Thesis for the Degree of. Phi-D; ” ‘ ‘ 7 . _ '
MiCHiGAN‘ STATE UNIVERSITY" 7, ' 7 A

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WWWWL

  

. al \ ,a "
HUM; g SUNS'

m 80th smum mc.

39.59.11.552“

 

ABSTRACT
EXTRAV ERSION AND PREFERRED LEVEL
OF SENSORY STIMULATION
By

Elek John Ludvigh III

One hundred and twenty male undergraduate subjects were
measured for extraversion using the Eysenck Personality Inventory,
the Contact Personality Factor, and the Sensation Seeking Scale to
test the hypothesis that extraversion and preferred level of sensory
stimulation are correlated. Each subject then underwent laboratory
testing in which preferred and unpleasant levels of auditory and visual
stimulation were determined by the subject under task and relaxed con-
ditions.

The results revealed that there was a significant positive
correlation between extraversion and amount of auditory and visual
stimulation necessary to produce slightly unpleasant hedonic tone in
a relaxed situation. A secondary finding was that degree of internal '
arousal was positively correlated with amount of sensory stimulation

preferred.

EXTRAVERSION AND PREFERRED LEVEL

OF SENSORY STIMULATION

By

Elek John Ludvigh III

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1971

To Bill Kell and Dozier Thornton,
whose consistent respect and caring are,
more than anything else,
responsible for enabling me to grow sufficiently

to successfully complete my graduate program.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My total graduate school experience has been a complex and
multifaceted one which, although often stressful and occasionally
distressing, has resulted in my becoming not only a better educated
person, but a more alive and complete person. To those who have
contributed to my knowledge I am grateful. To those who have con-
tributed not only as teachers, but who have had asignificant and
positive personal impact on me, I am deeply grateful.

As an entering graduate student I was very unsure of myself
and my goals. Norman Abeles did much at this time both to help
assure me of my potential competence and to clarify and define my
goals. At a slightly later developmental stage, in a time of consider-
able personal stress, Jo Burrow and Bill Kell enabled me to continue
when I had seriously considered modifying or giving up my plans. At
this same time I was also growing as a result of having met Jeanne
Gullahorn, whose zest for life in general and enthusiasm for teaching
in particular have had a great influence on me. As a clinical neophyte
I came under the influence of Jane Church and John Mullen. Each,

in a unique way, did much to give me the courage necessary to pursue

iii

clinical work at an even deeper and more involved level. Later Bill
Mueller' 5 interest in me in conjunction with his great knowledge of
human dynamics enabled me to begin to approach maturity in my inter-
actions with my clients. At this stage of my life I was also fortunate in
knowing Elaine Donnelson, whose rigorous approach to personality
theory together with her warmth and humor did much to rekindle my
excitement in the more academic aspects of psychology. Also at
approximately the same time I was doubly fortunate in that I met
Cecil Williams. The fact that he regarded me as a colleague in spite
of my obvious lack. of experience did much to enable me to grow to be
more worthy of this respect. '

Finally, to Andy Barclay I owe a special debt of gratitude.
He, like Cecil Williams, was able to grant me colleague status, while
at the same time tirelessly helping me with my work on the disserta-
tion. His ability to be available and helpful while simultaneously
allowing me to investigate what I felt was of importance and relevance
has been of immeasurable value in helping me to complete the dis-

sertation.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LISTOF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES .
INTRODUCTION .

REVIEW OF RELEVANT BACKGROUND
LITERATURE

Stimulus Seeking Research

Brain Arousal Research . . .

Optimum Arousal Theory and Research

Stimulus Seeking Behavior and Extraversion
Revisited

Findings Related to the Design of the Present

Research
PROBLEM AND HYPOTHESES
METHOD .

Subjects . .
Experimental Room .
Apparatus
Materials

PROCEDURE

Testing . .
Optimum Level Portion .
Self -Stimulation Portion . .
Abnormal Arousal Questionnaire and
De «Briefing Period

Page
vii

viii

1 1
13
16
18
28
32
40
40
40
41
42
47
47
47
51

53

Tabulation of the Data .
Lab Measure Data . . . . . .
Abnormal Arousal Questionnaire Data
Summary of Transformed Raw Data

RESULTS .
DISCUSSION
Summary
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
A. SENSATION SEEKING SCALE .
B. ABNORMAL AROUSAL QUESTIONNAIRE
C. SUMMARY AND DERIVATIONOF
LABORATORY AND QUESTION-
NAIRE VARIABLES .
D. CORRELATION MATRIX I-—
ALL SUBJECTS
E. CORRELATION MATRIX II--

"NORMAL" SUBJECTS

F. SUBJECT DE —BRIEFING SHEET

vi

Page
53
53
55
56
57
74'
78

83

91

94

97

100

102

104

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Summary Data for All Subjects

Correlations between Extraversion Scores and
Laboratory Measures of Preferred and
Slightly Unpleasant Levels of Sensory
Stimulation for All Subjects .

Summary Data for "Normal" Subjects

Correlations between Extraversion Scores and
Laboratory Measures of Preferred and
Slightly Unpleasant Levels of Sensory
Stimulation for Subjects with Normal
Internal Arousal States

Mean Scores of Low, Normal, and High Arousal
Groups on Individual Arousal Variables .

t Values for Difference between Means of
Low, Normal, and High Arousal Groups
on Individual Arousal Variables

F Ratios and Significance Levels of Main Effects
for Arousal in Univariate Analysis of
Variance on Sensory Seeking Variables

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of Low,
Normal, and High Arousal Groups on
Sensory Seeking Variables .

t Values and Significance Levels for Simple
Effects of Mean Differences on Low, Medium,
and High Arousal Groups (Sensory Seeking
Variables) . . . . . . . . .

vii

Page

58

60

63

66

68

69

70

71

72

Figure

LIST OF FIGURES

Relation between level of sensory input

and hedonic tone as a function of personality.

Hedonic tone and level of sensory input as
a function of personality, given other
factors held constant

Relation between level of sensory output,
hedonic tone, and the extraversion-
introversion dimension based on obtained
data

viii

Page

20

24

76

INTRODUCTION

All of us as human beings have, at a number of times, felt
overwhelmed by sensory stimulation and have felt a need to get away
from it all, to a haven of quiet isolation. Those of us who are involved
in clinical and counseling work will probably have noted that our
clients frequently express a need to get "far from the madding
crowd. " This need to reduce stirnulation--to escape from the bom-
bardment of the senses to a calm and quiet environment--can be
thought of as a neurotic need to escape. On the other hand, it may
be at least partially a manifestation of an attempt to maintain what
has been called "sensoristasis" (Schultz, 1965), a homeostatic balance
with respect to sensory stimulation.

We may also have worked with as clients or been acquainted
with people who not only feel a need to get away from it all occasion-
ally, but who appear to have a more or less chronic need to avoid
contact with others and the bustling world in general. Some clinical
workers classify such types as "schizoid personalities. " In turn,
people with this type of personality frequently think there is some-

thing wrong with them because they do not enjoy the exciting, arousing

aspects of life as much as those around them do. While some such
people probably are disturbed, it is possible that some "withdrawn"
behavior is, to an extent, due to a lower level of stimulation neces -
sary to maintain sensoristasis.

The problem to which this study addresses itself centers
around the above issue of sensoristasis, or homeostatic balance of
stimulation. It seeks to investigate the following issues:

1. Is there a correlation between certain personality types and
need for, or avoidance of, sensory stimulation?

2. How do ongoing emotional processes affect the need for or
avoidance of sensory stimulation?

3. How is need for avoidance of sensory stimulation affected
by conditions where work must be done as opposed to situa -
tions where one is simply attempting to relax and be com -
fortable?

Hopefully, any light shed on these issues will have implica-
tions for both management of one' 3 daily life and one' 3 clinical

practice.

REVIEW OF

RELEVANT BACKGROUND LITERATURE

Any study which addresses itself to the issue of the need of
human beings for sensory stimulation must consider the effects of
sensory restriction or sensory deprivation. Since the pioneering
study on sensory deprivation by Bexton (1953), a tremendous amount
of research has been carried out on the effects of reduced sensory
input on human physiological, cognitive, perceptual and affective
functioning. Since the literature is so voluminous, no attempt will
be made to review it in its entirety. However, a number of studies
in the area of sensory deprivation have relevance for the present study
and will be discussed briefly in order to provide background informa-
tion.

The most striking finding of the sensory deprivation research
is that most people find sensory deprivation aversive. This finding by
Bexton (1953) has been replicated by a vast number of subsequent
workers. In fact, so universal has been the finding that sensory
deprivation is aversive that sensory deprivation experimenters

routinely expect a subject attrition rate of at least 20% in even short

term sensory deprivation studies. Just a few of the studies which
have reported subject distress in response to sensory deprivation
are those of: Azima & Cramer, 1956; Brownfield, 1966; Cohen,
Silverman & Shamovian, 1962; Francis, 1964, 1966, 1966a; Gibby,
Adams 8: Carrera, 1960; Hull & Zubeck, 1962; Jackson & Pollard,
1966; Leon 8:. Frank, 1966; Petrie, Collins & Solomon, 1960; Rossi
81 Solomon, 1964, 1964a, 1964b, 1964c, 1954, 1966; Tranel, 1962;
Vernon 8: McGill, 1960; Zubeck, 1963, 1964, 1964a, 1964b; Zucker-
man, 1964; Zuckerman & Haber, 1965; and Zuckerman, Persky,
Hopkins, Murtaugh, Basu 8: Schilling, 1966.

Because of the overwhelming number of studies showing that
sensory deprivation is aversive to many experimental subjects, there
is a tendency to assume that sensory deprivation is aversive to all
types of subjects. This does not appear to be the case, however.
Azima and Cramer (1956) used a mental hospital population and found
that most patients stayed in sensory deprivation of their own free will
for 4- 6 days and also observed that 100% of the depressives who
underwent sensory deprivation were judged markedly improved after
the sensory deprivation period. Brownfield (1966), in a study using
both normal and emotionally disturbed individuals, found that a small
but significant proportion of both normal and disturbed subjects re -

ported feelings of well -being associated with sensory deprivation.

Further, like Azima & Cramer (1956), Brownfield noted that
depressives reported reduced anxiety after sensory deprivation.
Gibby, Adams 8: Carrera (1960) found that sensory deprivation of

six hours duration led to overall reduction of anxiety and depression
of the group of Veterans Administration mental patients used as sub-
jects, but noted that while most improved, some worsened as a result
of sensory deprivation.

Ludvigh (1970) observed that approximately one -third of the
subjects in a short term sensory deprivation experiment did not
stimulate themselves with light and sound even when such stimuli
were readily available to them. In a similar study, Rossi 8: Solomon
(1964a) found that approximately one -third of the subjects who believed
they could shorten a sensory deprivation experience by button pressing
did not attempt to reduce the period of sensory deprivation. Finally,
Zubeck (1964) reported that one subject who had participated in an
experiment in which he experienced sensory deprivation continuously
for 14 days requested permission to return to the sensory deprivation
situation several days after the experiment was over.

It thus appears that the issue of the aversive nature of sensory
deprivation is not completely settled. In a later section of this paper,
personality and physiological factors which may be related to the

aversiveness or nonaversiveness of sensory deprivation will be

considered. In order to lay the groundwork for that discussion,
however, it is necessary to consider some of the physiological
effects of sensory deprivation.

Research on the physiological effects of sensory deprivation
has focused primarily on galvanic skin response (G. S. R.) and electro-
encephalogram (E. E. G.) records. Studies related to the E. E. G.
have consistently found significantly reduced occipital lobe frequency
under conditions of sensory deprivation and have found that the reduc-
tion of frequency becomes greater with passage of time in sensory
deprivation (Zubeck, 1963, 1963a, 1964). It has also been found that
there are considerable individual differences in the effects of sensory
deprivation on the E. E. G. (Zubeck, 1964).

Contrasting with E. E. G. evidence suggesting decreased
arousal due to sensory deprivation are the studies on G. S. R. These
studies uniformly find that while G. S. R. drops for the first hour or
two, it then rises gradually and continuously until the end of the
session, even in quitelong sessions (Hanna, Burns & Tiller, 1963;
Zuckerman, Levine 8: Biase, 1964; and Vernon, McGill, Gulick &
Candland, 1961). These findings suggest that autonomic arousal is
increasing as cortical arousal is decreasingin subjects undergoing
sensory deprivation.

Having examined some of the research related to the affec-

tive and physiological effects of sensory deprivation, it is now

appropriate to review research which has investigated the relationship
between various personality characteristics and subject reactions to
sensory deprivation. Myers (1969), in an extensive and detailed
review of literature relating personality characteristics to tolerance
of sensory deprivation, states that
. . the literature on personality factors associated with depri-
vation tolerance is diverse, and outcomes on the whole, are
disappointingly inconsistent. This is not altogether surprising
in view of the wide procedural variations, probably multiplicity
of relevant predictors, diversity of criteria employed and the
interactions of these considerations. (Myers, 1969, p. 328)

Because, however, of the logical appeal of the idea that
introverts, who appear to desire less sensory stimulation than extra —
verts or ambiverts (normals), should be better sensory deprivation
tolerators than extraverts, a careful review of this segment of the
sensory deprivation -personality trait area was conducted.

In an early study concerned with introversion and sensory
deprivation tolerance, Petrie, Collins & Solomon (1960) found that
subjects who tolerated sensory deprivation well were significantly
more, introverted than subjects who tolerated sensory deprivation
poorly. Contradicting the findings of Petrie 32.1. (1960) was a study
by Tranel (1962), who found the subjects classified as introverts by
the Myers -Briggs Type Indicator tolerated sensory deprivation sig-

nificantly less well than extraverts. Tranel however noted that these

contradictory results could be due to the fact that introverts followed

instructions which-were aimed at maximizing the effects of sensory
deprivation, while extraverts disobeyed the instructions and tended
to engage in unauthorized self-stimulation activities. Another study
suggesting that introverts tolerate sensory deprivation less well than
extraverts was conducted by Reed and Kenna (1964), who found that
introverts as classified by the Maudsley Personality Inventory per-
ceived a given period of sensory deprivation as being longer than
extraverts.

Two studies of sensory deprivation tolerance and the
extraversion ~introversion dimension have been conducted by Rossi
and Solomon. The first (1965) found that introverts as classified by
the Myers -Briggs Type Indicator tolerated sensory deprivation slightly,
but not significantly less well than extraverts, while in the second
(1966) there was no difference in toleration between the groups. In a
subsequent study, Reed and Solomon (1964) found that all subjects
reporting depersonalization during a brief sensory. deprivation period
were significantly lower on Maudsley Personality Inventory extra-
version scores than those who did not experience depersonalization,
again suggesting that introverts find sensory deprivation more aver-
sive than extraverts. Ludvigh (1970) found that there was no signifi-
cant difference between introverts and extraverts as measured by

the Eysenck Personality Inventory in manifest need for sensory

stimulation while in a sensory deprivation situation. However, the
lack of significant findings could have been due to the short length of
the sensory deprivation period.

The experimental findings cited thus far suggest that, con-
trary to what one would logically expect, introverts tolerate sensory
deprivation less well than extraverts. A possible explanation for
these findings has been suggested, however, by Zuckerman, Persky,
Link and Basu (1968). They hypothesize that

while understimulation and overstimulation appear to be on the
same continuum, this is not really the case. In an S. D. or even
in a social isolation situation some sensation seekers find new
and interesting sensations which make these situations quite
tolerable. (p. 192)

Because the results of studies relating extraversion-
introversion to sensory deprivation tolerance are open to doubt due
to the exciting aspects of sensory deprivation which may appeal to
the impulsive, thrill -seeking extravert, an attempt has been made
to construct a questionnaire which is more directly related to sensa-
tion seeking than the Myers -Briggs Type Indicator, Maudsley Per-
sonality Inventory, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory,
or Eysenck Personality Inventory. This scale, called the Sensation
Seeking Scale, was developed by Zuckerman, Kolin, Price and Zoob

(1964) and appears to be a potentially better predictor of reaction to

sensory deprivation than is extraversion -introversion score.

10

Using the-Sensation Seeking Scale, Zuckerman (1968) found
a positive correlation between Sensation Seeking Scale scores and the
adverse affects of social isolation. In addition it was found that Sensa-
tion Seeking Scale scores were negatively correlated with the aversive
affects of sensory deprivation. These results were in concurrence
withother users of the Sensation Seeking Scale (Zuckerman, Schultz,
81 Hopkins, 1967), who observed that volunteers for sensory depriva-
tion experiments had significantly higher Sensation Seeking Scale
scores than nonvolunteers. These findings suggest that sensory
deprivation is a "new kick" for people with high scores on the Sensa-
tion Seeking Scale.

Of perhaps even greater interest is the finding of Brownfield
(1966) that people low on the Sensation Seeking Scale reported feelings
of well -being associated with a 10 hour sensory restriction period in
which subjects were isolated in a dark, quiet room. Thus, while the use of
the Sensation Seeking Scale has been quite limited, it does appear to
be of potential use as a paper and pencil measure of human sensation
seeking behavior.

Sensory deprivation phenomena clearly do have implications
for man in his more natural environment and, in fact, can highlight
psychological factors which would ordinarily not be at all observable.

For the purposes of the present study, however, it must be remembered

11

that true sensory deprivation with its large reduction of sensory
input bears little resemblance to a natural environment and so must
serve, at best, as being suggestive of factors which are important
in a more natural setting. Implications which are relevant to the
normal environment in which we live and work are found in the re-
search on human stimulus seeking. It is to this area of research

that we will now turn our attention.

Stimulus Seeking: Research

 

While it has been suggested that the stressful effects of
sensory deprivation may be due to such factors as confinement
(Zuckerman _e_t__a_l_. , 1968) or social isolation (Walters and Parke,
1964), it appears more probable that the stressful effects are due
to the main effect of sensory deprivation—- reduction of sensory in-
put. In an unusually well designed and carefully controlled experi-
ment, Smith and Myers (1966) found that subjects in a dark, quiet
sensory deprivation situation sought significantly more stock market
reports than control subjects who were similarly confined and iso-
lated, but who had many types of sensory stimulation available to
them. Similarly, Zuckerman and Habor (1965) found that subjects
who were most stressed by sensory deprivation conditions were most
eager to engage in self -stimulation activities using light and sound

while in sensory deprivation.

12

Human beings, then, apparently need sensory stimulation
and will work for it when deprived of it. A relevant issue at this
juncture is the problem of the function sensory stimulation serves.
One position is that sensory stimulation satisfies some sort of infor-
mation drive. Jones (1969, p. 180) in an extensive review of human
stimulus seeking behavior states that the studies reviewed ". . . sup-
port clearly the view that sensory deprivation motivates stimulus

seeking responses where stimuli are of a meaningful verbal sort. "

 

Two experiments testing the hypothesis that the meaningful-
ness, or information value, of sensory stimulation has much to do
with its ability to satisfy subjects in a sensory deprivation situation
have been conducted by Jones and his colleagues. In the first (Jones,
Wilkenson and Braden, 1961), it was found that subjects deprived of
visual information for various periods of time had a response rate for
visual information which was an increasing monotonic function of
hours of visual deprivation. While this study showed that the need
for sensory stimulation increases as a function of hours of depriva —

tion, its assumption that the information value of the stimuli was what

 

was reinforcing the deprived subjects received no direct support.
However, ina later study, Jones and McGill (1967) found that operant
response rates in a visual restriction situation were an increasing

linear function of the information value of the stimuli available. This

13

study clearly does support the hypothesis that the reinforcement value
of stimuli with high information value tends to be higher than the
reinforcement value of stimuli with low information value. It does
not, however, establish the existence of the information drive postu-
lated by Jones and, as will be seen, there are alternative explana-
tions.

Before proceeding on to the alternative explanation of sen-
sation seeking behavior, two additional studies related to the infor-
mation drive hypothesis which are relevant to the present research
bear mention. In the first, Thornton (1966) found that information
in one sensory modality could satisfy the drive for information in
another modality. That is, prior visual information satiation reduced
subsequent responding for auditory information. In the second Jones
(1961) found that irrelevant drives such as hunger and shock increased
the rate of self -stimulation for information deprived subjects. These
studies suggest that need for sensory input at any given time can be
affected by both prior stimulus satiation and ongoing internal arousal

state of the subject.

Brain Arousal Research

 

An alternative to the information drive explanation of human

stimulus seeking behavior is derived from research in neurophysiology.

14

Moruzzi and Magoun (1949) made an important discovery while
conducting a study on direct electrical stimulation of the brain. They
observed that electrical stimulation of the ascending reticular forma-
tion caused the E. E. G. wave which is characteristic of sleep to be
eliminated, if present, and be replaced by one of cortical activation
or arousal. It was also found that a sensory stimulus of any kind
produced similar E. E. G. effects. . Subsequent research by Weinberger
and Lindsley (1964) has shown that stimulus offset can also produce
the same E. E.G. effects as stimulus onset. Thus it appeared that
cortical arousal and concomitant alert, awake behavior patterns
I could be produced in an organism by sensory stimulation, the offset
of sensory stimulation, or direct stimulation of the ascending reticular
formation or ascending reticular activation system, as it has come
to be known since the work of Moruzzi and Magoun (1949).

Considerable theorizing has been based on the above work,
and the outcome of all such theorizing has been rather similar. In
short, Schlosberg (1954), Malmo (1958), Lindsley (1951), and Hebb
(1955) all suggested either directly or indirectly that an adequate
degree of cortical arousal leads to adaptive behavior and pleasant
emotional tone, while inadequate or excessive cortical arousal leads
to disorganized behavior and unpleasant emotional tone.

Sensory deprivation studies have demonstrated that decreased

E. E. G. activity is generally associated with poor task performance

15

and unpleasant emotional tone. It is therefore possible that cortical
arousal underlies human stimulus -seeking behavior.

A simplified and condensed view of the standpoint of the
above activation theorists who think that the cortical arousal value
of stimuli is the source of human stimulus -seeking behavior is as
follows: Sensory stimulation creates an aroused E. E. G. pattern via
the ascending reticular activation system. Therefore, stimulus-
seeking behavior. is an attempt to obtain the cortical arousal that
will increase task performance and hedonic tone.

One of the obvious problems with the above formulation is
that cortical arousal is mediated largely by the reticular formation,
but cortical impluses can activate the reticular formation which in
turn activates the cortex (Schultz, 1965; Cofer and Appley, 1965).

Furthermore, while sensory stimulation tends to activate the cortex,

 

it is neither necessary nor sufficient for some degree of cortical
arousal.
A second major problem with the position of the activation

theorists is that cortical arousal has not been shown to be necessarily

 

correlated with adequate task performance (Vernon and Hoffman,
1956) or pleasant emotional tone (Zubeck, 1964). The rationale be-

hind this assumption is that task performance, hedonic tone, and

16

E. E. G. activity all appear generally reduced by sensory deprivation.
While it is reasonable to assume that the reduced cortical activation
produced the reduction in task performance and hedonic tone usually
associated with sensory deprivation, this assumption cannot be con-
sidered fully established at the present moment.

The final problem with the cortical arousal theory of stimulus
seeking behavior is similar to the preceding one. That is, while
excessive stimulation is associated with reduced task performance,
reduced hedonic tone, and an abnormally high level of cortical arousal
(Lindsley, 1961), it has not been demonstrated that the "excessive"
level of arousal of the cortex causes the other effects.

In spite of the weaknesses of the cortical activation explana -
tion of sensory stimulation seeking behavior, it appears to be a spring-
board to the best explanation currently available for such activity.
This explanation, like those cited above, is an activation theory. Its
difference lies in the fact that it is more flexible and comprehensive.
Additionally it has greater heuristic value in that it can be used to

explain a wider range of behaviors than can simple activation theory.

Optimum Arousal Theory and Research

 

Fiske and Maddi (1961) have integrated the experimental
data related to the activation hypotheses and have developed eight

propositions which form a conceptual framework explaining the

17

functions of varied experience. A discussion of the research
supporting their eight points takes Fiske and Maddi (1961) over thirty
pages of text. It is therefore impractical to attempt to summarize
here the support they cite. However, because of the importance and
relevance of these propositions for the present study, and because at
least a portion of the research supporting them has been cited and
briefly discussed by the present author for the purposes of the study
at hand, it is appropriate to at least list their propositions:
I. The impact of a stimulus is its momentary contribution to
the activation level of an organism.
II. An organism' 3 level of activation varies directly over time
with the total impact of current stimulation.
III. The impact of a stimulus is derived not only from the inten-

sity and meaningfulness of the stimulus but also from the
extent to which it provides variation from prior stimulation.

IV. For any task there is a level of activation which is necessary
for maximally effective performance.

V. The behavior of an organism tends to modify its activation
level toward the optimal zone for the task at hand.

VI. For each stage in an organism' s sleep -wakefulness cycle,

there is a characteristic or normal level of activation.

VII. In the absence of specific tasks, the behavior of an organism
is directed towards the maintenance of activation at the
characteristic or normal level.

VIII. Negative affect is normally experienced when activation
level differs markedly from normal level; positive affect is
associated with shifts of activation toward normal level.

(Fiske 8: Maddi, 1961, pp. 17-46)

The above propositions have implications for much of the
research on sensory deprivation tolerance and stimulus seeking
behavior since they suggest that subject reactions in various experi-

mental conditions are not a simple function of such factors as

18

information deprivation or need for cortical arousal, but rather are
due to a complex dynamic interaction of a multiplicity of subject and
situational variables. It is suggested here, based on the work of
Fiske and Maddi (1961), that overly simplistic approaches have led

to many of the conflicting results in the sensory deprivation and
stimulus seeking research. With this idea in mind let us now redirect
our attention to the issue of personality and stimulus seeking behavior
which was touched on earlier. By avoiding oversimplification it is
hoped that an apparently fruitful avenue of research which has seem

to be a dead end may be reopened.

Stimulus Seeking Behavior
and Extraversion Revisited

 

 

In an earlier section of the present study, the general lack
of significant findings in research attempting to correlate sensation
seeking scores and extraversion scores with various behavioral indices
was reviewed. While it is possible to unearth methodological flaws
which might be responsible for the lack of results, such post hoc
hypothesizing is not appropriate for this work. The approach that
will be followed is to first present the hypothesized relationship in
its most comprehensive form and then to consider research which
has a bearing on the hypothesized relationship proper and any study

which seeks to investigate the possible relationship.

19

H. J. Eysenck, perhaps one of the most significant proponents
of the biological foundations of human personality, has based a con-
siderable portion of his theoretical framework on the research of the
brain activation theorists. Based upon the work on cortical arousal
and inhibition, Eysenck states two postulates explaining the general
relationship he feels exists between personality and cortical inhibition—
excitation phenomena.

First:

- Human beings differ with respect to the speed with which excita-
tion and inhibition are produced and the speed with which inhibition
is dissipated. These differences are properties of the physical
structures involved in making stimulus response connections.

Second:

Individuals in whom excitatory potential is generated slowly and
in whom excitatory potentials so generated are relatively weak
are thereby predisposed to develop extraverted patterns of
behavior. . . . Individuals in whom excitatory potentials so
generated are strong are thereby predisposed to develop intro-
verted patterns of behavior. . . . Similarly individuals in whom
reactive inhibition is developed 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; . . . conversely, individuals in whom
reactive inhibition is 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 (Eysenck, 1967, p. 77).

Based on the foregoing, Eysenck hypothesizes that the sensory
thresholds of introverts are lower than those of extraverts ". . . be-

cause of’the higher efficiency of performance associated with cortical

20

excitation" (Eysenck, 1967, p. 100). Extrapolating from this
hypothesis, "the theory linking introversion with low sensory thresh-
olds (and small j. n. d. s.) has been extended by Eysenck to pain
tolerance and sensory deprivation tolerance in the following manner”

(Eysenck, 1967, p. 100).

Population
Intro - Extra -
vert Average vert

I“ T

   
  

  
    
     
   

l

Positive / : : \\
Hedonic {A1 | / I \ '
Tone /! ’ I \\ I
/ I \I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T

.m-
p—a
/
/
O
J

, Y'
97/: Indiffprence Lev

 

 

 

Negative \ .
Hedonic oAE : l : 81,1:‘:\
Tone v f .1 L i L L I
f®O.L.I 01..., 01., © 3
Level of Stimulation @
Low Medium High
(Sensory (Pain)
Deprivation)

Figure 1. --Relation between level of sensory input and hedonic tone
as a function of personality. (Eysenck, 1967, p. 109)

The hypothesized relationship graphed above is explained by
Eysenck as follows:
. along the abscissa we have plotted degrees of sensory
stimulation, from extremely low at the left to extremely high

on the right. Along the ordinate we have plotted the hedonic
tone associated with these different levels of stimulation, ranging

21

from strongly negative (feelings of displeasure or even pain;
desire to escape, to end the stimulation; abience) to strongly
positive (feelings of intense pleasure; desire to prolong the
stimulation, or even to increase it; adience). Between the
positive and negative hedonic tones there is an indifference
level, indicating that stimulation is neither sought nor avoided
but is quite neutral to the subject. The strongly drawn curvi-
linear line in the centre of the diagram indicates the relation-
ship between hedonic tone and strength of sensory stimulation,
as derived from random samples of the population. We find
that extremely high levels of stimulation produce pain and dis-
comfort and have consequently a high negative hedonic tone
(Beecher, 1959). Extremely low levels of stimulation (sensory
deprivation) have also been found to be productive of high nega -
tive hedonic tone and to be bearable only for relatively short
periods (Solomon et al. , 1967; Zubeck, 1964). It is only at
intermediate levels of sensory stimulation that positive hedonic
tone develops, and this finding is not perhaps entirely out of line
with common experience and expectation. In any case, there
is ample experimental evidence in the literature for the general
correctness of the picture presented in Figure 37 (Berlyne,
1960).

We must now turn to individual differences in excitation and
inhibition. Introverts have lower thresholds, and show less
adaptation/inhibition to continued stimulation; extraverts have
higher thresholds, and show more adaptation/inhibition to con-
tinued stimulation. It would seem to follow that any given degree
of stimulation would be experienced as effectively higher by
introverts than by extraverts. Objectively equal amounts of
stimulation, therefore, would not be experienced as equal by
extraverts, ambiverts, and introverts; they would appear dis-
placed to the left of the abscissa of Figure 37 for the introvert,
and to the right by the extravert, Similarly, if 0. L. represents
the optimum (or preferred) level of stimulation of a given per-
son, then 0. L. I would lie to the left of O. L. P, and this in turn
to the left of O. L. E' where I and E refer to introvert and extra-
vert, respectively, and P to the population average.

Again, consider two points, A and B, on the abscissa,
referring to low and high stimulation, respectively. If straight
lines are drawn through these points, parallel to the ordinate,
they will cross the general curve relating level of stimulation
to hedonic tone roughly at the indifference level; in other words,
for the average person these two stimuli are equally indifferent.

 

 

22

For the typical extravert and introvert, however, as already
explained, the general curve is not representative and has to
be displaced to the left for the introvert and to the right for the
extravert. As shown in the diagram, it follows that stimulus A
will be positively hedonic for the introvert (AI) and negatively
hedonic for the extravert (AE), while B will be negatively
hedonic for the introvert (BI) and positively hedonic for the
extravert (BE). In other words, we postulate a certain degree
of stimulus hunger (sensation seeking, arousal seeking) in the
extravert, and a certain degree of stimulus aversion in the
introvert. Conversely, it would seem to follow that extraverts
should be more tolerant of pain, introverts of sensory depriva-
tion (Eysenck, 1967, p. 109).

Eysenck' s hypothesis is an appealing and quite logical one,
but in spite of the research he cites, it has not received much experi-
mental support. It is suggested here, however, that the hypothesized
relationship is essentially accurate and that with a few modifications
will be supported by adequately designed research.

The keynote of the present study is that Eysenck' s formula-
tion, while basically correct, must first be slightly modified and
then tested under certain specific conditions before the hypothesized
relationship can be observed. In a subsequent section, research
will be mentioned which has a bearing on the methodology of any study
attempting to investigate Eysenck' s hypothesis. At this point, how -
ever, it is appropriate to see what modifications of Eysenck' s
hypothesis are suggested by research which has already been done.

While Eysenck' s explanation of Figure l is an elaborate and

detailed one, its basic assumptions can be paraphrased quite simply

as follows:

23

1. Very low and very high levels of stimulation produce negative
hedonic tone.

2. Positive hedonic tone develops only at intermediate levels
of sensory stimulation.

3. Any amount of stimulation is experienced as effectively
higher by introverts than by extraverts.

4. The optimum level of stimulation for introverts is lower
than that for ambiverts which is also lower than that for
extraverts.

The real problem with these propositions is the lack of such
modifying statements as "in general, " "usually, " and "other'things
being equal. " For example, regarding proposition 1, research has
been discussed here which suggests that very low levels of stimula -
tion do not always produce negative hedonic tone (pages 3 -4). Regard-
ing proposition 2, research has been cited showing that positive
hedonic tone can develop at very low levels of stimulation (pages 4-5).

Propositions 3 and 4, while perhaps generally true, could
fail to receive experimental support on any given occasion if the
eight propositions (all of which are supported by research) suggested
by Fiske and Maddi (pages 16 -17) are not taken into account or con-
trolled for.

Even if Eysenck' 3 basic assumptions are largely correct,

there has been no research supporting the accuracy of his graphic

24

representation. . He assumes that hedonic tone is related in a
curvilinear fashion to level of stimulation. Research by Beebe
Center (1932) suggests that the optimum level of stimulation is
largely a function of adaptation level and is not a highly specific
location on a curve as Eysenck suggests. Additionally, research has
been cited indicating that people who are low on the Sensation Seeking
Scale, as well as some introverts, find mild sensory deprivation
situations pleasant (pages 4—5).

These research findings, in conjunction with the concept of
neural step -functions suggested by Ashby (1960), can lead to a modi-

fication of Eysenck' s graph as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

A\ .ooaoOooooooooooooooooo
‘ o / ________________ 2.. .—

Positive / —— Introverts
Hedonic I, - - ° 0 Ambiverts

Tone , "“ Extraverts

/
1- -l— ----- '- ------------- -o--\-

Negative Indifference Level
Hedonic

Tone

Level of Stimulation
C omple te Mild High V ery
Sensory Sensory High

Deprivation Deprivation

Figure 2. -—Hedonic tone and level of sensory input as a function of
personality, given other factors held constant.

25

This representation agrees with the notion that personality
is related to a need for sensory input, but suggests that there is a
fairly broad optimum level for each personality type. Also, by not
clustering introverts and extraverts in the extreme negative hedonic
tone area at the sensory deprivation end of the sensory stimulation
continuum, the formulation takes into account the research suggest-
ing that almost one -third of the subjects find sensory deprivation
neutral or only mildly aversive (pages 4-5).

As a result of these modifications, Figure 2 predicts wider
introvert -extravert differences in stimulation necessary to cause
slightly negative hedonic tone than would be expected based on Fig-
ure 1. Also, unlike Figure 1, Figure 2 predicts optimum level
differences between extraverts and introverts to be of the same
magnitude between groups as slightly unpleasant level differences.

It should be noted that this graph was presented not as a
representation of reality, but simply to Show that even if Eysenck' 5
basic assumptions about personality and need for stimulation were
true, the data do not yet exist to support the type of graphic repre-
sentation he presents in Figure 1.

An examination of the research and theory which has been
cited relevant to Eysenck' s hypothesis suggests a number of points

which could be incorporated into his basic theory presented on

26

pages 19-20 above. First, studies by Lindsley (1961) and Cofer and
Appley (1965) suggest that cortical arousal can be created by cortical
impulses to the reticular activating system as well as by activation
of the reticular activating system by external stimulation. This sug-
gests that internal arousal processes can substitute for external
stimulation.

Second, the same research suggests that even if internal
arousal processes do not entirely substitute for external stimulation,
they may still modify need for external stimulation

Third, proposition IV of Fiske and Maddi (1961), the theo-
retical stand of Hebb (1955), and the work of Courts (1939) and
Stauffacher (1937) all suggest that optimum level of arousal is at least
partially a function of the task to be performed.

Fourth, proposition VI of Fiske and Maddi (1961) suggests
that the stage of the organism' s sleep -wakefulness cycle must be
considered when studying the effect of stimulation on the organism' s
affective state.

Fifth, proposition III of Fiske and Maddi (1961) and the work
of Jones and his associates (Jones _e_t_£l_. , 1961; Jones and McGill,
1967) suggest that the nature of the sensory stimulation is as impor-
tant in determining its arousal value as its objective stimulus

strength.

27

Sixth, the work of Zuckerman _e_t_;_ail_. (1968), Zuckerman
e_t__a_l_. (1967), and Schubert (1964) points up the possibility that true
sensory deprivation situations may have high arousal value and thus
should be at the high rather than at the low end of the sensory stimu-
lation continuum.

Seventh, the work of Fiske and Maddi (1961) suggests that
need for stimulation at any given time is determined by an interplay
of a number of factors, rather than being determined simply by the
extraversion -introversion dimension.

Eighth, the analysis of an alternative graphical representa-
tion of the basic assumptions of the theory suggest that such a representa-
tion is not appropriate until more data are in.

Thus it is clear that while Eysenck' s hypothesis may be
basically correct, it is both loosely formulated and probably not
sufficient to explain sensory seeking behavior in general. The
present author does believe, like Eysenck, that the extraversion-
introversion dimension may in fact hafve a pervasive effect on what
constitutes sensoristasis for any given person. Even if this is so,
however, this effect is one which apparently can be masked by a
number of other factors at any given time. Hence, research which
hopes to uncover the relevance of this factor should be carefully

designed to take into account not only the variables already mentioned

28

but variables related to the methodology of the investigation

itself.

Findings Related to the
Design of the Present Research

 

 

Leuba has published two articles which are of relevance to
the experimental methodology of the present study. The first (Leuba,
1955) was a theoretical paper which in some ways was the precursor
of proposition II of Fiske and Maddi (1961). This article suggested
that the arousal level of a subject at any given time is determined by
the total of all sensory input. In a subsequent paper based partly on
empirical research, Leuba (1962) broadened his earlier position.

He suggested that the arousal level of a subject is a function of all
sensory input including degree of internal stimulation and kinesthetic
feedback. In addition he pointed' out the obvious but previously
neglected fact that sensitivity of the sense organs could also influence
the impact of stimuli on subject arousal.

Two studies on the role of movement on the effects of sensory
deprivation have been conducted which suggest that Leuba' s implica -
tion that arousal is influenced by kinesthetic feedback is correct.

In the first, Courtney and Solomon (1961) found that large arm and
leg movements at frequent intervals slightly reduced visual distor-

tions following a sensory deprivation experience as contrasted with

29

small finger movements. The second study by Zubeck (1963) used
even greater bodily activity in a sensory deprivation situation. In
this study subjects were allowed free motion throughout the sensory
deprivation experience. In addition there were five minute periods
of forced vigorous exercise every two hours. Results showed much
less E. E. G. slowing and much better performance on intellectual
and perceptual motor tasks for exercised subjects than for controls
in "normal" sensory deprivation.

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that any study which is
attempting to minotor the stimulus seeking behavior of subjects should
control for subject movement. Especially important, because of its
apparently larger effect on arousal, is a control for gross body move-
ment.

An interesting and suggestive study related to internal
arousal was conducted by Rossi, Furhman and Solomon (1967). Their
major finding was that subjects can be accurate in judging their own
internal arousal states during sensory deprivation. Subjects rated
their internal arousal and these ratings were correlated with E. E. G.
records. The average correlation for the 10 subjects was .36
(P < . 05), with all but one of the correlations being positive. This
study suggests that a good control for internal arousal states is the
subject' s rating of his own internal arousal after the experiment is

concluded.

30

Further work relevant to subjects' internal arousal states
is cited by Eysenck (1963). In a volume on how drugs affect various
perceptual and motor functions, Eysenck concludes ". . . that de-
pressant drugs have an extraverting effect, while stimulant drugs
have an introverting effect" (Eysenck, 1963, p. x). It thus appears
that another important variable to be controlled for in stimulus seek-
ing research is the ingestion of substances which might affect the
internal arousal states of excitation inhibition processes of experi-
mental subjects.

Still another area of research related to the design of the
present study involves the psychology of psychological experiments.
Orne (1962), in a detailed discussion of the demand characteristics
of psychological experiments, presents evidence that subjects, in
general, do what they think the experimenterwants them to do, regard-
less of the actual experimental instructions. He further suggests that
the best way to determine what the demand characteristics of the
experiment are is to ask the subjects open -ended questions regarding
the purposes of the experiment.

A related, but more specific study investigating extraneous
variables affecting the results of sensory deprivation experiments
was conducted by Jackson and Pollard (1966). This study. found that

subjects' responses to sensory deprivation are largely a function of

31

their expectations. Because sensory deprivation effects have been
widely publicized, this phenomenon may be limited to sensory depriva-
tion experiments. However, since sensory seeking research, of
necessity, involves some degree of sensory restriction, it appears
advisable to attempt to insure that subject expectations about what

they may experience in a sensory restriction situation do not unduly

influence their response to the experiment itself.

PROBLEM AND HYPOTHE SES

In the introduction to the present study it was stated that
the broad issue to be investigated here is related to sensoristasis,
or homeostatic balance of stimulation. It was further stated that
within this broad area there'were two specific sub-areas which were
to be addressed. These sub -areas were listed as:

1. Personality traits and need for or avoidance of sensory
stimulation.

2. Ongoing internal arousal processes and need for or avoidance
of sensory stimulation.

Because of interdependence of these factors, specific
hypotheses related to each of the areas will, of necessity, mention
factors related to the other area. While this is perhaps a bit con-
fusing, it does appear necessary in light of the overall view that
simplistic approa’ches tend to mask existing differences. The prob-
lem, then, is to investigate each of the areas of interest in such a
way as to reveal existing relationships while simultaneously con-
trolling for confounding variables which could mask such relation-

ships. The majority of the discussion to this point has been related

32

33

to the first area, that is the area of personality and sensoristatic
behavior. More specifically, it has been primarily related to the
hypothesis of Eysenck that the extraversion -introversion dimension
is relatedrto need for or avoidance of sensory stimulation.

Several modifications of Eysenck' 8 basic formulation have
been suggested, but it is still the general issue of need for sensory
stimulation which is the main area of interest in the present study.
While the other area to be investigated is worthy of study in itself,
it is being considered primarily because failure to do so could mask
existing differences in the extraversion -introversion sensoristasis
area.

There are two basic assumptions underlying the extraversion-
introversion sensoristasis hypotheses. They are:

1. Other things being equal, Eysean' shypotheses that extra-

 

version is positively correlated with stimulus hunger is
correct

2. Stimulus hunger can manifest itself in a desire for higher
level of stimulation and/ or more frequent periods of stimula-
tion.
The hypotheses derived from these assumptions are as fol-

lows:

34

H1 There is a positive correlation between extraversion scores,
Sensation Seeking Scale scores, and the amount of ambient
illumination and sound which is necessary to provide optimum

hedonic tone.

H There is a positive correlation between extraversion scores,
Sensation Seeking Scale scores, and the amount of ambient
illumination and sound which is necessary to create a slightly

unpleasant level of hedonic tone.

H There is a positive correlation between extraversion scores,
Sensation Seeking Scale scores, and amount of sensory stimu—
lation necessary to maintain sufficient arousal to perform
adequately an intrinsically non -stimulating task. That is,
because any task requires some degree of arousal (Fiske
and Maddi' s proposition IV), and because extraverts pre-
sumably are less aroused by sensory stimulation than intro-
verts, they will require relatively more stimulation to

achieve sufficient arousal to perform the task.

While it is of secondary interest to the author in the present
study, the issue of internal arousal level and sensoristasis is worthy

of investigation for two reasons. The first is that failure to control

35

forabnormal internal arousal might mask an existing correlation
between the extraversion ~introversion and Sensation Seeking Scale
scores and sensoristasis. The second reason is that, while there
have been several theoretical discussions (pages 28-30) about the
effect of abnormal internal arousal on stimulus seeking behavior,
there have been only two studies conducted investigating the relation-
ship. The first by Jones (1961) found that heightened but irrelevant
drive increased stimulus sekking behavior. The second by Ludvigh
(1970) foundthat abnormally internally aroused subjects did not as a
groupdiffer from normally aroused subjects in amount of self -
stimulation desired in a mild sensory deprivation situation. Thus
actual studies of this relationship are rare, and any light cast on this
area is of use to stimulus seeking research in general.

Four additional assumptions related to the arousal hypotheses
are as follows:

1. Propositions IV, V, VI, and VIII of Fiske and Maddi (1961)
cited on page 17 of the present study are correct. Without
restating these propositions, they suggest respectively that
amount of stimulation sought for the purpose of activation
or arousal is a function of (a) the nature of the task, (b) the
absence of any task, (c) the current sleep -wakefulness stage

of thexorganism, and (d) the tendency of organisms to adjust

36

stimulation level toward the optimal zone of the task -nontask
situation.
The arguments presented by Leuba (1962) cited on page 28

of the present study are correct. The position of this writer

is that internal arousal caused the same type of activation of

the organism as external stimulation.

The work of Jones (1961) (which contradicts propositions V
and VII of Fiske and Maddi), showing that high irrelevant
drive increases stimulus seeking behavior in a nontask
oriented situationis either incorrect or does not describe a
general phenomenon.

The work of Rossi 3131. (1967), showing that subjects can
judge their own internal arousal states with fair accuracy,
is essentially correct.

Based on the above working assumptions, the following

"internal arousal hypotheses" were made.

H

4

Subjects under relaxed conditions reporting abnormally
high internal arousal will desire less sensory stimulation

than normally aroused subjects.

This hypothesis was logically derived from the assumptions

on page 35 by deducing that when high arousal is serving no adaptive

37

function, the subject will attempt to reduce it to a more normal level

by reducing the arousal -producing sensory input.

H5 Subjects with a task orientation reporting abnormally high
internal arousal will desire less sensory stimulation than

normally aroused subjects.

Derivation of this hypothesis is based on the following
reasoning: There is a relatively fixed, moderately high overall
arousal level which is necessary to perform a vigilance task effective -
ly. This overall arousal level is determined by summing internal
arousal and arousal produced by external sensory stimulation. Clearly,
given a vigilance task, subjects with high internal arousal will need
relatively lower amounts of arousal -producing stimulation than
normally internally aroused subjects to reach the moderately high

overall level of arousal required by the task.

H 6 Subjects reporting abnormally low internal arousal will

desire less sensory stimulation than normally aroused sub -

jects when in a relaxed situation.

The key assumption relevant to H6 .is that low arousal is due

primarily to the stage of the subject' 5 sleep -wakefulness cycle he

is in. That is, if arousal is low, it is probably due to factors such

38

as fatigue or drowsiness. Since there is no adaptive value in
increasing arousal through increasing sensory input when in a
relaxed situation, and since the sleep -wakefulness cycle changes
relatively slowly, it seemed logical to hypothesize that low internal
arousal subjects would attempt to maintain low arousal by subjecting
themselves to less sensory stimulation than normally aroused sub -

jects.

H,7 Task-oriented subjects reporting abnormally low internal
arousal states will desire more stimulation than normally

aroused subjects when in a task -oriented situation.

The reasoning behind H is analogous to that for H except

7 5

that the internal arousal level is reversed. In short, because sub-
jects with low internal arousal have ”farther to go" than normally
aroused subjects in order to reach the level of overall arousal nec-
essary to complete the task, they will need more external stimulation
to produce an adequate arousal level.

Similarly to the internal arousal area, the issue of sensori-
stasis and task or nontask orientation was investigated primarily
because it was felt that ignoring it might lead to false rejection of
the hypothesis that extraversion -introversion and Sensation Seeking

Scale tendencies are related to need for sensory stimulation. Unlike

39

the internal arousal area, however, data were sought on this issue
to help highlight differences rather than to prevent the masking of
differences. That is, it was felt that by observing subjects under
two different sets of conditions, the chances of being able to observe

the differences hypothesized would be increased.

ME THOD

Subjects

One hundred and twenty male undergraduate students drawn
from an introductory psychology class at Michigan State University
servedas subjects for the experiment. Subjects were predominantly
freshmen and sophomores and for the most part could be considered

psychologically unsophisticated.

Experimental Room

 

The experimental room was an 8' by 10' windowless, well-
insulated room equipped with a 6" by 25" one -way mirror installed
in the door to enable the experimenter to unobtrusively observe
subject activity. The room temperature was controlled at 72°
Fahrenheit and had "normal" flourescent lighting of 300 watts when
lighting was not being controlled by the subject.

The furnishings consisted of a comfortable overstuffed arm-
chair and a 2' by 18" table placed beside the right arm of the chair.
A small bookcase with some miscellaneous equipment was located

behind the chair, out of the subject' s view. Aside from these

40

41

furnishings and the apparatus to be described in the following section,
the room was devoid of furnishings and objects that could be of any

interest to the subject.

Apparatus

 

Apparatus consisted of a 600 -watt incandescent light source
equipped with a 10-step, calibrated, continuously variable dimmer,
placed on a 2" by 4" box on the table beside the subject' 3 armchair.
A remote control switch in series with the dimmer enabled the
experimenter to turn the subject-controlled light source on and off
at will from outside the experimental room.

Also on the table was a tape recorded with a 10-step, cali-
brated volume knob. The recorder could be started by the subject
by pushing a button on one end of a $3" by 5" plastic cylinder, into the
other end of which ran a flexible electrical cord. The cylinder was
draped by its cord over the right arm of the chair so that it was
maximally accessible to the subject' 3 grasp. Wired in series with
the tape ~recorder button -press circuit was a remote -control switch,
a Hunter timer, and a 3 -digit counter. The Hunter timer could be
set to provide tape recorder "on" periods of from one second to 10
minutes for each button press. It should be noted, however, that
button presses are not stored by the timer. If the interval were set

at one minute, the subject would have to press the button once each

42

minute in order to maintain continuous stimulation. The timer turned
the recorder on when the button was pressed and turned it off at the
end of a predetermined interval, no matter how many times the
button was pressed in the intervening period. The counter simply
recorded the number of times the recorderwas turned on.

An intercom placed on the bookshelf behind the subject
enabled the experimenter to monitor any subject verbalizations. A
7. 5-watt red light bulb was hung from a single wire such that it was
located at eye level, six feet from a seated subject. Directly adjacent

to the red light bulb was a 4" by 4" white X on the wall.

Materials

 

Paper -and -pencil tests used were the Eysenck Personality
Inventory, Sensation Seeking Scale (Appendix A), and the Contact
Personality Factor. The Eysenck Personality Inventory and Contact
Personality Factor test extraversion -introversion, while the
Sensation Seeking Scale is a measure of a person' s desire to experi-
ence sensory excitement of various types.

Neither the Contact Personality Factor nor Eysenck Per-
sonality Inventory has been critically reviewed, although Burros
(1965) reviewed the construction methods used in the Eysenck Per-

sonality Inventory. Because of the lack of outside criteria, information

43

on the reliability, validity and personality traits measured by both
the Eysenck Personality Inventory and Contact Personality Factor
must be drawn from the publisher' 8 manuals.

The Eysenck Personality Inventory was constructed using
factor analytic techniques. It measures both neuroticism (which does
not concern us here) and the extraversion -introversion dimension.
Extraversion and introversion are personality traits described as
follows by the Eysenck Personality Inventory manual (Eysenck, 1968):

The typical extravert is sociable, likes parties, has many friends,
needs to have people to talk to, and does not like reading or
studying by himself. He craves excitement, takes chances,
often sticks his neck out, acts on the spur of the moment and

is generally an impulsive individual. He is fond of practical
jokes, always has a ready answer, and generally likes change.
He is carefree, easygoing, optimistic, and likes to "laugh and
be merry. " He prefers to keep moving and doing things, tends
to be aggressive and to lose his temper quickly. His feelings
are not kept under tight control, and he is not always a reliable
person.

The typical introvert is a quiet, retiring sort of person,
introspective, fond of books rather than people; he is reserved
and distant except to intimate friends. He tends to plan ahead,
"looks before he leaps, " and distrusts the impulse of the
moment. He does not like excitement, takes matters of every—
day life with proper seriousness, and likes a well-ordered mode
of life. He keeps his feelings under close control, seldom be-
haves in an aggressive manner, and does not lose his temper
easily. He is reliable, somewhat pessimistic, and places great
value on ethical standards.

Test-retest reliabilities of the Eysenck Personality Inventory
extraversion scale on two groups totaling 119 subjects was .88. The

split -half reliability of the extraversion scale on a group of 1, 655

44

normal subjects was . 86 (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1968, pp. 14-15).
Concurrent validity is claimed for the Eysench Personality Inventory
extraversion scale in that it correlates highly with other measures
purporting to measure extraversion. Construct validity and factorial
validity are also claimed for the Eysenck Personality Inventory
(Eysenck and Eysenck, 1968, pp. 16-17).

The Contact Personality Factor, like the Eysenck Personality
Inventory, was developed using factor analytic techniques. It is de -
rived from the well -known 16-personality factor test of Cattell, and
"measures exactly what is measured by the second -order extraversion
factor derivable from the 16-personality factor scores (I. P.A. T. ,
1954, p. 1). " Reliability of the Contact Personality Factor based on
alternate forms testing (N = 125) is claimed to be . 96 (1. RA. T. ,
1954a, p. 3). Validity is claimed for the Contact Personality Factor
on the basis of its factorial construction, and sample norms are
available for it (I. P. A. T. , 1954c).

An examination of the actual Eysenck Personality Inventory
and Contact Personality Factor forms suggests that the Eysenck
Personality Inventory measures sociability, impulsivity and thrill-
seeking, while the Contact Personality Factor measures factors
primarily related to sociability.

The Sensation Seeking Scale, as has been mentioned earlier,

is a measure of sensation -seeking and is presumably less related to

45

sociability and impulsivity than are the tests of extraversion. The
authors of the Sensation Seeking Scale have designated which items
are related to actual sensory sensation -seeking and it is thus possible
to get both an overall score from the Sensation Seeking Scale and a
subscore which may be indicative of a need for-sensory input. Un-
fortunately, while the test-retest reliability of the Sensation Seeking
Scale has been determined by its authors to be . 68 (Zuckerman 9131. ,
1964), no validity or normative data of any kind is available forit.
The decision to use it was made because it was the only instrument

of its kind available.

An additional measure was the Abnormal Arousal Question-
naire (Appendix B), constructed by the present author. Its purpose
was to check for possible abnormal arousal states and to serve as a
control for possible perceptual handicaps of subjects. It also con-
tained a question designed to reveal any unusual demand character-
istics of the experiment.

The purpose of each of the items on the Abnormal Arousal
Questionnaire was as follows: Questions 1 -6 attempted to determine
deviations from the subject's normal internal arousal during the
self -stimulation period. Questions 7 -12 attempted to determine
deviations from the subject' 3 normal internal arousal during the

optimal level of stimulation period (which includes the slightly

46

unpleasant level period). Questions 13 -16 attempted to determine
whether ingestion of any substances which would alter the subject' 3
normal arousal level affected subject performance during the experi-
ment as a whole. Questions 18-19 serve as a control for subject
perceptual handicaps which might reduce his sensitivity to the experi-
mental stimuli. Question 17 served to control for unusual experi-
mental demand characteristics or unusual subject set. Question 20
attempted to assess possible secondary reward characteristics of

the sound stimulation used in the experiment.

PROC EDURE

Testing

Each subject was given both the paper-and -pencil tests and
the lab measures individually during a one hour long testing session.
On reporting to the experiment the subject was successively given
the Eysenck Personality Inventory, Sensation Seeking Scale, and
Contact Personality Factor. When these tests were completed, the

optimum level of stimulation period of lab testing was begun.

Optimum Level Portion

 

During the optimum level portion of the experiment, the
subject adjusted levels of light and sound to both optimum and uncom-
fortable levels. The experimenter controlled the on -set, off -set,
and adaptation periods from outside the room, entering only at the
end of each period to record settings of light and sound levels by the
subject. An overview of the optimum level and unpleasant level of
stimulation portion of the procedure is as follows:

The subject was seated alone in the dark, sound insulated

experimental room for an adaptation period of one minute. At the

47

48

end of the one minute period the experimenter outside turned on the
variable light source in the experimental room for thirty seconds.
During this period the subject adjusted the light to the. level most
comfortable for him. At the end of the thirty second "light on" period,
the experimenter simultaneously turned out the lights and turned on
the sound (background music) for thirty seconds. As with the light,
the subject adjusted the sound to his most comfortable, or optimum
level.

At the end of the thirty second "sound on" period, the experi-
menter turned on the lights in the experimental room, entered, and
recorded the settings made by the subject. The experimenter then
left the room and the entire procedure described above (including the
one minute adaptation period) was repeated.

Following recording the second set of preferred light and
sound levels, the same basic procedure was repeated except that
instead of the subject setting the light and sound to optimum levels
individually, they were adjusted together to an optimum overall level.

Subsequent to recording the subject' s optimum level of
light and sound in conjunction, each of the above three trials were
repeated with the modification that instead of setting the stimuli to
optimally comfortable levels, the subject adjusted them to a level

slightly too high for comfort.

49

Actual instructions to the subject for this portion of the
experiment were as follows:

During the next part of the experiment I want you to help
me find out what for you is the most comfortable level of light
and sound stimulation. The first step in the procedure is to
have you sit in the chair in this room in the dark for one minute
so that you won' t be too much influenced by the lighting and
sound conditions you are under now. Just sit in the chair and
relax for the minute. When the minute is up, the light will come
on automatically. This is your signal to begin the first optimal
level trial.

The procedure you are to follow is this: When the lights
come on, adjust them up or down by turning the knob on the box
on the table by your right hand. Adjust the lights until they are
at the‘level of brightness where you are most comfortable.
From the time they are turned on until they go off, feel free to
adjust the lights as much as you want. Just try to be sure you
are as comfortable as possible. While you are adjusting the
lights please keep your eyes approximately at the level of the
large white X on the wall. You don' t need to stare at the X,
just try to keep your eyes at approximately its general level.
Thirty seconds after the lights come on, they will go off. Please
do not touch the adjusting knob after this point. When the lights
go out, the tape recorder beside your right hand will go on auto-
matically, playing background music. Your job with the tape
recorder is the same as it was with the lights. Reach out and
adjust the volume knob up or down to the level where you are
most comfortable. Please note the position of the tape recorder
volume control knob now since you will be reaching for it in the
dark. The tape recorder, like the lights, will go off after thirty
seconds.

When the recorder goes off, the lights will come back on
and I will come into the room and record the level of light and
sound that you set. Before I leave I will reset thelight and
sound control knobs to the levels at which they were set when
they first came on. After I leave, the light will go out for one
minute before coming on again. When it comes on, repeat the
procedure you used the first time, adjusting the light and the
sound to the level where you are most comfortable. When I
come back into the room to record the levels you have set as
most comfortable for the light and sound, I'll explain the next
steps in this part of the experiment.

50

E entered the room when the trial was completed, recorded
the levels set for the second trial and reset light dimmer and tape
recorder volume knobs to the control position. E then said:

When I leave the room, the lights will go out as before.
One minute after they go out, they will come on again, but this
time backgroundmusic will come on at the same time. Your
job is just like before, except this time you are to adjust both
the lights and sound together. Again, adjust them so that you
are as comfortable as possible. Remember, you should try to
adjust your overall level of stimulation so that you are as com-
fortable as possible. You had thirty seconds for light adjust-
ment and thirty seconds for sound adjustment before; this time
you will have one one -minute period in which to adjust the light
and the sound together. At the end of the minute the music will
go off and I will come into the room and record the levels you
set as being most comfortable. At that time, I will tell you
what we will be doing next.

E entered the room when the trial was completed, recorded
the levels set for the trial and reset light dimmer and tape recorder
volume knobs to the control position. E then said:

In this trial, we are going to go back to the same procedure
we used on the first and second trials, except that instead of
adjusting the light and sound to optimally comfortable levels, I
want you to adjust each in turn to a level you feel is slightly
unpleasant. Let me emphasize that I don' t want you to see how
much you can take or anything such as that--you are just to
adjust the light and sound to levels that are a little too high for
comfort--a little annoying. Again, there will be a minute of
darkness and quiet after I leave; and, as before, you will have
thirty seconds to adjust the light and thirty seconds to adjust the
sound. When I come in to record the levels you have set, I will
tell you what we are going to do next.

After recording the slighly unpleasant levels set by the sub-

ject, the experimenter gave the following instructions:

51

In this step we are going to combine what you did in the last
step'with what you did in the step before that. After I leave the
room, the lights will go out for one minute. When they come
on, the music will come on also, as in the trial before last.
What I want you to do this time is to adjust the lights and sound
together as you did before--but this time, adjust them so that
the combined effect is slightly unpleasant. When I come back
into the room to record the levels you have set, I will tell you
what we are going to do next.

 

Self -Stimulation Portion

 

After entering the room and recording the levels of light
and sound judged unpleasant in combination by the subject, the
experimenter gave the following instructions:

We are now starting a whole new section of the experiment.
This part of the experiment will be conducted with the normal
fluorescent lighting of the room on. What I want you to do in
this section, which is called the "self-stimulation period, " is
to keep track of the number of times that the red light bulb you
see in front of you lights up. This section lasts one -half hour,
and the bulb may light up zero to ten times in that period.
There is no regularity to when it lights up, but it will stay lit
fairly brightly for one-tenth of a second. This is a very short
flash but if you are alert you should be able to spot it each time
it comes on. Your job is simply to keep track in your head of
the total number of flashes in the one -half hour period.

As a possible aid to you in this somewhat boring task, you
can provide yourself with some sound stimulation. The stimu-
lation consists of background music like that used in the portion
of the experiment you just completed. I will set the level of the
recorder just one step higher than the average of your first two
trials from the optimum level part of the experiment. Thus the
sound should be a comfortable level but a bit louder than what
you find ideally comfortable in a relaxed situation.

If you push the button on the end of the cylinder you see here,
it will provide you with one minute of the background music.

At the end of a minute the sound will go off and you will have to
push again in order to make it start again. Please push the
button only when there is no music actually coming out of the

52

recorder. You cannot get ten minutes of continuous music by
pushing the button ten times in quick succession; this would only
give you one minute of sound and would also interfere with my
recording of how much sound you wanted during this part of the
experiment.

Please do feel free to push the button any time the sound is
not on and you would like some sound to help keep your attention
from wandering from your task of keeping track of the number
of flashes of the red light bulb. Remember to press for sound
only if you want it; your main and most important task is to keep
track of the number of flashes of the red bulb. If the sound helps
you keep from getting bored or keeps your attention from wander-
ing too much from the task, feel free to use it. If it distracts
you from the task or reduces your concentration on the task, do
not use it. You should use the sound stimulation to the extent
t—hzt it helps you to successfully complete the task. Please do
not smoke or get out of the chair until I come back into the room
at the end of one -half hour. Are there any questions?

After answering any questions the subject had, the experi-

menter left the room and monitored subject activity and verbalization

via the one -way mirror and intercom. Any subject manifesting

large and frequent body movements or frequent verbalization had an

"H" for "hyperactive" placed in the lower right -hand corner of his

Abnormal Arousal Questionnaire.

One minute, three minutes, and fourteen minutes after the

experimenter left the room, the red bulb was turned on for one -tenth

of a second. The subject' 8 score when asked how many times the

red bulb had flashed was recorded in the lower right -hand corner of

his Abnormal Arousal Questionnaire.

5

53

Abnormal Arousal Questionnaire
and De -Briefing Period

 

 

After completing the self -stimulation period the subject was
escorted from the experimental room and asked to fill out the Abnormal
Arousal Questionnaire. On completing the Abnormal Arousal Ques -
tionnaire, he was given a de -briefing sheet (Appendix F) and was

informed that he had completed the experiment.

Tabulation of the Data

 

The Eysenck Personality Inventory, Contact Personality
Factor, and Sensation Seeking Scale were scored by hand using
appropriate keys. These three tests provided each subject with five
separate scores, since both the Contact Personality Factor and
Eysenck Personality Inventory have lie scores which are scored

separately from the extraversion scales.

Lab Measure Data

 

In order to provide uniformly comparable data for each
subject on all lab measures, the data from the Optimum Period and
Slightly Unpleasant Period portions of the lab measures period were

and light level from

transformed as follows. Scores for light level 2

1
the Optimum Period portion of the lab measures section were summed
to provide a single Optimum Period Light Level score for each sub-

ject.

54

Scores for sound level1 and sound levelz from the Optimum
Period portion of the lab measures were combined similarly to those
for light level to provide a single Optimum Period Sound Level score
for each subject. Scores for the preferred level of light and sound
in conjunction from the Optimum Period portion of the lab measures
were summed and then multiplied by two to provide a single Optimum
Period Level of conjoint Light and Sound score for each subject.

Scores for the Slightly Unpleasant Period portion of the lab
measures were transformed to provide comparability with the above
scores. Thus, Slightly Unpleasant Period light level1 and sound

level1 scores were simply multiplied by a factor of two, and the
Slightly Unpleasant Period Light Level plus Sound Level scores were
summed and multiplied by a factor of two

Using the above transformations, each subject was thus given
a single score for each of the following lab measures: Optimum
Period Light Level, Optimum Period Sound Level, Optimum Period
Light Level plus Sound Level, Slightly Unpleasant Period Light Level,
Slightly Unpleasant Period Light Level, Slightly Unpleasant Period
Sound Level, Slightly Unpleasant Period Light Level plus Sound Level.
In addition to the above, each subject was given a Minutes of Music
score which was simply the total number of minutes of music with

which he provided himself during the self -stimulation portionof the

lab measures section.

55

Abnormal Arousal
Questionnaire Data

 

 

The main function of the Abnormal Arousal Questionnaire
was to ascertain the existence of abnormalities of subject arousal.
As was described on page 45, items 1 -12 were designed to assess
the subject' 8 internal arousal during the lab measures period. When
these items were initially constructed, it was assumed that they
would be equally weighed with questions 1 -6 determining subject
arousal during the Self -Stimulation Period and questions 7 -12 assess -
ing subject arousal during the Optimum Level Period.

A pre -analysis examination of questions 1 -12 suggested,
however, that there was considerable overlap between some items,
and that some items might not be as clearly related to internal
arousal as was originally thought. Specifically, it appeared that the
groups of items 1 -4 and 7 -10 were each quite homogeneous and that
items 5 and 11 were of dubious value in measuring subject arousal.
This re -evaluation of the Abnormal Arousal Questionnaire data sug-
gested that items 5 and 11 should be considered separately from the
arousal items and that a single score should be given each subject
for questions 1 -4 and 7 -10.

Questions 6 and 12 directly determined each subject' 3

deviation from his normal arousal state while in the lab session.

56

Because this deviation from the norm was of direct relevance to the
testing of hypotheses 4 and 5, the scores on these items were con-
sidered separately and were ultimately weighed in such a fashion as
to give them importance equal to that of items 1 -4 and 7 -10. As
part of the re -evaluation of the Abnormal Arousal Questionnaire,
items 13 -16 were reviewed. Re -examination suggested that abnormal
arousal states implied by positive responses to items 13 -16 would be
reflected quantitatively by responses to items 1 -12. Because of this,
it was decided to disregard these items in the tabulation.

Item 20 served as a control question for possible secondary
reinforcement characteristics of the sound stimulation available in
the Self -Stimulation Period. Scores on this item, like those on
items 1 -12, ranged from 1 -7. On this item, low scores indicated a
dislike for the music and high scores enjoyment of it.

Summary of Transformed
Raw Data

 

The tabulated Abnormal Arousal Questionnaire data discussed
above, with the transformed data from the laboratory measures and
scores on the three personality tests, resulted in a total of 19 scores
for each of the 120 subjects. To provide an overview of the outcome
of the data tabulation, the variables for which scores were determined
for each subject are listed in Appendix C with the items and trans-

formations whichwere involved in determining each.

RESULTS

Before the actual analysis of results was begun, information
provided by items 17, 18, and 19 was examined to determine if cer-
tain subjects should be eliminated from the sample. Criteria for
elimination were reported presence of vision or hearing abnormalities
and/or the clear presence of unusual demand characteristics of the
experiment. For-example, subjects who reported being hard of
hearing or who reported believing the lab measures portion of the
experiment was ". . . a test of masculinity to see how much stimu-
lation I can take" were eliminated. This elimination process reduced
the number of subjects from 120 to 114.

Basic summary statistics were computed for all subjects
on each of the 19 variables evaluated to enable an overview of the
data.

Inspection of Table 1 reveals two main results. The first
is that the experimental sample conforms quite closely to published
normative scores for both the Eysenck Personality Inventory ([J. = 13. 1,
0': 4. 1) and its lie scale (I), = 3. 8, 0‘: 1. 7) and the Contact Per-

sonality Factor ([1. = 32, O" = 6. 6) and its distortion score (’1. = 6,

57

58

 

 

 

Table 1
Summary Data for All Subjects
(N = 114)
. Minimum; Maximum. Standard
Var1able Value Value Mean Deviation
Self -Stimulation Period
Absolute Arousal 4. 00 23.00 10. 16 3. 70
Self -St1mulat10n Period 1. 00 7. 00 3. 07 1. 54

Day Dreaming

Self -Stimulation Period
Deviation from 1.00 5. 00 2. 81 1. 11
Normal Arousal

Optimum Period
Absolute Arousal

Optimum Period
Day Dreaming

Optimum Period
Deviation from 1. 00 6. 00 3. 15 1.22

Normal Arousal

Degree of

Liking of Music 1 00 7.00 3 92 1 57
Optimum Period

Level of Light 2 0° 13 00 7 54 4 02
Opt1mum Period 2 00 13 00 6 94 1 80

Level of Sound

Optimum Period
Level of Light and 4. 00 26. 00 13.12 4. 55
Sound in Conjunction

 

 

 

 

Table 1 - - Continued

59

 

‘1'

 

._v_

 

Va 'abl Minimum Maxim Standard
r1 e . Value Value Mean Deviation

Slightly Unpleasant Period f
Level of Light 4. 00 18. 00 12. 25 3. 93
Slightly Unpleasant Period
Level of Sound 4. 00 18.00 10. 26 2. 60
Slightly Unpleasant Period
Level of Light and 12.00 36. 00 23. 49 5. 72
Sound in Conjunction
Minutes of Music 0.00 30. 00 12.40 10. 42
Contact Personality Factor 19. 00 46.00 33. 22 5.64
Score
Contact Personal1ty Factor 1' 00 12. 00 5. 89 2.26
L1e Score
Sensat1on Seeking Scale 4. 00 24. 00 16.07 4. 34 '
Score
Eysend‘ Persm‘ahty 1.00 20.00 12.44 3. 72
Inventory Score
Eysenck Persmahty 0.00 7. oo 2. 42 1. 65

Inventory Lie Scale Score

 

 

 

 

 

60

O‘: 2). The second is that virtually all of the variables are normally

distributed.

Table 2

Correlations between Extraversion Scores and Laboratory Measures
of Preferred and Slightly Unpleasant Levels of Sensory Stimulation

for All Subjects

 

 

 

(N = 114)
Contact Eysenck Sensation
Variable Personality Personality Seeking

Factor Inventory Scale
Optimum Period
Level of Light .008 -. 009 .124
Optimum Period
Level of Sound .167 .021 . 056
Optimum Period
Level of Light and . 127 -. 045 -. 174*
Sound in Conjunction
Slightly Unpleasant Period

. 2 , -, =I<
Level of Light 1 4 105 161
Slightly Unpleasant Period . 234*“, . 163* . 012
Level of Sound
Slightly Unpleasant Period
LeVel of Light and . 22 9*** . 154* -. 166*
Sound in Conjunction
Minutes of Music .043 . 112 -. 029

 

 

 

 

*P:.10
**P< .05
***P-<'.01

Based on these observations regarding the distributions of

the variables, a correlational analysis is appropriate to investigate

61

the interrelationships relevant to testing H1, H2, and H3. Correlations
which have direct bearing on these hypotheses are presented above in
Table 2. 1

H 1’ which postulated a positive correlation between extra -
version and amount of sensory stimulation preferred to produce
optimum hedonic tone, did not receive statistical support.

H2 postulated a positive correlation between extraversion
and amount of stimulation necessary to produce slight discomfort.
Of the nine applicable correlations, six are in the predicted direction,
two are significant at the . 10 level, and two are significant at the . 01
level. Additionally it should be noted that all correlations _n_o_’_c_ sup-
porting H2 were contributed by the Sensation Seeking Scale, a test
of more questionable validity than the Eysenck Personality Inventory
or Contact Personality Factor. It thus appears that while the corre-
lations are not of high magnitude, there is significant statistical
support for this hypothesis.

H3, which proposed a positive correlation between extra-
version and amount of sensory stimulation preferred when in a task
situation, also failed to receive support. In fact, of the twelve cor-

relations applicable to these hypotheses, only two reached even the

. 10 level of significance.

 

1Appendix D presents the full 19 X 19 intercorrelation
matrix from which Table 2 was extracted.

62

Earlier, the view was presented that if subjects with abnormal
internal arousal states were included in the sample, they might mask
an existing correlation between extraversion -introversion and/ or
Sensation Seeking Scale scores and sensoristatic variables. Based
on this belief, another correlational analysis was conducted after
eliminating all subjects whose deviation from the norm on any one of
the four variables related to arousal (Self -Stimulation Period Abnormal
Arousal, Self -Stimulation Period Deviation from Normal Arousal,
Optimum Period Abnormal Arousal, Optimum Period Deviation from
Normal Arousal) was greater than 1% 0". To further assure a sub-
sample with a minimum of confounding variation, all subjects with
scores of 1% 0’ above the mean on either the Contact Personality
Factor or Eysenck Personality Inventory lie scales were also elimi-
nated. Elimination of both these groups provided a group of 62 sub-
jects who were defined as "normal. " As in the previous analysis on
all subjects, basic summary statistics were calculated before the
correlational analysis was carried out.

Table 3 reveals that a number of the distributions of scores
on the 19 variables measured depart appreciably from normality. It
should be noted however that the departures are not extreme and that
this subsample, like the larger sample from which it was drawn,

does conform closely to published norms for both the Eysenck

63

 

 

 

Table 3
Summary Data for ”Normal" Subjects
(N = 62)
Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Standard

V alue Value Deviation
Self -Stimulation Period
Absolute Arousal 5. 00 14. 00 9. 10 2. 55
Self -St1mulation Period 1 00 7. 00 3 08 1 60

Day Dreaming

Self -Stimulation Period
Deviation from 2. 00 4. 00 2 . 68 0. 76
Normal Arousal

Optimum Period
Absolute Arousal

Optimum Period
Day Dreaming

Optimum Period
Deviation from 2. 00 4. 00 3. 00 0. 83
Normal Arousal

Degree of

0 .
Liking of Music 1 0 7 0° 3 98 1 61
Optimum Period
Level of Light 2. 00 17. 00 7. 40 3. 92
Optimum Period 2 00 13 00 6 81 1 77

Level of Sound

Optimum Period
Level of Light and 4.00 24. 00 12. 84 4. 43
Sound in Conjunction

 

 

 

 

64

Table 3 - - Continued

 

 

Minimum Maximum Standard

 

varlable Value Value Mean Deviation
Slightly Unpleasant Period
Level of Light 4. 00 18.00 12.52 3. 67
Slightly Unpleasant Period 4. 00 18. 00 9. 74 2. 36

Level of Sound

Slightly Unpleasant Period
Level of Light and 12. 00 36. 00 23.58 5. 78
Sound in Conjunction

Minutes of Music 0.00 30. 00 10.79 10.06
Contact Personality Factor

Score 19.00 46. 00 32. 68 5. 60
Contact Personality Factor 1 00 9 00 5 24 1 31
L1e Score

Sensation Seeking Scale 4. 00 24. 00 15. 40 4. 53
Score

Eysenck Personality 3. 00 19. 00 12. 56 3, 92
. Inventory Score

Eysenck Personality 0 00 4.00 1 37 1 25

Inventory Lie Scale Score

 

 

 

 

 

65

Personality Inventory and Contact Personality Factor. Having
adequately met the necessary statistical assumptions for this smaller
sample, a 19 X 19 correlation matrix similar to the matrix for the
total sample described above was computed for the normally aroused
subjects only (Appendix E). Correlations from this matrix which had
implications for the testing of H1, H2, and H3 were extracted from
the larger matrix and are presented on page 66.

Inspection of Table 4 reveals findings quite similar to those

is supported while H and H fail

for the entire sample. Again H 1 3

2
to receive statistically significant support. Worthy of note, how-

ever, is the fact that while H is not clearly supported by data from

1
this "normal" sample, it comes much closer to receiving support
than it did for the sample as a whole. Specifically, for the six rele-
vant correlations based on Eysenck Personality Inventory and Contact
Personality Factor scores, five are in the predicted direction, one

is significant at the . 05 level and one barely fails to reach the . 10
significance level.

In this analysis, as in the previous one, H3 fails to receive
even-tentative support. None of the correlations between any of the
personality tests and the minutes of music score approach even the
. 10 level of significance. As an aside, it is interesting to note that

the minutes of music score was not significantly correlated with any

of the 18 other variables on which these subjects were measured!

66

Table 4

Correlations between Extraversion Scores and Laboratory Measures
of Preferred and Slightly Unpleasant Levels of Sensory Stimulation
for Subjects with Normal Internal Arousal States

 

 

 

(N = 62)
Contact Eysenck Sensation
Variable Personality Personality Seeking

Factor Inventory Scale
Optimum Period **
Level of Light . 008 . 052 -. 256
Optimum Period
Level of Sound '210 -' O78 " 202
Optimum Period
Level of Light and .241** .068 -. 257***
Sound in Conjunction
Slightly Unpleasant Period
Level of Light .101 .191 -. 231
Slightly Unpleasant Period . 2 54M . 200 _. 058
Level of Sound
Slightly Unpleasant Period
Level of Light and . 241** . 233* -. 167
Sound in Conjunction
Minutes of Music . 082 . 092 . 003

 

 

 

 

*P_<_ . 10
**P< .05
***P§.01

Having examined the data with respect to the extraversion-

sensoristasis hypotheses, it is now appropriate to examine the data

relevant to the internal arousal -sensoristasis hypotheses, H -H .

4 7

67

Since H 4-H,7 are all related to differences in stimulus
seeking behavior as a function of low, normal, or high internal
arousal, all subjects were classified by degree of arousal. Splitting
into three classes was achieved by classifying all subjects who
scored greater than or equal to 10' from the mean on any of the four
internal arousal variables as high andlow arousal subjects respec-
tively. Since it was possible for a subject to score +10” on one of
the four arousal variables and -10— on another, some subjects were
initially classified as having both high and low internal arousal.
Because data for these subjects was of questionable validity and
because dual classification of single subjects created severe statis-
tical problems, these anomolous subjects were eliminated from the
analysis related to arousal, resulting in a subject number of 111.

The overall correlational analysis for all subjects (Appen-
dix D) strongly suggested that all four internal arousal variables
were significantly correlated. Nevertheless, because the two Devia-
tion from Normal Arousal variables were based on only one ques-
tionnaire item, it was felt that it would be advisable to check .to
assure that the method of classification described above had resulted
in three groups which could be accurately described as having high,

medium, and low overall levels of internal arousal. To test the

effectiveness of the grouping, means for each-group were determined

68

and Fisher -Student t values for significance of differences between

means for the high, medium, and low arousal groups on each of the

arousal variables were computed.

Table 5

Mean Scores of Low, Normal, and High Arousal Groups
on Individual Arousal Variables

 

 

 

Low Normal High
Variable Arousal Arousal Arousal
(N = 26) (N = 47) (N = 38)
Self -Stimulation Period
Absolute Arousal 6' 89 9° 87 12' 66
Self -Stimulation Period
Deviation from 2. 11 2. 79 3. 34
Normal Arousal
Optimum Period
Absolute Arousal 8' 73 11' 45 15' 79
Optimum Period
Deviation from 2. 53 2. 85 3. 94

Normal Arousal

 

 

 

 

Tables 5 and 6 show that the trichotomization was clearly

effective in separating subjects on overall arousal, since all differ-

ences are in the predicted direction and all but one highly significant

for each of the four arousal variables.

To enable direct testing of

H -H , aunivariate analysis of variance was computed on each of the

4 7

69

seven sensory seeking lab measure variables for low, medium, and

high arousal subjects.

t Values for Difference between Means of
Low, Normal, and High Arousal Groups

Table 6

on Individual Arousal Variables

 

 

 

Low Low Normal
Arousal Arousal Arousal
Variable vs vs vs
Normal High High
Arousal Arousal Arousal
Self -Stimulation Period
*** *** ***
Absolute Arousal 5' 81 7' 07 4' 10
Self -Stimulation Period
Deviation from 3. 24*** 4. 37*** 2. 52**
Normal Arousal
Optimum Period Mn, *3” ‘ ***
Absolute Arousal 5' 42 9' 42 7' 88
Optimum Period
Deviation from 1. 39 4, 64*** 5, 02mm:

Normal Arousal

 

 

 

 

*P < .
MP2.
***p'<",

05
01
001

As seen in Table 7, the existence of significant main effects

for arousal on all of the Optimum Period and Slightly Unpleasant

Period lab measures was established. At this point the single effects

of the analysis of variance relevant to testing H

4 7

- H were examined.

70

Table 7

F Ratios and Significance Levels of Main Effects
for Arousal in Univariate Analysis of Variance
on Sensory Seeking Variables

 

 

 

Variable F Ratio Significance
Level
Optimum Period
Level of Light 3- 13 . 05
Optimum Period 3 87 02

Level of Sound

Optimum Period
Level of Light and 3. 28 . 04
Sound in Conjunction

Slightly Unpleasant Period
Level of Light

Slightly Unpleasant Period
Level of Sound

Slightly Unpleasant Period
Level of Light and 2. 75 . 06
Sound in Conjunction

Minutes of Music . 52 . 59

 

 

 

Tables 8 and 9 show that H 4 is not supported. Interestingly,

however, there is very strong support for the converse of H4. That

is, contrary to H subjects with abnormally high internal arousal

4,
states score significantly higher on five of the six sensory seeking

variables than normally aroused subjects.

71

 

 

 

 

 

 

wag: 3.: 3.3 3.2 35 v9: 0852 we 33:32

sowpognsou 5 pgom

was oohm cad 35m Nah 34m use ERA no H964

©3on psmmmofiasb mflswflm

. . . . . . venom mo floured

an N S 3 no N co 3 on m «.m m possum pswmmofiasb DEER

. . . . . . Emfi so Hoeoq

S. m we 2 as m we NH mm v 3 3 «520m asmmmofiasb mflnwfiw

sorossnsoo 5 venom

so .n 3. .3 em .4 S .2 . E. .m mm .2 use Emfi so “seen

vowhom EnEUQO

. . . . . . pgom mo H964

3 m mm N. em H mm m mm H mm m ©3qu Engao

. . . . . . Ewfi so Hoes;

mu. v we a on m 3 o 3 v 3 p @3qu Esgao
b M b M .0 M.

o 9.3
as u E E. u E as u E s . >

gwmson< £93 awmsoadw 38qu 3650.34 Bod

 

 

 

 

 

moanmwhgw mfixoom huomdom so
masouw 336.3» swam use .35qu .BOA mo coflfl>ofl pumvcfim new museum 582

w 3an

72

Table 9

t Values and Significance Levels for Simple Effects
of Mean Differences on Low, Medium, and High Arousal Groups

(Sensory Seeking Variables)

 

 

7+

3? Medium

 

3(- Low Low
Variable _ .' __ - __ -
X Medium X High X High
Optimum Period *3” _ ***
Level of Light .54 2. 84 1. 72
Optimum Period
- - >5: - ***
Level of Sound 1. 24 1. 75 2. 41
Optimum Period
Level of Light and - .27 —2. 19** -2. 12**
Sound in Conjunction
Slightly Unpleasant Period _ _ * _ **
Level of Light .92 1. 74 2.15
Slightly Unpleasant Period _ . 71 _1 . 89* _2. 41*)”
Level of Sound
Slightly Unpleasant Period
Level of Light and - . 97 —1. 50 -2. 30**
Sound in Conjunction
Minutes of Music .89 .94 .01

 

 

 

 

*P: .10
**P_<_ .05
***P < .01

H which postulated that highly aroused subjects would

5’

desire less sensory stimulation than normally aroused subjects when

in a task situation failed to receive any statistical support whatsoever.

73

H6 postulated that in a relaxed situation, subjects with low
arousal would desire less sensory stimulation than normally aroused
subjects. This hypothesis failed to receive statistically significant
support. Worthy of note, however, is that differences on five of the
six sensory seeking variables are in the predicted direction and that
two of these five just fail to reach the . 10 significance level.

H7, which postulated that low arousal subjects would use
more stimulation than normal arousal subjects when in a task situa-
tion, also failed to receive significant statistical support.

In sum, the results related to the internal arousal-
sensoristasis hypotheses in a nontask situation reveal that there is
a significant overall relationship between these variables and that
the subjects with abnormally high arousal internal state account for
most of the variance. Additionally, the results suggest that sensory
seeking behavior is an increasing monotonic function of internal

arousal when in a nontask situation. Results related to internal

arousal -sensoristasis in a task situation were inconclusive.

DISCUSSION

Ludvigh (197 0) in an earlier study investigating extraversion-
introversion and sensoristasis suggested that if there was a relation—
ship between the variables, it was rather‘weak. The present study
supports the existence of the positive correlation between extraversion
and sensory seeking behavior hypothesized by Eysenck but points up
the fact that even under the best of conditions such a relationship can
account for only a small fraction of sensory seeking behavior.

Of some interest is the finding that the hypothesized relation-
ship between the extraversion -introversion dimension, level of
sensory stimulation and hedonic tone holds up considerably better for
negative levels of hedonic tone than for optimum levels.

The data from the present study suggest that while extraverts

and introverts may not be significantly different in preferred level of

 

stimulation, they do differ on what constitutes an uncomfortably high
level of stimulation. Since the even highest absolute levels of stimu-
lation used in the present study did not exceed those encountered in
daily life, the implications of the present study' 3 findings are

similar to that of Eysenck' 3 original hypothesis. Thus differences

74

75

which Eysenck explains in terms of optimum levels of stimulation
(page 20) can be explained equally well in terms of unpleasant levels
of sensory input.

Also interesting is confirmation (at least for the sample
used in the present study) of Eysenck' s assumption (Figure 1, page 20)
that optimum and unpleasant levels of stimulation are approximately
normally distributed. This finding, in conjunction with the greater
extravert -introvert differences in the area of negative hedonic tone,
suggests modification of the relationship depicted by Eysenck in
Figure 1, page 20.

While the general shape of the curves observed in the present
study was similar to those proposed by Eysenck, differences on
level of sensory input between extraverts and introverts would be
greater in the negative hedonic tone area than at optimal levels.

Thus the present study suggests that the relationship can best be
graphed as shown on the following page.

Implications of Figure 3 are somewhat limited because of
the small magnitude of the differences involved. It does, however,
seem justifiable to say that level hedonic tone is approximately
normally distributed over amount of sensory input. Additionally it
appears that there is a significant positive correlation between extra-
version and amount of sensory stimulation necessary to produce

feelings of slight discomfort.

76

 

 

 

 

A —— Introverts
° ° ° - - ° Ambiverts
Positive
Hedonic
Tone
Negative ' / Indifference L vél
Hedonic
Tone
\
Level of Stimulation
Very Low Low Medium High Very High
(Sensory
Deprivation)

Figure 3. --Relation between level of sensory input, hedonic tone,
and the extraversion -introversion dimension based on
obtained data.

A final note on Figure 3 is that where there is no applicable
data, no assumptions as to the nature of the relationship are made.
The graph is thus incomplete and must remain so until carefully
controlled studies are conducted investigating extraversion -intro-
version sensoristasis differences at both extreme ends of the sensory
stimulation continuum.

An interesting secondary implication of the present study
is related to the logical and appealing propositions IV, V, VI, and
VIII of Fiske and Maddi. Contrary to expectations, H4-H7, which

were based on these propositions, were not supported. Receiving

77

considerable support, however, was the work of Jones (1961), based
on the Hull -Spence drive generalization model, which showed that
irrelevant drive increased stimulus seeking behavior regardless of
the adaptiveness of such arousal.

Discussion of the relative merits of the highly elaborate
Hull —Spence learning theory model and the model proposed by Fiske
and Maddi is beyond the scope of the present study. Worthy of note,
however, is the fact that the Hull -Spence model used by Jones (1961)
accurately predicted the behavior of subjects with high arousal,
while the Fiske and Maddi model correctly predicted the direction
of the behavior of subjects withlow arousal (although the results
failed to reach statistical significance). While the exact theoretical
meaning of this finding is unclear, it is apparent that arousal
phenomena are not as clean and easy to describe as the presentation
of Fiske and Maddi makes it appear.

A unique contribution of the present study to the sensori-
stasis area should be noted. This finding is that ongoing internal
arousal states are strongly correlated with sensory seeking behavior.
In the particular sample dealt with in the present study, there was a
highly significant positive correlation between heightened internal
arousal and sensory seeking behavior. In fact, the proportion of the

variance of sensory seeking behavior accounted for by the author' 8

78

measure of internal arousal prepared for the present study was
considerably greater than was accounted for by the more sophisticated
Eysenck Personality Inventory.

While the finding that there is a statistically significant
relationship between extraversion and stimulus seeking behavior is
of theoretical importance, the relationship observed is disappoint-
ingly weak. Of less theoretical importance but much more exciting
is the observation that internal arousal, a variable considered in the
present study mainly to prevent confounding of more important
extraversion -introversion variables, may well be of real importance
in human sensory seeking behavior. Future research would do well
to investigate this area carefully, as it may be of much greater
importance than the extraversion —introversion dimension which was

the primary focus of the present study.

Summary

The present study investigated the relationship between
extraversion —introversion and preferred levels of stimulation. A
review of the literature related to the extraversion -introversion
dimension and sensory seeking behavior suggested the following

hypothe ses.

79

H1 There is a positive correlation between extraversion
scores, Sensation Seeking Scale scores, and the amount of

ambient illumination and sound which is necessary to pro-

vide optimum hedonic tone.

H There is a positive correlation between extraversion
scores, Sensation Seeking Scale scores, and the amount of
ambient illumination and sound which is necessary to create

a slightly unpleasant level of hedonic tone.

H There is a positive correlation between extraversion
scores, Sensation Seeking Scale scores, and amount of sen-
sory stimulation necessary to maintain sufficient arousal

to perform adequately an intrinsically nonstimulating task.

Because of the belief that failure to control for abnormal
internal arousal states could mask the extraversion -introversion
sensoristasis differences of interest, information was gathered on
such states. Based on research suggesting that internal arousal
sums with arousal produced by external stimulation, the following

hypotheses were proposed.

H 4 Subjects under relaxed conditions reporting abnormally high

internal arousal will desire less sensory stimulation than

normally aroused subjects.

80

H5 Subjects with a task orientation reporting abnormally high
internal arousal will desire less sensory stimulation than

normally aroused subjects.

H Subjects reporting abnormally low internal arousal will
desire less sensory stimulation than normally aroused sub—

jects when in a relaxed situation.

H Task oriented subjects reporting abnormally low internal
arousal states will desire more stimulation than normally

aroused subjects when in a task oriented situation.

To enable testing of the above hypotheses, 120 male under-
graduates were measured for extraversion and sensation seeking
tendencies using the Eysenck Personality Inventory, the Contact
Personality Factor, and the Sensation Seeking Scale. Subjects then
individually underwent a laboratory measures session to determine
the amount of sensory stimulation they preferred and the amount of
stimulation required to produce feelings of mild discomfort. The
stimuli used were white light and background music. Subjects
simply adjusted these stimuli to pleasant and slightly unpleasant
levels using continuously variable control knobs.

To investigate the extraversion -introversion -sensoristasis

relationship under slightly different conditions, a measure of

81

preferred amount of stimulation while in a task situation was obtained
for each subject. This index was determined by having each subject
perform a vigilance task and allowing him to stimulate himself with
music at will throughout the task. The amount of music used ty the
subject was recorded and was transformed into a sensory seeking
score.

After the lab measures portion of the experiment, subjects
were given a questionnaire to ascertain their level of internal arousal
during the experiment.

Analysis of the data related to the extraversion -introversion
sensoristasis hypotheses (H1 -H3) revealed the following:

There was tentative support for H1 in that while the observed
correlations for subjects as a whole were not statistically significant
for the "normally aroused" subject subgroup, 5 out of 6 were in the
predicted direction and 2 did approach significance.

There was considerable support for H2 since the 6 relevant
correlations between Eysenck Personality Inventory and Contact
Personality Factor scores and lab measures of slightly unpleasant
levels of stimulation were all in the predicted direction and 4 were
significant at the . 10 level or higher. H3 failed to receive support.

Analysis of the data related to the internal arousal sensori-

stasis hypotheses (H4-H7) failed to reveal support for any of these

82

hypotheses. It should be noted, however, that while the specific
hypotheses made were not supported, the overall effect of internal
arousal on sensory seeking behavior was clearly established.
Briefly what was discovered was that while hypotheses generated by
the homeostatic conceptualization of sensory seeking behavior are
not supported, there is strong support for a drive model such as

that proposed by Hull.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Ashby, W. Design for a brain. New York: Wiley, 1960.

Azima, H. , and Cramer, F. Effects of partial perceptual isolation
in mentally disturbed individuals. Diseases of the Nervous
System, 1.7, 1956, 117-122.

Beebe- Center, J. The psychology of pleasantness and unpleasant-
ness (1932).

Cited in Cofer, C. , and Appley, M. Motiva-
tion: Theory and research. New York: Wiley, 1965.

Beecher, H. Measurement of subjective responses. New York:
Oxford, 1959. Cited in Eysenck, H. The biochgical basis
of personality. Springfield: Charles Thomas, 1967.

 

Berlyne, D. Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw,
1960.

Cited in Eysenck, H. The biological basis of per-
sonality. Springfield: Charles Thomas, 1967.

Bexton, W. H. Some effects of perceptual isolation in human sub-
jects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University,
1953. Cited in Zubeck, J. , ed.

Sensory deprivation:
Fifteen years of research. New York: Appleton -Century-
Crofts, 1969.

Biase, D. , and Zuckerman, M. Sex differences in stress responses

to total and partial sensory deprivation. Psychosom. Med. ,
29, 1967, 380 -390.

Brownfield, C. A. Optimal stimulation levels of normal and disturbed

subjects in sensory deprivation. Psychologia: Int. J. of
Psychol. inthe Orient, 9, 1966, 27 -38.

Euros, O. , ed. The sixth mental measurements yearbook. Highland
Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1965.

83

84

Cofer, C., and Appley, M. Motivation: Theory and research. New
York: Wiley, 1965.

 

Cohen, S. 1., Silverman, A. J., 8: Shamovian, B. M. Psycho-
physiological studies in altered sensory environments.
J.fiPsychosom. Res., 6, 1962, 259-281.

 

Courtney, J., Davis, J. M., & Solomon, P. Sensory deprivation:
The role of movement. Percept. Mot. Skills, 13, 1961,
191-199.

 

Courts, F. A. Relations between experimentally induced muscular
tension and memorization. J. of Exp. Psych. , 25, 1939,
235-256.

 

Eysenck, H. , ed. Experiments with drug. New York: The Mac-
millan Co. , 1963.

 

Eysenck, H. The bioloiical basis of personality. Springfield:
Charles Thomas, 1967.

 

Eysenck, H. , and Eysenck, S. Manual--Eysenck Personality
Inventory. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing
Service, 1968.

 

Francis, R. D. The effect of prior instructions and time knowledge
on the toleration of sensory isolation. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. ,
139, 1964, 182 -185.

 

Francis, R. D. Intra —subject stability of isolation tolerance. Per-
cept. Mot. Skills, 23, 1966, 89-90. (a)

 

Francis, R. D. Isolation tolerance and the sensory satiation hypothesis.
Percept. Mot. Skills, 23, 1966, 701-702. (b)

 

Fiske, D. W. , and Maddi, S. R. A conceptual framework. In
Fiske, D. W., and Maddi, S. R. , eds. Functions of varied
experience. Homewood, 111.: Dorsey Press, Inc., 1961.
Pp. 11-56. (a)

 

 

Gibby, R. B., Adams, H. 13., & Carrera, R. N. Therapeutic
changes in psychiatric patients following partial sensory
deprivation. Arch. Gen. Psychiat., 3, 1960, 33 -42.

 

85

Hanna, T. , Burns, H., & Tiller, P. Behavioral and physiological
responses to varying periods of sensory deprivation. Cited
in Zubeck, J. , ed. Sensory deprivation: Fifteen years of
research. New York: Appleton-Century -Crofts, 1969.

Hebb, D. O. Drives and the CNS (conceptual nervous system).
Psychol. Rev., 62, 1955, 243-254.

 

Hull, J. , and Zubeck, J. P. Personality characteristic of success-
ful and unsuccessful sensory isolation subjects. Percept.
Mot. Skills, 14, 1962, 231-240.

 

1. P. A. T. Development of the CPF. Champaign, 111.: 1. P. A. T.
Corp., 1954.

I. P. A. T. Norms for CPF. Champaign, 111.: I. P. A. T. Corp.,
1954. (b)

I. P. A. T. CPF Introduction. Champaign, 111.: .1. P. A. T. Corp.,
1954. (a)

Jackson, C. W., Jr., and Pollard, J. C. Some nondeprivation
variables which influence the "effects" of experimental
sensory deprivation. J. Abnorm. Psychol., 71, 1966,
[383—388.

 

Jones, A. Stimulus seeking behavior. In Zubeck, J ., ed. Sensory
deprivation: Fifteen years of research. New York: Apple-
ton -C entury -Crofts, 1 9 69.

 

Jones, A. Supplementary report: Information deprivation and
irrelevant drive as determiners of an instrumental response.
J. Exp. Psychol. , 62, 1961, 310-311.

 

Jones, A. , and McGill, D. W. The homeostatic character of infor-
mation drive inhumans. J. Exp. Res. inPers., 2, 1967,
25-31.

 

Jones, A. , Wilkinson, H. J. , & Braden, 1. Information deprivation
as a motivational variable. J. Exp. Psychol., 62, 1961,
126-137.

 

86

Leon, H. V. , and Frank, G. H. Personality correlates of cognitive
disturbances in short-term sensory deprivation. J. Gen.
Psychol., 74, 1966, 273-277.

Leuba, C. Toward some integration of learning theories: the con-
cept of optimal stimulation. Psychol. Rept. , 1, 1955, 27 -33.

 

Leuba, C. Relation of stimulation intensities to learning and develop-
ment. Psychol. Rept. , 11, 1962,‘ 55-56.

 

Lindsley, D. Emotion. In Stevens, 8., ed. Handbook of expleri-
mental psychology. New York: Wiley, 1961. Pp. 473-516.

 

 

Lindsley, D. B. Common factors in sensory deprivation, sensory
distortion, and sensory overload. In Solomon, P. , et al. ,
eds. Sensory deprivation. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1961. Pp. 174-194.

 

Ludvigh, E. Extraversion and need for sensory stimulation. Unpub-
lished master' 3 thesis, Michigan State University, 1970.

Malmo, R. Measurement of drive: An unsolved problem. In Jones,
M. , ed. Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1958. Pp. 229-265.

 

Moruzzi, G. , and Magoun, H. Brain stem reticular formation and
activation of the EEG (1949). Cited in Cofer, C. , and
Appley, M. Motivation: Theory and research. New York:
Wiley, 1965.

 

Myers, F. Tolerance for sensory and perceptual deprivation. In
Zubeck, J. , ed. Sensory deprivation: Fifteen years of
research, New York: Appleton-Century -Crofts, 1969.

 

Orne, M. T. On the social psychology of the psychological experi-
ment with particular reference to demand characteristics
and their implications. Amer. Psychologist, 17, 1962, 776-
783.

 

Petrie, A. , Collins, W. , & Solomon, P. The tolerance for pain and
for sensory deprivation. Amer. J. Psychol., 73, 1960,
80 -90.

 

87

Petrie, A. , Collins, W., 8; Solomon, P. Pain sensitivity, sensory
deprivation and susceptibility to satiation. Science, 128,
1958, 1431-1433.

Reed, G. , and Kenna, J. Sex differences in body imagery and
orientation under sensory deprivation of brief duration.
Percept. 8: Motor Skills, 18, 1964, 117—118.

 

Reed, G. , and Sedman, G. Personality and depersonalization under
sensory deprivation conditions. Percept. & Mot. Skills,
18, 1964, 659-660.

 

Rossi, A. M. , Furhman, A. , & Solomon, P. Arousal levels and
thought processes during sensory deprivation. J. Abnorm.
Psychol., 72, 1967, 166-173. '

 

Rossi, A. M. , and Solomon, P. Button-pressing for a time -off
reward during sensory deprivation: IV. Relation to change
in ratings of well-being. Percept. Mot. Skills, 19, 1964,
520-522. (c)

 

Rossi, A. M. , and Solomon, P. Button-pressing for a time -off re-
ward during sensory deprivation: 1. Relation to activity
reward; 11. Relation to descriptions of experience. Per-
cept. Mot. Skills, 18, 1964, 211-216. (a)

 

 

Rossi, A. M. , and Solomon, P. Button-pressing for a time -off
reward during sensory deprivation: V. Effects of relatively
comfortable and uncomfortable sessions. Percept. Mot.
Skills, 19, 1964, 803 -807. (b)

 

 

Rossi, A. M. , and Solomon, P. Button -pressing for a time -off
reward during sensory deprivation: 111. Effects of varied
time-off rewards. Percept. Mot. Skills, 18, 1964, 794-
796. (c)

 

Rossi, A. M. , and Solomon, P. Note on reactions of extroverts
and introverts to sensory deprivation. Percept. Mot. Skills,
20, 1965, 1183 -1184.

 

Rossi, A. M. , and Solomon, P. Effects of sensory deprivation on
introverts and extroverts: A failure to find reported dif-
ferences. J. Psychiat. Res. , 4, 1966, 115—125.

 

88

Schlosberg, H. Three dimensions of emotion (1954). Cited in Cofer,
C. , and Appley, M. Motivation: Theory and research.
New York: Wiley, 1965.

 

Schubert, D. S. P. Arousal seeking as a motivation for volunteering:
MMPI scores and central nervous system stimulant use as
suggestive of a trait. J. Proj. Techniques & Pers. Assess. ,
28, 1964, 337 -340.

 

Schultz, D. P. Sensory restriction: Effects of behavior. New York:
Academic Press, 1965.

 

Smith, S., and Myers, T. 1. Stimulation seeking during sensory
deprivation. Percept. Mot. Skills, 23, 1966, 1151-1163.

 

Stauffacher, J. C. The effect of induced muscular tension upon
various phases of the learning process. J. Exp. Psychol. ,
21, 1937, 26-45.

 

Thornton, D. The function of visual information in cross -modality
satiation of auditory information drive. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1966.
Cited in Zubeck, J. , ed. Sensory deprivation: Fifteen
years of research. New York: Appleton -Century —Crofts,
1969.

 

 

Tranel, N. Effects of perceptual isolation on introverts and extro-
verts. J. Psychiat. Res. , 1, 1962, 185-192.

 

Vernon, J. , and Hoffman, J. Effect of sensory deprivation on
learning rate in human beings. Science, 123, 1956, 1074-
1075.

Vernon, J. , and McGill, T. E. Utilization of visual stimulation
during sensory deprivation. Percept. Mot. Skills, 11,
1960, 214.

 

Vernon, J., McGill, T., Gulick, W. , & Candland, D. The effect
of human isolation upon some perceptual and motor skills.
In Solomon, P. , et al. , eds. , 1963.

Walters, R., and Parke, R. Social motivation, dependency, and
susceptibility to social influence. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, V1, 1964.

89

Weinberger, N. , and Lindsley, D. Behavioral and EEG arousal to
contrasting novel stimulation. Science, 144, 1964, 1355-
1357.

Zubeck, J. P. Counteracting effects of physical exercises performed
during prolonged perceptual deprivation. Science, 142,
1963, 504—506. (a)

Zubeck, J. P. Pain sensitivity as a measure of perceptual depriva-
tion tolerance. Percept. Mot. Skills, 17, 1963, 641-642. (a)

 

Zubeck, J. P. Behavioral and EEG changes after 14 days of percep-
tual deprivation. Psychon. Sci., 1, 1964, 57 -58.

 

Zubeck, J. P., and Welch, C. Electroencephalographic changes
after prolonged sensory and perceptual deprivation. Science,
139, 1963, 1209-1210.

Zubeck, J. P. Behavioral changes after prolonger perceptual depri-
vation (no interruptions). Percept. Mot. Skills, 18, 1964,
413-420. (b)

 

Zubeck, J. , ed. Sensory deprivation: Fifteen years of research.
New York: Appleton-Century -Crofts, 1969.

 

Zubeck, J. P., Welch, G., & Saunders, M. G. EEG changes during
and after 14 days of perceptual deprivation. Science, 139,
490 -492.

Zuckerman, M. Perceptual isolation as a stress situation: A review.
Arch. Gen. Psychiat., 11, 1964, 225-276. (b)

 

Zuckerman, M. , and Haber, M. M. Need for stimulation as a source
of stress response to perceptual isolation. J. Abnorm.
Psychol., 70, 1965, 371-377.

 

Zuckerman, M., Kolin, E. A., Price, L., & Zoob, 1. Develop-
ment of a Sensation-Seeking Scale. J. Consult. Psychol. ,
28, 1964, 477-482.

 

Zuckerman, M. , Levine, S. , & Biose, D. Stress response in total
and partial perception isolation. Psychosom. Med. , 26,
1964, 250-260.

 

9O

Zuckerman, M., Persky, H., Hopkins, T. R., Murtaugh, T.,
Basu, G. K. , & Schilling, M. Comparison of stress effects
of perceptual and social isolation. Arch. Gen. Psychiat. ,
14, 1966, 356-365.

 

Zuckerman, M., Persky, H., Link, K. E., & Basu, G. K. Experi-
mental and subject factors determining responses to sen-
sory deprivation, social isolation, and confinement.

J. Abnorm. Psychol., 73, 1968, 183 -194. (a)

 

Zuckerman, M., Schultz, D. P., & Hopkins, R. T. Sensation
seeking and volunteering for sensory deprivation and hypno-
sis experiments. J. Consult. Psychol., 31, 1967, 358-363.

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

SE NSATION SEEKING SCALE

10.

11.

W? W? P?

? W P W? W? W?

E

91

SSS

I would like a job-which-would require a lot of traveling.
I would prefer a job in one location.

I am invigorated by a brisk, cold day.
I can' t wait to get into the indoors on a cold-day.

I find a certain pleasure in routine kinds of work.
Although it is sometimes necessary 1 usually dislike routine
kinds of work.

1 often wish I could be a mountain climber.
I can' t understand people who risk their necks climbing
mountains.

I dislike all body odors.
1 like some of the earthy body smells.

I get bored seeing the same old faces.
1 like the comfortable familiarity of everyday friends.

1 like to explore a strange city or section of town by myself,
even if it means getting lost.
1 prefera guide when I am in a place I don' t know well.

1 would not like to try any drug which might produce strange
and dangerous effects on me.

I would like to try some of the new drugs that produce
hallucinations.

1 would prefer living in an ideal society where everyone is
safe, secure, and happy.

I would have preferred living in the unsettled days of our
history.

I sometimes like to do things that are a little frightening.
A sensible person avoids activities that are dangerous.

If 1 were a salesman 1 would prefer a straight salary,

rather than the risk of making little or nothing on a commis -
sion basis.

If I were a salesman 1 would prefer working on a commission
if I had a chance to make more money than 1 could on a salary.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

P”?

P”

P"??? P”?

P“

.w.»

P”

awe

P”

92

1 wouldlike to take up the sport of water skiing.
1 would not like to take up‘water skiing.

I don' t like to argue with people whose beliefs are sharply
divergent from mine, since such arguments are never
resolved.

1 find people that disagree with my beliefs more stimulating
than people who agree with me.

When I go on a trip I like to plan my route and timetable
fairly carefully.

I would like to take off on a trip with no preplanned or
definite routes, or timetables.

1 would like to learn to fly an airplane.
I would not like to learn to fly an airplane.

I would not like to be hypnotized.
1 would. like to have the experience of being hypnotized.

The most important goal of life is to live it to the fullest
and experience as much of it as you can.
The most important goal of life is to find peace and happiness.

I would like to try parachute jumping.
I would never want to try jumping out of a plane, with or
without a parachute.

I enter cold water gradually giving myself time to get used
to it.
1 like to dive or jump right into the ocean or a cold pool.

I prefer friends who are excitingly unpredictable.
I prefer friends who are reliable and predictable.

When I go on a vacation I prefer the comfort of a good room
and bed.

When 1 go on a vacation I would prefer the change of camping
out.

The essence of good art is in its clarity, symmetry of form,
and harmony of colors.

I often find beauty in the "clashing" colors and irregular
forms of modern paintings.

23.

24.

25.

26.

W?P?F’?’

E”

93

I prefer people who are emotionally expressive even if they
are a bit unstable.
I prefer people who are calm and even tempered.

A good painting should shock or jolt the senses.
A good painting should give one a feeling of peace and security.

When I feel discouraged I recover by relaxing and having
some soothing diversion.

When I feel discouraged 1 recover by going out and doing
something new and exciting.

People who ride motorcycles must have some kind of an
unconscious need to hurt themselves.
1 would like to drive or ride on a motorcycle.

APPENDIX B

ABNORMAL AROUSAL QUESTIONNAIRE

94

AA Questionnaire

Were you sleepy, or drowsy during the self -stimulation period, or
were you wide awake and alert?

Very wide awake Very sleepy
and alert . or drowsy

 

Were you nervous or calm during the self -stimulation period?

Very calm Very nervous

 

Did you feel relaxed or tense during the self -stimulation period?

Very tense Very relaxed

 

Were you excited or calm during the self -stimulation period?

Very calm Very excited

 

Did you find yourself daydreaming during the self -stimulation
period?

Daydreamed

Not at all considerably

 

How closely would you say your overall level of excitement or
calmness during the self -stimulation period corresponded to your
average level of excitement or calmness during an average day?

1 was much I was much more
calmer and excited, nervous
more relaxed and aroused
during the self - during the self-
stimulation stimulation
period than 1 period. than I
usually am on an usually am on an

ave rage day. average day.

 

10.

11.

12.

95
Were you sleepy. or drowsy during the optimal level of stimulation
period, or were you wide awake and alert?

Very wide awake Very sleepy
and alert or drowsy

 

Were you nervous or calm during the optimal level of stimulation
period?

Very calm V ery nervous

 

Did you feel relaxed or tense during the optimal level of stirnu-
lation period?

Very tense Very relaxed

 

Were you excited or calm during the optimal level of stimulation
period?

Very calm Very excited

 

Did you find yourself daydreaming during the optimal level of
stimulation period?

Daydreamed

Not at all considerably

 

How closely would you say your overall level of excitement or
calmness during the optimal level of stimulation period corre-
sponded to your average level of excitement or calmness during
an average day?

I was much 1 was much more
calmer and more excited, nervous
relaxed during and aroused during
the optimal level the optimal level
of stimulation of stimulation
period than 1 period than 1
usually am on an usually am on an

average day. average day.

 

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

96

 

If you are taking medication of any kind, please specify all

medication.

Are you currently taking tranquilizers of any kind? yes no

Are you currently taking stimulants of any kind? yes no

Did you have two or more cups of coffee or two or more bottles

of "coke" or "Tab" within two hours of reporting to the experi-

ment? yes no

What do you think the purpose of the experiment was?

a. As represented by experimenter

b. Other: please explain briefly.

Are you hard of hearing? yes no

Do you have any visual handicaps other than needing to wear

corrective glasses? yes no
I liked the music I disliked the music
used in the used in the
experiment very experiment very
much. much.

Optimum Period Slightly Unpleasant Period

LLl SL1 LLZ SL2 LL + SL LL1 SL1 LL + SL

 

# Flashes Observed # Minutes Music H.

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY AND DERIVATION OF

LABORATORY AND QUESTIONNAIRE VARIABLES

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY AND DERIVATION OF

LABORATORY AND QUESTIONNAIRE VARIABLES

Variable

Determinants

 

 

. Self -Stimulation Period

Absolute Arousal

. Self -Stimulation Period

Day Dreaming

. Self -Stimulation Period

Deviation from
Normal Arousal

. Optimum Period.
Absolute Arousal

. Optimum Period
Day Dreaming

. Optimum Period
Deviation from
Normal Arousal

Items 1 - 4 on
Abnormal Arousal
Questionnaire

Item 5 on
Abnormal Arousal
Questionnaire

Item 6 on
Abnormal Arousal
Questionnaire

Items 7 - 10 on
Abnormal Arousal
Questionnaire

Item 11 on
Abnormal Arousal
Questionnaire

Item 12 on

Abnormal Arousal
Questionnaire

97

Transformations
Used in Computing
Scores

 

Item scores were
summed.

None .

None.

All item scores

were summed.

None.

None .

 

Variable
7. Degree of
Liking of Music
8. Optimum Period
Level of Light
9. Optimum Period
Level of Sound
10. Optimum Period
Level of Light and
Sound. in Conjunction
1 1. Slightly Unpleasant Period
Level of Light
12. Slightly Unpleasant Period
Level of Sound
13. Slightly Unpleasant Period

Level of Light and
Sound in Conjunction

98

 

 

Transformations
Used in Computing
Determinants Scores
Item 20 on None.
Abnormal Arousal
Questionnaire
Optimum Period Scores were

Light Levell and summed.
Optimum Period

Light Levelz from

lab measures

portion

Optimum Period Scores were
Sound Levell and summed.
Optimum Period

Sound Levelz from

lab measures

portion
Optimum Period Scores were
Light Level + summed then

Optimum Period multiplied by 2.
Sound Level from

lab measures

portion

Slightly Unpleasant Score was
Period Light Level multiplied by 2.
from lab measures

portion

Slightly Unpleasant Score was
Period Sound Level multiplied by 2.
from lab measures

portion

Slightly Unpleasant Scores were
Period Light Level summed then

+ Slightly multiplied by 2.
Unpleasant Period

Sound Level from

lab measures

portion

Variable

99

Transformations
Used in Computing
Determinants Scores

 

 

 

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

Minutes of Music

Contact Personality Factor
Score

Contact Personality Factor
Lie Score

Sensation Seeking Scale
Score

Eysenck Personality
Inventory Score

Eysenck Personality
Inventory Lie Scale Score

Minutes of Music None.
score from lab
measures portion

Score on Contact None.
Personality Factor
items

Score on Contact None.
Personality Factor
lie items

Score on None.
Sensation Seeking
Score items

Score on Eysenck None.
Personality
Inventory items

Score on Eysenck None.
Personality
Inventory lie items

APPENDIX D

CORRELATION MATRIX I--ALL SUBJECTS

100

APPENDIX F

CORRELATION MATRIX I--ALL SUBJECTS

 

 

 

(N = 114)
Variablea 3
1 1.00
2 0.00 1.00
3 0.40*** -0.06 1.00
4 0.33*** —0.02 0.06 1.00
5 0.14 0.28*** 0.07 0.37*** 1.00
6 0.06 -0.20** 0.19** 0.52*** 0.21** 1.00
7 —0.02 0.02 -0.12 —0.20** -0.05 -0.16* 1.00
8 0.17* 0.02 0.06 0.18** -0.02 0.19** -0.08 1.00
9 0.20** 0.03 0.18 0.15 0.10 0.09 —0.25*** 0.33*** 1.00
10 0.26*** -0.04 0.11 0.18** -0.01 0.17* -0.13 0 69*** 0.52***
11 0.11 -0.01 0.02 0.23*** 0.10 0.09 -0.12 0.71*** 0.19**
12 0.21** 0.02 0.11 0.18** 0.10 0.22*** -0.23*** 0.28*** 0.63***
13 0.16 -0.04 -0.00 0.25*** 0.11 0.00 -0.06 0.50*** 0.33***
14 0.13 0.05 0.19** -0.09 0.05 —0.01 0.15 -0.08 0.11
15 -0.01 —0.00 -0.05 0.00 -0.04 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.17
16 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.10 0 05 0.01 -0.07
17 -0.11 -0.09 0.06 -0.07 0.13 -0.05 -0.16* -0.12 -0.06
18 -0.26*** -0.01 -0.13 -0.05 0.09 -0.01 -0.05 -0.01 -0.02
19 0.07 0.19** 0.01 0.15 0.17* —0.01 —0.15 -0 11 0.11

 

 

aK ey for Variables:

12 --Slightly unpleasant period Level of sound

1- - Self-stimulation period Absolute arousal

2 - - Self-stimulation period Day dreaming

3 --Se1f—stimulation period Deviation from normal arousal
4--Optimum period Absolute arousal

5--Optimum period Day dreaming
6--Optimum period Deviation from normal arousal

7 -- Degree of liking of music

8--Optimum period Level of light

9 --Optimum period Level of sound
10--Optimum period Level of light and sound in conjunction
11 —- Slightly unpleasant period Level of light

13 -- Slightly unpleasant period Level of light and sound in conjunction

14- - Minutes of music

15--Contact Personality Factor score

16--Contact Personality Factor lie score
17 ——Sensation Seeking Scale score
18—- Eysenck Personality Inventory score
19--Eysenck Personality Inventory lie scale score

101

 

 

 

 

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1.00
0.53*** 1.00
0.42*** 0.43*** 1.00
0.51*** 0.80*** 0.66*** 1.00
0.04 -0.13 0.12 -0.09 1.00
0.13 0.12 0.23*** 0.23"** 0.04 1.00
-0.07 -0.04 0.06 -0.00 0.12 0.02 1.00
-0.l7* -0.16 0.01 -0.l7* —0.03 0.12 -0.07 1.00
-0.05 0.11 0.16* 0.15* 0.11 0.48*** -0.00 0.28*** 1.00
—0.09 -0.15 0.10 -0.10 0.00 -0.10 0.34 0.02 -0.15 1.00
*P:. 10
**P< .05

***P?.01

APPENDIX E

CORRELATION MATRIX II--"NORMAL" SUBJECTS

102

APPENDIX C

CORRELATION MATRIX II--"NORMAL" SUBJECTS

 

 

 

(N': 62)
Variablea 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 1.00
2 -0.03 1.00
3 0.04 —0.07 1.00
4 0.27** 0.03 -0.08 1.00
5 0.19 0.39*** 0.07 0.42*** 1.00
6 -0.31*** -0.12 0.233 0.34*** 0.14 1.00
7 0.17 0.13 -0.07 —0.11 0.04 -0 12 1.00 .
8 -0.09 0.02 -0.16 0.15 0.04 0.22* -0.03 1.00
9 0.11 -0.13 0.10 0.10 0.15 -0 06 -0.19 0.25 1.00
10 0.11 ~0.08 -0.05 0.12 —0.03 0.07 -0.01 0.64*** 0.53535
11 -0.08 -0.02 -0.08 0.26** 0.11 0.14 -0.08 0.64*** 0.17
12 0.10 -0.17 0.23* 0.08 0.08 -0.02 -0 10 0.13 0.61***
13 0.04 —0.11 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.09 -0.00 0.40*** 0.30534
14 0.08 0.06 0.32*** —0.15 —0.04 0.09 0.19 -0.04 0.08
15 -0.01 0.01 -0.12 -o.14 -0.10 —0.21* 0.09 0.00 0.21
16 0.23* -0.01 0.07 0.16 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.15 0.08
17 -0.18 -0 12 0.12 -0.11 0.10 0.25** -0.25** -0.26** —0.20
18 —0.15 0.00 —0.09 0.02 0.16 0.22* -0.02 0.05 -0.08
19 0.18 0.10 0.01 0.33*** 0.25*** -0.08 -0.19 -0.04 0.37***

 

 

8Key for Variables:

1-- Self-stimulation period Absolute arousal
2 - — Self-stimulation period Day dreaming
3 --Self—stimulation period Deviation from normal arousal
4--Optimum period Absolute arousal
5—-Optimum period Day dreaming
6--Optimum period Deviation from normal arousal
7 --Degree of liking of music
8--Optimum period Level of light
9—-Optimum period Level of sound
lO--Optimum period Level of light and sound in conjunction
ll -- Slightly unpleasant period Level of light
12 -- Slightly unpleasant period Level of sound
13 -- Slightly unpleasant period Level of light and sound in conjunction
l4--Minutes of music
15--Contact Personality Factor score
16--Contact Personality Factor lie score
l7-—Sensation Seeking Scale score
18-- Eysenck Personality Inventory score
19—- Eysenck Personality Inventory lie scale score

 

103

 

 

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

 

 

1.00

0.53*** 1.00

0.40*** 0.36*** 1.00

0.54*** 0.78*** 0.66*** 1.00

-0.09 -0.19 0.07 ~0.13 1.00

0.24 , 0.10 0.25** 0.24** 0.08 1.00

0.04 0.03 0.19 0.16 0.08 0.09 1.00

-0.26** —0.23* —0.06 -0 17 0.00 0.02 -0.23* 1.00

0.07 0.19 0.20 0.23* 0.09 0.43 -0.03 0.40*** 1.00
-0.05 -0.04 0.21 -0.05 -0.05 -0.19 0.06 -0.11 -0.34*** 1.00
*P:E.10

**I’< .05

***P§.01

APPENDIX F

SUBJECT DE -BRIEFING SHEET

104

What the Experiment Was About

 

The experiment in which you just participated was designed
to test the hypothesis that there is a positive correlation between
extraversion and preferred amount of sensory stimulation. The
Eysenck Personality Inventory and CPF tests you took at the beginning
of the experiment measure extraversion, that is, how outgoing and
sociable you are. The SSS measures your sensation seeking tenden-
cies --how much physical and sensory stimulation you prefer.

The lab measures portion of the experiment was designed
to objectively determine how muchsensory stimulation you prefer
under both relaxed and task conditions. Your scores on the three
paper ~and -pendil tests will be correlated with your lab measures,
and this data will enable evaluation of the hypothesized relationship.

Thank you for participating in the experiment!

Please destroy this sheet when you are done with it.

 

nICHIan smTE UNIV. LIBRARIES
1|HIWlIHHIIH‘IllllllWlWIlW"INHIWIINIWI
31293100964976