1

ll

III?!

Ill

0—:
com
0—8

 

THS'

AMBIENT ELLUMENAHON AND THE
RESPONSE OF CHICKS TO A
FLICKERQNG LEGHT

Thesis for Tim Degree of' M. A.
MCHIGAN STATE UNEVERSITY
Richard Fay Pain
1964

THESIS

 

[J LIBRA R Y
j Michigan State

LL University

 

AMBIENT ILLUMINATION AND THE RESPONSE OF
CHICKS TO A FLICKERING LIGHT

by
Richard Fay Pain

Abstract of a Master's Thesis
Completed Fall Term, 1964

Recent experimental and theoretical work in the
areas of imprinting and approach to a flickering light have
pointed to the importance of (l) the internal state of the
organism and (2) the intensity of stimuli occurring in
these situations. Most research in this area fails to
mention the visual (light) stimulation present prior to
imprinting or approach to light tests. This study was
directed toward the influence of light intensity in the
environment in which the organism was raised (raising—
environment) on the approach-withdrawal response to a
flickering light. Two specific responses were predicted.
Chicks raised in a low light intensity environment will
not approach a high intensity intermittent light stimulus
as much as they will a low intensity intermittent light
stimulus and chicks raised in a high light intensity environ—
ment will not approach a low intensity intermittent light
stimulus as much as they will a high intensity intermittent

light stimulus.

Richard Fay Pain

Forty white leghorn chicken eggs were incubated.
Chicks were reared in isolation pens. Twenty chidks were
raised in darkness while the other twenty were raised in
200 ft. C. illumination. Chicks were tested at 16 and 40
hours in a three foot runway with 10 and 200 ft. C. red
flickering test lights. ,TWO orders of test light presenta-
tion were used. Tests lasted five minutes with two tests
at each time of testing. Random noise was present through—
out the experiment.

Approach-withdrawal responses were measured by the
time spent in each of five sections of the test runway.

A four dimensional analysis of variance shOwed only the time
of testing (16 and 40 hours) main effect to be significant.
Order of test light presentation vs. time of testing,

order of test light presentation vs. test light intensity,
and raising condition (dark or 200 ft. C.) vs. time of
testing were the significant interactions.

The results were discussed in terms of two tenable
interpretations. Chicks may have approached the test light
at 40 hours after hatch more than at 16 hours because of
experience and familiarity with the test lights gained
during the 16 hour test. It is also possible that the
group reared in darkness did not mature at the same rate
as the chicks raised under high illumination. After
exposure to the test lights at 16 hours the group raised
in darkness may have "caught up" to the group raised in

under high illumination and at 40 hours both groups approached

Richard Fay Pain

the test lights to the same degree.

Several conclusions were drawn from this study.
The two specific responses predicted were not observed,
however the ambient illumination in the chicks raising-
environment was an important variable. Time of testing
chicks was also an important parameter of the approach
response. Intensity of the test light and order of pre—

senting the test light had a negligible effect of approach

responses.

Approved . 2?? ”a; “(91%,

Committee Chairman

Date: film“; :5 Of /7{’ f

Thesis Committee:
M. Ray Denny, Chairman
Robert McMichael
Charles Hanley

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sincerest appreciation is extended to my thesis
committee, Dr. Denny, Dr. McMichael, and Dr. Hanley for
their advice and patience.

I wish also to thank the staff of the MSU Poultry

Farm for their assistance and cooperation.

ii

INTRODUCTION

METHOD . .

RESULTS .

DISCUSSION

REFERENCES

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

iii

Page

15

21

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Summary of experimental design . . . . . . . . 8
Summary of analysis of variance . . . . . . . 10

Interaction:
vs. time
scores .

Interaction:
vs. test
scores .

Interaction:

order of test light presentation
of testing in weighted mean

0 O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 0 13

order of test light presentation
light intensity in weighted mean

0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 13

raising condition vs. time of

testing in weighted mean scores . . . . . 13

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

Page
1. Order of test light presentation vs.
time of testing interaction . . . . . . . l4
2. Order of test light presentation vs. test
light intensity interaction . . . . . . . l4
3. Raising condition vs. time of testing

interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l4

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
I. T—teSt values 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 23
II. Weighted Mean Scores . . . . . . . . . . . 24

vi

INT RODUCT ION

Recently Moltz (1963) developed a theory of im—
printing drawing heavily from the work of Schneirla (1959).
The theory uses the principle that in early ontogeny the
magnitude of stimulation impinging on the organism controls
approach (A-type) and withdrawal (W-type) behavior.

Low magnitude stimulation elicits A—type behavior
through the parasympathetic nervous system; through the
concurrence of parasympathetic arousal with low intensity
stimulation an "organic set" is developed. In terms of
this set an animal can readjust his position in an attempt
to maintain external stimulation within an intensity range
optimal for the set.

Imprinting, according to Moltz, is a precocial
bird's attempt to maintain stimulation within the optimal
intensity range of the A—type organic set. When an object
moves away from the organism stimulus intensity falls and
the organism follows (approaches) in an attempt to maintain
optimum intensity of stimulation. As an object approaches
stimulus intensity increases and the organism will not
approach or may withdraw to bring stimulus intensity within
the optimum range of the A—type organic set.

Experimentally Moltz (1963) found that an insignifi-

cant number of birds imprinted an object which was only

seen when moving toward the bird. Strength of imprinting
was significantly weaker than in a group of birds imprinted
on an object seen only when retreating from the bird. Of
the subjects seeing only the object moving away, a highly
significant percent imprinted on the retreating object.

The importance of an organism's internal state and
of stimulus intensity has been stated by Kovack and Hess
(1963) using a different approach than Moltz. These
investigators gave various intensities of shock to chicks
of different ages while the chicks were in the presence of
a moving object. The results indicated that "there is an
optimal intensity of excitation at which following is
maximal."

Sudden auditory stimulation given chicks while in
the presence of a moving object resulted in stronger
imprinting than in a control group not receiving the sudden
stimulus. Fitz and Ross (1960) suggest the importance of
"a certain level of arousal or CNS activation."

Smith and Hoyes (1961) used a blinking light as a
stimulus. They compared a dull (.002 ft. C.) and bright
(.36 ft. C.) light. A significantly greater number of
chicks approached the brighter light. These authors con—
clude that intensity is a crucial variable in a Chick's
response to an intermittent light stimulus.

The above works point to the importance of (l) the
internal state of the organism and (2) the intensity of

stimuli occurring in the test situation. The general trend

of imprinting and approach to light research and theory
appears to be towards the precise identification of the
relationship between the above two factors. In previous
research the conditions of raising before imprinting or
approach to light are described in terms of temperature,
isolation, and time, however, the intensity of illumination
in the raising environment is rarely stated. Several
investigators have raised chicks in darkness, e.g., Hess,
Smith and Hoyes; however, many other studies have not
indicated the illumination conditions of the test animals
prior to testing or imprinting.

Since the majority of imprinting and approach to
flickering light studies use visual stimuli it is apparent
that the intensity of visual stimulation in the raising and
testing situations may be related and may be an important
parameter to be studied and controlled. The research
reported below is directed toward this problem. In
general, it is expected that the intensity of the ambient
illumination in the raising environment will influence the
approach to a flickering light. It is further expected
that this influence will be apparent in two specific ways.
First, chickens raised in a low light intensity environment
should not approach a high intensity intermittent light
stimulus as much as they would a low intensity intermittent
light stimulus. Second, chickens raised in a high light

intensity environment should not approach a low intensity

intermittent light stimulus as much as they would a high

intensity intermittent light stimulus.

METHOD

Subjects: Fertile White Leghorn eggs were procured
from the MSU poultry farm. They were incubated in two
Brower 36 egg incubators. Within two hours after hatching
each chick was placed in an isolation pen. Chicks were
randomly assigned to pens and treatment groups. A total of
forty chicks were raised in isolation. Twenty were raised
in darkness and twenty in 200 ft. C. illumination.

Apparatus: After hatching the chicks were trans-
ferred to raising pens. Each chick occupied a 11.5" x
11.5" cubicle with 12" walls constructed of white 1/2"
celotex. The cubicles rested on 1/4" chicken wire raised
one inch off the ground. Cubicle floors were covered with
newspapers. Low intensity (darkness) raising pens were
covered with white bed sheet. High intensity raising pens
were covered with several layers of waxed paper which had
high transmittance but eliminated any "light spots."

Light was provided by 300 watt bulbs, one hung above every
two pens. The illumination was 200 ft. C. fairly evenly
distributed in each pen. All light readings were made with
a Grossen industrial light meter.

Each chick was tested in a runway three feet long,
one foot wide, and one foot high constructed of 1/2" white

celotex. The runway rested on 1/4" chidken wire elevated

U1

one inch off the ground with newspapers covering the floor.
The runway was unobtrusively marked off into five sections
of equal size. At one end of the runway a 3" diameter
hole was cut 1-1/2" from the runway floor. A piece of

red heat resistant gelatin paper was used as a filter to
cover the hole. A TDC slide projector was placed 10"

from the red filter. Light intensity from the projector
was controlled by a General Radio Variac. The chicks were
tested at 10 and 200 ft. c. A Marrietta variable speed
motor with 1/8" shaft was placed one inch from the red
gelatin filter. A piece of cardboard in the shape of a
half circle was mounted on the shaft. The cardboard was
rotated so that the light from the projector was on in the
runway .5 sec. and off .5 sec. The test and raising
apparatus were maintained at the same temperature, 88-92
degrees F. Ambient illumination around the test runway
was about 5 ft. C.

A General Radio noise generator (noise spectrum
20-20,000 cps) was run at 4-1/2 volts to provide a masking
noise. The noise was fed through a 10 watt Bell amplifier.
The amplifier output went to two Quam 4" speakers, one for
the low intensity and one for the high intensity raising
groups. Random noise was present in the test situation
also.

Procedure: Each chick was carried by hand from
his pen to the test runway by the experimenter. He was

placed at right angles to the light in the middle section

of the runway. After a half minute adaptation the blinking
light was turned on and time spent in each of the five
sections of the runway was recorded by stop watch. Ob-
servations of the Chick's behavior were also recorded.
After a five minute test the chick was picked up and
replaced in the middle of the runway at right angles to
the test light. After thirty seconds the light was presented
again; however, the intensity was different from the pre—
viously used light intensity. After the second five
minute test the chick was carried back to his pen. The
same procedure was followed at two separate times, once
at 16 hours after hatch and again at 40 hours after hatch.
There were, then, four conditions varied in the
experiment. Chicks were raised under high or low intensity
illumination. They were tested at 16 and 40 hours after
hatch. All chicks were tested with two light intensities,
10 and 200 ft. C., at both test times. Two orders of test
light presentation were used. Twenty chicks, ten from
each raising condition, received order 1, which was high
intensity test light first and low intensity light second.
The remaining twenty chicks received order 2, which was
_low intensity test light first and high intensity light
"second. This experimental design is summarized in

Table l.

Table 1.

Summary of experimental design.

 

 

 

 

 

16 Hours 40 Hours

0 Subject
r 1 High Low High Low
d . Test Test Test Test
e . Light Light Light Light
r .

High Intensity l 10

Environment 0
r 11
d . Low High Low High
e . Test Test Test Test
r . Light Light Light Light
2 20
O 21
r . High Low High Low
d . Test Test Test Test
e . Light Light Light Light
r O
l 30

Low Intensity

Environment
0 31
r . Low High Low High
d . Test Test Test Test

- e . Light Light Light Light

r .
2 40

 

 

RESULTS

Raw data for each chick consisted of the amount of
time spent in each section of the runway during each five
minute test. A Chick's data for each five minute test was
converted into a weighted mean score. The weights used
were the distances from the far end of each section to the
red filter paper. This distance was multiplied by the
time spent in the corresponding section. Theoretically
weighted mean scores could range from 360 (maximum approach)
to 1800 (maximum withdrawal) with 880 being the score if
the chick did not leave the starting section. A four
dimensional (2 x 2 x 2 x 2) analysis of variance was
performed on the weighted means. Table 2 presents the
results of the analysis.

From the recorded observations of the chick's
behavior it was noted that each group of chicks displayed
similar variability and types of behavior.

One main effect, time of testing, was significant
at the .001 level of confidence. The chicks spent more
time closer to the light (approached more) when tested
at 40 hours than when tested at 16 hours. The difference
exhibited in this main effect appears to be an outcome of
the raising condition vs. time of testing interaction which

will be discussed below.

10

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. Summary of analysis of variance.

Source SS df MS F
Order (a) 30,803 1 30,803 -—
Raising light (b) 267,978 1 267,978 1.556
a b 53,362 1 533362 --
Between Subjects 6,198,637 36 172,184

Total Between Ss 6,550,780 39
Time of test (c) 436,393 1 436,393 15.297***
Test light (d) 3,784 1 3,784 --
a c 153,635 1 153,635 5.3856*
a d 236,542 1 236,542 8.29**
b c 521,893 1 521,893 18.29***
b d 41,601 1 41,601 -—
c d 36,119 1 36,119 --
a b d 111,411 1 111,411 3.905
a c d 47,268 1 47,268 1.656
b c d 24,849 1 24,849 ——
a b c d 63,033 1 63,033 2.21
Error 3,080,958 108 28,527
Total Within 4,166,728 120
Total SS 11,317,508 159
Note: * = .05
*1: = .01
*** = .001

11

Of the interactions four were significant beyond
at least the .05 level of confidence. First, order of test
light presentation vs. time of testing was significant at
the .05 level. The weighted means for this interaction are
given in Table 3. It is evident that the chiCks tested
with order 2 increased in approach responses at 40 hours
more than the order 1 chicks. A t-test for correlated
means failed to find significance between any of the
cells. The nature of the interaction (see Figure l) was
the change in mean approach between 16 and 40 hours for
the order 2 group.

Secondly, the order of test light presentation vs.
test light intensity interaction was significant at the
.01 level. The weighted means are given in Table 4. There
is no significant difference between any of the cells as
tested by critical difference or t—test. The interaction
is the result of the balanced design used. Any parallel
trend in the order 1 and 2 data appear as an interaction
in the analysis of variance. It is apparent that which—
ever light was presented second was approached more than
the lhght presented first.

Third is the raising condition vs. time of testing
interaction which is significant at the .001 level. From
Table 5 of means it is evident that the interaction results
from the large score of the chicks raised in the low illumi-
nation environment and tested at 16 hours, regardless of test

light intensity. Critical difference and t-test show the

12

mean in cell c to be significantly larger (.01 level)

than the other meansin the table.

13

Table 3. Interaction: order of test light presentation and
time of testing--in weighted mean scores.

 

 

 

16 Hours 40 Hours
Order 1 827 784
(Hi-Lo)
Order 2 861 695
(Lo-Hi)

 

Table 4. Interaction: order of test light presentation and
test light intensity--in weighted mean scores.

 

 

 

High Low

Order 1 849 762
(Hi-Lo)

Order 2 744 811
(Lo-Hi)

 

Table 5. Interaction: raising condition and time of testing-
in weighted mean scores.

 

 

 

16 Hours 40 Hours
High Raise 746 756
(200 ft. C.)
Low Raise 942 723

(Darkness)

 

Figure 1.

Mean
Approach-
Withdrawal
Scores

Figure 2.

Mean
Approach-
Withdrawal
Scores

Figure 3.

Mean
Approach-
Withdrawal
Scores

14

Order of test light presentation vs. time of

test intensity interaction.

 

 

900
850 K \
800 ‘ \
750 \ \ \ Order 1
700 \ \0 Order 2
650

16 Hours 40 Hours

Order of test light presentation vs. test light
intensity interaction

 

 

1
900
850
D .. " I Orderi
750 r—"
700
650
High Low

Raising condition test light vs. time of testing
interaction.

950
900 \

850 \
800 \

750 j \ (e.#i233.
700 V L" “"58

650

 

#4

a?

16 Hours 40 Hours

DISCUSSION

It is evident that the results do not support the
two specifically predicted responses. More importantly
the general expectation being tested (raising light
intensities affect approach-withdrawal responses) did have
support. First, chicks raised in darkness and subjected
to light at 16 hours stayed farther from the flickering
light than the chicks raised under high illumination (refer
to Table 5). At 40 hours the chicks raised in darkness
approached the flickering light significantly more than
at 16 hours. One way of looking at the above behavior is
that it is a reaction to avoid an unfamiliar stimulus or
at least not to approach it. The Chick's reared in darkness
experienced light for 10 minutes at 16 hours. It is pos—
sible that this experience familiarized the chicks with
light. Then, when tested at 40 hours, these same chicks
approached the light to the same degree as chicks reared
in 200 ft. C. illumination. Further support for this
interpretation can be found in the order of test light
presentation vs. test light intensity (Table 4) interaction.
Chicks approached the light more during the second five
minute test than during the first five minute test,

regardless of test light intensity first experienced.

15

16

In other words, after an experience with a test light the
chicks would more quidkly approach more closely either
light intensity.

The order of test light presentation vs. time of
testing interaction (Table 3) supports the idea of increased
approach to the light with increasing experience. Regard-
less of the order of test light presentation the chicks
approached more at 40 hours than at 16 hours.

A second interpretation is also supported by the
results. The chicks reared in darkness may mature at a
different rate from the chicks raised in high intensity
illumination. This explanation might be particularly
appropriate in regard to the raising condition vs. time
of testing interaction. There was little change in the
approach response of chicks raised in high illumination
at 16 and 40 hours. Chicks reared in darkness, however,
approached significantly more at 40 than at 16 hours.
These chidks approached significantly less than the
chicks reared in 200 ft. C. illumination at 16 hours only.
It is possible that darkness retarded development of the
approach response. After exposure to light at 16 hours
plus twenty-four hours additional development time that
dark reared animals "caught up" or developed to a level
similar to that of the chicks reared in 200 ft. C.

Imprinting experimenters and theorists have been
very much interested in the critical period. The critical

period has been thought to be the period of time when

17

imprinting or following was most likely to occur. Studies
dealing with approach to light have not examined the
critical period. While imprinting and approach to light
responses have not been equated many similarities have
been noted and discussed. The results of this study
appear to show a dissimilarity between imprinting and
approach to light. There was no evidence of a critical
period or "time limit" on the chicks approach to lights
response. Actually the opposite occurred. The chicks
approached the test light significantly more as they in-
creased in age. It should be noted that this result can
be taken as a contraindication to interpreting the
results of this study in terms of fear responses. Hess
(1959) hypothesized the development of fear as the major
variable terminating imprintability, e.g., ending the
critical period. In this study there was no evidence of
the end of a critical period and fear may not have appeared.

The above discussion cannot be taken to mean that
there is not a critical period for the approach to light
response. The study only tested two points on the time
continuum and it is possible that both points were in the
early or later part of the critical period. It is also
possible that the reSponse measures used were not sensitive
to a critical period. A much more thorough study of the
relation between time and response to light is necessary
before any conclusive statement can be made.

While the effect of arousal on the approach response

was not directly studied in this experiment two questions

18

are implied by the results. First, does the stimulation
resulting in increased arousal and consequently greater
imprinting need to be different from the light which is to
be approached or the object to be followed? The present
study found no difference in response to high vs. low test
light. If a substantial increase in light intensity, i.e.,
10 to 200 ft. C. is considered a stimulus which might
increase arousal a difference in response would have been
expected. It is possible that the present study used two
light intensities which were both on the upper end of a
scale of intensities for a chicken. Secondly, perhaps
another distinguishing feature between imprinting and
approach to light behavior is the effect of arousal.
Several studies mentioned earlier have indicated that in—
creased arousal strengthens imprinting. It is possible
that the operations used in these studies to increase
arousal will result in no effect on approach to light
responses.

The results of this study are somewhat similar to
those of Polt and Hess (1964).1 They gave chicks a two
hour presentation of a 100 watt bulb before testing in
Hess's imprinting apparatus. Two experimental and two
control groups were used. Controls were kept in darkness

until tested. Experimental groups were exposed to light at

 

1The experiment reported in this thesis was con-
ceived and executed between October, 1964, and March, 1964,
prior to publication of the Polt and Hess work.

19

either 16 or 48 hours after hatch and then tested. The
only significant (p < .05) difference in following was

between chicks exposed to light and tested at 48 hours

and the control chidks tested at 48 hours.

Although analysis of variance was not used by Polt
and Hess it appears that there was an interaction between
time of testing and light intensity of the environment
prior to testing. This is essentially the'same result
found in this study. But, this comparison only holds in
a very general way. When more closely examined it is seen
that the significant behavioral differences do not occur
at the same testing time, e.g., Polt and Hess found a
difference at 48 hours while this study found the dif-
ference at 16 hours after hatch.» Since very different
methodologies and analyses were used in the two experi—
ments an explanation for this discrepancy does not appear
self-evident.

By way of summary several conclusions can be
stated. The time of testing chick approach to a flickering
light is an important and significant parameter to be
controlled and studied. Intensity of the ambient illumi-
nation in the raising-environment of chicks appears to
influence subsequent approach to a flidkering light as a
function of the time of testing. Further experimentation
in this area should control and report pre—test visual
(light) environment. Otherwise experiments will not be

comparable.

20

The results imply that test light intensity and
order of test light presentation have a negligible influence
on chidk's approach to light. Two interpretations of the
results were discussed. Familiarity with light and dif—
fering maturation rates are both tenableand supported by
the results. Further experimentation is obviously necessary.
This study also leads to several other experimental
possibilities. These are: (1) is arousal influential
on approach to light behavior? (2) Is it necessary for
arousal to be in another sense modality or from a source
other than the flickering light? (3) What is the detailed
relation between raising-environment light intensity and
time of testing, e.g., many points on the time continuum
should be studied. (4) Does a critical period appear in

the response to flickering light as it does in imprinting?

REFERENCES

Abercrombie and James. The stability of the cosmetic
Chick's response to visual flicker. Anim. Beh.,
9, 1961, 205-212.

Gray, P. VThe releasers of imprinting: differential
reactions to color as a function of maturation.
J. Comp. Physiol. Psych., 54, 1961, 597-601.

Guiton, P. Socialization and imprinting in brown leghorn
chicks. Anim. Beh., 7, 1959, 26-34.

Hess, E. Imprinting. Science, 130, 1959, 133—141.

James, H. Social inhibition of the domestic chicks'
response to visual flicker. Anim. Beh., 8, 1960,
223-224.

Kaufman and Hinde. Factors influencing distress calling
in chicks, with special reference to temperature
changes and social isolation. Anim. Beh., 9, 1961,
197-204.

Klopfer, P. and Gottlieb. Imprinting and behavioral poly-
morphism: auditory and visual imprinting in
domestic ducks and the involvement of the critical .
period. J. Comp. Physiol. Psych., 55, 1962, 126-130.

Kovach and Hess. Imprinting: effects of painful stimulation
upon the following response. J. Comp. Physiol.
Psych., 56, 1963, 461-464.

Moltz, H. Imprinting: an epigenetic approach.
Psych. Rev., 30, 1963, 123-137.

Pitz and Ross. Imprinting as a function of arousal.
J. Comp. Physiol. Psych., 54, 1961, 602-604.

Polt, J., and Hess, E. Following and imprinting: Effects
of light and social experience. Science, 143,
1964, 1185.

Schneirla, T. An evolutionary and developmental theory of
biphasic processes underlying approach and with-
drawal. In Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation, 1959, Lincoln, U. of Neb. Press, l-4l.

21

22

Slucking and Salzen. Imprinting and perceptual learning.
Quart. J. Exp. Psych., 13, 1961, 65-77.

Smith, F. Towards a definition of the stimulus situation
for the approach response in the domestic chick.
Anim. Beh., 8‘ 1960' 197-200.

Smith and Hoyes. Properties of the Visual stimuli for the
approach response in the domestic chick. Anim.
Beho’ 9' 1961' 159-166.

Tolman, C. W. A possible relationship between the
imprinting critical period and arousal. Psych.
Rec., 13, 1963, 181-185.

APPENDIX I

T-test Values

Interaction: Order of Test Light Presentation and Time

of Testing
order 1 -- 16 hours vs. 40 hours t = 1.2
order 2 -— 16 hours vs. 40 hours t = 3.11
40 hours -- order 1 vs. order 2 t = 3.28

Interaction: Order of Test Light Presentation and Test
Light Intensity

order 1 —- high vs. low t = 3.27
order 2 -- high vs. low t = 2.366
high test light -- order 1 vs. order 2 t = 1.895

Interaction: Raising Condition and Time of Testing

5.185
3.86

Raise Low -- 16 vs. 40 hours t
16 hours —- high raise vs. low raise t

23

APPENDIX II

Weighted Mean Scores

 

 

Subject 16 hours 40 hours
Hi Lo Hi Lo
1 654 438 1034.4 591.6
2 914.4 537.6 1080 1252.8
order 1 3 616.8 482.8 880.8 520.8
4 592.8 464.4 608.4 410.4
5 940.8 852 1236 1080
6 780 542.4 672 428.4
7 762 507.6 490.8 446.4
8 806.4 464.4 717.6 1104
9 1080 1080 1080 816
10 936 610.8 765.6 585.6
High Raise
Lo Hi Lo Hi
11 841.2 1056 626.4 507.6
12 644.4 690 681.6 540
13 656.4 454.8 732 396
14 591.6 572.4 628.8 577.2
15 746.4 471.6 660 436.8
16 1059.6 1056 848.4 540
17 948 1080 1080 640.8
order 2 18 705.6 608.4 798 783.6
19 760.8 732 574.8 532.8
20 1018.8 1088.4 1382.4 1466.4
Hi Lo Hi Lo
21 1080 1183.2 639.6 640.8
order 1 22 667.2 498 620.4 498
23 1080 1080 1080 1080
24 714 1080 794.4 570
25 1080 1080 1080 837.6
26 676.8 484.8 448.8 400.8
27 856.8 548.4 543.6 400.8
28 1080 1526.4 807.6 1573.2
29 966 846 939.6 740.4
30 1080 1412.4 1080 804

Low Raise

 

24

25

Subject 16 hours 40 hours

Lo Hi Lo Hi
31 1080 1080 1016.4 808.8
32 871.2 997.2 484.8 452.4

33 1016.4 1051.2 1101.6 942
34 1080 730.8 944.4 531.6
35 1080 1056 747.6 1126.8
36 846 1080 452.4 376.8
37 1080 1009.2 538.8 408.8

38 792 879.6 862.8 498
order 2 39 535.2 424.8 486 493.2

40 900 1080 566.4 519.6

 

umummnu nmmwwmmmmuum

3 1293