I V W WW M MN MW 145 161 THS SE‘J‘UATlONAL S?RE$S AM} DMM-M’fiitfz 93$ MTEEUNNIQN‘E’S» 3E: QRCMHEEM SQLVWG ”:‘tsasés €sr Effie. £3ng 2:! Ski A: MECHEGAN S‘?A‘E‘E BREWER-SET? Li’W‘c 3E Keen-s, £9. *Nffifi SITUATIONAL STRESS AND DOGMATISM AS DETERMINANTS OF PROBLEM SOLVING By Paul B. Koons, Jr. A THESIS Submitted to the College of Science and Arts of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfill- ment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1958 Paul B. Koons, Jr. ABSTRACT This study attempted to investigate the effects of two variables on the process of problem solving, a personality variable, and an experimental variable. The personality variable used was high vs. low dogmatism, and the experimental variable used was stress. The problem was chosen because it permits the problem solving process to be broken down into two parts, overcoming sets (Part A ), and integrating sets (Part B). This, in turn, permits stress to be applied at either Part A, or Part B, or not at all. The design used was a 2x4x8 fac- torial design utilizing all combinations of the two variables . Two classes of hypotheses were tested. The first class, dealing with the personality variable, stated that persons high in dogmatism should have more difficulty in total problem solving time and in Part B, and no more ditficulty in Part A, than persons low in dogmatism. In general me results did not bear out this hypothesis; it was found that the high dog- matic group had less difficulty in overcoming sets and no more dificulty in integrating sets and total time to solve the problem when compared with the low dogmatic group. The second class of hypotheses dealing with the experi- mental variable stated that stress should disrupt the perfor- mance of both high and low dogmatic groups regardless of where in the problem solving process it was applied. The re- sults indicated that stress disrupted the performance of the high dogmatic grow on overcoming sets and total time to solve, but had no significant effect on the low dogmatic group. Paul B. Koons, Jr. 2. The results obtained for the personality variable were interpreted as a possible function of the sample used in the study. The results obtained for the experimental varisble were interpreted in terms of an interaction between stress and dog- matism. A suggestion was made as to the direction future research could nits in investigating this interaction. APPROVED: - If...1 -- r DEDICATION T0 - IRIS WHO BELIEVE!) and BOBBIE . WHO KNEW ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author wishes to acknowledge wuh deep Made the generous and pa- tient assistance and management he re- ceived tram the chairman of his committee, mull»)! Rom, infliedesipsnd execution of this study, and in the prepare. Moi his manusu'ipt. In addition he emulates the editorial assistams ofths members sihis commune: mum: Malay M7, and Dr. Stanley 0.. Rainer. For the psdent “standings! his wits din-ins this process he is ever: lastingly grateful. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION METHOD Subjects Design . Ptocedure . RESULTS . . HSCUSSION . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A. . . APPENDIX B Page 10 IO 21 36 39 4-1 43 5 l 2. 3. LIST OF TABLES Description of Subjects: High Dogmstic Group . . . . . . Low Dogmatic Group. . . . . . . Comparison between high and low dogmatic groups tmder all experimental conditions on the total time taken to solve the Denny Doodle- bug PIOblem s a a s s a e s e s e 0 Comparison between high and low dogmatic groups under all experimental conditions on the time taken to overcome the first, second ‘nd third beliefs 0 e a e e a a a s e 0 Comparison between high and low dogmatic groups under all experimental conditions on the time taken to solve the problem after the first, second and third beliefs are overcome . Comparison between various conditions of stress for both high and low dogmatic groups on the total time taken to solve the problem . Comparison between various conditions of stress for both high and low dogmatic groups on the total time taken to overcome the first, secondandthird beliefs . . . . . . . . Comparison between various conditions of stress for both high and low dogmatic groups on the time taken to solve the problem after the first, second and third beliefs are over- oome O O O O I O O O O O O O O 0 Analysis of poet-experimental rejection and anxiety scores for various conditions of dog- matism, regardless of condition of experi- mentally induced stress . . . . . . . . Page II 12 22 24 25 27 29 31 33 LIST OF TABLES (CONTJ Page Comparison between various conditions of experimentally induced stress for bath high and low dogmatic groups on post- experimental rejection and snidety scores . . 34 INTRODUCTION This study arose from the large body of research being conducted by Rokeach ( ll, 12, l3, 14, 15 ), and more particu- lsrly from a study by Vidulich (18 ). It was an attempt to in- vestigate simultaneously a personality variable, the cognitive processes of the dogmatic individual, and an experimental var- iable, the effect of situationally induced stress on cognitive processes. As conceptualized by Rokeach (l2, l4 ) dogmatism re- fers to (a) a relatively closed cOgnitive organization of beliefs and disbeliefs about reality, (b) organized around a central set of beliefs about absolute authority which, in turn, (c) provide s framework for patterns of intolerance and quail- fied tolerance toward Others . Dogmatism can, here, most appmpriatsly be defined in contrast with rigidity. ”Both dogmatism and rigidity refer to forms of resistance to change, but dogmatism is conceived to represent a relatively mars intellectualized and abstract form than rigidity (12)”. Rigidity, then, is seen to refer to the ra- sistancs to change “232$ ideas, sets, beliefs, or expectan- cies: dogmatism refers to the resistance to change of systems of ideas, sets, beliefs, or expectancies. The effects of simationally induced stress on behavior, both cognitive, conative, and affective have been extensively studied as the several recent review articles point out ( 2, 8 ). The great majority of studies that relate to problem-solving, and cognitive processes in general, indicate that anxiety, or stress, produces a decrement in performance (1, 7, l7, 2!). One way that stress has been introduced into the experi- mental situation is through the instructions to the subject, as Alper (fl) and others ( 5, 9, 16, £0) have done, i.e., through structuring the task as an ”intelligence test". It is noted that the McGovney (13) and Vidulich (18) studies both use this form as an introduction to me problem solving situation they presented. The results of both studies show differences in problem solving speed betwasn groups scoring high andlowondogmstism. The questionthus couldberaised as to whether these results might not have been a resultant of the differential eflects of this experimentally induced threat on the two groups and not the levels of dogmatism. in other words, the relative inability of the highly dogmtic person to accept new belief systems may in fact represent the decrement in perhrmance that stress produces, and that decrement, and in turn the differences, may disappear when there is no stress in the problem solving simation. The problem solving task used in this study is the same as that used by Vidulicb (18 ). it is called the Denny motile. bug Problem after Professor M. Key Denny, who devised it in 1943. The problem is presented to the subject on s typed sheet of paper as follows: 3. THE CONDITIONS: he Doodlebug is a strange sort of imaginary bug. He can and cannot do the following things: 1. He can jump is only four ditferent directions: north, south, east, and not. He cannot jump diamally (cg: ”West, northwest, etc. ). 2. Once he starts in any direction, that is, north, south, east, or west, he must jump four times in that same direction batore he can switch to sooth: direction. 3. He can only jump, not crawl, fly, or walk. 4. Hecanjumpvsryhrge distances, orverysmall distances, but not less than one inch per jump. 5. Joe cannot turn aromd. THE SITUATION Joe has heenjumpingallover theplace gettingsome exercise when his master places a pile of food three feet di- rectly west of him. Joe notices that the pile of flood is a little larger thanhe. Assoonasjoeseesallthisfoodhestops deadinhis tracks facingnordi. After allhis exercisejoe is vuryhmgryandwantsmpttsthefoodas quickly“ hepossib? ly can. Joe mines the situation and then says, "Darn it, I'll have to jump tour times m get the flood." THE PROBLEM Ice medlebug was a smart bug and he was dead right in his conclusion. Why do you suppose Joe Doodlebug had be take (our jumps, no more and no less, to reach the food? 4. Thscorrsotsolutiostotheprohiunismstjoehsdto takceuctlytourjumps because atthomomsntthofoodwas prsssntsdhehadslready tahn one jumptoflloesst. Thore- iors, ittvss nocssssryhrhimtofirstmksthreemorcjumps tothesasttomsetthorequircmmtottskhgtourhnnpsbo- iorschangingdirection. Hethontakcsonsjumptothcwcst andhndsonmpdthotood,thusmskingsmteleffiour1umps. Tho subject must first emcsms three discrete sets, or “.mselvethsprohbm 0) theisctngset: Joedoesnot hsvstoiecsthsioodinordsrteutitbhsoenlsndontopol it: (2) mediroction sot: Jescaajumpsidomys and-beckverdo aswollosiorwardszandal “monument Joeisnot masonrilystdaehsginningorcnddasocmsnoeoumnps,hemay invobocnsomswherosinaacisadltlmo Romanov cominzmesethreebelietsdsesnetaumaticeilyloedtsms solution» thtthssubjsctmcetdoMmcomingthebeifls iatoiausratsthsmintoamsystomtogainthssolutiosmthe pubis-n. mmdstodnnrstsstothypothssee, incidentalto themsmdy,ehuhediromthepseviousworkhthesree as.” ‘ A. Hypotheses concerning the personality variable: 1. Persons man in dogmatism should take longer to solve the problem than persons low in dogmathm, regardless at any conditions of experimentally in~ dnccd stress. 2. Persons high in dogmatism should «has; long! in the overcoming of beliefs than persons low in 5. dogmatism, regardless of ash conditions of expert- ment‘ally minced stress. 3. Persons highindogmstism should tehe longer in I the inmgrstionoi’beliefs intoaneweystem than persons low in dogmatlsm, regardless of any con- ditions of experimentally induced stress. The schema, pestouly presented, permits the task to- bedividedintomniore-or;lessdiscretepsrts, me"A"psrt~ overcomingoihsliels, anddne"!“part~ths integrationolnew beliefs intosnewsyshln. Thinkturn, permits stress tobs appliedatone, hem, ornsifllerettitspartsandallsvsfsrths isolation of the possible dines-anti“ m of stress on proh~ lem solving. Thisleadsssssmesdditiosslquestisns. Misha evidenoeinthelissrammprovideshesishrthepndicflosol any differential ease: ed siren on Merent parts otthe problem solving process. One might sesame hat the lovels of function-. ing represented by overcoming bench, and integrating beliefs ME diflerentiallyaflectsdbysn'ess. renamed-4 signed to provide an answer to this problem, and accordingly, the following explores-symptom were used: ' B. Hypotheses concerning the experimental variable: l. The street of experimentally induced stress on the totaltimetshenmsolvo theproblem: a. Persons high in dogmatism who have been sub- jected to experimentally induced stress while ‘. solving the pool-m should take hope in reach- ing a solution than persons high is dogmatism whohsvenotbeensubpctedmstress while solvhg the problem. b. l’srsses low in dogmatism who have been sub- jscmd ts enerimsntslly induced stress while solving a problem should take longer in reach- ingasolutiesthanpersons lowindogmatism who have not been subjected to stress vflle solving the problem. 2. The efiect oi experimentally induced stress on me overcoming or beliefs: a. Persons high in dogmatism who have been sub- jected m erperimenuny induced stress while solving a problem should have more dim- cuiry in the overcoming of beliefs than persons high in dogmatism who have not been subjected to stress while solving the problem. b. Persons low ildogmatism who have been sub? jected to experimentally induced stress while solving 1: problem should have more difliculty in the overcommg of beliefs than persons low in dogmatism sin have not been subjected to stress while solving the problem. 3. The effect of experimentally induced stress on the integration of beliefs into a new system: a. Persons high in dogmatism who have been sub- noted to experimentu induced stress while solving a problem slmuld have more difliculty in integrating beliefs into a new system than psrsonshighinmgmstismwhohsvsnotbesn subjectedmsu'oaswhilssolvmgmom'oblsm. b. Personslowindogmstismwhohsvebsensub- jectedtoesperimentallyindncedstresawhile solvingsproblem should have moredifliculty inintegretinghslietslntoasewsystemmsn parsesslowhtdogmstismwho havenotbesn subjectedmsu'esswhilesolvtngthe problem. In summary, in terms of the personlity variable, it is hypothesized that high dogmatic individuals will take huge: tosolvethoproblem andmintep-ste newboliots has system giving the solution than low dogmatic individuals, while there will be no differences between these mops on overcoming old beliefs. In mrms of the experimental variable, it is hypothesized theistress willdisruptellthreeaspectsdproblemsolvingper- romance, regardless of the dogmatism variable. METHOD SUBJECTS -'lhetotelenrollmantofaninn‘oductorycom'seinl’sy§ chology atMichigen State University during sprmgtsrm 1956, 614smdem,wesusedesepoolfromwhichtheflrst64erperi- mental subjects were chosen. The enrollment in three sections of the same course during spring term 1957, 144 students, was usedesepeltromwhichthslaetlo subjectswere draws. Bach person in the pool received, under cheereom conditions, a questionnaire in two parts. fart-l contained 60 items, of“ 40 represented the ”Dogmstism scale" as devised by Robsaoh us ), and the remeining items repruentedfiller items inter- spersed amongths dogmatism items. Part llcontained 50 items, oi which 28 represonud the short-form Taylor Anxiety Bulemursperudwimzziteme repesentingthe Rigidityscele ssdsviaedhyGoughendSanford(4). Theeescalss areeet forth in Appendix A. The subjects were allowed six choices of response for esaitamofl’art l (tam -3, withtheserorespmeelimie sated), and the summed responses were converted to scores by adding a constant of 160 to each subject's net response score, veryinghetween Oenddonetpoints. Therangeofecoresfor the forty items, therefore, extended from 40 points (extreme of low dogmatism ) to 280 points (extreme or high dogmatism ). The range oi scores observed in the pool of 614 subjects fell betweenalowscoreof 56, endahighscoreof 235. The i ‘_ , . . _ \ 3 v ‘ A i ’ .1 . . ' n o ‘ x . . e \ . l . . '. . t \ i ' . . . I l _ ‘ ' 1 ' d . I - J . 9. ranpseiswresobservedinthepoolotMsubjeotsisllbetveen slewsmssiBOandahighseoreoizzO. Twossotionsolsmdsnts (Ne52)inthetiret(l956) administraflou'werouulissdinoompmgthereliabilityoiths monetize: sosls in the Wendy. The testeremst relie- bilityior administrations two months apart (61 days) of .74 is comperabls to reliabilities. previously reported by Robsch (15) mm (13)." H Fromthsfirstsubjeetpool 82subjectswereclmsenon the basiseihigh dogmatism soeresand 32 subjecuwerechosen onmebssisollowdogmatismsoeres. 8inoetwoethsrsmdies inprozressutilisingthispooloisubjectn wersglvenahigher priority on extreme soorea,thssubiects choseniorthisstody dosstrepressntdaeexu-emetsflsolthedistribstienoidogma- tismsouss. Ramontheytsllinlhs range of ;0.9lem :2.00siarthslswgroup,endel.010 to +i.57eieribshigh you). Thesesubjsets weretiunranhmlyassigaedtothe misusesparimentelosnditioesbyaeolleegueaodlettbeex- perimenter would not know whom s given subject was high orlowinmgmadsmwhencondmdngtheerperimm. Fromthsseoondsubjeetpool, oneyssrlatsr, l6subjeots were chosen, matchsdiorsge, sex, dogmatism score, anxiety score, and righflty score in the lo subjects already tested in 1. Rohsch (15) reports split-hall reliabilities for the 40 item dogmstism scsle of .73 end .31, Vidnlich (18)).‘eportl a split-hell reliability of .78. 10. the rim-stress condition. These subjects, also, do not repre- sent the extreme tails d the distribution of dogmstism, since they were matched m the previous group. A description of the ma! sample of 80 subjects who per- ticipated in the experiment is set lord: in Table 1. DESIGN Thesxperimsntisistbiormofs 214:8 ambition sinvththeadditionelreplicstionoitwogroups. Forboth highandlowcbmatieuoupssn-esseonditionsmvsriedtrom streasnnestrsssonbothmsovsroomingeibelisis,sndthe hwegretioeoibslisia (i.e., stresson'A“, er'l", orhoth). Schematiesllyiorbothhiuhsndlswbsmatic groups: CONIXTION ”A” PA RT ”3" PART 8 -: 8 Stress Stress S ; N Stress lilo-latte“ N Z S No:stress Stress N . N No:stress No:stress PROGEwRE The subjects were individually Md, told thsyhsd boensehetedrandomly,endashedtesppeariorindvidualer« psrimsntstion. ‘lhesession required epproxirnstelyonshour andthsnrat 64 sessions; were-conducteddm'ingsdzree Week periodeidiintlnspringqusrter 1956. Theseeondle seams mommletedduringatwoweekpsriodeithinthespringgar- terl957. lnnocssedidtheexperimentarknowasubject'ssoore ll. “eaeaaeaasmz 2333:: (e v" s » .aq 2:393“ 22 23.5 Enuflfimfi 223”»: m2 22:2 22223" en 3 2 3" an I 2 «a a 2 z w: a 3 3 a: "eagefleaanau 233mg Sfiodnua manna»: makflofi :2 23m: :«uzhflq 2333.5 233.5: 2883:" zafiflus 2&2392 pandas“ zmafiflkq Sauna: mowing»: zfionmefi 22.22:: 232m!” 28:09: :82qu Eaton: Sandbag 232”?“ 2322:: 2 a d 2 v2 2 on 2 a «2 z a S 3 n2 2 on no 2 m5 managed" 2223a: Standby: Samoa a: Inmwdflfldl “Nodflms mfiflflm: lumfiwdum: eeohm oz .. eeohm oz wombat enohm oz emohm oz .. emohm eeohm .. 305m. .505 eofigoon =05 .. Emma mo garage .4 money 12. on a e «2 not: mafia BE m 2 I 2 2: 2 mm N. a n2 2 a 2 S 02 2 2 h 2 92 m S 3 o *2 m on o a as m 2 S a 5 2 an e 0 m2 wagons Sena «named Rosa: V “an: £58 32 2 mm m. w 02 m S o 3 5 m a e e Ru 2 a h a a: meadows“ trachea Landed "“3523 m an S 3 as 2 «a 3 a ”S m 8 S w 5 m an e m 5 demons“ zwmvnmfi mafiao: names»: 2 2 S 5 :2 m 2 m 3 as E «a a e «.5 2 2 m «u e: 2 2 o b .5 m on a a as m 2.. a n :2 2 mm a o. E 2 «N S a an m a S a .3 m «a a e 3: E on e a 8a m a a w an 2 «u S a g s. «a S a n3 2 E a n a: wandered.“ 5.,ummtufi=um.UHTZBDH ENE Z§§8 . N. m4n En 28:38 35. 24$,me upproachu ammonia: (113.07). It muldnumthntflnaflnmdiflomfihemmtmuym? mmawdummmnubm,mmm ummmmmmyunfi “exempt; mmmmmududm-IWW, W‘W:Ofl7fllmmmflemamchu m-mna (paw), Mbmmflm‘m indium nphfiuthmmmmmMNhoM. A. A fiv l. The correlation between manifest anxiety and dogmuthm bu been hand to la. in the neighborhood of 4-.48 (15, This study). 3s. DISCUSSION mflnflnpdmlmwmgardlngdnparumntyml- ahb, mm.mntmmmmroaflu (13,18). amnghmamOMIWdeonthmuhdonmm whmhthcwfiumpbmdrmyuldcdposmn results (6, 10). nape-ammmmmugmmmgmd hWnWbmthIM-mamnm Wham. munmhhhypomuh,dnoc ”MIMhhflummlubjoc-wuhmmuuu hhmddlpopuhdonummd. . WandIutl-mummmfi ammmcomprnmiblc. churuuluoldupolt-nxpefl- Mummhmmd,kwuflammt MMWmeymmm,hw Wanna-am m,blltheanmphmm “MhytbmW. Ounhnuflnmcthzdwcd www.mm. mmuhnmmmm Wm.wmummflsuuflyuuflnhfllb nutty. W.hmwdmnwngmmmnu wwmummmmncmmo m at bar-m mun-071d: an only thumb]. interc- mutton. mmummfimmm, m,uunmmmum. H,uhnlhonw,(18).dogmntumroprm ammunmmumwyuumumnp,mm [I O A. . L a A .' ‘ , I . ,, fi I D 1 ) ,' . . \ .‘ . ' 0‘ I . A , C A I g 37. presence of strong anxiety would likely disrupt this (blense . Thle would, in turn, create the need tor other, secondary, do- tenslve maneuvers on the pert o! the ego. One rather common secondary defence Is the dulllngofperceptlon (3), the ultimate ofwhlcb is fainting. It mlgn be hypothesized that this dulling wouldbe generallnneture endthus bommemoryendthe per- ceptlons of the task at band would be dulled. The decrement tnperformnncemtfldtbenbe apparent. lnthleregardthe result-oitheV‘ldullchemdy (18)erepert1mnt. Whentbe bmtcerds were keptbetorethe subjectlnthle study, time keeping the Itlmulus withln the subject's perceptlone, the decrement in the performance of the high dogmatic m not as severe. The low dogmetlc, on the other bend, being less re- elstentbo clunge wouldseem mbe more cepebloofdeenng . “mommy lnereelletlcenddlrectmenner, endprobebly doesnothevemreaerttodnmoreprlmldve, secondary defence. Furthermore, hie defenses ere sufficiently to heplngwlthreshtytlnthencednemmm suchemocbs- nlsm u the dulltngotpercepdon. Therolore, even when placed In a steam! situetlon the low dogmatic Individual shows m approchble decrement in problem solving per. toe-meme. Itcenootbe sold thatthe results ofthle emdyprovlded edeflnldnmwertotlnhypetbeoee edvencodymtmelndle adondthepreeenceolreeldlflerencee betweenthoeetwo grows of mdlvldmh, the high and low (tog-medal, short! he 38. suflicient to motivate further research in this particular area. This future work might wen capitalize on some of the problems of the present study, and perhaps choose a simpler and less threatening not than the flormldable lhnny Doodlebug Problem. Even in simple asks if the defensive structure of degmatism can be disrupud by sinistionsl stress there about! he a decrement in performance. Moreover, a task of this nature would per- haps allow the experimental variable to be degree of stress, rather than presence or absence of stress. It is dificult to determine whether a sinntion which appears to the ex- perimenter to be objectively non-stressful might, for the subject, be extremely stressful. This might, then, ex- plain the lack of diflsrentlstion between the nonestressed groups in this study. That is, the non-stressful conditions might have been, in tact, stressful tor these subjects. Manipulating degree might provide a control for this variable. The equivocal nature of the results of this study make it impossible to evaluate the McGovney (l3) and Vidulich (18) studies in regard to the effect of a stress variable operating to influence their results. ‘ 39. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Forty high and flirty low dogmatic individuals selected from classes in introductory psychology were used no test hypotheses concerning the effects of degmstlsm and stress on problem solving. Since the problem used allows for separ- ation of two distinct aspects of problem solving, a group of subjects was tested under each of the eight possible conditions of dogmatism and stress. The following results were obtained: 1. There were no significant differences between high and low dogmatic groups on the total time to solve tin problem, and on the time to integrate new be.- liefs into a new system, regardless of any condi- tions of experimentally induced stress. These findings are in opposition in those previously re- ported. 2. There were no significant dlfierences between high and low dogmatic groups on the overcoming of beliefs, regardless of any conditions of experimentally in; duoed stmss. This finding confirms those previously reported. 3. Whenthseflectoistress onthetotaltime msolvs the problem was considered for both high and low dogmatic groups, and for combined groups, there was a significant difference between stress and non- stress conditions in the high dogmatic group, but not 4.0. inthelow dogmstic group. The results for the combined maps approaches significance. 4. Stresssppliedduringtheovercomingolbeliefshss s cumulstive eflecton high dogmatics, such that bythstimesll'threebeliefshsvebeenovercome the differences between stress snd nonsstr‘essed Wishifllyupiflesnt. 'lhereverenodib foresees between stressed sud non-stressed groups isthelowdognsflegroup.‘ 5. Thoresersnosigniflcsnt differences between stress mmummummmmmm tllsinmlondbelislsintosnswsym. s. mammwnmmmbhmugnmé mméfiammmmea. sum, snyconditiomotstressmndsummotsssig- niflosntrejectionoithsprshhm. 7. Highdogmsticstendtobeeomemorssnxiousin fisprehlsmsslvingsinnmdiulovdogxnsdcl. mmmdstresstsndmprsdnesms sWsnxisty. WWqumum findings, dough nuns could he considered whollysstisrscsory. mmummmammmmm windsndssnmstionisrthssirseuonsflmursmssrchm msdeintsrmsdthismsctisn. 1. Z. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alper, Thelma G. Memory for completed and incom- pleted tasks as a function of personality: An analysis of group data. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1946, 41, 403-421. Deese, 3., and Lazarus, R. S. The effects of psychological stress upon performance: A theoretical analysis and review of recent developments. Unpubl. manuscript, 1953, Johns *{Opkim WVs Fenichel, O. Ibo Psychoanalytic Theory}! Neuroses, New York: W. W. Normn, I949. ' Gongh, 11., and Sanford, R. N. Rigidity as a psycho- logical variable. Unpubl. manuscript, 1952, Univ. of Calif" Institute of Personality Assessment and Research. fursrd, s. M. Ego strength and the recall of tssks. ' . Abnorm. Soc. Psychol, 1954, 49, 51-58. Leifey, John J. A theoretical and empirical analysis of loyalty to and defection from a belief system. Ump . M. A. thesis, Michigan State University, 1957. Lents, Beatrice Some dynamic especm of success and failure. PsycholLMonoE. 1945, 59, No. 1, (Whole No. 271). Lazarus, R. 3., and Deese, J, snd Osler, Sonia. The effects of psychological stress upon performance. Psychol. Bull. , 1952, 49, 293-317. ' Mandler, G., and Ssrason, S. B. A study of snxie nd httnlng. lo Abnorme $0. PSYCMIO, 1952’ 47’ 16 '173. Gram, A. Some determinants of the formation and modi- flcstion of new belief systems. Unpubl. M. A. thesis, Michigan Stste University, 1957. Rokesch, M. lbgmatism and Opinionstion on the left and on the right. Amer. P931101" 1952, 7, 310 (Abstract). Retesch, M. The more andanesning of degmstism. Emit ReVs, 1954, 61’ l94’204c Rokesch, M., McGovney, W. C., and Denny, M. R. A distinction between dogmatic and 1-1ch thinking. [. Abnorm 30¢. Pamle’ 1955, 5" 87’930 Rakesch, M. -On the unity of thought and belief. [. Pers., 1956' 25' 224-2500 15. 17. 18. 19. 20. 42. Rokeach, M. Political and religious dogmatism: An alternative to the suthoritarian personality. Psychol. MonOE., 1956’ 70, N0. :8 Wk No. 425). “183011, 80 Bo, Whaler, Cs, “d Crligblll, P. Go The effect of differential instructions on anxiety and :11?) .LAbuorm. Soc. Psychol., 1952, 47, ’ 50. Thorndike, E. L., and Woodyard, Ella. The influence of the relative frequency of successes and frustrations on intellectual achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. , 1934, 25’ 241-2500 Vidulich, R. N. The integration of multiple sets into a new beliefsystem. Unpubl. M. A. thesis, Michigan State University, 1956. White, C. The use of ranks in a test of significance for comlparing two treatmenm . Biometrics, 1952, 8' 33" s Weiner, M. The effect of two experimental counselling techniques on performance impaired by stress. 10 Abmms we PGICbQL, 1955, 51’ $5-572. Zeller, A. F. An experimental analogue of repression: 11. The effect of individual failure and success on memory measured by relearning. 1. Eq. Psychol . , 1950, 4'0, 411-4220 43. APPENDIX A The items comprising the dogmatism scale are marked withersd'D', sndwinheioundonpsges 4447. The items comps-illegals anxiety scale are marked with I red “A", and M d the rigidity scsle are marked wit s red “R”. These will he found on pages 48-50. DG III~MS 44 .Plcaec fill in the following information. DO NOT SIGN YOUR NAME IbtesssssssssossosssossssexsssssssssssDUte Of Birthssssssssssosisosoosssssosooss0000 City and State of BirthssssssssssssssesssssssssssoRellglouB Denomination...ooso.oooo Race or national extraction...u.......o..onnose... {The following is a study of what the general public thinks and feels about a number of important social and personal questions. Some of the things we want to know is how people feel about certain groups. In this study we ere particularly interested in how you feel about C tholics, PresbyteriPns, Lutherans, and Methodists. The best zinswer to each statement below is.y_gg personal gpinion. We hsve tried to cover many different and opposing points of view: you may find yourself agreeing strongy 1y with some of the statements, disagreeing Just as strongly with others, and per— haps uncertain about others; whether you.agrec or distgreo with any statement, you.can.bc sure that many other people feel the some way you do. lMark each statement in the left margin according to how much.you.agroo or disagree *with.it. Plea so mark every one. Write in {1, f2, {3, or ~l, «2, 43, depending on how you feel in csch case. +1: I new A LITTLE -1: I DISAGREE A LITTLE +2: I AGREE PREPTY MUCH ~2: I DISAGREE PRETTY MUCH 1 133 I noses VERY MUQHrfiWWW - .3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH g _+ 4 v fivw—y—v r—Wfi l2 1. A.person who thinks primarily of his own happiness is beneath contempt. 2. I would not hesitate to make friends with Catholics. L/' 3. The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something important. I 4. In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat myself several times to make euro I am being understood. 5. I am willing to have a Lutheran marry into my family. __JQL~ 6. Most people just don't know what's good for them. .__a£.... 7. In times like these, a person must be pretty selfish if he considers his own happiness primarily. 8. Methodists are more public epiritcd than most other groups. 9. A 1118,11 who dOCB not beller in Some great Cause has nOt really lived. I I 10. I'd like it if I should find someone who would tell me how to solve my personal problems. .11. Most Prosbytcricns live exceptionally moral and virtuous lives. )2 12. Of‘nll the different philosophies which have existed in this world there is probably only one which is correct. 42 13. It is when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that his life becomes meaningful. 1h. I would like to have Catholics in my fraternity or social club. ." :3 25 . __ 26. _12_ 27. .12. 28. 29. D 30. .JL 31. 32. P. 33. 4 .5134. 45 -2— DG IIIéMS +1: I AGREE A LITTIE -l: I DISAGREE A LITTLE +2: I AGREE PRETTY MUCH -2: I DISAGREE PRETTY MUCH +3: I AGREE VERY MUCH -3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH In this complicated world of cure the only way we can know'what is going on is to reLy'upon leaders or experts who can be trusted. There are a number of persons I have come to hate because of the things they stand for. I would not hesitate to make friends with Lutherans. There is so much to be done and so little time to do it in. It is better to be a dead hero than a live coward. I am willing to have a Methodist marry into my family. A group which tolerates too much difference of opinion among its own members cannot exist for long. It is only natural that a person should have a much better acquaintance with ideas he believes in than with ideas he opposes. Presbyterians are more public spirited than most other groups. While I don't like to admit this even to myself. I sometimes have the ambition to become a great man. like Einstein. or Beethoven. or Shakespeare. Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwile goal. it is unfortunately necessary at times to restrict the freedom of certain political groups. most Catholics live exceptionally moral and virtuous lives. If a man is to accomplish his mission in life it is sometimes necessary to gamble "all or nothing at all.” most people Just don't give a "damn" about others. I would like to have Lutherans in my fraternity or social club. A person who gets enthusiastic about a number of causes is likely to be a pretty "wishyuwashy" sort of person. To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous because it usually leads to the betrayal of our own side. I would not hesitate to make friends with methodists. If given the chance I would do something that would be of great benefit to the world. In times like these it is often necessary to be more on guard against ideas put out by certain people or groups in one's own camp than by +hnan in the nnmsino namn- __ 35. ._D_ 36. __.g__ " 3?. .___..38. _D_39- .4’ 40. “L 'g ;: uz. .12.. 1+3. _J.}_ 1&5. H 46. “7. 50- .2. 51. __.-_‘_. 52. __ 53. a 5“. x 55 0 ~ 46 +1: I AGREE A LI'I'I‘IE -l: I DISAGREE A LITTLE +2: I AGREE PRETTY'MUCH -2: I DISAGREE PRETTYWMUCH +3: I AGREE VERY MUCH ~3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH I amxwilling to have a Presbyterian marry into my family. In a heated discussion I generally become so absorbed in what I am going to say that I forget to listen to what the others are saying. Once I get wound up in a heated discussion I Just can't stop. Catholics are more public spirited than.most other groups. There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are on the side of truth and those who are against it. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature. Most Lutherans live exceptionally moral and virtuous lives. The United States and Russia have just about nothing in common. In the history of mankind there have probably been Just a handful of really great thinkers. I would like to have Methodists in my fraternity or social club. The highest four: of government is a democracy and the highest form of democracy is a government run by those who are most intelligent. The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is the future that counts. I would not hesitate to make friends with Presbyterians. Unfortunately. a good many people with whom I have discussed important social and moral problems don't really understand what is going on. Fundamentally. the world we live in is a pretty lonely place. I am willing to have a Catholic marry into mt family. It is often desirable to reserve judgment about what's going on until one has had a chance to hear the opinions of those one respects. The worst crime a person can commit is to attack publicly the people who believe in the same thing he does. Lutherans are more public spirited than most other groups. In the long run the best way to live is ‘topick friends and associates whose tastes. and beliefs are the same as one's own. Most of the ideas which get published nowadays aren't worth the paper they are printed on. 4.:- DG III - MS +1: I AGREE A LITI‘IE . -1: I DISAGREE A LITTLE +2: I AGREE PRETTY MUG! -2: I DISAGREE PRETTY MUCH +3: I AGREE. VERY MUCH -3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH 56. Host Methodists live exceptionally moral and virtuous lives. .__l2n.57. It is only natural for a person to be rather fearful of the future. 2 58. m blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he's wrong. __.__,59. I would like to have Presbyterians in my fraternity or social club. L2 60. 'When it comes to differences of opinion in religion we must be careful not to compromise with those who believe differently from the way we do. Here are four religious groups arranged in alphabetical order: Catholic Lutheran Methodist Presbyterian IF YOUR RELIGION IS ONE OF THESE: IF YOUR RELIGION IS NOT ONE OF THESE: On blank line number one below write On blank line number one below write the name of your religion. Now arrange the name of your religion. Now arrange the other three religions on the three the four religions listed above on the remaining blank lines, so that the four remaining blank lines. so that the religion which is most similar to yours religion which is most similar to yours 'will be on line two and the next most will be on‘line two and the next most similar will be on line three. Continue shmilar will be on line three. Continue in this way until you have finally put in this way until you have finally put the name of the least similar religion the name of the least similar religion in space four. in space five. l................................ 1................................. 2................................ 2................................. 3................................ 3................................. h................................ h................................. 5.0.0.00000000000IIOOOOIOOOOOOOOO. 48 FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS For this next series of items please answer TRUE if the statement applies to you; and FAISE if the statement does not apply to you. The best answer is one which states how you really feel about each item. Please work quickly; your first impression is the most important one. Remember - mark a 2 if the statement applies to you; an F if the statement does not apply to you. Mark your answer in the space in the left margin. if" 1. I am often sick to my stomach. i 2. I wish people would be more definite about things. E 3. I am about as nervous as other peOple. 1i. I don't like to work on a problem unless there is the possibility of coming out with a clear-cut and unambiguous answer. __,__ 5. I work under a great deal of strain. f“ t". 6. I am in favor of a very strict enforcement of all laws, no matter what the consequences. F 7. I blush as often as others. __‘{_‘j__ 6. For most questions there is just one right answer once a person is able to get all the facts. [I 9. I have diarrhea ("the runs") once a month or more. ‘3': 10. The trouble with many people is that they don't take things seriously enough. ___LL 11- I worry quite a bit over possible troubles. k 12. It bothers me when something unexpected interrupts my daily routine. _L._‘__ 13. When embarrassed I often break out in a sweat which is very annoying. E' 1“. I often start things I never finish. i 15. I do not often notice my heart pounding and I am seldom short of breath. } 16. I set a high standard for myself and feel others should do the same. I i 29. {Q 30. F’ 31. 49 T.- if the statement applies to you E_- if the statement does not apply to you Often my bowels don't move for several days at a time. People who seem.unsure and uncertain about things make me feel uncomfortable. At times I lose sleep over worry. most of the arguments or quarrels I get into are over matters of principle. ’ IMy sleep is restless and disturbed. I don't like things to be uncertain and unpredictable. I often dream.about things I don't like to tell other people. I think that I am.stricter about right and wrong than.most people. my feelings are hurt easier than.most people. I often find myself worrying about something. It is annoying to listen to a lecturer who cannot seem to make up his mind as to what he really believes. I wish I could be as happy as others. I feel anxious about something or someone almost all of the time. Once I have my mind made up I seldom.change it. .At times I am so restless that I cannot sit in a chair for very long. I have often felt that I faced so many difficulties I could not overseas theme I always see to it that my work is carefully planned and or— ganiz3fll : At times I have been worried beyond reason about something that really did not matter. I do not have as many fears as my friends. Our thinking would be a lot better off if we would just forget about words like Hprobably“, Japproximatelyd, and Jperhapsd. I am.more self-conscious than most people. I am.the kind of person who takes things hard. 50 T - if the statement applies to you E - if the statement does not apply to you I like to have a place for everything and everything in its place. I am a very nervous person. Life is often a strain for me. I never make Judgements about people until I am sure of the fQCtSe I am not at all confident of myself. I am known as a hard and steady worker. At times I feel that I am going to crack up. I find that a well-ordered mode of life, with regular hours and an established routine, is congenial to my temperament. I don't like to face a difficulty or make an important decision. A strong person will be able to make up his mind even on the most difficult questions. I am very confident of myself. It is hard for me to sympathize with a person who is always doubting and unsure about things. 51. APPENDIX B Page 51 is the data sheet used in this study, and on it are the items of the post-experimental anxiety and rejection scales. Items in 4 are the anxiety items, and items 5 m 9 are the rejacdon items. The former are circled in red, while the latter are circled in green. The other side of this sheet was used during the ex- periment to record the subject's responses, and the various measures of problem solving time. 52 Here are some questions which we would like you to answer. Please indicate how-You feel about. 98chitem~by circling the number which best "reflects youfijggg feelings... _, 1. means yeu disagree very strongly 2. means you disagree somewhat 3. means you have no particular feelings one way or the other. it. means you agree somewhat 5. means you agree very strongly. . 1.} Did you feel upset by the whole ‘situation? -- ' 1 2 (:3 lb - 5 2.\ Did you feel bothered if I made remarks about you when I gave the hints? ’ l 2 3 h ’ 5 ' 5.: Did you feel more upset before the 3rd hint? 1 2 3 u ‘ 5 it... Did you feel more upset after the 3rd hint? H l 2 3 lb . 5 (:5) Do you think the hints helped you to solve the problem? 1 2 ' 3 ' ' ‘ ~- h ' . 5 m (‘6) Do you feel you understoodthe hints? l 2 3 "it I 5 0 Did you enjoy the problem? ' .1.- a 3 1+ 5 {8.} Did you get angry with me or with the promos stem"... experiment? 1 2 3 h 5 (9) Did you think that this experiment was worth your time and effort? 1 2 3 h 5 Is there anything else that you want to say about the experiment? Please feel free to make any statements you wish by writing them below. GROUP: ' ' ; Name: p .. D: _, A: Date of birth: r l R: 4AA ACE: Time taken to overcome: lst set: '_A Sets over come in first 5 minutes: 2nd set: Sets overcome in first ten minutes: 3rd set: , Total Time to Solve: —e Time taken to solve after: lst set: —e 2nd set! ___+ 3rd setzr w A“ Recall: Number of sets recalled: _ , Total recall time: l_- Average recall time: a~e Date tested: ' _l. Hour: h_ in Remarks: