f esteem b u i l d i n g achievement.  (One could a l s o  argue that they would tend to be consistent and thus a t t a c h l i t t l e importance to not being able to do w e l l on a simple minded task; however t h i s i s an e m p i r i c a l question to be c l a r i f i e d i n l a t e r research.)  Based on these assumptions, i t  39  can be hypothesized that c o l l e g e students would react to an evaluation o f t h e i r performance much more i n t e n s e l y (general d r i v e l e v e l increased to a greater extent) when making many e r r o r s on the competitive l i s t than when making few e r r o r s on the non-competitive l i s t .  This suggestion i s supported by  C o t t r e l l et a l . ' s (1967) f i n d i n g s , since the e f f e c t s o f s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n were considerably more potent i n the competitive compared to the non-competitive l i s t performances.  A direct  t e s t of t h i s hypothesis i s p o s s i b l e v i a d i r e c t manipulation o f the types o f tasks used on a continuum o f "ego involvement". So f a r t h i s hypothesis suggests a p o s s i b l e reason why only those females l e a r n i n g the competitive l i s t f u l f i l l e d the s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n hypotheses; however i t may have some relevance to why the males were e s s e n t i a l l y una,ffected by observation. The f i n d i n g that the males were e s s e n t i a l l y unaffected by observation was not expected.  C o t t r e l l e_t a l . (1967),  Zajonc and Sales (1966) and others have obtained s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n using male subjects, and s i m i l a r r e s u l t s were expected i n t h i s study.  The hypothesized sex d i f f e r e n c e was  only i n terms o f the degree o f s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n , more being expected i n the females than i n the males, and t h i s was based on previous research on sex r o l e s and sex d i f f e r e n c e s (eg. Lindzey and .Aronson, 1968; Rosenthal, 1966).  Since s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n  has been demonstrated c o n s i s t e n t l y i n males, i t appears that some a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r s were f u n c t i o n i n g i n the present study to y i e l d r e s u l t s i n d i c a t i n g a complete l a c k o f f a c i l i t a t i o n i n males yet considerable f a c i l i t a t i o n i n females.  40  There were many d i f f e r e n c e s between the male and the female portions of the study.  I n i t i a l l y i t i s o f value to  examine e x a c t l y how the males d i f f e r e d from the females on the dependent v a r i a b l e , the number o f errors made on the f i r s t f i f t e e n t r i a l s of the l e a r n i n g task.  I t i s obvious from  Figure 2 that the major d i f f e r e n c e i s most probably i n the r e l a t i v e performances of the observed-competitional groups, w i t h the females o f t h i s group making considerably more errors than a l l other competitional groups.  Also the observed and  non - observed competitional males d i f f e r e d to about the same extent as d i d the observed and non-observed non-competitional males (both being n o n s i g n i f i c a n t ) .  Of course the opposite  assumption could be madei that the competitive l i s t males d i f f e r e d from the females i n the r e l a t i v e performances of the two non-observed groups.  However, the p r i o r hypothesis gains  support from the fact that on the non-competitive l i s t , i n both the observed and non-observed conditions, the males made more errors than d i d the females and t h i s i s also the case i n the r e l a t i v e number o f errors of the two non-observed  competitional  groups ( i . e . male and female), but not i n the case o f the maleobserved-competitional versus the female-observed-competitional groups.  Based on the above considerations the d i f f e r e n c e s  between the male and female observed competitional groups on the post-experimental questionnaire were examined s p e c i f i c a l l y along w i t h the o v e r a l l d i f f e r e n c e s between the male and female samples taken as a. whole on these measures. The two samples d i f f e r e d i n many ways.  The sexes  d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r mean scores on both the anxiety and suspiciousness s c a l e s , the females being s i g n i f i c a n t l y more  41  anxious and suspicious than the males (p's C.001 respectively).  and C01  On the post-experimental questionnaire the  observed females rated themselves as being s i g n i f i c a n t l y more nervous and more aware of the observers than d i d the males; these d i f f e r e n c e s h e l d f o r the observed-competitional groups taken alone as w e l l as f o r the observed samples taken as a whole. In a d d i t i o n the male and female observed-competitional groups also d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n that the females f e l t that t h e i r performance was mere hindered by the observation than d i d the males.  I f one assumes that the two samples are using c l o s e to  i d e n t i c a l i n t e r n a l , subjective c r i t e r i a i n t h e i r s e l f - r a t i n g s , these d i f f e r e n c e s help explain why the females were more a f f e c t e d by observation than were the males.  However, t h i s  assumption i s probably not a completely v a l i d one since females i n general may have a tendency to rate themselves  differently  than do males, a phenomenon found i n many p s y c h o l o g i c a l studies ( T y l e r , 1964).  This f a c t o r must be taken into c o n s i d e r a t i o n  when weighing the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the sex d i f f e r e n c e s found i n the s e l f - r a t i n g measures. The more e x p l i c i t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the two samples and the two experimental s e t t i n g s may o f f e r a more p o t e n t i a l l y v a l i d , but admittedly i n t u i t i v e and post hoc, explanation of the observed sex d i f f e r e n c e s .  The males were considerably o l d e r  than the females (means of 23.2 versus 19.8) and also were g e n e r a l l y from a more advanced college c l a s s , the nurses being mainly f i r s t and t h i r d year students and the males mainly f o u r t h w i t h some t h i r d year students.  Thus the males may have  had more experience i n s i m i l a r e v a l u a t i v e and/or experimental  42  s i t u a t i o n s and therefore p o s s i b l y were more relaxed and l e s s anxious (having a lower general d r i v e l e v e l ) i n response to the study than were the females. The samples d i f f e r e d completely i n college major. This d i f f e r e n c e i s o f considerable importance when one considers the d i f f e r e n t s e t t i n g s i n which the male versus female parts of the study were conducted.  The male p o r t i o n o f the study was  c a r r i e d out i n a small experimental c u b i c l e i n the Psychology Department at the U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington among many other ongoing psychology experiments.  The female s e c t i o n was c a r r i e d  out i n a h o s p i t a l s e t t i n g , i n the psychology department,  ina  l a r g e room u s u a l l y used f o r p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t i n g and i n t e r v i e w i n g , a fact most student nurses are w e l l aware o f since they o f t e n accompany p a t i e n t s to such i n t e r v i e w s and t e s t i n g sessions, p a t i e n t s who are o f t e n anxious about the t e s t i n g or interview. Thus the p h y s i c a l s e t t i n g o f the study was probably much more p e r s o n a l l y threatening f o r the females than f o r the males. The means o f s o l i c i t a t i o n o f subjects also d i f f e r e d i n an important way f o r the males and females.  The nurses were  s o l i c i t e d by the author v i s i t i n g classes and nursing s t a t i o n s (on the p s y c h i a t r i c ward) asking f o r volunteers; no i n c e n t i v e was offered other than feedback o f experimental r e s u l t s .  The  males were s o l i c i t e d by t h e i r professor who offered them the i n c e n t i v e o f having t h e i r lowest weekly quiz grade o f the quarter r a i s e d to 1 0 0 $ i f they p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study (the. study was .carried out one and two weeks p r i o r to f i n a l examination periods at the end o f the academic y e a r ) .  The  females, being purely volu n t e e r s , were probably more p e r s o n a l l y  43  involved and motivated than were the males who were e s s e n t i a l l y bribed f o r t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  These assumptions would be  p r e d i c t e d from dissonance theory ( F e s t i n g e r , 1 9 5 7 ) and are supported by the fact that the males g e n e r a l l y made more e r r o r s than the females on the experimental task.  I f such suggestions  are v a l i d , the presence of observers would have been much more threatening to the nurses, e s p e c i a l l y i f they were doing poorly on the task, than to the males. These s u b j e c t i v e impressions of the experimenter and r a t i n g s of the subjects may or may not be the explanatory f a c t o r s involved i n the sex d i f f e r e n c e s found i n the r e s u l t s . independent  A third  f a c t o r could have been the cause of the sex  d i f f e r e n c e found i n both the major experimental r e s u l t s and i n the explanatory f a c t o r s mentioned.  Both sets of sex d i f f e r e n c e s  could have been the r e s u l t of a t h i r d f a c t o r such as the s o c i a l r o l e expectations of males versus females. i n important t h e o r e t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s study, mentioned b r i e f l y i n the previous d i s c u s s i o n , concerns the p h y s i c a l presence of the observer(s) and i t s relevance to s o c i a l facilitation.  I t i s obvious from the r e s u l t s that s o c i a l  f a c i l i t a t i o n can occur through a one-way screen, without the audience being e i t h e r v i s u a l l y or p h y s i c a l l y present.  But i t .  i s also obvious that s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n may not occur under such c o n d i t i o n s , depending on at l e a s t two other f a c t o r s which seem to be r e l e v a n t ; the nature of the task involved and the nature of the sample and/or s e t t i n g .  44  The f a c t that s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n d i d occur using observers behind a screen supported C o t t r e l l (1968) i n h i s refinement o f Zajonc's (1966) o r i g i n a l hypothesis focusing on the mere presence o f observers.  C o t t r e l l e_t a l . ' s study  (1968) i l l u s t r a t e d that the p h y s i c a l presence o f the  audience  plus the a b i l i t y o f the audience to evaluate the subject's performance y i e l d e d s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n , thus, r e f i n i n g mere presence hypothesis.  Zajonc's  The r e s u l t s o f the present study  i l l u s t r a t e that the p h y s i c a l presence o f the audience can be eliminated completely and s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n can s t i l l occur. This phenomenon had p r e v i o u s l y been i l l u s t r a t e d i n co-action s i t u a t i o n s ( D a s h i e l l , 1935), but not i n audience  situations.  However the c r i t i c a l f a c t o r hypothesized by C o t t r e l l was present; the audience could evaluate the subjects' performances and the subjects r e a l i z e d i t . The attempt to f i n d r e l a t i o n s h i p s between i n d i v i d u a l s ' socres on the MAS and Suspiciousness Scale ahd the number o f errors made on the l e a r n i n g task was only p a r t i a l l y s u c c e s s f u l . Ho r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between i n d i v i d u a l ' s scores on the MAS and the number o f errors made, e i t h e r f o r the i n d i v i d u a l experimental groups or f o r the samples taken as a whole.  This  does not corroborate the f i n d i n g s o f Ganzer (1968; see page 8 ) , although he pre-selected h i s sample based on t h e i r t e s t anxiety scores which d e f i n i t e l y aids one i n e s t a b l i s h i n g such a relationship.  I n d i v i d u a l s ' scores on the Suspiciousness  Scale were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to the number o f e r r o r s made f o r the males ( r = -.41, rho = -.37, p <.03)  and approached  s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the females ( r = -.30, rho = -.23, p-C.08).  45 These r e l a t i o n s h i p s d i d not hold i n the i n d i v i d u a l groups.  experimental  For the groups taken as a whole ( s t i l l d i v i d e d by sex),  the more suspicious one rated h i m s e l f the fewer e r r o r s he tended to make on the l e a r n i n g task.  I f suspiciousness i m p l i e s an  elevated d r i v e l e v e l , these r e s u l t s c o n t r a d i c t the Spence-Hull Drive l e v e l explanation f o r s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n which would p r e d i c t no o v e r a l l r e l a t i o n s h i p but a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r the competitive l i s t subjects and an inverse r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r the non-competitive  l i s t as found by Spence et a l . (1954) using  the M S . I n d i v i d u a l s w i t h paranoid tendencies, one o f which i s suspiciousness, have some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a b i l i t i e s that may suggest an explanation f o r the above f i n d i n g s .  Paranoid  i n d i v i d u a l s generally have higher than average i n t e l l i g e n c e quotients (Rappaport et a l . ,  1968).  They do e s p e c i a l l y w e l l on  tasks r e q u i r i n g l i t t l e emotional involvement and l i t t l e common sense, (eg., D i g i t Span and P i c t u r e Completion tasks o f the Wechsler Adult I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale (Rappaport at a l . ,  1968) )  both o f which are aspects o f the paired associate task o f t h i s study.  Schafer (1949, p.94) s t a t e s as t y p i c a l o f the paranoid  c o n d i t i o n "a p r e c i s i o n o f r e c a l l i s emphasized" as a characteri s t i c of their learning efficiency.  They are g e n e r a l l y over-  a l e r t and pay a t t e n t i o n to d e t a i l s (Schafer, 1949).  Endicott  et a l . (1969) compare t h e i r t y p i c a l suspicious i n d i v i d u a l to one who has paranoid tendencies, but not to the extreme degree of a. true paranoid i n d i v i d u a l . scale w i t h mental p a t i e n t s .  However, they developed t h e i r A l l the above a b i l i t i e s which are  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the paranoid person, and to a l e s s e r degree o f  46  the  suspicious person, would lead one to expect that they would  do e s p e c i a l l y w e l l on tasks such as paired a s s o c i a t e l e a r n i n g .  P r a c t i c a l , C l i n i c a l Implications One-way viewing screens are used frequently i n teachin h o s p i t a l s , schools and c l i n i c s and t h i s p r a c t i c e i s based on a t l e a s t two assumptions; 1.  The observation a f f e c t s the behaviour o f those being observed minimally; at l e a s t l e s s than d i r e c t observation.  2. Any l o s s o f v a l i d i t y as a r e s u l t o f such minimal behaviour change i s out-weighed by the value o f the screen as a teachin aid. Very l i t t l e good experimental data has been c o l l e c t e d to v e r i f y these assumptions."^" As stated e a r l i e r (see page 12) one purpose o f t h i s study was to begin to explore e m p i r i c a l l y the v a l i d i t y o f the f i r s t assumption stated above.  In general, the o v e r a l l  r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that the assumption does not hold i n a l l cases since the observed females made over 46% more errors on the competitional l i s t than did those not observed.  This magnitude  of d i f f e r e n c e i n performance on most p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t s would g r e a t l y a f f e c t the f i n a l r e s u l t s and perhaps the future o f the individual tested.  But there are many d i f f e r e n c e s , as w e l l as  s i m i l a r i t i e s , between the experimental s i t u a t i o n and an a c t u a l c l i n i c a l setting. See Chapter I f o r review o f relevant l i t e r a t u r e .  47  The female p o r t i o n o f the study approximated the t y p i c a l c l i n i c a l s e t t i n g more so than d i d the male/s p o r t i o n . i n d i v i d u a l s they were more anxious and more s u s p i c i o u s .  As  The  room used f o r the females was an a c t u a l t e s t i n g and i n t e r v i e w i n g room i n the psychology department, a fact known to the nurses. I t was a l s o a h o s p i t a l s e t t i n g and the experimenter was introduced as a graduate student i n c l i n i c a l psychology. c o n t r a s t , the male study was c a r r i e d out i n a s t r i c t l y  In research  s e t t i n g and no mention was made of c l i n i c a l psychology.  These  f a c t o r s suggest that the female r e s u l t s probably approximate more c l o s e l y those that would be found i n a true c l i n i c a l The observation-by-task c l i n i c a l implications.  situation.  i n t e r a c t i o n a l s o has some  I t suggests that observation would be  more l i k e l y to impair one's performance on p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t s and other tasks which r e q u i r e u n f a m i l i a r s k i l l s .  One might  expect that a very v e r b a l i n d i v i d u a l would be impaired on performance oriented tasks or on numerical tasks r e q u i r i n g more quantitative a b i l i t i e s .  An i n t r o v e r t might be considerably  more impaired i n an i n t e r v i e w by observation than an i n d i v i d u a l who was used to d i s c u s s i n g h i m s e l f w i t h others.  Such t e s t s as  the Raven Matrices and Rorschach r e q u i r e non-dominant, u n f a m i l i a r responses f o r most i n d i v i d u a l s and thus might be more a f f e c t e d by observation.  A l s o , based on the dominant  response theory o f s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n , one would p r e d i c t that as one became more accustomed to the task at hand the expected, correct responses would become more and more dominant and observation would therefore have l e s s negative e f f e c t .  This,  expectation i s supported by Ganzer's (1968) f i n d i n g s that on  48  the second day of nonsense s y l l a b l e l e a r n i n g h i g h l y anxious i n d i v i d u a l s were no longer a f f e c t e d "by observation. In one very important aspect the present  experimental  s i t u a t i o n d i f f e r e d from the standard c l i n i c a l s e t t i n g ; the subjects were completely alone while performing  the task  whereas i n most c l i n i c a l s e t t i n g s the psychologist i s present. Senaenter (1959) and Wrightsman (I960, i n Simmel et a l ^ , present data suggesting that the presence of others  1968)  going  through a s i m i l a r anxiety arousing s i t u a t i o n can serve to reduce anxiety by providing comfort and support.  In c l i n i c a l  s e t t i n g s the psychologist being observed i s often a student or a model f o r students, who  explains to the patient that he i s also  under observation, u s u a l l y by a superior, and i s therefore the prime focus o f the observation.  He thus puts h i m s e l f i n the  threatening s i t u a t i o n with the p a t i e n t , i f not i n the place of the patient to a. c e r t a i n extent.  Also psychologists i n such  s i t u a t i o n s u s u a l l y discuss the patient's f e e l i n g s about the observation, e s p e c i a l l y i f the patient i s anxious about i t , and therefore i n a sense the p a t i e n t i s d e s e n s i t i z e d . these techniques  Through  the psychologist attempts to reduce the  p a t i e n t ' s d r i v e l e v e l (anxiety) and thus minimize the e f f e c t s of observation.  This element o f comfort was replaced i n the  present study w i t h a p o t e n t i a l l y anxiety producing machine, the tape recorder, making a permanent record of the subjects' performances.  Even though the females generally stated that  they were not bothered by the recorder, t h i s f a c t o r must be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n when g e n e r a l i z i n g from the experimental r e s u l t s to the c l i n i c a l s e t t i n g .  present  49  Suggestions  f o r Farther Research  Throughout the previous d i s c u s s i o n questions have a r i s e n which only f u r t h e r research can s e t t l e .  One of the most  basic questions concerns the method of observation used, especi a l l y since new  elaborate methods are becoming more a v a i l a b l e  such as closed c i r c u i t t e l e v i s i o n and videotape.  A useful  comparison would be between d i r e c t observation ( i . e . w i t h observer(s) p h y s i c a l l y present i n the same room) w i t h observation v i a a one-way screen or some other mechanical means where the observers are not p h y s i c a l l y present. Alper  (1953)  Wapner and  are the only ones to d i r e c t l y compare two such  methods of observation; t h e i r study could be made more relevant to s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n theory or to a c t u a l c l i n i c a l s e t t i n g s by changing the task e i t h e r to one meeting C o t t r e l l ' s  (1967)  c r i t e r i a or to one used i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l assessment.  Another  p o t e n t i a l l y valuable comparison would be between means of observation that y i e l d a permanent and very complete record of one's performance (eg. camera, recorder, videotape) and means where one's performance i s l e f t only i n the observers' memories (eg. d i r e c t observation, TV) or i s only p a r t i a l l y recorded notes or scores recorded).  (eg.  Many p a t i e n t s , psychologists and  p s y c h i a t r i s t s i n t h i s author's experience have i n d i c a t e d that they would rather be observed d i r e c t l y than i n d i r e c t l y so that they could see who was observing them and/or observe the audience's r e a c t i o n s to t h e i r  behaviour.  Another area not yet examined e m p i r i c a l l y i s the e f f e c t on the patient or performer of the presence of the experimenter or psychologist i n the observed s i t u a t i o n .  This  50 f a c t o r could be e a s i l y manipulated experimentally using the same apparatus as i n the present study and adding f u r t h e r groups.  experimental  The u t i l i t y o f t h i s information i n the t y p i c a l c l i n i c a l  s e t t i n g would be minimal since almost always a s t a f f member o f some sort i s present when p a t i e n t s are observed, and p a t i e n t s are r a r e l y observed alone through a screen.  However, techniques are  being developed where i n d i v i d u a l s are observed alone such as to e s t a b l i s h base rates of s p e c i f i c behaviour or to observe c h i l d parent i n t e r a c t i o n s (Wahler et a l . , 1965) • Such information about the e f f e c t s o f being observed alone versus being observed w i t h an a d d i t i o n a l i n d i v i d u a l present would be valuable. T h e o r e t i c a l l y such studies might also c l a r i f y the c o n t r a d i c t o r y hypotheses mentioned e a r l i e r (p»37) o f Zajonc and C o t t r e l l versus Schachter and Wrightsman, and y i e l d information c l a r i f y i n g whether or not, or under what c o n d i t i o n s , the presence o f others i s drive inducing or d r i v e reducing. The area o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s and the e f f e c t s o f observation has barely been touched by research.  Studies more  d i r e c t l y focused on i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s could use subjects pre-selected on the basis o f high and low scores on s p e c i f i c p e r s o n a l i t y scales (as Ganzer, 1968).  Prom a c l i n i c a l  stand-  point i t would be very u s e f u l to s e l e c t p a t i e n t s as subjects according to some s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a such as diagnostic  category.  Here i t would be most u s e f u l to use c l i n i c a l l y relevant tasks such as subtests o f the Wechsler Adult I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale or a s e l f d i s c l o s u r e task o f some sort which i s relevant to what i s required i n p s y c h i a t r i c i n t e r v i e w s . Another important area that has not been examined i s that o f the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the observers.  One would expect  i n t u i t i v e l y that there would be d e f i n i t e i n t e r a c t i o n s between  51  the nature of or i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the observer and observed.  those  I f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s professor, competitor or doctor  were observing, i t would probably be a more anxiety inducing s i t u a t i o n than i f complete strangers were observing.  This  f a c t o r would probably a l s o i n t e r a c t w i t h the nature o f the task. For i n s t a n c e , i f the observer(s) was not f a m i l i a r w i t h the task and therefore could not evaluate the performance, the e f f e c t of his  observation would be expected to be minimal (according to  C o t t r e l l ' s evaluative theory).  Thus the degree to which the  observers are capable o f evaluating the task could be examined by manipulating the information given the performers about the audience. Another f a c t o r , mentioned e a r l i e r , i s the amount of ego involvement the task e l i c i t s from the performer. s t u d i e s (Wilson, 1968 and Wapn.erv and A l p e r , 1952 -  Two reviewed  e a r l i e r ) have attempted to manipulate the ego-involvement of the task used. successful.  In the Wilson (1968) study the manipulation was  not  In the Wapner and Alper (1952) study two r e l a t e d  manipulations y i e l d e d c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s :  ego-oriented  i n s t r u c t i o n s y i e l d e d shorter l a t e n c i e s to response than did task oriented i n s t r u c t i o n s , but items r e l a t e d to the subjects' p e r s o n a l i t y y i e l d e d longer l a t e n c i e s than d i d n e u t r a l items (the task was m u l t i p l e choice phrase completion).  P i l o t studies  would probably have to be c a r r i e d out to determine some sort of c r i t e r i o n f o r the ego-involvement i n a given set of t a s k s . might have c o l l e g e students r a t e d i f f e r e n t tasks and s k i l l s a scale of personal importance to them. be manipulated  One on  This v a r i a b l e can a l s o  by varying the stated consequences and/or  52  purposes o f i n d i v i d u a l s ' performances on tasks as Wapner and Alper attempted to do. Although research i n the area o f s o c i a l  facilitation  has been i n progress p e r i o d i c a l l y since 1925, there are many questions l e f t unanswered.  New research has c o n t i n u a l l y opened  new problems f o r study so that there are many more unanswered questions today than i n 1925.  This i s i n s p i t e o f the f a c t that  i t i s a common, everyday phenomenon admitted to and experienced b y almost a l l i n d i v i d u a l s .  Knowledge o f t h i s phenomenon has  p o t e n t i a l p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n i n areas other than the education o f p s y c h o l o g i s t s and p s y c h i a t r i s t s , f o r example, i n education, entertainment  and personnel work.  I t i s hoped that  more work i n t h i s area o f almost u n i v e r s a l human experience w i l l be c a r r i e d out i n the f u t u r e .  53 B I B L I O G R A P H Y A l l p o r t , F-.H. S o c i a l Psychology. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1924. Bruning, J.L. and Kuntz, B.L. Computational Handbook o f Statistics. Palo A l t o : Scott, Porseman & Co.7 1968. C o t t r e l l , N.B., R i t t l e , R.H., and Wack, D.L. The presence of an audience and l i s t type (competitional or noncompetitional) as j o i n t determinants o f performance i n paired-associate l e a r n i n g . Journal o f P e r s o n a l i t y 1967, 35, 425-433. ^ C o t t r e l l , N.B., Wack, D.L., Sekerak, G.J., and R i t t l e , R.H. S o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n o f dominant responses by the presence o f an audience and the mere presence o f others. Journal o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1968, 9, 245-250. C r i d d l e , W.D. The e f f e c t s o f one-way screen observation on p a t i e n t s ' responses and anxiety l e v e l . Unpublished study. Dashiell, J . F. An experimental a n a l y s i s o f some group e f f e c t s . Journal o f Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1930, 25, 190-199. DashieHI, J . F. Experimental studies o f the i n f l u e n c e o f s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s on the behavior o f i n d i v i d u a l human adults. In Murchison, C. (Ed.), A Handbook o f S o c i a l Psychology. 'Worcester, Mass. ; Clark U. Press, 1935. (In Zajonc, 1968). E n d i c o t t , H.A., J o r t n e r , S., and Abramoff, E. Objective measures o f suspiciousness. Journal o f Abnormal Psychology, 1969, 74, 26-32. Ganzer, V.J. E f f e c t s o f audience presence and t e s t anxiety on l e a r n i n g and r e t e n t i o n i n a s e r i a l l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n . Journal o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1968, 8,  54 Haggard, E.A . , H i k e n , J.R., and I s a a c s , K.S. Some e f f e c t s o f r e c o r d i n g and f i l m i n g o f t h e p s y c h o t h e r a p e u t i c process. P s y c h i a t r y , 1965, 28, 169-191. Hathaway, S.R., and M c K i n l e y , J.C. Minnesota M u l t i p h a s i c Persona l i t y 'Inventory. M i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota P r e s s , 1942. Hayes, W.L. S t a t i s t i c s for Psychologists. R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1963.  New Y o r k : H o l t ,  Hoffman, M.I. and Hoffman, L.W. Review o f C h i l d Development Research. New Y o r k ; R u s s e l l Sage F o u n d a t i o n , 1964. Katahn, M. I n t e r a c t i o n o f a n x i e t y and a b i l i t y i n complex learning situations. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1966, 3, 475-479K i e s l e r , S.B. S t r e s s , a f f i l i a t i o n and performance. Journal o f E x p e r i m e n t a l R e s e a r c h i n P e r s o n a l i t y , 1966, 1, 227-235. Lamb, R. and Ma h i , C P . M a n i f e s t r e a c t i o n s o f p a t i e n t s and i n t e r v i e w e r s to the use o f sound r e c o r d i n g i n t h e psychiatric interview. American J o u r n a l o f P s y c h i a t r y , 1956, 112, 731-737. l i n d z e y , G. and Aronson, E. The Handbook o f S o c i a l Psychology. London: Addison-Weslev P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1968. M i s c h e l , W. P e r s o n a l i t y and Assessment. V/i 1 ey Sons, I n c . , 1968 .  New Y o r k : John  Moos, R.H. B e h a v i o r a l e f f e c t s o f b e i n g observed; r e a c t i o n s to a. w i r e l e s s r a d i o t r a n s m i t t e r . Journal o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1968, 3 2 , 383-388, Pessin, J . The comparative e f f e c t s o f s o c i a l and m e c h a n i c a l s t i m u l a t i o n on memorizing. American J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 3 3 , 45, 263-270? R a p p o r t , D., G i l l , M.M. and S c h a f e r , R. Diagnostic Psychological Testing. New Y o r k ; I n t e r n a t i o n a l U. P r e s s , 1968.  55  R e d l i c h , D o l l a r d and Newman High f i d e l i t y recording o f psychotherapeutic i n t e r v i e w s . American Journal o f P s y c h i a t r y , 1950/-107, 42-48. Robe, H.R. E f f e c t s o f the presence o f an observer upon problem-solving behavior f o r boys who vary i n t e s t anxiety. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 1967, 27, 3322. Rosenthal, R. Experimenter E f f e c t s i n B e h a v i o r a l New York; Meredith P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1966.  Research.  Sarason, I.G. E m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s and t h e o r e t i c a l problems i n the use o f anxiety s c a l e s . Psychological B u l l e t i n , I960, 57, 403-415. Schafer, R. The C l i n i c a l A p p l i c a t i o n o f P s y c h o l o g i c a l Tests. New York! I n t e r n a t i o n a l U. Press, 1950. Simmel, E.C., Hoppe, R.A., and M i l t o n , G.A. F a c i l i t a t i o n and I m i t a t i v e Behavior. and Bacon, Inc., 1968.  Social Boston: A l l y n  Spence, K.W. Behavio r theory and c o n d i t i o n i n g . Yale U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1956.  New Haven;  Spence, K.W. , Parber, I.E., and McFann, H.H. The r e l a t i o n of anxiety (drive) l e v e l to performance i n competitional and noncompetitional paired-associates learning. Journal o f Experimental Psychology, 1956, 52, 296-305.  '  "  Spence, K.W., Taylor, J . , and K e t c h e l , R. Anxiety (drive) l e v e l and degree o f competition i n paired-associates learning. Journal o f Experimental Psychology, 1956, 52,  306-310.  Sternberg, R.S., Chapman, J . , and Shakow, D. Psychotherapy research and the uroblem o f i n t r u s i o n on privacy. P s y c h i a t r y , 1958, 21, 195-203. Taylor, J.A. A p e r s o n a l i t y scale o f manifest anxiety. Journal o f Abnormal Psychology, 1953, 48, 285-290.  5tf  T r a v i s , L.E. The e f f e c t of a small audience upon eye-hand coordination. J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l 'Psychology, 1925, 20, 142-146. • Wahler, R.G„, Wir.kel, G.H., Peterson, R.F. and Morrison, D . C . Mothers as behaviour t h e r a p i s t s f o r t h e i r own c h i l d r e n . Behaviour Research and.Therapy, 1965, 3, 113-124. Wapner, S«. and A l p e r , T.G. The e f f e c t o f an audience on behavio r i n a choice s i t u a t i o n . Journal o f Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1952, 47, 222-229. Tyler, L.E. Tests and Measurements. H a l l , Inc., 1964. Zajonc, R.B. Social f a c i l i t a t i o n . 269-274.  New Jersey: P r e n t i c e Science, 1965, 149,  Zajonc, R.B. and Sales, S.M. Social f a c i l i t a t i o n of dominant and subordinate responses Journal o f Experimental S o c i a l psychology, 3966, ~2~, 160-168.  A P P E N D I C E S  A  TEXT  OP  B  LISTS  C  POST - EXPERIMENTAL  D  PERSONALITY  OP  INSTRUCTIONS PAIRED  ASSOCIATES QUESTIONNAIRES  INVENTORY  58  A P P E N D I X TEXT  OP  A  INSTRUCTIONS  This i s a study concerning p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and v e r b a l l e a r n i n g .  F i r s t I'd l i k e you to f i l l out t h i s  p e r s o n a l i t y questionnaire.  Don't put your name or any  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n on i t since I want everything to he anonymous and am only i n t e r e s t e d i n group r e s u l t s .  I want to assure you that  I w i l l keep no record o f names. Now I am going to show you how to run these recorders which w i l l he necessary  f o r the f o l l o w i n g two l e a r n i n g tasks.  You s t a r t t h i s one by pushing t h i s button; stop i t w i t h t h i s one. This one you s t a r t and stop w i t h t h i s button on the microphone. When you t u r n on t h i s recorder you w i l l hear a l i s t o f twelve word p a i r s ; a l l words are separated by two second i n t e r v a l s . Your task i s to a n t i c i p a t e the second word o f each p a i r and say i t out loud during the i n t e r v a l . presented  The f i r s t l i s t w i l l be  f i v e times; each presentation i s separated by a four  second i n t e r v a l .  On the f i r s t presentation you w i l l  not know any o f the p a i r s . do think you know a p a i r .  probably  You are to respond as soon as you Here i s a b r i e f example.  hear the p a i r s "box - plane" and "lake - bike".  You might  Your task i s  to respond w i t h the word "plane" a f t e r you hear the word "box"; t h i s response should be w i t h i n the two second i n t e r v a l between the two words.  A f t e r your response "plane", you would hear the  word "plane" on the tape thus enabling you to check your response.  Then the word "lake" would be presented, you would  respond w i t h "bike", hear the word "bike"on the tape, and go on to the next p a i r .  Do you have any questions?  OK, l e t ' s give  59 it a try.  On t h i s f i r s t task I w i l l score your responses here  so you don't have to use that recorder. OK  that was f i n e .  s  I ' l l he hack i n just a moment;  I have to check on the observers that are supposed to show up. (Not observed) I don't see them anywhere.  They w i l l j u s t have  to observe someone else at another time. (Observed) They are here; I have to go and get them s e t t l e d . I ' l l be back i n just a. moment. The next task w i l l be the same type as the one you just completed except f o r two changes: instead of f i v e you w i l l have 20 (15) t r i a l s on t h i s l i s t .  trials  Also I w i l l not be  i n the room; you w i l l be alone and I want you to turn on the recorder and speak into the microphone so your responses w i l l be recorded. the  Turn on the recorder and s t a r t recording r i g h t from  s t a r t and leave i t on constantly; don't turn i t on and o f f  as you go.  Also be c a r e f u l not to a c c i d e n t l y turn o f f the  recorder i f you hold the microphone i n your hand.  As long as  you speak up i t w i l l p i c k up everything from here on the t a b l e , but you can have i t where you want i t .  Any questions? I ' l l  be back v/hen you are done. That's i t except f o r t h i s short post-experimental questionnaire.  Just put a check i n the space that best  describes your f e e l i n g s . the  other ( p o i n t i n g ) .  I t ' s a continuum from one end to  60  Thank you very much f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g , I r e a l l y appreciate i t .  You w i l l receive a summary o f the r e s u l t s o f  the study and an explanation of a l l that went on.  I would  appreciate i t i f you would not t e l l others who might p a r t i c i p a t e i n i t l a t e r the nature of the experiment since I want a l l subjects to enter w i t h equa.l n a i v e t y .  Thanks again.  Female questions: 1 . Have you decided on any s p e c i a l t y o f nursing to go i n t o ? 2 . Did t a l k i n g into the recorder bother you at a l l ? 3. At any time d i d you doubt that anyone was behind the screen?  61  A P P E N D I X B PAIRED Practice  ASSOCIATE  Non-competitional  LISTS Competitional  barb yeast leaf elm dime quart vest jaw heart palm  adept . barren complete distant empty frigid insane little mammoth pious roving stubborn  skillfullfruitless thorough remote vacant arctic crazy minute oversized devout nomad headstrong  petite migrant serene gypsy tranquil quiet barren little desert arid roving undersized  yonder agile headstrong opaque placid double fruitless minute leading grouchy nomad wholesome  cha l k glass kink marsh rose tile alms flute iron ledge nail sand  zoo yeast elm quart jaw palm fang barb leaf dime vest heart  barren distant frigid little pious stubborn adept complete empty insane mammoth roving  fruitless r emo t e arctic minute devout headstrong skillfull thorough vacant crazy oversized nomad  migrant gypsy quiet little arid undersized petite serene tranquil barren desert roving  agile opaque double minute grouchy wholesome yonder headstrong placid fruitless leading nomad  cha l k kink rose alms iron nail glass ma r sh tile flute ledge sand  zoo elm jaw fang leaf vest yeast quart palm barb dime heart  barren frigid pious adept empty mammoth distant little stubborn complete insane roving  fruitless arctic devout skillfull vacant oversized remote minute headstrong thorough era zy nomad  migrant quiet arid petite tranquil desert gypsy little undersized serene barren roving  agile double grouchyyonder placid leading opaque minute wholesome headstrong fruitless nomad  alms chalk fl u t e glass iron kink ledge marsh nail rose sand tile  fang zoo  62  A P P E N D I X POST - EXPERIMENTAL  C  QUESTIONNAIRES  Observed Subjects' Questionnaire 1. To what extent d i d being observed make you nervous? not at a l l  extremely so  2. To what extent do you f e e l that your performance was hindered, improved, or unchanged by your being observed? hindered very much  unchanged  improved very much  3. To what extent were you p e r s o n a l l y aware o f the observers during your l e a r n i n g task? extremely not at a l l aware aware 4. To what extent could you detect the presence o f the observers behind the screen? t h e i r prest h e i r presence ence was was undetectable obvious 5. To what extent d i d the questions on the p e r s o n a l i t y questionnaire annoy you? very much so  not at a l l  6. To what extent do you f e e l the taking o f the p e r s o n a l i t y questionnaire a f f e c t e d your performance on the l e a r n i n g task? g r e a t l y improved it  d i d not a f f e c t it  g r e a t l y impaired it  7• B r i e f l y s t a t e what you t h i n k i s the purpose o f t h i s study.  63  Non-observed Subjects' Questionnaire 1= I f you had been observed through a one-way screen during your second l e a r n i n g task, to what extent do you think your performance would have changed? greatly improved  unchanged  greatly impaired  2 . To what extent do you think being observed from behind a one-way screen during t h i s experiment would have made you nervous? not at a l l  very much so  Did you f e e l you were being observed i n any way when you were l e a r n i n g the second l i s t o f words by y o u r s e l f ? I was sure I was sure I was I was not being observed being observed or I never thought about i t 4. To what extent d i d the questions on the p e r s o n a l i t y questionnaire annoy you? very much so  not at a l l  5. To what extent do you f e e l the taking o f the p e r s o n a l i t y questionnaire a f f e c t e d your performance on the l e a r n i n g task? greatly improved i t  d i d not a f f e c t i t  greatly impaired i t  6. B r i e f l y state what you think i s the purpose o f t h i s study.  64  A P P E N D I X PERSONALITY  D  INVENTORY  1. My hands and feet are u s u a l l y warm enough. 2. I-work under a great deal of tension. 3.  I have diarrhea once a month or more.  4. I am very seldom troubled by c o n s t i p a t i o n . 5. I am troubled by a t t a c k s o f nausea and vomiting. 6. E v i l s p i r i t s possess me a t times. 7. I have nightmares every few n i g h t s . 8. I f i n d i t hard to keep my mind on a task or job. 9. I f people had not had i t i n f o r me I would have been much more s u c c e s s f u l . 10.  My sleep i s f i t f u l and disturbed.  11.  I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be.  12.  I am c e r t a i n l y l a c k i n g i n s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e .  13.  I am happy most of the time.  14. Someone has i t i n f o r me. 15.  I b e l i e v e I am being p l o t t e d against.  16.  I b e l i e v e I am being followed.  17.  I have a great deal o f stomach t r o u b l e .  18.  I commonly wonder what hidden reason another person may have for doing something n i c e f o r me.  19.  I c e r t a i n l y f e e l useless a t times.  20.  Someone has been t r y i n g to poison me.  21.  I cry e a s i l y .  22.  I do not t i r e q u i c k l y .  23.  I frequently n o t i c e my hand shakes when I t r y to do something.  24. I have very few headaches. 25.  Sometimes, when embarrassed, I break out i n a sweat which annoys me g r e a t l y .  65 26. There are persons who idea s.  are t r y i n g to s t e a l my thoughts and  27. I frequently f i n d myself worrying about something. 28. I hardly ever n o t i c e my heart pounding and I am seldom short of breath. 29. I have periods of such great r e s t l e s s n e s s that I cannot s i t long i n a c h a i r . 30. I dream frequently about things that are best kept to myself. 31. I b e l i e v e I am no more nervous than most others. 32. I sweat very e a s i l y even on cool days. 33. I am e n t i r e l y s e l f - c o n f i d e n t . 34. I t i s safer to t r u s t nobody. 35. Someone has c o n t r o l over my mind. 36. I have often f e l t that strangers were looking at me critically. 37. I am sure I am being t a l k e d about. 38. -I have very few fears compared to my f r i e n d s . 39. -At one or more times i n my l i f e I f e l t that someone was making me do things by hypnotizing me. 40. Someone has been t r y i n g to i n f l u e n c e my mind. 41. L i f e i s a s t r a i n f o r me much of the  time.  42. I am more s e n s i t i v e than most other people. 43. I am e a s i l y embarrassed. 44- I worry over money and  business.  45. I cannot keep my mind on one t h i n g . 46. I f e e l anxiety about something or someone almost a l l the time. 47. Sometimes I become so excited that I f i n d i t hard to get to sleep. 48. I tend to be on my guard with people who f r i e n d l y than I had expected.  are somewhat more  49. I have been a f r a i d of things or people that I knew could not hurt me.  66 50. I am i n c l i n e d to take things hard. 51. People say i n s u l t i n g and vulgar things about  me.  52. I am not unusually s e l f - c o n s c i o u s . 53. I f e e l unable to t e l l anyone a l l about myself. 54. I have sometimes f e l t that d i f f i c u l t i e s were p i l i n g up so high that I could not overcome them. 55»  I am u s u a l l y calm and not e a s i l y upset.  56. At times I t h i n k I am no good at a l l . 57»  I f e e l hungry almost a l l the time.  58. I worry quite a b i t over p o s s i b l e misfortunes. 59. I t makes me nervous to have to wait. 60. I have had periods i n which I l o s t sleep over worry. 61. I am bothered by people outside, on s t r e e t c a r s , i n s t o r e s , etc., watching me. 62. I must admit that I have at times been worried beyond reason over something that r e a l l y did not matter. 63. I am a high-strung person. 64. I p r a c t i c a l l y never blush. 65. I blush no more often than others. 66. I am often a f r a i d that I am going to blush. 67. I shrink from f a c i n g a c r i s i s or d i f f i c u l t y . 68. I sometimes f e e l that I am about to go to pieces.  

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.831.1-0104048/manifest

Comment

Related Items