The effects upon measures of immediate memory of variation in anxiety, failure, and intraserial duplication

Citation preview

t m r o w e w upoh Mmaroia or m u m

m m m

OF TARU7X0STS IH AKJCim* FAILURE, AID IHfMaraiAL DUPLICATION

by Jama© David Luca©

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Psychology in the Graduate College of the State University of Iowa August, 1950

ProQuest Number: 10598594

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The q u a lity o f this re p ro d u c tio n is d e p e n d e n t u p o n th e q u a lity 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 a u th o r did n o t send a c o m p le te m anuscript a n d th e re are missing pages, th ese will b e n o te d . Also, if m a te ria l h a d to b e re m o ve d , a n o te will in d ic a te th e d e le tio n .

uest. ProQuest 10598594 Published by ProQuest LLC (2017). C o p yrig h t o f th e Dissertation is held by th e Author. All rights reserved. This w ork is p ro te c te d a g a inst unauthorized c o p y in g u n d e r Title 17, U nited States C o d e M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQ uest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346

'oUG,V:‘ >\Oa U 6 ^ TlRbO tI M12 >

Cop*

ACKBCMDimBMEOTS

Th© author wishes to express his Indebtedness to Dr. Harold P.. Bechtoldt for his assistance In conducting the research and in organizing the dissertation * and to Dr. I. S. Parber for his assistance in the final preparation of the disserta­ tion.

tmrn of oommm Olmpter I* Introduction

XX* mzpwlmmt&l

* 4 * * * 4 *4 * . * « #

Procedure * • . « * • • *

XIX# Results and Conclusions * ..........*

XV* Sussmarf

V#

.........

BlkliogF&pfof

VI. Appendix

*

. . .

1

15

20

49

. . . . . . .

53

♦ * . * . * .............

-56

111

* a b u of

ftmmm

Figure

Fag#

Th© m o m reproduction scores for consonants in the test trial of ©ach group of IS subjects# classified on th© basis of level of anxiety and number of failures * * < % « # * * # * . * *

*

2* Th© mean reproduction scores for consonants in each trial for each specific group of 12 subjects, classified on the basis of degree of anxiety and number of failures

30

35

3* The mean reproduction scores for the 30 consonants in the test trial of each group of 16 subjects, classified on th© basis of level of anxiety and number of duplicated consonants . » * # # • * * * *

#

41

4# Th® mean figure recognition scores for each group of 12 cases, out of 30 possible items

*

45

iv

tmiM Of TA8LS0 Tabi©

Pag©

I. The means and variances of the reproduction scores for tbe 30 consonant© in the test trial of each subgroup of four case® * . . * * » » * • « 11* The analysis of variance of the reproduction scores for consonants in the test trial

21

22

111, The analysis of variance of the reproduction scores for consonants in the test trial for the anxious and non-anxious groups separately * * * * * * *

23

IV. The means and variances of the figure recognition score# for each group of 12 cases, out of 30 possible item® « * * « * * * • » . * • • • • •

2?

V* The analysis of variance of the figure recognition scores » # * * ...........

20

VI* The mean reproduction score# for consonants in the test trial of each group of subjects, classified on the basis of level of anxiety and number of failures » * , . * • # « * . « . * * •

29

v

w s of t m M { continued ) fab1©

VII* The naan reproduction ©cores for consonants In each trial for each specific group of 12 subjects# classified on the basis of lev©! of anxiety and number of failures • VIXI. The mean reproduction ©cores for ih© 30 consonants in the test trial of each group of 16 subjects* classified on the basis of level of anxiety and number of duplicated consonants

1 Chapter I XHTEODUCXiON Experimental Background Measure© of visual and auditory memory span have been used In a variety of psychological investigations* Within the area of clinical psychology, measures of auditory memory span have been used to help separate subjects into diagnostic categories* These descriptive statistics have been considered as of diagnostic value by on© or more investigators (16), although the claims have not been consistently sustained by the experimental evidence (4)* Measures of performance on immediate memory tasks have been used in several factor analysis studies (2) concerned with the identification of special abilities. In such studies, there have been reports of consistent, specific 11memoryrl factors, In addition to studies oriented toward applied psychological problems, a number of investigations have been carried out which were concerned with th© effects of various procedural variables on performance in immediate memory tasks* For example, the effects of changes in the number of Item© to be recalled, in th© time Interval© between th© items, in the type of material presented, and

2 in th® response prcQe&tir© hair® been considered (1), There la, however, little evidence as to th® possible Interactions of such variables In th® memory span situation* In view of th® paucity of data as to the nature of such interactions, it would be fruitful to conduct several empirical Investiga­ tions before further diagnostic us® is made of present span measure®. The possible applications of measures of immediate memory are n« t, however, the only reasons for studying them further, It 1© conceivable that Immediate memory performance can eventually he expressed in terms of th® theoretical concepts of current learning theories* Th® immediate memory task may be considered as comparable to the first trial in a serial learning situation. If the series of stimuli were- presented two or more times, the predictions of changes in performance would b® mad© in terms of learning constructs, Th© performance following a single presentation should, therefor®, also b© consistent with predictions based on th® appropriate or relevant constructs of learning theories, A precis© formulation of those theoretical construct© which may be used to explain memory span perform­ ance or immediate memory In particular, and learning behavior in general, will depend, In part, upon further

3 empirical investigations of immediate recall or recognition Phenomena* However, for the purpose of guiding these very Investigations, It would seem desirable to consider briefly some of those constructs which may. underly immediate memory performance* Such concepts should assist in th© selection of procedural variables to be manipulated* Among those theoretical concepts which may aid in th© Integration of th© characteristics of immediate recall into verbal learning phenomena, are those of stimulus generalisation, competition of responses, and drive strength* All of these concept© make up part of our current, theories of learning and retention* ( See Hull (?) and Kodeoeh (10) }* One theoretical concept which may be used to explain performance In immediate memory tasks is that of stimulus generalisation* ’ This concept involves the assump­ tion that responses become associated with stimuli which are similar to th© stimulus which originally elicited th© response* The strength of this association due to general­ ization decline® as th© difference between th© generalized stimulus and th© original stimulus decreases» n* Little is known about the interaction ©ffacts of simultaneously aroused response tendencies. Two simultan­ eously activated tendencies may act to facilitate or to interfere with on© another, depending upon their mutual

eompatab111ties* Th© extent to which thee© interactions will occur depend© upon the relative strength© of the two tendencies*, finally, in order to account adequately for variation© In th® strength of response tendencies, It is necessary to consider the drive which activates the response. Because of th# incompleteness of th© development of th© theoretical construct©* as well as th© paucity of experimental data* the concepts noted above were used merely to assist In selecting the experimental variables to be investigated, and, as will be shown later, to help explain the possible ©ffecsta of th® experimental variables upon immediate memory performance* Previous studies have been, mad© which Indicate several procedural variables which may be relevant to performance on Immediate memory tasks. Intraseflal similarity as jl yar^ablff One of these procedural variables which a--pears to affect immediate memory performance Is the degree of similarity among the units within the series* using memory span procedures, Robinson (1?) and Kezmelly (8) varied the number of units in th® latter half of a series of eight letter® which were Identical with Individual letters In the first half of the series, The

similarity*1 In their

studies consisted of repetition of th® stimulus units from

5 th© first four letters to th© same ordinal position In th© last four letters* They reported that the number of errors mad© on the first half of th© series varied inversely with the number of repetitions or duplications in th® two halves of the series* Using similar procedures, Kennelly (S) and Harden (6) varied th© number of digits in the latter half of an eight unit series which was otherwise composed of letters* Their conclusion© a© to the effect of introducing these Mdie similar1* stimuli were not in agreement* Kennelly found that the errors on the first half of th© series did not change with an Increased number of digits in th© latter half, while Harden found that the errors on th© first half decreased with an 'increased proportion of digits in th© latter half* Obviously, whether performance improves or deteriorates as a function of similarity depends upon th© operational definition of similarity mad© and the manner in which this similarity is varied. It has been generally assumed.that stimuli possess a tendency, resulting from stimulus generalisation, to elicit those responses which have been associated with similar stimuli. To the extent that these responses which are due to stimulus generalisation are inappropriate to the current task, intraserial similarity would be expected to have a detrimental effect upon

6 Immediate memory* One procedure which would he expected to affect memory performance would he to duplicate unite randomly within a series* Response-defined anxiety as a variable Another variable which may be significantly related to performance on immediate memory tasks is the degree of anxiety of the subjects# The relationship between immediate memory and anxiety has not been system­ atically Investigated; In fact, little actual data exist except for the work which has been don® with th© digit span subtest of the weehsler~Bellsvue intelligence scale* The results re sorted, however, are contradictory. For example, using clinical diagnosis as his criterion of anxiety, E&p&port (16) reported that anxious subjects had significantly fewer successes, that is, significantly shorter digit spans taan did non-anxious subjects# Biethelm and Jones (4), using a similar criterion of anxiety, failed to duplicate these results* They obtained no differential performance between anxious, and non-anxious subjects. In view of the prominence given to the diagnostic significance of immediate memory performancef it becomes necessary to look further for evidence that anxiety may be functionally related to this type of performance* In

7, clinical work# anxiety has usually been considered m

a

concept, Aether the responses are measured by a personal inventory or by clinical diagnosis* There is another major means by which anxiety lias been defined, that is, in terms of an intervening state defined from stimulus variables* According to present day conceptual treatment of anxiety, as exemplified by Miller (12) and M o w e r (15)# there may be both drive properties and response properties ( or stimulus properties to which certain responses become associated ) which are characteristic of anxiety* Two studies which used different criteria of anxiety have provided evidence in support of the hypothesis that an anxiety state involves an increase in drive* Welch, Livingston, and Kubis (23), using clinical diagnosis as a criterion of anxiety, found that the conditioned psychogalvanic response developed more rapidly in anxious subjects than in nonanxious subjects* Taylor (22)* using, a personal Inventory as a criterion of anxiety* found that th© conditioned eyelid response developed more rapidly In anxious subjects than in non-anxlous subjects* Two other studies provide evidence in support of the farther hypothesis that, although anxiety may involve an Increase in drive, the effect upon performance of this

8 increase in drive may have an inhibitory effect upon certain types of tasks, depending upon what responses in the test situation are most highly activated by the drive# Thu®, Malmo and taael (11), using clinical diagnosis as a criterion of anxiety, and Montague and Schneider (14), using Taylor1s personal inventory as a criterion of anxiety, reported significantly lower scores in serial rote learning by anxious subjects than by xtonHuuelou-s subjects* it might be expected that th® effects of anxiety would play a role in Immediate memory performance If similar constructs underly 'Immediate memory performance and learning tasks* It is also poss-jbl® that interaction effects could appear between th© variables of similarity and anxiety when both are used In an immediate memory task, that is, changes- in performance due to on© variable might be a function of changes in the other variable* Failure experience as a variable The effect upon Immediate memory of failure experience has not been demonstrated, but an Indication of its relevance is obtained from the effect® of failure upon the subsequent number of error© 1b verbal learning tasks* Sear® (20) and Russell (19), using serial rot® learning, and Russell and Farber (20), using paired associate®,

9 found that th© introduction of statements by th© experiment** er indicating failure m

the part of th® subjects increased

th# subsequent number of errors* However, the error increment was maintained in these studies for only a trial or so, a fact that may indicate the desirability of studying this variable under toe conditions of immediate recall or immediate recognition* the introduction of failure instruction© may lead to a state of * frustration” as toe term is used by Brown and Farber (3) * According to these writers, the effect of failure may be to produce drive increments and response tendencies or stimuli similar to those which are present in an anxiety state, thus leading to an Intervening state of *frustration*** It might there* fore be suggested that Ifellur© must have an effect upon immediate memory performance. the experimental work to date on to© effects of failure ha© dealt for th© most part with a comparison between th# presence or absence of failure, rather than with variations in toe number of failures* It would be hypothesised that to© greater the number of failures, the greater would be the cumulation of failure effects, and hence the greater would he changes in performance in serial Immediate memory* There may also be some interaction between failure instructions and the clinical state of anxiety, so

10 that th® diff©renc# between th# performance* of anxious and noB^anxiotis subject# say change as the numb©? of failures Increases. Thor© may also b© an interaction between the number of failures and the number of duplicated units within a series * so that th© difference© between performance resulting from different laurels of duplication may change as the number of failures Increases* The■contradictory results- so far obtained on the relation of digit span to anxiety may be a. function of the scoring method* Th© digit span subtast of th® Bluet and the Wechsler scales is scored in terms of th© longest series repeated correctly* when two series of each length are given in ascending order { three series for the Blnet )* The classical method of measuring memory span, used In most of the earlier, exploratory studies { Blankenship (1) )f as well as in the factor analysis studies, is the determin­ ation of th© length of series at which th© probability of correct reproduction is 50 percent* Several series of each length are usually given to determine this* Such a measure of average memory span would almost always be less than th® longest series repeated correctly, and would be more stable because th© performance on every series enters into its determination*

this classical method of measuring memory ©pais doe© not take into account the number of units 'in the Incorrect ser es which are given correctly* If th© length of series given were held constant, at a length at which complete reproduction is improbable* and the number of correct units were recorded* a more Inclusive measure of Immediate memory performance would be obtained* This would be a third method of assessing immediate memory for a series of units, differing, from both the Blnet or Weohsler method of *longest series** * and the classical method of "average length** * it would be sensitive to momentary variations in performance* and would lend itself better to the determin­ ation of th© effect® of failure* since It would be possible, at the minimum, to obtain a score by th® presentation of only one series, before failure effect© .could dissipate* Thu# far, immediate memory has been dlsen sped in term# of the presentation of a series of units for Immediate reproduction in the order of their presentation* Another technique for evaluating immediate memory for diagnostic purposes Involves th® presentation of a single stimulus to be responded to immediately.* This stimulus has usually been In the nature of a visual nonsense design, rather than numerical or verbal material#* The method of response used

12 has beau of two typesi reproduction of the stimulus, as has been discussed heretofore, and the recognition of a test stimulus as either the same as or different from th# original stimulus* , * v

If a group of single stimuli consisting of

nonsense figures were presented, each one followed by a test stimulus to fe© immediately identified as the m m ® as, or different ff&*a, the original stimulus, the relative performance of anxious and non«*anxiaus subjects might differ from their relative performance in a aerial reproduction task* ‘ Bile 1© because there are not a number of stimuli to b© responded to in a precise order, and because the task of recognition requires responses on the part of the subject which may be more strongly established due to previous associations than the responses required by the task of reproduction*

fh# various studies reviewed above indicate that performance In immediate memory will be influenced by the procedural variable® of type of task, number of reports of . failure, and amount of duplication of stimuli, and by the subjects* state or condition of anxiety, defined in terms of the responses of the subject to the items of a personal

inventory . A systematic study of the offsets of those vari­ ables and their Interactions should provide data which may fee a means of reconciling the divergent conclusions reported fey various investigators and of clarifying the theoretical framework underlying performance in immediate memory tasks. The present Study, therefore, was designed to ^Investigate the effect of certain specific variables upon ^Performance in two types of immediate memory tasks. The rtrst task involved, the immediate reproduction of a visually presented series of consonants. The three experimental variables employed were* 1# Degree of anxiety as determined fey scores on a 'personal inventory. 2* Number of verbal reports of failure in the task. 3* Humber of consonants which were- duplicated within each series of consonants. It was expected that each of these three variables would have an effect upon performance in this reproduction task, and that the effects of any one of these variables might change as a function of changes in another of the variables* The second task Involved th® comparison of the memory traces of three nonsense figures { presented simultan-

m

eouely ) with a second set of nonsense figures presented after an interval of time* the subject indicated whether th® second set w e # or m e not, identical with the first set* The variables employed were* 1, Degree of anxiety as determined by the scores on a personal inventor • 3, Humber of verbal reports of failure on the previous test of memory for consonants, it was expected that each of these variables would have an effect upon performance in the recognition task, and that this effect would not necessarily be the same as the affect® of these same variables in the reproduction task* as their effects are produced, they may change as a function of changes in the other variable* that is, there may b© an interaction between th# variables of anxiety and failure*

15 Chapi«r II EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Procedural Sohaisa. The following is a diagrammatic representation of th® materials and conditions utilized for both th© anxious and non-anxlous group© In th© present experiment* referred to contained ten consonants each* signify a report of failure*

The Hats

The asteriks

The abbreviation ttduptt refer®

to th® number of duplicated consonants within each of th© three H a t s comprising the test trial*

This schema is worked

cut in detail later in th© chapter* Fraliminary Trials 1

30 figure©

2 lists

2 lists

2 lists

2 lists

2 lists

2 lists

£? © 3 l l s t s / 0 dup

* 30 figures

2 lists * 2 lists

5 £jt © 3 lists / 0 dup

* 30 figures

2 list© * 2 lists

3 /jg © 3 llata/^O dup

© 30 figures

2 lists ©

2

Figure Test

3 £z 3 lists/ 0 dap

2 lists

1

Test Trial

MklmM Those undergraduate psychology students scoring at

16 the extremes of the distribution of scores on a modifi­ cation of the Taylor anxiety seal® ( 21 } comprised the sub loots for the present experiment#

They were those

scoring at the highest and lowest 20% of the distribution of scores? 46 persons at each extreme#

Any statement

concerning the variable of anxiety will* from this point on, have reference to this criterion only#

The subject^' were given instructions designed to motivate them to do as well as possible in the experiment# They were then presented with three memory span trials, or. more properly, immediate memory trials, composed of two lists of ten consonants per list*

The consonants appeared

singly on a Hull mmozy drum at the rate of on© second per exposure, and on# second between exposures.

After ten

consonants had appeared, to# subject reproduced as many as possible on an answer sheet in their order of appearance on th® drum*

When the subject was finished, another list of

ten consonants appeared*

Ho consonant was repeated within

any trial. The two group® of subjects, anxious and non-anxlous were randomly divided into four subgroups each#

One subgroup

was given a report of failure after each of the three

17 preliminary trials,

one subgroup was given a report of

failure after each of the last two preliminary trials*

On©

subgroup m s given a report of failure after the last pre­ liminary trial only* report of failure.

The remaining subgroup m s given no Whenever a trial m s not followed by a

failure report, the subject was merely asked to begin another tidal to provide a neutral verbal instruction* Test Trial The test trial immediately followed the preliminary trials and was composed of three lists of ten consonant© each, a ® eight groups previously divided on th® basis of the number of failure® given were randomly divided Into three groups each*

toe subgroup m s given lists of consonants within which

five consonants were duplicated In each list of ten letters* toe subgroup was given lists within which two consonants were duplicated*

toe subgroup was given lists within which there

was no duplication of a consonant* The answer sheets were provided with appropriate ©paces for each letter*

Thus, a consonant was scored correct­

ly only when It was in the appropriate space on the answer sheet, according to the order of Its appearance on the drum* Th© score on the test trial, as well as on each of the pre­ liminary trial®, was th© total number of consonants reproduced m

the correct, space® on the answer sheet , except where a

18 dearies of three or more consonants m s displaced by only one unit, in which case credit was given for the displaced group of letters, Following the test trial* those subjects who had previously received one or more reports of failure were given an additional report of failure. Maiim fh® result of the previously described assignment of conditions was that the subject® were entered into a three-dimensional factorial design*

Each of the three

dimensions consisted of a procedural variable* as follow®! two levels of anxiety* four levels of failure, and three

levels of intraaerial duplication,

411 possible combinations

of th© levels of these three variables resulted in 24 cells, with four subjects randomly assigned to each cell. Refeofenltion test 411 of th© subjects were given a 30 item test of visual memory following the immediate memory trials*

Each

item of the test consisted of a set of three nonsense figures appearing as a unit on th© memory drum, followed by a set of three nonsense figures which were either identical with or different from the first set*

When they were different*

they differed in the sense that on© of the three figures was the mirror image of the corresponding figure in the first set*

19 The subjecte placed a check mark on their answer sheet whenever they considered the second set of figures to be different from the first set. 3§&oh set of figures m s exposed for two seconds, and four seconds were allowed for response to the item. Three time intervals were employed between the first set and the test set of each item* Ten Items involved a two second interval, ten items involved a six second interval, and ten items involved a ten second Interval between the first set of figures in each item and the set to be compared with it. The items involving these three time intervals were presented in random order. Examples- of the -figures used in this test appear on page 55 of an M# A* thesis written by hysinger (5)* The subject© taking the figure recognition test were composed of eight subgroups, classified on the basis of the experimental variablesg each group, anxious and nonanxious, was divided into four subgroups upon the basis of the number of reports of failure given on the previous test of memory for consonants. One of the subgroups had received four reports of failure, one bad received three reports of failure, on® had received two reports of failure, end the remaining subgroup had received no report of failure. There were 12 subjects randomly assigned to each subgroup.

20 Chapter III Results and Conclusions Reproduction of Consonants The means and variances of the reproduction scores for consonants In th® test trial of each of the 24 subgroups ar© given in fable X,

4 summary of the analysis of variance

of the values in fable X is entered in fable Ilf*

It will be

seen that the triple interaction among the three variables of anxiety, failure, and duplication was not significantly greater than m s the average variance within subgroups* This meant that , If the differences among the levels of one of the variables changed markedly from level to level of another variable, that is, if there was an Interaction between any two variables, then this interaction did not change from one level to another of the third variable* It will be seen from Table 1 ( and later in Figure 2 ) that, for each and all levels of duplication, the performance of anxious subjects has decreased with an * Th© assumption of the independence of the means and variances of the subgroups, underlying the analysis of vari­ ance, was considered satisfied* 4 plot of th© variances against the means m s distributed about a horizontal straight line# The assumption of homogeneity of variance was also considered satisfied* An application of Bartlett-e test of homogeneity of variance resulted in a chi-square of 24*42 for 24 degrees of freedom, ( P ® *45 }*

21

fable I The means and variances e£ the reproduction sccres fer th© 30 consonants In the test trial of each subgroup of four cases* Number of Duplications

Level of anxiety

Statistic

Number of Failures

Anxious

Mean Variance

15.0CK 14*00 0*50 \ 3*50

Non-Anx

Mean Variance

8*50 7 11.25 12 *00 19.25 J 0.70 6.50 17*25 5.19

Anxious

Mean Variance

,11*50 4*25

11*50 14*25

9.00. 10*25 24*69j 2.00 j

Non-Anx

Mean Variance

12*25 3*69

13*00 3*00

17*25 8*19

Anxious

Mean Variance

12*00 10*50

9.00 23.50

8.25, 8.00 9.69 \ 2.50

Non-Anx

Mean Variance

11*50 3*25

13.00 4.50

17.00 1 17.00 9.50 2.50

10.75 5*19

8.75, 8.10 \

0

19.25^

9.69

ft*

22 Table IX The analysis of variance of the reproduction scores for consonants in the test trial*

Source

Sums of §32SES§

Total

1808.00

95

19.03

750.75

72

10.15

63.65

6

10.61

10.61/10.15

AXF

501.9*

3

167.31

167.31/10.15

one percent

AXD

107.18

2

53.59

53.59/10.15

one percent

1KB

30.18

6

5.03

5.03/10.15

InsIs.

A

311.85

1

311.85

311.85/53.59

insig*

F

45.29

3

15.10

15.10/5.03

In sig.

B

17.16

2

8.58

8.58/5.03

Inslg.

W.C* AXFXD

Yariano ®

F-ratlo

Sifmiflcano

insig*

23

Table III th© analysis of variance of th© reproduction scores for consonants in the test trial for the anxious and nonanxious groups separately.

Anxious Group SUB3S of

Significance

Source

Squares

d.f.

Total

656.67

47

13.9?

W.C.

435.00

36

12.08

31.09

6

5.18

5.18/12.08

F

127.04

3

42.35

42.35/12.08

five percent

D

63.54

2

31.77

31.77/12.08

inslg*

FXD

se

If-ratlo

Inslg*

Han-Anxious Group Source

Sums of squares

fetal

839.48

47

17.86

w.o.

295.75

36

8.21

FXD

62.54

6

10.42

10.42/8.21

F

420,40

3

140,13

140.13/8.21

D

60.79

2

30.40

30.40/8.21

d.f.

Variance

F-ratio

Significance

Inslg# on© percent five percent

24 increase in th® number of lailures* On the other hand, the performance of non-anxious subjects has increased with an increase in th© number of failures* This represents a statistically significant interaction between degree of anxiety and degree of failure, a© shown in Table II* The question as to whether these separate trends for anxious and non-anxious groups are significant In themselves is answered in the affirmative by the data presented In Table III, which summarises the analysis of variance of the test trial score© of the anxious and nonanxious groups separately* It can be seen that th® increase in th® performance of non-anxious subject© between levels of failure is significant beyond the on© percent level of confidence* Th® decrease in the performance of anxious subjects between levels of failure is significant beyond th© five percent level of confidence. An inspection of Table I (and Figure 3 ) reveals that, for all levels of failure, the performance of anxious subjects tends to decrease with an increase in th© number of duplications, while the performance of non-anxiou® subjects tends to increase from zero duplications to two duplications, but decreases slightly from two duplications to five dupllcatS

This represents an interaction

between anxiety and duplication which, as Table II indicates,

25 is significant beyond the one percent level of confidence. From Table III it can be seen that th© increase In the performance of the non-anxious subject© with an Increase in the number of duplications, that is, the variance contribution associated with levels of duplication for non-anxious subjects, is significant beyond the five percent level of confidence. The decrease in th© performance of anxious subjects with an Increase In the number of duplications, as shown In Table 111, is not statistically significant* The analysis presented in Table II clearly indicates that the interaction between failure and dupli­ cation Is not significant. These results are consistent with the observation that there is no change in performance j from on® level of duplication to another when the anxious and nan-anxious subject© are pooled, nor Is there a change {'

in performance from one level of failure to another under ; Combined levels of anxiety. Even when the anxious and nonanxious subjects are considered separately, a© in Table III, th© Interaction© between failure and duplication are not statistically significant. Th® variances attributable to differences among the levels of anxiety, or of failure, or of duplication, are not significantly greater than are th© first-order

26 interactions involving those variables, as is indicated in fable IX• Flmre Recognition The mean® and variances of th© figure recognition scores for each subgroup are presented in Table IV* Th® analysis of variance of these scores then appears in Table V, The variables of anxiety, and of failure on the previous task of memory for consonants# do not significantly alter the mean scores# nor Is there a significant Interaction between the two variables. There were no differences in performance when the original stimulus was followed by an interval of two# six, or ten seconds before the test stimulus appeared* Discussion of Results Interaction between anxiety §£d failure The significant interaction which was obtained between anxiety and failure is indicated graphically in Figure 1# where th® trends found for this combination of variables are readily seen* Th© mean reproduction scores for consonants in the test trial for each group of subjects, classified on th© basis of degree of anxiety and number of failures ( with th® levels of duplication pooled ) are

27 fable XV th# means and variances of the figure recognition scores for each group of 12 cases, out of 30 possible items*

level of taxtetv

Humber of Failures

Statistic 0

Anxious

Hon-Anxious

2

3

4

Mean

17.4

18*5

19*2

19.8

Variance

14*9

12 *1

11*8

18.3

Mean

18*0

18*7

17*9

17.4

Variance

12*5

8*7

5.2

14.4

28

fable V the analysis of variance of the figure recognition scores,

Sums of

§2B$ss §msM &tl* l&stess EzmU? Total

1234.00

95

12,99

W.C.

1176,33

88

13,37

AXF

32,17

3

10.72

10.72/13.37

lnsig.

A

12.08

1

12,08

12.08/13.37

Insig,

W

13.42

3

4.47

4,47/13.37

lnsig.

29 Table VI The mean trial of of level

reproduction scores for consonants in the test teat each group of 12 subjects* classified on the basis basi of anxiety and number of failures#

Level of Anxiety

number of Failures

0

1

2

3

Anxious

12*8

11*5

9*?

Non~AnxIous

10.8

12*4

15*4

18*5

30 rd T5 o d csj cd 0

ft -P O

0

CD ft

£

-P f t

O

d •H w •H C Q0 i -p 05

co

CM W I d ft ; o5 d 0 ft o x H CO -P d ft o d o o

g

ft

o

d 03 O 0

ft f t •H ft ft ft CO •H ft ft

0 0 d 0 O 0 O rH

CO o d •V O 0 •H -P -P O

•

0 O 0 0 d •'-s d -DP P o d ft d 0 »H a cd 0 CM ft d rH

ft

U O

d ft o 05 o 0 d £ ft 0 d ft 0 o ft! d p E h ft; d

a

O (M

CD

rH

03

00

shoos nvhm

O

•

1— 1 0 d d

ft

•H

ft

31' given in Table VI and In Figure 1* the performance of the anxious subjects Is ©lightly above that of th© non-anxious subjects when no report Of failure 1b given. Th** v^*f@r©ne©, however, is not statistically significant* Th© performance of the anxious subjects declined with an increased number of failures and the performance of the non-anxious subjects was elevated with an increased number of failures. The assumption was made in Chapter I that failure results in two primary effectss the elevation of drive and th© production of interfering responses. It was further assumed that each additional report of failure would be accompanied by additional Increments In these two tendencies* In order to explain the differential effect of failure upon anxious and non-anxious subjects, a® it appears In Figure I, certain additional assumptions about the characteristics of anxiety and th© characterhtics of failure must be introduced* These additional assumptions, relating to the Intervening state

:finltion ( referred to In Chapter I ) of anxiety

and frustration, would need to account for the fact that the performances of anxious and non-anxious subjects stand In their present relation when no failure is given, and for the continuation of the divergent trend® In performance up to three failures* There are several possible hypotheses that might be considered*

32 On© of these hypotheses might be that the drive increments and response-production increments accom­ panying failure and those accompanying anxiety are essential­ ly similar. At a low level of drive, such a© that of nonanxious subjects, th© competing responses accompanying the drive are weaker than are the correct responses, and further Increments in drive through reports of failure will serve to increase the strengths of th® correct responses most. At a high level of drive, such as that of the anxious subjects, the competing responses accompanying the drive would beJsfcrenger w..an the correct responses, and increments' in drive (will increase the strengths of competing responses most* An implication would be that there exists a degree of stress which is optimal for performance in specific tasks,such that amounts of stress either less than or greater than this optimal degree would result in a lowering of performance level* Still another hypothesis would be that anxious individuals have learned different types of responses to failure than have non-anxious subjects, specifically, those responses which Interfere with certain types of task®. The non-anxious subjects may have learned the type of responses to failure which will increase performance in the task.

33 From th® standpoint of clinical diagnosis, certain aspects of th® present result® are worth considering* It would appear that anxious and non-anxious subjects perform most differentially on tasks of immediate memory similar to the on® used here when some appreciable degree of stress, such as reports of failure, and that produced by similar techniques, Is present. It would also appear that measures of immediate memory such as th® one used here are sensitive to variations in stress, such as reports of failure, and that change® in these measures might be used as diagnostic Indicators of reaction® to induced stress* Z i S M S 3l 3.0901110 groups

The trend from group to group for th® test trials of th® non-anxious subjects appear to Increase in a somewhat linear fashion with increased failure, as shown In Figaro 1* Correspondingly, the trend for anxious subjects seems to decrease In a somewhat linear fashion. Th® question arises a® to whether these trends would continue to progress linearly in th® present direction, were additional reports of failure to be given to additional groups. k partial answer to the question stated above appears in ih& data of Tabl® VII and in Figure 2. These data are th© mean reproduction scores for consonants In each trial for each specific group of subjects, classified

34

Table ¥11 Th© mean reproduction scores for consonants in each trial for each specific group of 12 subjects* classified on the basis of level of anxiety and number of failures* ( The scores for the 30 consonants of the test trial have been equated to the scores for the 20 consonants of the prelim­ inary trials by multiplying by two-thirds* Th© asterlks* Indicate that th© trial is followed by a report of failure*) mimber of miissi

Level of Araaefer 1

2

H

fast

Anxious

8*6

9.3

9.7

8.5

Hon-Anx

7.9

8.6

8.4

7.2

Anxious

9*6

10,4

9.7*

7.6*

Men-Anx

7.8

6.9

6.5*

8.0*

Anxious

9*3

8*6^

6*7*

6*5*

Non-Anx

8.3

9*9*

10*3*

10.3*

Anxious

10*3*

6*3*

5.9*

5*8*

Kon-Anx

8*5*

8.8*

11*8*

12*3*

0

%

35

12 -

4-

12-

SCORE

4-

MEAN

8-

12 —

FAILURE

8— ANXIOUS 4FAILURE

FAILURE

12-

8— 'ANXIOUS 4-

1

2

3

T

TRIALS Figure 2. The mean reproduction scores for consonants in each trial for each specific erpoup of 12 subjects, classified on the basis of level of anxiety and number of failures. ( Vertical lines indicate reports of failure).

36 on th# basis of degree of anxiety and number of failures* Since th© preliminary trials involved 20 consonants* instead of 30 consonant® as in the test trial# the test trial scores have been multiplied by two thirds to make them comparable to those of the preliminary trials*

A

summary of the statistical analysis of these trends appears in Table A and Table B in the appendix*

The methods of

analysis used were those presented under Case 2 and Case 11 by Lindquist (8)* The trends for each specific group were analysed to Investigate the cumulative effects of repeated failures* It will be observed that the performance scores of the three anxious groups which received one* two# and three reports of failure drop sharply after the first failure; 2*1# 1*9 and 4*0 points respectively*

The groups wplch received two and

three report® of failure showed a smaller decrement in per* formanoe after the second failure than they had after th© first failure# 0*2 and 0*4 points respectively * The on# anxious group which received a third failure dropped leas sharply after the-; third failure than It had after the second, 0*1 points*

Th© effects of th© number of failures upon

performance© of th© non-anxious groups are somewhat analogous# but in the opposite direction.

The non-anxious group which

was given only one report of failure improved quit® markedly

37 immediately thereafter# 1*5 points*

The non-anxious group which

was given two reports of failure improved only slightly after the first failure* 0*4 points# but did not improve after the second report of failure*

The remaining non-anxious group

receiving three failure reports did not Increase sharply until after the second failure# When it increased 3*0 points as con­ trasted with 0*3 points after the first failure*

This Is

contrary to th® performance of the other two group®*

However.,

th® performance of this third group again levels off after the third failure* increasing 0*5 points only* It would seem then, from the analysis of the trends for the three anxious and three non-anxious groups receiving at least on® failure, that the greatest change in performance occurs after the first, or possibly, the second failure, ant that the effect upon performance of subsequent failures is not ©o great*

&n& yet, if these trends for the specific

..

groups tend to level off with the last failures given, the question can b© raised a® to why th® trends for the test trials from group to group, as shown in Figure X* continue in a linear fashion* The explanation of this apparent discrepancy lies in the sampling fluctuation® of the means of group© assigned to the different experimental, conditions*

An inspection of

fable VII and Figure 2 indicate® that the mean scores on the test trials of the anxious and non-anxious groups which

38 received on® report of failure are almost equal, but prior to failure, this particular non-anxious group was well below this anxious group * Th® difference between the mean test trial score© of the anxious and non-anxious groups which received three reports of failure is noticeably large, but th© performances of both the anxious and non-anxious groups have been altered sharply by earlier failures, and not by th© third failure, as might have been inferred from Figure 1* Th© present study points- up, but leaves unanswered, two problems which should be Investigated,

The first of these

is concerned with th© relative performance of anxious and non-anxious group© if, In some sense, the degree of failure or stress were even less than th® lowest degree used in th® present study*

Thus, it might be possible to increase

rapport or lessen stress by actively giving reports of praise, or removing in some way whateveriexperience of failure might be introduced in this experimental situation by th© fact that error© were mad© by everyone*

Hie second problem

concern® th© possible trends of anxious and non-anxious groups after four or more failure© of the same or greater intensity than those involved in th® present study*

Such empirical

data would indicate whether th© performance functions would continue in the present direction, would approach an asymptote*

39 or would reverse direction« Interaction between anxiety. and duplication The mean reproduction scores for consonants in the test trial of each group of subjects, classified on the basis of degree of anxiety and number of duplications, { with the number of failures pooled ), are given In Table VIII and in Figure 3. The performance of th© non-anxious subjects increased slightly from the condition of no duplicated consonants to the condition of two duplicated consonants. From two duplicated consonants to five duplicated consonants, however, performance decreases slightly, Although the total effect for the non-anxious subject© I© an Increment in !

performance with an increased number of duplications, which Is just significant at the five percent level of confidence, no explanation for.slt is Immediately evident, unless it is due to chance Influences, ft will be recalled that Robinson (IT) obtained an elevation of performance with increased duplications* The performance of anxious subjects decreased Slightly with an Increased number of duplicated consonants, but not significantly* It is a striking decrease, however, in its contrast to the trend for the non-anxious subjects, sine© the increase in the difference between the two

w

fable v m fhs m m m reproduction scores for the 30 consonants in the test trial of each group of 16 subject®, classified on the basis of level of anxiety and number of duplicated consonants.

Level of Anxiety

lumber of Duplicated Consonants

0

2

5

Anxious

12*1

10.6

9*3

Non-Anxious

12 *6

15*2

14*6

O

CO

03

shoos

o

i —i

mm

CO

to

03

O

igure

in of

the test level of

o

NUMBER OP DUPLICATED CONSONANTS 3. The mean reproduction scores for the 30 consonants each group of 16 subjects, classified on the basis and number of duplicated consonants.

trial of anxietv

41

42 groups, anxious and non-anxious, is significant beyond the one percent level of confidence• This decrease in the performance of anxious subjects relative to that of nonanxious subjects, with an increase in the number of duplications, is a relative change in the same direction as that found by Montague (13), Who investigated the effects of intraserial similarity upon the rate of learning lists of nonsens© syllables* One explanation for the fact that only th© performance of th® anxious subjects became poorer with an increase in the n u m b e r of duplications i® suggested in the obtaining b y Hosenb&um (18)* His results indicate that, under

conditions of stress* and for certain responses,

the stimulus generalisation gradient for anxious subjects differs from that of non-anxious subjects. Stimulus gener­ alization at most points appears to be greater for th© former* The interference among the responses to. similar stimuli, hypothesised in Chapter I» may operate primarily for anxious subjects, and therefor© th© performance of only the anxious subjects would be expected to decrease greatly with a n ino r e a a e d number of duplications* Th© results of th© present experiment accentuate th® importance of controlling the variable of clinical anxiety when the effects of intraserial similarity, as well

43 a® th® effect® of failure, are studied* Changes in perform* anee associated with changes in similarity, appear to depend upon th® anxiety level of the subjects, anxiety being defined in terms of a self-rating or inventory criterion, Exactly what these changes will be has not been clearly indicated by the present experiment, The increase in the number of duplicated consonant® did not change th© perform* anc© of the anxious or the non-anxious subjects to a degree that was significant beyond th® on® percent level of confidence* It is for future experimentation to determine whether these trends wll.1 b© maintained when th© number of intraserial duplications are varied to additional levels, and whether th© trends will be maintained when other 1 i

i

operational definitions of Intnserial similarity are used and other as >eets of the stimuli are varied, On® infer&ne® of immediate practical significance to clinical diagnosis' can be drawn from the present study, Anxious subjects will perform more poorly than non-anxious subjects in measure® of immediate memory only when some level of complexity or intraserial similarity i® maintained; the type of duplication present of necessity in th© longer digit span testa that are being used may be one feature which might make that type of test a valuable diagnostic tool.

44 Eto**® roooflnition The mean figure recognition score© for each subgroup are given in Table IV and In Figure 4# Although there are no differences which are statistically significant# certain aspects of the results were in accord with some statements made in Chapter 1# It was stated that the figure recognition task did not Involve a number of stimuli { which might compete with one another ) in a precis® order before each response# and that, because of the recognition method employed# responses more firmly estab­ lished than those In the letter reproduction task might be elicited* It would follow that performance would not be so amenable to the detrimental effect® of competing responses as in the test of reproduction of consemBts, and, as stated in Chapter I# the effect® of the variables need would differ for the two tasks* It was# in fact, found that the figure recognition scores of anxious subjects Increased slightly but not signif­ icantly with an Increased number of failures# while the immediate memory score® for consonants of these same group© decreased significantly with increased failure* It would also have been expected that, since the performance of non-anxlou® subjects In Immediate memory for consonant© Increased with an increased number of failures# the figure

\ \ \

\ 'O

T—

to 03 —

r

03

r

to 03

”“"1 -- T H 03

03

03

3H00S

\

o 03

Kvm T” ■ I

o rH

CO

1—1

1 c»— 1 I

CD

*

to

NUMBER OF FAILURES scores for each p;roup

03

4. The mean figure recognition 30 possible items*

to

Figure

of

12

cases,

out

of

45

46 recognition performance would, have also increased with an Increased number of failures, since the recognition responses should have been at least as Impervious to the detrimental effect© of failure, Insofar as they ©listed, as the reproduction responses* However, the performance of nonanxious subjects in figure recognition does not markedly Increase or decrease with an increased number of failures* There are two features of the experiment which might account for the fact that the introduction of failure did not affect figure recognition scores for non-anxious subjects* First, the subjects were failed, not on their performance In the figure recognition test, but on their previous performance In immediate memory for consonants* The degree of stimulus generalization may be the pertinent factor here* Hosenbaum (18) has found that the stimulus generalization gradient of anxious subjects under stress is higher under certain conditions than the stimulus general­ ization gradient for non-anxlous subjects* He used both a personal Inventory and clinical diagnosis as his criteria of anxiety* In the present experiment, the failure effects may have generalised to the figure recognition test for the anxious subjects, but not for the non-anxious subjects* However a the effect of failure upon performance even for the anxious subjjcts was very slight* Another

47 featur®- of the present experiment which may account for the absence of failure effects upon the figure recognition performance of both the anxious and non-anxlous subjects is the possible temporary nature of failure effects, suggested by previous investigator®. The figure recognition test was twelve minutes In length, while the test trial of the test of memory for consonants was only on© third this length. However, an analysis of the figure recognition results into subgroups, each containing five item®, revealed no alterations in the trends of the non-anxious subject© which might foe attributed to a time factor in the effects of failures the performance of the failure groups did not differ from that of the non-fa‘.lure groups, even on the first five item© of the test# Since it m s found that the variables of anxiety and failure did not have an effect upon performance in the test of immediate memory for consonants, and since this test always preceded the figure recognition test, the differential performance of the groups on the preceding test was an additional variable which may have entered into the determination of performance on the figure recognition test* h variety of further studies are suggested by these results? er ^.rlcal studies are needed to determine to what extent failure on one task will generalise to other

48 tasks, to determine how long failure offsets will persist in various types of tasks, and to determine the effects upon retention of visual configurations of further increases or decreases in the degree of failure or stress*

Oh&pber rv Summary Two tests for immediate memory were given to undergraduate psychology students* The first task consisted In the written reproduction of lists of ten consonants each, presented by means of a memory drum. Three preliminary trials of two lists each were given, followed by a test trial consisting of three lists* The three systematic variables utilized in the experimental design were as follows: (1) High or low degrees of anxiety as determined by extern© scores on a personal Inventory* (2) Zero, one, two, or three report© of failure on the task, (3) The duplication of five consonants, two consonants, or no consonants within the lists comprising the test trial* The use of these three variables resulted in a three dimensional uniform factorial design with 24 cells, and four subjects randomly assigned to each cell* The major results obtained from the test involving the reproduction of consonants were as follows: X* The mean test trial reproduction scores for o on sonants

were computed for groups divided on the basis of

degree of anxiety and number of failures ( with the three levels of duplication pooled }* The anxious group was not

50 Significantly different from the nan-anxious group when no failure was given. Ac the number of failures was increased, the mean performance scores of the non-anxious subjects Increased| the mean scores of the anxious subjects decreased, and the difference between the two groups consequently increased* The two trends and the interaction between the two variables were statistically significant. 2* The trends from trial to trial for each group of subject©-, classified on the basis of degree of anxiety and number of failures, were analysed

( with the three lev­

els of duplication pooled )., the performance of the nonanxious group® tended to increase sharply, and the perform­ ance of the anxious groups tended to decrease sharply, after the first report of failure. The Increases of the non-anxlous groups and the decrease© of the anxious groups after the second and third reports of failure were not so great. The single exception was the non-anxious group which received three reports of failure* The performance of this group did not increase sharply until after the second report of failure. 3.

The mean test trial reproduction scores were

computed for groups divided on the basis of degree of anxiety and degree of duplication ( with the four levels of failure peeled ). There was no difference between the anxious and

5i non-anxlous swaps when there was no intraserial duplication, 4s the percentage of duplication increased, the performance of the non-anxious subject© rose slightly, and the perform** anee of anxious subjects declined slightly* Neither of these two trends was significant beyond the one percent level of confidence, but the difference between the two trends was significant to this degree. 4* The mean test trial scores for the reproduction of consonants were computed for groups classified on the basis of number of failures and degree of duplication { with the two levels of anxiety pooled ). The performance scores of the groups with five, two, and no duplications did not differ fro© each other at any level of failure, and did not change 'relative to each other from level to level of failure. The second task consisted in the comparison of pairs of nonsense figures ..presented by means of the memory drums the second nonsense figure of each pair m s checked as the same or different from the nonsense figure immediately preceding it by an interval of two, six, or ten seconds* The two experimental variables utilised were* (1} High and low degrees of anxiety as determined by scores on a personal inventory, and (2) sera, two, three, and four reports of failure on the preceding test of memory for ccnason&nt^

52 the

of those two variables results# in a two dimension­

al uniform factorial design with eight cells, and twelve subjects randomly assigned.to each cell. there were no differences which were statistic-* ally significant# The performance of non-anxious subjects on the recognition task was not influenced by the number of failures on the test of memory span for consonants. The performance of anxious subjects on the recognition task improved slightly but not significantly with.an increased number of failures*

53 REFERENCES 1* Blankenship, A* B. Memory span, a review of the literature. Psychol. Bull.. 1938, 35, 1-25* 2. Brener, R* An experimental Investigation of memory span. exp. Psychol.T 1940, 26, 467-482. 3. Brown, J. S., and Farber, I. E* The treatment of emotions as Intervening variables, with suggestions toward a theory of frustration. Unpublished manu­ script, University of Iowa, 1949. 4. Diethelm, 0., and Jones, M. R#, Influence of anxiety on attention, learning, retention, and thinking. tech. lour., raychlatCT. 1947 , 58 , 325-336. 5. Pysinger, D. W. Factorial study of speed of response in simple cancellation tasks. Unpublished K. A. thesis, University of Iowa, August, 1949. 6. Harden, L. M. A quantitative study of the similarity factor in retroactive Inhibition. Ren. Psychol.. 1929, 2, 421-430. 7* Bill, 0. L, Principles of B^tov^or. Appleton Century Co.', 1942.

New fork: D.

8. Kennelly, f • tf. The role of similarity In retro­ active Inhibition. Arch. Psychol. N. 7. r 1941. 37, No. 260. 9. Lindquist, E. F. goodness of trend curves and signifi­ cance of trend differences, Psyohometrlka. 1947, 12, 65-73. 10. KcOecoh, J. A. |hg, B m ftglggE of Human earning Xcrki Longmans, Green, and Co., 1942. 11. Malmo, R. B*, and Amsel, A. Anxi©ty-pro&uc@d Inter­ ference In serial rote learning with observations on rote learning after partial frontal lobectomy. . thesis, Univers­ ity of Xem, August, 1949. 20* Russell, W. A., and Farber, I* E* Retention of verbal material as a function of-degree of failure experienced in original learning. Unpublished manuscript, University of Iowa, 1949* 21* Bears, R. R* Initiation of the repression sequence by experimental failure, FjriphQi*. 1937, 20, 570-580.

55

22* Taj lor, j* A, The relationship ©f anxiety to the conditioned eyelid response* Unpublished Ph. B. thesis, University of Iowa, 1949. 23* Welch, L* , and Kubis, J. Conditioned PUR (psycho­ galvanic roa.ense) in states of pathological anxiety# i* m m . m a * . 1947, 105, 372-381,

56

57 fable h The analysis of the Interaction of trends for anxious subgroups with those of non~&nxlous subgroups from trial to trial, within each of the four groups classified on the basis of the number of failure© administered. { The F-ratio for each group is formed by dividing the Anxiety X Trials interaction variance by the Trials X Subjects interaction variance)• Sums of

teas §msss asmas U t O Fir

1 Fir

2 Fir

3 Fir

naawMH JL. Martcmnm

A3CT

2.36

3

0.79

tXS

318.52

66

4.33

AXX

56.87

3

18.96

XXS

393.11

66

5.96

AXT

89.92

3

29*97

T3CS

397.83

66

6.03

AXT

265.91

3

88.64

357.31

66

5.41

0.16

insig.

3.18

five percent

4.97

one percent

16.37

on® percent

58

Table g the analysis of trends from trial to trial for reproduction scores for consonants for groups of subjects classified on the basis of level of anxiety and number of failures. ( The F-ratlo for each group is formed by dividing Between Trials variance by the Trials X Subjects variance).

isaae ..saaisa, 0 Fir Anx

0 Fir H-Anx

1 Fir Anx

Sums of ttB ia i

is ls .

B.T.

11.17

3

3.72

TXS

137.83

33

4.18

B.T.

14.§6

3

4.85

TXS

180.69

33

5.48

52.89

3

17.63

182.36

33

5.53

B .T ,

17.75

3

5.92

TXS

210.75

33

6.39

B.T. TXS

1 Fir K-Anx

B W U fflW

-2 -

0.89

inslg.

0.89

insig.

3.19

five percent

0.93

inslg,

59

Table B { continued ) The analysis of trends from trial to trial for reproduction scores for consonants for groups of subjects classified on the basis of level of anxiety and number of failures* ( The F-ratlo for each group is formed by dividing the Between Trials variance by the Trials X Subjects variance }* Sum of Squares

d.f.

Variance

F

68.17

3

22.72

3.16

five percent

237.33

33

7.19

B.T*

33.00

3

11,00

2.26

insignificant

TXS

160.50

33

4.86

B.T.

171.19

3

57.06

TXS

184.31

33

5.59

B.T*

142.50

3

47.50

TXS

173.00

33

5.24

Group

Source

a nr

b *t

.

Anx tm

2 nr N-Anx

3 Fir Anx

3 Fir N-Anx

10.22

one percent

9*06

one percent

60

fable C The lists of letter© used in the test for the reproduction of consonants*

H

B

4

K

Z

T

H

D

S

L

a

X

J

\f

F

V

K

R

C

P

N

T

F

J

D

E

X

B

B

W

¥

L

Z

X

4

P

0

8

G

K

R

Z

D

I,

0

4

s

M

H

r

J

B

X

f

8

W

K

¥

F

a

H

Q

G