THE EFFECT OF A NXIETY LEVEL UPON STIMULUS GENERALIZATION
IN PAIRED-ASSOCIATE LEA R N I N G
AND RECOGNITION MEMORY

By
Theodore T. McKnelly

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
f o r the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1952

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The writer wishes to express his sincere gratitude
for the many hel p f u l suggestions and criticisms concerning
the methodology and theoretical treatment of the data
offered throughout the course of this investigation by
Dr. M. Raj'- Denny, u n der who s e able direction it was
conducted.
The writer also wishes to acknowledge the contributions
of Dr. James S. Karslake,

Dr. Albert I. Rabin,

and Dr. Milton

Rokeach who also rendered valuable assistance in the
f or m u l a t i o n and di r e c t i o n of this research project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I

Page

INTRODUCTION .......................................
Historical Background

.........................

1

Statement of the P r o b l e m .......................

14

Summary Statement of the Specific Hypotheses
II

1

.

22

P R O C E D U R E ..........................................

27

Preliminary Selection of S u b j e c t s ............

27

Group Experiment,

Re c o g n i t i o n M e m o r y ..........

29

S u b j e c t s .......................................

29

Part

I, L e a r n i n g .............................

29

Part

I, R e c o g n i t i o n .........................

31

Part

II, L e a r n i n g ...........................

33

Part

II, R e c o g n i t i o n .........................

34

Individual Experiments,

Positive and

Negative T r a n s f e r ............................

37

A p p a r a t u s .....................................

37

Stimulus Materials

38

............................

S u b j e c t s .......................................

43

Original Learning

............................

44

Positive Transfer

............................

47

Negative Transfer

............................

48

Chapter
III

Page

R E S U L T S ...........................................
Group Experiment,

R e c o g n i t i o n M e m o r y ..........

50
50

Part I, Learning and R e c o g n i t i o n .............

50

Part II, Learning and R e c o g n i t i o n ...........

50

Individual Experiments,

Positive and

Negative Tra n s f e r

............................

56

Original L earning

............................

56

Positive T r a n s f e r ............................

61

Negative T r a n s f e r .............................

65

IV

D I S C U S S I O N .........................................

68

V

S U M M A R Y .............................................

75

R E F E R E N C E S ..........................................

78

APPENDIX A
APPEND I X B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D

T A BLE OF TABLES
Table
I

Page
A Symbolic R e p r e sentation of the Stimulus
and Response Members of the Paired-Associate
Lists Used in the Original Learning and
Transfer Situations of the Individual
E x p e r i m e n t s .......................................

II

41

Assignment of Subjects to the Original
Le a rn i n g and Transfer Lists f o r the Purpose
of Controlling Differences in Nonsense
Syllable Difficulty

III

..............................

42

M e a n Number of Trials to L e a r n and Mean Number
of Correct Responses of the Anxious and Nonanxious Subjects during the Original Learning
S i t u a t i o n of the Individual Experiment . . . .

IV

57

Mea n Num b e r of Correct Responses during Trials
1-3 and M e a n Num b e r of Trials to Criterion of
the Anxious and Nonanxious Subjects under the
Positive Transfer Condition

V

....................

62

M e a n Number of Correct Responses to the Changed
Forms of First- and Second-Degree Similarity
of the Anxious and Nonanxious Subjects during
the Ten Trials of the Negative Transfer
C o n d i t i o n .........................................

62

Table
VI

Page
The Paired-Associate Units u sed in the
Original L e arning S i t uation of the
Individual E x p e r i m e n t s .........................App.

VII

C

The Paired-Associate Units u s e d in the
Positive Transfer Situation of the
Individual Experiments

VIII

.......................

App.

C

The Paired-Associate Units u sed in the
N egative Transfer S i t uation of the
Individual Experiments

IX

.......................

App. C

Analysis of Variance of D ata f r o m the Group
Experiment,

Part II, Recognition.

Com p arison of the Responses to the
Original and Changed Non s e n s e Words of
32 High- and 32 Low-Anxiety Subjects
X

. . . .

App. D

Analysis of Variance of Data f rom the Group
Experiment,

Part II, Recognition.

Comparison of the Responses to the
Changed Words of 48 Subjects,

24 of

W h o m Ac h i e v e d Part I Recogn i t i o n Scores
of 14-19 and 24 of Whorn Achieved Part I
Recognition Scores of 25-28

App.

D

Page

Table
XI

Analysis of V a r i a n c e of D a t a f r o m the
Individual Experiments. C o m p a r i s o n of
45 High-

and 45 L o w - A n x i e t y Subjects

f o r N u m b e r of Trials to L e a r n in the
Original L e a r n i n g S i t u a t i o n ...................
XI I

App.

D

App.

D

App.

D

App.

D

Analysis of Covari an c e and T est of
S i g n i f i c a n c e of A d j u s t e d Group Means
f o r the Individual Experiments,
Original L e a r n i n g . C o m p a r i s o n of 45 Highand 45 L o w - A n x i e t y Subjects for N u m b e r
of Correct Responses

Given During

Original L e a r n i n g after Adjusting the
N u m b e r of Correct Responses to a Common
T r i a l s - t o - L e a r n Basis
XIII

..........................

Analysis of V a r i a n c e of D a t a f r o m the
Individual Experiments,

Original Learning.

C o m p a r i s o n of the 45 High- and 45 LowAnxiety Subjects f o r First Correct
Res p o n s e s to the Eight S t a n d a r d Figures

XIV

. . •

Analysis of V ariance of D a t a f r o m the
Individual Experiments.

C o m p a r i s o n of

45 High- and 45 L o w - A n x i e t y Subjects f o r
N u m b e r of Correct Responses in the Original
L e a r n i n g S i t u a t i o n to the S tandard Figures
L a t e r V a r i e d to F i r s t - D e g r e e Similarity

. . .

Table
XV

Page
Analysis of Variance of D ata f r o m the
Individual Experiments.

Comparison of

45 High- and 45 Low-Anxiety Subjects
for Number of Correct Responses in the
Original Learning Si t u a t i o n to the
Sta n d a r d Figures Later Varied to
Second-Degree Similarity .....................
XVI

App.

D

Analysis of Variance of Data f r o m the
Individual Experiments.

Comparison of

the Number of Correct Responses of 90
High- and Low-Anxiety Subjects to the
Standard Figures Later Varied to FirstDegree Similarity and to the Standard
Figures L a t e r Varied to Second-Degree
S i m i l a r i t y ....................................... App. D

XVII

Analysis of Variance of Data f r o m the
Positive Transfer Experiment.

Comparison

of 15 High- and 15 Low-Anxiety Subjects
f o r Number of Trials to L e a r n the
Transfer L i s t

App.

D

Table
XVIII

Page
Analysis of Var i a n c e of D a t a f r o m the
Positive Tr a n s f e r Experiment.
C o m p a r i s o n of 15 High- and 15 LowAnx i e t y Subjects f o r Number of Correct
Responses to the Changed Forms
F i r s t - D e g r e e Similarity

XIX

of

.....................

App.

D

App.

D

Analysis of V a riance of D a t a f r o m the
P ositive T r ansfer Experiment.
C o m p a r i s o n of 15 High-

and 15 Low-

A n x i e t y Subjects for Numb e r of Correct
Responses to the Changed Forms

of

Se c o n d - D e g r e e Si m i l a r i t y
XX

Analysis

of V a riance of D ata f r o m the

Ne g a t i v e Transfer Experiment.
C o m p a r i s o n of 2 0 High-

and 2 0 Low-

Anxiety Subjects f o r Number of Trials
to L e a r n the List in the Original
Le a r n i n g S i t u a t i o n ............................
X XI

App. D

Analysis of Covariance and Test of
Signif i c a n c e of Adjusted Group Means,
Individual Experiment,
Condition.

Negative T r ansfer

Co m p a r i s o n of 2 0 High- and

20 L ow-Anxiety Subjects f o r the Number of
Correct Responses to the Altered Stimulus
F o r m s ....................... ..

App. D

Page

Table
XXII

Analysis of Variance of D a t a f r o m the
Negative T r ansfer Experiment.
Co m p a r i s o n of 20 High- and 2 0 LowAnxiety Subjects for Number of Correct
Responses to the Changed Forms of
Fi r s t - D e g r e e Similarity

XXIII

..............

App.

D

Analysis of Variance of D a t a f r o m the
Negative T r ansfer Experiment.
C o m p a r i s o n of 2 0 High- and 2 0 LowAnxiety Subjects for Number of Correct
Responses to the Changed Forms of
Second-Degree Similarity

............

App. D

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure

1

.

Page
A d i a g r a m indicating the predicted
differences in performance of anxious
and nonanxious subjects in a r e c o g n i t i o n
memo r y stimulus generalization situation

2

.

- .

24

A d i a g r a m indicating the predicted
differences in performance of anxious
and nonanxious subjects in a positive
transfer s i t uation

3.

.........................

25

A diagram indicating the predicted
differences in performance of anxious
and nonanxious subjects in a negative
transfer s i t uation

4.

.........................

26

Performance curves for the Recognition
Memory Experiment,

Part II,

showing the

m e a n num b e r of recognition responses of
anxious and nonanxious subjects to the
original and changed nonsense words . . . .

52

Performance curves f r o m the Recognition
Memory Experiment,

Part II,

showing the

effect of two different levels of learning
on stimulus generalization

................

55

Figure
6.

Page
Performance curves f r o m the individual
experiment,

7*

59

Performance curves f r o m the Individual
Experiment,

8.

Original Learning ..................

Positive T r a n s f e r ..................

63

Performance curves f r o m the Individual
Experiment,

Negative Transfer ..................

66

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Historical Background
Since F r e u d (7) asserted several decades ago that
anxiety was the "fundamental phenomenon and central problem
of the neuroses,"

applied psychoanalysis has proceeded to

substantiate this proposition.
is, however,

The importance of anxiety

not only stressed in more orthodox psycho­

analytic theory and its many variants but in other theories
of personality as well.

Typically the concept is used to

account f o r the development and maintainance of a variety
of symptoms,

but it is also used more specifically to refer

to particul a r vasomotor disturbances or behavioral signs of
tension.

Thus,

clinical anxiety is either a hypothetical

construct

Cor implicit process) that is assumed to determine

certain types of overt behavioral adjustments or a term
applied to a particular behavioral syndrome.

In most psycho

analytic writings it is used in one or both ways,

often

without making this distinction clear.
Recently the concept of anxiety has entered into the
theories of learning with a more precise meaning.

It is

2
defined by s uch theorists as Mowrer (18),

and Miller and

Dollard (16) as an implicit response conditioned to previously
n e u t r a l cues w h i c h have b e e n associated w i t h noxious
lation.

stimu­

M o w r e r (18) first p r oposed this f o r m u l a t i o n by

stating that anxiety is "the conditioned f o r m of the p ain
reaction."

M i l l e r and Dol l a r d (16) have developed this

general concept of anxiety by proposing that anxiety has
the fu n c t i o n a l properties
In brief,

they assume

of b o t h a stimulus and a response.

(1) that f e a r (or anxiety) obeys the

same laws as do e x ternal responses and (2) that it has the
same drive a n d cue properties as strong external stimuli.
It is thus a construct that is d e f i n e d in terms
and present stimulus conditions.

of antecedent

Defined in this way,

anxiety is assumed to have at least two of the f u n c t i onal
properties of primary d r i v e s :

its re d u c t i o n s h o uld act to

strengthen r e s ponses that precede its r e d uction and it should
intensify those response tendencies that are present during
its p e r i o d of evocation.

Evidence that the experimental

d e f i nition of anxiety yie l d s a state w h ich exhibits b oth
the reinforcing and energizing properties of an a c quired
drive has come f r o m recent experiments w i t h l o w e r animals.
M i l l e r (15) p rovided some support f o r this v i e w w h e n
he showed that f e a r of a w h i t e box in which albino rats ha d
previously b een shocked would motivate so-called rand om

3
behavior and,

w hen the T e a r is reduced t h r o u g h escape f r o m

the white box,

it serves as a reinforcing state of affairs

fo r the learning of the immediately preceding response
(rotating a wheel or pressing a bar).

Mowrer has shown

similar evidence of the reinforcing properties of anxietyreduction (19).
(3),

Also in an experiment by B r o w n and Jacobs

it was f o u n d that rats learned t o jump a hurdle w h e n

this response was f ollowed by t ermination of a light and a
buzzer that had previously been presented with shock.
Farber (6) also showed that anxiety-reduction was re­
inforcing in an experiment in w h ich the fi x a t i o n of certain
responses was accounted f o r in terms of the reinforcing
effects of escaping f r o m stimuli previously associated with
shock.

Several studies have shown the energizing and other

motivational properties of anxiety (1, 12, 22, 26).
There is admittedly a difference between the clinical
concept of anxiety and the experimental concept of anxiety
developed above w hen the defining operations of the two
concepts are compared.

But,

as R o s e n b a u m (22) and others

(17, 23) have explicitly or implicitly indicated,

there is

some justification f o r the belief that there are important
similarities

in the functional properties of these two

hypothetical states.

Recent experimental investigations

4
with h u m a n subjects b e a r out this assumption.

In one study

(85), Taylor f o u n d that college students who scored h igh on
a scale designed to measure manifest anxiety were consistently
superior in the amount of conditioning of the eyelid blinking
response to students who scored l o w on the scale,

the

differences between the groups being highly significant
statistically.

Later studies by Spence and Taylor (23) and

Hilgard (9) using similar procedures tend to confirm this
finding.

Welch and Kubis

(27), using a clinical group of

hospitalized subjects manifesting psychiatric symptoms of
anxiety,

found that these subjects conditioned the PGR

response much more rapidly t h a n did non-anxious subjects
with w h o m they were matched.
In addition to the above evidence that b o t h clinicallydiagnosed and experimentally-induced anxiety act as m o t i ­
vational determinants of behavior,

a recent study by

Ro s e nbaum (22) points up the desirability of further
investigation of the relationship b e t w e e n the two states
and other variables of behavior.

Positing the functional

similarity of the two states he set out to demonstrate the
effects of both types of anxiety u p o n stimulus generalization.
Following the Hull-Spence

(11, 24) f o r m u l a t i o n that conceives

the strength of response tendencies to be a multiplicative
f u n c t i o n of habit strength and general drive level of the

5
responding organism,

he assumed that the drive value oper­

ating at the time of occurrence of a conditioned response
is determined not only by the relevant drive (i.e.,

the

one that is reduced by the response u n der consideration),
but also by the aggregate strength of all other primary
and secondary drives operative at the moment.

H e also

assumed that an increase in the drive state of the organism
should strengthen the response tendency not only to the
conditioned stimulus but also to other stimuli differing
f r o m it along a g i v e n dimension.
that,

if an anxiety state,

He t hen hypothesized

defined either in terms of

clinical observation or experimental operations, has
similar energizing properties of a drive,
have other similar properties.

it should also

More specifically he posited

that it should have the effect of raising the stimulus
generalization gradient.

W h e n he subjected these hypotheses

to experimental test, he f o u n d that increases in experi­
mentally induced anxiety (buzzer, mild shock,

strong shock)

did raise the stimulus generalization gradients of response
amplitude in accordance with the predictions of Hull (11).
However,

he did not f i n d that subjects h igh a n d l o w in

anxiety (as Judged by psychiatric ratings of a clinical
group or scores on the Taylor anxiety scale of a college
population) differed in stimulus generalization except

6
under conditions of h i g h experimental anxiety.

Under those

conditions the clinically anxious subjects showed the
predicted increase in stimulus generalization over the lowanxiety subjects.

He interpreted these findings to mean

that anxiety is a state variable in the organism w h i c h is
only activated w h e n certain noxious

cues are present.

interpretation does not seem unwarranted.

However,

This

the

important things to note here are his findings that an
increase in experimental anxiety raises the generalization
gradient and that clinical anxiety, w h e n a n operative
variable,

produces a similar effect.

These results add

further support to the assumption of certain functional
similarities between the two anxiety concepts.
Rosenb a u m re p o r t e d another interesting finding.
According to the deductions of Hull's theoretical system
increased drive should not only raise but also steepen the
gradient of response amplitude.
support f or this hypothesis.

Rosenbaum did not find

Instead there was a distinct

tendency for the gradient to rise and f l a t t e n w ith increases
in experimental and clinical anxiety u n der strong shock
conditions.

R o s e n b a u m explained this in terms of the

artificial ceiling imposed u p o n the measure of response
amplitude u s e d in this experiment.

He posited that whenever

7
the measure of response strength employed approaches its
m a x i m u m (100 percent) f o r the conditioned response,

any

further increments in drive will contribute to the strength
of responses to generalized stimuli,

but cannot further

elevate the strength of the conditioned response.
is some basis,

There

in terms of the physical limitations imposed

u p o n the response measure by the conditions of his experi­
ment, f o r such a n interpretation.
However,

there is also some basis for an alternative

explanation if we consider more than merely the effect of
increase in drive on reaction tendency to the original and
altered stimuli.

Another characteristic of elevated drive

which should be considered is the presence of response
tendencies associated w i t h the drive-stimulus.
framework of Hull's theoretical system,

W i t h i n the

every drive is

assumed to be associated w ith a drive-stimulus to which
responses characteristic of the drive may be connected
with varyin g degrees of r e action potential.

These con­

ditioned or unconditioned response tendencies are present
whenever the drive-stimulus is present and their strength
is dependent u p o n the intensity of the drive.

It is

assumed here that their presence will facilitate the
acquisition of responses

compatible with t hem and interfere

8
with the learning of responses not compatible w ith them.
A similar effect should obtain in a situation i n which the
strength of a conditioned response to stimuli differing
f r o m the originally conditioned stimulus along a similarity
dimension is tested.

If the response produced through

generalization is compatible with the drive-produced
response tendencies,

it should show some augmentation;

the response is incompatible,

if

it should s how some diminution.

Applying these assumptions t o Rosenbaum's experiment
and further assuming that the simple motor response con­
ditioned in his experiment is one which is relatively
compatible w ith the anxiety-produced response tendencies,
it would be expected that t h e learning of the motor response
by the anxious subjects w o uld be greatly facili t a t e d due
not only to the intensifying effect of drive on reaction
potential but also due to the effect of relatively compatible
i

anxiety-produced responses.

In the phase of his

experiment

when the subjects were presented w ith the changed stimulus
forms,

it w o uld also be expected that the anxious subjects

would show a he i g h t e n e d gradient of generalized response
strength due to both the unconditioned response effect and
the energization effect of increased drive.
the anxiety drive operating,

The greater

within certain limits,

the

9
higher the expected gradient of* generalization would be.
Also,

as the drive is a relatively constant variable its

effect on ge n e r a l i z e d response strength w o u l d be uniformly
manifested along the similarity continuum,

i.e., the

gradient would be flattened.
Other,

but not conclusive,

theoretical formulation,
Hilgard

(9).

evidence for the latter

comes f r o m an experiment by

In this experiment he selected subjects who

were high and low in anxiety on the basis of responses to
the Taylor-devised manifest anxiety scale (25) and subjected
t h e m to a conditioned discrimination situation.

First he

established a conditioned eyelid response in the subjects
to an illumination increase in one of two windows over a
period of 60 trials.

This was fol l o w e d by a discriminatory

conditioning period in which 30 random illuminations of the
learning window (positive stimulus) were invariably followed
by an air puff and 3 0 illuminations of the adjacent window
(negative s t i m u l u s ) were never followed by a puff of air.
He obtained a positive (-*.12) but non-significant corre­
l a t i o n b e t we e n anxiety and simple conditioning.

However,

w h e n the relationship b e t w e e n anxiety and lack of dis­
crimination (response to the negative stimulus) was tested
he found a significant positive relationship.
te r p r etatio n of this finding might be that,

One in­

even though

10
the difference in original conditioning b etween the two
groups was not statistically significant,

it was sufficient

to raise the stimulus generalization gradient of the anxious
subjects enough to account for the f o und differences in
discrimination.

This interpretation would fol l o w f r o m

the Hull-Spence f o r m u l a t i o n of the multiplicative effect
of drive on original and generalized response strength but
it ignores the effect of anxiety-induced response tendencies
in the conditioning and discrimination situation.

If you

assume the anxious subjects had reached a somewhat higher
level of response strength during original conditioning,
you w o uld expect a higher but not significantly higher
level of response strength to the negative stimulus, but
not the mar k e d difference which Hilgard f o u n d between the
original conditioning and discrimination situations.
However,

if you assume that the anxious group achieved a

slightly higher level of original response strength due
both to the intensifying effects of drive and the presence
of anxiety-produced response tendencies allied with the
conditioned response**", and if you assume a uniform
augmentation of the generalized response strength of the

It is recognized by many investigators that the
eyelid blinking response is a reaction commonly associated
with fear, i.e., in terms of the present formulation, it is
a response which is compatible with the anxiety-induced
response tendencies.

11
allied anxiety response tendencies,

you w o u l d have a flattened

stimulus gen e r alization gradient and w o uld expect the found
differences in discrimination.
The viewpoint developed above leads to a variety of
hypotheses w h i c h can be tested experimentally.

The present

experiment is one w h ich arose out of some of the above
theoretical considerations and was designed to investigate
the effect of level of anxiety u p o n stimulus generalization
in paired associate learning and r ecognition memory.
There have b e e n but f e w studies reported in the
literature w h i c h have b een directed toward exploring the
relationship between anxiety and verbal learning,

even

though a more precise definition of this relationship
seems a matter of great theoretical as well as practical
importance.

Malmo and Amsel (13) have conducted one such

study in w h i c h they f o u n d that subjects who presented
severe anxiety symptoms were slower to l e a r n a serial list
of nonsense syllables.

They concluded that this behavior

was due to the anxiety-produced interference between the
relevant responses and the irrelevant responses generated
out of the patient's anxiety state.

They did not,

however,

define the conditions f o r the appearance of such interfering
effects.

Mox*e recently,

Montague

(17) did a somewhat

similar study in which he attempted to state more

IB

specifically the effect of anxiety on performance and relate
this to the nature of the learning task involved.

In his

theoretical f o r m u l a t i o n he assumed that manifest anxiety
possesses at least some of the functional properties of
drive posited by Hull (10),

including that of combining

multiplicatively with habit strength.

He then hypothesized

that anxiety would tend to increase the difference between
stronger and weaker response tendencies.

In a situation

in w hich relatively weak incorrect tendencies and strong
correct tendencies were involved, he predicted that
increased anxiety would result in a greater absolute
initial difference in opposing tendencies and thus faster
learning.

In a situation in which relatively weak correct

tendencies and strong incorrect tendencies were involved,
he predicted

that increased anxiety would result in a

relatively greater augmentation of incorrect tendencies
and so result in poorer performance.

In line with this

analysis he f urther assumed that the variables of intralist
similarity and association value of nonsense syllables in
a rote serial learning situation would affect the relative
strengths of correct and incorrect tendencies.

Then, by

varying these two combined variables three different degrees,
he found results supporting his predictions.

Under the

13
c ondition of h i g h similarity and l o w a s s o c i a t i o n value of
syllables,

the nonanxious group was significantly superior

in learning.

U n d e r the c o n d i t i o n of l o w similarity and l o w

a s s o ciatio n v a l u e of syllables the difference was less
marked but the nonanxious g r o u p was still somewhat superior.
And u n der the c o n dition of l o w similarity and h i g h association
value,

the anxious group ass u m e d superiority in le a rning the

list.2
In d i s c u s s i n g the results,

M ontague m e n t i o n e d the

possibilit y that stimuli as s o c i a t e d w i t h anxiety itself
may elicit r e s ponses that compete directly with the responses
b e ing learned,

the extent of such c o m p e t i t i o n being inversely

related to t h e initial s t r e n g t h of the correct tendencies.
However,

he f e l t that this interpretation,

t a k e n alone,

does not account f o r the superior perfor m a n c e of the anxious
subjects on the easy task.

Therefore he discounted the

above expl a nation i n f a vor of the ear l i e r discussed
e xp l a n a t i o n w h i c h posits that an increase in drive
multiplies w i t h habit str e n g t h to produce an increase in
r e a c t i o n potential.
M a n d l e r and S a r a s o n (14) recently completed a study
of anxiety and learning w h i c h s h o u l d also be noted here.

s Anxiety l e v e l was determined by means of the
Taylor anxiety questionnaire (25).

I

14
A s s u m i n g that a n x i e t y is a d r ive as d i s c u s s e d by M i l l e r and
Dollard,

t hey w e r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e extent to w h i c h the

r esponse t e n d e n c i e s

a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the anxiety drive are

e v o k e d i n a t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n a n d t h e r e l a t i o n of such
responses to p e r f o r m a n c e and learning.
t he l e a r n i n g t a s k s used,

T h e y found,

with

that s u b j e c t s h i g h in t h e i r m e a s u r e

of anxiety s h o w e d g r e a t e r v a r i a t i o n i n p e r f o r m a n c e and,
general,

in

p e r f o r m e d m ore poo r l y t h a n subjects l o w i n anxiety.

They i n t e r p r e t e d t h e i r findings,

i n part,

i n terms of t he

degree to w h i c h the r e s p o n s e s - t o - b e - l e a r n e d w e r e compatible
w i t h the a n x i e t y - p r o d u c e d responses.

They c o n j e c t u r e d

that the i n t e r f e r e n c e pre s e n t i n the l e a r n i n g of t he
anxious

subjects was due t o the p r e s e n c e of r e l a t i v e l y

i n c o m p a t i b l e anxiety responses.
Statement of the P r o b l e m
The p r e s e n t study re p r e s e n t s

an e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n

of the g e n e r a l hy p o t h e s i s t hat the effect

of in c r e ased

anxiety u p o n p e r f o r m a n c e u n d e r stimulus g e n e r a l i z a t i o n
conditions

is,

i n part,

a f u n c t i o n of the p r e s e n c e of the

^ Stimulus g e n e r a l i z a t i o n conditions or situations,
in this paper, w i l l m e a n conditions in w h i c h t h e p r e s ented
stimuli have b e e n altered along a si m i l a r i t y d i m e n s i o n
f r o m the sti m u l i of original learning.

15
conditioned and u n c o n d i t i o n e d r esponse tendencies associated
w i t h the anxiety drive-stimulus.
Anxiety,

in the present context,

is considered as a

drive p o s s e s s i n g certain f u n c t i o n a l characteristics similar
to other drive states.

Two such assumed properties are that

increased drive increases the n u m b e r and s t rength of response
tendencies present in a situation and that increased drive
augments ea c h increment of r e a c t i o n potential that is accrued
in a learning situation.

In addition,

there is another

characteristic of drives w h i c h is very important to the
present study.

This is the drive-stimulus aspect.

the f r a m e w o r k of Hull's th e o r e t i c a l system,
assumed to have stimulus properties.

W i thin

every drive is

The responses of the

drive stimulus t e n d to be specific to a giv e n drive,

and

v ary in r e a c t i o n potential as a f u n c t i o n of habit strength
and drive intensity.

It is further assumed that the presence

of these response tendencies will f a c i l i t a t e the lea rning
of a response w h i c h is relatively compatible w i t h t h e m and
interfere w i t h the learning of a response not compatible
w i t h them.
Now,
variable,

assuming that anxiety is a drive and an operative
it may be expected to increase the strength of

the response tendencies present in a situation and to

16
augment each i n c rement of* r e a c t i o n p o t e n t i a l acc r u e d in a
learn i n g situation.
l e a r n i n g process.
characteristic,

T h e s e are f a c i l i t a t i n g effects on the
In addition,

due t o its d r i v e - s t i m u l u s

anxiety tends to evoke c e r t a i n r e s p onses

w h i c h are r e l a t i v e l y u n i q u e t o it.

E x amples

of s uch responses

w o u l d be sta r t l e p a t t e r n responses,

w i t h d r a w a l responses,

and v e r b a l responses s u c h as " O h . " I ' m doing v e r y poorly",
" I ' m getti n g tense",

etc.

T h e effect of t h e s e anxiety-

induced r e s p o n s e t e n d e n c i e s w o u l d be to f a c i l i t a t e or
i n t e r f e r e w i t h learning,

d e p e n d i n g u p o n t h e i r r e l a t i o n to

the r e s pon s e b e i n g learned.

If the r e s p o n s e to be l e a r n e d

is one w h i c h is r e l a t i v e l y c o m p a t i b l e w i t h or a f u n c t i o n a l
component

of t h e anxiety r e s p o n s e tendencies,

process s h o u l d s h o w facil i t a t i o n ;

the l e a rning

if the r e s p o n s e to be

l e a r n e d is one w h i c h is r e l a t i v e l y i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h or
alien to t h e anxiety response tendencies,
process shou l d s h o w retardation.

the l e a r n i n g

F o r example,

i n an

e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n in w h i c h a r e s p o n s e such as the
ey e b l i n k is b e i n g conditioned,

we w o u l d expect anxious

subjects to be m ore r e a d i l y c o n d i t i o n e d to m a k e the response
than nonanxious

subjects.

This w o u l d be due,

i n part,

to

t h e compat i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the e y e b l i n k r e s p o n s e
and the anxiety r e sponse tendencies.

However,

in a

17
l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h a r e s p o n s e s uch as s pelling
a l oud a n o n s e n s e s y l l a b l e is to b e learned,
the l e a r n i n g process of anxious
retarded.

we w o u l d expect

subjects to be s o m e w h a t

This w o u l d be due to the r e l a t i v e i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y

of the v e r b a l r e s p o n s e w i t h the r e s p o n s e t e n d e n c i e s
c haracteris t i c of anxiety.

4

We also assume that l e v e l of the anx i e t y drive will
d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e p e r f o r m a n c e of anxious s u b j e c ts in
a v e r b a l l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n w i l l b e superior,
i n f e r i o r t o n o n a n x i o u s subjects.

equal,

or

At a l o w l e v e l of anxiety

the f a c i l i t a t i n g effects of anxiety are e x p e c t e d to p r e ­
dominate and result in s u p e r i o r p e r f o r m a n c e by a n x i ous
subjects.

At a s omewhat h i g h e r level

opposing effects m a y c o u n t e r b a l a n c e
i n equal performance.

And,

of anxiety,

the two

one a n o t h e r and result

at a h i g h level of anx i ety we

assume that the i n t e r f e r i n g effect of c o m p e t i n g anxietyi n duced r e s p o n s e t e n d e n c i e s w i l l p r e d o m i n a t e and result in
i n f e r i o r p e r f o r m a n c e b y anxious subjects.

^ This does not m e a n that the a s s u m p t i o n is m a d e here
that all v e r b a l r e s ponses are i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the response
t e n d e n c i e s i n d u c e d by an e l e v a t i o n of anxiety.
In fact,
some v e r b a l responses, as n o t e d above, m a y be s t rongly
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e anxiety d r ive-stimulus.
However,
n o n s e n s e sy l l a b l e s of l o w a s s o c i a t i v e value are assumed
to be r e l a t i v e l y i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the r e s p o n s e t e n dencies
c haracteri s t i c of anxiety.

18
B e c a u s e of the c o n f o u n d i n g of the d r i v e - s t i m u l u s
of a n xiety w i t h the o t h e r dri v e characteristics,
di f f i c u l t t o i s o l a t e t h e effect of the stimulus
u p o n performance.

Therefore,

aspect

it is
aspect

a s i t u a t i o n was s e l e cted in

w h i c h it was b e l i e v e d it w o u l d be m o r e clearly manifest.
It was c o n j e c t u r e d that the effect of a n x i e t y - i n d u c e d
r e s p o n s e t e n d e n c i e s w o u l d be m ost clearly d e m o n s t r a t e d
u n d e r stimulus g e n e r a l i z a t i o n conditions,

because under

t h e s e cond i t i o n s t h e o riginal r e s p o n s e t e n d e n c y w o uld be
l o w e r e d to a l e v e l at w h i c h it w o u l d come into c o m p e t i t i o n
w i t h t h e r e s p o n s e t e n d e n c i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i n c r e ased
anxiety.

As a c o n s e q u e n c e , t h e ef f e c t i v e s t r e n g t h of the

g e n e r a l i z e d v e r b a l r e s p o n s e t e n d e n c i e s is reduced, w i t h
this r e d u c t i o n i n g e n e r a l i z e d res p o n s e s t r e n g t h being
const a n t f o r each v a r i a t i o n of the o r i g i n a l stimulus along
a s i m i l a r i t y dimension.

B e c a u s e of this r e d u c t i o n in

g e n e r a l i z e d r e s p o n s e strength,

there w i l l be less i n t e r ­

f e r e n c e by g e n e r a l i z e d r e s p o n s e te n d e n c i e s i n the learning
of n e w verb a l r e s p o n s e s t o t h e s i m i l a r stimuli and less
f a c i l i t a t i o n by the g e n e r a l i z e d response t e n d e n c i e s in
the l e a r n i n g of t h e s a m e verbal r e s p o n s e s to the altered
stimuli.

In other words,

i n c r e a s e d anx i e t y sho u l d decrease

th e n e g a t i v e t r a n s f e r effect and also d ecrease the positive
t r a n s f e r effect.

19
Let us apply these theoretical assumptions more
specifically to several experimental conditions.

In one

such situation a group of subjects high and l o w in anxiety
(anxious and nonanxious subjects) are first presented with
a list of nonsense words of l o w similarity for the purpose
of learning a recognition response.

After being shown the

words f o r a limited number of learning trials and t hen
matched f o r performance during those trials,

the anxious

and nonanxious subjects are placed in a recognition situation.
They are requested to select those nonsense words w h ich
were presented to them earlier from a random list containing
some of the original nonsense words and some which are
varied f r o m the original words in terms of structural
similarity.

Our hypotheses are:

(1 ) that the anxious and

nonanxious subjects will s h o w n o differences in the number
of recognition responses to the original words,

(2 ) that

the anxious subjects will make fewer recognition responses
to the changed words t h a n the nonanxious subjects f o r each
degree of variation of the words along a similarity dimension,
and (3) that the performance gradient of stimulus generali­
zation will be uniformly lower f o r the anxious subjects
because the anxiety-induced response tendencies compete
with the generalized response tendencies and reduce the
probability of occurrence of the generalized responses.

20
Figure 1 is an attempt to represent the hypothetical p er­
formance of the anxious and nonanxious subjects in this
stimulus generalization situation.
from left to right,

Reading the figure

each point on each curve represents

the mean number of recognition responses of anxious and
nonanxious subjects to the original words,

or words varied

f r o m one to three degrees of structural similarity to the
original words.
Let us n o w apply our theoretical assumptions to a
positive transfer situation.

Assume first a situation in

which a group of anxious and a group of nonanxious subjects
are given individually the task to learn to a given
criterion a list of paired associates of l o w similarity
and l o w associative value.

W h e n such subjects are sub­

sequently presented with another list of paired associates,
the stimulus members of which are similar to the stimulus
members of the original learning-list and whose corresponding
response members are the same as in the original learning
list, we w o uld hypothesize

(4) that anxious subjects will

give fewer correct responses to the similar stimuli during
the first f e w trials than the nonanxious subjects and (5)
that this predicted difference will remain constant for
each variation in the stimuli along a given similarity

21
dimension due to the u n i f o r m reduction in effective strength
of the generalized response tendencies by the competing
response tendencies of the anxious subjects.

In Figure 2

is diagramed the expected difference i n performance of the
anxious and nonanxious subjects w h e n the stimulus members
of the transfer list consist of two variations in extent
of similarity to the original stimuli.

At point 1 and

point 2 on the curves are represented the m ean number of
correct responses to the stimuli of first- and second-degree
similarity respectively.
Lastly,

if another group of anxious and nonanxious

subjects, following the original learning situation
described in the paragraph above,

are placed in a negative

transfer situation to learn a list of paired associates,
the stimulus members of which are similar to the stimulus
members of the first list and the response members of which
are entirely n e w and different,

we w o uld predict

(6 ) that

the anxious subjects will give more correct responses to
the similar stimuli t h a n the nonanxious subjects and (7)
that this predicted difference will be the same for each
variation of stimuli.

The more rapid learning of the n e w

response is presumed to be due to the reduction in effective
strength of the generalized response tendencies which are
competing with the learning of any n e w response.

Figure 3

22
is an attempt to graphically represent the predicted difference
in performance of anxious and nonanxious subjects in the
negative transfer situation.

W ith the same variations in

similarity of stimuli f o u n d in the positive transfer
situation it is to he noted that t h e predicted difference
is constant at each point along the similarity dimension.
This is presumably a f u nction of the relatively constant
effect of anxiety-induced response tendencies on generalized
response strength at each point along the stimulus
similarity continuum.
Summary Statement of the Specific Hypotheses
In the group recognition memory experiment it is
predicted:

(1 ) that the anxious and nonanxious subjects

will show no differences in the number of recognition
responses to the original words,

(2 ) that the anxious

subjects will make fewer recognition responses to the
changed words t h a n the nonanxious subjects,

and (3) that

the performance gradient of stimulus generalization will
be uniformly lower for the anxious subjects for each degree
of variation of the words along a similarity dimension.
In the positive transfer experiment,

it is predicted:

(4) that anxious subjects will give fewer correct responses
to the similar stimuli during the first f e w trials than the

23
nonanxious and (5) that this predicted difference w ill remain
constant f o r each v a r i a t i o n of the original learning stimuli.
In the negative transfer situation,
(6 ) that the anxious

it is predicted:

subjects will give more correct n ew

responses to the similar stimuli t h a n the nonanxious and
(7) that this difference in performance will be the same
fo r each v a r i a t i o n of the original learning stimuli.

MEAN NUMBER OF RECOGNITION RESPONSES

24

A NX I O U S
NONANXIOUS

0

1

2

3

C H A N G E OF C O M P O S I T I O N
F i g u r e 1.
A d i a g r a m i n d i cating the p r e dicted
d ifferences in p erformance of anxious and n o n ­
anxious subjects in a rec o g n i t i o n - m e m o r y
stimulus g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s i t uation as a f u n c t i o n
of a n x i e t y - i n d u c e d c o m peting response tendencies.

CORRECT RESPONSES

25

ANXIOUS
NONANXIOUS

2

1
D E G R E E OF ST I M U L U S S I M I L A R I T Y

F i g u r e 2.
A d i a g r a m indicating tiie predicted
differ e n c e s in performance of anxious and n o n ­
anxious subjects i n a positive tr a n s f e r situation
as a f u n c t i o n of anxiety-induced competing
r e s p o n s e tendencies.

CORRECT RESPONSES

26

NONANXIOUS

2

1
DEGREE OF STIMULUS SIMILARITY

Figu r e 3.
A diagram indicating the predicted
differences in performance of anxious and n o n ­
anxious subjects in a negative transfer situation
as a f u n c t i o n of anxiety-induced competing response
tendencies.

CHAPTER II
PROCEDURE
Preliminary S e l e c t i o n of S u b j e c t s ;
The fi rst step taken in this r e search was the selection
of two groups of subjects,

h i g h and l o w in manifest anxiety,

f r o m the courses i n introductory psychology at M i chigan State
College.

The l e v e l of anxiety was determined by means of a

m o d i f i c a t i o n of an earlier Anxiety Scale described by Taylor
(25).

This m o d i f i e d scale

(a copy of which appears in

Appendix A) has b een u sed by Ro s e n b a u m (2 2 ), Montague (17),
and others

(9, 2 3 ) to discriminate two levels of anxiety

in a college population.

It contains the fifty Minnesota

Multiphasie Personality Inventory items w h ich have shown
the highest c orrelation w i t h total score on Taylor's
original sixty-five item anxiety scale.
F, K,

In addition,

(25)
the

and L scales

on the MMPI were u t i l i z e d as validity
5
scales to detect false high-or low-anxiety scores.
Any

The F score is a validating score which is utilized
in the MMPI to detect carelessness or poor comprehension
of items.
A l o w F score is a reliable indication that the
subjects responses were rational and relatively pertinent.
The K score is u s e d as a correction factor to eliminate
subjects whose defensiveness against psychological weakness
distorts th eir responses in the direction of making a more

28
one or the f o l l o w i n g served to disqua l i f y

a student f r o m the

experiment:

(1) a n F score of 12 or above,

(2) a K score of

24 or above,

or (3) a n L score of 7 or above.

The above sca l e was a d m i n i s t e r e d to 367 students of
introductory p s y c h o l o g y at M i c h i g a n State College.

After

eliminating f a l s e high- and l o w - a n x i e t y scores by means of
the v a l i d i t y scales,

the high- and l o w - a n x i e t y groups were

selected f r o m the u p p e r 20# and l o w e r 2096 of the d i s tribution
0
of Anxiety S c ale scores respectively.
The total range of
anxiety scores was f r o m 1-38.

The range of scores f o r the

s e l e c t i o n of the h i g h - a n x i e t y group was f r o m 24 to 38,

and

f or the l o w - a n x i e t y group it was f r o m 1 to 11*
As all students in the courses i n introductory p s y ­
chology at MSC are re q u i r e d to s p e n d t h r e e hours as
experimenta l subjects, f o r the individual experiments a

"normal" appearance.
The L score is a v a l i dating score
that affords a m e a s u r e of the deg r e e to w h i c h the subject
may be a t t e m p t i n g to f a l s i f y his scores by choosing the
response that places h i m in the most acceptable light
socially.
A l o w score indicates that the true values are
probably lo wer t h a n those obtained.
T h e scores u t i l i z e d
in the pres e n t experiment either exactly or m ore con­
s ervatively meet score requirements suggested for
i n v a l i d a t i o n (8 ).
fi

T he b a s i s f o r u t i l i z i n g only the u p p e r and lower
2096 of th e d i s t r i b u t i o n of anxiety scores was to select
groups of anxious and nonanxious subjects w h i c h w o u l d be
comparable to the groups selected f o r experimental
p rocedures by other investigators (17, 22, 23).
This
provides a c o m m o n basis f o r c o m p a r i s o n of experimental
findings.

29
list of s e l e c t e d high- and l o w - a nxiety students was submitted
to the v a r i o u s classes f o r scheduling the t i m e of their
participation.

The students so selected were told only

that they w ere t o p articipate in an experiment on h u m a n
learning and that t hey h a d b e e n randomly selected f o r such
pa r t i c i p a t i o n f r o m the class lists.

As the g r oup experiment

was presented to all students present in each class,

no

separate s c h e d u l i n g was necessary.
Procedure for the Group Experiment - R e c o g n i t i o n Memory
Sub.iects :
Th e two parts

of this group experiment were p r e sented

separately to e a c h of the introductory ps y c h o l o g y classes
w ho had pre v i o u s l y completed the Anxiety Scale.

Part I was

pr e s e n t e d on one day a n d Part II was p r e s e n t e d o n the
f o l l o w i n g day.
experiment,

A f t e r completion of the fir s t part of the

32 subjects of the h igh anxiety group were

selected and m a t c h e d w ith 32 subjects of the l o w anxiety
group on t h e basis of the r e c o g n i t i o n scores achieved
during the first part of the experiment.

These subjects

comprise the pri n c i p a l ex perimental group.
R e c o g n i t i o n Memory.

Part I. L e a r n i n g :

The purpose of Part I of this experiment was to provide
individual measures of learning w h i c h could be u s e d as

30
measures or the amount of* learning w h i c h t ook place in
Part II or the experiment prior to the test f o r stimulus
generalization.

This procedure was necessary in order to

ma tch a group or high anxiety subjects w i t h a group or low
anxiety subjects r o r learning prior to generalization.

The

means by w h i c h the validity or the use or Part I recognition
scores as a measure

or Part II learning was established is

described in Appendix B.
The subjects were presented w i t h a list or 28 threeletter nonsense syllables.

7

These syllables were so

selected as to y i e l d a randomized distribution of consonants
and vowels in terms or rrequency or use and position in the
syllables.

Wo sequence or two or more letters appeared

more t h a n once in the list.
in dirriculty,

To control r o r dirrerences

the syllables were selected r r o m the lists

or Glaze (5) on the basis or theix* having an associative
value or either 13.33^2 or 20.0C$.
value was 17.14$.
MOX,

TUV.

The average associative

Examples or the syllables are:

JAT,

Each syllable was printed in solid black capitals

C■g inch high) on white cards (2x7 inches) by means or a
hand printing apparatus.

To racilitate presentation or

the syllables w i t h a projector,
7

the cards were then joined

Complete lists or the syllables and words used in
Parts I and II or this experiment, appear in Appendix C.

31
with, heavy gummed paper t o f o r m a continuous tape for each
of f o u r sequences of the list.

The order in w h ich the

syllables of each sequence were arranged was randomized.
Prior to being presented w ith the above list of 28
nonsense syllables,
to the subjects!

the following instructions were g i ven

"I am going to s how you a series of

three-letter nonsense syllables,
no dictionary meaning.

i.e., words which have

I want y o u to study each syllable

carefully since your memory for these words is to be tested.
The series w i l l be shown several times,
different order.

each time in a

Do not try to memorize any of the orders

since y o u will not be required t o remember t h e m in any
particular order.

Just concentrate on the words themselves."

The cards w e r e then exposed to each group by means of
a Bal optican opaque projector at a 2-second rate of
exposure.

The- list was presented f our times,

a different random order.

each time in

There was an interval of 10

seconds b e t w e e n each series.
Re c o gnition Memory.

Part I. R e c o g n i t i o n :

Immediately following the learning trials,
were given a recognition test.

the subjects

This test list contained 56

syllables of w h ich 2 8 were the syllables presented for
learning and 28 were n e w and different syllables with not

38
more t h a n one consecutive letter in common w i t h the original
ones.

The associative v a l u e of the n e w syllables was the

same as that of the learned syllables according to Glaze (5).
Bach subject was handed f a c e - d o w n a sheet on w h i c h the
56 items we r e arranged i n rand o m order and a record sheet
on w h i c h to indicate their choices of the syllables presented
fo r learning.

Before turning the sheets over, the subjects

were g i ven the f o l lowing instructions:

w 0n the first sheet

y o u will f i n d a list of 56 nonsense syllables which are
numbered consecutively f r o m 1 to 56.

W i t h i n this list are

the 88 syllables y o u have just seen as well as some new ones.
I w o uld like to h ave y o u go through this list and pick out
those syllables you recognize as having b e e n on the list
you have just seen.

As soon as you recognize a word,

place

a m a r k in the f i rst column of the record sheet opposite its
number.

It is y our job to pick out a total of 28 words.

Try to get as m a n y as you can the first time you go through
the l i s t ; but if on the first reading of the list y o u have
not picked out 2 8 words,

start again and continue through

the list until you have a mark beside 28 of the first 56
numbers on your record sheet.

It may be necessary f o r you

to guess in order t o fill y our quota of 28 items.
you to guess,

if necessary.

I want

Experiments have shown that

wh e n people guess on such a test, they are more often right

33
t h a n wrong.
W hen I say

Be sure to p i c k out 28 words,

no more,

no less.

' G o , ' t u r n over your r e c o g n i t i o n sheets and start

picking out the words y o u recognize.
and accurately as you can.
turn your sheets over.

Try to work as fast

As s oon as y o u have finished,

Any questions?

O.K. Ready - Go."'

The instructions appear to have b e e n clear and adequate,
there were f e w questions raised.

as

Those w h ich were asked

were answered by restating that part of the instructions
appropriate to the question.
R e c o g nition Memory.

Part II. L e a r n i n g ;

On the following day, the subjects learned a list of
24 six letter nonsense words w h ich w ere so constructed as
to yield a thoroughly randomized list of consonants and
vowels,

both w i t h respect to f r e quency of use of the
0
different letters and their positions in the words.

No

sequence of two or more letters appeared more than once
in the list.
MEYBIP,

Some examples of these words are:

RIJKAF.

DACTTJV,

E a c h word was individually printed in

solid capitals on six white cards.

S i x random sequences

of the list of 2 4 words were t h e n selected and Joined to

Q

This l earning list and the recognition lists which
f o l l o w were taken f r o m lists originally constructed by
Postman (2 0 ) and made available by him t hrough the American
Documentati o n Institute, 1719 N. Street, N.W. , Washington,
6, D. C. (Document 3406).

34
f o r m six continuous tapes.

The method by w h ich this was

done duplicates that described previously for the nonsense
syllables in Part I of this experiment.
Prior to learning,
ing instructions:

the subjects were given the f o l l o w ­

"Yesterday y o u were shown and asked to

memorize a series of three-letter nonsense syllables.
are going to be asked to do something similar today.
time,

however,

You
This

I am going to show you a series of six-letter

nonsense words w h i c h have no dictionary meaning.

A g ain I

want y ou to study each word carefully since y our memory for
these words is to be tested.

The series will be shown a

f e w times more t h a n the list you mem o r i z e d yesterday,

and

each time it will be arranged in a different order.
Concentrate on each of the words as it appears on the
screen."

The exposure rate for the words was 2-seconds

and the series was presented six times in different random
orders.

There was an interval of 10 seconds bet w e e n series.

R e c o gnitio n Memory.

Part II. R e c o g n i t i o n :

For this part of the experiment,

the subjects were

each g i ven one offour recognition tests.

The following

structural composition was common to each test:

Each

contained 24 nonsense words of which 6 words f r o m the
original list were unchanged,

6 words f r o m the original

35
list were changed by one letter,

6 words f r o m the original

list were changed by two consecutive letters,

and 6 words

f r o m the original list were changed by three consecutive
letters.

Thus,

t h e 24 words on the learning list were

subdivided into f o u r groups,
degree of similarity

each representing a different

(defined by number of common elements )

to the original words.

The number of common elements ranged

f r o m six (no change) to three (three-letter change).

None

of the variations had t w o or more letters in common with
any w o r d other t h a n the one f r o m w h i c h it was derived.
each type of change,

For

the positions w i t h i n the word at which

the alterations w ere made were systematically varied.

Thus,

one-letter changes w e r e made at each of the six possible
positions wit h i n the word;
were made at positions 1-2,

consecutive two-letter changes
2-3,

3-4,

4-5,

5-6; finally,

consecutive three let t e r changes were made at positions
1-2-3,

2-3-4,

3-4-5,

4-5-6.

The f r e quency of different

positions of change was equalized as closely as possible.
As a control f o r differences in difficulty,

the list

of 24 words was divided into four groups of words,

and each

of the four groups was subjected to all the possible changes,
wit h frequencies of different positions of change equalized.
T h e n the f o u r recognition tests were constructed so that

36
each type of change applied to each group of* words.

On

each list the order in w h i c h the words w e r e arranged was
randomized.
F o l low i n g the learning trials of Part II of this
experiment,

the 32 mat c h e d pairs of h igh and l o w anxiety

subjects were each g i ven one of the above f o u r recognition
tests,

eight pairs being assigned to each test.

In addition,

each subject was g i v e n a record sheet on w h i c h to mark his
choices of the words presented f o r learning.

Preceding

commencement of this t a s k the following instructions were
given:

M0n this sheet you will f i n d a list of 24 nonsense

words w h i c h are nu m b e r e d consecutively f r o m 1 to 24.
W i thin this list are some of the 24 words y o u have just
seen as well as some n e w ones.

I would like to have you

go through this list and pick out those syllables you
recognize as having appeared on the screen.
you recognize a word,

As soon as

place a m ark in the first column of

the record sheet opposite its number.
to pick out any specified number,

Y o u are not asked

rather,

just go through

the list and pick out those words you think appeared on
the screen a f e w minutes ago.

Try to get as many as you

can the first time through; but,

if on the first reading

of the list you t h i n k there are still some words which
should be checked,

go b a c k through and indicate those words.

37
W h e n I say

'Go, ' t/urn over your recognition sheets and

start picking out the words y o u recognize.
as fast and accurately as y o u can.
finished,
Go I"

t u r n your sheets over.

Try to work

As soon as you have
Any questions?

Ready -

Ample t ime was allowed f o r all subjects to complete

the task.
Pro c e d u r e f o r the Individual Experiments
Positive and Negative Transfer
Apparatus:
Two mem o r y drums were u s e d i n the individual, experi­
ments.

One d r u m was u s e d to present the original learning

figure-non s e n s e syllable paired-associates and the other
to present the tra n s f e r paired-associates.

E ach drum was

set to present a figu r e or a figure-syllable combination
every two seconds.

However,

after each randomly arranged

sequence of a particular paired-associate list was presented,
there was an interval of eight seconds w hen no learning
material was exposed.

During that time the exposure slot,

which was in a sliding panel on the front of the memory
drum,

was shifted to a different p o sition on the d rum for

pre s e n t a t i o n of one of three other arrangements of the list.

38
St imulus Mat eT»i a 1 a :
S i x lists of 8 paired-associate units were employed
as stimulus materials.
learning situation,

Two lists were used in the original

two in the positive transfer situation,

and two in the n e gative t r a n s f e r situation.

The stimulus

members of all the paired-associate units were geometric
figures and the response members were nonsense syllables.
The stimulus members of each of the two lists of 8 pairedassociate units u s e d in the original learning situation
consisted of eight of Gibson's
figures.

(4) t h irteen standard

T h ese are shown on the left hand side of Table VI

in Appendix C w h i c h contains the original learning lists.
The stimulus members of each of the f o u r lists of 8 pairedassociate units u s e d in the positive and negative transfer
situations consisted of eight additional figures f r o m
Gibson (4 ).

F o u r of these figures correspond to f o u r of

the standar d figures and have first-degree similarity to
t h e m and f o u r figures correspond to the other f our standard
9
figures and have second-degree similarity to them.
These
eight figures appear on the left h and side of Tables VII

^ Gibson (4 ) originally determined the two degrees of
similarity of t h ese figures to the standard figures by the
method of subjective ratings.
She substantiated the
validity of this scaling procedure in an experimental
situation.

39
and V I I I in Ap p e n d i x C.

(Table VII contains the positive

transfer lists and Table VIII the negative transfer lists ).
The degree of similarity of these figures to the standard
figures of Table VI is indicated i n the center column of
each table.
The re s p o n s e members of the paired associate units
used in the original learning and positive transfer lists
were eight t h ree-letter nonsense syllables having an average
association value of 4.17$ according to Glaze (5).

The

response members of the negative transfer lists were eight
additional non s e n s e syllables having the same associative
value as the first eight syllables.

All sixteen syllables

were selected so that there w o u l d not be more t h a n one
common lett e r between any two of them.
The purpose of having two lists for original learning
was to insure that any differences in nonsense syllable
difficulty w o u l d not produce differential amounts of
learning to the figures to be involved in first-degree
generalization and second-degree generalization.

Likewise

the purpose of the two lists used in each of the two
transfer situations was to control f o r differences in
nonsense syllable difficulty which might produce differ­
ential lea r n i n g to the figures of first-degree similarity
and the figures of second-degree similarity.

40
Tables I and II illustrate h o w the above controls were
established.

Table I is a symbolic representation of the

stimulus and r esponse members of the paired-associate units
u se d in the original learning and t r ansfer situations.
Referring to t h e l eft side of the table,
in the original learning situation,
figures

Sg,

(R) are varied.

The first four stimulus symbols

S3 , S^) represent the standard figures involved

in first-d e g r e e generalization.
symbols

the standard stimulus

(S) r e m a i n constant for each list while the response

syllables
(Si»

it is noted that

(S^,

The second f o u r stimulus

Sg, S 7 , S Q ) represent the standard figures

involved in second degree generalization.

Now,

by alter­

nating the list 1 response syllables R^» Rgi ^ 3* R 4 wit h
the list 1 response syllables R & , Rg, R^, R Q on list 2,
each set of four* syllables is paired once w i t h each set of
fou r standard figures for learning.

However,

the experimental

control is not established until an equal number of subjects
f r o m each experimental group is assigned to each of the two
lists.

Table II, w h i c h presents the assignment of subjects

to the original learning and transfer lists,

shows h o w this

procedure was carried out.
The counterbalancing procedures u sed in the two transfer
situations to control f o r nonsense syllable difficulty are
essentially the same as the one outlined above for the

TABLE I
A SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION OF THE STIMULUS AND RESPONSE
MEMBERS OF THE PAIRED-ASSOCIATE LISTS USED IN
THE ORIGINAL LEARNING AND TRANSFER SITUATIONS
OF THE INDIVIDUAL EXPERIMENTS
ORIGINAL LEARNING
Standard
Stimulus Nonsense Syllables
List 1
List 2
.gures

POSITIVE TRANSFER
Altered
Stimulus Nonsense Syllables
List 4
Figures# List 0

NEGATIVE TRANSFER
Altered
Stimulus Nonsense Syllables
List
Figures# List 5

R5

Sil

%

e X3

%

r6

Sgi

R10

R14

S31

%

r7

S31

R11

r15

R8

S 41

R4

R8

s4i

R12

R16

R5

R1

S52

r5

R1

S5E

r13

r9

s6

R6

%

S62

r6

%

S62

r14

R10

s?

r7

%

S ij2

R7

R3

S8

%

r4

S82

R8

r4

R1

r5

%

%

R6

%

%

r7

S4

R4

s5

v

h15

S82

r16

r12

*The numbers 1 and 2 on the right in these columns refer to first and second degree
similarity of the altered stimulus figures to the standard stimulus figures.

1
-1

S r j2

oS"1

%

si

h

42
TABLE II
ASSIGNMENT OF S U B J E C T S T O T H E OR I G I N A L L E A R N I N G
A N D T R A N S F E R L I S T S F O R THE P U R P O S E OF C O N T R O L L I N G
D I F F E R E N C E S IN N O N S E N S E S Y L L A B L E DIFFICULTY

Positive T r a n s f e r
Anxious

7
7
8

1
2
1
2

5
5

1
1

8
Nonanxious
Negative T r a n s f e r
Anxious

N o n a nxio u s

E r ror Group
Anxious
No n a n x i o u s

5

2

5
5
5
5
5

2
1
1
2
2

5
5
5
5

1
2
1
2

T R A NSFER
LIST N U M B E R *

cji

N U M B E R OF
SUBJECTS

m o> oi <x> cji o>

EX P E R I M E N T A L
CO N D I T I O N

ORIGINAL
LEARNING
LIST NUMBER*

*Ttie n u m b e r s in t h ese columns refer to the list numbers
at t he t o p of t h e columns in T A B L E I.

43
original learning situation.

By referring to Table I y o u

can see that the f i r s t four response syllables

are alternated

wi t h the second f o u r syllables o n the two lists u t i l i z e d in
each t r a n s f e r condition.

Table II t h e n shows how the

assignment of subjects to the lists established the desired
control*
Ea c h list of paired-associates was presented in four
sequences,

each sequence being arranged in adjacent columns

on a memory drum tape.

In each sequence the order of the

pairs was random except that two of the four sequences
commenced and two ended with units whose stimulus members
were involved in first-degree generalization,
sequences commenced and ended with units,

and the other

whose stimulus

members were involved in second-degree generalization.
This feature of the experimental design was employed as a
control f or position effects.

Preceding every figure-

syllable unit in each column on the tape,
figure of the unit was placed alone.

the stimulus

By this arrangement,

each stimulus fig u r e could be presented in the wind o w of
the memory d r u m alone and f ollowed by presentation of the
figure-syllable combination.
Subjects:
Forty-five subjects f r o m the high-anxiety group and
forty-five subjects f r o m the low-anxiety group participated

44
in "the o r i g i n a l l e a r n i n g situation.
twenty

Of these subjects

of the h i g h - a n x i e t y group and t w e n t y of the low-

a n x i e t y g r o u p p a r t i c i p a t e d in the n e g a t i v e t r a n s f e r situation
and f i f t e e n of e ach gro u p p a r t i c i p a t e d in the pos i t i ve
t r a n s f e r situation.

T h e t e n r e m a i n i n g s u bjects in each

group p a r t i c i p a t e d in w h a t was t o h ave b e e n a positive
t r a n s f e r s i t u a t i o n but w h i c h c o n t a i n e d m e t h o d o l o g i c a l
errors m a k i n g it u n s u i t e d f o r t e s t i n g the p r e s e n t h y ­
pothesis.
here.

T his l a t t e r s i t u a t i o n w i l l not be consid e red

T he as s i g n m e n t

of subjects t o the t r a n s f e r situations

was r a n d o m except t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y an equal n u m b e r of
f e m a l e s u b j e c t s f r o m the high- and l o w - a n x i e t y groups were
a s s i g n e d to e ach of t h e t w o t r a n s f e r conditions.
Original L e a r n i n g :
Th e f o r t y - f i v e h i g h - a n x i e t y

and f o r t y - f i v e l o w - anxiety

subjects l e a r n e d a list of eight f i g u r e - s y l l a b l e units to
a c r i t e r i o n of one errorless trial.
the u n i t s was

The c o m p o s i t i o n of

al t e r n a t e d w i t h one half t h e subjects f r o m

ea c h g r o u p l e a r n i n g one arrang e m e n t of the list and the
other h a l f l e a r n i n g t h e other a rrangement
A p p e n d i x C).

(Table VI,

N o subjects were e l i m i n a t e d f o r f a i l u r e

to r e a c h the criterion.
The s u b j e c t s were s een i n d i v i d u a l l y by the e x p erimenter
in a small r e l a t i v e l y isolated room.

Each subject was

seated c o m f o r t a b l y in a w o o d e n chair i n f r o n t of t h e e x p e r i ­
ment a l ap p a r a t u s w i t h his eye level just above the exposure
w i n d o w of the m e m o r y drum.

This was a c c o m p l i s h e d b y r e g u ­

l a t i n g t he h e i g h t of t h e d r u m f r o m the table.

The i n s t r u c t i o n

g i v e n t h e subjects p r i o r to l earning the f i r s t list w e r e as
follows:

"Today y o u are going to p a r t i c i p a t e in a learning

experiment.

It w i l l involve the u s e of the apparatus yo u

see in f r o n t

of you,

called a memory drum.

The m e mory d r u m

is simply a c y l i n d e r or d r u m that is m o u n t e d inside this
b o x n ext to the l i t t l e window.

B e h i n d the d rum i n the box

is a small electric m o t o r that rotates the d r u m about an
i n c h every two seconds.

Now,

on this d r u m I have arranged

s e v e r a l dif f e r e n t sequences of eight geometric forms and
eight n o n s e n s e syllables.
way as t h e s e examples

They are arranged in the same

are a r ranged o n this m o del drum."

(At this point the subjects w e r e shown a m o d e l drum that
h a d a r r an g e d on it simple g e o metric f o r m s
a square,

such as a circle,

and a t r i a n g l e p a i r e d w i t h 3 - l e t t e r alphabetical

sequences s u c h as ABC,

JKL, XYZ,

etc.

The arrangement of

t h e f i g u r e s and p a irs f o l l o w e d that f o u n d on the e xperimental
drum. )

"As y o u see,

there are f o u r r a n d o m arrangements

t h e same list of pairs across the drum,

i.e.,

of

the pairs

always r e m a i n the same but the order in w h i c h they are
a r r a n g e d is cha n g e d e a c h time.

A r o u n d the drum,

the lists

46
are arranged as fol l o w s s

First t h e r e is a figure and t h e n

the same f i g u r e paired w i t h a n o nsense syllable,

another

f i g u r e and the same f i g u r e pai r e d w i t h another n onsense
syllable,

and so on around the drum.

The figures and

f i g u r e - s y l l a b l e combin a t i o n s are arr a n g e d in this way so
that y o u c a n be presented in this w i n d o w w i t h f i rst the
f i g u r e and t h e n the pair.

Several lists of the same pairs

are u s e d so that the pairs

are not presented in any regular

order.

Now, y o u r t a s k is to l e a r n to spell out l o u d the

nonse n s e syllable that goes w i t h a particular figure w h e n
that f i g u r e appears alone in the window.
to do this in the fo l l o w i n g manner:
s h own the list,

I would like you

The f i rst time y ou are

spell out l o u d each nonsense syllable as it

appears in the w i n d o w w i t h its figure.

After that,

when­

ever the f i g u r e appears alone in the w i n d o w and y o u think
y o u k n o w what t h e nonsense s yllable is that goes w ith it,
spell that syllable aloud.

I will s how y o u the list,

a rranged in a different order each time,

as many times as

it is n e c e s s a r y fox* y o u to correctly spell out loud all
th e nonsense syllables on one trial.

There will be an

interval of several seconds b e t w e e n each list.
afraid to make mistakes, because everybody does.
after the first p r e s e n ta t i o n of the list,

Don't be
Remember,

w h e n you have

s p e lled aloud all the nonsense syllables as they appeared

47
w i t h the f i g u r e s , y o u are to l e a r n to spell aloud the nonsense
syllables w h e n the fig u r e s are presented alone.
any questi o n s ?

All right,

Do y o u have

we will proceed w i t h the e x p e riment.’

F o l l o w i n g t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the i n s t r u c t i o n s , the
exp e r i m e n t e r seated himself behind the memory drum apparatus
out of t h e dire c t v i e w of the subject.

He recorded the

r esponses of each subject on forms specially prepared for
that purpose.
Positive T r a n s f e r :
T h i r t y subjects,
low-anxiety),

f i f t e e n f r o m e ach group (high- and

p a r t i c i p a t e d in this experiment.

f o l l o w i n g t h e ori g i n a l learning situation,

Immediately

each subject was

p r e s e n t e d w i t h ano t h e r list of eight paired-associate units
(Table VII,

A p p e n d i x C ) on a memory d r u m and given instructions

to l e a r n this list

as he had the previous list.

T h e list

was p r e s e n t e d u n t i l the subject achieved a criterion of
eight correct r e s ponses o n one trial.
T h e instructions g i v e n the subjects w e r e as follows:
•Yo u are n o w g o i n g to be presented with another list of
eight g e o m e t r i c f i g u r e s pai r e d w i t h eight nonsense syllables.
I would l i k e y o u to l e a r n t h e m in the same m a n n e r you learned
t h e f i rst list, t h a t is,
the list,

during t h e first presentation of

spell out l o u d each nonsense syllable as it appears

i

48
in the w i n d o w w i t h t h e figure.
of the list,

After the first presentation

whenever a f i g u r e appears alone in the window

and y o u think y o u k n o w what it is, spell it out loud.

You

will he shown the list as many times as it is necessary for
you to correctly spell aloud all of the nonsense syllables
during one complete presentation of the list."
U p o n achieving the criterion of one errorless trial,
the experiment was stopped.

Each subject was t hen thanked

for his cooperation and asked not to discuss the content
of the experiment w ith his friends.
Negative T r a n s f e r :
F o r t y subjects participated in this experiment,

twenty

being randomly selected f r o m the high-anxiety group and
twenty randomly selected f r o m the low-anxiety group.
Immediately f o l lowing the original learning situation,
each subject was presented w ith a negative transfer list
(Table VIII,

A p pendix C ) and given instructions to learn

it as he had the previous list.

The list was presented

f or t e n trials.
The instructions given to these subjects were as
follows:

"You are n o w going to be presented with another

list of eight geometric figures paired with eight nonsense
syllables.

I would like you to l e a r n them in the same

49
manner y o u learned the first list,
p r e s e ntatio n of the list,

that is,

during the first

spell out loud each nonsense

syllable as it appears in the window w ith the figure.
the f i rst p r e s e n t a t i o n of the list,

whenever a figure appears

alone in the w i n d o w and you t h i n k y o u k n o w what it is,
it out loud.

After

spell

You w ill be s h own the list as m any times as

it is necessary f o r y o u to correctly spell aloud all of the
n o n sense syllables during one complete p r e s e n t a t i o n of the
list.M
U p o n c o m p l e t i o n of the tenth trial,
stopped.

the experiment was

Each subject was t h e n thanked f o r his cooperation

and asked not to discuss the content of the experiment with
his friends.

CHAPTER III
RESULTS
The Group Experiment - R e c o g n i t i o n Memory
Part I.

L e a r n i n g and R e c o g n i t i o n :

A c o m p a r i s o n of the r e c o g n i t i o n scores of the 56 highanxiety and 54 l o w - a n x i e t y subjects,

who were present on

the day this part of the g r oup experiment was presented in
class,

revealed that both groups achieved the same mean

score of 20-9 correct n o nsense syllable identifications
out of the 28 possible.

The st a n d a r d deviations for the

h i g h and l o w groups were 3.28 and 2.91 respectively.

These

findings of equal measures of central tendency and approxi­
mately equal m e asures of v ariability indicated that it was
u nn e c e s s a r y to m a t c h the two groups on the basis of the
r e c o g nitio n scores of Part I f o r Part II of this experiment.
However,

the m a t c h i n g procedure had some value in that it

assured an equal number of subjects,who h a d achieved the
same Part I r e c o g n i t i o n scores,for each of the four
r e c o g n i t i o n tests u s e d in Part II of the experiment.
Part II.

L e a r n i n g and R e c o g n i t i o n :

Performance curves,
32 nonanxious subjects,

p lotted f o r the 32 anxious and
exactly m a t c h e d on the basis of

51
their l e a r n i n g scores

on Part I, are p r e s e n t e d in F igu r e 4.

The points on t h e curves r e a d i n g f r o m left to right r e p r e ­
sent the m e a n n u m b e r of r e c o g n i t i o n r e s ponses t o the
o r i ginal n o n s e n s e w o rds

and t h o s e words changed by 1 , 2 ,

and 3 c o n s e c u t i v e letters.
that,

A study of t h e s e curves r e v eals

in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e f i r s t e x p e r i m e n t a l hypothesis

the anxious g r o u p m a d e p r a c t i c a l l y the same n u m b e r of
responses to t h e original n o n s e n s e words.

However,

com p a r i s o n of the responses to t h e cha n g e d words

indicates

a distinct and c o n s i s t e n t t r e n d for the anxious subjects
to r e s p o n d l e s s o f t e n to the a l t e r e d stimuli i n l i n e wit h
t he s e c o n d e x p e r i m e n t a l hypothesis.
The above n o t e d di f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the p e r f o r m a n c e of
the anxious and n o n a n x i o u s

subjects u n d e r stimulus g e n e r a l i ­

zation conditions was t e s t e d b y m e a n s of a n analysis of
variance.
T a b l e IX,

A summary of this analysis is p r e s e n t e d in
A p p e n d i x D.

findings.

It reveals s everal i nteresting

F o r one thing,

of the two groups

the d i f f e r e n c e i n the p e r f ormance

is s i g n i f i c a n t b e y o n d the f i v e percent

l e v e l of confidence,

the F r a tio b e ing 5 . 9 7 w i t h 1 and 62

degrees of freedom.

The analysis

also reveals that the

i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n the two levels of anxiety and the
changes in c o m p o s i t i o n of the n o n s e n s e words is not s i g n i ­
ficant,

i.e.,

not differ.

the trends

in the two p e r f o r m a n c e curves do

52

MEM

NUMBER OF RECOGNITION RESPONSES

5 —

O

ANX I O U S

32

NONANXIOUS N

32

1

2

3

C H A N G E S IN C O M P O S I T I O N
F i g u r e 4.
P e r f o r m a n c e curves f o r t h e R e c o g n i t i o n
M e m o r y Experiment, Part II.
E a c h p o int o n the
curves r e p r esents t h e m e a n n u m b e r of r e c o g n i t i o n
r e s p o n s e s of anxious or no n a n x i o u s subjects to
t h e o r i g i n a l n o n s e n s e words or words cha n ged
by 1, 2, or 3 c o n s e c u t i v e letters.

53
A l t h o u g h not di r e c t l y p e r t i n e n t t o the h y p o t h e sis
b e i n g tested,

it is of some interest to n ote another f i nding

of the analysis

of variance.

This

aspect of the analysis

was c o n c e r n e d w i t h the i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n b o t h groups of
subjects c o m b i n e d and change of c o m p o s i t i o n of t h e nonsense
words.

It was f o u n d that t h ere is a very s i g n i ficant

d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e p e r f o r m a n c e of the pool e d subjects as a
f u n c t i o n of change i n composition,

the F ratio b e ing 81.5

w i t h 3 and 186 degrees of freedom.

This means that a

c l e a r - c u t stimulus g e n e r a l i z a t i o n g r a d i e n t o btained in
t h i s p o r t i o n of t h e experiment.
Due to the nat u r e of the e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n it was
p o s s i b l e to s e c u r e empirical d a t a on the effect of d i f f e r ­
ences i n deg r e e of or i g i n a l l e a r n i n g

on the amount of

s t i mulus g e n e r a l i z a t i o n present u n d e r r e c o g n i t i o n memory
conditions.

By s e l e c t i n g f r o m all subjects p a r t i c i p a t i n g

i n Parts I and II of the g r o u p experiment,

6 subjects f r o m

e a c h of the- f o u r subtest groups w h o h a d p a r t i c i p a t e d in
Part II of the experiment and ach i e v e d Part I r e c o g n i t i o n
scores

of 1 4 -19

(lower e x treme) and 6 subjects f r o m each

of the f o u r subtest groups who h a d p a r t i c i p a t e d in Part II
of t he exp e r i m e n t
of 2 5 - 2 8

and a chieved Part I r e c o g n i t i o n scores

(upper extreme),

it was p o s s i b l e to h ave two

groups w h o p r e s u m a b l y d i f f e r e d in l e vel of l e a r n i n g prior

54
to the test of generalization.

The effect of anxiety was

con t r o l l e d i n the above s e l e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e as it y i e l d e d
6 anxious and 7 n o n a n x i o u s subjects f o r the s l o w l e a r n i n g
group an d 4 anxious
l e a r n i n g group,

and 6 n o n a n x i o u s subjects f o r the fast

w i t h the re m a i n i n g subjects b e i n g d r a w n

f r o m the i n t e r m e d i a t e r a nge of anxiety scores.
The p e r f o r m a n c e curves of Part II d a t a f o r the two
l e a r n i n g groups

are p r e s e n t e d in F i g u r e 5.

They i n dicate

t h a t th e fast l e a r n e r s made s l ightly more r e c o g n i t i o n
responses to the original n o n s e n s e words,

but m u c h f e w e r

r e c o g n i t i o n res p o n s e s to the a l t e r e d words at each point
along the si m i l a r i t y dimension.

A n analysis of v ariance

was u s e d to test the s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e differences in
n u m b e r of r e c o g n i t i o n responses m a d e by the two groups to
t he a l t e r e d words

(Table X,

A p p e n d i x D).

It y i e l d e d an

F of 7.93 w i t h 1 and 47 degrees of freedom,

w h i c h is

s i g n ificant b e y o n d the one percent l e v e l of confidence.
This f i n d i n g of a r e d u c t i o n i n amount of stimulus general!
zation as the level of l e a r n i n g is rais e d is m u c h l ike the
f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d by several other investigators.
(21),

Razran

summ a r i z i n g t h e P a v l o v i a n and Y a l e studies of

c o n d i t i o n e d r e s p o n s e generalization,

stated that CR

g e n e r a l i z a t i o n increases i n the very early stages of
learning,

t h e n slowly d e c reases

and t h e n a g a i n increases.

55

4

3

2

MEM

NUMBER OF RECOGNITION RESPONSES

5

1

O

FAST LEARNERS N

24

SLOW LEARNERS N

24

1

2

3

C H A N G E S IN C O M P O S I T I O N
F i g u r e 5*
P e r f o r m a n c e curves f r o m t h e R e c o g n i t i o n
M e m o r y Experi m e nt , Part II.
E a c h p o int o n the
curves r e p r e s e n t s t h e m e a n n u m b e r of r e c o g n i t i o n
r e s p o n s e s t o t h e or i g i n a l a n d c h a n g e d w o rds by
t w o g r o u p s of subjects, one of w h i c h a c h i e v e d
Par t I r e c o g n i t i o n scores of 1 4 - 1 9 ( s l o w l e a r n e r s )
and t h e other of w h i c h a c h i e v e d Part I r e c o g n i t i o n
sco r e s of 2 5 - 2 8 (fast l e a r n e r s ).

56
Gibson

(4 ) a lso r e a c h e d a s o m e w h a t s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n i n h e r

c l a s s i c a l w o r k o n s t i m u l u s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i n v e r b a l learning.
S he f o u n d t h a t

s t i m u l u s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n was g r e a t e s t d u r i n g

t h e e a r l y p a r t of t h e l e a r n i n g process,
progressed,

but as l e a r n i n g

g e n e r a l i z a t i o n decreased.

The I n d i v i d u a l E x p e r i m e n t s - P o s i t i v e a n d N e g a t i v e T r a n s f e r

Original Lfinrning:
T h e m e a n n u m b e r of c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e s a n d t h e m e a n
n u m b e r of t r i a l s to c r i t e r i o n of the 45 anx i o u s a n d 45
nonanxious

subjects,

l e a r n i n g si t u ation,

w h o p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h e ori g i n al
are p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e

c o m p a r i s o n of t h e s e scores
subjects

III.

i n d i c a t e s t hat t h e

A

anxious

a c h i e v e d t h e c r i t e r i o n of o n e e r r o r l e s s t r i a l

on the average

of only 1 . 4 t r i a l s

It a lso shows that t h e r e was
b etween the groups

s o o n e r t h a n t h e nonanxious.

essentially no difference

in t h e n u m b e r of cor r e c t r e s p o n s e s mad e

d u r i n g the l e a r n i n g trials.
To d e t e r m i n e t h e s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of t he above
differences

an analysis

c o v a r i a n c e w e r e made.

of v a r i a n c e and an an a l y s i s

of

T h e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was

c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e d i f f e r e n c e in the m e a n n u m b e r of t r ials
n e c e s s a r y t o a t t a i n t h e criterion.
analysis,

T h e result

p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e X I of A p p e n d i x D,

of this
shows tha t

57
TABLE III
MEA N N U M B E R OF T R I A L S - T O - L E A R N A N D M E A N NUMB E R
OF CORRECT R E S P O N S E S OF T H E A NXIOUS AND N O N A N X I O U S S U BJECTS
D U R I N G T H E O R IGINAL L E A R N I N G S I T U A T I O N
OF T H E INDIVIDUAL E X P E R I M E N T S
Mean Number
of Trials
to L e a r n

S.D.

M e a n Num b er
of Correct
Responses

S.D.

Experimental Group

N

Positive T r a n s f e r
Anxious
Nonanxious

15
15

88.8
32.8

12.31
12.90

104.1
10 9.3

3 8 .36
2 8 .00

Negative T r a n s f e r
Anxious
Nonanxious

20
20

29.2
32.2

13.93
12.69

100.7
105.1

3 7 .94
49.31

Other
Anxious
Nonanxious

10
10

3 3.4
28.5

16 .11
16.88

111.5
93.1

48.42
30.21

Total
Anxious
Nonanxious

45
45

3 0.0
31.4

1 4 .06
12.46

104.2
103.8

40.87
43.33

58
the d i f f e r e n c e was not significant.

The analysis of co-

v a r iance was c o n c e r n e d w i t h the d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the two
groups

in t h e n u m b e r of correct responses m ade during the

learning trials.

However,

w h e n the means

of the anxious

and no n a n x i o u s subjects f o r this p e r f o r m a n c e measure were
adjusted to a c o m m o n t r i a l s - t o - l e a r n basis,

it was f o und

that the two groups do not differ s i g n ificantly in this
regard (Table XII,
then,

App e n d i x D).

the anxious a n d nonanxious

U s i n g the above measures,
subjects did not differ

in amount of original learning.
To secure an a d d i tional m e a s u r e of possible differences
b e t w e e n the groups i n rate of learning,

the number of trials

necessary to elicit the f i rst correct r esponse and each of
the s e v e n su c c e s s i v e f i rst r e s ponses to the various stimulus
figures was a s c e r t a i n e d for each subject.
summarized f o r e ach group in F i g u r e 6.

These data are

It shows that the

anxious group t o o k a slightly g r e a t e r m e a n number of trials
to p r o duce the fir s t correct response,

but afterwards they

correctly r e s p o n d e d to each other syllable f o r the first
time f r o m 1 to 3 trials
Table XIII,
analysis

sooner t h a n the nonanxious group.

A p p e n d i x D, presents the results of an

of v a r i a n c e employed to test the difference in

rate of lear n i n g s h o w n in Figure 6.
and 1 and 88 degrees of freedom,

W i t h an F of 3.67

the difference is

NUMBER OF TRIALS TO MAKE FIRST CORRECT RESPONSE

59

25

20

15

10

ANXIOUS

5

45

MEM

NONANXIOUS N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

STIMULUS F I G U R E S IN ORDER L E A R N E D
F i g u r e 6. Performance Curves f r o m ‘the Individual
Experiment, Original Learning.
E a c h point on the
curves represents the m e a n n u m b e r of trials
n e c e s s a r y f o r the anxious and nonanxious subjects
t o g ive the first correct response to each of the
eight stimulus figures in the order learned.

60
significant b e t w e e n the f i v e and t e n percent level of
confidence.

Therefore,

the anxious subjects do s how some

evidence of learning m o r e rapidly in the individual e x peri­
mental s i t u a t i o n particularly after the early stages of
the l e a r n i n g process.

This fin d i n g is in kee p i n g w ith the

t heoretical views outlined in the Introduction,

indicating

that t he f a c i l i t a t i n g effects of the anxiety drive tended
to p r e d omina t e in this l e a r n i n g situation.
I nasmuch as four of t h e standard figures were later
varied to one-degree of similarity and the other four
standard figures w e r e l a t e r var i e d to a second-degree of
similarity,

it was desirable to determine if t h ere were

any differences in learning b e t w e e n the anxious and n o n ­
anxious groups in terms of the m e a n number of correct
responses to each of the t w o sets of f o u r figures.
analyses of v ariance

(Tables X I V and XV,

use d f or this purpose.

Two

Appendix D) were

N e i t h e r analysis yields an F ratio

approaching significance.
In the process of organizing the d a t a f o r the above
comparisons,

it was not e d that in each group there was a

difference in the m e a n number of correct responses made to
the standard figures lat er varied to one-degree of similarity
and the standard figures later v a r i e d by a second-degree of
similarity.

U p o n combining the individual measures f r o m

61
■both groups,

it is r o u n d that there was a m e a n of 114 ,8

correct responses to the f i r s t - d e g r e e standard figures
and a m e a n of 95.2 correct responses to the second-degree
standard figures.

U t i l i z i n g again an analysis

of v a r iance

technique to d e t ermine the importance of this v a r i a t i o n in
performance,

it is f o u n d that the difference is significant

b e y o n d the one percent level of confidence,

the F ratio

being 8.04 w i t h 1 and 1 7 8 degrees of f r e e d o m (Table XVI,
A p p e n d i x D ).
The analyses above ind i c a t e that the difficulty of the
two groups of f o u r figures u s e d in the original learning
list was not c o n t rolled and that b o t h groups probably
a ttained a h i g h e r l e v e l of lea r n i n g in response to the
standard f i g u r e s l a t e r var i e d to f i r s t - d e g r e e similarity
t h a n to the other s tandard figures.

However,

and.more

important in terms of the experimental hypotheses,
were no significant differences b e t w e e n the anxious
nonanxious groups

there
and

in response to either set of standard

figures.
P ositive T r a n s f e r :
In the p o sitive transfer situati ->n it was ex p e c ted
that the anxious subjects w o u l d show less t r ansfer t han
t he nonanxious subjects.
experiment

However,

the results of the

(summarized in Fig u r e 7 and Table IV) show

62
T A B L E IV
MEAN N U M B E R OF CORRECT R E S P O N S E S D U R I N G TRIA L S 1 - 3
A N D M E A N N U M B E R OF TRIALS T O CRITERION
OF THE A N X I O U S AND N O N A N X I O U S SU B J E C T S
U N D E R THE PO S I TI V E TR A N S F E R CONDITION

Exp e r i m e n t a l Group

N

M e a n Num b e r
of Correct
Res p o n s e s

S.D.

M e a n N u m b er
of Trials

S.D.

Anxious

15

10.5

6.5

3.32

Nonanxious

15

1 0 .0

6.6

2.96

TABLE V
MEAN N U M B E R OF CORRECT RESPONSES TO T H E CHANGED FORMS
OF FIRST- A N D S E C O N D - D E G R E E S I M I L A R I T Y
OF T H E A N X I O U S AND N O N A N X I O U S SUBJECTS
D U R I N G T HE TEN T R I A L S OF THE N E G A T I V E TRA N S F E R CONDITION

E x p e r i m e n t a l Group

M e a n Num b e r
of Correct
Responses to
Forms of
First Degree
Similarity

N

S.D.

M e a n Number
of Correct
Responses to
Forms of
Second Degree
Similarity

S.D.

Anxious

20

12.7

5.57

16.5

6.26

Nonanxious

20

8.6

5.70

11.5

5.43

63

6

5

MEM

NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES

7

ANXIOUS

15

NONANXIOUS N

15

4

2

1
D E G R E E OF S T I M U L U S V A R IATION

F i g u r e 7,
P erformance curves f r o m the Individual
Experiment, Positive Transfer.
The two points on
the curves represent the m e a n number of correct
responses g i v e n b y the anxious and nonanxious
subjects to the stimulus figures varied one and
t wo degrees of similarity duri n g trials 1-3 of
the pos i t i v e t r a n s f e r condition.

64
that the groups closely approximated each other in the
number of1 cor r e c t responses to the altered forms on
Trials 1 - 3 of the transfer s i t u a t i o n and in the number
of trials n e c e s s a r y to achieve the l e arning criterion
of one errorless trial.

Analyses of variance (Tables XVII

and X V I I I of A p p e n d i x D) support this observation of no
difference in p o s i t i v e t r ansfer b e t w e e n the two groups.
Thus, h y p o t h e s e s 4 and 5 were not confirmed in this
situation.
It should be n o t e d in Figure 7 that there is a real
gradient of stimulus g e n e r a l i z a t i o n based u p o n Gibson's
(4) c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the altered stimulus figures into
those of fir s t However,

and those of second-degree similarity.

t h e obtained gradient is a joint fun c t i o n of this

similarity d i m e n s i o n and the degree to w h i c h the responses
to the two sets
learned.

of f o u r standard figures were originally

Presumably,

the effect of the latter variable

has been to f l a t t e n the gradient by l o wering the amount
of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n to the stimulus figures of f i r st-degree
similarity,

inasmuch as the verbal responses to the

standard f i g u r e s corresponding to the first-degree figures
were b e t t e r lea r n e d in the original l e arning situation.
This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is in Keeping with the finding of
less g e n e r a l i z a t i o n by the superior learners in the group

65
experiment of* the present study and w i t h Gibson's

(4)

previously m e n t i o n e d f i n d i n g s of a decrease in stimulus
ge n e r a l i z a t i o n as l e a r n i n g continues.
Negative T r a n s f e r :
Figu r e 8 g r a p h i c a l l y records t h e obtained results of
the n e g a t i v e t r a n s f e r co n d i t i o n on the performance of the
20 anxious
it.

and 2 0 nonanxious subjects who p a r t i c i p a t e d in

Table V also presents

a summary of these findings.

Inspection of t h e s e data reveals that the two groups differ
markedly in the n u m b e r of correct responses made to the
stimulus figux*es of first-

and second-degree similarity

during t r ial s 1 - 1 0 of t h e transfer situation.
the two points

At each of

along the similax*ity c o n tinuum the anxious

subjects are clearly superior in performance.

Also,

the

extent of t h e superiority of the anxious g r oup tends to
remain about the same at b o t h points.
expectations of hypotheses

Thus, the

6 and 7, that the anxious

subjects w o u l d give more correct n e w responses to the
similar sti m u l i t h a n the nonanxious and that this
difference w o u l d be the same for each v a r i a t i o n of the
stimulus figures,

w ere realized.

T he results of several statistical tests
above observations.

First,

confirm the

an analysis of v a r i a n c e of

66

NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES

15

MEM

16

9

14
13
IE

11
10

8

A NXIOUS

N=20

NONANXIOUS N=20

D E G R E E OF S T I M U L U S VAR I A T I O N
F i g u r e 8.
P e r f o r m a n c e curves f r o m the Individual
Experiment, N e g a t i v e Transfer.
T h e points on the
curves represent t h e m e a n n u m b e r of correct
responses giv e n by the anxious and n o n a nxious
subjects to the stimulus f i g u r e s vari e d one and
two degrees of similarity during trials 1 to 10
of the n e g a t i v e t r a n s f e r condition.

67
■the differen c e b e t w e e n the groups in trials to achieve the
c r i t erion duri n g the o riginal l e a r n i n g s i t uation y i e l d e d
no significa n t di f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the groups in rate of
learning

(Table XX,

A p p e n d i x D).

The r e s u l t of this

analysis is thus c o n s istent w i t h t h e analysis of the total
group of anxious and no n a n x i o u s subjects
However,

as reported earlier.

to con t r o l for the effect of w h a t e v e r difference

did exist in the r ate of original lea r n i n g and t h e n to test
the differe n c e s i n n u m b e r of correct responses to the
altered stimuli,

a n analysis

of covariance was made.

T he

results of this analysis are pre s e n t e d in Table XXI,
A p p e n d i x D.

The F ratio of 9.81 w i t h 1 and 37 degrees of

f r e e d o m is s ignificant b e y o n d the one percent level of
confidence,

indicating as was ex p e c t e d that the performance

of the anxious g r oup was clearly different f r o m and
superior to the nonanx i o u s group.

Two f u r t h e r analyses

of v a r i a n c e w e r e m a d e t o test the differences b e t w e e n the
groups at e a c h of the two points along the similarity
continuum.

T h e s e are reported in Tables XXII and X X III

of A p p e n d i x D.

E a c h of these analyses y i e l d e d F ratios

significant b e y o n d the five percent l e v e l of confidence.

CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
The pre s e n t study was designed as an e m p irical
i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e h y p o thesis that the effect of
increased anxiety u p o n performance u n d e r original
l e a r n i n g a nd stimulus g e n e r a l i z a t i o n conditions is,
in part,

a f u n c t i o n of the presence of condit i o n e d

and u n c o n d i t i o n e d response tendencies a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
the anxiety d r i v e - s t i m u l u s .

It was conjec t u r e d that

in a rote verbal lea r n i n g situation the re s p o n s e
tendencies associ a t e d w i t h increased anxiety would
interfere w i t h the l e a r n i n g of v e r b a l responses,
extent

the

of s u c h i n terference var y i n g with the stimulus

conditions and materials used.

However,

the pr i n c i p al

hypothesis was co n c e r n e d with t h e effect of these
incompatible responses in a stimulus g e n e r a l i z a t i o n
situation in w h i c h the effective strength of pr e v i o u sly
l e a r n e d v e r b a l responses to stimuli similar to the
o riginal stimuli is tested.

Under this condition it

was p r e d i c t e d that the anxiety r e sponse tendencies
w o uld compete w i t h the g eneralized verbal res p o n s e
tendencies a n d thus reduce t h eir effective strength.

69
T h e results of the r e c o g n i t i o n memory group experiment
support the above hypothesis.

A l t h o u g h in Part I of the

group e x p e ri m e n t it was f o u n d that level of anxiety does
not differentially affect the r e c o g n i t i o n learning scores,
this f i n d i n g c a n be readily accounted for.

If we assume

that t h e anxious subjects l e a r n m ore slowly during the
early learning trials because of the compet i t i o n of the
anxiety resp o n s e t e n d encies and if we f u r t h e r assume that
they accrue g r e a t e r increments
throughout learning,

of verbal response tendency

it is possible in the limited number

of trials g i v e n the subjects,
effects cancel e a c h other,

that the s e two opposite

thus m a i n t a i n i n g the performance

of the anxious subjects at the same level as that of the
nonanxious

subjects.

It is also possible to interpret the

l a c k of any d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the groups as meaning that
t h e group experimental setting was not particularly
threatening to the anxious subjects and,
anxiety drive was not operative.

as a result,

However,

the

this i n terpre­

t a t i o n does not s e e m likely in v i e w of the results of
Part II of the gro u p experiment.

T h o u g h the learning

situation of Part II is almost identical to that

of Part I,

w h e n test e d f o r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n there is a significant
difference b e t w e e n the anxious

and nonanxious subjects

i n the m e a n number of recogn i t i o n responses made to the

M

70
altered n o n s e n s e words

( c . f . , F i g u r e IV, page 58).

On the

"basis of this result we presume that the performance measure
of l e a r n i n g of the original words in Part I reflected both
the interfer i n g and f a c i l i t a t i n g effects of anxiety and
that the influence of the response tendencies associated
w i t h anxiety d i d not become apparent until the test f or
g e n e r a l i z a t i o n was made.

In the gener a l i z a t i o n situation,

the effective s t r e n g t h of the generalized response
tendencies for the anxious subjects was un i f o r m l y reduced
along t he stimulus similarity c o n tinuum and,

as a result,

fewer r e s pon s e s to the changed words were made.
The results of the original learning in the individual
experiments seem to emphasize the facil i t a t i n g effects of
anxiety as a drive rather t h a n the interfering effects
anxiety-ind u c e d responses.

Here it was f o u n d that,

of

although

there is no significant difference in the number of trials
to r e a c h the cr i t e r i o n of one perfect trial,

the anxious

subjects show a trend to achieve the criterion fas t e r than
the nonanxious subjects and,
response,

except for the very f i rst

they produce each successive first response to

the figures f r o m 1.07 to 3.94 trials sooner t han the n o n ­
anxious group.
The results of the positive transfer experiment fail
to y i eld any differences or trends which might clearly

71
confirm or refu t e the theoretical analysis of this situation.
There are several p ossible explanations f o r this outcome.
One of these is that the positive transfer list was so easy
(each group t o o k a m e a n of about 6 trials to l e a r n the list)
that the measures of learning used w e r e too gross to reflect
the d i f f e r e n t i a l effect of anxiety u p o n generalization.
Another equally reasonable inter p r e t a t i o n of the l ack of
difference b e t w e e n the groups und e r positive transfer
conditions stems f r o m the nature of the positive t r a n s f e r
situation as compared with the n e gative tra n s f e r situation.
In the posi t i v e t r ansfer experiment not only w ere the
stimulus f i g u r e s similar to those u s e d in the original
learn i n g s i t u a t i o n but the corresponding response syllables
were identical.

This contrasts w i t h the negative transfer

situation i n w h i c h the figures w ere similar but the response
syllables w e r e entirely n e w and different.
well be that the two different situations,

It could very
one easy and

f a m i l i a r and the other difficult and relatively unfamiliar,
elicited differ e n t i a l amounts of anxiety in the anxious
subjects.

In the positive transfer situation little

activation of the anxiety drive state,
subjects,

even in anxious

may have t a k e n place; in fact,

the anxiety drive

could conceivably have b e e n less t h a n in the original
learning situation.

In the negative transfer situation,

72
however,

the difficulty of the t a s k may e v e n have resulted

in an increase in the anxiety state.

Thus,

the f a i l u re to

obtain a differ e n c e b e t w e e n groups in the positive transfer
situation not

only seems reasonable,

considerations,

u n d e r post hoc

but congruent w i t h the theory.

In the

negative transfer s i t u a t i o n the ex p e c t a t i o n that the
anxious subjects w o u l d produce more correct responses to
the similar stimulus fig u r e s was confirmed.

The theoretical

basis f o r this result is that the strength of the generalized
response tendencies that were originally correct and are now
incorrect has b een r e d u c e d because of anxiety-induced
response competition.

C o n s e q u e n t l y , interference in

learning the n e w response is reduced and the performance
of the anxious subjects is enhanced.
It is of some importance to n ote that the theoretical
basis of the present

experiment provides

a reasonable

explanation of the results of M o ntague (17) w h i c h were
discussed in the Introduction.

He uti l i z e d three rote

serial learning tasks w h i c h r epresented three gradations
on a contin u u m of difficulty.

He f o u n d that the anxious

subjects obtained scores considerably low e r t h a n those of
the nonanxious subjects on the most difficult list.
the list of m e d i a n difficulty,

On

m e a n scores for the anxious

group were only slightly b e l o w those f o r the nonanxious

73
group.

O n the eas i e s t list the anxious subjects w ere

superior in performance.
of t h e t h re e t a s k s

e licited d i f f e r e n t i a l amounts

and that th e d i f f e r e n c e s
f o r the a n x i o u s subjects,
results

If we assume t h a t the d i f ficulty
of anxiety

in drive w e r e r e l a tively g r e a t e r
t h e n w e w o u l d expe c t the obtained

o n the b a s i s of the pre s e n t formulation.

difficult t a s k w o u l d p r e s u m a b l y

The

arouse the g r e a t e s t amount

of anxiety and a n x i e t y - i n d u c e d r e s p o n s e c o m p e t i t i o n in the
anxious subjects

and t h e y w o u l d p e r f o r m m o r e poorly t h a n

the no n a n x i o u s subjects.

The t a s k of m e d i a n di f f i c ulty

e l i c i t e d f e w e r a n x i e t y - i n d u c e d r e s ponses in the anxious
s ubjects

and,

as in the original l e a r n i n g si t u a t i o n of the

p r e sent ind i v i d u a l experiments,

the i n t e r f e r i n g effects of

anxiety r e s p o n s e c o m p e t i t i o n may have b e e n approximately
c o u n t e r b a l a n c e d by the f a c i l i t a t i n g effects of drive on
r e a c t i o n potential.

In the easy task,

the f e w e s t number

of i n c o m p a t i b l e a n x i e t y - i n d u c e d r e s ponses

are elicited

and the h i g h e r m a n i f e s t anxiety l e v e l served to facilitate
the p e r f o r m a n c e of the anxious subjects.
This analysis brings u p a point w h i c h has not b e e n
f u l l y e l a b o r a t e d in the pr e v i o u s discussion,

namely,

the

r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the f a c i l i t a t i n g and i nterfering
effects of anxiety as the l e vel of anxiety is raised.
Here it is a s s u m e d that,

w i t h any e l e v a t i o n of anxiety,

■there is b o t h a n i n c r e a s e i n n u m b e r a n d i n s t r e n g t h of
anxiety response tendencies w i t h a concomitant retardation
of t h e l e a r n i n g

of v e r b a l r e s p o n s e s .

It is also assumed

t h a t g r e a t e r f a c i l i t a t i o n of v e r b a l l e a r n i n g
increments

(greater

of t h e v e r b a l r e a c t i o n t e n d e n c y ) m a y occur with

e l e v a t i o n of anxiety,

b u t this f a c i l i t a t i o n does not

i n c r e a s e at a r a t e c o m m e n s u r a t e w i t h t h e i n t e r f e r e n c e
e f f e c t of t h e c o m p e t i n g a n x i e t y - I n d u c e d r e s p o n s e tendencies.
I n o t h e r words,

a n x i e t y as a n a d d i t i o n a l i r r e l e v a n t drive

s t a t e at a l o w level,

m a y f a c i l i t a t e v e r b a l learning,

as the l e v e l is r a i s e d t h e r e
will

but

is a p o i n t above w h i c h anxiety

i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e v e r b a l l e a r n i n g process*

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY
T h e present experiment is an i n v estigation or the
h y p o t h e s i s that the effect of increased anxiety is,
part,

in

a f u n c t i o n of the presence of conditioned and u n ­

c o n d i t i o n e d response tendencies associated with the
a n x i e t y drive-stimulus.
Anxiety is considered as a drive possessing certain
functional
namely,
all

characteristics similar to other drive states,

that increased drive increases t h e s t r e n g t h of

r e s p o n s e tendencies capable of being evoked in a

s i t u a t i o n and augments each accrued increment of reaction
potential.

Anxiety as a stimulus,

like other drive

conditions,

also evokes various conditioned and unconditioned

r e s p o n s e s w h i c h vary in strength according to the level of
the

drive.
La r g e l y on the basis of this latter assumption,

f o l l o w i n g general hypothesis is proposed.

the

In a stimulus

g e n e r a l i z a t i o n situation in which the effective strength
of

g e n e r a l i z e d verbal responses to altered stimuli is

tested,
will

the response tendencies associated w i t h anxiety

compete w i t h the generalized response tendencies

76
more in the anxious t h a n the nonanxious group.

Thus,

the

subjects h i g h in anxiety w i l l s h o w a l o w e r and steeper
g r a d i e n t of generalization,

less pos i t i v e transfer,

and

less n e g a t i v e t r a n s f e r t h a n t h o s e subjects l o w i n anxiety.
L e v e l of anxiety was d e t e r m i n e d by means of h i g h and
l o w scores o n a q u e s t i o n n a i r e d e s i g n e d to m e a s u r e manif est
anxiety.

T h i r t y - t w o anxious and t h i r t y - t w o nonanxious

subjects,

w h o w e r e sel e c t e d on the basis of the anxiety

scale a n d m a t c h e d on t h e basis
m e a s u r e of learning,
m e m o r y situation.

of the others

p a r t i c i p a t e d in a group r e c o g n i t i o n

Two

nonanxious subjects,

of an i n d e p endent r e c o g n i t i o n

other paired groups of anxious and

e a c h of w h o m was s e l e c t e d independently

on the basis of the anxiety scale,

partici­

p a ted i n d i v i d u a l l y in p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e transfer
situations.

T h e r e w e r e f i f t e e n anxious and f i f t e e n n o n ­

anxious subjects i n the p o s i t i v e transfer s i t u a t i o n and
t w enty anxious and t w e n t y nonanxious subjects i n the
n e g a t i v e t r a n s f e r situation.
In l i n e w i t h our hypothesis,

the results of the group

r e c o g n i t i o n m e m o r y experiment s h o w that the anxious
subjects r e s p o n d s i g n i f i c a n t l y less often to the altered
stimuli t h a n the n o n a nxious

subjects,

d i f f e r e n c e in o r i g i n a l learning.

after showing no

In the original learning

s i t u a t i o n of the t r a n s f e r experiments the anxious subjects

77
show a definite t endency to l e arn more rapidly.
positive t r a n s f e r situation,

In the

after b o t h groups achieve

the same c r i t e r i o n of original learning,

the performance

of the anxious and nonanxious subjects is the same.

But

in the n e g a t i v e tra n s f e r situation the anxious subjects
s h o w the pr e d i c t e d drop in amount of stimulus g e n e r a l i ­
zation by m a k i n g significantly more correct n e w responses
to the altered stimuli t h a n the nonanxious subjects.
The present f i ndings point u p the necessity of
including the resp o n s e - e v o k i n g aspects of anxiety in any
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of b e h a v i o r which employs anxiety as a
drive.

REFERENCES
Amsel,

A.

E x p e r i m e n t a l studies

of d r i v e c o m b i n a t i o n

a n d t h e r o l e of i r r e l e v a n t drive sti m u l i in
a n i m a l learning.

U n p u b l i s h e d Ph.

S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y of Iowa,
Brown,

J.

S.

D. dissertation,

1948.

T h e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of a p p r o a c h responses

as a f u n c t i o n of stimulus
of m o t i v a t i o n .

J. Comp.

intensity and s t r e n g t h
P s y c h o l ., 1942,

33,

209-226.
Brown,

J. S.

and Jacobs,

A.

The r ole of f e a r in the

m o t i v a t i o n and a c q u i s i t i o n of n e w responses.
J.
Gibson,

exp.

P s v c h o l . , 1949.

E. J.

A s y s t e m a t i c a p p l i c a t i o n of the concepts

of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n and d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n to v e r b a l
learning.

U n p u b l i s h e d Ph.

University,
Glaze,

J.

A.

I. E.

Freud,

Yale

T h e a s s o c i a t i o n v a lue of n o n s e n s e
J.

genet.

P s y c h o l .. 1928,

35,

255-269.

R e s p o n s e f i x a t i o n u n d e r anxiety and

n o n - a n x i e t y conditions,
38,

dissertation,

1938.

syllables.
Farber,

D.

J.

exp.

P s v c h o l . , 1948,

111-131.
Sigmund

H. A.
1936.

The

Bunker.

problem of a n x i e t y .
N e w York:

Trans,

by

W. W. N o r t o n and Co.,

8.

Hathaway,

S. R.

and McKinley,

J.

C.

Minnesota

M u l t i p h a s i c Person a l i t y Inventory Manual.
N e w York:
9.

Hilgard,

P s y c h o l o g i c a l Corporation,

E. R . , Jones,

L. V.,

and Kaplan,

1951.
S. J.

C o n d i t i o n e d d i s c r i m i n a t i o n as r e l a t e d to anxiety.
J.

.

10

Hull,

exp.

P s v c h o l . , 1951,

C. L.

zation.
11

.

Hull,

C. L.

.

Kenaler,

94-99.

T h e p r o b l e m of primary stimulus generali­
Psvchol.

R e v . . 1947,

54, 120-134.

Principles of b e h a v i o r .

D. Appleton-Century,
12

42,

H. H.

N e w York:

1943.

Drive interaction:

I.

L e arning as

a f u n c t i o n of the simultaneous p r esence of
h u n g e r a n d thirst d r i v e s .
1945,
13.

Malmo,

35,

J.

exp.

P s y c h o l .,

96-109.

R. B . , and Amsel,

A.

Anxiety-produced

i n t e r f e r e n c e in serial rote lea r n i n g w i t h
observations

on rote l e a r n i n g after partial

f r o n t a l lobectomy.
38,
14.

Mandler,

J.

exp. P s v c h o l . , 1948,

440-454.
G. and Sarason,

and learning.
47, 166-173.

S. J.

J. abnorm.

A study of anxiety
soc.

P s y c h o l . , 1952,

80
15.

Miller,

N.

E.

Studies of f e a r as an acquirable drive:

I. F e a r as

m o t i v a t i o n and f e a r - r e d u c t i o n as re ­

inforcement in the learning of n e w responses.
J.
16.

exp.

Miller,

P s v c h o l ., 1948,

N. E . , and Dollard,

psychotherapy.
17.

Montague,

E. K.

learning.

38,

89-101.

J.

Personality and

N e w York:

Mowrer,

0.

Un p u b l i s h e d Ph. D. dissertation,

H.

1950.

A stimulus-response analysis of anxiety

and its role as a reinforcing agent.
1939,
19.

Mowrer,

Postman,

Psvchol. R e v . .

46-553-565.

0. H.

J. exp.
20.

1951.

The role of anxiety i n serial rote

State U n i v e r s i t y of Iowa,
18.

McGraw-Hill,

Anxi et y - r e d u c t i o n and learning.

P s v c h o l ., 1940,

Leo

27,

497-516.

The g e n e r a l i z a t i o n gradient in

r e c o g n i t i o n memory.

J.

exp. P s y c h o l .. 1951,

42, 231-235.
21.

Razran,

G.

Stimulus gener a l i z a t i o n of conditioned

responses.
22.

Rosenbaum,

Psychol.

B u l l . . 1949,

46, 337-365.

G. Stimulus g e n e r a lization as a f u n c tion

of clinical and experimentally induced anxiety.
Unpubl i s h e d Ph. D. dissertation,
of Iowa,

1950.

State University

23

.

Spence,

J. W . , and Taylor,

J.

Anxiety and strength

or the UCS as determiners of the amount of
eyelid conditioning.
42,
24.

Spence,

J.

exp.

P s v c h o l ., 1951,

183-188.
K.

J.

Theoretical interpretations of

learning.

In the H a ndbook of experimental

p s y c h o l o g y , edited by S. S. Stevens.
J o h n W i l e y and Sons,
25.

Taylor,

J.

1951,

pp.

dissertation,
Webb,

W. B.

690-729.

The relationship of anxiety to the

conditioned eyelid response.

26.

N e w York:

U n p u b l i s h e d Ph. D.

State University of Iowa, 1949.

The motivational aspect of an irrelevant

drive in the behavior of the white rat.
P s v c h o l . . 1949,
27.

Welch,

39, 1-14.

L . , and Kubis,

J.

Condit i o n e d P G R in states

of p a thological anxiety.
1947, 105,

.

28

Welch,

J. e x p .

J . n e u r . and m e n t . d i s .,

372-381.

L . , and Kubis,

J.

The effect of anxiety on

the conditioning rate and stability of the PGR.
J.

P s v c h o l . . 1947,

23,

83-91.

APPENDIX A

BIOGRAPHICAL INVENTORY*
Do not write or m a r k on this booklet in any way.
Your
answers to the statements in this inventory are to be recorded
only on the separate Answer Sheet.
Print y o u r name, the date, the date of y our birth, age,
sex, etc., in the blanks provided on the Answer Sheet.
Use
only the special pencil provided f o r this test; this pencil
must be used b e c a u s e the Answer Sheet will be checked by a
machine.
If y our special pencil runs out of lead, get
another pencil f r o m the Examiner.
Do not use any other type
of pencil.
After y o u have completed filling in the blanks,
f i n i s h reading these instructions.
The statements in this booklet represent experiences,
ways of doing things, or beliefs or preferences that are
true of some people but are not true of others.
You are to
read each statement and decide whether or not it is true
wi t h respect to y o u r s e l f . If it is true or mostly true.
b l a c k e n the answer space in column T. on the Answer Sheet in
the row n u m b e r e d the same as the statement y o u are answering.
If the statement is not usually true or is not true at all,
b l a c k e n the space in col u m n F in the numbered row.
Y ou must
answer the statement as carefully and honestly as you can.
There are no correct or wrong a n s w e r s : we are interested
in the way v o u w o r k and in the things you believe.
Remember:
M a r k the answer space in column T. if the
statement is true or mostly true; m a r k the answer space in
column F if the statement is false or mostly f a l s e . Be sure
the space y o u b l a c k e n is in the row numbered the same as the
i t e m you are answering.
Use only the first two columns, the
ones labeled T and F.
Mark each item as you come to it; be
sure to m a r k o n e , and only one, answer space f o r each item.
Here is a n example:
T
I w o u l d like to be an artist.

* Anxiety items are marked by an asterisk.

:

Page 2
If y ou w o ul d like to be a n artist, that is, if the statement
is true as f a r as y o u are concerned, y o u w o u l d m ark the
answer space u n d e r X*
If "the statement is false, y o u would
mark the space u n d e r F.
If y o u have any questions,

please ask t h e m now.

DO NOT M A R K ON THIS BOOKLET

Page 3
1.

I would rather w i n t h a n lose in a game.

2.

I am often the last one to give up trying to do a thing.

3.

There is usually only one best way to solve most problems.

* 4.

I do not

tire quickly.

5.

I am troubled by attacks of nausea.

6.

I am in just as good physical health as most of my friends,
I believe I am no more nervous t h a n most others.

8.

I think that I feel more intensely than most people do.

9.

I have had periods in which I carried on activities
without knowing later what I had been doing.

10.
*11.
12.

There is something wrong with my mind.
I have very f e w headaches.
My hearing is apparently as good as that of most people.

■*13.

I w o r k under a great deal of tension.

* 14.

I cannot

keep my mind on one thing.

15.

I do not

like everyone I know.

*16.
17.
% 18.

I worry over money and business.
I think a great many people exaggerate their misfortunes
in order to g a i n the sympathy and help of others.
I frequently notice my hand shakes when I try to do
something.

19.

I prefer work that requires a great deal of attention
to detail.

20.

My neck spots with red often.

(Go right on to the next page.)

Page 4.
21

.

22

.

23.

x 24.
25.

I seem to be about as capable and smart as most others
around me.
I hav e a cough most or the time.
I o f t e n become so wra p p e d u p in something I am doing
that I f i n d it difficult to t u r n my attention to other
matters.
I b l u s h n o m o r e often t h a n others.
I have d iarrhea once a m o nth or more.

X 26.

I worry qui t e a bit over possible misfortunes.

x 27.

I practi c a l l y n e ver blush.

28.

I have very f e w quarrels with members of my family.

29.

I think nearly anyone w o u l d tell a lie to keep out of
trouble.

30.

I am against giving mon e y to beggars.

31.

Once in a w h ile I put off u n til t o morrow what I ought
to do today.

32.

I can sleep during the day but not at night.

* 33.

I am often afraid that I am going to blush.

34.

I cannot un d e r s t a nd what I read as well as I used to.

35.

I have nightmares every f e w nights.

x 36.
37.
x 38.

My hands

and feet are usually w a r m enough.

I sweat very easily e ven on cool days.
Sometimes w h e n embarrassed,
whic h annoys me greatly.

I break out i n a sweat

39.

I have b e e n t o l d that I w alk during sleep.

40.

I am almost never bothered by pains over the heart
or in my chest.

(Go right on to the next page. )

Page 5.
* 41.
42.

I hardly ever notice my heart pounding and I am seldom
short of breath.
I have used alcohol excessively.

*43.

I feel hungry almost all the time.

*44.

I am very seldom troubled by constipation.

45.

I like to k n o w some important people because it makes
me feel important.

*46.

I find it hard to make talk w hen I meet new people.

* 47.

People often disappoint me.

48.

I have a great deal of stomach trouble.

49.

I prefer doing one thing at a time to keeping several
projects going.

50.

parents and family find more fault with me than
they should.

* 51.

I have had periods in which I lost sleep over worry.

52.

I dislike to change nor plans in the midst of an undertaking*

53.

I wake up f r esh and rested most mornings.

54.

My sleep is fitful and disturbed.

55.

I have reason for feeling jealous of one or more members
of my family.

* 56.
57.
x 58.

59.

I dream frequently about things that are best kept to
myself.
I love my mother.
Some of my family have habits that bother and annoy me
very much.
It makes me impatient to have people ask my advice or
otherwise interrupt me when I am working on something
important.

(Go right on to the next page.)

Page 6.
60.

I T i n d it h a r d to set aside a t a s k that I have undertaken,
even f o r a short time.

61.

My t a b l e manners are not quite as g o o d at home as w h e n
I am out in company.

62.

My m o t h e r is a g o o d woman.

63.

Most nights I go to sleep without thoughts or ideas
bothe r i n g me.

64.

I l ov e m y father.

65.

I n e v e r miss going to church.

*6 6 .

I am easily embarrassed.

<67.

I am m o r e sensitive t h a n most other people.

68

.

My f a t h e r is a good man.

69.

My people treat me m ore like a child t h a n a grown-up.

70.

I w o u l d like a p o s i t i o n w h i c h requires frequent changes
f r o m one k i n d of t a s k to another.

71.

I u s u a l l y m a i n t a i n my own opinions even though many
other people may have a different point of view.

72.

Once i n a while I f e e l h a t e towards members of my
f a m i l y w h o m I usu a l l y love.

73.

I u s u a l l y expect to succeed in things

x 74.

I do.

I easily become impatient w ith people.

75.

If I could get into a m o v i e without paying and be sure
I was not seen I w o u l d probably do it.

76.

It makes me u n c o mfortable to put on a stunt at a party
even w h e n others are doing the same sort of thing.

x 77.

.

78

I fr e q u e n t l y f i n d myself worrying about something.
I of ten w o rry about my health.

(Go right on to the next page.)

Page 7,
79.

Ify family does not like the work I have chosen Cor the
work I intend to choose for my life work).

80.

I like to study and read about things that I'm working at.

81.

The only interesting part of newspapers is the "funnies" •

x82.

I w i s h I could be as h a ppy as others seem to be.

x. 83.

I am usually c a l m and not easily upset.

84.

Ify- s e x life is satisfactory.

85.

I f i n d it easy to stick to a certain schedule, once I
have started on it.

x 86.

I cry easily.

x 87.

I feel anxiety about something or someone almost all of
the time.

88.

Children should be taught all the main facts of sex.

89.

C r i t i c i s m or scolding hurts me terribly.

90.

It takes a lot of argument to convince most people of
the truth.

91.

I do not read every editorial i n the newspaper every day.

92.

I w i s h I were not bothered by thoughts of sex.

93.

I am very religious

*94.
95.

(more t h a n most people).

I am happy most of the time.
I believe w o m e n ought to have as m uch sexual freedom
• as man.

96.

I believe there is a God.

97.

I believe i n a life hereafter.

98.

A minister can cure disease by praying and putting his
hand on y o u r head.

(Go right on to the next page.)

Page 8.
* 99*

It makes me nervous to h ave to wait,

*100.

I have periods of such great r e stlessness that I
cannot sit l o n g in a chair.

101.

I f r e q u e n t l y f i n d it necessary t o stand up f o r what
I t h i n k is right.

108.

I do not enjoy having to adapt mys e l f to n e w and
u n u s u a l situations.

* 1 03.

Sometimes I bec o m e so excited that I f i n d it h a r d to
get to sleep.

104.

My soul sometimes leaves my body.

105.

Sometimes w h e n I am not f e e l i n g well I am cross.

106.

At times

I am all full of energy.

*107.

I have sometimes felt that difficulties w ere piling
up so h i g h that I could not overcome them.

*108.

At times I h ave a strong urge to do something harmful
or shocking.

109.

I p r e f e r to stop and t h i n k before I act e ven on
trifl i n g matters.

110.

I am liked by most people who k n o w me.

x111.

Sometimes I am sure that other people c a n tell what
I am thinking.

xllS.

I must admit that I have at times b e e n w o r r i e d b e yond
r e a s o n over something that really did not matter.

113.

As a y o u n g s t e r I was suspended f r o m school one or more
times f o r cutting up.

114.

No one seems to u n d e r s t a n d me.

115.

I w o u l d not like the k i n d of w o r k w h i c h involves a
large n u m b e r of different activities.

(Go right on to the next page.)

Page 9.
116,
x 117.

I try to f o l l o w a pro g r a m of life based on duty,
I have very f e w fears compared to m y friends.

118.

I refuse to play some games because I am not good

119.

I often t h i n k 111 wish I were a child again*'.

120.

Often I can't u n d e rstand w h y I have been so cross
grouchy.

121.

At times

122.

More oft e n t h a n others seem to,
I regret afterwards.

x 123.

at them.

and

I f eel like swearing.
I do many things that

I have b e e n afraid of things or people that I know
could not hurt me.

124.

I believe in l a w enforcement.

125.

I have kept a careful diary over a period of years.

126.

I wi s h I were not so shy.

127.

It would be b e t t e r if almost all laws were thrown away.

128.

My interests tend to change quickly.

129.

I enjoy children.

130.

I u s u a l l y f ind that my own way of attacking a problem
is best, e ven though it doesn't always seem to work
in the beginning.

131.

I am never happier t h a n w h e n alone.

132.

E ven w h e n I am with people I feel lonely most of the time,

x 133.

I am afraid w h e n I look d o w n f r o m a high place.

134.

At times I feel like smashing things.

135.

I get angry sometimes.

*136.

I certainly f e e l useless at times.

(Go right on to the next page. )

Page 10.
137.
x 138.

At periods m y m i n d seems to w o r k m o r e slowly t h a n usual.
I f i n d it h a r d to k e e p my m i n d on a task or job.

139.

Most any time I w o u l d rat h e r sit and day d r e a m t h a n to
do anything else.

140.

I have d i f f i c u l t y in starting to do things.

141.

I dislike havi n g to l e a r n n e w ways of doing things.

142.

I like a great d e a l of variety in my work.

143.

I b r o o d a great deal.

144.

Most of the time I f e e l blue.

145.

I am u n u s u a l l y self-conscious.

146.

I h a v e the w a n d e r l u s t and am n e v e r happy unless I am
roaming or t r a v e l i n g about.

147.

At times it has b e e n impossible for me to keep f r o m
stealing or s hoplifting something.

148.

I am a

149.

I h av e o f t e n met p e o p l e who were supposed to be experts
who w e r e no b e t t e r t h a n I.

150.

What others t h i n k of m e does not bother me.

151.

Once in a w h i l e I l a u g h at a dirty joke.

m e t h o d i c a l p e r s o n in w h a t e v e r I do.

x 152.

I am inc l i n e d to take things hard.

x 153.

I am a h i g h - s t r u n g person.

154.

Sometimes I f e e l as if I must injure either myself or
someone else.

155.

I have not lived the right k ind of life.

156.

I certainly h a v e had more t h a n my share ofthings
worry about.

(Go right on to the next page.)

to

Page 11.
157.

If people h a d not h a d it in for me I w o u l d h ave b e e n
m u c h m o r e successful.

158.

I am usu a l l y able to k e e p at a job longer t h a n most
people.

159.

I b e l i e v e I a m b e ing followed.

160.

I t h i n k it is usu a l l y w i s e to do things in a conventional
way.

161.

I always f i n i s h tasks
important.

162.

Someone has b e e n trying to influence my mind.

I start,

e ven if they are not very

x 163.

Life is a s t r a i n f o r me m u c h of the time.

* 164.

At times

I t h i n k I am no good at all.

165.

I do not always tell the truth.

166.

I have n e v e r felt better in my life t h a n I do now.

167.

Most people w ill u s e somewhat u n f a i r means to gain
profit or an advantage rather t h a n to lose.

x 168.

I am certainly lacking i n self-confidence.

169.

Someone has control over my mind.

170.

People who go about t h eir w ork m e t h o d i c a l l y are
always the most successful.

171.

I sometimes k e e p on at a thing until others lose their
patience w i t h me.

172.

At one or m o r e times in my life I felt that someone
was maki n g me do things by h ypnotizing me.

173.

W h e n I have u n d e r t a k e n a task, I f i n d it difficult to
set it aside, even f o r a short time.

174.

I believe I a m being plotted against.

(Go right on to the next page.)

almost

Page 12.
175.

Sometimes unimportant thoughts will run through my
mind and bother me for days.

176.

Often I cross the street in order not to meet someone
I see.

177.

Someone has been trying to poison me.

178.

Someone has been trying to rob me.

179.

I often find myself thinking of the same tune or
phrase for days at a time.

180.

I like to let people know where I stand on things.

181.

I gossip

a little at times.

132.

I have a

work and study schedule which I follow carefully

x 183.

I sometimes feel that I am about to go to pieces.

184.

There are persons who are trying to steal my thoughts
and ideas.

185.

I often feel as if things were not real.

186.

I usually check more than once to be sure that i have
locked a door, put out the light, or something of the
sort.

x 187.

I shrink

f rom facing a crisis or difficulty.

188.

I commonly hear voices without knowing where they
from.

189.

I am sure I am being talked about.

*190.

come

I am entirely self-confident.

191.

I have never done anything dangerous for the thrill of it

192.

Y/hen I am with people I am bothered by hearing very
queer things.

193.

I commonly wonder what hidden reason another person
may have for doing something nice for me.

(Go right on to the next page.)

Page 13.
194.

It is always a good thing to be frank.

195.

Once in a while I think of things too bad to

196.

When in a group of people I have trouble thinking of the
right things to talk about.

197.

I get mad easily and get over it soon.

198.

I see things or animals or people around me that others
do not see.

199.

Evil spirits possess me at times.

200.

I have a lot more fears than my friends do.

201.

I like to visit places where I have

202.

At times I am afraid of losing my mind.

203.

I am not afx*aia to handle money.

204.

Sometimes I enjoy hurting persons I

talk about.

never been before.

love.

205.

I can easily make other people afraid of me, and
sometimes do for the fun of it.

206.

I have a habit of collecting various kinds of objects.

207.

It does not bother me particularly to see animals suffer.

208.

Sometimes I am strongly attracted by the personal articles
of others such as shoes, gloves, etc., so that I want to
handle ox* steal them though I have no use for them.

209.

I have periods in which I feel unusually cheerful
without any special reason.

210.

At times my thoughts have raced ahead faster than I
could speak them.

211.

Sometimes at elections I vote for men about whom I
know very little.

212.

I have more trouble concentrating than other people
seem to have.

(Go right on to the next page. )

Page 14.
213.

Everything tastes the same.

214.

I have taken a good many courses on the spur ofthe

215.

No one cares much what happens to you.

216.

I believe that promptness is a very important personality
characteristic.

217.

lfiy interests change very quickly.

218.

lily way of doing things is apt to be misunderstood by others.

219.

It is the slow, steady worker who usually accomplishes
the most in the end.

220.

I am always careful about my manner of dress.

221.

Any m a n who is able and willing to work hard has
good chance of succeeding.

222.

I usually dislike to set aside a task that I have
undertaken until it is finished.

223.

I am inclined to go from one activity to another without
continuing with any one for too long a time.

224.

I prefer to do things according to a routine which I
plan myself.

225.

I always put on and take off my clothes in the same order.

STOF HERE

moment.

a

AP P E N D I X B

PROCEDURE U SED F O R ESTABLISHING THE VALIDITY
OF THE PART I RECOGNITION SCORES OF THE GROUP EXPERIMENT
AS A MEASURE OF LEARNING PRIOR TO THE TEST
FOR GENERALIZATION IN PART II OF THE GROUP EXPERIMENT
Inasmuch as the experimental hypotheses were such that
it was desirable to equate the anxious and nonanxious subjects,
on a performance measure of learning prior to the test for
generalization,

the learning list and recognition test of

Part I of the group experiment were developed.

The details

of their construction have been described on pages 30-31
It was assumed that if scores on that recognition test could
be shown to have a high correlation with a score on a similarly
constructed recognition test of the Part II learning list,
then the Part I recognition test scores could be used as a
basis for matching anxious and nonanxious subjects for
learning prior to the Part II generalization condition.
Therefore,

in addition to the Part I learning list and •

recognition test,

a recognition test which contained the

24 nonsense words of the Part II learning list unchanged
and 24 n ew and unrelated nonsense words was constructed.^
To secure a measure of the relationship between the
scores on the two recognition tests,
school seniors

(having age,

sex,

a group of 60 high

and other characteristics

These words were originally constructed by
Postman (18).

s i milar to the g r oup of col l e g e students w h o p a r t i cipated
i n the f o r e g o i n g e x p e r i m e n t s ) were p r e s e n t e d w ith the
learning trials

and r e c o g n i t i o n Test of Part I of the

R e c o g n i t i o n Mem o r y E x p e r i m e n t in the m a n n e r d e s c r i b ed
on pages

31-33

of this paper.

On the f o l l o w i n g day the

same g r o u p was g i v e n the l e a r n i n g Trials of Part II of the
experiment a f t e r w h i c h they were p r e s e n t e d r e c o g n i t i o n
tests

c o n t a i n i n g a r a n d o m a rrangement of the 2 4 u n c h a n g e d

n o n s e n s e w o rds and 24 u n r e l a t e d n o n s e n s e words.

They were

asked to i n dicate on a r e c o r d sheet t h e i r choices of the
24 words w h i c h had b e e n p r e s e n t e d to t h e m on the screen.
W h e n t h e scores
correlated,

on the two r e c o g n i t i o n tests were

a c o e f f i c i en t of .78 was

obtained.

It

indicates that the r e is some b a sis f o r the a s s u m p t ion
that the scores a c h i e v e d on the Part I R e c o g n i t i o n Test
can be u s e d f o r the p u r p o s e of mat c h i n g groups on original
l e a rning f o r Part

II of the R e c o g n i t i o n M e m o r y experiment.

APPENDIX C

LISTS OF THE NONSENSE SYLLABLES AND WORDS
USED IN THE GROUP EXPERIMENT
R e c o g n i t i o n Memory Part I, Learning and Recognition:
1.
S.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

QID
JAT
VUZ
GUJ
VYT
YUB
M OX
JEG
ZOR
YIC
DAQ
CEX
WOS
FO Q

15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.

NUK
XEV
YOT
KIG
NAX
HYZ
NOJ
SYJ
BIP
LIW
XAP
RYQ
QUS
MYB

29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.

GED
KAZ
ZEY
XUG
GOK
DYW
ZAW
POH
FEP
DEJ
SIH
MUW
BEH
GIC

43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.

LEO.
BUQ
VAK
JUF
LUY
PAF
HEG
RIX
TUV
GUH
SEB
QEF
TYF
WUP

19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

SAJMOJ
TEFZOK
VUDHYF
WOZVAK
YINGUB
YUCF U P

19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

VYGHYF
FAWZOK
COHKEZ
DACTYV
GIDVIB
JYTQAM

*T!he learning syllables are underlined.
R e c o g n i t i o n Memory,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

BAZWAP
CEBQUS
C I ZPEM
D AC TUV
DEHK E Z
FOVJAT

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

R e c o gnition Memory,

Part II, Learning:
GAXVEP
GIDVOR
GYKWUT
HEJYOF
HUZLUJ
JYTQAM

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

KOGYAH
MEYBIP
MYPJEC
QENCUX
RIJKAF
RUKNYB

Part II, Recognition:-*
Test I

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

GAN D OP
M E YBIP
MYPW Y D
QENCUX
RIJKAF
HEJYOF

7.
(3)
8.
Co)
9.
(3)
(0) 10.
(0) 11.
Co) 12.

DAJMOJ
KOVFIH
Y ILG U B
RAL C Y B
HUZLUJ
CIZPEX

Cl)
C3)
Cl)
C3)
Co)
Cl)

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

MIGQUS
YUCQOP
BYZWAP
GYKSUT
FOQZAT
WEQVAK

C3)
C2)
Cl)
Cl)
C2)
C2)

C2)
C3)
C2)
Cl)
C2)
CO)

o CJ1 ^ 05 N H

Test II
GAXVEP
MEYPYX
MYPJEC
ZURCUX
RIKBUF
HEJQIX

CO)
(5)
CO)
C3)
C3)
C3)

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
IE.

LYJMOJ
KOGYAH
YILMUB
RUKNYB
HIFKUJ
KYZPEM

C2)
Co)
C2)
Co)
C3)
C2)

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

CEBQUS
YUCNUP
BYVWAP
CYKFET
FOQJAT
WYZVAK

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

MIBQUS
YUCFUP
BYVZAP
GYKFEG
FOVJAT
WOZVAK

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

GEBQUS
YUCQ0S
BAZWAP
GYKWUT
F0QZET
WYQCAK

Co)

19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

VUDHYR
TEFZOK
VEHKEZ
DACTYS
GIDVIR
JYTLER

Co)

19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

VTJDHYF
TEFZIS
DEHKEZ
JUFTUV
GIDVOR
ZYXQUM

Co)
C2)
Co)
C3)
Co)
Cl)

Cl)

19.

VTJDFEX
TEFZIK
BYSKEZ
DACTUV
GICKIR
JYCNAM

C3)

Cl)
C2)
C2)

Cl)
Cl)

Cl)
Co)

Cl)
C2)

Cl)
C3)

Test III
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

GANREP
MEYBIX
MYPWYC
QONCUX
RIJKIF
HEJD0F

C2)
Cl)
C2)
Cl)
Cl)
Cl)

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

LYGlflOJ
KYMYAH
YILPOB
RUHCYB
KUZLUJ
COHBEM

C3)
C2)
C3)
C2)
Cl)
C3)

C2)
Co)
C3)
C3)

Co)

GANVEP
MEYBER
MYPWEC
ZUNCUX
RIJKYX
HEJDIF

Cl)
C2)
Cl)
C2)
C2)
C2)

7.
8.
9.

10.
11.
12.

o

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Co

Test IV
KUGYAH
YINGUB
RUKNYJ
HARLUJ
CIZPEM

Co)
Cl)
Co)
Cl)
C2)
Co)

Co)
CO)

20.
21.
22.

C3)
C3)

23.
24.

C3)

•*The extent of the change inl composition is indicated in
parenthesis after each word.

Cl)
C3)

Co)
C3)

C2)

TABLES OF THE NONSENSE SYLLABLES AND FIGURES
USED IN THE INDIVIDUAL EXPERIMENTS
T A B L E VI.
T H E P A I R E D - A S S O C I ATE UNITS
U S E D IN T H E O R I G I N A L L E A R N I N G S I T U A T I O N
OF T H E I N D I V I D U A L E X P E R I M E N T S

St a n d a r d
Stimu l u s
Figures
F o r Lists
1 and 2

Deg r e e of
S i m i l a r i t y of
Corresponding
Fig u r e s F o u n d
in
T a b l e s VII and V3ET

Response
Syllables
List 1
List 2

1

MIF

POG

1

QAP

BOF

1

ZEJ

KEB

1

GUK

JID

CD

2

POG

MIF

3

2

EOF

QAP

2

KEB

ZEJ

JID

GUK

*-'

0-£<i

TABLE VII
T H E P A I R E D - A S S O C I A T E UNITS
U S E D IN T H E P O S I T I V E T R A N S F E R S I T U A T I O N
OF T H E IN D I VIDUAL E X P E R I M E N T S
Al t e r e d
Stimulus
Figures
F o r Lists
1 and 2

Deg r e e of
S i m i l a r i t y to
S t a n d a r d Fig u r e s
of Table VI

Re s p onse
Syllables
List 1
List 2

1

MIF

P OG

1

QAP

BOF

1

ZEJ

KEB

1

GUK

JID

2

POG

MIF

2

BOF

QAP

2

KEB

ZEJ

2

JID

GUK

f f

u

If

TABLE VIII
T H E P A I R E D - A S S O C I A T E UNITS
U S E D IN T H E N E G A T I V E T R A N S F E R SITUATION
OF T H E INDIVIDUAL EXPERIMENTS
AT + p'ppd

Stimulus
Figures
F or Lists
1 and 2

j
I^HI
*

Degree of
Similarity to
S t a nd a r d F i g u r e s
of Table Vf

1

LAJ

ZUF

1

GIX

PYB

1

NUX

Y EK

FEH

CEF

ZUF

L AJ

PYB

GIX

1
M

Response
Syllables
List 1
List 2

2
2
|

2

YEK

NUX

ftP

2

CEF

FE H

APPENDIX D

ANALYSES OF VARIANCE AND COVARIANCE TABLES
T A B L E IX
ANALYSIS OF V A R I A N C E OF D A T A F R O M THE GROUP EXPERIMENT,
PART II, RECOGNITION.
COMPARISON OF THE RESPONSES
T O T H E ORIGINAL A N D CHANGED N O N S E N S E WORDS
OF 32 HIGH- AND 32 L O W - A N X I E T Y SUBJECTS
Source of V a r i a t i o n

DF

B e t w e e n Subjects

63

1.49

1

8.23

62

1 .38

192

2.98

Change of* C o m p o s i t i o n (0-3)

3

108. 02

Interaction: H i g h vs. L o w
Anxiety X Change of*
C om p o s i t i o n (0-3)

3

.66

186

1.33

255

2. 62

Hig h vs. L o w Anxiety
W i thin
W i t h i n Subjects

Interaction: Pooled
Subjects X Change
of Co m p o sition QO-3)
Total

M e a n Square

V A R I A N C E RATIOS
F*

F**-&

Interaction: High vs. L o w
Anxiety X Change of Compos i t i o n =
Interaction: Pooled Subjects
X Change of Co m p o s i t i o n
Change of Compos i t i o n
Interaction: Pooled Subjects
X Change of C o m p o s i t i o n

F**:-* H i g h v s . L o w Anxiety
Within

50

05 level
F = 2.65

- 81.50

#•**. 01 level
F = 3.89

=

5.97

wit*-. 05 level
F - 4.00;
.01 level
F = 7.08

TABLE X
ANALYSIS OF V A R I A N C E OF D A T A F R O M THE GROUP EXPERIMENT,
PART II, RECOGNITION.
COMPARISON OF THE RESPONSES
TO T H E CHANGED W O RDS OF 48 SUBJECTS
24 OF W H O M A C H I E V E D PART I RE C O G N I T I O N SCORES OF 14-19
AND 24 OF W H O M ACHIEVED PART I RECOGN I T I O N SCORES OF 25-28
M e a n Square

F*

1

18.07

7.93

Within

46

2.28

Total

47

2.61

Source of V a r i a t i o n
Between

*.05 level,

F = 4.05;

DF

at .01 level,

F = 7.21

TABLE XI
ANALYSIS OF V A R I A N C E OF D A T A F R O M T H E INDIVIDUAL EXPERIMENTS
COMPARISON OF 45 HIGH- A N D 45 L O W - A N X I E T Y SUBJECTS
F O R N U M B E R OF TRIALS TO LEARN
IN T H E ORIGINAL L E A R N I N G SITUATION
Source or V a r i a t i o n

DF

M e a n Square

1

41.30

With i n

88

181.66

Total

89

178.96

Between

*. 05 level,

F = 3.95

F*

.23

TABLE XII
ANALYSIS OF C O V A R I A N C E AND TEST OF S I GNIFICANCE OF ADJUSTED
GROUP MEANS F O R T H E INDIVIDUAL EXPERIMENTS.
ORIGINAL LEARNING
COMPAR I S O N OF 45 HIGH- AND 45 L O W - A N X I E T Y SUBJECTS FO R
N U M B E R OF COR R E C T R E S PONSES GIVEN DURING ORIGINAL LEARNING
A F T E R A D J U S T I N G THE NUM B E R OF CORRECT RESPONSES
T O A COMMON T R I A L S - TO-LEARN BASIS
Source oT V a r i a t i o n

DF

M e a n Square

1

371.50

Within

87

549.58

Total

88

547.56

Between

*.05 level,

F*
.68

F = 3.95

TABLE XIII
ANALYSIS OF V A R I A N C E OF D A T A F R O M THE INDIVIDUAL EXPERIMENTS,
ORIGINAL LEARNING.
COMPARISON OF T H E 45 HIGHA ND 45 L O W - A N X I E T Y SU B J E C T S F O R F I R S T CORRECT RESPONSES
T O THE EIGHT STANDARD F I G U R E S
M e a n Square

F*

1

731.43

3.67

Within

88

200.11

Total

89

207.81

Source or V a r i a t i o n
Between

*.05 level,

F = 3.95

DF

TABLE XIV
ANALYSIS OF V A R I A N C E OF D A T A F R O M T H E INDIVIDUAL E X P E R I M E N T S ,
COMPARISON OF 45 HIGH- AND 45 L O W - A N X I E T Y SUBJECTS
F O R N U M B E R OF CORRECT R E S PONSES
IN TH E OR I G I N A L L E A R N I N G SI T U A T I O N TO T H E S T A N D A R D FIGURES
L A T E R V A R I E D TO F I R S T - D E G R E E S I M I L A R I T Y
Source of V a r i a t i o n

DF

M e a n Square

1

298.85

Within

88

644.82

Total

89

640.93

Be t w e e n

*.05 level,

F*
.46

F = 5.95

TABLE XV
ANALYSIS OF V A R I A N C E OF D A T A F R O M THE INDIVIDUAL EXPERIMENTS.
COMPARISON OF 45 HIGH- A N D 45 LOW-AN X I E T Y SUBJECTS
FOR N U M B E R OF CORRECT R E S PONSES
IN T HE ORIGINAL L E A R N I N G SITUATION TO T H E STANDARD FIGURES
L A T E R V A R I E D TO S E C O N D - D E G R E E SIMILARITY
Source of V a r i a t i o n

DF

M e a n Square

1

14. 66

Within

88

436.06

Total

89

431.32

Between

*.05 level, F - 3.95

F*
.03

TABLE XVI
ANALYSIS OF V A R I A N C E OF D A T A F R O M THE INDIVIDUAL EXPERIMENTS.
COMPARISON OF THE NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES OF 90 HIGHAND LOW-AN X I E T Y SUBJECTS TO T H E STANDARD FIGURES LATER
VARIED TO FIRST-DEGREE SIMILARITY AND TO THE STANDARD FIGURES
L A T E R VAR I E D TO SECOND-DEGREE SIMILARITY
Source of Variation

DF
1

4312.00

Within

178

536.13

Total

179

557.22

B e tween

*.01 level,

F*

M e a n Square

8.04

F = 6.79

TABLE X V I I
ANALYSIS OF V A R I A N C E OF D A T A
F R O M THE POSITIVE TRANSFER EXPERIMENT.
COMPARISON OF 15 HIGH- A N D 15 LOW-ANXIETY SUBJECTS
FOR N U M B E R OF TRIALS TO LEARN THE TRANSFER LIST
Source of Va r i a t i o n

DF

M e a n Square

1

.14

Within

28

10. 62

Total

29

10.26

Between

*.05 level, F = 4.20

F*

.01

TABLE XVIII
ANALYSIS OF V A R I A N C E OF D A T A
F R O M T H E POSITIVE TR A N S F E R EXPERIMENT.
COMPARISON OF 15 HIGH- A N D 15 L O W - A N X I E T Y SUBJECTS
F O R N U M B E R OF CORRECT RESPONSES
TO T H E CHANGED F O R M S OF FIRST- D E G R E E SIMILARITY
Source or V a r i a t i o n
Between

DF
1

M e a n Square
.30

Within

28

2.51

Total

29

2.44

*.05 level,

F*
.12

F = 4 .20

TABLE X I X
A N ALYSIS OF V A R I A N C E OF D A T A
F R O M T H E POSITIVE T R A N S F E R EXPERIMENT
COMPARISON OF 15 HIGH- AND 15 LOW-AN X I E T Y SUBJECTS
F O R NUM B E R OF CORRECT R E S PONSES
TO T H E C H A N G E D FORMS OF SECOND - D E G R E E SIMILARITY
Source of V a r i a t i o n

DF

M e a n Square

1

.54

W i thin

28

2.75

Total

29

2. 68

Between

*.05 level, F = 4.20

F*

.20

TABLE XX
ANALYSIS OF V A R I A N C E OF D A T A
F R O M T H E N E G A T I V E TRA N S F E R EXPERIMENT.
C O M P A R I S O N OF 2 0 HIGH- A N D 2 0 L O W - A N X I E T Y SU B J ECTS
F O R N U M B E R OF T R I A L S TO L E ARN T H E L IST
IN T H E O R IGINAL L E A R N I N G SI T U A T I O N
S o u r c e of V a r i a t i o n

DF

M e a n Square

1

87.1

Within

38

186.9

Total

39

184.4

Between

05 level,

F*
.47

F = 4.10

TABLE XXI
A N A L Y S I S OF C O V A R I A N C E A N D TEST OF S I G N I F I C A N C E
OF A D J U S T E D G R O U P MEANS, I N D I V I D U A L EXPERIMENT,
N E G A T I V E T R A N S F E R CONDITION.
C O M P A R I S O N OF 2 0 HIGH- A N D 2 0 LOW-ANXIELTY SUBJECTS
F O R THE N U M B E R OF C O R R E C T R E S P O N S E S
TO T H E A L T E R E D S T I M U L U S F O R M S
Mean. Square

F*

1

671. 83

9.81

Within

37

68.51

Total

38

Source of V a r i a t i o n
Between

*•.01 level, F = 7.39

DF

TABLE XXII
ANALYSIS OF V A R I A N C E OF D A T A
F R O M T H E NEG A T I V E T R A N S F E R EXPERIMENT.
COMPARISON OF 2 0 HIGH- AND 20 L O W -ANXIETY SUBJECTS
F O R NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES
TO T H E C HANGED F O R M S OF F I R S T - D E G R E E SIMILARITY
Source of V a r i a t i o n
Between

DF

M e a n Square

1

168.1

Within

38

33.5

Total

39

36.9

*.05 level,

F = 4.10;

.01 level,

F*
i. 02

F = 7.35

TABLE X X I I I
ANALYSIS OF V A R I A N C E OF D A T A
F R O M T H E N E G A T I V E TRANSFER EXPERIMENT.
COMPARISON OF 20 HIGH- A N D 20 LOW-ANXIETY SUBJECTS
F O R N U M B E R OF CORRECT R E S PONSES
TO THE C H A N G E D FORMS OF SECON D - D E G R E E SI M I L A R I TY
Source of V a r i a t i o n
Be t w e e n

DF

M e a n Square

1

250.0

Within

38

36.2

Total

39

41.6

*.05 level,

F = 4.10;

.01 level,

F = 7.35

F*
»•91