UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An investigation of the relationship between thirst and speed of perceptual recognition Dunfield, Neil Marvin 1952

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1952_A8 D8 I5.pdf [ 4.08MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106552.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106552-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106552-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106552-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106552-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106552-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106552-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106552-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106552.ris

Full Text

/1S Utr Is Of • i AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THIRST AND SPEED OF PERCEPTUAL RECOGNITION by NEIL MARVIN DUNFIELD  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF •MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of PHILOSOPHY AND PSYCHOLOGY  .We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the standard required from candidates f o r the degree of MASTER OF ARTS  Members of the Department o f Philosophy and Psychology .THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April,  1952  if  AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THIRST SPEED OF PERCEPTUAL RECOGNITION  AND  Abstract  This experiment was undertaken to investigate the e f f e c t of t h i r s t upon speed of perceptual recognition of t h i r s t s a t i s f y i n g objects. Recent i n t e r e s t i n the aspects of perception which may function adaptively has l e d to many experiments attempting to uncover the r e l a t i o n s between perception and motivation. This i n t e r e s t has centered around the d i s t o r t i n g and s e l e c t i v e influence of motivation upon perception. One aspect of the s e l e c t i v e function of motivation i s i t s e f f e c t upon the speed of perceptual recognition of need related objects. I t was i n t h i s respect that the e f f e c t of need on perception was investigated i n the present experiment. A s i g n i f i c a n t l i m i t a t i o n i n much of past experimentation i n this f i e l d has been the use of 'marginal' s t i m u l i by i n v e s t i g a t o r s . Marginal» s t i m u l i are stimulating situations i n which the presented s t i m u l i are either f l e e t i n g , blurred, or a c t u a l l y objectively lacking. I t was f e l t that a l l perceptual s t i m u l i are not of t h i s sort and that to generalize from these l i m i t e d experiments using 'marginal' s t i m u l i , to a l l forms of perceptual s i t u a t i o n s , i s unwarranted by f a c t . 1  :  The present experiment involved s t i m u l i which were more highly structured than had hitherto been used. The purpose of the experiment was to determine i f , as had been postulated by other experimenters, the existence of an o r g a i i e need would decrease the time of perceptual recognition of objects r e l a t e d to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of that need. The need investigated was t h i r s t : need f o r water. The technique used to induce t h i r s t i n the 30 subjects which consituted the experimental group, was to feed them peanut-butter before the experiment. The 30 subjects i n the control group did not receive the peanut-butter. A l l subjects, subsequent to experimental t e s t i n g , were asked to f i l l out a s e l f - r a t i n g on a subjective f i v e point scale of f e l t t h i r s t . The stimulating s i t u a t i o n involved the use of ten puzzle-picture cards. Within;:each card had been hidden one object. Five of these hidden objects were neutral r e l a t i v e to the need being tested. The other f i v e objects were related to t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n of the prevailing induced need. The type of t h i r s t r e l a t e d objects used, had previously been determined through the use of an association  technique applied to a class of undergraduate psychology students. The experiment yielded the following results: 1. The experimental group rated themselves as significantly more thirsty on the self administered scale of f e l t thirst than did the control group. Hence, we.could analyze the remaining data confident that a differential degree of thirst had been established between the control and experimental groups. 2. It was statistically indicated that neither the control or the experimental group demonstrated a correlation between speed on the need cards and speed on the neutral cards. This indicated that i f the induced need was effecting perceptual recognition, i t was doing so for only one type of object: need or neutral. Consideration of nearly equivalent amounts of correlation tendencies i n the control and experimental groups, throws some doubt on the original hypothesis the need w i l l effect the recognition of need related objects. 3. The application of distribution free s t a t i s t i c a l methods to the results of the individual cards showed that there was no significant difference between the recognition speed of the control and experimental group on any single card. k. These results did not lend support to the hypothesis that need w i l l effect the speed of perceptual recognition of objects related to the satisfaction of that need. Within the limitations of the experimental technique, this experiment did not support the general hypothesis that need effects perception i n terms of perceptual recognition time.  ACKNOWLEDGMENT  The writer would l i k e to express h i s gratitude to Mr. D.T. Kenny, f o r h e l p f u l suggestions and encouragement during the course o f t h i s work, and to Captain Bruce Rutherford, Seaforth Highlanders (R), f o r his assistance i n obtaining subjects.  CONTENTS  CHAPTER I  PAGE  Introduction S p e c i f i c Purpose o f the Present Experiment II  1  INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1 lk  16  EXPERIMENTAL MATERIALS/ SUBJECTS AND PROCEDURE Materials Subjects Procedure  16 19 21 25  III  THE DATA AND THEIR TREATMENT  IV  DISCUSSION OF RESULTS  3k  V  CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY  US  VI  IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH  1*8  REFERENCES  50  APPENDICES  52  A B C D E  The Set of Puzzle-Picture Cards Rating Scale of T h i r s t Raw Data f o r Control and Experimental Groups D i s t r i b u t i o n of Raw Scores f o r Control and Experimental Groups, by Time Value and Card Number Rank Order Correlation between F i r s t Five and Last Five Cards f o r control and Experimental Groups  £2 6li 66 69 72  TABLES  TABLE I  Chi Square Test of Rating Scale Values f o r Control and Experimental Groups  I I Total Number of Runs (D Values) f o r Each of the Ten Cards, f o r 60 Subjects  PAGE 27  32  CHAPTER I  INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM  INTRODUCTION In recent years there has been a s t e a d i l y increasing i n t e r e s t i n the r e l a t i o n s between perception and motivation. Many attempts have been made, both t h e o r e t i c a l and experimental, to demonstrate the integrated nature of these two psychological processes. That the two processes are f u n c t i o n a l l y related i s t a c i t l y assumed i n the use o f several of the more popular projective t e s t i n g techniques. Sears points t h i s f a c t out i n h i s analysis o f f  the psychoanalytic  concept of projection when he (2U,p.32l+) states  The so c a l l e d 'projective techniques' f o r the measurement of personality are based on the assumption that what i s perceived i s i n part a function of the motivation structure of the personality. In such tests perception i s conceived of as ' f u n c t i o n a l ; that i s , 1  how we perceive the world around us i s p a r t i a l l y determined by how we want and need to perceive the world. Sears, i n pointing out the general acceptance o f such a view, also indicates the l i m i t e d extent o f our knowledge o f this relationship: As a general statement about perception t h i s scarcely needs documentation, but the d e t a i l s o f the r e l a t i o n between the motive and percept have been l i t t l e considered.  (2lt,p.32li)  •  2 As he has here suggested, such a conceived r e l a t i o n s h i p , while having a f a i r l y extensive h i s t o r i c a l representation i n common b e l i e f , and more recently i n the c l i n i c a l study o f personality, has aroused l i t t l e serious experimental i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I t i s since Sear's review i n 19kh that the greater part o f the research attempting to uncover the 'details of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the percept and the motive'have been undertaken. The general hypothesis that one's motives e f f e c t one's perception of the world has received many and varied forms of presentation. But e s s e n t i a l to a l l wordings o f t h i s hypothesis i s the general assumption  that perception i s i n some way f u n c t i o n a l .  I t i s an adaptive function o f the organism i n i t s i n t e r a c t i o n with the world. The idea holds that the percept expresses more than the fortuitous mosaic of s t i m u l i and t h e i r associated memory traces. The understanding of the process of perception requires more than a mere consideration o f c l a s s i c a l sensory association theories on the one hand, or such dynamic p r i n c i p l e s o f sensory organization as put forward by Gestaltheories on the other hand. Perception, or any immediate percept, i s understood by the contemporary perception theorists who hold the above views, to be the expression of two simultaneously e f f e c t i v e determinants: the cognitive and the connative; the knowing and the w i l l i n g . Of the t h e o r i s t s expounding t h i s perceptual hypothesis Kretch and Crutchfield (9),  i n t h e i r text on s o c i a l  3 psychology, give one of the more l u c i d and terse expressions of t h i s b e l i e f . The hypothesis that motivation i s r e f l e c t e d i n perception becomes a d e f i n i t i v e proposition i n t h e i r d e t a i l e d treatment of perception generally: Proposition 2 : Perception i s f u n c t i o n a l l y s e l e c t i v e . The second proposition points out that no one perceives anything that i s 'out there' to be perceived, but that only c e r t a i n objects play a major r o l e i n one's perceptual organization. The objects thus accentuated i n perception are u s u a l l y those which are f u n c t i o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t to the perceiving i n d i v i d u a l . (9,p.l07) Gardner Murphy (l£) has been equally e x p l i c i t i n describing t h i s assumed r e l a t i o n between perception and motivation. The r e l a t i o n s h i p holding between these two  processes  comes under h i s concept of 'autism . This terra i s used to designate 1  'the movement of the cognitive processes i n the d i r e c t i o n of need s a t i s f a c t i o n ' . In h i s treatment of perception he writes: I t must, however, be born i n mind that the existence of needs precedes t h e i r expression i n perception. Needs are present before one opens one's eyes, before a voice s t r i k e s the ear. Needs determine how the incoming energies are to be put i n t o structured form. Perception, then, i s not something that i s f i r s t registered o b j e c t i v e l y then 'distorted'. Rather, as the need pattern s h i f t s , the stage i s set minute by minute f o r quasi-automatic structure giving tendencies to make the percept s u i t the need. The need pattern predisposes to one rather than another manner of anchoring the percept round one's needs. Needs keep ahead o f percepts. (l5,p.377) Representative of the type of experimental work he c i t e s as  support  of t h i s hypothesis are those of Levine, Chein and Murphy (10)j Proshansky and Murphy (17)j and Schaffer and Murphy (23).  Perhaps the most able and abundant support f o r the hypothesis that need e f f e c t s perception, and the most caref u l exposition of the 'details of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the percept and the motive' i s to be found i n the works of J.S. Bruner and h i s collaborators ( 2 , 3 , h , 5 , 6 , 7 , 1 8 , 1 9 ) . They have gone further than most others i n o u t l i n i n g , i n d e t a i l , the nature of the variables; that are most probably involved, and the methods of i n v e s t i g a t i o n which may  prove experimentally  f r u i t f u l . They have also outlined  c l e a r l y the areas which, to them, must be explored i n order to reconcile any apparent dichotomy between perception and  motivation.  The following four propositions are taken from a t h e o r e t i c a l paper by Bruner and Postman (7)  and i l l u s t r a t e s the systematic manner  which they believe should be employed i n pursuing t h i s problem: 1. Select c e n t r a l non-perceptual v a r i a b l e s , changes i n which can be shown to bring about systematic changes i n perceptive functioning. 2.  To s e l e c t variables from various t h e o r e t i c a l systems - learning theories, motivational theories, theories of personality - so that these theories may be continuous with t h e body of perceptual theory.  3.  To postulate and then study those intervening mechanisms which account f o r the changes i n perception which occur when we change the c e n t r a l state of the organism.  U. F i n a l l y , to emerge with a u n i f i e d theory of behavior which contains laws r e l a t i n g the manner i n which perception i s an instrument of adjustive behavior, (7,p.l6) Bruner and Goodman (k)  and Bruner and Postman  (7)  5 have stated a few of the changes ( which they f e e l have been demonstrated experimentally ) that are traceable to the motivational state of the organism. E s s e n t i a l l y these are a t t r i b u t i v e and s e l e c t i v e changes. The perceived object may be d i s t o r t e d through motivational determinants,  or the s e l e c t i o n and recognition of ,  objects may be changed or influenced by needs. They have expressed the above changes i n the following manner: a) ...that stimuli which are i n congruence with the p r e v a i l i n g d i r e c t i v e state of the organism are more r e a d i l y recognized than incongruent m a t e r i a l . b) ...that incongruent s t i m u l i are d i s t o r t e d to conform to the dominant need or expectation of the perceiver. (7,p.2$) I t was as an attempt to t e s t assumption a) above that the experiment reported i n t h i s paper was undertaken. In t h i s experiment the d e t a i l s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between an organic need ( t h i r s t ) and perceptual recognition time of objects related to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of the need, were explored. Before passing on to a more d e t a i l e d o u t l i n e of the s p e c i f i c purpose and methods of the present experiment i t would be w e l l to review and evaluate any c l o s e l y related  experimental  research. While the studies which treat of the e f f e c t of organic need on perception are not l e g i o n , there are s u f f i c i e n t to i n d i c a t e the general o r i e n t a t i o n of researchers in-this f i e l d . The experiments to be reviewed here are those by Sanford (21,22), Levine, Chein and  6  Murphy ( 1 0 ) , and McClelland a i d Atkinson (11). Almost a l l the variables that Bruner and Postman have suggested as possible determinants  of perception have been  tested, i n some form or other, by a wide range of  experimenters.  The variables tested have been drawn from learning theories, motivational theories, and personality t h e o r i e s . A l l these experiments were undertaken to c l a r i f y the nature of the assumed r e l a t i o n s h i p between perception and motivation. The studies reviewed here, treating of organic need and perception, represent a small part of the whole problem.  RELATED RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTS OF ORGANIC NEED ON PERCEPTION SANFORDt (21,22)  Two  experiments, reported by Sanford i n 1936  and 1937 respectively, were undertaken to determine the e f f e c t s of hunger upon imaginal processes. Sanford used hours of deprivation of food as an index of the i n t e n s i t y of the hunger d r i v e . The lengths of deprivation varied from one to twenty-four hours, and hence, t h e o r e t i c a l l y , from ' l i t t l e ' to 'great' hunger. The imaginal productions of h i s subjects were tested through such techniques as word association t e s t s , chain association t e s t s , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of drawings, and completion of p i c t u r e s . The r e s u l t s obtained by the use of t h i s method i n d i c a t e that there i s an increase i n 'food responses'  (to these  stimuli conditions) as length of time of food deprivation increased.  7 On the basis of these r e s u l t s Sanford f e l t j u s t i f i e d i n assuming that the existence of an organic need such as hunger does e f f e c t the imaginal processes. The effects demonstrated were such that need s a t i s f y i n g imaginings became more frequent i n the responses as the strength of the need increased. I t i s important i n evaluating t h i s experiment that we remember that t h i s p a r t i c u l a r study was undertaken to explore the e f f e c t of hunger on the imaginal processes. Later perception t h e o r i s t s , attempting to defend the concept that need e f f e c t s perception, have found i n Sanford s r e s u l t s , 1  experimental  confirmation of t h e i r theoretical p o s i t i o n . They have taken Sanford's study of the e f f e c t of need on the imaginal  processes  as demonstrative of the e f f e c t of need on perception. Pastore i n c r i t i c i z i n g some of the recent experimental and  (16),  theoretical  papers i n t h i s f i e l d , makes a statement which i s worthy of r e p e t i t i o n at t h i s point. While not r e f e r r i n g e x p l i c i t l y to Sanford's experiment i s does r e f l e c t upon any 'perceptual' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  of  Sanford's r e s u l t s : The terra perception, judging by i t s usage, embraces, perhaps unwittingly, many psychological processes; processes which include judging, i n f e r r i n g , and understanding.... the way i n which the concept i s being used should be set f o r t h c l e a r l y by the i n v e s t i g a t o r .  (l6,p.U72).  To t h i s l i s t of psychological processes which are being included i n the meaning of perception, we might now  add the imaginal processes.  8 Sanford's subjects were asked to i n t e r p r e t imaginatively, auditory and v i s u a l s t i m u l i . Sanford has expressely stated that he i s t e s t i n g these imaginal processes. The subjects were not asked to t e l l what they saw or heard, but rather, what could be imagined or associated w i t h any p a r t i c u l a r s t i m u l i . I t would appear, then, that to include t h i s experiment as evidence f o r the supposition that need effects perception i s giving to t h e term perception a f a r broader meaning than i s usual. Many o f the c r i t i c i z m s we w i l l have to make of the other r e l a t e d experiments w i l l r e f l e c t back upon a 'perceptual' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Sanford's r e s u l t s . LEVTNE, CHEIN, AND MURPHY; (10) These.experimenters made use o f a s i m i l a r experimental procedure to that of Sanford. They undertook to investigate the e f f e c t of hunger (food-need) upon the perception of ambiguous v i s u a l s t i m u l i . A t o t a l o f ten subjects were employed, f i v e i n the experimental group and f i v e i n the control group. The subjects i n the experimental group were deprived o f food f o r various lengths of time up to twenty-four hours. The f i v e c o n t r o l subjects were not deprived o f food. A l l subjects were then presented, from behind a ground glass screen, blurred ambiguous pictures on cards. There were eighty of these cards alltogether, f o r t y were chromatic and f o r t y were achromatic. The subjects i n both groups were asked to verbalize an association with each card, the objects of the experiment being to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p , i f any,  9  between a subjects need for food and the number of food associations related to the ambiguous stimuli cards. These experimenters increased on the achromatic  found that the food responses  cards for three and s i x hours of food  deprivation and began to decrease from nine hours on. The  chromatic  cards indicated no such increase i n food responses. Analysing only the r e s u l t s from the achromatic  cards, they conclude that food  need s i g n i f i c a n t l y increases the perception of food r e l a t e d forms i n ambiguous s t i m u l i . Pastore (16)  has been sharply c r i t i c a l of t h i s  experiment and h i s c r i t i c i s m s cast some doubt upon the conclusions Murphy and h i s co-workers draw from i t . He  (l6,p.U6l) points out  that Allthough the data are presented, the authors do notcompare the o v e r a l l number of food responses of the experimental group with the c o n t r o l . I t can be e a s i l y calculated however, that the difference between the experimental and the control group i s i n s i g n i f i c a n t . Another r e s u l t of t h i s experiment , which weighs against the acceptance of Murphy's conclusions and theorizings, i s the experimental f a c t that the food responses f a i l e d to increase with increasing hunger. A point of food deprivation was  reached  (nine hours) beyond which the number of food responses sharply diminished. In order to explain t h i s phenomenon they have engaged i n ad hoc hypothesising. They have postulated a ' r e a l i t y p r i n c i p l e which, when need becomes too intense, serves to force the subject  1  10 away from the non-need s a t i s f y i n g experimental  s i t u a t i o n back to a  possibly more need s a t i s f y i n g r e a l i t y . This postulated p r i n c i p l e ' was supposed to account for the drop i n food  'reality responses.  A question which could be asked a t t h i s point i s why should we expect j u s t a drop i n the food responses? I f the subject becomes re-orientated towards r e a l i t y to s a t i s f y h i s needs we would expect h i s t o t a l number of responses to decrease, not j u s t the food responses. ' Even overlooking the inadequacey of the handling of the experimental data, and the i n s u f f i c i e n c e y o f t h e i r ad hoc hypothesising, there i s s t i l l one major c r i t i c i s m which can be made against t h i s experiment. This c r i t i c i s m i s p r e c i s e l y that which wheighed against the acceptance of Sanford's r e s u l t s as perceptual i n nature. Levine, Chein and Murphy are t e s t i n g nothing but t h e i r subjects imaginative and i n t e r p r e t i v e processes, not perception per se. This type o f experimental i n v e s t i g a t i o n , and the deductions  from i t which are taken as i n d i c a t i v e o f aspects o f  perception, i s t y p i c a l o f many of the o t t e r investigations exploring perception and motivation. Pastore say about such experimentation  (l6,p.,!j5 ) has the following to 0  and theorizing:  At most, they have shown that perception may be a form o f adaptive behavior i n c e r t a i n l i m i t e d forms o f perceptual s i t u a t i o n , v i s , marginal perceptual s i t u a t i o n s . These marginal situations involve e i t h e r th<3 exposure o f an ambiguous stimul to the subject (a stimulus which i s not w e l l defined or not w e l l structured), or the exposure o f a stimulus f o r a b r i e f period of time i n a tachistoscope.  11  The word marginal i s applied io these situations since the subject can not get a c l e a r v i s u a l impression of the stimulus involved....The f a c t that marginal s i t u a t i o n s form the core of the experimental procedure of these various experiments suggests that perception i s not the only f a c t o r involved i n the experiments. Such marginal perceptual s i t u a t i o n s allow f o r the maximum play of i n t e r p r e t i v e f a c t o r s . The subjects do not get a c l e a r v i s u a l impression, therefore hs i s constrained to i n t e r p r e t reconstruct the stimulus s i t u a t i o n . (l6,p.U69) Referring back to the experiment by Levine, Chein and Murphy, Pastore (l6,p.l*69) has the following point to make: . . . i t i s not known whether the ambiguous shapes are a c t u a l l y seen as food objects by some of the subjects, or whether the subjects sought reasonable inte:rpretations of an ambiguous shape. The search f o r approximations may be influenced by a food need, but what the subject reports i s e s s e n t i a l l y an evaluation of a stimulus rather than a perception per se^ That t h i s was not s t r i c t l y a perceptual experiment can be shown by the nature of the i n s t r u c t i o n s that were given to the subjects: I am going to show you a series of pictures behinda scfeen you see i n front of you. You will, t r y to v e r b a l i z e an association with every picture you see. (10,p.289) As Pastore (16) has pointed out i n h i s evaluation of t h i s experiment, why  should t h i s be considered a perceptual experiment when the  subjects were expressly t o l d to report an association, not to describe the s t i m u l i . I t i s evidence then, that Pastore's  criticisms  v i t i a t e the acceptance of the r e s u l t s of t h i s experiment as  support  12  of the theory that organic need does e f f e c t perception. McCLELLAND and ATKINSON; ( l l ) This was  another experiment i n  which the experimenters were interested i n the r e l a t i o n s between hunger and perception. I t was part of a series of experiments (1,11,12,13) which ...have been begun with creating a s p e c i f i c motivational tension or need of more or l e s s known strength and then proceeded to measure i t s e f f e c t s on perception and projection....The f i r s t experiment i n the s e r i e s begins at what appeared to be the simplest l e v e l , namely the e f f e c t on perception of d i f f e r e n t strengths of a known p h y s i o l o g i c a l need. ( l l , p . 2 0 6 ) The subjects, one hundred and eight naval cadets, were deprived of food f o r varying lengths of time up to sixteen hoursj f o r t y men  at one hours deprivation} twenty-four at four  hours deprivationj and f o r t y men  at sixteen hours deprivation.  Following the period of food deprivation the subjects were shown a screen upon which a blank s l i d e was projected. The reason f o r use of the blank s l i d e was  given  that they wanted a s i t u a t i o n i n  which the actual r e a l i s t i c cues were minimal. The r e s u l t s of the experiment indicated that the number of food responses increased s i g n i f i c a t n l y between one  and  sixteen hours of food deprivation. This was found to be a highly r e l i a b l e d i f f e r e n c e . This d i f f e r e n c e i n number of food responses was  only evident i n 'instrumental' food responses, and d i d not  appear i n 'goal  1  responses.  13 They found, further, that when a f a i n t smudge or hazy object was introduced on to the screen i n place of a blank s l i d e , the number of 'food responses' a c t u a l l y decreased. In f a c t , the increase i n food responses was found to be so small with the smudged s l i d e that they decided to work e n t i r e l y with the blank screen. Pastore (16)  has been very c r i t i c a l of t h i s , and  has the following to say r e l a t i v e to the use of a blank screen: The reductlo ad'subsurdum of the procedure of some of the investigators discussed i n t h i s paper i s indicated i n a recent series of experiments deal i n g w i t h the influence of food need on perception....A blank s l i d e i s flashed on the screen. The subject i s required to report what he sees. (The experimenter provides cues) why should t h i s experiment be termed perceptual when a v i s u a l experience i s excluded by the nature i f the experiment? (l6,p.l*71) I t could be easy, perhaps deceptively easy, i n evaluating these experiments, to 'compartmentalize' perception. By t h i s i s meant, to make of perception a psychological, process d i s t i n c t from inference, judgment, imagination, memory, f a m i l i a r i t y , and such related psychological processes. Doubtless a l l these factors contribute i n some measure to a l l meaningful perception, but i t i s important i n conducting an experiment i n perception that we do not allow any one, or a l l , of these variables to dominate psychologically. The f l e e t i n g , blurred, or ambiguous s t i m u l i which Pastore has c a l l e d 'marginal' perception i s probably j u s t one form of perceptual s t i m u l i . To generalize from experiments using t h i s marginal type of s t i m u l i to a l l forms of perception i s probably  Hi f a u l t y induction. The r e l a t i o n s h i p s found i n experiments i n v o l v i n g marginal s t i m u l i may not be found to apply with other kinds of perceptual stimul. I t i s probably the case that, as the s t i m u l i become more highly structured the above mentioned variables play l e s s and l e s s r o l e i n perception, the percept becomes more c l o s e l y a l l i e d with objective r e a l i t y . SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT EXPERIMENT On the basis o f the above disucssion of research i n the f i e l d of organic motivation and perception, i t was f e l t that further experimentation was needed. In t h i s experiment i t was proposed to eliminate the 'marginal' perceptual aspect of past experiments, and deal with more highly structured v i s u a l s t i m u l i . Also, the variables which Pastore points out as having contaminated many past experiments, and making a pure perceptual i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s questionable, were reduced to a minimum. The s p e c i f i c purpose o f the present experiment was to investigate the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a p r e v a i l i n g organic need state and the speed of perceptual recognition of objects associated with the s a t i s f a c t i o n of the need. I t was assumed that Bruner and Postman's use of such phrases as 'stimuli which are i n congruence' and  'prevailing d i r e c t i v e state* refered respectively to ' s t i m u l i  commonly associated with the s a t i s f a c t i o n o f a need', and 'orientated towards the s a t i s f a c t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r need'. Stated c a t e g o r i c a l l y  15 the hypothesis tested i n the present experiment  was:  Subjects who are t h i r s t y w i l l perceptually recognize objects hidden i n a puzzle pieture quicker than w i l l subjects who do not need a drink (are not t h i r s t y ) , providing such hidden objects are associated with the quenching of t h e i r t h i r s t . The methods and procedures used i n t e s t i n g t h i s hypothesis are outlined i n the next chapter.  CHAPTER I I  EXPERIMENTAL MATERIALS, SUBJECTS, AND PROCEDURE  MATERIALS  The stimulating s i t u a t i o n was standard f o r a l l subjects, being a set of ten 'puzzle-picture' cards. These cards (see Appendix A) were s p e c i a l l y constructed f o r t h i s experiment. The p i c t u r e on each card i s formed of ink l i n e . The l i n e s form an apparently meaningless combination of curve and s t r a i g h t l i n e .bounded f i g u r e s . Each card was 5" x 6 " with a black border around it. The pictures themselves were structured i n a manner s i m i l a r to those used by Kohler ( 8 , p p . 1 9 0 - 1 9 3 ) to demonstrate varying ' s t a b i l i t y ' o f v i s u a l l y organized e n t i t i e s . He i l l u s t r a t e s that the ' s t a b i l i t y ' of an object or shape i s disturbed or destroyed by the a d d i t i o n of neighbouring l i n e s which a s s i s t i n the perceptual formation of l a r g e r e n t i t i e s or objects. Each p i c t u r e used i n the present experiment contained only one hidden i object of d e f i n i t e form. In order to a s s i s t i n the concealing o f these objects i n the puzzle-picture some o f the e s s e n t i a l l i n e s o f i t s form were heterogeneously  scattered over the adjacent area.  This formed the puzzle-picture aspect o f the cards, as only i n one spot i n the picture were the l i n e s so arranged that they were 16  17  perceivable as a meaningful object: the hidden object. The whole picture was o f such a nature that when the object was perceived, i t would be with sudden ' i n s i g h t . The 1  'puzzle-picture' aspect of the cards was to prevent too immediate perceptual recognition. The hidden objects though, when once perceptually recognized, presented  no ambiguity o f form, or any  doubt as to i t s meaning. The objects were w e l l structured forms and could not be considered as 'marginal' stimuli i n the sense outlined previously. On f i v e o f these ten 'puzzle-picture' cards were hidden objects associated with the s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h i r s t . The hidden objects i n these f i v e cards were: 1. A glass s p i l l i n g water; 2. A running water tap; 3. A 'pop' b o t t l e ; U. A running water fountain; 5 . A cup (or mug) s p i l l i n g water. Previous to the construction o f these cards, and the selection of the type o f objects to be hidden, a survey of 12U u n i v e r s i t y students i n an undergraduate psychology class was made to determine those objects which i n d i v i d u a l s most commonly associated with water. In this preliminary study the students were asked to write down the f i r s t two things which came to t h e i r minds when they thought of water. Some of the most frequently associated things such as 'boat' or ' f i s h ' were obviously impractical to employ i n an experiment on t h i r s t . Frequent enough reference was made to the type o f objects f i n a l l y employed i n the cards, though, to  18  warrant their use i n an experiment of t h i s s o r t . The remaining f i v e cards contained objects assumed to be neutral to the need being tested. These second f i v e cards contained respectively: 6 . An e l e c t r i c l i g h t bulb; 7 . A smoking pipe; 8. A hammer; 9 . A r o l l i n g p i n ; 1 0 . Reading glasses. These neutral cards were included as d i s t r a c t o r s . Their chief purpose was to prevent the subjects from determining the general nature o f the hidden objects, as they related to t h i r s t s a t i s f a c t i o n . Another, though l e s s important, reason for the i n c l u s i o n o f these neutral cards i n the experiment stemmed from the very nature o f the hypothesis being tested. I f need d i d e f f e c t perception by decreasing the recognition time of these hidden objects, i s t h i s decreased recognition time manifest only with need related objects or i s i t a ubiquitous phenomena common to a l l types o f objects? I t had o r i g i n a l l y been planned, i n order to make the experimental subjects t h i r s t y , to have them suck on a s a l t t a b l e t just p r i o r to experimental testing with the cards. Later, r e a l i z i n g that s a l t tablets e l i c i t much unpleasantness, i t was decided to abandon t h i s method o f inducing t h i r s t . Individuals who are i n i t i a l l y discouraged from entering the experiment by being asked to suck a mouthful of s a l t , are not apt to make the most highly motivated subjects. I t was f i n a l l y decided that the subjects i n the experimental group would be made t h i r s t y by having them eat a f a i r l y  19 large quantity of peanut-butter. I t had been found, preliminary to t h i s experimental i n v e s t i g a t i o n , that s u f f i c i e n t quantities of peanut-butter d i d induce a marked temporary.thirst  i n the  majority  of people. In the actual experiment the subjects i n the experimental group were made t h i r s t y i n t h i s manner. As a measure of the t h i r s t - factor, a l l subjects were given a r a t i n g scale of t h i r s t , (see Appendix B) and asked to subjectively rate themselves. This r a t i n g scale consisted of a f i v e point scale of ' f e l t t h i r s t ' . To f a c i l i t a t e the r a t i n g of themselves each point on the r a t i n g scale was  subjects accompanied  by a short verbal d e s c r i p t i o n of the f e l t subjective state f o r that point. For timing the recognition speed al stop watch was used. This watch could be read to o n e - f i f t h of a second. The same experimenter did the timing f o r the whole experiment so i t can be assumed that his reaction time i s a constant f a c t o r i n a l l the reported  scores.  SUBJECTS The subjects used i n t h i s experiment.were s i x t y army r e c r u i t s obtained at a l o c a l array depot. T h i r t y of these subjects composed the experimental group, and the remaining t h i r t y the control group. The average education of a l l subjects was VIII, t h e i r age twenty-five, and a l l had v i s i o n which was  grade  normal  or corrected s u f f i c i e n t for enlistment i n the army active f o r c e s .  \  20 The t e s t i n g o f these subjects extended over a two week period. During t h i s period the various subjects were obtained from several d i f f e r e n t d r a f t s of r e c r u i t s . As any p a r t i c u l a r d r a f t was a t the station f o r only a very few days, i t was f e l t that the subjects were drawn from several 'psychologically i s o l a t e d ' groups (In terms of t h i s experiment).  This f a c t o r doubtless cut  down communication between pre- and post-experimental  subjects.  The subjects from any p a r t i c u l a r d r a f t were run through the t e s t i n a short period of time, and prevented from communicating with others i n t h e i r d r a f t u n t i l a l l who were to be tested i n t h e i r d r a f t , had been tested. The t o t a l time taken f o r any one subject did not exceed f i f t e e n minutes. Another f a c t o r operating to c u r t a i l the spread of information amongst prospective subjects was the general  ignorance  amongst them of the test's purpose. The subjects were not t o l d that t h i s was not a part of the whole army screening program which they had j u s t undertaken. As the subjects were a l l volunteer r e c r u i t s , and presuraeably eager to make a good 'show' i n the army, i t was f e l t that they would do t h e i r best under the assumption that i t was part and parcel of t h e i r screening. And, as t h e i r best could only be judged r e l a t i v e to t h e i r buddies r e s u l t s (or so they were t o l d ) , anything which assisted the other fellow and didntt a s s i s t themselves, merely lowered t h e i r own r e l a t i v e standing. This b e l i e f on the part o f the subjects further c u r t a i l e d the spread o f  21 information about the nature o f the t e s t , i t i s b e l i e v e d . PROCEDURE The subjects were admitted to the t e s t i n g room s i n g l y . The room was w e l l l i t by natural l i g h t , and a l l t e s t i n g took place during the daytime. The order of subjects had previously been determined f o r control or experimental group, on the basis o f a table of random numbers. Thus, each subject, as he entered the room, was placed i n t o a predetermined  group, either control or  experimental. Chance alone, determined whether he was to be a control or experimental subject. Each subject was seated opposite the experimenter at a three foot table. The puzzle-picture cards were held by the experimenter, about two and a h a l f feet from the seated subjects. The cards were arranged and held i n such a manner that as soon as one card was completed i t could be dropped down, expossing the following card.  . When the subject was seated and comfortable he  was read the following i n s t r u c t i o n s : "You are going to be shown ten cards , i n order. .On each of these cards i s a p i c t u r e . This picture i s made up of jumble of curved and straight l i n e s . In each of these jumbled l i n e pictures there i s a hidden object. They are a l l objects that your know very w e l l and probably see every day. Your are to look at each card as i t i s shown to you. As soon as you see a hidden object i n the p i c t u r e , report i t . I w i l l be keeping time with-the stop watch,so  22 i t i s important that you report i t the moment you recognize i t . Some cards are harder than others, and there maybe some that you w i l l , not get' a t a l l . But, go r i g h t on t r y i n g u n t i l t o l d to stop. To show you what i s meant by a hidden object I w i l l show you t h i s sample card.... Are there any questions now, before we s t a r t . " The sample card which i s shown to the subjects i s a very simple one. The hidden objects, s c i s s o r s , are quite obvious, (see Appendix A) I f there were any questions at t h i s point, the instructions were merely repeated. I f the questions pertained to the nature, or reason, f o r the t e s t , the answer was deferred u n t i l the end of the t e s t with the vague explanation that divulging the nature and purpose o f the t e s t at t h i s point would destroy i t s 'worth'. Both control and experimental groups were given the same set o f i n s t r u c t i o n s , with the addition, i n the case of the experimental group, of i n s t r u c t i o n s to eat the peanut-butter. The experimental group were given the peanut-butter on paper p l a t e s , and instructed to eat a t l e a s t four s poonsful, r a p i d l y . They were further instructed to eat one spoonful before being shown each card. The cards with the neutral objects hidden i n them were randomly interspersed withthe cards i n which the need objects were hidden. T h ten cards were presented to the subjects e  i n the following order: Scissors (sample); Light bulb ( #1 neutral); Glass s p i l l i n g water (#1 need); Running water tap ( #2 need); Smoking pipe ( #2 neutral); Hammer ( #3 neutral); 'Pop' b o t t l e (#3 need); Running water fountain ( #h need); R o l l i n g p i n (#lj. neutral);  Cup s p i l l i n g water (#5 need)j Reading glasses ( #$ n e u t r a l ) . For p r a c t i c a l purposes, a subject was stopped at two hundred seconds i f he had f a i l e d to locate or recognize the hidden object i n any one of the cards. He then proceeded to the next card. This time l i m i t was f e l t to be j u s t i f i e d on the basis of pre-experimental work with the cards. While the cards were being constructed, i t was discovered, that i f a subject d i d not locate the hidden object i n a f a i r l y short time, he soon l o s t i n t e r e s t and would probably f a i l to ever locate the object. A f t e r a l l the cards had been shown, the subjects were asked to i n d i c a t e , on the r a t i n g scale, t h e i r degree of ' f e l t ' t h i r s t during the experiment. The time taken by each subject to recognize each hidden object had been entered i n a table at the bottom of the sheet which contained the r a t i n g s c a l e . This scoring table was folded under, so that the subjects would not be able to see the timed r e s u l t s while they were r a t i n g themselves on the scale of t h i r s t . Any questions which now came up, over the nature or pupose of the t e s t , or any which had been deferred from e a r l i e r i n the t e s t i n g session, were now answered i n a rather ambiguous, psuedo-technical manner. The answers given were to the e f f e c t that t h i s was a t e s t i n g technique used f o r i s o l a t i n g those i n d i v i d u a l s who were l e a s t effected by camouflage  . This theme was expanded on  2k at some length for the benefit o f the more i n q u i s i t i v e . The peanut-butter was explained away as simulating s t r e s s f u l and d i s t r a c t i n g s i t u a t i o n s . I t i s doubtful i f any r e a l l y believed t h i s explanation, but i t probably served the purpose, i n many cases, of s a t i s f y i n g t h e i r c u r i o s i t y while clouding the r e a l i s s u e s .  CHAPTER I I I  THE DATA AND THEIR TREATMENT  The following chapter i s devoted e n t i r e l y to the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis o f the data. The non-mathematical implications of these derived s t a t i s t i c s form the subject matter o f the next chapter. The r e s u l t s to be analyzed s t a t i s t i c a l l y ,  fall  i n t o two r e l a t i v e l y d i s t i n c t sets of datum: the r e s u l t s , i n seconds, for  a l l subjects, f o r recognition of the objects i n each one of the  ten cards; and, the point values f o r each subject on the subjective r a t i n g scale of ' f e l t  1  t h i r s t . The raw data f o r both of these  variables i s presented i n Appendix C, f o r both control and experimental groups. The  f i r s t set of data to be analyzed i s that  dealing with the r a t i n g scale of t h i r s t . This control i s e s s e n t i a l for  a proper evaluation of the remainder of the data. I t i s on the  basis of t h i s r a t i n g scale that we can decide whether or not the • experimental variable was s i g n i f i c a n t l y conducive o f t h i r s t i n the experimental group to warrant further analysis o f the r e s u l t s . On the basis o f the f i v e point r a t i n g scale, and the dichotomous variable of being a member of either the control or  25  26  experimental group, the subjects can r e a d i l y be analyzed on the basis of a 5 x 2 Chi Square t e s t f o r significance of d i f f e r e n c e . This analysis i s reported i n Table I. When the rating scale values are analyzed i n t h i s manner, with four degrees of freedom, Chi Square i s equal to 32.l|li. This i s a highly s i g n i f i c a n t f i g u r e , f o r , with the same number of degrees of freedom, a Chi Square value of 13.277 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l . As a further check, we may reduce a l l t h i s data to a 2 x 2 table by grouping a l l the scale values below point three i n t o the scale value two, and a l l scale values three and above i n t o the scale value three. I t i s f e l t that t h i s type of reduction i s j u s t i f i e d on the basis of certain l i n g u i s t i c aspects of the r a t i n g scale. At a scale value between two and three we can consider a t r a n s i t i o n occurs i n d e f i n i t i o n of terras designating the scale points, A 'semantic' d i v i s i o n between 'higher' and 'lower' ratings of t h i r s t occurs here, f o r i t i s at t h i s point and above, on the scale, that the subject f i r s t indicates the desire f o r a drink of water, or that he was conscious of needing a drink. On the basis of a 2 x 2 table, with one degree of freedom, Chi Square i s now equal to lit.77. This i s once again highly s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l . Further, i f Yate's correction for  small frequencies i s applied to t h i s 2 x 2  table , Chi Square  i s equal to 12.725, s t i l l highly s i g n i f i c a n t at t h e .01 l e v e l .  27  TABLE I  CHI SQUARE TEST OF RATING SCALE VALUES FOR CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS  COLUMNS Scale Values  1 10  fe EX. f  o  2  2  10  '.5 \  1 0  16  • 11  5  4  8.5  10  10 CO.  3  o  Sum o f Columns  10  8.5 1  9  20  20  .5  1  o  2  17  30  i  e  f  Sum of Rows  2  l  30  60  28  I t i s obvious from the above analysis that, using either a 5 x 2 o r a 2 x 2 table o f Chi Square t e s t , we can f e e l highly confident that the s e l f rated values on the r a t i n g scales are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t between the control and experimental groups. And, as the mean scale value i s 1 . 5 6 f o r the control group, as against 2 . 5 6 f o r the experimental group, we can f e e l confident that the experimental group rated themselves s i g n i f i c a n t l y more t h i r s t y than d i d the control group. Some variable other than mere chance i s operating to d i f f e r e n t i a t e the control from the experimental group on the basis of t h e i r subjective r a t i n g s . This i s l o g i c a l l y assumed, i n the presence of controls, to be the introduction of the experimental v a r i a b l e : peanutbutter. Turning now to an analysis of the subjects recognition times on each of the ten cards, we f i n d that the values can be grouped together f o r each group, and d i s t r i b u t e d i n the form of a table. This has been done'in the form o f a rough d i s t r i b u t i o n table contained i n Appendix D. Examination o f t h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n curve for both the control and the experimental groups, indicates i.  a marked p o s i t i v e skewness inneach case. Reflection upon the experimental procedure used, suggests that such a shape of curve was to be expected. In f a c t , the shape of the d i s t r i b u t i o n , i d e a l l y , should more closely approximate the "jj" shaped curve than the conventional " b e l l " form. This i s due to the timing procedure used  29 with the cards. Conventional s t a t i s t i c a l methods are inapplicable to these sets o f figures. Before undertaking a card by card analysis of the r e s u l t s , i t was decided to make use of a form of s t a t i s t i c a l exploratory technique to see i f any difference was indicated betweenthe two groups. The technique used was one that i s not effected by the form o f d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the scores i n question. This s t a t i s t i c a l technique was to determine the rank order c o r r e l a t i o n , i n each group, between the summed scores on the need cards and the summed scores on the neutral cards. I t was believed that t h i s method would t e n t a t i v e l y determine whether any such change as d i d subsequently become indicated, i n recognition times, occurred s i m i l a r l y f o r both need and neutral cards. I f there was a c o r r e l a t i o n between the summed speeds on the need cards and the n e u t r a l cards," f o r each subjects, i t would indicate that probably t h i r s t was e f f e c t i n g recognition speed i n an a l l or none fashion. This rank order method would not i n d i c a t e i f any change had occurred i n f a c t . This form o f analysis was given t o both the control and the experimental group. The tables f o r the c a l c u l a t i o n of these rank order correlations are given i n Appendix E. In the experimental group the 'rho' of .2 i s not s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l . This indicates that there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between an experimental subject's score on the need cards and h i s  30 score on the neutral cards. S i m i l a r l y , a 'rho' of . 0 5 i s not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , f o r the control group. Hence, i f t h i r s t did decrease the recognition time of the experimental group, i t did so f o r only the need or neutral cards alone, and not f o r both types of objects simultaneously. The existence 6£ similar r e s u l t s for the control, group, though^ makes any s i g n i f i c a n t change, a t t r i b u t able to t h i r s t , seem quite u n l i k e l y . Let us turn now, to an analysis of the i n d i v i d u a l card scores f o r the control and experimental groups. I t was pointed out previously that normality of d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores could not be assumed i n the population from which our sample  was  taken. In view of t h i s , s t a t i s t i c s had to be employed which made no assumptions of the shape of the d i s t r i b u t i o n . Mood (lU),  i n his  text on the mathematical theory of s t a t i s t i c s , points out,that not  a l l the adequate forms of s t a t i s t i c a l analysis are forced to  assume normality i n the population forms. In t h i s regard, he  ( l U , p . 3 8 5 ) states, During the past few years, however, techniques have been developed f o r estimating parameters and testing hypothesis which require no assumption about the form of the d i s t r i b u t i o n function. These techniques are c a l l e d non-parametric methods, or better, d i s t r i b u t i o n free methods. These d i s t r i b u t i o n - f r e e methods are based on 'order' s t a t i s t i c s . The method used to analyze the r e s u l t s on the i n d i v i d u a l cards, l i k e the previous application of 'rho', i s an 'order' s t a t i s t i c : the 'run t e s t ' f o r the comparison of two samples.  31 For each card, the subjects i n each group are separately ordered. The two groups are then combined i n o v e r - a l l order. A record of the group from which every p a r t i c u l a r value was taken, was kept by l a b e l l i n g a l l control values X and a l l experimental values Y. Runs are then calculated f o r the t o t a l sample. A run i s a series of values derived from the same o r i g i n a l group; that i s to say, a run of X's or a run of Y's. The number of runs i s s i g n i f i e d by the l e t t e r 'D',  and then (lU,p.392j),  The t e s t i s then performed by observing the t o t a l number of runs i n the combined sample, accepting the n u l l hypothesis i f 'D' i s greater than some specified number 'D ', and r e j e c t i n g the n u l l hypothesis i f 'D'<  'D '.  0  One determines D  0  0  for testing the n u l l hypothesis  by putting the r i g h t hand side of the equation, Do  Squal to 1.6U5  -MP  f o r t e s t i n g at the .0£ l e v e l , and at 2.326 f o r  testing at the .01 l e v e l , (c^ i s equal to the p r o b a b i l i t y of one group, and  equal to the p r o b a b i l i t y of the other group, i n t h i s  case, .5 f o r each). Taken to the nearest whole numbers, D  Q  i s equal  to 6 at the .05 l e v e l and 9 at the .01 l e v e l . In combining the values from both samples, to form the one ordered group, the scores were ordered i n such a manner that, whenever there were several similar values i n both X and Y groups, they were combined to form the l e a s t number of runs. Thus, i f  32  TABLE I I  TOTAL NUMBER OF RUN (D VALUES) FOR EACH OF THE TEN CARDS, FOR 60 SUBJECTS  Card #  D  D  Q  a t .01 l e v e l  D  Q  at .05 l e v e l  1  2U  9  6  2  25  9  6  3  —  9  6  k  27  9  6  5  31  9  6  6  18  9  6  7  26  9  6  8  23  9  6  9  2U  9  6  10  25  9  6  53 anything, we are favouring the r e j e c t i o n of the n u l l hypothesis. The calculated 'D' values f o r each of the ten cards i s given i n Table I I . Because of the unexpected d i f f i c u l t y of card three, r e s u l t i n g i n very few recognitions, i t s analysis i s ommitted i n this table. A similar 'run test' could be given f o r the combined scores f o r a l l subjects, on a l l cards, i n each group. This would give us an N of s i x hundred. This procedure, i s f e l t to be unnecessary. I f s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of the i n d i v i d u a l cards reveals no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the control and the experimental groups, i n terms of differences i n recognition times, a difference found on the basis of any other s t a t i s t i c a l  procedure,  (a mathematical i m p r o b i b i l i t y ) would merely be a s t a t i s t i c a l a r t i f a c t i n d i c a t i n g f a u l t y a n a l y t i c a l technique. The t h e o r e t i c a l implications of these derived s t a t i s t i c s , and t h e i r r e f l e c t i o n upon the hypothesis being tested, i s discussed i n the next chapter.  CHAPTER IV  DISCUSSION OF RESULTS  Before commencing a discussion o f the  obtained  r e s u l t s , i t may be worthwhile to state the hypothesis under t e s t : subjects who are made experimentally  t h i r s t y w i l l perceptually  recognize objects associated with t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f that t h i r s t more quickly than w i l l subjects who are not t h i r s t y . In order to d i f f e r e n t i a t e the two groups with regards to t h i r s t , peanut-butter was fed to the experimental group, and witheld from the control group. When a l l subjects were subsequently asked to rate themselves on the f i v e point subjective scale of t h i r s t , i t was found that the experimental group rated themselves s i g n i f i c a n t l y more t h i r s t y than d i d the control group. The Chi Square t e s t indicated that t h i s difference was s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the .01 l e v e l of confidence. I t has been pointed out previously, that the r a t i n g scale also could be looked upon as a two point scale, with a l l values two and below considered  as value two, and a l l values three and above  assigned a point three r a t i n g . When t h i s i s done, and the appropriate correction f o r continuity i s applied, the two group are s t i l l found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t at the .01 l e v e l . I f we now take i n t o  3U  35  account that the mean value f o r the experimental group i s higher than the mean rating scale value f o r the control group, we can f e e l highly confident that the experimental group was a c t u a l l y more t h i r s t y during t h i s experiment, than was the control group ( as judged by themselves). Further, to the extent that the experiment was adequately controlled, we can f e e l equally confident that i t was the introduction o f the experimental v a r i a b l e peanut-butter, which accounted f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n t i a l t h i r s t r a t i n g . Aquestion may now be raised over the actual nature o f t h i s induced t h i r s t . I t should be r e c a l l e d , that i n the majority of the experiments dealing with hunger as the organic need being tested, the subjects were actually deprived of food f o r varying lengths of time, ranging from zero to twenty-four. I t i s questionable i f the method used i n the present experiment i s completely analagous to the deprivation method, -^or the methods to be comparable i n a l l respects, the subjects should have been a c t u a l l y deprived of f l u i d intake f o r varying lengths of time, preceding experimental t e s t i n g . I t i s a defensible p o s i t i o n , that there are two d i s t i n c t conditions which can appropriately be c a l l e d t h i r s t . One of these conditions , i s where there i s merely a drying of the mucousmembrane l i n i n g o f the throat and mouth. The other condition, which can also be c a l l e d t h i r s t , i s where the general f l u i d l e v e l of the organism i s lowered. The l a t t e r condition i s u s u a l l y accompanied by  36 the former, but the existence o f the former need not necessitate the former. In f a c t , i t was j u s t t h i s r e l a t i o n of dry throat, independent of a lowering of the body f l u i d l e v e l , which was accomplished i n the present experiment. I t can be l o g i c a l l y and t h e o r e t i c a l l y pointed out, that these two conditions are not necessarily completely mutually exclusive. And, i f the type of induced t h i r s t employed i n t h i s experiment i s not r e f l e c t e d i n the recognition time o f t h i r s t related objects, nothing can be deduced regarding the e f f e c t of a more general  'body t h i r s t ' on the perceptual  recognition  process, ^nis possible l i m i t a t i o n of our r e s u l t s i s pointed out merely to indicate one o f the d i f f i c u l t i e s inherent i n experimentation with so-called 'basic p h y s i o l o g i c a l ' needs. The experimenter can never be sure whether he i s working with a 'basic p h y s i o l o g i c a l ' need, or merely an appetitive need, or i f there i s , i n f a c t , any difference between the two. A further question which can be asked, one very closely related to t h i s l a s t point, deals with the psychological v a l i d i t y of subjective scales of organic needs. Is i t not more f e a s i b l e to use some more objective c r i t e r i o n o f need, such as hours o f deprivation, as the index o f the degree o f organic need? The experimenters with hunger, have universally used hours o f :  deprivation as t h e i r index of need. They have reasoned, that as time passes, the organism becomes increasingly i n need o f food, f o r i t s  37 metabolic processes. Hence, time of deprivation from food i s considered a v a l i d , objective c r i t e r i o n of need. They have assumed that such a c r i t e r i o n i s a better index of need than i s the subjects  own  subjective r a t i n g of h i s needs. The question remains, though, j u s t how  good an indecator of objective need i s an i n d i v i d u a l s report  of h i s f e l t need? The only study i n t h i s f i e l d of organic need and perception which treats of t h i s problem of the r e l a t i o n s between hours of deprivation and s e l f ratings, i s the experiment of McClelland and Atkinson  (11).  In t h i s experiment they gave t h e i r  subjects a f i v e point r a t i n g scale of t h i r s t , as w e l l as using the deprivation method of inducing organic need. They ( l l , p . 2 l 6 ) make the following remarks regarding the v a l i d i t y of the r a t i n g scale as an objective index of need: The number of food responses followed the subjective ratings very c l o s e l y . Perhaps the subjective state should have been considered the main determinants of food responses and used rather than hours of deprivation to d i f f e r e n t i a t e the three hungary groups through the r e s t of the experiment. But: the s i t u a t i o n i s not so simple as t h i s . I t i s also possible to argue that the subjective state of hunger i s a response to a p h y s i o l o g i c a l condition j u s t as the number of food responses are. Both are negatively accelerated functions of the amount of d e p r i v a t i o n . . . . i t was decided to use hours of deprivation rather than subjective hunger ratings as the basis f o r i s o l a t i n g the degree of hunger d r i v e . The f a c t that they found the number of food responses followed the subjective ratings very c l o s e l y , and  the  former followed the number of hours deprivation, can not be taken to  38 means that an appetitive need w i l l function s i m i l a r l y with need responses. This whole question needs further experimental exploration as the necessary f a c t u a l data i s not a v a i l a b l e at present f o r i t s resolution. Because of the nature of the d i s t r i b u t i o n s obtained, and the necessity to stop the subjects at two hundred seconds i f they had f a i l e d to locate the hidden objects, the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis employed s t a t i s t i c s not involving the of normality. Non-parametric,  assumption  or d i s t r i b u t i o n free s t a t i s t i c s were  used. The f i r s t such d i s t r i b u t i o n free method employed was the method of rank order c o r r e l a t i o n . This i s e s s e n t i a l l y an exploratory technique and usually precedes more d e t a i l e d  statistical  analysis of data. When t h i s form of analysis was given to the data of t h i s experiment, i t was found that perception of need and n e u t r a l cards were independent i n both the control and experimental  groups.  One would expect that subjects would be at l e a s t p a r t i a l l y consistent as either perceptually 'fast' or 'slow'in recognition time of hidden objects. This i s to be expected  independent  of the functioning of the experimental v a r i a b l e , and could be expected to occur at l e a s t i n the control group. There i s a very s l i g h t p o s i t i v e correlation, between recognition time on need and neutral cards, f o r both the control and experimental groups, to be sure, (being greatest f o r the experimental group), but t h i s i s not a s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant correlation.  39 One possible explanation f o r t h i s lack of c o r r e l a t i o n i s that recognition of these hidden objects requires more than one perceptual a b i l i t y . These perceptual a b i l i t i e s being d i s t i n c t and uncorrelated. This explanation though, seems veryu n l i k e l y as an examination of the, cards would tend to i n d i c a t e that they are constructed along e s s e n t i a l l y similar l i l i e s , the perceptual task being uniform f o r a l l ten cards. In f a c t , *he  cards  were o r i g i n a l l y constructed so that the perceptual task would be the same i n a l l cards. Application of the 'run-test' to the scores of the i n d i v i d u a l cards resulted i n no s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e difference between the forms of d i s t r i b u t i o n of the control and  experimental  groups. We can f e e l highly confident then, i n assuming that any minor difference which may  have appeared between the two groups,  appeared purely on the basis of chance. No difference i n perceptual recognition time was demonstrated between the two groups, Bruner (k) has c l a s s i f i e d the determinants of perception as either 'behavioral' or 'autochthonous'. That l a t t e r are the organizing processes p e r c u l i e r to the neuro-sensory functioning of the organism. The former were the determinants derived from the organisms motives and needs. He suggested, that as one determinant became l e s s e f f e c t i v e , the other would become i n c r e a s i n g l y e f f e c t i v e . In. ,the experiment just concluded i t would tend to i n d i c a t e that the 'autochthonous determinats were e f f e c t i v e enough to over-rule any  ho possible e f f e c t of the behavioral determinants  induced by the need  for f l u i d . I t was pointed out i n the introductory chapter, that the majority of experimenters, when attempting to i l l u s t r a t e the e f f e c t s of need on perception, had t r a d i t i o n a l l y made use of 'marginal' perceptual s i t u a t i o n s . Further, i t was suggested that the contention of some perception theorists that a l l perception i s o f the blurred, f l e e t i n g type, epitomized i n t h e i r experiments, i s probably a questionable assumption. The experiment reported i n t h i s paper made use of highly structured v i s u a l s t i m u l i which could not be construed as 'marginal'. Perception may be adaptive and r e f l e c t as one o f i t s determinants,  a t a 'marginal' l e v e l of stimulation, the  e x i s t i n g motivating d i r e c t i v e s of the organism. To the extent that many experiments as w e l l as several of the more popular p r o j e c t i v e tests appear to demonstrate t h i s , the hypothesis can t e n t a t i v e l y be accepted as possessing some v a l i d i t y . But that a l l perception functions t h i s way i s another question, a question which to date s t i l l lacks adequate experimental confirmation of a p o s i t i v e answer. The experiment reported i n t h i s paper, to the extent that i t made use o f highly structured rather than unstructured s t i m u l i , i s somewhat d i f f e r e n t than past studies. This point was made clear i n the opening chapter. I t does not necessarily question  Ui  .r  the p o s s i b i l i t y of need e f f e c t i n g marginal perception. The f a c t that we obtained negative r e s u l t s i n t h i s experiment may,  rather than  question any hypothesis of the perception t h e o r i s t s , merely i n d i c a t e l i m i t a t i o n s i n the technique used i n t h i s experiment. The experiment was o r i g i n a l l y undertaken to see i f there was any e f f e c t on recognition time of need related objects by variable i n t e n s i t i e s of the need i n question. I t becomes a debateable point, as to j u s t what are need related objects. I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d that the s e l e c t i o n of objects for this study  was  determined by finding what things were most commonly associated with the word water. McClelland and Atkinson have uncovered some i n t e r e s t i n g data on the nature of need r a i t e d objects . They ( 1 1 , p . 2 1 1 ) report some facts which help to c l a r i f y t h i s point of the nature of need related objects: The r e s u l t s show that there was a r e l i a b l e increase i n the number of 'instrumental' food responses as hours of deprivation increased, while the number of 'goal' objects responses stayed p r a c t i c a l l y the same....Another way of stating i t i s that the hungary groups saw more (P< . 0 6 ) objects related to getting food than they d i d actual food objects, whereas the non-hungary group saw an equal number of each....Introduction of some hazy shadows or smudges on the screen cut down the average number of food responses. Their explanation of the f a c t that i n t r o d u c t i o n of a smudged rather than a blank screen decreased the a c t u a l number of food responses, i s similar to Bruner's (U) of perceptual determinants  contention that, as one set  increase, the other decreases. In t h i s case  U2 i t was apparently the autochthonous determinants which were increasing. I f we consider our experiment as u t i l i z i n g a highly structured stimulus, then McClelland and Atkinson's use of a blank screen i s the polar extreme. Let us now examine t h i s dichotomy between 'instrumental' and 'goal' objects, as i t may apply to our experiment. In order to explain the f a c t that 'instrumental' responses increased while 'goal' responses remained v i r t u a l l y unchanged i n number, they suggest, along with Sanford, that there i s "a tendency to reduce the displeasure of f r u s t r a t i o n by supressing thought o f the goal."  (11,p.220).  As a need gets greater a persons phantasies and perceptions begin to concern themselves more and more with r e a l i s t i c means of s a t i s f y i n g that need. This i s not u n l i k e Muphy's postulation of a ' r e a l i t y p r i n c i p l e ' to explain h i s drop i n number of food responses beyond a certain number of hours of d e p r i v a t i o n . I f we not look at our own data and attempt t o use these concepts, i t becomes r e a d i l y apparent how d i f f i c u l t i t i s to f u l l y c l a s s i f y our hidden objects as either 'goal' or 'instrumental'  i i n nature.  I t may be a r e l a t i v e l y uncomplicated issue with food  need ( as McClelland and Atkinson have demonstrated), but with t h i r s t 3  i t i s f a r more d i f f i c u l t . Considered from one point of view, a l l the objects i n oure cards are instrumental objects: cup, glass, b o t t l e , fountain stand, tap. Yet, to the extent that the m§jor portion o f them also e n t a i l water as either pouring or s p i l l i n g from them,  i  43 they can j u s t as r e a d i l y be c l a s s i f i e d as 'goal  1  type objects.  I t would probably be safe to c l a s s i f y a l l these need objects as 1  mixed  1  type objects, embodying both 'goal' and 'instrumental'  aspects. I f these hidden objects e n t a i l 'goal' object aspects, i n terms of the need being tested, then, i n accord with the above outlined theory, the obvious explanation o f our negative r e s u l t s i s that perceptual recognition i n the experimental group was repressed or hindered by the p r e v a i l i n g need. And yet, i f such  ,  were the case, why were the t h i r s t y subjects not slower on the need . cards than they were on the neutral cards? Are we to assume that one factor, the need, was functioning to increase perceptual recognition through suppression, while simultaneously functioning to decrease perceptual recognition time i n an adaptive manner? I f we assume that such i s the case, then i n t h i s experiment the two processes neutralize each other. This hardly seems to be a parsimonious explanation of negative experimental r e s u l t s , ^he f a c t that the control group functioned s i m i l a r l y to the experimental group makes i t appear as i f the o r i g i n a l explanation that, i n t h i s experiment, need d i d not e f f e c t perception, was the correct one. In summing up the r e s u l t s o f t h i s experiment,  we  can say, r e c a l l i n g that we had previously established a higher degree of t h i r s t i n the experimental group than i n the control group, that we can f i n d no acceptable v e r i f i c a t i o n o f the o r i g i n a l hypothesis that  hh need w i l l decrease recognition time of need related objects. As has been pointed out frequently, i n t h i s discussion of r e s u l t s , there are several l i m i t a t i o n s to conclusions which can be drawn from t h i s type of experiment. There are  still  several questions which remain unanswered. The unfortunate necessity of  eliminating card three, the 'pop' b o t t l e , was unforseen. This  reduced the number of need cards to four. The question of the type of t h i r s t , as i t may d i f f e r e n t i a l l y e f f e c t perceptual recognition, i s s t i l l an open question. As f a r as t h i r s t i s concerned, i t i s s t i l l undetermined what i s the r e a l difference between 'goal' and of  1  instrumental  1  objects. The question of degrees  stimuli s t r u c t u r i n g of the perceptual s t i m u l i has not been  adequately explored to date. We may be able to c l a s s i f y stimuli of  no structure or very high structure, but how does one graduate  the intermediary degrees of structure?  An experiment which may  answer some of these questions i s suggested i n the concluding chapter.  CHAPTER FIVE  CONCLUSION AND  SUMMARY  I t was pointed out i n the introductory  chapter,  that the conception that perception i s an adaptive process has been widely accepted by psychologists. I t was  also noted that much  of the experimental evidence i n support of t h i s hypothesis i s l i m i t e d i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n . Experimenters have f a i l e d to t r e a t of a l l types of perception, inder varying conditions of s t i m u l i structure. I t i s d i f f i c u l t to accept the contention of many perception t h e o r i s t s that a l l perception i s of the 'marginal' type. V i s u a l perception i s not composed e n t i r e l y of b r i e f snatches of ambiguous s t i m u l i which must be structured and  ' f i l l e d i n ' by  the  perceiver. On the contrary, the majority of everyday perception involves s t i m u l i which are w e l l structured and of d e f i n i t e form. I f t h i s were not the case we would l i v e i n an almost completely a u t i s t i c world. For a number of reasons i t i s f e l t that to generalize from experiments making use of 'marginal' perceptual s t i m u l i to a l l forms of stimulating situations i s probably f a u l t y induction. The present experiment used perceptual s t i m u l i which were well structured and presented a minimum of perceptual ambigu i t y on recognition. The r e s u l t s of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n , using t h i s  1*6 type o f s t i m u l i , f a i l e d t o support  the h y p o t h e s i s  t h a t need  effects  p e r c e p t i o n . Hence, w i t h i n g the l i m i t s o f t h i s experiment, some doubt i s c a s t upon the t h e o r y of the a d a p t i v e P e r c e p t i o n may i t s determinants,  at a  be a d a p t i v e and  'marginal'  r e f l e c t as one  l e v e l o f s t i m u l a t i o n , the  m o t i v a t i n g d i r e c t i v e s o f the. o r g a i i s m , b u t , f u n c t i o n s t h i s way  function of perception. of  existing  that a l l perception  i s q u i t e another problem. I t i s o n l y through a wide range o f e x p e r i m e n t s ,  i n v o l v i n g not o n l y v a r y i n g degrees o f need and  t y p e s ^ o f need  a l s o v a r y i n g amounts o f s t i m u l i s t r u c t u r i n g , t h a t we w i l l be to  but able  d i s c o v e r to what e x t e n t need does e f f e c t p e r c e p t i o n , •'•he c o n s t a n t  r e p e t i t i o n o f experiments making use  of  'marginal'  stimuli  will  c o n t r i b u t e l i t t l e more t o our knowledge o f a l l forms o f p e r c e p t i o n , and i t s p o s s i b l e f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n t o  motivation.  SUMMARY T h i s experiment was  undertaken to i n v e s t i g a t e  the e f f e c t o f t h i r s t upon the p e r c e p t u a l r e c o g n i t i o n time o f r e l a t e d to the  s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h a t t h i r s t . I t was  many o f the p a s t experiments u s i n g f i e l d of perception inadequately The  'marginal'  made c l e a r t h a t  stimuli l e f t  s t i m u l a t i n g s i t u a t i o n used i n t h i s  cards containedineed  the  total  explored.  c o n s i s t e d o f t e n p u z z l e - * p i c t u r e c a r d s , w i t h one F i v e o f these  objects  o b j e c t h i d d e n i n each.  r e l a t e d o b j e c t s and  n e u t r a l o b j e c t s , r e l a t i v e t o the need b e i n g  experiment  tested.  five  contained  U7  A group of 30 subjects were made thirsty by having them eat peanut-butter. Another 30 subjects, the control group, were not thus made thirsty. Each subject was shown the cards one at a time. He was timed on his speed of recognition of the hidden objects i n each card. A l l subjects were then asked to rate themselves on a five point scale for the degree of their subjectively f e l t t h i r s t . Analysis of the results indicated that the peanut-butter made the experimental group significantly more thirsty than the control group. Further analysis indicated that there was no difference i n speed of perceptual recognition i n either the control or experimental group, for either the need or neutral objects. Any difference which did occur could be accounted for purely on the basis of chance. A discussion of the limitations of certain other experiments, as well as implications for further research i s included.  CHAPTER SIX  I  IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH  The following experimental outline i s subtended to t h i s paper as suggestive of a possible means for. c l a r i f y i n g some of the questions evolved, and l e f t unanswered, i n the discussion of technique and r e s u l t s i n chapter four. I t i s suggested as a means of c l a r i f y i n g some o f these issues, not as an answer to a l l of the problems. The l a t t e r would be extreemly d i f f i c u l t to accomplish withing the l i m i t s of a single  experiment.  An experimental group i s deprived o f water f o r varying lengths of time. They are then shown an ambiguous object for a f l e e t i n g time i n a tachistoscope. Or, they are asked t o verbalize an association with an blurred object shown behind, or on, a ground glass screen. Their responses are checked against a non-thirsty group, f o r number o f ' t h i r s t object' responses. These • i  t h i r s t responses being defined as related to the s a t i s f a c t i o n o f the need f o r l i q u i d . I f i t i s found that there i s a dominance of need r e l a t e d objects i n the responses o f the experimental t h i r s t y group, as would be expected from similar experiments with hunger, then the common observed need responses are c o l l e c t e d . These common responses are then analysed i n t o 'goal' and 'instrumental' objects, i f t h i s i s p o s s i b l e . The objects are then hidden i n a U8 •  h9 puzzle-picture such as was used i n the preceeding experiment. These hidden objects are drawn highly structured and non-ambiguous. Another group o f subjects are now made t h i r s t y . They are made t h i r s t y through water deprivation. A second group i s made t h i r s t y through the use of s a l t t a b l e t s . A control group i s l e f t non-thirsty. They are a l l then shown the puzzle-picture cards and asked to recognize the hidden objects. In t h i s manner i t would be possible to determine the' e f f e c t s , i f any, of the two d i f f e r e n t types o f t h i r s t , and along with t h i s i t would be possible to explore the true nature o f need related objects. As a further experiment, or as an extension of t h i s one, another group of experimental subjects are shown cards which contain both a need 'goal' object, and a need  •instrumental'  object. In this way, using t h i s type o f card, i t could be determined i f there i s any difference between recognition o f the two types of objects. This i s , o f course, dependent upon the experimenters a b i l i t y to d i f f e r e n t i a t e the two types o f objects i n the o r i g i n a l responses to a blurred or blank screen.  BIBLIOGRAPHY  1.  ATKINSON, J.W. AND McCLELLAND, D.C. The projective expression of needs: I I . The e f f e c t of d i f f e r e n t i n t e n s i t i e s o f the hunger drive on thematic apperception. J . exp. Psychol., 19U8, 38, 6U3-658  2.  BRUNER, J.S. Emotional s e l e c t i v i t y i n perception and reaction J . Personal., 19ii7, 16, 69-77  3.  BRUNER, J.S. Perceptual theory and the Rorschach t e s t . J . Personal., 19U8, 17, 157-168  ii.  BRUNER, J.S. AND GOODMAN, C.D. Value and need as organizing factors i n perception. J . ab. & soc. Psychol., 19U7> h2,  5.  BRUNER, J.S. AND POSTMAN, L. Tension and tension-release as organizing factors i n perception. J . Personal., 19^7, 15, 300-308  6.  BRUNER, J.S., AND POSTMAN, L. Symbolic value as an organizing factor i n perception. J . soc. Psychol., 19U8, 27, 203-208  7.  BRUNER, J.S. AND POSTMAN, L. Perception, cognition and behavior. J . Personal., 19i*9, 18, lit-31  8.  KOHLER, W. Gestalt Psychology. Co., 19U7  9.  KRETCH, D. AND CRUTCHFIELD, R.S. Theory and Problems o f S o c i a l Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, I9Z4.8  10.  New York: Harcourt-Brace and  LEVINE, R., C H E I N , L. AND MURPHY, G. The r e l a t i o n s h i p of i n t e n s i t y of a need to the amount of perceptual d i s t o r t i o n ; a preliminary report. J . Psychol., 19ii2, 13, 283-293 50  51 11.  McCLELLAND, D.C. AND ATKINSON, J.W. The p r o j e c t i v e expression of needs: I. The e f f e c t s of d i f f e r e n t i n t e n s i t i e s of the hunger drive on perception. J . Psychol., 1 9 u 8 , 2 5 , 205-222  12.  McCLELLAND, D.C. AND ATKINSON, J.W. The p r o j e c t i v e expression of needs: I I I . The e f f e c t of ego-involvment, success and f a i l u r e on perception. J . Psychol., 19l*9, 2 7 , 311-330  13.  McCLELLAND, D.C. Al© LIBERMAN, A.M. The e f f e c t of need f o r achievement on the recognition of need related words. J. Personal., 1949, 18, 236-251  ll*.  MOOD, A.F. Introduction to the theory of s t a t i s t i c s . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950  15»  MURPHY, G. Personality, a b i o s o c i a l approach to o r i g i n and structure. New York: Harpers, 1947  16.  PASTORE, N.  Need as a determinant  1949, 28, 457-475  of perception. J . Psychol.,  17.  PROSHANSKY, H.M. AND MURPHY, G. The e f f e c t s of reward and punishment on perception. J . Psychol., 1942, 1 3 , 295-305  18.  POSTMAN, L. AND BRUNER, J.S. Rev., 191*8, 5 5 , 313-323  Perception under stress. Psych.  19. • POSTMAN, L. AND BRUNER, J.S. M u l t i p l i c i t y of set as a determinant of perceptual organization. J . exp. Psychol., 1949, 3 9 , 369-377 20.  POSTMAN, L., BRUNER, J.S. AND McGINNIES, E.M.. Personal values as selective factors i n perception. J . abn. & soc. Psychol.,  19U8, 4 3 , 142-154  21.  SANFORD, R.N. The e f f e c t of abstinance from food upon imaginal processes: A preliminary experiment. J . Psychol., 1 9 3 6 ,  2, 129-136  22:.  SANFORD, R.N. The e f f e c t s of abstinance from food upon imaginal processes: A further experiment. J . Psychol., 1937, 3 , 11*5-159  23.  SCHAFFER, R. AND MURPHY, G . The r o l e of autism i n v i s u a l figure ground r e l a t i o n s h i p . J . exp. Psychol., 191*3, 3 2 , 335-343  21*.  SEARS, R.R. Experimental analysis of psychoanalytic phenomena. In J. MeV. Hunt (Ed.), Personality and the Behavior Disorders. New York: Ronald, 191*4  APPENDIX  A  THE SET OF PUZZLE*PICTURE CARDS  CARD  ONE  NEED OBJECT: GLASS SPILLING WATER  CARD . TWO  NEED OBJECT:. WATER TAP  CARD  THREE  NEED OBJECT: 'POP'  i  BOTTLE  CARD  FIVE  NEED OBJECT: CUP (OR MUG)  SPILLING WATER  \  CARD EIGHT  NEUTRAL OBJECT: A HAMMER  APPENDIX  B  RATING SCALE OF THIRST  65 Name Age  Sex ........  1. Not t h i r s t y  -  Education  did not f e e l the need f o r a drink during the experiment.  2.  Slightly thirsty  3-  Quite t h i r s t y  4»  Very t h i r s t y  5-  Extremely t h i r s t y  -  -  -  but did not p a r t i c u l a r l y notice i t during the experiment.•  mouth feX dry during the experiment; l i k e d a drink.  mouth f e l t very dry during the experiment; have l i k e d a drink very much. -  Remarks r  .1  4  i  I  4  I  5 ! i  6 7  8 9 10  i  would  f e l t so very t h i r s t y that I found i t ,. d i f f i c u l t to concentrate on the pictures.  Time/sec. •  2 3  would have  i  APPENDIX  C  RAW DATA FOR CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS  OBJECT RECOGNITION TIME IN SECONDS FOR CARDS ONE TO TEN FOR THE CONTROL GROUP  Subject  01 03 05 07 08 10 15 19 20 21 23 27 29 31 33 3U 36 37  UO  U2 U3 U5 U7 U9 52  £U  55 56 57 53  l  2~  16.0  U.8  3_ 200.0 13.0 200.0  9.U  8.0  12,U  9.U  175.0  17.6  7.8 21.0 13.2 7.0 3.0 30.0  U.o  U 11.8 5.2 13.8 25.6  200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0  lU.O  200.0 16.0 U.8 3.8 7.0 12.8 19.0 U.2 61.U 200.0 18.2 16,0 200.0 5.2 10.0 5.U 200.0 U.o 5.U 200.0 U.o 29.U 200.0 7.U 31.0 200.0 5.0 26.2 200.0 21.0 U.O 200.0 23.2 200.0 10.2 1U.0 3.0 200.0 33.2 19.0 200.0 200.0 9.2 200.0 22.0 36.6 200.0 33.2 200.0 7.0 6,0 200.0 200.0 6.2 200.0 U.O U.O 200.0 6.U  IT"  6.0  U.o  U.8  9.U  17.8 12.0 7.0 10.0  8.0 13.U 2.6  U.O 11.2 21.0  3.8  6.0 5.2  n.U 3.6  Card Number ~T 6 9.0 ~~2~$ lU.U 3.0 20.0 1.8 U.6 2.0 15.6 3.U 38.0 U.U 10.0 2.6 10.U 9.0 15.9 U.2 36.0 2.0 3.0 18.0 3.2 2.2 26.0 2.0 22.8 11.8 32.U 2.0 9.2 12.6 19.8 2.6  U.O U.O  U.O  U.U  U.o  11.8  3.U  5.8  10.6 13.6 10.0  17.0 20.0 26.0 23.0 15.0 8.0 13.2 21.8  3.6 1.8 1.6  2.8 3.8  8.0 U.6  U.o 8.6 2.8  U.o  2.0  2.U  U.8 3.8  5.6 2.0 2.0  Rating Scale 7 5J5 11.2 6.0  U.U  3.0 '8.2 13.6 20.6 98.8 2.0 31.0  5.0  3.U 6.8  5.U 5.0  16.6  lU.O 8.6 6.0 3.0  3.U  3.2 2.2 17.2 8.8  8  5.0 8.8 2.0 3.0 9.2 39.0  5.0 6.2 3.8  U.O  3.0 3.2 3.8 3.0  U.O 3.8  5.U  2.8 6.0 23.2 11.0  U.O  11.0 8.0 2.6 3.0  7.U  2.2 28.0  12.U  3.8 3.8 7.0 2.0  2.U  U.6  10.6  3.U 8.U 1.8  8.U  3.8  3.0 U.8 5.2  2.U  U.o  8.U 3.U  6.8 2.6 32.0 6.2  3.U  U.O  9""  5X  U.6  6.U  8.0 1U.2 11.0 6.8  U.U  10 11.0 5.2  2U.8  1 2 1  8.8  u  16. U  38.2 23.8  10.6  18.0  19.0  1 1 2  ^2 2 2  3.2  1  61.2 25.6  1 1 1 1 1  ll.U  8.6 26.0 200.0 10.6  Uo.o  7.0 60.0 17. U 32.0  33.U 23.2  2U.U  6.U  200.0  8.0  11.0  2  2  1  2  1 3  U l 1 1 2  1 1 1  OBJECT RECOGNITION TIME IN SECONDS FOR CARDS ONE TO TEN FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP ~~ Subject  00 02 ok 06 09 11 12 13 Ik 16 17 18 22 2k  25 26 28 30 32 35 38 39 kl kk ke 48 50 51 58 59  . .' "  1 108.2 6.8 95.4 134.8 35.0 200.0 56.6 ko,o 9.0 9.0 5.0 200.0 5.0 17>'8 13.0 9.0 15.6 3.6 26.8 9.0 6.8 35.0 3.0 19.0 200.0 9.4 19.6 43.0 3.4 42.0  2 9.0 •25.4 " 5.0 • •29.1+ < 23.8 - 5.0 • • 5.6 5.0 • • 4.6 3.8 3.2 ' 7.0 • •19.0 11.0 • 9.6 •17.6 7.0 7.0 10.0 3.0 ' 9.4 ' 4.0 49.6 11.8 • ' 9.0 23.2 ' 9.0 19.0 8.4 * 5.8 *  3 200.0 37.6 200.0 200.0 200.0 4.8' 200.0 200.0 200.0' 200.0 30.2 200.0 200.0 5.0 200.0 200.0' 200.0 3.2 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0' 200.0' 200.0'' 200.0200.0' 200.0 200.0200.0 s  4 12.4" 8.4 15.2 4.6 4.8 8.0 14.8 8.0 6.0* 5.4" 8.8 3.0 1.4' 8.6 13.0 4.8' 5.0 2.4 26.05.4  7.8-  9.0 2.0' 7.010.0' 3.8 6.8' 8.0 3.4 3.6  : ——: Card Number  5 21.6 2.8 12.4 9.0' 3.8 24.4 37.2 22.6 19.2 21.2 11.0 41.4 8.0 6.0' 9.4 11.8 22.8 . 6.8 10.2* 8.0' 15.0 16.0' 2.0 8.0 6.8' 21.2* 14.2" 7.2 5.4 5.4'  :  6  1.8  1.0 4.4 8.0 5.8 3.4 4.6 5.0 2.0 8.4 2.0 9.0 2.6 9.0 5.0 3.8 2.6 6.0 1.8 5.8 2.6 2.0 8.4 6.0 2.2 3.8 6.8 1.4 1.8 3.4  J  '  •  •  '  7 19.6 2.4 7.0 9.4 7.0 2.8 ,6.0 '8.2 9.8 6.4 3.0 7.0 6.0 4.6 11.4 6.0 21.6 3.0 4.2 3.2 3.0 2.0 1.8 7.0 4.6 2.6 28.0 5.2 13.0 16.0  8 5.0 3.4 '5.0 5.0 3.2 3.2 1.4 "2.4 *5.0 3.8 11.0 7.6 1.8 17.8 3J4 5.2 3.0 2.8 5.2 1.6 •3.6 41.0 13.0 13.0 '6.4 3.0 •4.8 3.8 '4.0 •6.2  •  . .9 31.4 3.4 4.2 17.2 30.0 4.4 2.8 3.0 4.0 7.0 15.0 5.8 2.4 3.4 5.0 8.0 20.4  4.6  •4.2 14.6 '4.6 '3.0 3.2 9.2 26.8 6.0 3.2 3.8 6.0 2.4  10 41.8 33.2 10.0 18.0 9.0 200.0 25.2 106.0 5.0 16.6 i5.li 26.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 25.0 200.0 25.0 25.4 200.0 21.0 48.0 io.4 24.6 14.6 200.0 11.2 28.0 21.2 6.0  Rating Scale  2 1 5 3 2 1 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3  APPENDIX  D  DISTRIBUTION OF RAW SCORES FOR CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS, BI TIME VALUE AND CARD NUMBER  70  DISTRIBUTION OF RAW SCORES FOR CONTROL GROUP, BI TIME VALUE AND CARD NUMBER  .9-1.9 1.6(6) 1.8 » 1.8 » 1.8(8)  1.9- •2.9  2.9-3.9  3.9-4.9  U.9-5.9  2.6 (U) II 2.8 u 2.8 2.0 (6) 2.0 2.0 2.0 « tt 2.0 tt 2.0 2.0 tt 2.0 tt 2.2 a 2J+ ti ti 2.6 ti 2.6 2.0 (7) 2.2 it  3.0 3.0 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.8 3,0 3.2  4 . 0 (1) 4 . 0 tt 4 . 0 ti 4 . 0 (2) 4.0 M  5.0 (l) 6.0 5.2 (2) 6.U 5.2 " 6.2 5.U " 6.8 5.U V 6.0 5.U " 6.0 5.2 (U) 6.0 5.6 (6) 6.0 5.8 « 6.8 5.0 (7) 6.2 5.0 « 6.2 5.0 6.8 5.U " 6.0 5.0 (8) 6.U 5.0 " 6.U 5.2 V 6.8  2.U  it  2.0 ( 8 ) ii 2.6 2.0 (9) 2.2 tt  2.U  2.6 2.8  it ti II  3.4  (1) (2) (3)  (ii) tt  it  (5) tt  ti  i.o («) %k nit 3,6  3.8 3.0  3.o  3.2 h  k  3.U  n (*) ti ti tt ti ti tt  3.3 3.0 ( 8 ) 3.0 tt 3.0 it 3.0 « 3.2 n 3.4  tt  U.o U.2 U.8 U.8  it  ti tt  n  U.o CU) U.o tltl U.o It U.o tt U.6 U.8  ft  U.o U.o U.o  (5)  U.o  (6)  U.6 U.2  U.U U.U U.8  U.o U.U U.o U.o  ti ti  tt  5.U "  5.6 » 5.2 (10)  5.9-6.9  6.U  (l) " (2)  (U) " (7) " 11  (8) » " (9)  " "  " (10)  6.9-7.9  7.9-3.9  8.9  9.9-10.9 10.9-11.9  11.9-12.9 12.9-13,9 13.9-1U.9 lU.9-l5.9_ 15.9-16.9  7.0 (1) 7.0 "  8.0 (2)  9.U 9.U  10,0 10.2 10.0 10.0 10.6 IO.U 10.8 10.6 10 „6 10.6 10,6  12.8 (1) 12.U ( 3 ) 12.0 (U) 12.6 (6) 12.U ( 9 )  8.0 (U) 8.0 » 8.6 » 7.8 »» 7.0 (2( 8.0 (5) 7.0 (U) 8.2 (7) 7.0 ( 9 ) 8.8 >• 7.U " 8.8 » 7.0 (10) 8.U (8)  7.U "  8.U "  8.8 » 8.0 (9) 8.0 «  9.0 ( 2 ) ti 9.2  9.U  9.0 9.2 9.0 ( 6 ) rt 9.2  (1) (2)  (U)  11.8 ( 1 ) 11.2 (U)  11.U  11.8 11.8 II 11.2 11.0 tt 11.0 (9) 11.0 (10 l 11.0 11.0 ti  (U)  (5) (6) (7) (9)  1 3 . 2 (1) 13.8 (2) 13.0 (3)  13.U  (U)  13.6 1 3 . 2 (5) 13.6 (7)  lU.O lU.O 1U.U  lU,o lU.2  (i) (3)  (5) (7) (9)  15.0 (1) 15.0 (3) 15.6 15.8  16,0 16.0 16.0 16.6  16.U  (1) (2) (3) (7) (10)  16.9-17.9  17.9-18.9  17.6 17.8 17.0 17.2  18.2 18.0 18.0  17.U  (1)  (U) (5)  (7) (10^  18.9-19.9  ( 2 ) 19.0 ( 2 ) ( 6 ) 19.0 (3) (10) 19.8 (5) 19.0 (10)  19.9-20.9 2.00 20.0 20.6  (5) (9)  20.9-21.9 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.8  CD tt  (U)  21.9-22.9 22.0 22.8  23.9-2U.9  2U.9-25.9  25.9-26.9  39.9-199.9  (1) 2U.U (10) 2U.8 « (5) (9) (10)  25.6 (2) 25.6 ( 1 0 )  26.2 (2) 26.0 (5) 26.0 26.0 (10)  61.U (1)  22.9-23.9  23.2 (1) (5) 23.0 23.2 23.0 23.8  M  tt  (10)  ii.u  8.U "  8.0 (10; 8.6 « 8.8 »  it  o tt tt  (7) tt  3.3 ti (3) it 3.8 tt it M 3,8 U.6 3.0 (9) U..8 II 3 . 4 ti U.o ( 9tt ) 3.8 n U.o tt 3.8 tt U.U 3.2 (10) U.6 ti  The numbers i n the parenthesis are card numbers. The other numbers are the i n d i v i d u a l time scores  75.0 » 98.8 (7) 40.0 ( 1 0 ) , 60.0 " 61.2 "  199.9-200.1 '200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200,0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 '200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200,0 200,0 200.0 200,0 200.0 ,200.0 ,200.0 200.0  (2) (2) (3) tt it it it II  tt  tt tt tt II  tt ti it tt it it ti it it it it  1  it  (10) tt  71 DISTRIBUTION OF RAW SCORES FOR EXPERIMENTAL GROUP, BY TIME VALUE AND CARD NUMBER. .9-1.9  1.9- -2.9  2.9-3.9  1.4 (4) 1.0 (6) 11 1.14 1.8 n 1.8 ti 1.8 tt 1.8 (7) 1.4 (8) 1.6 ti 1.8 (8)  2.0 (U) ti 2.4 2.0 (5) 2.8 tt 2.0 (6) 2.0 tt 11 2.0 2.0 ti 2.0 tt 2.6 ti 2.6 tt 2.0 (7) n 2.4 2.6 it 2.8 tt 2.4 (8) 2.8 tt 2.4 (9) 2.4 tt 2.8 tt  3.0 (1) 11 3.4 n 3.6 3.0 (2)tt 3.2  3.8  11  3.2 (3) 3.0 0 0  n 3.4 11 3.6 it 3.8 3.8 (5) 3.4 (6) 11 3.4 ti 3.8 tt 3.8 3.0 (7)  3.0 11 3.0 ti 3.2 tt 3.0 (8) 11 3.0 11 3.2 11 3.2  3.4 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.8  3.0 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.4  3.4  3.8  ti it it  n  ti (9) 11  ti  11  tt ti u  3.9-4.9 4.0 4.6 4.8 U.6 4.8 4.8 4.4 4.6 U.2 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.8 U.O U.2 U.2  (2) « (3) (4) " (4) (6) « (7) •» « (8) » (9) " "  U.U  "  U.6 U.6  » !'  U.9--5.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.o 5.0 5.6 5.8 5.0 5.0 5.U 5.U 5.U 5.U 5.0 5.0 5.8 5.8 5.2 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.0 5.8 5.0  (i) 11  (2) ti  11  (2) 11  (3)  (U) 11  11  (5) tt  (6) 11 11  tt  (7) (8) ti  5.9-6.9  6.9-7.9  7.9-8.9  8.9-9.9  9.9-10.9  6.8 6.8 6.0 6.8 6.0 6.8 6.8 6.0 6.0 6.8 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.U 6.2 6.U 6.0 6.0 6.0  7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.8 7.2 f7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.6 7.0  8.U 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.U 8.6 8.8 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.U 8.U 8.2 8.0  9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.U 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.U 9.6 9.0 9.0 9.U 9.0 9.0 9.U 9.8 9.2 9.0  10.0 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.0 10.4  (1) »  (U)  " (5) " » (6) " » (7) (7) "  ?  (8)  "  (9) " (10)  |  (2) » » (4)  ';» (5) (7) *» :»» '« (8) (9)  (2)  (U) " "  "  « " (5) » % (6)  » "  (7) (9)  (1) " » « n  (2) » «  10.9-11.9  11.0 11.8 (5) 11.0 (10) 11.8 II 11.4 (10) 11.0 11.2  (2)  (U)  (2) " (5) " (7) (8) (10)  11.9-12.9  12.9-13.9  13.9.-14.9  l U . 9-15.9  15.9-16.9  16.9-17.9  12.4 (U) 12.U (5)  13.0 ( l ) 13.0 (4) 13.0 (7) 13.0 (8) 13.0  14.8 (U) 1U.2 (5) 1U.6 (9) 1U.6 (10)  15.6 15.2 15.0 15.0 15.U  16.0 (5) 16.0 (7) 16.6 (10)  17.8  (1)  (U) (5) (9) (10)  (l)  17.6 (2) 17.8 (8( 17.2  (9)  17.9-18.9  18.9-19.9  19.9-20.9  20.9-21.9  21.9-22.9  22.9-23.9  23.9-24.9  18.0 (10)  19.0 19.6 19.0 19.0 19.2 19.6  20.U (9) 20.0 (IQ)  21.2 (5) ZL .2 « 21.6 « 21.0 (7) 21.0 (10) 21.2 »  22.6 22.8  23.2 23.8  24.4 (5) 2U.6 (10)  (1) n (3) tt  (5) (7)  (5) ».  (2) 11  24.9-25.9  25.9-26.9_ 26.9-39.9  "  " (4) (5)  "  (6) « (7) '«. (9) (10)  11 11 11  ti  (9) (9) (10)  The numbers i n parenthesis are card numbers. The other numbers are the i n d i v i d u a l time scores.  39.9-199.9 '40.0 (1) 42.0 i i U3.0 » 56.6 !! 95. U » 108.2 « 13U.8 » Ul.U (5) Ul.o (8) Ul.8 (10)' U8.0 (10) 106.0 "  199.9-200.1 >200.0 200.0 200.0 '200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200-.0 ,200.0 200.0 200.0 200,0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200,0 200.0 200.0 200,0 200.0 2,;0.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200,0 200.0  (1) tt  11  (3) 11 11  it it tt  n it 11  11  it it  n n n ti ti it tt it tt  n 11  n (10) (10) (10) (10)  APPENDIX  E  RANK ORDER CORRELATION BETWEEN FIRST FIVE AND LAST FIVE CARDS FOR CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS  73 RANK ORDER CORRELATION BETWEEN FIRST FIVE AND LAST FIVE CARDS FOR CONTROL GROUP  Rank order on summed scores f o r cards Subject  01 03 05 07 08 10 15 19 20 21 23 27 29 31 33 34 36 37 40 42 49 45 47 43 52 53 54 55 56 57  1-5 12 3 16 2 28 23 13 18 5 24 1 4 6 27 21 7 10 20 17 19 25 14 15 8 30 11 26 22 29 9  6-10  D  9 7 16 1 8 23 26 19 28 12.5 22 4 24 18 2 25 30 12.5 21 5 17 10 14 27 20 6 15 11 29 3  3 4 0 1 20 0 13 1 23 11.5 21 0 18 9 19 18 20 7.5 4  N » 30 df= 28  Ik 8 4 1 19 10 5 11 11 0 6  D  2  9 16 0 1 400 0 169 1 529 132.25 441 0 324 81 361 324 400 46.25 16 196 64 16 1 361 100 25 121 121 0 36  rho » .05  rho o f .05 i s not s i g n i f i c a n t a t the 5$ l e v e l o f confidence.  7U RANK ORDER CORRELATION BETWEEN FIRST FIVE AND LAST FIVE CARDS FOR EXPERIMENTAL GROUP  Rank order on summed scores f o r cards Subject  1-5  00 02  27  Ob  06 09  11 12 13  lU  16 17 18  22  2k 2$  26 28  30 32 35 38 39 Ul UU U6 U8 50 51 58 59  U  26 28  21 11 25 23  8  10 3  30 7  2  13  6 - 1 0  25 12 5 22 20 6  26  2 10.5 lU 21 1 18.5 18.5  15  1U  23  29 19  17 28  17  15 2U 5 18  D  2 8 21 6 1 16  U 6U UUl  :  36  1 256 361 19 3 9 6 36 .5 .25 11 121 9 81 6 36 16.5 272.25 5.5 30.25 9 3 lU 196 8 6U lU 196 23 529 5 25 U 16 10 100 81 9 12 1UU 9 81 1 1 13.5 182.25 8 6U 15 225  27  12 16 1 22 6 9 20  D  30 9 8  29 U 2U  7  16 10.5 13 3 N = 30 df « 2 8  rho = .2  rho of .2 i s not s i g n i f i c a n t a t the $% l e v e l o f confidence.  

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.831.1-0106552/manifest

Comment

Related Items