A study of the relationship of anxiety to verbal self-evaluative behavior

368 10 8MB

English Pages 129

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

A study of the relationship of anxiety to verbal self-evaluative behavior

Citation preview

AJTTOY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF ANXIETY TO VERBAL SELF-EVALUATIVE BEHAVIOR

by e-^V Richard G* Gannieott \ ^ Z

k d is s e rta tio n submitted in p a r tia l fu lfillm e n t of the requirements fo r the degree of Doctor of Philos­ ophy, in the Department of Psychology, in the Graduate College of the S tate U niversity of Iowa August, 1950

ProQuest Number: 10598585

All rights reserv ed INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality o f this rep ro d u c tio n is d e p e n d e n t u p o n th e quality o f th e c o p y su b m itte d . In th e unlikely e v e n t th a t th e au th o r did n o t s e n d a c o m p le te m anuscript a n d th e re a re missing p a g e s , th e s e will b e n o te d . Also, if m aterial h a d to b e re m o v e d , a n o te will in d ic a te th e d eletio n .

uest P roQ uest 10598585 Published by ProQ uest LLC (2017). C opyright o f th e Dissertation is h eld by th e Author. All rights reserved, This work is p r o te c te d a g a in s t unauthorized c o p y in g u n d e r Title 17, United S tates C o d e Microform Edition © P roQ uest LLC. ProQ uest LLC. 789 East Eisenhow er Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346

The au th o r w ishes to express h is s in c e re ap p reci­ a tio n to Dr. Edward J . Shoben, J r . f o r M s s tim u la tin g c r itic is m and in v alu ab le guidance throughout th e course o f th e in v e s tig a tio n and to Ur. M arshall E. Jones fo r h is as­ s is ta n c e during the form ative sta g e s o f th is study* Dr. E. V. 3m ith of the D ental C ollege was o f con­ sid e ra b le a s s is ta n c e in providing m a te ria ls and g iv in g h e lp in connection w ith th e carving ta sk used in t h i s study. The au th o r i s a ls o deeply Indebted to h is w ife , Donna8 f o r h er c o n sta n t encouragement.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SkjtBlffie. I

£m s

In tro d u c tio n , . ...............................................

....

Statement o f Problem* . , . ............

1 10

II

........... Experim ental M ethod. ................................ - *. * S u b je c ts . P ro c e d u re ,........................ — The Tr eat ment s , . , , . The T asks .......... The J u d g e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... .......... Hating M a te r ia ls . Steps in the P ro c e d u re , .......................

19 1$ 20 20 35 3? 40 43

III

H# s u it a ................. S e lf-e v a lu a tio n on T a s k s , ................ D ire ctio n o f D iscrep an cy , ............ Absolute Amount of D iscrepancy S e lf-e v a lu a tio n on P e rso n a lity Charac­ te ris tic s . .......... Six MObservable!’ P e rso n a lity Charac­ te r! s tie s . .......... Six ^Ron-observ&bl# P e rso n a lity Char­ a c t e r i s t i c s . , .......... . . . . . . ............ C ertain ty of S e lf - e v a lu a tio n . ............

47 47 48 52

64 70

D iscussion of R e s u lts .

73

17 V

S

u

m

.....................

m

a

r

y

56 58

85

R e fe re n c e s.

..........

90

Appendix A . . . .

....................

93

Appendix

................

b

Appendix C

..........

Appendix D

............ ill

103 . ..............

110 118

TABLE OF FIGURES

SX em 1

2

5

la m Mean ©cores on m anifest anxiety" ques­ tio n n a ire adm inistered concurrent w ith th e t r e a t m e n

t

s

Mean t o t a l s e lf-e v a lu a tio n d iscrep an ­ c ie s (a lg e b ra ic ) from fiv e-Ju d g e mean© fo r a l l ta s k s combined.. . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean t o t a l a b so lu te s e lf-e v a lu a tio n d isc re p a n c ie s fro® fiv e -ju d g e means fo r a l l ta s k s com bined. ..........................

iv

,

26

49

55

tm ht

X II

III IF V

FI

FIX

F ill

IX

X

XI

OF TABLES

Humber of M alt and Female S ubjects by Groups,

SI

Mean Scoret on M anifest Anxiety Q uestion­ n a ire A dm inistered Concurrent w ith Treatment. . . . , ........ . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . .

27

Mean Dent&X-soale Hat Inge o f Carving P er­ formance, ..................

34

B e lla b ility o f Judges B&tinga on Task P e r­ formance. . , . . ................................

41

Mean T o tal S e lf-e v a lu a tio n d isc re p a n c ie s (A lgebraic) from Five-Judge Means fo r All Tasks Combined, . . ........... . ...............

50

Mean T otal Absolute S e lf-e v a lu a tio n D is­ crep an cies from. Five-Judge Means fo r A ll Tasks C o m b i n e d

,

.

54

Mean T otal of S e lf - r a tin g s on Six "O bserv ab leMP e rs o n a lity C h a ra c te ris tic s P rio r to Beginning o f T r e a t m e n t , 59 Mean T otal o f S e lf-r a tin g s on Six ^Observ ab lefl P e rs o n a lity C h a ra c te ris tic s Under Treatment C o n d i t i o n s .

61

Mean T otal of S e lf-r a tin g s on Six wMono b serv ab le” P e rs o n a lity C h a ra c te ris­ t i c s P r io r to Beginning of Tr eat ment , . . . . . .

65

Mean T otal of S e lf - r a tin g s on Six "Monobservable M P e rso n a lity C h a ra c te ris ­ t i c s Under Treatment Condi t i ons . . . . . . . . . . . .

68

Mean T otal C e rta in ty F a tin g fo r All Tasks Combined ..........................

71

v

m s OF TABLES (continued) M s XII

Summary of A nalysis of V ariance f o r Mani­ f e s t Anxiety Q uestionnaire D a t a . . . . . . . . . . . . .

94

XIX1

Summary of A nalysis of V ariance fo r Carv­ ing Performance Da t a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -----

95

Summary o f A nalysis of V ariance fo r Mean T o tal S e lf-e v a lu a tio n D iscrepancies (A lgebraic) from F iv e-ju d g e Means f o r A ll Tasks Combined. .........................

96

Summary o f A nalysis o f V ariance fo r Mean T otal Absolute S e lf-e v a lu a tio n D iscrep­ an cies from F ive-judge Means fo r A ll Tasks Combined. ................

97

XIV

XV

XVI

XVII

XVIII

XIX

XX

Summary of A nalysis of V ariance fo r Mean T otal o f S elf-ratin g ® on Six **Obser­ vable*1 P e rs o n a lity C h a ra c te ris tic s P r io r to Beginning T reatm ent ..........

* 98

Summary of A nalysis of V ariance fo r Mean T otal o f S elf-ratin g ® on Six "Observ a b le ,< P e rs o n a lity C h a ra c te ris tic s Under Treatment C o n d itio n s, ............

99

Summary of A nalysis of Variance fo r Mean T otal of S e lf - r a tin g s on Six wMono b serv ab le1* P e rs o n a lity C h a ra o te ris tic s P r io r to Beginning T re atm e n t. ........................

100

Summary of A nalysis of V ariance f o r Mean T otal o f S e lf - r a tin g s on Six "Monobservable ” P e rso n a lity C h a ra c te ris tic s Under Treatment C o n d itio n s . .................... Summary of A nalysis of V ariance fo r Mean T otal C e rta in ty H ating fo r All Tasks Combined ..............................

vl

101

lo g

1 Chapter I

MTRQDUCTXQH M psychologist® hare come to p la y a more a c tiv e r o le in th e f i e l d o f psychotherapy, they h are tended to apply t h e i r a n a ly tic , ex p erim en tal, and re se a rc h techniques to th e elem ents p re s e n t In th e th e ra p e u tic s itu a tio n *

Prim ary emphasis

has c e n te re d around th e n a tu re o f the v e rb a l behavior o f the c l i e n t and co u n selo r, p a r tic u la r ly th e statem en ts th e c l i e n t makes about him self*

One h y p o th esis im p lic it in s tu d ie s o f

th e c l i e n t 9# statem en ts i s th a t they a re somehow r e la te d to c e r ta in stim ulus co n d itio n s and to o th e r v e rb a l and non-verbal behavior o f the c lie n t*

To the e x te n t th a t t h i s i s tr u e , th e re

i s o p p o rtu n ity to d isco v er law fu l re la tio n s h ip s between v a r ia b le s , and consequently to in c re a se th e p re c is io n o f p sy ch o lo g ical d ia g n o s is , to m anipulate more s k i l l f u l l y th e stim u lu s co n d itio n s i n th e th e ra p e u tic s e ttin g in o rd e r to b rin g about d e s ire d behavior changes, and to achieve g r e a te r p re c is io n in b eh av io r p r e d ic tio n . In d iv id u a ls make se v e ra l types of statem en ts about them selves ( e . g . , statem ents of f a c t , re p o rts o f ex p e rien ce, and e v a lu a tiv e sta te m e n ts).

The p re se n t study i s c o n c e d e d

w ith an in v e s tig a tio n o f s e lf- e v a lu a tiv e beh av io r; s p e c if ic a l ly , w ith a stu d y ©f th e r e la tio n s h ip , I f any, between s e l f -

a e v a lu a tiv e behavior and a second v aria b le * a n x ie ty . Verbal s e lf - e v a lu a tiv e b ehavior may be thought o f as m e x p l i c i t o r im p lic it judgment by an in d iv id u a l as to where he would p la c e h im self on some a b ility * ap titu d e* o r p e r s o n a lity dim ension.

$uch judgments may d e v ia te in e i t h e r

d ire c tio n * and to v i r t u a l l y any degree* from the judgments o f o th e r persons* o r from o b je c tiv e In d ice s of perform ance o r s ta tu s . One of th e e a r l i e s t and most w idely known s tu d ie s o f s e lf - e v a lu a tiv e b eh avior was re p o rte d by Cogan, C onklin, and K olllngw orth graphe& on s h e e ts o f p a p e r f i v e and o n e -h a lf in ch es s q u a re . The s u b je c t was g iven two m in u tes to e la b o ra te each o f th e se f ig u r e s in to th e most p le a s in g p a t te r n o r d e sig n he c o u ld by drawing ©a th e p ap e r w ith th e p e n c il p ro v id ed him.

2.

A s e rv in g k n i f e , a mimeographed t r i ­ a n g u la r p a t te r n w ith a one and oneq u a r te r in c h b a se , and a c i r c u l a r p ie c e o f p l a s t e r o f p a r is approxim ately one—h a l f in c h th ic k and two and one— q u a r te r in c h e s i n d iam eter were

A s e r i e s o f th r e e .

p re s e n te d to th e s u b je c t. He was g iv e n te n m inutes to ca rv e th e edge o f th e p l a s t e r b lo ck u n t i l th e block co rresponded a s c lo s e ly as p o s s ib le t o th e mimeographed t r i a n g u l a r model. 3.

The s u b je c t was p re se n te d w ith a p i c t u r e (c a rd number one o f thou Them atic A pperception T e st (13) * 7.

A second p i c t u r e , c a rd A1 o f Symonde P lc tu r e - S to r y t e s t (19) • was s im ila r ly used as an addi­ t i o n a l s to r y w ritin g ta s k ; how­ e v e r, th e d a ta o b ta in e d from i t m s s o t in c lu d e d i s t h i s stu d y .

a blan k s h e e t of sta n d a rd ty p in g p ap e r, and a p e n c il. He was in s t r u c te d to make up the b e s t , com plete, o r ig in a l s to r y he c o u ld based on th e p ic tu r e and w r ite i t o u t on one f u l l s id e o f th e p a p e r w ith in the te n m inutes g iv en him. For those s u b je c ts giv en tre a tm e n ts two and th r e e , th e ta s k in c lu d e d re a d in g th e s to r y b efo re th e gro u p . j& g i s a s s e The d e s ir e f o r some m rm o r group concensus, i n r e l a t i o n to w hich th e s u b je c t 1® s e lf - e v a lu a tio n could be compared, l e d to th e in c lu s io n o f two ty p es of Judges in th e ex p e rim e n ta l d e s ig n . j e c t h im s e lf.

The f i r s t type o f Judge was th e sub­

Each o f th e s i x s u b je c ts in a group e v a lu a te d

h i s own b e h a v io r on a ta s k , th en e v a lu a te d th e b eh a v io r o f th e rem aining f i v e s u b je c ts .

Thus, from th e

s u b je c ts



th em selv es earn© f iv e o th e r-p e rs o n Judgments f o r each o f th e s i x p o rfo n san c 0 0 i n a g ro u p ,

fb# second type o f Judge

was a n o n - p a r tic ip a tin g o b se rv e r c a lle d i n s p e c i f i c a l l y to

each o f th e n in e ex p erim en tal gro u p s, th re e f a c u lty members

th e S ta te U n iv e rs ity o f Iowa were selected , to se rv e as non­ used in e#n— J u n c tio n w ith more than one group. F or a l l th o se groups given Treatm ent One, th e p a rand th e non-

•>t a l l th e o f th e m e rits o f th e p ro d u ct c re a te d by th e s u b je c ts 1 p e r form ances.

F o r a l l th o se groups given tre a tm e n ts Sfo and

Throe, a l l Judges were a c tu a ll y p re se n t and ab le to observe th e perform ances them selves, were made o f th e com pleted t fe re n c e i n d is p o s itio n o f Judges la y i n t h e i r d i f f e r e n t i a l r o l e a s s tim u li.

The c o n d itio n s o f Treatm ent One were

d esig n ed to he a s devoid o f a n x ie ty aro u sin g cues as p o s s ib le ; th u s th e s u b je c ts never seme i n c o n ta c t w ith th e o th e r s u b je c ts o r th e n o n -p a rtic ip a n t Judges.

I n Treatm ent

Two th e n o n - p a r ti e ip a n t judges were p re s e n t d u rin g th e e n t i r e e x p e rim e n ta l s i t u a t i o n ; an a tte m p t was made, however, to m inim ize th e d egree to which they would serv e as s tim u li

a d d it i o n a l o b s e rv e rs who were c a lle d i n to in c re a s e th e r e l i a b i l i t y of judgm ents.

I n Treatm ent Three the non-

p a r t i c i p a n t Judges were p re s e n t during the e n t i r e e x p e ri­ m ental s i t u a t i o n and an e f f o r t was made to c a p ita li z e on t h e i r p o t e n t i a l a n x ie ty -a ro u sin g stim u lu s v a lu e .

Thus,

th o s e n o n - p a r tic ip a n t Judges took n o tes on th e s u b je c ts 1 b e h a v io r, w alked about the experim ental room and looked i n t e n t l y o v er th e sh o u ld e rs o f th e s u b je c ts as they p e r­ form ed t h e i r ta s k s , openly p o in te d a t d i f f e r e n t s u b je c ts and w hispered to one a n o th e r a s i f they were ta lk in g about them and were in s tr u e te d to m ain tain as s e rio u s and c r i t i c a l a manner a s p o s s ib le th ro u g h o u t th e experim ental session* A f te r a l l th e ex p erim en tal d a ta had been ta b u la te d , th e means f o r th e th re e n o n -p a rtic ip a n t judges and f iv e p a r t i c i p a n t Judges had been c a lc u la te d , and the d is c re p a n c ie s between th e i n d i v i d u a l 's e e lf-e v & lu a tio n s and mean ju d g e s' r a t i n g s had been computed, i t was d isco v ered th a t th e curves o f s e lf - e v a l u a t i o n d is c re p a n c ie s were approxim ately th e same w h eth er th e th re e —Judge o r fiv e -ju d g e means were used*

m X t ap p eared , how ever, t h a t th e higher- f o r th e f i r e i*

fa

she a t e a t o f t h i s re lia b ility of c o e ffic ie n ts of

b o th th r e e ta s k i n f a b le I " .

fo r

of

non-

%mk the much

s im ila r n a tu re o f o f Judges meed, i t wad d ec id e d to d e riv e d from th e mm o f th e f i r e e v a lu a tio n s*

Two d i f f e r e n t r a ti n g m aterial® were t h i s s tu d y .

is

The f i r s t was a for®

8 . See Appendix C. a copy o f which was used by a l l s u b je c ts and n o n -p a rtic ip a n t

41

T ab le HT B e l l a b i l i t y o f Judges1 Bat la g s on Task Performance'8'

Task

F ir e P s r t ie i p a n t Judges

Three O b jec tiv e Judges

D esign

.73S

.634

C a rria g e

.939

.934

S to ry

.735

.764

*C oeffiele& te o f r e l i a b i l i t y c a lc u la te d on b a s is o f gen­ era l r e l i a b i l i t y form ula proposed by H o rst ( ? ) .

kz Judges f o r e v a lu a tin g the ta sk s,

on each o f th e th re e

fh e use o f th e

was ex p lain ed to each

p e rso n toy th e e x p e rim e n te r who i n s t r u c t i o n s w ith the® .^ 9.

a form al s e t o f

fhe s u b je c ts

See Appendix 0 ,

i n s t r u c t e d to e x e c u te th re e o p e ra tio n s in making t h e i r e v a lu a tio n s o f th e perform ances on a p a r t i c u l a r ta sk s (a) Hank th e s ix perform ances in th e o rd e r o f t h e i r q u a l it y , g iv in g ran k s fro® one to s i x . (to) Die t r i b u t e th e perform ances along th e g ra p h ic s c a le according to th e d i f ­ fe re n c e s i n q u a lity judged to the (e ) Check a second g ra p h ic s c a le a t a p o in t which in d ic a te s how c e r t a in you a re ab o u t th e c o r re c tn e s s o f th e r a ti n g you The n®m~ p a r tic ip a n t Judge© were in s tr u c te d to perform only th e f i r s t two o f th e s e o p e ra tio n s s in c e th e y had n e i th e r perform ed th e ta s k n o r made an e v a lu a tio n o f th em selves. The second r a ti n g m a te ria l was a form t i t l e d S e lf Ratings***® w hich was f i l l e d o u t only toy th e s u b je c ts . 1 0 . See Appendix C T his form l i s t e d tw elve p e r s o n a lity c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , each o f which was fo llo w ed toy a g ra p h ic sc a le which d e s c r ip tiv e ly

a d m in is te re d T reatm ent One earn# to th e

tm

&t f r m

in a

to c o u ld be made s e s s io n o f T reatm en t One were 1) F i r s t s e lf - : c h a r a c te r ! s 2} F i r s t s to r y task ' 12. The d a ta o b ta in e d from t h i s taafc w ere n o t a n a ly se d a s a p a r t o f

o f them

3) G eneral I n s tr u c tio n s ^ 13 • Bee Appendix 1 . A) 51 6) ?}

D esign ta s k fa r v ls g task Second sto ry ta sk Second s e lf - r a t in g on p e r so n a lity ehar&e t e r i s t i e &

£he s te p s In the promoter® fo r the second se ssio n ©f the treatm ent were ordered a s fo llo w s 5 1} B a tin g I n s tr u c tio n s 21 Sftralttation o f d esig n performances 31 K 'ralu atio n o f c a rv in g perform ances k ) E valu ation o f second drawing per­ form ances 5) a d m in is tr a tio n o f A nxiety Q uestion­ n a ire Two and th r e e *

She s ix subject© in

th e groups ad m in istered Treatment© fwo and th ree ©am© to th e la b o ra to ry fo r one two-hour experim ental sessio n *



s te p s in the procedure fo r th e se treatm ents were ordered a s fo llo w s: 1) F ir s t s e lf - r a t in g ©a p e r so n a lity ehara© £ © r lstie s 2) F ir s t sto r y t s s lr ^ 1^* The d a ta o b ta in e d fro® t h i s ta s k was n o t a n a ly se d a s a p a r t o f t h i s study* 3) G eneral in s t r a c t io n s ^ g iv en ; non15* he© A ppendix B*

45

s e t up of were

I sc re e n s o r

on to t h i s ta b le two ; non-

71 Oarvlng

s t o r y to

tw ice In th e sequence o f oof o re th e

to he a t i t #

fh te

_

p la c e in th e favor& blenes e o f e e l f discing d i f f e r e n t d eg rees o f

a fu n c tio n o f i n t r o ♦ I t d lf-

f e r e d from th e p ro ced u re f o r (a ) l a t h a t th e same s u b je c t was

w lth h im se lf

u n d er two d e g re e s o f an x iety * and

In t h a t th e measure

was th e change i n s e lf - e v a lu a t io n

46

'With a mean %&. B m step s In procedure lis t e d above

47

C hapter I I I RESULTS M l l - t v a l a a t l o n gg I ta k a Q u a n tif ic a tio n o f rating© on ta s k perform ance was a c h ie v ed by a s s ig n in g a v alu e o f zero to th e l e f t ex­ trem e o f th e g rap h ic seal© and m easuring th e d is ta n c e in m illim e te r s from t h i s p o in t to th e p o in t o f th e check mark on th e s c a le .

The h ig h e r th e v alu e assig n ed , th e b e t t e r

th e ta s k was Judged to have been perform ed.

For each sub­

j e c t , th e d if f e r e n c e between h i s s e l f - r a t i n g and th e mean o f th e r a t i n g s g iv en him by th e o th e r f iv e s u b je c ts p a r t i ­ c ip a tin g in th e same group was c a lc u la te d .

However, sin ce

each s u b je c t perform ed on th r e e ta s k s which were in d iv id ­ u a l l y e v a lu a te d , th e su bject* s t o t a l d iscrep an cy f o r th e th r e e ta s k s was o b ta in e d . ways;

T his t o t a l was o b ta in e d in two

( ! ) a lg e b r a ic summation, and (2) summation w ithout

re g a rd f o r s ig n .

The s e lf - e v a lu a tiv e d iscrep an cy from

group Judgment d a ta a re p re se n te d in th e fo llo w in g two s e c tio n s .

The f i r s t s e c tio n d e a ls w ith t o t a l a lg e b ra ic

d is c r e p a n c ie s .

The second s e c tio n d e a le w ith t o t a l d i s ­

crep an cy w ith o u t re g a rd f o r d ir e c tio n of d isc re p a n c y .

48

M m M a n of s is s s m m a The means o f t o t a l a lg e b ra ic d iscre p an cy fo r each o f th e n in e groups a re p l o tte d in F ig u re 2 .17

a

17* The mean and sta n d a rd d e v ia tio n value® f o r th e se group® a r e p re s e n te d i n T able V. tre a tm e n t by lev el® a n a ly s is of v a ria n c e was a p p lie d to th e s e d a ta .l®

The F r a t i o between tre a tm e n ts mean square

1 8 , T able OTT in Appendix A present® a summary o f t h i s tre a tm e n t by level® a n a ly sis* and w ith in c e l l s mean square i s 10,53 w ith two and f o r ty f i v e d e g re e s o f freedom r e s p e c tiv e ly .

With t h i s v a lu e ,

th e h y p o th e s is t h a t th e r e a re no d if f e r e n c e s in p o p u la tio n a lg e b r a ic d isc re p a n c y means as a fu n c tio n o f th e t r e a t ­ ment® may be r e je c t e d at beyond th e one p e rc e n t le v e l o f c o n fid e n c e .

There i s , th e r e f o r e , a r e l i a b l e in d ic a tio n

o f a tr e n d tow ard u n d e r-e v a lu a tio n w ith an in c re a s e in e x p e rim e n ta lly Induced a n x ie ty .

The F r a t i o between

row s-by—columns mean square and w ith in c e l l s mean square i s 2*31 w ith fo u r and f o r t y - f i v e d eg rees o f freedom r e ­ s p e c tiv e ly .

T h is does n o t allow r e je c tio n o f th© h y p th e-

s i s th a t th e tre n d 1® th e same f o r a l l th r e e l e v e l s of o r i g i n a l m a n ife st a n x ie ty .

The F r a t i o of rows mean

49

MEAN TOTAL ALGEBRAIC + DISCREPANCY I I I * *

80 Original anxiety level

60

...... high ------ medium ------ low

40

20

X

X

X

\

20 40 60

i

n

in

TREATMENTS (DEGREE OF ANXIETY) Fig* 2* L'ean total self-evaluation discrepancies (algebraic) from five-judge means for all tasks combined. Each curve represents three groups sampled from same original manifest anxiety level*

go

fa b le ? Mean T o ta l $*lf~$fral«iatio» D is c re p a n c ie s ( A lg e b ra ic ) from Fiva~Judge Me&ne f o r 411 T&isks Combined

O rig in a l Level M an ife st Anxi e ty

T reatm ent a I

XI

XII

B ig i

Mean a .o .

+62*SO # 0 .0 ?

-g g .e ? 88.90

-59«85 m .m

Medium

Mean S.B.

+ 33.1?

-1 4 .5 0 59.88

-3 0 .0 0 1 5 .1 4

Low

Mean 5 .0 .

+ 10.00 46.50

+ 8 .6 ? T1.16

-68*83 55.29

sq u are t o w ith in c e l l # moan sq u are I s 0*31, w hich, w ith two and f o r t y - f i v e d e g re e s o f freedom r e s p e c ti v e l y . I s not s ig n ific a n t,

T h e re fo re , th e h y p o th e s is t h a t th e popu­

l a t i o n means f o r th e h ig h , medium, and low m a n ife st a n x i­ e ty c u rv e s a r e a t th e same h e ig h t on th e o r d in a te cannot be re je c te d *

The th r e e groups g iv en th e same tr e a tm e n t,

th e n , co u ld be viewed as sam ples drawn from th e same popu­ la tio n . tinder T reatm ent One, th e th r e e group® (now to be c o n s id e re d as sam ples from th e same p o p u la tio n ) showed a d is c re p a n c y from group judgment i n th e d i r e c t i o n o f s e l f enhancem ent.

To t e s t w hether t h i s was due to sam pling

f l u c t u a t i o n s o r a c t u a l l y in d i c a t i v e o f th e ten d en cy o f th e p o p u la tio n mean, th e g e n e ra l mean o f a l l th r e e groups was t e s t e d f o r s ig n if ic a n c e .

The h y p o th e s is t h a t th e t r u e

p o p u la tio n mean 1® t h a t o f se ro d isc re p a n c y can be r e ­ je c te d a t th e two p e rc e n t le v e l o f co n fid en ce (J, - 2.57 w ith f o r t y - f i v e d e g re e s o f freedom based on th e w ith in c e l l s v a ria n c e e s tim a te ) .

Thus, u n d er th e l e a s t a n x ie ty -

a ro u sin g c o n d itio n s , s e l f - e v a lu a t iv e b e h a v io r tend® t o be an o v e r -e s tim a te in r e l a t i o n to group Judgment. Under T reatm ent T hree, th e th re e groups (now to be c o n s id e re d as sam ples from th e same p o p u la tio n ) showed a d is c re p a n c y from group Judgment in th e d i r e c t i o n o f

52

s e l f - d e p r e c ia ti o n .

To t e s t w hether t h i s d isc re p a n c y

could be due to sam pling f l u c t u a ti o n s o r w h eth er t h i s was an i n d i c a t i o n o f th e tendency o f th e p o p u la tio n mean, a 1 t e s t f o r th e s ig n if ic a n c e o f a mean was a p p lie d .

The

h y p o th e s is t h a t th e t r u e p o p u la tio n mean was t h a t o f se re d iscrep an cy ■ co u ld h e r e je c t e d a t th e one p e rc e n t le v e l o f c o n fid e n c e (£ » 3 .8 3 w ith f o r t y - f i v e d eg rees o f freedom b ased on th e w ith in c e l l s v a ria n c e e s tim a te ) .

Under th e

c o n d itio n d e fin e d as most a n x ie ty a ro u sin g , th e n , s e l f e v a lu a tiv e b e h a v io r te n d s to be an u n d e r-e s tim a te in r e ­ l a t i o n to group judgm ent. Thus, th e r e seems to be a tendency f o r s e l f e v a lu a tio n s to b® s e lf-e n h a n c in g w ith minimal ex p erim en tal a n x ie ty and to be s e lf - a b a s in g under g r e a te r s tre n g th s o f e x p e rim e n ta l a n x ie ty .

T his seems to h o ld t r u e r e g a r d le s s

o f th e i n i t i a l le v e l o f m a n ife st a n x ie ty . &£ Sl& spjm m & i

A b,jolute

The meane1^ ©f t o t a l a b s o lu te d isc re p a n c y from group Judgment f o r each o f th e nine groups are p lo tte d 19. Th© mean and sta n d a rd d e v ia tio n v alu es f o r th e s e groups a re p re s e n te d in T able VI. in F ig u re 3 .

A tre a tm e n t by level® a n a ly s is of v a ria n c e

MEAN TOTAL ABSOLUTE DISCREPANCY

55

Original anxiety level high medium low

1

i

n

in

TREATMENTS (DEGREE OF ANXIETY) Fig.- 3.- Mean total absolute self-evaluation discrepancies from five-judge means for all tasks combined. Each curve represents three groups sampled from same original manifest anxiety level.

94

Tafcl® VI Mmn Total Absolute Self-Evaluation Mserep&ncles from Fi?*«4 udge Means for All Tasks Combined

O rig in a l L e^el M an ifest Anrlafcy

I

T reatm ents IX

XII

Higfr

Mean $.&.

88 A ? 38.38

84. S3 02.61

99.83 89,02

Medium

Mean S *0.

61,1? 80.04

8? *88 19.90

51,33 23,40

Low

Mean S.B.

68.33 89.25

09.6? 86.09

8 8,1? 34.11

was a p p lie d to th e s e data*^®

The F r a t i o o f row$-by-

20. T able W In Appendix A p re s e n ts a summary o f t h i s tre a tm e n t by l e v e l s a n a ly sis* columns mean square to w ith in c e l l s mean square i s 0.41 which, w ith fo u r and f o r t y - f i v e d eg rees o f freedom re sp e c ­ t i v e l y , i s n ot s ig n if ic a n t*

fh e h y p o th e sis t h a t th e popu­

l a t i o n tr e n d in a b s o lu te s e lf - e v a lu a tiv e d is c re p a n c ie s 1® th e same a t a l l l e v e l s of m a n ife st an x iety cannot be r e ­ je c te d .

The F r a t i o between tre a tm e n ts mean square and

w ith in c e l l s mean sq u are I s 0 ,1 6 which, w ith two and f o r t y f iv e d e g re e s o f freedom r e s p e c tiv e ly , i s not s ig n ific a n t* With t h i s v a lu e , th e h y p o th e sis t h a t th e re a re no popula­ t i o n d if f e r e n c e s in a b s o lu te s e lf - e v a lu a tiv e d iscrep an cy means as a fu n c tio n o f th e tre a tm e n ts cannot be r e je c te d . The F r a t i o between th e rows mean square and th e w ith in c e l l s mean sq u are 1® 3*01 which, w ith two and f o r ty - f i v e d eg rees o f freedom , i s ju s t sh o rt o f s ig n ific a n c e a t th e f iv e p e rc e n t le v e l o f confidence*

Thus, th e h y p o th e sis

t h a t th e r e i s no d if f e r e n c e in th e amount o f a b so lu te s e l f - e v a l u a t i v e d isc re p a n c y shown by th e l e v e l s p o p u la tio n s, i r r e s p e c t i v e o f tre a tm e n ts , cannot be r e je c te d .

T his hy­

p o th e s is , however, i s s u f f i c i e n t l y c lo se to r e je c tio n to su g g est t h a t f u r t h e r study should be made o f th e accuracy

56

o f th e s e lf - e v a l u a t i v e b eh a v io r o f th o se p eo p le drawn from th e u p p er extrem e o f th e A nxiety S cale a s compared w ith th e aocuracy o f s e lf - e v a lu a tio n of th o se p eo p le drawn from th e o th e r two l e v e l s on t h i s s c a le .

The presum ption

t h a t th e r e 1® a ten d en cy f o r th o se people who a re most an x io u s, as d e fin e d by t h e i r m an ifest a n x ie ty re sp o n se s, to behave in a more extrem e manner th an th o se people who a re l e s s an x io u s, s im ila r ly d e fin e d . I s c o n s is te n t w ith th e fin d in g s on th e a n x ie ty q u e s tio n n a ire shown In F ig u re 1* m

emmbm S

M

i

The s e l f - r a t i n g s on tw elve p e r s o n a lity ch arac­ t e r i s t i c s were q u a n tifie d by a procedure s im ila r to th a t used on th e g ra p h ic s c a le f o r r a ti n g ta s k perform ance. That extrem e o f th e seal© f o r each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c which was la b e le d yery low was assig n ed a value of zero .

The

v alu e o f any p a r t i c u l a r s e l f - r a t i n g was o b ta in e d by mea­ su rin g th e d is ta n c e in m illim e te rs from th e zero p o in t to th e p o in t o f th e check on th e s c a le .

Two s e l f - r a t i n g s

on th e same l i s t o f p e r s o n a lity c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were ob­ ta in e d from each s u b je c t, one r a t i n g J u s t p r i o r to th e b eg in n in g o f tre a tm e n t and one r a ti n g at a tim e during th e ex p erim en tal s e s s io n when s t r e s s was co n sid ered to fee

57

a t I t s p e a k ,^ x

These two s e l f - r a t i n g s w ill b® r e f e r r e d

21, See s te p s in procedure# page 44* C hapter XI. to a® th© f i r s t and second r a ti n g s r e s p e c tiv e ly . The tw elve c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s e le c te d f o r t h i s study were chosen b ecau se th e y were f e l t to be re p re s e n t ac­ t i v e o f th e h in d s o f vague, a b s t r a c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on which p eo p le f r e q u e n tly e v a lu a te th em selves.

On examina­

tio n o f th e l i s t , m oreover, i t seemed th a t s ix o f th© tw elv e r e f e r r e d to k in d s o f b e h a v io r which could be ob­ serv ed in th e ex p erim en tal s i t u a t io n , whereas th e o th e r s ix r e f e r r e d to b e h a v io r of a type which was not l i k e l y t o be e l i c i t e d in th e co u rse of th e experim ent.

The f i r s t

s ix c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , f o r th e p u rp o ses o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in t h i s stu d y , have been c a lle d th e tic s .

o b se rv a b le w c h a r a c te r is ­

The rem aining s ix have been c a lle d th e ♦‘non-obser­

vable*1 c h a r a c te r is tic # *

The s ix “o b se rv a b le 11 c h a ra c te r­

i s t i c s were a® fo llo w s; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

In te lle c tu a l a b ility O r ig in a lity o f idem® S o cial p o ise A ttra c tiv e n e s s as a person ( to o th e rs ) A b ility to ex p ress idea® to o th e rs Kmotional c o n tro l *

The s ix “nom-observable” c h a r a c te r is tic s were as follow©;

58

1* 2. 3* 4. 5. 6.

T ru s tw o rth in e ss C o n sc ie n tio u sn e ss Q u a lity of moral value® Degree o f common sense P e rse v e ra n c e A b ility to u n d erstan d other©

These two group® o f s ix p e r s o n a lity c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were an aly sed s e p a ra te ly f o r both th e f i r s t and second ra tin g s *

F i r s t s e l f - r a t i n g * th e means o f t o t a l s e l f r a t i n g on th e s ix " o b se rv a b le 11 p e r s o n a lity c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p r i o r to th e b e g in n in g o f tre a tm e n t a re p re se n te d in Table VII*

A tre a tm e n t by l e v e l s a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e was ap­

p lie d to th e s e d a ta * s ^

The r a t i o of rows-by-colum ns mean

22* T able M i n Appendix A present® a summary o f t h i s t r e a t ­ ment by l e v e l s a n a ly sis* sq u are to w ith in cell® me|p square y ie ld s an f valu e o f 0 .4 6 w hich, w ith fo u r and f o r t y - f i v e degree® o f freedom r e ­ s p e c tiv e ly , i s n o t s ig n if ic a n t*

Th® h y p o th e sis of no i n t e r ­

a c tio n betw een b ein g assig n ed to tre a tm e n t group® and l e v e l s o f m a n ife st a n x ie ty cannot be r e je c te d .

An F v alu e

o f 2.11 i s o b ta in e d when a r a t i o o f column mean square and w ith in c e l l s mean sq u are i s formed*

Using two and f o r ty -

f iv e degree® of freedom r e s p e c tiv e ly , t h i s F valu e i s n o t s ig n ific a n t.

Thus, th® h y p o th e sis th a t assignm ent to

59

m Mean T o ta l o f S e lf S ix ft0& serrable® P e r s o n a lity P r i o r to BMinaiitfl: o f

O rig in a l M an ifest A nxiety

Treatm eat Groups II

111

S.D.

316.83 m *s4

332.33 59*20

346.50 40*53

S.B.

334.6? 40*4?

388.83 83*09

358.67 27*45

It

348*6? 35 *33

372.00 78.1?

395.6? 60.89

60

tre a tm e n t groups h as no e f f e c t on th e s e l f - r a t i n g behav­ i o r of th e p o p u la tio n s re p re se n te d by th e se groups cannot be re je c te d *

When a r a t i o i s formed between th e rows

mean square and th e w ith in c e l l s mean square, an F value o f 2.60 I s o b tain ed which, w ith two and f o r ty - f i v e de­ g rees o f freedom r e s p e c tiv e ly , i s not s ig n if ic a n t.

On th©

b a s is o f th e s e th re e t e s t s , th # h y p o th esis may not be re ­ je c te d th a t thee© n in e groups have been drawn from th e erne p o p u la tio n .

There i s no evidence o f a d iffe re n c e in

s e lf - e v a lu a tiv e b eh av io r on th e s ix *observable* person­ a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p r io r to tre a tm e n t, e i t h e r due to le v e l of i n i t i a l m an ifest an x iety o r due to assignm ent to groups scheduled to re c e iv e d if f e r e n t degrees of s tr e s s f u l tre a tm e n t« jgeoopd

ra c in g .

In Table V III a re p re se n ted

th e means of t o t a l s e l f - r a t i n g on th e six *observable* p e r s o n a lity c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o b tain ed under th e v ario u s tre a tm e n t c o n d itio n s .

When a trea tm en t by le v e ls a n a ly s is

of v a ria n c e 23 i s a p p lie d to th e se d a ta , th© follow ing r e 23. Table XVH in Appendix A p re se n ts a summary of th e t r e a t ­ ment by l e v e l s a n a ly s is . s u i t s are o b ta in e d .

An F Value o f 0.53 i s o b tain ed when a

r a t i o i s formed between th e rows-by-eolumn© mean square and

61

s?ST

336'* 66 61*00

336*6? 89*16

288*8? 89*06

Medium

Meait S-..D-.

346*83 43* 28

3?2*60 50*??

333*1? 36*6?

Lew

Mean 3*0.

344*83 » -.ia

361*83 SS.*?9

389.33 83.39

th© w ith in © e lls mean sq u a re .

With fo u r and f o r t y - f i v e

d e g re e s o f freedom r e s p e c t i v e l y , t h i s v alu e i s n o t s i g n i fle a n t*

The h y p o th e s is o f no in t e r a c ti o n betw een t r e a t ­

m ents and l e v e l s o f m a n ife st a n x ie ty cannot h e r e je c te d . Th© r a t i o o f tr e a tm e n ts mean sq u are to w ith in cell® mean sq u are y i e l d s a v a lu e o f 0.81 which* w ith two and f o r t y f i v e d e g re e s o f freedom r e s p e c tiv e ly , i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t . T here i s th u s no in d ic a tio n o f a r e l i a b l e d if f e r e n c e in s e l f - r a t i n g b e h a v io r on th e s ix “observable*1 c h a r a c t e r is ­ t i c © a s a fu n c tio n o f th e tr e a tm e n ts .

When a t h i r d r a t i o

I s form ed betw een th e rows mean square and th© w ith in c e l l s mean square an F v alu e o f 2.09 i s o b ta in e d .

T his

i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t u s in g two and f o r t y - f i v e d eg rees o f freedom re s p e c tiv e ly *

The h y p o th e s is of no d if f e r e n c e in

s e l f - r a t i n g b e h a v io r i n re g a rd to th e s ix “observable** c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as a fu n c tio n o f d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f mani­ f e s t a n x ie ty cannot be r e je c te d .

On th e b a s i s o f th e s e

th r e e t e s t s , th e h y p o th e s is cannot be r e je c te d th a t th e nin© groups were drawn from th e same p o p u la tio n .

There 1©

th u s no r e l i a b l e I n d ic a tio n o f e f f e c t s on s e l f - r a t i n g fo r th e s ix “observable** c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s due e i t h e r to t r e a t ­ ment e f f e c t s o r to d i f f e r e n t d eg rees of m a n ife st a n x ie ty . Change A& p elf-.t* a Iu aS lfia XlSim H g & i M J&fifi&M rfftln ff.

On b o th th e f i r s t and second r a ti n g s o f th e s ix

63

"o b se rv a b le " per® onaX ity c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s S t was n o t p o s s i­ b le to r a j a c t th© h y p o th e s is t h a t th© n in e groups o f sub­ j e c t s In each c a se w ere drawn from th e same o r id e n tic a l p o p u la tio n s .

However, sin o e th e f i r s t r a t i n g o c c u rre d

p r i o r to th e b e g in n in g o f tr e a tm e n t, and th e second r a t i n g was made a t a tim e a f t e r th e s t r e s s f u l tre a tm e n t c o n d itio n s had been a p p lie d , i t was p a s s ib le t h a t a change In s e lf- ., e v a lu a tio n on th e s e s i x c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c o u ld have tak en p la c e a s a fu n c tio n o f a change in th e s tr e n g th ©f th e hy­ p o t h e t i c a l a n x ie ty s t a t e d e fin e d in term® o f th e experim en­ t a l co n d itio n ® . To t e s t f o r a d if f e r e n c e in s e lf - e v a lu a tio n on th© s i x " o b s e rv a b le 1* p e r s o n a lity c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s between th e f i r s t and second r a t i n g s , th© fo llo w in g p ro ced u re was employed.

The f i r s t s e l f - r a t i n g sc o re s f o r @11 n in e

groups o f s u b je c ts were combined in o rd e r to o b ta in @ gen­ e r a l mean f o r th e e n t i r e f i f t y - f o u r s u b je c ts . s e l f - r a t i n g ©core® were s im ila r ly combined,

The second The g en e ral

means f o r th e f i r s t and second ratin g ® were 354.91 and 342.48 r e s p e c t i v e l y , in d ic a tin g a downward s h i f t l a th e s u b je c ts ' s e lf - e v a lu a t io n s .

To a s c e r ta in w hether t h i s

d if f e r e n c e was s i g n i f i c a n t , th e % t e s t f o r th e s i g n i f i ­ cance o f a d if f e r e n c e in th e mean® o f r e l a t e d m easures was a p p lie d t o th e o b ta in e d mean d if f e r e n c e o f -1 2 ,4 3 .

The

64

v a lu e o f X m o b ta in e d la 2*42 i&leh* w ith f i f t y - t h r e e degree© o f freedom i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e two p e rc e n t le v e l o f co n fid en ce*

The h y p o th e s is can be r e j e c t e d t h a t th e r e

i s no d i f f e r e n c e i n th e mean s e lf - e v a l u a ti o n s o f th e popu­ la tio n © r e p r e s e n te d by th e f i r s t and second ra tin g s *

It

may be co n clu d ed , th e n , t h a t a® a fu n c tio n o f s u b je c tio n to experim ent a l l y in d u ced a n x ie ty { d e fin e d i n term© o f th e tre a tm e n t c o n d itio n s ) th e r e i s a s h i f t tow ard l e s s fa v o r­ a b le s© lf-© valnation® on th e s ix *observable* p e r s o n a lity c h a ra c t © r l s t i e s , wlsL teb b ,ig irtaM ^l E s m m s lM z S i m a l t o i s i M s Z i r s i a§M zm$Aag«

The means o f t o t a l s e l f -

r a t i n g on th e s ix Mnon-observable** p e r s o n a lity c h a r a c te r ­ i s t i c s p r i o r to th e b e g in n in g o f tre a tm e n t a r e p re s e n te d i n T able IX.

A tre a tm e n t by l e v e l s a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e was

a p p lie d to th e s e & a ta ,^ 4

When a r a t i o i s form ed between

24. T ab le XVIII in Appendix A p r e s e n ts a summary o f t h i s tre a tm e n t by l e v e l s a n a ly s is , th e row®-by-oolumns mean sq u are and th e w ith in c e l l s mean sq u are , an F v alu e o f 0 .5 4 i s o b ta in e d .

With fo u r and

f o r t y - f i v e d e g re e s o f freedom r e s p e c tiv e ly , t h i s F v alu e I s not s ig n ific a n t.

The h y p o th e s is may not b© r e je c t e d

t h a t th e r e 1® no I n t e r a c t i o n betw een b e in g a ssig n e d to

66

T ab le IX T otal o f S elf-

s ix

to

O rig in a l le T e l M a n ife st 4

Bif$i

II

Sn Hi

374.1? 42*5?

427.33 44.60

421 ..60 4S:*43

s. a,

379,. 33 8 4. 06

422.63 62.92

369.1? 2 9 .9 ?

411»00 60*92

430.00 52.54

441 *33 7 2 .6 3

66

tre a tm e n t group# and l e v e l s o f m a n ife st a n x ie ty ,

The r a ­

t i o o f colum ns mean sq u a re to w ith in c e l t s mean square g iv e s an F v a lu e o f 1 .8 5 , which, w ith two and f o r t y - f i v e d e g re e s o f freedom r e s p e c t i v e l y , i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t . Thus, th e h y p o th e s is t h a t assignm ent to tre a tm e n t group® ha© no e f f e c t on th e s e l f - r a t i n g b e h a v io r o f th e p o p u la­ t i o n s re p r e s e n te d by th e s e groups cannot be r e je c t e d .

An

F v a lu e o f 1 .7 2 i s o b ta in e d when a r a t i o o f row® mean sq u are to w ith in c e l l s mean sq u are i s form ed.

U sing two

and f o r t y - f i v e d e g re e s o f freedom re s p e c tiv e ly * t h i s v a lu e i s n o t s ig n if ic a n t#

I t may he concluded t h a t s e le c ti o n

from d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f m a n ife st a n x ie ty h a s no e f f e c t on s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n o f th e s ix **non-ob®[email protected] p e r s o n a lity c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p r i o r to b e g in n in g o f tre a tm e n t.

On th e

b a s i s o f th e th r e e t e s t s r e p o r te d above, th e h y p o th e s is may n o t b e r e j e c t e d t h a t th e n in e group® whose mean# &r© p re s e n te d i n T ab le XX were drawn from th e same p o p u la tio n . Thus, n e i t h e r s e l e c t i o n from l e v e l s o f m a n ife s t a n x ie ty nor assignm ent t o group® which a re scheduled to re c e iv e d i f f e r ­ en t d e g re e s o f © tre s s fu l c o n d itio n s ha# any r e l i a b l e e f f e c t on s e l f - e v a l u a t i v e b e h a v io r on th e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

Th©

l a t t e r f in d in g i s , o f c o u rse , p e r f e c t l y i n l i n e w ith expec­ ta n c y s in c e no e x p e rie n c e had been undergone which m ight have a f f e c t e d s e l f - e v a l u a t i v e b e h a v io r.

m

3M SSA M ifc&aSAM *

$h® mean© o f t o t a l s e l f -

r a t i n g on th e s ix ttn o » -o b serv ab le* p e r s o n a l it y c h a r a c te r ­ i s t i c s o b ta in e d u n d er tre a tm e n t c o n d itio n s a re p re s e n te d i n f a b l e X.

A tre a tm e n t by l e v e l s a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e

was a p p lie d t o th e s e d ata.^®

The r a t i o o f row s-by-oolum ns

25. T ab le XIX i n Appendix A p r e s e n ts a summary o f t h i s tre a tm e n t by l e v e l s a n a ly s i s . mean sq u are to w ith in c e l l s mean sq u are g iv e s an f v a lu e o f 0*91 w hich, w ith fo u r and f o r t y - f i v e d e g re e s o f freedom re s p e c tiv e ly , i s not s ig n ific a n t.

The h y p o th e s is o f no

i n t e r a c t i o n betw een tre a tm e n ts and l e v e l s o f m a n ife st a n x i­ e ty may n o t be re je c te d *

Mien a r a t i o was formed betw een

th e tr e a tm e n ts mean sq u are and th e w ith in c e l l s mean sq u are, an F v a lu e o f 0 .3 6 was o b ta in e d which was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t , u s in g two and f o r t y - f i v e d e g re e s o f freedom r e s p e c t iv e l y . An F v a lu e o f 0 .5 6 was o b ta in e d from a r a t i o o f rows mean sq u are to w ith in c e l l s mean square*

With two and f o r t y -

f iv e d e g re e s o f freedom r e s p e c ti v e l y , t h i s v a lu e I s n o t s ig n ific a n t.

On th® b a s i s o f th e s e t e s t s , th® h y p o th e s is

t h a t th e n in e group© whose means a r e p re s e n te d i n T able X were drawn from th e same p o p u la tio n cannot be r e je c t e d . T here th u s appear© t o be no r e l i a b l e i n d ic a ti o n o f a d i f ­ fe re n c e i n s e l f - e v a l u a t i v e b e h a v io r on th e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

68

fa b le X Mean T o ta l o f S elf-

L ew i

I

11

111

306.86 38.08

401.17 50.03

423. 53 48.41

S-B,

415.33 81 .3 0

426.67 0 1 .1 2

382.17 25. 40

s Vb .

384.33 03 .0 0

€13.17 3 7 .2 2

454.67 48.77

e i t h e r &a a f u n c tio n o f e x p e rim e n ta l o r m a n ife s t a n x ie ty . SJaoxm

JEsUtog-

In

M

lt z m ,A m tl m

tx s m

11

M i J&

m s

&m

°n b o th th e f i r s t and second r a t i n g s o f th e s ix

**n o n -o b s e rv a b le 15 p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i t was n o t p o s s ib le to r e j e c t th e h y p o th e s is t h a t th e n in e groups o f s u b je c ts in each c a s e were drawn from th e same o r i d e n t i c a l p o p u la tio n s *

To t e s t f o r th e s ig n if ic a n c e o f th e d i f f e r ­

ence betw een th e g e n e ra l means f o r th e f i r s t and second s e l f - r a t i n g s c o re s on th e *n o n -o b se rv a b le ” c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s * th e same p ro c e d u re was employed a s was used w ith th e s ix nobservable** c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s *

Th® g e n e ra l means f o r th e

f i r s t and second r a t i n g s were 409.13 and 4 1 4.0? resp ectiv e-* l y , i n d i c a t i n g an upward s h i f t In th e s u b j e c t 's s e l f e v a lu a tio n s .

When t h e mean d if f e r e n c e o f + 4 .9 4 was sub­

j e c t e d t o a t e s t o f th e n u ll h y p o th esis* a t v a lu e of 0 .9 4 was ob tain ed * which i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t .

Thus* th e

h y p o th e s is t h a t t h e r e i s no d if f e r e n c e in th e p o p u la tio n means o f f i r s t and second s e l f - r a t i n g s may n o t be r e j e c t e d . From t h i s t e s t i t may be concluded t h a t as a fu n c tio n o f s u b je c tio n to e x p e rim e n ta lly induced a n x ie ty (d e fin e d in term s o f th e tre a tm e n t c o n d itio n s ) th e r e i s no I n d ic a tio n o f a r e l i a b l e change i n s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n on th e s ix **nonobservable** p e r s o n a l it y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

70

CortalatLY o f S a lf - e v a lu a tlo n The assignm ent o f v a lu e s to c e r t a i n t y ratin g © was made by a p ro c e d u re s im ila r t o t h a t u sed f o r th e t a s k p erfo rm an ce and p e r s o n a l it y c h a rm © te ris tic s s c a le s .

The

J.$,r y u n c e r ta in extrem e o f th e s c a le was g iv en a v a lu e o f se re .

The v a lu e o f any p a r t i c u l a r c e r t a i n t y r a t i n g was

o b ta in e d by m easuring th e d is ta n c e in m illim e te r s from th e aero p o in t to th e p o in t o f th e check on th e s c a le . A f te r e v a lu a tin g h im s e lf on each o f th e th r e e ta sk s* th e s u b je c t made a r a t i n g on th e d e g re e o f c e r t a i n ­ t y he f e l t c o n c e rn in g th e c o r r e c tn e s s of h i s s e lf - e v a l u a t i o n on th e t a s k .

T hree c e r t a i n t y r a t i n g s were th e re b y o b ta in e d

f o r each s u b je c t,

The t o t a l o f th e s e th r e e r a t i n g s became

th e b a s io u n i t f o r a n a ly s is o f th e c e r t a i n t y d a ta . The re s u lt® o b ta in e d from th e c e r t a i n t y r a t i n g s a re p r e s e n te d In T a b le XI which give® th e mean and sta n d ­ ard d e v ia tio n value® f o r each o f th e n in e ex p e rim e n ta l g ro u p s.

When a tre a tm e n t by l e v e l s a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e 2®

was a p p lie d to th e s e d a ta th e fo llo w in g r e s u l t s were ©b~ 26, T ab le XX in Appendix A p r e s e n ts a summary o f t h i s tre a tm e n t by l e v e l s a n a ly s i s . ta in e d .

The r a t i o o f row s-by-oolum ns mean sq u are to w ith in

ce ll® mean sq u are g iv e s an F v a lu e o f 1 .3 0 which* w ith fo u r

n

2 5 8 ,SO 37,70

0 4 5 ,6 ?

878,1?

032,30

9 G..1

S

8 8 .3 9

030,00 38,7 4

278,50 4 4 ,6 ?

258,33 43,86

S.Bv Medics

S*B, Low

6,B.,

57,88

8 3 5 .8 3

30,74

72

and f o r t y - f i v e d e g re e s o f freedom r e s p e c tiv e ly , i s n o t s ig n ifle a n t.

When a r a t i o i s formed betw een th e t r e a t ­

m ents mean sq u are and th e w ith in c e l l s mean sq u are an F v a lu e o f 0 .8 6 I s o b ta in e d .

With two and f o r t y - f i v e de­

g re e s o f freedom r e s p e c t iv e ly , t h i s F v a lu e I s n o t s ig ­ n if le a n t.

The r a t i o o f rows mean square to w ith in c e l l s

mean sq u are g iv e s an F v a lu e o f 0 ,3 8 w ith two and f o r t y f iv e d e g re e s o f freedom r e s p e c ti v e l y . not s ig n ific a n t.

T h is F v a lu e i s

T hus, th e r e i e no in d ic a ti o n t h a t th e

n in e groups co u ld n o t have been sam pled from th e same p o p u la tio n , and c o n se q u e n tly , th e r e i s no i n d ic a t io n o f changes i n th e c e r t a i n t y w ith which s e l f - e v a lu a tio n s a re made as a f u n c tio n o f e i t h e r e x p e rim e n ta lly induced o r m a n ife st a n x ie ty .

tea? may be summarised as follow s* I,

On a n a ly s is o f t a s k perform ance {F igure 2 ) ,

i t was found t h a t u n d e r T reatm ent One, w hich was d esig n ed t o a ro u se m inim al ex p erim en tal a n x ie ty , th e th r e e groups fro® th e d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f m a n ife s t a n x ie ty c o u ld n o t be s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n ti a t e d *

The genera1 mean o f

th e s e combined g roups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from s e ro , i n d i c a t i n g a ten d en cy f o r th e s u b je c ts to e v a lu a te them­ s e lv e s i s th e d i r e c t i o n o f self-enhancem ent * 2*

On a n a ly s is o f ta s k perform ance (F ig u re 2 ),

i t was found t h a t u n d er a l l th r e e tre a tm e n ts th e th r e e l e v e l s o f m a n ife s t a n x ie ty co u ld n o t be s t a t i s t i c a l l y d iffe re n tia te d *

When th e th r e e groups were combined f o r

each tre a tm e n t c o n d itio n , i t was found t h a t t h e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t ten d en cy f o r s e lf - e v a lu a tio n s to s h i f t tow ard se lf-a b a se m e n t a s a f u n c tio n o f increment® i n experim en­ t a l l y in d u ced a n x ie ty . 3.

On a n a ly s is o f ta s k perform ance (F ig u re 3 ),

a b s o lu te s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n d isc re p a n c y fro® group Judgment doe® n o t change s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s a fu n c tio n o f in c re a s e d

74k

e x p e rim e n ta l a n x ie ty a t any o f th e t h r e e l e v e l s o f mani­ f e s t a n x ie ty .

However, th e s h i f t in s e lf - e v a lu a tio n d i s ­

crep an cy from group Judgment due t o l e v e l s o f m a n ife st a n x ie ty i s l a r g e enough to approach s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i ­ cance* 4.

Ho r e l i a b l e d if f e r e n c e s in fa v o ra b le n e s s o f

s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n were o b ta in e d on e i t h e r th e Mobservable** o r Hnon-obs e r v a b l e p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as a fu n c tio n o f m a n ife s t a n x ie ty l e v e l p r i o r to in d u c tio n o f e x p e rim e n ta l a n x ie ty ( f i r s t s e lf - r a tin g * T ab les T il and IX}* o r a s a fu n c tio n o f m a n ife st a n x ie ty l e v e l w ith d i f ­ f e r e n t d e g re e s o f ex p e rim e n ta l a n x ie ty (seco n d s e lf - r a tin g * T ab les T i l l and X ). 5.

On th e b a s is o f p r e - and p o s t—tre a tm e n t

s e l f - r a t i n g s on th e s i x 14o b s e rv a b le 8 p e r s o n a lity c h a ra c ­ t e r i s t i c s ( f a b l e s T il and T i l l ) a l l n in e groups c o n sid e re d to g e th e r te n d to make a r e l i a b l e change In s e l f - evalu a t Ion in th e d i r e c t i o n o f l e s s fa v o ra b le s e lf - e s t im a t e s as a fu n c tio n o f s u b je c tio n to e x p e rim e n ta lly in duced a n x ie ty . A r e l i a b l e change i n s e l f - e v s l u a t io n on th e wnon-observa­ b l e M c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s was not found under th e s e c o n d itio n s . 6.

The d e g re e t o which I n d iv id u a ls r e p o r t them­

s e lv e s a s b e in g c e r t a i n about t h e i r s e lf - e v a lu a tio n s does not change r e l i a b l y a s a fu n c tio n o f e i t h e r m a n ife st o r e x p e rim e n ta lly Induced a n x ie ty .

¥5

The f i r s t o f th e s e f in d in g s , t h a t in d iv id u a ls te n d t o o v e r - e v a lu a te th em selv es u n d er minimal experim en­ t a l a n x ie ty , I s c o n s is te n t w ith th e p re v io u s fin d in g s o f H urleck (8 ) and K inder (9 ) t h a t t h e i r s u b je c ts chose th e more fa v o ra b le s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s a v a ila b le i n a m u ltip le c h o ic e s i t u a t i o n , and w ith th e fin d in g s o f Oogan, C onklin, and H o llin g w o rth ( 3 ) , T s c h s c h te lin ($ 3 ), and Timothy {21} t h a t t h e i r s u b je c ts te n d e d t o o v e r - r a te th em selv es i n com parison w ith v a r io u s o b je c tiv e m easures.

With th e ex­

c e p tio n o f th e f a c t t h a t th e y were s tu d e n ts , th e s u b je c ts u sed i n th e s e s tu d ie s w ere u n s e le c te d and m ight be c o n sid ­ ered t o be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f ^people In g e n e r a l. w Such a sam pling o f s u b je c ts m ight be c o n sid e re d com parable to th e s u b je c ts u n d er T reatm ent One o f t h i s study who were p ro v id ­ ed w ith th e m ost c o m fo rta b le s i t u a t i o n p o s s ib le d u rin g th e e x p e rim e n ta l s e s s io n and hence were c o n sid e re d t o have a minimum l e v e l o f e x p e rim e n ta lly induced a n x ie ty . The second and f i f t h f in d in g s l i s t e d above, t h a t in d iv id u a l© te n d t o s h i f t t h e i r s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s to g r e a t­ e r d e g re e s o f u n d e r -e s tim a tio n in com parison w ith group judgment and t o mahe l e s s fa v o ra b le s e lf - e v a lu a tio n s o f th em selv es on p e r s o n a l it y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , a re c o n s is te n t w ith th e id e a su g g ested by th e fin d in g s o f Trow {22) * T s e h e e h te lin (2 3 ), and T uctaan (24) t h a t t h e r e i s a

TO

ten& ency to w ard se lf-a b a se m e n t I n th o s e I n d iv id u a ls who a r e members o f m in o r ity groups and whose ad ju stm en t i s q u e s tio n a b le , I f such in d iv id u a ls may be c o n sid e re d to be un d er c o n tin u a l ex p o su re to a n x ie ty -a ro u s in g c irc u m s ta n c e s. Thus, th e v a r i a b i l i t y in d eg ree o f fa v o ra b le n e s s o f s e l f e v a lu a tio n among in d iv id u a ls in general* u n s e le o te d ex­ c e p t f o r such f a c t o r s a s age o r stu d e n t s t a t u s , may be due i n p a r t to th e chance in c lu s io n o f i n d iv id u a ls w ith v a ry in g d e g re e s o f an x iety * in c h a p o s s i b i l i t y b e a rs on th e f o u r th finding* r e p o r te d above, t h a t no r e l i a b l e d if f e r e n c e s a re d is c e r n a b le on e i t h e r th e 14ob se rv a b l ef* o r 11no n -o b ser v a b le 11 p e r ­ s o n a lity c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a® a fu n c tio n o f m a n ife s t a n x ie ty l e v e l e i t h e r p r i o r to in d u c tio n o f ex p erim en tal a n x ie ty o r fo llo w in g exposure t o th e e x p e rim e n ta lly a n x ie ty -p ro d u c in g tr e a tm e n ts .

From t h i s one would i n f e r th a t m an ifest an x i­

e ty may n o t a f f e c t s e l f - e v a l u a t i v e b eh a v io r to any ap p re­ c ia b le d e g re e ; r a t h e r , s e lf - e v a l u a t iv e b e h a v io r tend® to s h i f t tow ard se lf-a b a s e m e n t w ith th e amount o f s t r e s s en­ c o u n te re d .

I t i s notew orthy i n t h i s c o n n e c tio n t h a t p re ­

v io u s i n v e s t i g a t o r s have I d e n t i f i e d t h e i r ftm a la d ju ste d ** s u b je c ts n o t on th e b a s i s o f th e symptoms o f m a n ife st a n x i­ e ty b u t on th e b a s i s o f g ro s s ly observed o r presum ed d i f f i ­ c u l t i e s i n h a n d lin g d i f f i c u l t o b je c tiv e c o n d itio n s .

Trow

77

(2 2 ) was con cern ed w ith C hinese l i v i n g in an a l i e n c u l­ t u r e , T\xekmm {24} s tu d ie d v o c a tio n a l c o u n se le e s and un­ employed p e rs o n s , and Armenian (1 ) re p o rte d on s tu d e n ts who r e q u ir e d tim e o f school c o u n s e lo rs and made d e v ia n t s c o re s on th e B e ll A djustm ent Inventory* The t h i r d and s ix th f in d in g s p re s e n te d above, t h a t t h e r e i s n ot a r e l i a b l e in d ic a ti o n o f e i t h e r a change i n ac cu rac y o f s e l f - e v a l u a ti o n o r a change in th e c e r t a i n ­ ty w ith which i n d iv id u a ls s t a t e t h e i r s e lf - e v a lu a tio n s a s a fu n c tio n o f In c r e a s e s in m a n ife st o r ex p e rim e n ta l a n x i­ e ty , a r e t o he c o n s id e re d a s a d d itio n s to p re v io u s ly r e ­ p o rte d f in d in g s in th e a re a o f s e lf - e v a lu a tiv e behavior* I t lg t o b e n o te d , how ever, t h a t th e F t e s t f o r l e v e l s e f f e c t s was very c lo s e t o b e in g s i g n if ic a n t a t th e f i v e p e rc e n t l e v e l o f co n fid ence*

A lso , I t i s p o s s ib le t h a t

th e f a i l u r e to d e t e c t s i g n if ic a n t d if f e r e n c e s in th e de­ g re e o f c e r t a i n t y w ith which th e s u b je c ts made t h e i r s e l f e v a lu a tio n s as a f u n c tio n o f ex p erim en tal o r m an ifest an x i­ e ty was due to th e p ro c e d u re employed In o b ta in in g m easures o f c e r ta in ty *

I t i s p o s s ib le th a t such a m easure as th e

tim e ta k e n to mark th e r a t i n g s c a le s (la te n c y ) would have proved a more s e n s i t i v e m easure. Except f o r th e q u e s tio n n a ire and c a rv in g perform ­ ance d a ta , a l l changes i n s e l f - e v a lu a tiv e b e h a v io r to

78

a s a fu n c tio n o f e x p e rim e n ta l a n x ie ty , n o t m a n ife st a n x i­ e ty * T h is r a i s e s th e q u e stio n o f A e t h e r t h e two d e f i n i ­ t i o n s o f a n x ie ty can be s a id to r e f e r to th e same Ism le s t a t e .

I t sh o u ld be p o ll

t h r e e tr e a tm e n t c o n d itio n s d id le a d to d i f f e r e n t i a l q u a li­ t i e s o f perfo rm an ce o s th e e a r r i n g ta s k a t th e th r e e l o r d s o f o r i g i n a l m a n ife st a n x ie ty , and* t h a t u nder th e two most s t r e s s f u l tre a tm e n t c o n d itio n s* r e p o r ts o f s i g n i f i c a n t l y more a n x ie ty symptoms d u rin g th e ex p erim en tal s e s s io n were e lic it- e d from th e h ig h m a n ife st a n x ie ty groups th an were e l i c i t e d from th e medium and low m a n ife st a n x ie ty g ro u p s. I t i s p o s s ib le t h a t th e more s t r e s s f u l tre a tm e n t co n d i­ t i o n s were I n s u f f i c i e n t l y noxious to produce d i f f e r e n t i a l s e l f - e v a l u a t i v e b e h a v io rs a t th e th re e l e v e l s o f m an ifest a n x ie ty ,

T h is p o s s i b i l i t y must b e c o n sid e re d In th e l i g h t of

Rosenbaum's(l& f in d in g t h a t th e h ig h and law m a n ife st a n x i­ e ty g ro u p s co u ld o n ly b e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d un d er c o n d itio n s o f s tro n g shock* I t would b e h ig h ly w orthw hile to r e j e a t stu d y i n i t s e s s e n t i a l p la n , u s in g l a r g e r numbers o f s u b je c ts In th e i n t e r e s t o f g r e a te r s t a b i l i t y o f r e s u l t s and in c r e a s in g th e d i f f e r e n t i a l c o n d itio n s by th e u se o f more eso -In w o lv in g o r

79

c o n d itio n s ,

f u r t h e r stu d y c o u ld h e aimed a t th e d e t e r ­

m in a tio n o f which o f th e stiim ilu s elem en ts in th e t r e a t ­ ment c o n d itio n s were p r im a r ily r e s p o n s ib le f o r th e changes i n v e rb a l and n o n -v e rb a l re sp o n se o b ta in e d in t h i s stu d y w ith a view to a r r iv in g a t a s e t o f r e l a t i v e ­ l y s ta n d a rd s tim u li to be used in f u r t h e r re s e a rc h w ith th e v a r ia b le o f e x p e rim e n ta l a n x ie ty . I n o rd e r to r e l a t e th e e x p e rim e n ta l work on th e c o n c e p ts o f a n x ie ty and s e l f - e v a lu a t iv e b e h a v io r more c lo s e ly w ith c l i n i c a l p roblem s, s tu d ie s such a s th e f o l ­ lo w in g m ight b e p r o f i t a b l e .

The Balmy (15) stu d y m ight

be r e p e a te d w ith a c r i t e r i o n o f th e outcome o f p s y c h o th e r­ apy which i s in d ep en d en t o f th e s e l f - e v a l u a t i v e s ta te m e n ts o f th e c l i e n t , u s in g m easures o f m a n ife st a n x ie ty a t d i f ­ f e r e n t p o i n t s d u rin g th e th e ra p y p ro c e s s .

A nother study

m ight be made o f th e s e lf - e v a lu a ti v e b e h a v io r o f p a th o ­ l o g i c a l g ro u p s a s d e f in e d i n t erms o f t r a d i t i o n a l nosology i n com parison w ith n o n - p s y c h ia tr ic groups w ith psycho­ m e tric i n d i c e s o f m alad ju stm en t.

The id e a m ight be in v e s ­

t i g a t e d , i n a d d itio n , o f s e lf - a b a s in g s e lf - e v a l u a t io n s a s an in d e x o f a n x ie ty , u s in g a d e f i n i t i o n o f a n x ie ty in v o lv ­ in g c l i n i c a l o b s e rv a tio n o r r a t i n g s o f th e s u b je c ts 1 de­ g re e o f a n x ie ty b a se d on symptoms o th e r th a n m a n ife st a n x ie ty symptoms.

Such an I n v e s tig a tio n would In v o lv e th e

80

that the

does

repeal itself in the fora of but could fee indicated by

o f o th e r

responses referred to in literature as defenses

on th e

It is worth

of

g as a

f u n c tio n o f subj e c tio n t o

d e te rm in a b le f o r th e #non 1 s tie s *

A

m ight h m

been

f o r fey self-*-! 6 b u t t h i s does n o t ap p e ar t o

we been

b o rn e o u t I n th e p r e s e n t fin d in g s ' sin c e t h e r e was n o t a s i g n i f i c a n t ten d en cy t o change tow ard store s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s on t h e * a s a f u n c tio n o f s u b je c tio n t o ex p erim en tal an x iety *

Re­

l a t e d to t h i s h y p o th e s is I s 1 u a ls may f e e l more s e c u re In e v a lu a tio n s on th o s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s whose r e f e r e n t s a re not o b s e rv a b le s in c e th e y p ro v id e no o p p o rtu n ity f o r o th e r s t o checfc on t h e accuracy o f t h e i r s e l f " e v a lu a tio n s * o f *h-at d eterm in es th e r e l a t i o n s h i p

a who r e p o r t them selves,, i n th e fa c e evidence* to ho very Inadequate on a wide ran g e o f

6m

P erh ap s I t would fee

In q u ire In to th e h is to r y

o f th e ty p e and

th e s e in d iv id u a ls e s p e c ia lly th e

fo r

s of as a f i r s t it t o d e a l w ith From t h i s

1.

Tinder c o n d itio n s o f

an x iety ^ p e o p le s 1

2.

In d iv id u a ls ten d to s h i f t tow ard l e s s fa v o r­

a b le se lf-© v a lu a tio n s , an d /o r to s e lf - a b a s in g s e lf - e v a lu a ­ tio n s r e l a t i v e to norm ative fu n c tio n o f in cre m e n ts i n exper .3*

T here I s no r e l i a b l e in d ic a tio n th a t

o ccu r m t h e fav o rah l© n ess o f s e l f —e v a lu a tio n a s a fu n c tio n

32

i s no r e l i a b l e i n d i c a t i o n vi& ual s w i l l te n d to make t h e i r s e l f *

a s a fu n c tio n o f

f e a t o r ex p erim en t a l l y in d u e e& & nxiety. S. vi& ual s te n d to t i o n s r e l a t i v e to a f u n c tio n o f e i t h e r

no r e l i a b l e in d ic a t io n th e accu racy o f t h e i r

{ o r e x p e rim e n ta lly induced

I n a d d itio n * i t seems w orthw hile to o f f e r p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t in d i v id u a ls w ith h ig h d e g re e s o f a n x ie ty te n d t o he l e e s a c c u ra te in ' t h e i r s e lf r e l a t i v e t o a n o rm ativ e (group) e v a lu a tio n th a n do th o se c h a r a c te r iz e d by l e s s e r d e g re e s ©f m a n ife s t a n x ie ty .

Thi

i s su g g ested on th e b a s i s o f th e f in d in g ( F ig u re 3) t h a t th e hlf$k m a n ife s t a n x ie ty groups i n t h i s stu d y presum ptive* deney tow ard g r e a t e r a b s o lu te d ia c re p a n c y meat when e v a lu a tin g th em selv es on t a s k perform anoe.

It

seems w o rth w h ile to o f f e r such a fo rm u la tio n a s a hypothi s i s f o r f u r t h e r t e s t m lo n g a s i t i s mad® c l e a r t h a t i t i s n o t p r e s e n te d a s a c o n c lu sio n from th e p r e s e n t stu d y . Xt m ight a ls o be w e ll, in s p i t e o f th e

83

i n t h i s s tu d y , to i n v e s t i g a t e f u r t h e r th e e f f e c t s o f ex­ p e rim e n ta l a n x ie ty on accuracy o f s e l f - e v a l u a t i v e b e h a v io r u n d er c o n d itio n s o f g r e a t e r i n t e n s i t y o f t h i s s t a t e th a n o b ta in e d i n that p r e s e n t in v e s tig a tio n * I t i s te m p tin g to s p e c u la te about th e s e f in d in g s in t e r n s o f re in fo rc e m e n t th e o ry -

One p o s s i b i l i t y I s -th a t

b o th s e lf- e n h a n c in g and e e lf - a b a s lu g - s e lf-e v -a lu a tlo n s a r e a n x ic ty -re d u c ln g * w ith th e form er th e more t y p i c a l f o r a n o n -p a th o io g l e a l p o p u la tio n in a b o b - s tr e s s s i t u a t i o n ow­ in g to th e g r e a t e r rew ard a tta c h e d to c o n s id e rin g o n e s e lf as. a d e q u a te and com petent*

Such a fo rm u la tio n i s In acco rd

w ith p r e s e n t f in d in g s s in c e i t was r e l i a b l y d em o n strated th a t th e r e i s a ten d en cy to o v e re s tim a tio n w ith m inim al ex p e rim e n ta l a n x ie ty „

I f t h i s were tru e# I t m ight be ex­

p e c te d t h a t a n e u r o tic p o p u la tio n would show t h e o p p o s ite ten d en cy , namely* marked un& er-estim & tIon o f th e s e l f Such a p o s s i b i l i t y co u ld only be checked by f u r t h e r In v e s­ tig a tio n *

I n T reatm en t One th e la c k o f s o c ia l o b s e rv a tio n

o f t h e i r p erfo rm an ces may have p e rm itte d th e s u b je c ts to view t h e i r p ro d u c ts l e s s c r i t i c a l l y , A sre& o th e em phasis on s o c ia l and c o m p e titiv e f a c t o r s I n T reatm en ts Two and T hree was In c o m p a tib le w ith t h e i r making such s e l f —enh&ncln g Judgm ents,

t h i s id e a i s i n accord w ith S u l li v a n 's (18)

i n s i s t e n c e t h a t a n x ie ty l a e s s e n t i a l l y an In te r p e r s o n a l

phenomenon and t h a t t h e methods o f coping w ith i t become mor® ^ d e s p e ra te 1* u n d e r s o c ia l c o n d itio n s .

The in te g r a ti o n

o f thee® h y p o th e se s w ith s y s te m a tic b e h a v io r theory* how­ e v e r, may w e ll aw a it t h e i r c o n firm a tio n a s a p a r t o f th e ex p e rim e n ta l evidence on which a com prehensive th e o ry must be b ased .

The p r e s e n t I n v e s ti g a t i o n was d e sig n e d t o In v e s­ t i g a t e e x p e rim e n ta lly th e Id e a t h a t a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s betw een a n x ie ty and v e r b a l s e l f - e v a l u a t i v e b e h a v io r.

Ex­

p e rim e n ta l a n x ie ty was d e fin e d in t e r n s o f tre a tm e n t c o n d i­ t i o n s , and m a n ife s t a n x ie ty was d e fin e d in term s o f th e su b je c ts * re s p o n s e s t o an A nxiety S cale ( 1 6 ) . In o rd e r to stu d y t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , f i f t y - f o u r c o lle g e s tu d e n ts , e ig h te e n drawn from each o f th r e e l e v e l s o f m a n ife s t a n x ie ty , were random!y a ssig n e d t o one o f t h r e e tre a tm e n t c o n d itio n s in te n d e d t o aro u se th r e e d i f f e r e n t s tr e n g th s o f a n x ie ty .

An attem p t t o c o n tr o l th e i n i t i a l

l e v e l o f a n x ie ty was made by sam pling th e s u b je c ts from th e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f m a n ife s t a n x ie ty p r i o r t© th e ex p e rim e n t.

Thus, u n d e r each tre a tm e n t c o n d itio n th e r e

were t h r e e g roups o f s i x s u b je c ts each, on© group drawn from each o f th e t h r e e l e v e l s o f i n i t i a l m a n ife s t a n x ie ty , *hlg$i,* “m edium ,” and “lo w .” The s u b je c ts were a ssig n e d to groups a© t h a t th e y c o u ld s e rv e as ju d g e s o f one another* s b e h a v io r, and,

86

by th e experim enter* t o p ro v id e a s i t u a t i o n l a which a n x ie ty could be aro u sed by bad been a s s o c ia te d w ith p a in f u l s itu a tio n ® i n th e p a s t history o f th e i n d i ­ v id u al*

The c h i e f assum ption u n d e rly in g th e s e le c tio n o f

th e s e s tim u lu s c o n d itio n s was t h a t th e y p ro v id e d in c r e a s ­ in g p r o b a b i l i t i e s o f em barrassment* f e e lin g s o f inadequacy a n d /o r f a il u r e * and a sen se o f b e in g under s o c ia l p re ssu re * The d e g re e o f e x p e rim e n ta l a n x ie ty was d i f f e r e n t i a l l y f in e d by m a n ip u la tio n o f fo u r main v a ria b le s *

(X) *fcj

o r i e n t i n g ” and *e g o - o r ie n tin g ” in s tr u c tio n s * (2 ) th e e x te n t o f s o c ia l loter& ctX on and h a v io r ©f t h e ex p e rim e n te r a n d /o r o th e r non-i o b serv e rs* and (4 ) th e degree o f anonymity o f th e Each o f th e s u b je c ts perform ed t h r e e ta s k s udiieh were su b se q u e n tly e v a lu a te d by h im s e lf and t h e o th e r f i v e members o f h i s group*

The d e v ia tio n o f each subject® s own

r a t i n g from th e mean r a t i n g o f th e o th e r f i v e s u b je c ts was t o t a l e d f o r th e t h r e e t a s k s f o r each su b ject*

T h is t o t a l

w ith and w ith o u t re g a rd f o r th e d i r e c ti o n o f d e v ia tio n * be­ came a b a s ic u n i t f o r a n a ly sis * A second p rim ary source o f d a ta was th e s e l f r a t i n g o f s u b je c ts on a s e r i e s o f s ix ttobservable® and s ix

8?

,?n o n -c b se rv a b le H p e r s o n a l ity c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,

Two s e ts

o f th e s e r a t i n g s w ere o b ta in e d from each s u b je c t, one s e t p r i o r to th e b e g in n in g o f th e tre a tm e n t c o n d itio n s and one s e t a t th e p o in t i n t h e ex p erim en tal s e s s io n when e x p e ri­ m ental a n x ie ty was c o n sid e re d a t I t s peak*

The amount ©f

eh&nge i n s e l f - r a t i n g from th e f i r s t t o th e second r a t i n g was i n v e s tig a te d , a s w e ll a s th e fa v o ra b le n e s s o f s e l f e v a lu a tio n on each r a t i n g s e p a ra te ly * A t h i r d p rim ary source o f d a ta was th e r a t i n g made by each s u b je c t on th e d eg ree o f c e r t a i n t y he f e l t c o n c e rn in g th e c o r r e c tn e s s o f h i s s e lf - e v a l n a tio n on each o f t h e t h r e e afo rem en tio n ed task s*

The t o t a l o f th e th r e e

c e r t a i n t y r a t i n g s on th e th r e e ta s k s f o r each, s u b je c t be­ came a n o th e r b a s ic u n i t f o r a n a ly sis* T reatm ent o f th e d a ta in v o lv ed p r im a r ily t r e a t ­ ment by l e v e l s a n a ly s is o f v arian ce*

T h is t e s t was a p p lie d

1© t h e n in e groups f o r each o f th e th r e e b a s ic k in d s o f d a ta .

A d is c u s s io n o f th e r e s u l t s r e la te d th e fin d in g s o f

th e stu d y to p re v io u s s tu d ie s and suggested a number ©f p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r f u r t h e r re s e a rc h in th e a r e a o f s e l f e v a lu a tiv e b e h a v io r as i t r e l a t e s t o th e co n cep t o f a n x ie ty and to c l i n i c a l p r a c t i c e . On th e b a s i s o f t h i s study th e fo llo w in g t e n t a ­ t i v e c o n c lu s io n s w ere su g g ested :

evaluations in %he direction of self-

2*

I n d iv id u a ls t end t o s h i f t tow ard l e s s fa v o r­

a b le [email protected] v a lu a tio n g * an d /o r t o s e lf - a b a s in g t i o n s r e l a t i v e to fu n c tio n o f in crem en ts i n experim ental 3.

There i s a© r e l i a b l e in d ic a tio n

o ccu r in th e favor& blenegg o f gel f - e vatu a tio n a s a f m o tio n o f th e l e v e l o f m a n ife st a n x ie ty . 4,

fixer© i s no r e l i a b l e in d ic a tio n t h a t I n d i­

v id u a ls w i l l te n d to change th e c e r t a i n t y w ith which th e y s a k e t h e i r s e lf - e v a lu a tio n s a s a fu n c tio n o f e i t h e r mani­ f e s t o r e x p e rim e n ta lly induced a n x ie ty , 6,

T here i s no r e l i a b l e in d ic a tio n th a t i n d i­

v id u a ls te n d to change th e accuracy o f t h e i r s e lf - e v a lu a ­ t i o n s r e l a t i v e to a norm ative {group) e v a lu a tio n a s a fu n c tio n o f e i t h e r m a n ife s t o r e x p e rim e n ta lly induced a n x ie ty . In addition, h

it

w o rth w h ile to o f f e r th e p o s s i b i l i t y f o r f u r t h e r in v e s tig a ­ t i o n t h a t in d iv id u a l s w ith h i # i d e g re e s o f m a n ife st

s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s r e l a t i v e to a n o rm ativ e (g ro u p ) ev a lu a­ t i o n th a n do th o s e i n d iv id u a ls ch&p&c t e r i %ed by l e s s e r d e g re e s o f .$«a-lfe*t a n x ie ty ,

T h is was su g g e ste d os th e

b a s i s o f ‘th e f in d in g , whieh approached s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i ­ fican ce;, t h a t th e s u b je c ts * s e l f - e v a l u a ti o n s on tas& p e r ­ form ance showed a g r e a t e r a b s o lu te d e v ia tio n from judges* r a t i n g s f o r th o s e g ro u p s draists from th e h ig h m a n ife st

m

R sm m css 1,

A rgenian, S. Own e s tim a te and o b je c tiv e m easurem ent* J . educ, P s y c h o l.. 1942, 35, 291-302.

2,

Brown, J* 3. and J a c o b s, A, The r o le o f f e a r In th e m o tiv a tio n and a c q u is it io n o f re sp o n s e s . J . £*£»- g fllS h a i-., 1949, ^9 , 747-759«

3* Cogan, Lueh 0 . , C onklin, Agnes M., and H o llin g w o rth , H. L. An ex p erim en tal study o f s e lf-a n a ly s is ® M U & S o o ^ / 1915, £ t 171-179. .4. B rake, M. J . , Roslow, S ., and B en n ett, 0® K. The r e ­ l i a b i l i t y o f s e l f - r a t i n g and c l a s s m a t e r a ti n g on p e r s o n a lity t r a i t s . ' jL. m .iduc.,. 1939, 2 , 210—215. 5.

F ren k el-B ru n sw ik , E ls e . Mechanisms o f s e lf - d e c e p tio n . J . S C O . P sy c h o l. » 1939, 10, 409-420.

6.

F reu d , S. The problem o f a n x ie ty . Mew Xork; Psycho­ a n a ly tic P r e s s and W.Sf. Morton, 1936.

f * H o rs t, P. A g e n e ra liz e d e x p re ssio n f o r th e r e l i a b i l ­ i t y o f m easu res, pgyehom etrika. 1949, 14, 2131. 8.

H ^rlock, E. B. Study o f s e l f - r a t i n g s o f c h ild r e n . i , mmU tm a a i.1 w w . j i , 490- 5 0 2 .

9.

K in d er, J . 3. Through our own lo o k in g g l a s s . £ 3 o c .. 1925, 22, 533-536.

10.

Sch.

M ille r , H. E. S tu d ie s o f f e a r as an a c q u ira b le d r iv e ; I , F e a r as m o tiv a tio n and f e a r —re d u c tio n as r e ­ in fo rcem en t in th e le a r n in g o f new response® . J . exp,. P sy c h o l^ , 1948, j£§, 89-1 O l. Mowrer, 0 . H. A stlm u lu s-resp o n g e a n a ly s is o f a n x i­ e ty and i t s r o l e as a r e in f o r c in g a g e n t. Psy­ c h o l. Rev*. 1939, 46, 553-565. _ _ and TJllman, A. i . Tim® a s a d e te rm in a n t In i n t e g r a t i v e le a r n in g . Pqga&sL*- Eev** 1945, 5g, 61-90.

91

Hurray, H. &.

Thematic apperception t e a t .

Cam-

b rid g e s H arv ard U n iv e rs ity B ra s s, 1945* 14.

Powell# M argaret pl. ? s y ~ c h o i , , 1946, 30, 448-492. 25.

Welsh, h . and K ubis, J . C onditioned M S ( psycho g a ly an le re sp o n se ] in s t a t e s o f p a th o lo g ic a l a n x i­ e ty . ' is.EeMSU, fill* * 1S4?# i 0 § , 372-381,

&WWDM A

94

f a b l e XXI Summary o f A n a ly sis o f V ariance f o r M an ifest A nxiety Q u e s tio n n a ire D ata

Source o f V a ria tio n

& .f.

Sum o f S quares

Mean Square

T reatm ent s

2

442,48

221.24

L ev e le

2

620.70

f xL

4

W ithin Groups T o tal

F

P

310.35

1 0 .3 4