H

l
l

i

I!
H‘

:‘HIHIIW

llhlfll'

WW!

I
!

m_\
.b_\
CD01

THS

 

EX‘E'RAVERSQON-ENTRQVERSDN AND RHENTION
OF K2NES?HETEC AFTER-EFFECTS

Thssis far the 969393 of M A
MICHEGAN S?A?§ UNWERSWY
fierda ‘E‘, G, Mann
3963

1112:5515

 

r’

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 
 
    

__. .._ __.~'..—

ABSTRACT

Two experiments bearing on the problem of retention of
kinesthetic after-effects were carried out. A kinesthetic
after-effect is defined as the change in the point of sub-
jective equality (PSE) of the width of wooden bars (standard)
after kinesthetic exposure (inspection) of both hands, one
to a bar wider than the standard and one to a bar narrower
than the standard. In the first study it was found that over
a period of three days, with kinesthetic inspection on each
day there is a growth in size of the after-effect, due to
the fact that on each day but on the first the pre-inspection
PSE is higher than on the previous day, indicating a residual
after-effect or retention at the fitter-effect. It was also
found that there was still significant retention of after-
effect two weeks after the last inspection period.

The second eXperiment also involved retention of after-
effect. Two weeks after a 10 minute kinesthetic inspection
period, there was still significant retention of the after-
effect. A control group, having no kinesthetic inspection
showed no systematic change in PSE over a two week period.

The design of the second ekperiment allowed for a test
of Eysenck's hypothesis that there should be‘a relationship ‘
between size of after-effect, retention of after-effect, and
extraversion-introversion. Six groups were tested. There was
an extravert, ambivert, and introvert control group and 3
-experimental group. None of the analyses showed any signifi-
cant main effect or interaction invslving the extraversion

variable. Results do not support the Eysenck hypothesis.

BXTRAVERSION-IEDROVERSION AND
RETENTION OF KIKESTHETIC

AFTER-EFFECTS

By

Gerda T. G. Liem

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1963

C, Q C (.9 if 7
li/vV/ég

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express her sincere appreciation
to the chairman of her committee, Dr. Paul Bakan, for his
assistance in the planning of this research and the preparation
of the thesis proper. Dr. Bakan's patience and guidancewas
a continual source of encouragement.

The author also wishes to acknowledge the other
members of her committee, Dr. Charles Hanley and Dr. Robert
McMichael, for their many instructive suggestions.

Above all, she wishes to express her gratitude to
Mr. Frank Ney Fong Mah for the great understanding he showed,
for his encouragements, and for his continual support during

the course of her studies. To him this thesis is dedicated.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
Persistence of after-effects
Learning and after-effects
Extraversion-introversion and after-effects

The present investigations

METHOD
Experiment I
Subjects and design
Apparatus
Procedure
Results

Experiment II

Subjects and design
Apparatus
Insructions
Procedure
Results

DISCUSSION

SUMMARY

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

iii

Page

dd
Ul-‘(Dm CD CD 0\ U1 # h)

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
.1. Design of Experiment I 9
2. Summary of the Analysis of Variance

of Experiment I 15
3. Design of Experiment II 21

4. Analysis of variance of the immediate after-effect
on Day 1 (Exp II) 25

5. Analysis of Variance of the residual after-effect
(Exp II) . 25

6. Analysis of Variance of the Immediate after-effect
on Day 2 (Exp II) 95

iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Schematic Diagram of Apparatus 10

2. Immediate and residual kinesthetic after-effects
as a function of the amount of inspection,
data pertaining to Experiment I 14

3. Immediate and residual kinesthetic after-effects
as a function of the amount of inspection for
Introverts, Ambiverts, and Extraverts 23

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
I. Maudsley Personality Inventory 34
II. Data from Experiment I 39
III. Data from Experiment II 41

vi

INTRODUCTION

An after-effect is the distortion or displacement of a
perception after exposure to an inspection stimulus. After-
effects have been found in a number of modalities. The present
studies are concerned with kinesthetic after-effects, specifi-
cally with the retention of these effects and the relation
between the personality variable extraversion—introversion and
after-effects.

The classical study of kinesthetic after-effects was
done by Koehler and Dinnerstein (1947), though Gibson and
Radner (1937) had reported this earlier. Koehler and Dinner-
stein had blindfolded subjects judge the width of a standard
width block held in one hand by using the other hand to find
a point of subjective equality on a variable width block.

Ss then "inspected" a third block, either wider or narrower
than the standard. Inspection consisted of rubbing the in-
spectioneblock between the thumb and one finger of the hand
that held the standard block before inspection. After inspec~
tion there was a tendency for 88 who had rubbed the narrow
inspection block to have wider PSE than they had before in-
spection. The reverse was true for 83 who had rubbed the

wider inepection block. This distortion is the kinesthetic
after-effect. It was measured by taking the difference between
the average of a number of pre-inspection and post-inepection

judgments.

Persistencg of after-effects

An interesting result of a number of studies of after-
effects has been the persistence of the after-effects over
time. Gibson (1933) reported some of his visual after-effects
persisting over hours even days. Koehler and Wallach (1944)
and Koehler and Fisback (1950) have reported persistence of
visual after-effects over months.

Koehler and Dinnerstein (1947) found that when testing
daily over a period of weeks there was a growth of the after-
effects, indicating day to day retention and new growth added
to the residual effect of the previous day. Some of their 89
showed residual after-effects as long as 5 months after the
last inspection period. Wertheimer and Leventhal (1958)
reported significant residual after-effects 8 months after
the inspection period. Other studies reporting retention of
kinesthetic after-effects are those of Gardner (1961), Heine-
mann (1961) and Bakan and Thompson (1962).

The studies most relevant to the present investigation
are those of Wertheimer and Leventhal (1958) and Bakan and
Thompson (1962). Wertheimer and Leventhal conducted their
experiment with three groups of subjects who came at the
same time of day for five successive days. The first group
was the control group and was not given inspection at any
time, but Spent 1 minute between the pre-test and the post-
test standing at rest between the inspection blocks without
touching them. The second group was given 1 minute of inspec-

tion between the pre- and post-inspection measures of PSE.

3

The third group was given 1 minute of inspection between the
pre-and post-test and 4 minutes of further inspection follow-
ing the post-test. Their results reveal that the after-effects
increase with an increase in the amount of inspection induced.
There was an increase in pre-inspection judgment as a function
of day, with Group 3, the five minute group, showing the
greatest increase and Group 1, the control group, the small-
est increase.

While Wertheimer and Leventhal investigated retention
of kinesthetic after-effects on a short-term basis, Bakan and
Thompson have found retention of kinesthetic after-effects
on a long-term basis. On their first day of study 31 subjects
were given 45 seconds of inspection; these Ss returned one
week after Day 1 and were given 10 minutes of inspection,
consisting of ten 60 seconds inspection periods with a five
second rest period between them. Twenty seven 83 returned
approximately 1 month after Day 2 and were tested on the
retention of after-effects. These authors have found signifi-
cant differences (P=.005) between the pre- and post-inspection
measures of PSE on Day 1. The pre-inspection measures on
Day 2 also differed significantly from the pre-inspection
measures on Day 1 (P=.OO1). Although the PSE of the post-
inspection measures on Day 2 was significantly reduced after
1 month, there was a residual after-effect significant at
the .005 level measured against the pre-inspection trials

on Day 10

Learning and after-effects

Several investigators have suggested an analogy between
after-effects and learning. A general definition of learning
considers that it is a relatively permanent change in beha-
vior as a result of practice. An after-effect can be consider-
ed as such a change if inspection is considered as a form of
practice. Amount of inspection would be analOgous to number
of trials or amount of practice. It has been shown that
amount of inspection is positively related to size of after-
effect (Bakan, Myers, and Schoonard, 1962, and Wertheimer
and Ieventhal, 1958). Bakan (1962) has suggested that after-
effects may actually be a primitive kind of learning. Koehler
and Fishback (1950) have suggested that neural satiation,
the tissue change postulated by Koehler and Wallach (1944)
as the neural substrate of the after-effect, may be a change
.similar to that of the memory trace, the neural substrate of
learning. In their article they say: "it seems possible that
memory traces are weak patterns of satiation; but at the
present time no convincing proof of this thesis can be given.
(Koehler and Fishback, 1950 p. 409)

There is still another view of the relation between
learning and after-effects. This is that satiation is a pro-
cess akin to reactive inhibition (IR) of Hullian theory.

This view has been prOposed by Duncan (1956) and Eysenck
(1955b). This view is expressed by Eysenck: i
"Phenomena of reminiscence, of massed and spaced learn—

ing, of vigilance, of blocking and many others, have been
interpreted in terms of inhibition. While it remains

5
possible, of course, that in each separate case we must
have recourse to a different type of inhibition, this
does not seem a likely contingency, and the hypothesis
certainly seems worth testing that it is the same type
of cortical inhibition which causes all these phenomena
as well as the perceptual ones" (Eysenck, 1955, p. 105).

Extraversion;igtroversion and after-effects

In several of his works (1947. 1953, 1955. 1960).
Eysenck classified the dysthymic personality as the prototype
of introversion and the hysteric perspnality as the prototype
of extraversion. He took the Hullian law of inhibition as
his point of departure and preposed a postulate of individual

differences:

"Human beings differ with respect to the speed with.which
reactive inhibition is produced, the strength of the
reactive inhibition produced, and the speed with which
reactive inhibition is dissipated. These differences
themselves are properties of the physical structures
involved in the evocation of responses." (Eysenck, 1955,

pp. 34-35)
In order to make his theory complete he added one fur-
ther postulate which may be stated as follows:

"Individuals in whom reactive inhibition is generated
quickly, in whom strong reactive inhibitions are generated,
and in whom reactive inhibition is dissipated slowly are
thereby predisposed to develop extraverted patterns of
behavior and to develop hysterico-psychopathic disorders
in cases of neurotic breakdown; conversely, individuals
in whom reactive inhibition has developed slowly, in
whom weak reactive inhibitions are generated, and in
whom reactive inhibition is dissipated quickly, are
thereby predisposed to develop introverted patterns of
behavior and to develop dysthymic disorders in cases of
neurotic breakdown." (Ibid.) '

Assuming a correspondence between satiation and reactive
inhibition, Eysenck (1955b) deduced that hysterics, or extra-

verts, will differ from the dysthymics, or introverts, on a

6
number of satiation phenomena, with respect to the speed of
induction, strength, and persistence of figural after-effects.
It is his opinion that: (1) hysterics develop satiation and
figural after-effects more quickly than do dysthymics; (2)
that hysterics develop stronger satiation and figural after-
effects than do dysthymics; and (3) that hysterics develop
more persistent satiation and figural after-effects than do
dysthymics. Thus, it can be predicted that extraverts will
have greater retention of kinesthetic after-effects than

introverts.

The present investigations

This thesis consisted of two experiments. Experiment I
is a replication and extension of the Wertheimer and Laven-
thal study (1958). Instead of testing the subjects for five
successive days, E tested the growth of kinesthetic after-
effects over a period of three successive days. An experimen-
tal group, for which kinesthetic after-effects were induced
by kinesthetic inspection of wooden blocks, was compared with
a control group whose Ss received the same treatment except
for kinesthetic inspection. Another modification of the
Wertheimer and Leventhal study was that the Ss of the experi—
mental and the control group returned two weeks after the
third experimental day and were tested for residual kinesthe-
tic after-effects. If the learning analogy applies here, it
can be predicted that the experimental group should show

greater immediate and residual after-effects than the control

7
group, since the size of kinesthetic after-effects is related
to the amount of inspection.

Experiment II was modelled after the Bakan and Thompson
study (1962). Several alterations were made in the procedure
of their eXperiment. First, Bakan and Thompson failed to
include a no-inspection control group in their study, there-
fore the main contribution of this thesis was the introduc-
tion of a control group. Second, while the Se in Bakan and
Thompson's eXperiment inspected with only with one hand, the
Ss in the present investigation inspected with both hands
with stimuli respectively narrower and wider than the standard
in each hand. Third, instead of subjecting the Ss in the
experimental group to a 45 second and a 10 minute inspection
period, these 83 were given only 10 minutes of inspection
between the pre- and post-inspection measures of PSE on Day 1.
Fourth, in contrast to Bakan and Thompson, E tested the Ss
on the retention of kinesthetic after-effects over two weeks
rather than over one month. Fifth, one additional factor was
introduced in the present study, namely, the personality
variable introversion-extraversion. It was predicted that the
experimental group should differ from the control group with
respect to the size of immediate and residual after-effects.
Moreover, in agreement with Eysenck, it was expected that

extraverts should show greater satiation effects and retention

than introverts.

METHOD

'As was mentioned in the introduction of this thesis,
this study consisted of two experiments which differed with
respect to samples and procedure. The experiments will be

considered separately.

Experiment I

Subjects and design

This sample consisted of 33 volunteers of both sexes
from introductory psycholOgy courses at Michigan State
University. Each S came at the same time of day for three
successive days and on a fourth day, two weeks after the
third day. 88 were randomly assigned to an experimental
group for which kinesthetic after-effects were induced by
kinesthetic "inspection" of wooden inspection blocks, and a
control group which received the same treatment except for
the kinesthetic inSpection. The design of the experiment is
outlined in Table 1.

Apparatus

A schematic diagram of the apparatus is presented in
Figure 1. The apparatus consisted of 4 wooden blocks. In the
front were 2 test blocks: on S's right was a variable width
stimulus which was 1 in. wide at the near end and increased
in width at the rate of 1/32 in. per inch to 2 7/8 in. at the

far end; on the left was a standard stimulus of 1% in. In the

‘—..__

P”

I

2 wks
after

D833

 

Table 1

Design of Experiment I

Experimental

 

-..a

4 practice trials

Pre-inspection
1 min. inspection
Post-inspection

4 min. inspection

 

“c-- --.—.—_——a.- - u.

Pre—inSpection
1 min. inspection
Post-inspection

4 min. inspection

.y.._._.___....._._s..-.. ._..__. “M---“ . -

Pre-inspection
1 min. inepection
Post-inepection

4 min. inspection

 

 

 

Pre-inspection
1 min. inspection

Post-inspection

m-.._....-.w___v_..-...r_ .— —...

 

Group

 

Control

 

4 practice trials

Pre-rest
1 min. rest

Post-rest

Pre-rest
1 min. rest

Post-rest

.. _- -wW‘VC-‘v _. .

Pre-rest
1 min. rest

Post-rest

7'"- .-

 

 

Pre-rest
1 mn. re St

Post-rest

 

 

~_._-..._ -——- -—-

 

 

 

 

 

 

11" 1 u
2 .
.3 S's position
3 .
s X
33 PSE period 1
m ' \
'u
‘* \
a
'U
C
:5
4.7
to /
2 118 I! ..._._.
%11 31."

 

og- -_

.- .-d’ "I“.

S's position
I x 5
Inspection period

 

Inspection Stimulus

 

 

4“

All blocks are 60" long and 2" thick

 

 

4b,“ V” “I m _

10

Variable Width Stimulus

Inspection Stimulus

—_—-.._.‘--- _.___.—

- 'w "'.1...-—...- .--v-L.._v-.-—.—.t .a....- . n “-

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of apparatus

 

11
back were 2 "inspection" blocks: the left block was a in. wide
and the right block was 2% in. wide. All blocks were 60 in.
long and 2 in. thick, they were mounted on tables which were
36 in. high, and parallel to each other. A movable Hsshped
rider was affixed to the variable width stimulus in such a
way that the position of the thumb and the forefinger was
kept constant as S moved these fingers up and down along the

sides of the block.

Procedure

All Ss were blindfoded during the experiment. The pro-
cedure for the experimental group consisted of taking a mea-
sure of point of subjective equality (PSE) of the standard
stimulus before and after a 1 minute inepection period. Fol-
lowing the post-inspection measure on each of the first three
days there was a 4 minute inspection period. For the control
group 2 measures of the PSE separated by 1 minute were taken
each day. Each PSE is the mean of 4 settings made by S on the
variable width stimulus. E reset the starting point on the
variable width stimulus at the beginning of each trial to
produce an ADDA order of starting points, A meaning a setting
below the point of objective equality (ascending) and D
meaning a setting above the point of objective equality
(descending).

The inspection period came between the pre- and post-
inspection measures of PSE. The subjects in the experimental.

group would step back and rub back and forth on the two

12
inspection stimuli simultaneously, for 1 minute, with one in

each hand at the rate of about 1 movement per second of about
18 in. along the inspection stimuli. Subjects in the control
group were not given inspection at any time but spent 1 min.
between the pre- and post-test trials standing at rest between
the "inspection" stimuli without touching them.

The following instructions were given to Ss in the
experimental group: "In this experiment we want to see how
accurately you can match the width of a wooden bar held in
your right hand with a wooden bar held in your left hand. You
are now standing between 2 wooden bars. The one on.your left
is the same width throughout, the one on your right is taper-
ed fpom thin at the front to thick in the back. (Let S feel
the bars) Your task will be to find a point on the tapered
bar in your right hand which feels equal in width to the bar
in your left hand. I will show you where to place your hand
at the start of each trial, it will be at a different place
from trial to trial. We will now have a few practice trials.
Remember, you are to move your hand back and forth along the
tapered bar until you find a point which feels equal in width
to the bar in your left hand. Do you have any questions?...
Please step back. You are new again standing between 2 bars.
You will hold a bar between the thumb and forefinger of each
hand and rub back and forth along both bars with both hands
at the same time. (Demonstrate 1/sec. over 18 in.)... New
will you please step forward. Hold the bars as before and

find a place on the bar in your right hand which feels equal

13
in width to the bar in your left hand £23,... Please step
back again . Hold the bars between the thumb and forefinger
of each.hand and rub back and forth along both bars with
both hands at the same time, till I ask you to stop". The
control group received the same instructions except for
rubbing the "inspection" bars.

Measures of immediate and residual after-effects were
taken. Immediate after-effects is the difference between the
mean width of PSE chosen during the pre-inSpection trials and
the mean width chosen during the post-inspection trials.
Residual after-effect is the difference between the width
chosen during the pre—inspection trials on the first day of
study and the mean width chosen during the pre-inspection

trials of the next day of study.

Results

The results of the experiment are summarized graphical-
ly in Figure 2. The analysis of the data appears in Table 2.

It can be observed from Figure 2 that the experimental
group showed an increase in pre-inspection PSE from the first
to the third day of the study. Although the PSE of the post-
inspection trials on Day 3 was reduced considerably after 2
weeks, the mean width of the pre-inspection trials on Day 4
is still greater than that of Day 1, indicating a residual
after-effect. The immediate after-effect is also directly
observable, the PSE of the postéinspection trials were greater

than the PSE of the pre-inspection trials on each experimen-

14

 

WW—n—u-h-m—s- -,.l, Ans—o-w-e‘ -,,.‘-- ~--o~~ru' -. , .a-e-a- --,‘-

 

 

 

 

 

’rj; ~———~ Experimental .
3 o 1 «a Control '
l
.c;: ;
O O 1
as a
V ' 1.70 1 i
at:
.mp4 1
43V i
39...: 1.65 1* / ' g
F: 43 a .
rd 3 \ i
:3: !, \\
3"" 1.60 ', ‘ /
4-313 i
(3%
o m i \\
53".? 1.55 + .
‘3 CU ‘ \
«4p \
43:!) i \
m o 1.50 T .\4
043 - .
Q34 5 \l l- ' ‘
13m ‘--»/”' ‘~«,//" ;
g $3 1045 1* -.
0‘ I
1&1 i
0 5
pi; 1.40-» 1
C. no
a?
are i
Q : AL ._..........___. -- .-.: “-4.. .... . 4 .. a..- a L
>3 Pre Post Pre Po st Pre Post Pre Post
1 2 3
Day

Figure 2. Immediate and residual kinesthetic after-effects
as a function of the amount of inspection, data pertaining
to Experiment I

15
tal day. The control group, on the other hand, did not show
a trend of increase in pre-inspection PSE nor in post-
inspection PSE, but their mean widths remained relatively
stable. The learning analogy applies here: the experimental
group which was subjected to kinesthetic inspection showed
an increase in kinesthetic after-effects with practice, and
showed retention after 2 weeks; the size of immediate and
residual after-effects was a function of the kinesthetic
inspection.

It should be mentioned that the two groups had an un-
equal number of subjects, the experimental group had an N of
17, while the control group had an N of only 16. In order to
facilitate computations the mean of the control group was
assigned to a fictitious S number 17.

i The procedure for analyzing the data was derived from
Lindquist (1956) and Edwards (1960). "Inspection" refers to
the experimental and control groups, 1. e., the presence of
kinesthetic inepection; "Periods" applies to pre- and post-
inspection periods; and "Days" has reference to Day 1, Day 2,
Day 3, and Day 4.

The F value for the Inspection is significant at the
1% level. From this fact it can be concluded that the means
of the experimental and the control groups differ significant-
ly from each other. The experimental group showed evidence
of immediate and residual after-effects, while the control
group showed no increase in pre-inspection PSE from day to

day, nor between pre- and post-inspection PSE within days.

16
Table 2

Summary of the Analysis of Variance

of Experiment I

 

 

 

 

 

 

r

I Source of Variation Sum of d.f. Mean F P

‘ Squares Square

i Between Subjects:

5 Inspection (C) .85 1 .85 12.14 .01
3 Error (b) i 2.31 32 .07

i 2

5 Within subjects: %

: Days § .15 3 .05 12.50 .01

g Periods : .15 1 .15 37.50 .01

i Days x Periods i .02 3 .005 1.50 '5 i
i Days x Inspection ; .12 3 .04 10.00 .01;
i Periods x Inspection; 1 .18 1 .18 45.00 .01:
i Days x Periods x

i Inspection ; .01 3 .003 .75 .5

i Error (within) 1.10 224 .004

1 Within Sum of
f Squares (total) i 1.73 238 .007

 

 

.0... fix...—
‘ I
g.
u— -‘ ww.--N A~—..-.-—- 0-4-
.

--__-'..—

Total 4.89 271

 

 

‘F-nn.ua -l..lb. ' w.“ a. ‘ &—*.~ o~--.-4..\-" ~..- , or. “Q‘i .-m.&,- 0".- r-o. nil-l I’m-l-m‘

 

17

The main effects of Days represent a comparison between
the means of Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, and Day 4, for both the
experimental and the control groups taken as a whole. The ex-
planation for a significant (P<.01) mean square for Days is
that the means of Day,1, Day 2, Day 3, and Day 4 differ sig-
nificantly from each other; this is attributed to the fact
that the residual after-effect for the experimental group
increased from day to day. The variation due to days must be
considered in terms of the significant Days x Inspection
interaction. ’

Similarly, the main effect of Periods indicate a com-
parison between the means of the pre-inspection and the post-
inspection periods over the four days for both groups. A
significant mean square for Periods (P<.01) is due to the
fact that the means of all pre-inspection periods differ
significantly from the means of all post-inspection periods;
this main effect must be considered in terms of the signifi-
cant Period x Inspection interaction.

The Days x Periods interaction mean square is not sig-
nificant (P>.5). This means that the difference between the
means of Periods is not dependent on Days. .

The Days x Inspection interaction mean square is sig-
nificant (P<.01). This means that the change over Days is a
function of inspection. The magnitude of the difference be-
tween tne means of Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, and Day 4 is not
the same for the experimental and the control groups. This

is obvious from the results which show that the experimental

18
group showed increasing after-effects during the course of
the study, while the control group did not show any after-
effects.

The same explanation holds for the significant Periods x
Inspection interaction mean square (P<.01). This means thati I
kinesthetic after-effects are produced by inapection. The
difference between the means of the pre- and post-inspection
periods of the experimental group is considerable while the
difference for the control group is minimal. The F value for
Days x Periods x Inspection interaction is not significant..

The significance of the difference between the residual
after-effects after two weeks for the experimental and the
control group was tested by means of a §.test and was found
to be significant (P<.01). This means that the experimental
group differed significantly from the control group with
respect to the residual after-effects, which is an indication
that the retention of kinesthetic after-effects is a function
of the kinesthetic inspection induced.

Experiment II
Subjects and design
The Maudsley Personality Inventory was given to 144
male and female students of introductory psychology courses
at Michigan State University. The MP1 was develOped by H. J.
Eysenck and it is intended to measure on the verbal level

two dimensions of peronality: Introversion-Extraversion and

19
Neuroticism. The E (extraversion) and N (neuroticism) scale
of the MPI were derived from rather elaborate procedures in-
volving item analysis and factor analysis of other personality
inventories, principally the Guilford inventory of factors
STDCR and the Maudsley Medical Questionnaire. The items
making up the scale are highly correlated with factors they
are said to measure and they have significant correlations
with other factors. The complete MPI is given in Appendix I. .
It consists of 24 E-scale items, 24 N-items, 20 Lie-scale
items, and 12 "buffer" items which help in concealing the
nature of the questionnaire from the subject. The Lie-scale
was intended to detect subjects who tend to present them-
selves in a favorable light to such an extent as to make the
validity of their scores questionable. Two points are given
to the designated scale for the keyed responses, and one
point to the designated scale for the questionable responses.
Thus the possible range of scores on the E and N scale is
from 0 to 48.

Sixty-six mglg,subjects were selected to serve as a
sample for this experiment. Twenty-two of these students who
scored lowest on the MPI represented the introverted group;

22 of the subjects who obtained a middle range score were
selected for the ambivert group; and 22 of the subjects who
scored highest were considered the extraverts. The Se in

each of these groups were randomly assigned to an experimental
group for which kinesthetic after-effects were induced by

kinesthetic "inspection" of wooden inspection blocks, and a

20
control group which received the same treatment except for
the kinesthetic inspection. All the subjects returned two
weeks after their first experiment to be tested for the
retention of kinesthetic after-effects. The design of the

experiment is shown in summary in Table 3.

Apparatus
The apparatus used in Experiment II is the same as the

one used in EXperiment I.

Instructions

These subjects were given similar instructions as those
of Experiment I, with the exception that the experimental
groups were not instructed to rub the inspection blocks

following the post-inspection trials.

Procedure

some modifications were made in the procedure of
EXperiment II. All Ss were blindfolded during the experiment.
The procedure for the experimental group consisted of taking
a measure of PSE of the standard stimulus before and after
a 10 minute inspection period. For the control group 2 mea-
sures of the PSE separated by 10 minutes were taken on the
first day. Each PSE is again the mean of 4 settings made by
S on the variable width stimulus. E reset the starting point
on the variable width stimulus at the beginning of each.trial

to produce an ADDA order of starting points, A meaning a

Table 3

Design of Experiment II

 

P

'0-0—c-om- g..-.—-‘._-—-.-...

 

 

21

.
.._ anus—“7.

 

 

 

 

 

-- --._._._._.__,____._. -. . .L

 

 

Day Group
Introvert‘ Ambivert
Expmntl Control Expmntl Control
4 pract. 4 pract. 4 pract. 4 pract.
1 4 pre- 4 pre- 4 pre- 4 pre-
10' insp. 10' rest! 10' insp. 10' rest
4 post- 4 post- i 4 post- 4 post-
i
5 _ . . .. -
. 4 pre- 4 pre- f 4 pre- 4 pre-
2 g .
2 wks 1' insp. 1' rest j 1' insp. 1' rest
after ‘
Day 1 4 post- ,4 post- ' 4 post- 4 post-
(N=11) (N=11)‘ (N:11) (N=11)

«A... o . .. —.- - -‘O 1.- .-.v——— m .——-w—---—-~A

 

 

 

 

(11:11)

 

._-..- ....,._-. -- _.- .41

Extravert
Expmntl Control ,
4 pract. 4 pract.;
4 pre- -4 pre- E
10' inSp. 10' rest;
4 post- 4 post—
_. ii_ld _,J.. ,rg

; 4 pre- 4 pre- 2
1‘ insp. 1' rest
4 post- 4 post-

 

22
setting below the point of objective equality (ascending) and
D meaning a setting above the point of objective equality
(descending).

‘The inspection period came between the pre- and post-
inspection measures of PSE. The Ss of the experimental group
would step back and rub back and forth on the 2 inspection
stimuli simultaneously for 10 minutes, consisting of ten 60
seconds inspection periods with a 5 second rest period be-
tween them. They would hold one block in each hand and rub
back and forth at the rate of about 1 movement per second of
about 18 in. along the inspection stimuli. Ss in the control
group were not given inspection at any time but spent 10 min.
between the pre- and post-test trials at rest between the
inSpection stimuli without touching them.

All subjects returned 2 weeks after the first day. On
the second day the experimental group was given only 1 min.
of inspection between the pre- and the post-inspection mea-

sures of PSE, and the control group rested for one minute.

Results

A graphic presentation of the results of Experiment II
appears in Figure 3. It is evident from this graph that the
experimental groups showed a great increase in the post-
inspection measures of PSE which was due to the long inspec-
tion period. Although the post-inspection PSE of Day 1 was
significantly reduced after two weeks, the Ss in the experi-

mental groups nevertheless showed residual after-effects.

Width (Inches)
% Inches)

Judged Equal to Standard Width (1

Mean Pre- and Post-inspection

1.55

1.50

 

A“ 4.-

.___.__..--. Introvert Exp.
,4 . Ambivert Exp.
is Extravert Exp.

— ... Introvert Cont.
. A Ambivert Cont.
o)». - ~41 Enravefl COnt.

 

 

 

 

Day

2

Po st

23

Figure 3. Immediate and residual kinesthetic after-effects

as a function of the amount of inspection for Introverts,

Ambivert s , and Ext ravert s

24
Their means of the pre-inSpection measures on Day 2 were
greater than the means of the PSE of the pre-inspection
measures on Day 1. It is observable that the extraverts
showed the greatest residual after-effects, their mean of
PSE of the pro-inspection trials on Day 2 was not as greatly
reduced as compared with the ambiverts and introverts. The
increase in the post-inspection PSE on Day 2 is again an
indication of the effect of inspection. It is obvious that
the control groups did not show immediate after-effects;
although they showed an increase in PSE of the pro-inspection
measures on Day 2, this increase was not significant.

The results of Experiment II were statistically analyzed
by means of three analyses of variance, the first one to
determine the significance of the immediate after-effects on
Day 1, the second one to measure retention or residual after-
effects, and the third one to indicate the immediate after-
effects on Day 2. These analyses of variance are summarized
in Tables 4, 5, and 6. '

With respect to the immediate after-effects on Day 1,
it can be concluded from Table 4 that the introverts, ambi-
verts, and extraverts, taken as a whole, do not differ signi-
ficantly from each other (P>.5). However, if the experimental
groups are compared with the control groups, the results
indicate that these groups differ considerably with respect
to the immediate after-effects on Day 1 (P<;01). This signi-
ficant difference is due to the fact that the experimental

groups were affected by the "inSpection" of the inspection

25
Table 4
Analysis of Variance of the immediate after-effects on Day 1 (Exp II)

f .
Source SS df MS F P

 

“a

 

-——.--'—- ¢.-\-.- .._- --- . --.-.. - ----- _--_—.--..w-

 

Intro-ambi-extravert (A) 60.09 2 30.05 .11 *.5

Experimental-control (B) 31461.84 1 31461.84 113.28 <.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A x B interaction 61.29 2 30.65 .11 3.5
Error within 16664.10 60 277.74
_+_ -_ y ~_i_alnn 1“_ hm,.l____lm__
(Total 48247.32 65
Table 5

Analysis of Variance of the residual after-effects (Exp II)

 

 

 

 

;Source SS df MS F P i
;1ntro-aa6i:;i£;;§ar£'(i)' ““3ag:;;““““;“"““ 154.11 .76 >.5 ;
lExperimental-control (B) 1080.14 1 1080.14 5.30 2.05l
A x B interaction 60.80 2 30.40 .15 >.5 3

12230.37 60 3?93t§f.fl ;

Error within

 

 

-"0‘~".-- wr- __. "n‘vr-Cr-oa-ntw- - --~ :——.-—-~

Total

 

_4
13679.53 65 j

H .1- ...u a- .—

 

Table 6
Analysis of Variance of the immediate after-effects on Day 2 (Exp II)

 

._._ ---—a-.~e .“III‘ e-- --. -_. ""'
-~.—- -.._._

Source SS df MS F P

 

 

 

 

:n1r6-am61:;stravast'1i1, ”'177.55 2 38.78 .36 3.5

1
1
1

Experimental-control (B); 4751.22 1 4751.52 43.50 4.01‘

 

 

 

 

A x B interaction i 553.82 2 276.91 2.54 ,AD5i
1Error within 1 6553.11 60 109.22
Tota‘i“ ' H i I M i i119‘3‘6".'00m"6'5_m " A

Man--.‘ ,_ -—---“r~\'—-'-ch

26
stimuli. Table 4 also reveals that the interaction between
the three major and the two subgr0ups is not significant
(P>.5), this indicates that the difference between the means
of the experimental and the control groups is not dependent
on introversion, ambiversion, or extraversion.

Turning next to the results of the residual after-
effects or retention of after-effects, Table 5 shows that
there is no significant difference between the three major
groups as a whole (P>s'5). When the results are considered
for the two subgroups, it is noted that a significance was
reached at the 5% level, this indicates that the experimental
groups differed significantly from the control groups in
their retentionuof after-effects. This means that the resie
dual after-effects of the experimental groups were due to
inspection. The interaction between the introverts, ambiverts,
extraverts, and the experimental, control groups is not
significant (1>>.5). This again indicates that the difference
between the means of the experimental and the control groups
is not dependent on introversion, ambiversion, or extraversion.

'When introverts, ambiverts, and axtraverts are compared
with each other with reference to the immediate after-effects
on Day 2, it is evident that they do not differ significantly
from each other (P>.5). The results of Table 6 indicate that
the means of the experimental groups once again differ sig-
nificantly from the means of the control group (P<}01). This
again indicates that the experimental groups were affected

by the "inspection" of the inspection stimuli and therefore

 

 

27
showed greater after-effects than the control groups. Con-
sidering the interaction between the three major and the two
subgroups it is concluded that the interaction is not sig-
nificant. Since the interaction is not significant (Pin 05),
it is concluded that the difference between the means of the
experimental and the control groups is not dependent on
introversion, ambiversion, or extraversion.

Although Figure 3 indicates that the extraverts showed
greater residual after-effects than the ambiverts and the
introverts, the statistical analyses do not indicate that
there is a relationship between either size of after-effect

or retention of after-effect and extraversion—introversion.

28
DISCUSSION

The first experiment was a partial replication of an
experiment by Wertheimer and Leventhal (1958). The results
support their findings in showing that there is an increase
in the size of the kinesthetic after-effects as total amount
of inspection is increased from the first to the third day.
In contrast there is no build-up in a control group. This
finding supports the general idea of analogy or similarity
between the behavioral changes more traditionally found in
learning experiments.

Working within the framework of this analogy the ex-
periment was extended to include a longer range measure of
retention of the kinesthetic after-effects two weeks after
the last day of kinesthetic inspection. The finding of a
residual after-effect after two weeks suggests that an
induced after-effect need not be considered as a transient
phenomenon. On the other hand, there is obviously a decrement
insize of kinsethetic after-effect over the two week period.
Here again the phenomenon, or change in behavior, seems to
be behaving in a manner analogous to that of learning
phenomena. There is both decrease over time and retention
over time.

The second experiment was designed to give subjects a
long inspection period (10 minutes) and then to see whether
there was residual after-effect two weeks later. Retention

a month later was reported by Bakan and Thompson (1962), but

29
in their study the results are equivocal since there was no
control group for whom a measure of PSE was taken, and then
taken again a month later. In order to be sure that the
change in PSE measured later was due to the inspection, a
control group was introduced which was treated the same as
the experimental group except for the kinesthetic inspection
period. It is concluded that the residual after-effect two
weeks after inspection was due to the after-effect induced
by the inspection, since there was no rise in the PSE with
mere passage of time. From this result it may be inferred
that the finding of Bakan and Thompson was also a function
of residual after-effect due to prior inspection.

The second experiment was designed to allow for a study
of the relationship between after-effects and the extraversion-
introversion dimension. The results do not indicate that
there is a relationship between either size of after-effect
or retention of after-effect and extraversion-introversion.
Though such a relationship has been predicted and reported
by Eysenck (1955) it has not been confirmed by other inves-
tigators (Broadbent, 1961, and Rechtschaffen, 1958). The
present study adds further negative.evidence relevant to the

Eysenok hypothesis.

30
SUMMARY

Two experiments bearing on'the problem of retention of
kinesthetic after-effects were carried out. A kinesthetic
after-effect is defined as the change in the point of sub-
Jective equality (PSE) of the width of a wooden bar (standard)
after kinesthetic exposure (inspection) of both hands, one
to a bar wider than the standard and one to a bar narrower
than the standard. In the first study it was found that over
a period of three days, with kinesthetic inspection on each
day there is growth in size of the after-effect, due to the
fact that on each day but the first the pre-inspection TSE
is higher than on the previous day, indicating a residual
- after-effect or retention of the after-effect. It was also
found that there was still significant retention of the
after-effect two weeks after the last inapection period.

The second experiment also involved retention of after-
effect. Two weeks after a 10 minute kinesthetic inspection
period, there was still significant retention of the after-
effect. A control group, having no kinesthetic inspection
showed no systematic change in PSE over a two week period.

The design of the second experiment allowed for a test
of Eysenck's hypothesis that there should be a relationship
between size of after-effect, retention of after-effect, and
extreversion-introversion. Six groups were tested. There was
an extravert, ambivert, and introvert control group and
experimental group. None of the analyses showed any signifi-
cant main effect or interaction involving the extraversion

variable. The results do not support the Eysenck hypothesis.

31
REFERENCES

Bakan, P. and Thompson, R. On the relation between induced
and residual kinesthetic after-effects. Percept. Mot.
Skills, 1962, _5, 391-6.

Broadbent, D. E. PsychOphysical methods and individual
differences in the kinesthetic figural after-effect.

Bri___t_. J. Psychol., 1961,12,. 97-104.

Duncan, G. P. On the similarity between reactive inhibition
and neural satiation. Amer._J, Psychgl., 1956. 69. .
227-35.

Edwards, A. L. Experimental Designs ig_Psychological Research.
New York: Holt, 19 O.

Eysenck, H. J. Dimensions of Personaligy. London: Routledge
& Kegan 1311:, 1937-0

1 The Structures of Human Personality. London:.Methuen,
953. ,.

, A dynamic theory of anxiety and hysteria. J. Ment.
$01., 1955, 1019 28- 510 .

, Cortical inhibition, figural after-effects, and the
theory of personality. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1955.
L, 94-106.

, Reminiscence, drive and personality theory. J. Abnorm.
Soc. Psychol., 1956, 53, 328- 33.

(Ed). Experimegts in Personality. London: Routledge
& Kegan aul, 9 O

Gardner, R. A. Immediate and residual figural after-effects
in kinesthesis. Amer. J. Psychol., 1961, 4, 457-61.

Gibson, J. J. Adaptation, after-effect and contrast in the
pgrception of curved lines. J. Exg. Psychol., 1933,
1 1 31 ‘

, and Radner, M. Adaptation, after-effect, and con-
trast in the perception of tilted lines. 1. Exp.

Heinemann, E. G. Figural after-effects in kinesthesis:
effects of objects width and repeated representations.

g, Egg. Psychol., 1961, 61, 51-6

32

Jensen, A. R. The Maudsley Personality Inventory. Acta.
Psychol., 1958, 13, 314—25.

Jung, C. G. Psychologipal Types Lr phe Psychology ‘ikm
duapio¥.4Translated by H. G. Baynes, London egan
Pa 9 6

Koehler, W. Qynamips p;_Psychology. New York: Liveright, 1940.

, and Dinnerstein, D. Figural after-effects in

kinesthesis. In Miscell. Ps ch01. Albert Michotte.
Louvain: Institut Superiew ePhilosophie, 1937,

196-220.

, and Fishback, J. The destruction of the Mueller-
Lyer illusion in repeated trials: 2. Satiation patterns

and memory traces. J. E12. Psychol., 1950, __, 398- 410.

, and Wallach, H. Figural after-effects: an investi-
gation of visual processes. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc.,

Lindquist, E. F. Design and Analysis p§.Expe;1men¥s
Psychology and Education. Boston: Mifflin, 95 .

Rechtschaffen, A. Neural satiation, reactive inhibition,
and extraversion-introversion. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol.,

1958, 51. 283- 91.

Wertheimer, M. and Leventhal, C. M. "Permanent" satiation
phenomena with kinesthetic figural after-effects.

J, EEBo Psychol., 1958, 55, 255-7.

34
APPENDIX I
MAUDSLEY PERSONALITY INVENTORY

Questionnaire
Instructions: Please answer each question by filling in one
of the spaces on the answer sheet next to the number corres-
ponding to the question number on the survey sheet.
If your answer is yes fill in the first space. If your answer
is no fill in the second space. If you simply cannot make up
your _mind for a question fill in the third space.
Work quickly and do not ponder too long about the exact shade
of meaning of each question. There are no right or wrong
answers, and no trick questions.

All your answers should appear on the answer sheet. Do not
make any marks on the sheet with the questions.

Do not put your name on the answer sheet.

Remenber 32_answer gagh question.

1. Are you inclined to limit your acquaintances to a select
few?

2. Do you prefer action to planning for action?

3. Do you always have a "ready answer" for remarks directed
at you?

4. Are your daydreams frequently about things that can never
came true?

5. As a child, did you always do as you were told, immediately
and without grumbling?

6. Are you inclined to be quick and sure in your actions?

7. Do you have difficulty in making new friends?

8. Do you sometimes put off until tomorrow what you ought
to do today?

9. Are you inclined to take your work casually, that is, as a

matter of course?

10.
11.

12.

13.
14.

15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.
30.

35
Do you often feel disgruntled?
Are you inclined to ponder over your past?
If you say you will do something, do you always keep your
promise no matter how inconvenient it might be to do so?
Do you like to mix socially with people?
Are you inclined to be shy in the presence of the opposite
sex?
Do you sometimes get cross?
Do you often eXperience periods of loneliness?
Are you touchy on various subjects?
Do you often find that you have made up your mind too late?
Are you completely free of prejudice of any kind?
Are you inclined to be overconscientious?
Do you often "have the time of life" at social affairs?
Do you ever change from happiness to sadness, or vice
versa, without good reason?
Do you like to play pranks upon others?
Do you sometimes laugh at a dirty joke?
Does your mind often wander while you are trying to con-
centrate?
Would you rate yourself as a tense or "high-strung"
individual?
After a critical moment is over, do you usually think of
something you should have done but failed to do?
Would you rather win, than lose a game?
Do you find it easy, as a rule, to make new acquaintances?

Do you ever have a queer feeling that you are not your

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.
39.

40.
41.

42.

43.

45.

46.

36
old self?
Do you ever take your work as if it were a matter of life
or death?
Are you frequently "lost in thought" even when supposed
to be taking part in a conversation? ,
Do you always feel genuinely pleased when a bitter
enemy achieves a merited success?
Do you derive more real satisfaction from social activi-
ties than from anything else? ;
Do ideas run through your head so that you cannot sleep?
Do you sometimes boast a little?
Can you usually let yourself go and have an hilariously
good time at a gay party?
Do you like to indulge in a reverie (daydreaming)?
Have you often felt listless and tired for no good
reason?
Are all your habits good and desirable ones?
Are you inclined to keep quiet when out in a social
group?
Are you sometimes bubbling over with energy and sometimes
very sluggish?
Do you always answer a personal letter as soon as you
can after you have read it?f h
Would you rate yourself as a talkative individual?
Do you occasionally have thoughts and ideas that you
would not like other peOple to know about?

Would you be very unhappy if you were prevented from

47.

49.
50.

51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.

57.
58.
59.

60.
61.
62.
63.

64.
65.

37
making numerous social contacts?
Are you happiest when you get involved in some project
that calls for rapid action?
Do you spend much time in thinking over good times you
have had in the past?
Do you sometimes talk about things you know nothing
about?
Have you ever been bothered by having a useless thought
come into your mind repeatedly? '
Do other people regard you as a lively individual?
Do you sometimes gossip?
Do you usually keep fairly uniform spirits?
Are your feelings rather easily hurt?
At times, have you ever told a lie?
Do you generally prefer to take the lead in group
activities?
Would you rate yourself as a happy-go-lucky individual?
Have you money worries at times?
Do you have periods of such great restlessness that you
cannot sit long in a chair?
Are you usually a "good mixer"?
Would you rate yourself as a lively individual?
Have you ever been late for an appointment or work?
Do you ever feel "just miserable" for no good reason at
all?
Are you often troubled with feelings of guilt?

Are you inclined to be moody?

66.

57.

68.

69.

70.
71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.
77.

78.

79.
80.

38
Do you like to have many social engagements?
Once in a while, do you lose your temper and get angry?
Do you sometimes feel happy, sometimes depressed, without
any apparent reason?
Is it difficult to "lose yourself" even at a lively
party?
Are you ordinarily a carefree individual?
Do you have frequent ups and downs in mood, either with
Or without apparent cause?
Would you always declare everything at the customs, even
if you knew that you could never be found out?
Do you like work that requires considerable attention to
details?
Are there times when you seek to be alone and you cannot
bear the company of anyone?
Are you inclined to keep in the background on social
occasions?
Have you often lost sleep over your worries?
Of all the peOple you know are there some whom you
definitely do not like?
Do you usually feel disappointment so keenly that you
cannot get them out of your mind?
Do you usually take the initiative in making new friends?
Do you enjoy participating in a showing of "Rah Rah"

enthusiasm?

39

mw.H
om.a
mm.a
:~.a
so.a
ow.H
om.H
mm.H
ms.a
sm.a
oo.a
Ho.a
on.a
mo.”
Hm.a
H0.H
am.a

: emom

:

oo.H
ma.a
om.a
mo.H
mo.H
ms.a
so.H
o:.a
-.H
ma.a
mm.a
Ho.a
mm.H
mm.H
om.H
om.H
m:.a

mmm

on.a
Ho.H
mm.a
wo.H
wa.H
om.H
Ho.H
so.a
ms.H
0:.H
am.a
ms.H
Nata
so.a
o~.H
om.H
om.a

Bmom

H~.H
om.H
sm.a
oo.a
mo.a
mm.a
o:.a
mm.H
oo.a
Nm.H
::.H
o~.H
a..a
om.”
mm.H
mo.a
o:.H

mam

macaw Hapsosaamaxm mo mmm

H psogwaomxm Scam main

HH

ms.H
mm.H
o:.a
mm.H
mm.a
do.”
so.H
:~.H
H~.H
mm.H
mm.H
:0.H
om.”
am.a
oo.a
m~.H

:Q.H
m emom

NHQZ.

J
.L

mmd

mm.H
Hm.H
as.a
as.a
ma.a
-.H
ma.H
mm.a
Ho.a
ma.a
ma.a
ma.a
mm.a
ma.a
mo.a
:0.H
sm.a

N mmm

mo.a
mo.H
a:.a
am.H
m:.H
ms.H
om.a
oo.a
oo.a
sm.a
Ha.a
om.a
mo.H
am.a
oo.H
mm.H
ma.a

H Emom

mm.H
om.a
on.~
a:.a
mm.H
on.a
ms.H
as.a
om.a
s:.a
H:.H
o:.H
mm.H
mm.H
mm.H
a..H
am.a

H mmm

NH
0H

OHNM
.1 .4 .4 .1 if E?

WHNMJMONCOO‘

I'll! 1.1.!!! lulllll

om.H Hm.H ma.H o:.H sa.H o:.H s:.H ma.H NH
as.H mo.H oa.H mo.H mm.H mm.H mm.H oa.H 0H
aa.H H:.H H:.H mm.H sm.H H:.H mm.H wm.H mH
Ha.H m:.H mm.H om.H om.H am.H H:.H oa.H aH
mm.H ma.H mm.H ma.H oo.H om.H mm.H am.H MH
om.H Hm.H ca.H m:.H o:.H om.H m.H a:.H NH
H:.H Hs.H Hs.H om.H .mm.H .m.H mm.H H:.H HH
am.H mm.H am.H mm.H m:.H ma.H so.H m:.H OH
ma.H ss.H mo.H mm.H mm.H om.H mm.H oa.H o
ms.H m:.H Om.H om.H om.H as.H ma.Hv oa.H a
mm.H Hm.H m:.H om.H mm.H m:.H . om.H ma.H a
mm.H mm.H Ha.H 3:.H m:.H .m.H HmaH mm.H o
mo.H om.H N:.H 0:.H ma»H m:.H m:.H sm.H m
mo.H OH.H mH.H mm.H mm.H Hm.H Hm.H mH.H a
mm.H Ho.H wa.H Hm.H mo.H m:.H Ha.H oa.H m
ma.H om.H Hm.H ma.H om.H mm.H Hm.H Hm.H m
m~.H :N.H m~.H mo.H ~0.H Ho.H mm.H m..H H
a mag m emom m smog m mam

: amom m mam H amom H mam m

 

I: I . n!‘llf'l'l‘|'l.'. .I I. I ' c... .l'ln'liinlu. . I. ‘-I.1n‘3'll.l.

(I I'll. ’I'llll'

 

macaw Hoausou mo mmm

vodcwpcoo HH MHszmmd

41
APPENDIX III
Data from Experiment II
,PSE of INTROVERTS:

 

 

 

:===nnmnwwv*t"' _l.fi_ anagalma._
Experimental group
S PRE 1‘ POST 1 PRE 2 POST 2
1 1.46 1.71 1.61 1.73
2 1.16 1.91 1.23 1.36
3 1.34 1.58 1.40 1.59
4 1.39 1.74 1.54 1.66
5 1.60 1.78 1.50 1.61
6 1.45 1.79 1.53 1.67
7 1.53 1.56 1.53 1.55
8 1.72 2.05 1.69 1.87
9 1.51 1.91 1.49 1.72
10 1.28 1.71 1.51 1.58
11 1.43 1.60 1.32 1.49
Control group
S PBS 1 POST PRE 2 POST 2
1 1.27 1.20 1.30 1.27
2 '1.46 1.32 1.43 1.34
3 1.50 1.34 1.55 1.39
4 1.49 1.45 1.43 1.32
5 1.43 1.52 1.64 1.55.
6 1.45 1.55 1.46 1.45
7 1.40 1.34 1.34 1.30
8 1.63 1.47 1.48. 1.38
9 1.20 1.35 1.52 1.52
10 1.71 1.55 1.64 1.59
11 1.41 1.45 1.32 1.40

 

Appendix III continued
PSE 0f #m84293P8 a

 

 

 

 

-_-..4. -——-.-‘vv -

Experimental'group

s PRE 1 POST 1 PRE 2 POST 2
1 1.41 1.84 1.44 1.63
2 1.40 1.65 1.57 1.64
3 1.47 1.80 1.59 1.85
4 1.29 1.56 1.29 1.33
5 1.40 1.61 1.45 1.59
6 1.44 1.80 1.48 1.61
7 1.59 1.79 1.58 1.53
8 1.38 1.70 1.64 1.62
9 1.34 2.09 1.49 1.84
10 1.41 1.56 1.38 1.49
11 1.39 1.80 1.48 1.61
Control group

s PRE 1 POST 1 PRE 2 POST 2
1 1.47 1.60 1.63 1.54
2 1.31 1.37 1.38 1.38
3 1.49 1.41 1.41 1.41
4 1.77 1.72 1.66 1.75
5 1.45 1.44 1.54 1.52
6 1J6 1.a> 1J6 1.9
7 1.55 1.56 1.55 1.50
8 1.48 1.44 1.63 1.57
9 1.60 1.41 1.82 1.68
10 1.75 1.65 1.57 1.52
11 1.45 1.51 1.36 1.33

Appendix III continued
PSE of EXTRAVERTS

-.-. .—.._—- .u. ..H .
_" ' r—.~—--—W‘&C’1~Afl ' ‘ ""

Experimental group

S PRE 1 POST 1 PRE 2 POST 2
1 1.65 1.80 ' 1.76 1.71
2 1.55 ,2.00 1.73 1.85
3 1.45 1.82 1.52 1.60
4 1.24 1.63 1.61 1.77
5 1.60 2.15 1.80 2.07
6 . 1.47 1.69 1.35 1.39
7 1.44 1.72 1.49 1.63
8 1.41 1.44 1.46 1.48
9 1.48 1.87 1.56 1.58
10 1.52 1.76 1.64 1.52
11 1.39 1.70 1.35 1.59
Control group

s PRE 1 POST 1 PRE 2 ‘POST 2.
1 1.68 1.60 1.53 1.55
2 1.58 1.55 1.52 1.52
3 1.37 1.41 1.41 1.41
4 1.45 1.39 1.45 1.48
5 1.44 1.43 1.46 1.45
6 1.44 1.46 1.60 1.50
7 1.60 1.62 1.63 1.60
8 1.50 1.53 1.47 1.45
9 1.70 1.49 1.65 1.68
10 1.39 1.56 1.43 1.54
11 1.34 1.31 1.38 1.32

111111111111
111111
11111
|I||1|119
5
‘
1111.11-16
III-'4
1.1.11
H||1I||||I|1
‘5
11.114
‘
‘
“a
II“
U “0
111111
F. 1111111111
“3
A 11119
T1 ‘2
I“
11111
111111111111
N 3
A 11“
I1 “
H \|
“