The relationship between changes in Palmar conductance and work output under various conditions of pacing

Citation preview

Northwestern U niversity Library Manuscript Theses

Unpublished theses submitted for the Master's and Doctor's degrees and deposited in the Northwestern University Library are open for inspeation, but are to be used only with due regard to the rights of the authors. Bibliographical references may be noted, but passages may be copied only with the permission of the author, and proper credit muoc be given in subsequent written or published work. Extensive copying or publication of the theses in whole or in part requires also the consent of the Dean of the Graduate School of Northwestern University. This thesis by has been used by the following p e r s o n s , /whose signatures attest their acceptance of the above restrictions. ^ patrons

A Library which borrows this thesis for use by its is expected to secure the signature of each user.

NAME AND ADDRESS

DATE

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHANGES IN PALMAR CONDUCTANCE AND WORK OUTPUT UNDER VARIOUS CONDITIONS OF PACING

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

BY CARL RILEY OLDROYD

EVANSTON, ILLINOIS AUGUST 1942

P ro Q u e st N u m b e r: 10101808

All rights reserved INFO RM ATIO N 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 d id n o t sen d a c o m p le t e m an u scrip t a n d th e r e a re missing p a g e s , th e s e will b e n o te d . Also, if m a te ria l 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 e le tio n .

uest P roQ uest 10101808 Published by P ro Q u est LLC (2016). C o p y rig h t o f th e Dissertation is h eld by th e A uthor. All rights reserved . This w ork is p r o te c te d a g a in s t u n a u th o rize d c o p y in g u n d e r Title 17, U nited States C o d e M icro fo rm Edition © P ro Q u es t LLC. P roQ uest LLC. 789 East Eisenhow er P arkw ay P.O. Box 1346 A n n Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We wish to express our most sincere thanks to: Dr. G. L. Freeman, under whose direction this research was conducted. Dr. L. G. Humphreys, who gave us much statistical advice and criticism. Fortune Willis Oldroyd, who has done much of the clerical and stenographic work. The staff of the Psychology Department at the University of Oklahoma, whose generous assistance on other matters gave us much needed time to work on this report.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i Introduction .................... * • . • * • • • . *

Page ........ • 1

| The Problem* • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • .

3

i

| Apparatus. • • • •

.............. • • • • • • • * • • * • • • • •

10

i

Procedure..........* .......................... 14 Experiment I. . . ....................................... 14 Experiment I I ........................ ^9

and H

The pacing rates used for this experiment were

Per second.

The slow rate was easily maintained, but

the fastest rate was above the maximum of any of the subjects.

In order

to avoid pressure variations on the electrodes while they rested on the

11

tapping board, the electrodes were provided with supports so that addi­ tional pressure was transmitted to the palms by way of the supports rather than by way of the electrodes themselves.

The electrode pressure

itself was determined by an elastic band around the hand. In Experiment II_ the subject was seated in a lawn chair, the back of which was let down as far as it would go. was half reclining.

The subject, then,

All other apparatus was arranged so that only

finger movements were required of the subject. used for recording all performance measures.

A 6-pen polygraph was Conductance readings were

read from the dial of the ohmeter and simultaneously, by means of a signal key, the time of the reading was recorded on the polygraph. The pacers used in this experiment were also connected to the polygraph to serve as stimulus markers. In the tapping test the table carrying the apparatus was placed beside the subject’s chair.

On the end of this table, next to

the subject there was a vertical tapping board to which a light wooden lever was attached.

This lever was connected by means of a light wire

to one of the polygraph pens, the other side of which wa.s ©.ttached to a spring.

The spring served to keep slack out of the system and to

provide the finger with a little load.

The subject’s finger was placed

behind the lever with the back of the hand against the tapping board so that the tapping movement consisted in pushing the lever away from the tapping board.

The arm was strapped to the tapping board to pre­

vent shifting around and to provide support for the arm and hand. The elbow was supported by a sling so that no effort was necessary to keep the hand in working position.

The arm and hand were left in

12

working position throughout each trial. this position was quite comfortable,

A motor-driven pacer was attached

to an electro-magnet on the polygraph. give a loud click when activated.

The subjects declared that

This magnet was adjusted to

The five pacing rates used for this

task were 100, 400, 500, 700, and S00 per minute* For the addition test a special drum was set four feet in front of and on a level with the subject1s eyes.

This drum was turned

by a weight attached to a cord wrapped around one end.

The release

mechanism, which permitted l/l7 of a revolution of the drum in one move­ ment, consisted of a slotted disc geared to a constant speed motor and making seven revolutions per minute.

A circle of metal pins on one end

of the drum near the rim projected over the edge of the disc.

Movement

of the drum occurred when the slot in the disc moved around under the pin allowing it to slip through.

Inertia in the movement of the drum,

although barely perceptible, was enough to permit the disc to turn far enough that the next pin missed the slot, so that the drum was stopped. The rate at which the drum turned was determined by the number of slots in the disc.

For this test, discs with 1, 4, 8, 12, and 18 slots were

used, thus presenting problems at the rate of 7, 28, 56, 84, and 126 per minute.

The front of the drum was screened from the subject’s view

except for a series of openings, each of which permitted the exposure of two digits which were side by side on the drum.

Only one opening

was used during any one work period, the others being covered. erent opening was used for each work period.

A diff­

Ten columns of digits

were painted around the drum so that at no time during the experiment did the subject see the same two digits together.

The digits were

13

arranged randomly except that at no place on the drum were there two alike side by side.

The movement of the drum served to pace the sub­

ject, and the release mechanism was connected electrically to the poly­ graph to provide stimulus timing.

In this test an assistant observer

was provided with an answer sheet and a reaction key which he pressed every time the subject omitted a problem or reported an incorrect answer.

This reaction key was connected to the polygraph. In the discrimination test the same set—up was used as was

used in the addition test except that different drum speeds were nec­ essary, no assistant observer was necessary, and the subject was pro­ vided with four reaction keys (two for each hand) connected individu­ ally to the polygraph.

For this test, discs with 1, 4-, 6, 10, and

12 slots were used, presenting problems at the rates of 7, 28, 42, 70, and 84- per minute.

The subject1s reaction keys were mounted on up­

right supports attached to a board which was placed in her lap. The arrangement of the keys was such that the subject could rest her hands on their sides with the palms turned towards each other and the index and middle finger of each hand would be in position for pressing a different key.

14

PROCEDURE

Experiment I . Twenty-two subjects (14 women and & men, psychology students) were paced at four different rates (2j, 4* and 11 per second) in each of two trials in a finger tapping test* Work periods were 20 seconds long separated by 100 seconds of rest, the last 10 seconds of which were a preparatory period for the next work period*

During this preparatory period the subject was allowed

to listen to the pacer and get set to work at that rate.

In the first

trial, which was preceded by a 20-minute relaxation period, the pacing rates were given in ascending order, from slow to fast and the fastest rate repeated with additional motivational instructions to the subject emphasizing the possibility that with added effort he should be able to keep up with the pacer.

The second trial, begun 20 minutes after the

end of the first one, repeated the conditions of trial one in reverse order, except for the repetition of the fastest rate.

Here again the

additional motivation was given on the second attempt at that rate. The orders of pacings, then, were l-2-3-4-4m for trial one and 4-*4m^-32-1 for trial two.

Palmar skin conductance readings were taken just

before each 10-second preparatory period, just before each start signal was given, and continuously during each work period.

The subjectfs

task was to tap his index finger on the Veedor counter in time with the pacer.

Except for the rest periods preceding the first work period In

each trial, the subjects remained seated in the arm chair during both the work periods and the rest periods.

The subjects had full knowledge

of their own results at all times, except for the palmar conductance

15

readings, and were told before the first work period what order of pacings would be used throughout the experiment. Experiment II. Forty-eight subjects (women selected from psychology classes) were separated into three groups according to the experimental, task to be performed.

Group Cl was given a tapping test.

Group C2 was given an addition test in which 17 pairs of digits were presented on the revolving drum, a new series of pairs being used for each work period.

The subject was to add the two members of each pair

and report the answer before the drum turned up another pair.

Group C3

was given a multiple discrimination test using the same digit pairs used in the addition test.

The subject*s task was to make an odd—even

discrimination of each of the two digits in each pair, reacting with the right hand to the digit on the right and with the left hand to the digit on the left.

If the digit were odd, she was to press the top key.

If the digit were even, she was to press the lower key.

The reactions

of the two hands were supposed to be made simultaneously and before the next pair of digits appeared. The members of each of these three groups were divided again into two groups according to the order of pacing rates to be used. Group D1 was given the pacing rates in the order 1-4-2-5-3 on the first trial (except for the discrimination group who used the order 1—5-3- O rH to

to tO £*■ t-

O n pH ON 10 on

O

CO C ON 4

PS

a s Onto •9

£"- UN

£ " O n tO c n s to l> O CM

ON CM CM nO

zS to to

H t^ v O Q O O O * tO O

ft ft ft

UN UN O '

to

nO

4

UN UN H NO

«•

tO UN

O ' 4 H CM tO nO n£> 4

vO Q n H nD

2S?g

to

ON tO ON C-- ON CM tO 4 4 > ON Qn tO 0 \

§ft ft

ft ft ft

v O M ) C ^tiO O n

H On

$ftaft nQ

F-

Si

33 to O n£5 UN H u\ O

«g

•

»

UN H

ON UN ONH

• •

ON CM ON UN H H

3Si

ON PNNO 4 t~ H • « • CM nO ON 4 4 on r| p i r l

nO

On >o to nO tO 4ON H H

m 85

h cm o n 0 0 0

H CM p p

m

o

p

3

On H UNNO UN

28

Si

° to to

vO O n£) O to to

3

O nO

nO

(T \ QN

O O ' to

S3S

H ~4 C*N

CN CM

3S S U

to z>

UN UN nO 4

Q rH UN H O UN • * * ON O ON

H

rpq i

pq

UN C«N

1>- tO nO

rH rH rH

3

CM O On UN UNvO Vs tO H

V \s O

•s fs Q rH tO • •

CM

rH H

4 ON rH rH

s

t o UN CM Z> C*N C°i UN - 4 O " 4

rH CM ON O O O

»•

h

nO UN

H H

rH O n , CM tO ^

ON UN CM CM rH rH

UN ON C*N UN ON O to t o

NO UN I> CM CM C

CM CM

tO tO rH * pq E*UN H

f - ON C - UN • • -4 C ON O H H

Si

H CM ON O O O

rH CM

A P

O P

•

O n no

pqvO to p

ON ON CM tO O ' tO H H UN 4 ) rH rH pH rH

ONto

mftftS

CM

to u w H O pH ON UN tO Q rH pH rH rH CM

r H • ♦ * • • -«q Q ON tO UN ON

On UN Oa O O to to

IH tO tO •

pH

tO UN UNvO

nO

, nO C*N '4

cm r~ o no pq UN cm ON

ft ft ft ft ft

CO O' O to

3 S

ET* P4 pci w

g

CM CM o r\ v£> rH CM to to

ON O •> £T* CM t~

t - Cf% \0 UN H CM C " CM tO H * 4

as

p p

tO rH H NO « NO CM rH

tO O ' O ' 4 O ' CM o n 4 CM E - IS PQ 4 O H o n m

E - E - CM M> c n cn vo E - O ' 4 O O CM O O ' f

CM M3 m 4 PQ CM o

JO H r l CM E - O ' E P H O O

cm

0 0e H 4 vO

vO in cm H I> O O PQ H o o

t o O ' o cn H CM H O ' in m o O ' cm o n i c n

cm

1

I

O ' CO CM CM O ' rH CM m m O r j w ^ o o o c v

PQ O H

g g g

I

c n o t> O o n CM t o flO CM tn M > PQ 4 onO 4 4

* ftft ft ft It

CM CM CM O ' 00 pq CM o

rH

in O ' o O ' m H CM IS M3 o 4 PQ c n (H CM o CM CO

e

e ~ e> rH

rH

PQ H

00

CM

t

H

pq

I

i

cm

o

O O O 't o o o O ' cm I s O ' cn 4 h is O '

• e * • a

Hi

I

in vQ on O ' m M3 O O O

h

I

O' cn so

H 'O tQ vO CMH 'O rH

O

S

S

'

•

c n c n i> c n to - 4 C " to h *H CD O -P h O «*> rH O O rH CM

4 m H CM rH M3 CM

O' CM O' • cn

3 •H CD 0

O in CM CM E PQ CM |0 to

to 4

m

rH O

4 cn in - © * * m vo

CD

•

H

vO

N t

H to to O Q B2P P

pq

CM o H H In O O 4 m B

4

B

a

4

tO

m

cm

•

e- e- 0

n - to

rH rH

n o O' O o in tO tO

H

H CM • cn E " : to cn IS t o 1

\0 m *4 to H ^4 43 M) O H

on cn r - h o c n O ' CM O ' H to o o h t o t o E - t o to

H CM tO vO CD -4 -4 O O -4 CM -4 O ' m in v O o

*

*

•

•

*

in CM - 4 t o t~

vO O ' E - 0 " O ■ 4 t o H vO H H O ' *4 O O ' H

, H cn 4 H in M D c n (*4 O ' H cm E - t o to

cm (34

cm c n H cm in O c n vO in 4 B • • o H C - to

B

•

to O '

vO CM t o m > vO m cn c n v o B

B

B

A cm

P

H

PQ

cn 4 c n in m 4 cm c n

1

*

M3 O' • &4 IE cn H

4 m • CM 4 H

4 O' • O cn H

o O' I—) * p 4 vO 4 H

c n to O ' on * * o E m 4 H H

*

O 'H f l-

in 4 O

cm

cS c n

O' I> I> C- S to m t o H E o to o ' cn O '

B

B

in 4

mo

H

t - m o H to o O ' c n O 't o O t o E - S to

o E " CM CM c n E m c n 4 m3 cm cn t o M3 CM H

vD E E

O ' cm " 0 cq G cn

O • * * ** tO H

c n vO to CM CM H m3 M'O' H E- IS tO

B

B

O' H cn pq O tO

cm

to o to C~

on

H CM H p ti in tO

O Ein E

4 H O (3 4m to

E- H O m cm O tO E

cm

B

pbj

tO O '

H O' O CM

Z> 4 I> E

O' cn EE-

4 in t~ m 'O 'O ' s IS

jn o t)0 tO H E O tO E O c n h to O ' c n B

B

S

B

B

E- c n t o r-j

4

v o m in h cm cn O ' cn m v o H 'O S c n 4 m P M3 E - E^ O ' O '

S EEE

H M3 O ' M3 t E r~ h cm cn n iin H M3 in O E - 4 pC l

B

B

B

E^ in 4

a

B

to E

I O

-P G CD CD G O

CM

E~

00

oo

CM

H "H rH rH i—I

9

fl pq

*4 o HP O r* &4

' tO

pq 4 t o n ( > s r G

»rl

w .

' O

m in m M>

0 s M) M3 m m to c n m

c n vO I s- O ' O ' H CM in v D rH rH rH rH

in in on O ' • * rH rH

in 4 4 cn H i * PQ -si- CM cn cn

$ Si S iSS3

4 O CM * pq vO 4 H

O CM * CM cn i—I

CM M H , to O r l rH * * * pq t o m v o r n m s jr l H H

H o

s! S! & PQ

CM "4 * to cn H

P o

cm

o

vO H CM m CM »n s f O t> O

CM O E - H -4 m -4 O ' o n 4- 1> t o

H n rl rl

O' 4H *. O CM O'

m in o to in * 4 to O ' CM CM 0 4 5 4 CM P - to H H H H

cm

vO cn to O' cnto 4 O' H

cn O E - tO CM tO t p O O ■4 m i> H H H H H

H S

cn o PQ o

CM c n 4 m W W M W

Ein CM P to to

H P

O ' E - I f ' M3 o O O ' Ec n h c n E~ cr \ c n M3 E~ H H H H

H O 'M3 tO 4 E O H O N * * • • • O ' CM CM cnM 3 O CM 4 E - tO H H rH H H

H E~ O E' CM * * PM 3 H

4 3 O ' CM H P

H CM c n O O O o

H o CM S P1 44 O'

IS IT'

* • O CM in 4 H H

H

P«4

|S 4

P

CM

H

m 4 cn Q to c n H 4 B

B

B

B

m in 0 o H c n M ) to H H H H

E r e n g ' cn H CM n 1to m M 3

ft ) 4 o H

*

B

S

B

B

O'E E m

Cm '— O T3

o

C\2

g

CD P

Ed cr*

p

p pP p O

o -— . cdP *H T i P

G m t d on the other hand, the tapping records were taken from a counter which was set so that nothing smaller than three-fourths of a full finger movement would be recorded. At the higher pacing rates in Exp. X practically all of the subjects made more finger movements than were recorded. Consequently, their output quantity scores were somewhat lower than they would have been had all move­ ments been recorded. A somewhat similar comparison can be made between the results of Exp. 1 and the results of the addition and discrimination tests of Exp. XL* I15 these latter two tests no arbitrary limitation was imposed which would eliminate any work response from consideration except responses which were so weak or unsuitable that they did not appear overtly. In other words, no qualitative limitations were imposed on the measurements of the three tasks in Exp. II. In Exp. X an£^most of the studies on the relationship between input and output at high input levels, the measures of output were of such a nature that an appreciable qualitative minimum was imposed, under which conditions we might expect such effects as occurred in Exp. X* Eventually, as input increases in a task which imposes qualitative limits, variability will become so great as to reduce the output quantity score. It might also be suggested that variability provides the subject with a cue or a standard beyond which he refuses to co-operate. It would be expected that there would be individual differences in the amount of variability the subject tolerates before his moti­ vation fails and he allows his total work output to fall. Although there may be group differences which could be analyzed in an experi­ ment such as the present one, the probability is that the greatest individual differences In this respect are matters of training and would not necessarily correlate with any of our variables. There is a tendency (not statistically significant) in our results for those subjects who have low resting conductance levels (A2) and those who have low normal output (B2) to reach higher levels of variability under the conditions of Exp. XL than do the other corresponding groups • It remains to point out how certain other experimental vari­ ables of Exp. IX influence the input-output relation.

As seen from

Figs. 6 and 9, there is a tendency for persons of initially low resting conductance (energy level) to reach their optimal efficiency earlier than those of initially high resting conductance.

Persons of low normal

54

work output mobilize slightly more to meet the demands of work situa­ tions than those of high normal work output (see Fig. 7) • This mobili­ zation puts them at a slightly higher working level than those of high normal work output (see Fig. 10).

No obvious differences are found for

different types of task (see Figs. 8 and 11).

55

DISCUSSION

We have explored the input-output relationship at various rates of pacing and have found, on the whole, a consistent picture. The relationship is not significantly affected hy variations in the type of task or type of subject used. by pacing:

It is significantly affected

as work pace increases, output and input measures both

tend to rise. the range.

The relationship, however, is not constant throughout

Like other machines, the human organism is more efficient

at certain levels of input than at others.

This is indicated by the

criterion of efficiency, the greater steepness ox the curve at lower levels of input.

Under the conditions of our experiments, subjects

worked from levels approximating their lower limits of efficiency (where increases in units of input result in corresponding increases in units of output) to levels somewhat beyond their upper limits of efficiency (where increments in units of input are progressively less effective in developing more output) • It is presumed that input levels below and above the range found in these experiments would show even less efficiency, and that a picture of the complete range would approxi­ mate the theoretical curve described by Freeman (19)* This study has indicated the difficulty of obtaining empirical checks upon the extremes of the theoretical curve under ordinary labor­ atory conditions.

The organism tends to work within its efficient range,

and if the demands of work pacing are advanced beyond those appropriate to this range, the required changes in the input of effort fail to develop.

If the pacing is above that which is appropriate to the optimal

56

range, motivation fails and the subject may exert less effort than when worked at slower rates.

If the pacing is below that which is appropriate

to the optimal range, the subject may react in one of the two ways, (a) by an input increment necessary to hold his reaction system (through in­ hibitory processes?) to a sub-normal rate of discharge, or (b) by work­ ing at input and output levels appropriate to a faster rate but maintain­ ing the slow rate b y alternating rest with work.

It is presumed that

only under conditions of extreme incentive will an individual work at input levels which are beyond his efficient range; in this respect man differs from the automobile which he frequently drives at the ineffi­ cient slow and fast speeds. Of the several measures studied in these experiments, percent conductance increment appears to have certain advantages.

When the

results are not complicated by tension residuals from previous work (as they were in Exp.

the use of this measure makes it possible to com­

pare directly the input of different subjects at the same pacing level and the input of the same subject at different pacing levels.

This mea­

sure Is significantly influenced by rate of paced work, but it is inde­ pendent of both the normal resting level of conductance and the normal work output level.

It is not influenced by the type of task Imposed on

the subject. Input recovery following paced work (as indicated by the re­ covery quotient) is independent of the work pace*

The fact that a

subject’s recovery quotient is relatively stable regardless of the rate at which he worked suggests that this measure may have diagnostic value in other connections (c f . 24).

57

Of the measures of output employed in this study, that of variability appears to have a unique significance.

We have previously

described the subject as tending to work effectively over a rather wide range of input.

Actually, within this normal work range there are

narrower limits wherein the human machine is at its most efficient level of operation*

We can take the steepness of the input—output curve as a

measure of such efficiency.

But since the variability in work output

appears to be inversely related to the steepness of the total input-out­ put curve, it seems that this single measure might be used as an index of efficient performance. Much has been written concerning the impossibility of estimat­ ing performance efficiency in terms of quantity of output alone.

It has

also been assumed that the only way in which relative efficiency could be estimated must necessarily Involve the relation of output to input measures.

While it has not been fully demonstrated in these experiments,

it is our hypothesis that response variability is not only a sensitive index of ineffective work output, but also that high variability carries the implication that the subject is working at an input level which ex­ ceeds (or nearly exceeds) the optimal limits of performance efficiency. If this hypothesis were substantiated by subsequent research and norms of response variability were established, it Is conceivable that physio­ logical records of input would not be essential, as they now are, for the determination of performance efficiency.

Such a suggestion seems to

fit the larger purpose of a physiological psychology which uses refined measures of covert activity (such as skin conductance), not in substi­ tution for more overt performance measures (such as work output, etc.), i

58

but as a check upon the relative validity of various overt measures indices of the dynamics of total behavior*

59

CONCLUSIOHS

From the data of this study the following conclusions may be drawn: 1.

There is a consistent curvilinear relationship between

energy input (palmar skin conductance) and work output. 2.

This relationship is noticeably affected by the rate at

which the organism’s work is paced, showing reduced efficiency (flat­ tening of the input-output curve) at high levels of input and probably also at low levels of input.

Pacing serves to "regulate” effort in­

ducing changes throughout the organism’s normal working range. However, pacing is not an adequate technique for demonstrating the high and low extremes of the curve of the input-output relationship. 3*

This relationship is not significantly affected by the

sex of the subject, although men tend to show relatively greater energy (conductance) increment in meeting a task than do women. When tension residuals and expectancy are eliminated, the order in which the pacing speeds are given has no effect on this rela­ tionship. 5.

When input is expressed in terms relative to the resting

level from which the organism starts (percent conductance increment), the resting level of input does not affect the relationship. 6.

Differences in normal output do not affect the relation­

ship noticeably, although, as would be expected, persons with high normal output produced relatively more work at higher levels of pacing than did those with low normal output.

60

7.

There is an indication that the relationship is altered

Slightly by practice, relatively more output "being produced on the second trial with less input than on the first trial, indicating in­ creased efficiency* 8.

The efficiency of input recovery, as measured by the con­

ductance recovery quotient, is unaffected by any of the conditions of this study. 9*

Output variability seems to offer an unusually sensitive

index of the efficiency of performance, tending to be inversely related to the steepness of the input-output curve and tending to show a rapid increase shortly before the input increments begin to fail in producing further increments in output quantity.

61

SUMMARY

The input-output relationship was observed at five rates of paced work#

Palmar skin conductance was used as an indicator of energy

input, and amount and variability of performance were used as measures of output.

Three different types of tasks (tapping, addition, and dis­

crimination) and a total of seventy subjects were employed in the two experiments*

Besides type of task and rate of pacing, the experimental

variables included sex of the subject, normal resting energy level (palmar conductance), normal work output, and order of pacing#

When pac­

ing rates were imposed in progressive and rapid order (from low to high rates:

Exp*

D»

tension residuals from previous work were added to those

mobilized for a given work demand, and the curve of input—output relation­ ship indicated decreased efficiency at the higher work rates.

This same

relationship was also demonstrated when (Exp. II) tension residuals and expectancy were eliminated by employing a random order of pacing and permitting longer rest between work periods*

The input-output relation

was not significantly affected by any of the experimental variables except pacing rate.

Percent conductance increment (a measure of energy

mobilization), work output, and response variability were all signifi­ cantly influenced by the pacing procedure.

The results indicate that

the organism is most efficient when working at moderate levels of inputj higher levels of input developed by the pacing procedure showed diminish­ ing returns.

The fact that response variability is inversely related to

the steepness of the input-output "efficiency curve” suggests that this measure alone might be a valid index of performance efficiency.

APPENDIX

63

THE INPUT—OUTPUT RELATIONSHIP BASED ON RAW OUTPUT SCORES

The following page contains graphs of the input—output rel­ ationship based on raw output scores from Exp. II.

These graphs are

included to show that the same essential relations are obtained with output raw scores as with output sigma scores. Although it was necessary to use sigma scores in order to make the scores on the three tasks comparable for the analyses of var­ iance (see p. 21), the raw scores have been equated roughly for these graphs by a technique which does not change the form of their distri­ butions.

Foreach task, the mean output score was subtracted from

the various output group-averages which were to be graphed, giving a set of deviation scores.

The sizes of the graphing units for each

task were equated on the basis of the ratios of their Median-Q3 ranges. For output quantity, the ratio (tapping:addition:discrimination) of these ranges was approximately 2j:l:l. ratio was approximately l:4^2«4-2*

For output variability the

The deviation scores obtained above

were equated, then, by dividing each group-average by the ratio fac­ tor of that task. Two of the experimental variables, task (C) and work output (B) have

beengraphed.

The other variables, had they been graphed,

would have shown similar correspondence to the graphs based on sigma scores.

6-1

(a)

(b)

tapping addition discrim.

average high output low output

percent increment in conductance conductance Fig. 12. The relationship between percent increment in conductance and raw scores* of output quantity as it depends on (a) task, £, and (b) work output, B. (Cf. Figs. 7 and 8) (b)

•H

f —< • H rO H i •H § -p g. 3 O

percent increment in percent increment in conductance conductance Fig. 13. The relationship between percent increment in conductance and raw scores* of output variability as it depends on (a) task, C_, and (b) work output, B. (Cf. Figs. 7 and 8) * Raw scores on the three tasks combined by subtracting the mean score on each task and equating the units on the basis of the ratios of the Median-Q.3 range on each set of scores.

65

TABLES OF DATA

The following pages contain tables of raw data for Exp. and Exp. II.

I

These data are arranged in Fisher*s factorial design

which was used in the analyses of variance.

The letter designations,

which are identified on p. 18, are given at the head of each column and the side of each row.

Those at the head of the columns are the

correlated variables, and those at the side of the rows are the un­ correlated variables.

The scores for each subject, who is identified

at the end of the row just preceding the data, are all on one line. Ho analyses of variance were run on the following three sets of data for Exp. I I :

Conductance - Pre-Work Resting Level,

Output - Quantity (Raw Scores), and Output - Variability (Raw Scores)•

t'CMflCi H t'vO'O C>^

tO Oi rH O

C3

in H nD O ' O vD O CO VO t" 02 sf H nO rH CO

vD rH Qn t> -Mf ~-4 O i— ( v O v O v O t> "4 O 02 r-i rH 02 'J5 02 oirHOi

C‘ -tO''4‘"

O

ni cv cnvOvD vO >o IT* CO CO nO sO 02

02

to H (n H W O' O H

CM

v HD HH vC OV Wi Hn vt OO fH MH iO n

h

C" t' \£) 00 \0 to O 2>* C\2 I> O 02 l> l> 2>- vo vO in m \ D 2> tso oi co o E> -4 rH VO 02

~4 O l> cn sf\D \D o

VO

~*t O CO CO Oi

vD H H 0 s CM

co

m m m

vo

02

•

•

«

#

•

O 1' O £> C- CO O #

•

•

•

*

*

•

•

•

VO

W

O

•

•

•

rH

•

•

•

•

rH

O O' O CC (V vo DN O O H td s}. .moNto • • •ci\D • •nias}-O o•m • • •* o men IS vo - O O V O t

0

0

4

4

rHOOCO

OicOvOCOO'OVOOCOOQOOH - CM -in H VD Oi- - co 4 co co rH o

»> 02 CO

J>» l>* ^ ^ rH 2 O f t « C © N tQfQcqfoO(5WHW o o •1o

CO

1

Oi

Oi CO

P

vO vO Q CM O rH CO -d O' O •O • ♦ *0 •O Oi

I I

• • •o o o tooi

O O tQ nO

COvO to o--d C\i UN -d Oi Oi rH oi o g

10 CJN O O nO

i

I

0 “d-vo oooNtotooi

o co o Oii— I rH

• • CD \Q• CO * tO•rH• O'*

[£)

I

o to oi on -co o co _ -d co _vO -?Oi

sici o Oi

o -d-

Oi o o to Oi

O CD oi vp

O• x• n* C^•-

Oi vQ to O CO to tf>sO tO 04 -sj £> O • • • • • • •

Oi

5f

W H

to o

O Oi Oi to Oi

O rH O to r—I rH CO Oi to

un

CD

to vo

O v D v O O' Q

UN C\i

l>s P

ft rH

CO Oi rH

o ft « q Q) n & W gT pq d 55 pq

sf £- o C' rH cm

o

Vn N

vO

vr>i tO

o

CM

O W

V T \H ' ' OOvOrH U > r r \ O 'O

ri O

n

rH rH rH i —Ii —I

U-\ H

t" H

tX) rH CM rH vO AT\C'-sO H vO

C\ rH rH

E^-vOUAC^tOCMO'tO

O

EXPERIMENT I (CONTINUED)

O O t" O

H O

O

NOVT'KCT'C'-C'-tO OOOvDCVC^H-^O H

rt H

to• O*

•

to O

Q ''£> v0 vO o ^

O H• " •C" •Q •t' •

•

r-i n

O',• o •o

•

•

N

H •O

in^O'INNDvD O O TO c^\CMOr-i OO H H H H r—ICM »n o

rl “

vOOOtO-HC'OO'tJOHOOtOt'-

VN CM H »T\ c^i iT\sO to tO O'* tO CM

m O O t O H ^ O J A ^ C O H ^ O C^ivO ITi AT» O CC\ C> J> CM tlO ITsHCMCJ^^vO rH i —I i —IH H i —I

x£>t-OOl>CMOH

vD U\Ov*3£~-tOHt~-,‘< t O H O O t O ri »ri U"\O H CM C^vD CTwO t)0 VO\H" C^- LOvD V> \D vC t> CM CM O tO H i—Ii —I

i —I

TABLES OF DATA.

^

i —!

Si t--\0 O O ^ D m m *stv£) I0CJnv£) O'' CM

i—!

CM

O

H

vO -OtOC^HO

N £ ) O O U ' v O t O O M ' N O s‘O H O C M D -

-4-s“O sf O

Cs-Cs-v O t O v O t O CPv CM nO O H O ir\x£> sf CO C'I> U"% CM vO O O H O O v D i—I H i—I H i— I

*AOO H (M H i —I i — IH

OvOvOO'W^OO

OtOOO'^OCM^^^NO'vOt^

O

O to O vD vD OC^CMC^VTxOC^-nO cr> VOv o t^to t> to vD C ^ O O H ^ O

c nc ° \o m

v\ vr*-*ti> *r\to H

CM

cm cm H H

H

H

H H

W

C5

C f \ M )i r vO O 1 't 'H C M

V \O I >U NH O < ^ \E " -1 >O O O Ot O

r\ in to l>(V M) H co. c^voc^to >rM) H O

rit^vD to H CM r»\D . . _ vD _ OOOC-'Cn sfr^vD c^i C' vn to vO vO O O o to

i—IH H

M ) M ) v O O'Cf'f^'O O

M) to

O

CMlTvCMOCMC^£>ir\ IPsiT\vr%CTn H to H CM H H H

^tOinvDcntnocAric'A sj- o o » to to o to t- c-OCViCNi'H-OlfNC\irH*^O ^ N O O H H O H H ^ r lO C M H rH rH rH pH rH rH rH rH rH rH

rH

pH

rH

O C N i r r\ C v ( M \ O s | - s | - ^ O O s O C s' O s W C V H O 'O H O 'O H O Q 'O O O n H H H H H H H rH

rH

Op-j

0 O- C\2 CO

CO >vO CO v£> rH

oHO'toto^o^(>a'i>floa'00 rH rH

H H

W

P-t «Xt *
| Lj S3 O

2^v 9' 4?id?£‘ £ $ . ? “c ' i cohhhi^OpHC^ocm s t s o

^

si

O H O O O H O O N t O O O " 4 0 H H H H H H H H H pH H H

02

C5

w

cr\vOwC t>sO in\D vD

-