145 092 THS DWE'SNAL EFFECE’B’ C3? fifSTkQQTEGK Q36. ?HEHK§§€G Thesis §Of Hts Degree cf M. A. MiG-{MAN STATE CO‘LLEGE Phiiip K. fiensw E954 mm mm WW1 m WWHUHHW l 3 1293 00700 305 This is to certify that the thesis entitled DIF‘E‘EIEZI‘ET IAL *IFI LJCTS OF DISTRACTIOH ON'VHIJKIXG presented by Philip K. Jensen has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _M°_‘§:__ degree in PSVChOlO 3‘? Major pzotessor Date December 2L1951+ 0-169 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE JUL1 diorama? 6/01 c:lClFiC/DateDue.p65-p.15 DIFFEENTIAL EFFECTS (F DISTRACTION CN THINKING By Philip K. Jensen A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillmait of the requirements for ttn degree of MASTER CF ARTS Department of Psychology Year 1951; Approved THE {'33- ‘2) :3 The author wishes to eucpress his thanks to Dr. Donald M. Johnson, without those constant interest and helpfulness this study could not have been brought to completion, and to whom these results are herewith dedicated. TABIB OF CONTENTS Introduction Eacperinent Hypothesis Design Apparatus Subjects Procedure Results Discussion Sumary and Conclusions Bibliograptw page 1 Gum-400. LISP (F TABIES AND FIGURES Figure 1, Apparatus page 10 Figure 2, Wiring Diagram 12 Table 1, Analysis of Error Data 16 Table 2, Original Data by Conditions 16 INTRODUCTION "Since the time of the classical experiments of the wfirzburg school virtually all investigators have recognized, implicitly if not eXplicitly, tint a major feature of thinking processes is their directed character.” (’4) ”It has never been clear however, whether the thinking process was directed by another process or whether the thinking process was itself simply characterized by directedness. Writers who accept the latter alternative in theory are mually forced back upon the former alternative when they do an experiment." (5) While the problem of set is as old as the field of experimmtal psychology little work has been done upon it. Horror (8) points out tint practically all of the information we have a: this area is the result of the work of the early introspectionist studies. These studies indicated that set my be the key to understanding problem solving and creative thinking. The looseness and confusion of tin terminology in this area is demonstrated by Gibson's (5) list of current variants: mental set, motor set, neural set, voluntary set, unconscious set, postural set, organic set, preparatory set, task set, situation set, goal-set, temporary set, permanent set, set to react, set to perceive, expectation, impothesis, anticipation, foresight, ' intention, attitude, directing tendency, determining tendency, tension, vectcr, need, attention, perseveratim, preoccupation. The original set concept of Einstellung was deve10ped by Marbe, .. 2 .. Ach, and Watt. (5) In the beginning this concept was well defined and limited; later its meaning changed and it became a muscular concept having no central basis in the nervous system. It was in effect the simple readiness of the musculature to respond. Complications develOped in such studies as those of Mowrer, Rayman, and Bliss (9) which denou- strated that a difference in expectation causes a difference in reac- tion time even when the muscular assignment is the same. Race and Israel (10) established two different types of set in their subjects depending upon the method of solution of anagrams. One solution was based on letter position, the other, on word types such as food. Sells (11) with Woodworth demonstrated what they tern an ”Atmosphere effect" in which syllogisms are solved in terms of sounding like the premises rather than on logical validity. While many recent exper- imentslave concerned the presence or type of set little research has been devoted to its dynamics or nature. The early studies on set by the introspectionists began to conflict with the Wundtian view of the reaction and problem processes. Instead of finding the mental activity during the reaction time, these studies suggested tint most of the conscious mental work was done in the preparatory period. Exner, (3) the coiner of the term "reaction time," said, "While one is awaiting the stimulus with tense attention one feels an indescribable something going on in his sensoriun, which prepares for the quickest possible reaction . . . . If the sensorium is in this state, the reaction is involuntary, i.e., no new will in- pulse is needed after the entrance of the stimulus in order that tin reaction shall follow." This Opinion was substantiated by Wundt's - 3 - assistant Cattell. (15) Ach, (1) in 1905, agreed that the foreperiod between the ready signal and the stimulus contained everything of reportable significance, while the remaining periods contained little or nothing. Perhaps the classical study of this type is that of Watt, (13) especially since it deals with this problem in the case of problem solving rather than simple reaction time. Watt used words presented visually as stimuli, and alternated between six tasks. These were: to name a supraordinate concept; to name a subordinate concept; to name a coordinate concept; to name a part of the given whole; to mme a whole including the part; to name another part of the same whole. Watt first assigned the task, then presented the word stimuli by means of a card changer. He recorded tie reaction times by means of a voice key and chronosc0pe and after each response had the subject introspect on his own performance. He divided the time cf tin reaction into three parts. The foreperiod, which lasted from the task assign- ment until the stimulus presentation, was followed in order by the main period, stimulus to response, and finally the afterperiod, of indefinite length following the response. Watt repa'ts that the foreperiod was occupied in this manner. '0 made the task clear to himself in a verbal, visual, or kinesthetic form. He defined the relation, or found an example, or got a diagram or gesture symbolizing the relation. He also made apprOpriate muscular adjustment....and muscular tension. when the stimulus word arrived, the reaction fol- lowed sometimes automatically, sometimes after an interval cf waiting or searching, sometimes after false reactions had been suggested and rejected. Only in the last case did the definite consciousness of the task emerge again during the main period; usually it was confined to the foreperiod." -h- With a repetition of the task conscious awareness faded out alto- gether. Watt listed three factors which determined the response in this situation: 1) stimulus word, 2) its associations, 3) the task set. He concluded that the set made any purely associative eXplanation of the thought processes impossible. May (6) repeated this study in a more varied manner. He varied the length Of the foreperiod, he let the subject choose his own foreperiod, and, finally, he assigned the task in different ways. May found that, as familiarity with tie situatim increased, the subject, in both his introspective reports and in his reaction times and choice Of shorter foreperiods, showed less mental Operations before the response. Several non-introspectionist studies have been run on the Optimal foreperiod in a simple reaction time situation. Foodrow, (114) using auditory stimuli on three subjects, determined the Optimal length of the foreperiod as two to four seconds. This was roughly in accord with the later study of Telfcrd (12) which suggested one to two seconds as the most favorable foreperiod. Woodrow further found that varying the foreperiod slowed down the responses gently. He then extended the length of the foreperiod to better than twenty seconds. The curves Of reaction times for arw given foreperiod tended to level off at around twenty seconds. Woodworth (15) has suggested three possible curves of readiness in a long foreperiod. One would be when readiness is immediate that deteriorates with time; the second, when readiness reaches a peak at the expected time Of the stimulus; the third, a slow increase and .. 5 - decrease with no peak potential. This last view has been partly sub- stantiated by Mowrer (8). At present then we find ourselves with a definite bow of experi- ments indicating the importance of set or the presence Of differing types Of set. ‘Aside from the studies on Optimal foreperiod, however, there has been very little objective work done on the dynamics of this phenomenon. The introspectionist studies mentioned above suggest strongly that-the reaction period is of seccndary importance in either simple reaction time or in problem solving behavior. If this is true then a distraction introduced.during the period of set formation should have more effect than the same distraction introduced during the reaction period. The following experiment will attempt to give Objective verification Of this viewpoint. EXPERIMENT Ibpotheses Gmeral-Distraction (tiring set formation will cause greater changes in response than distraction during solution in a problan situation. Specific— l) Ringing a bell during the set period Of visually pre- sented problems will increase the frequency Of errors more than ringing the was hell during the response period. or control period. 2) Ringing a bell diring the set period of visually pre- sented problans will increase the length of time till response more than ringing the same bell during the response period. or control period. Definitims—Set Period- the time from presentation Of the first card until presentation of the card which completes the task assignment in this experiment. Response Period - the time from presentatim of the card which completes the task assignment until the response in this eXperi- ment. Set Condition - The bell is rung during the set period. Response Condition - The bell is rung during the response period. Control Condition - The bell is not rung during either set or response periods. Design The problem confra'iting the experimenter in this case was to structure the experimental situation so that the period of set formation could be distinguished from the reaponse period. This was accomplished by deveIOping questims each of which was divisible into two parts. The first part was to establish the method Of solution while the second part consisted Of a key word without which the problem was incomplete. in example Of this type Of question would be: Card 1 -- What is the second letter in _____?, Card 2 -- Chair. The answer being H. These questions were presented in an electrically timed and controlled exposure apparatus so that they could be presented under set, response, or control conditions. In order to control for individual differences it was decided to present equivalent material under all three conditions to each subject. This was accomplished by means of a preliminary study in which thirty questions were tested for difficulty level and stability of response time, then the fifteen most stable were divided into three matched blocks, A, B, and C, These three blocks of questions were rotated through the three conditims so that each sub- ject had each group under a different condition. The first subject had the blocks and conditions matched like this: A-Set, B-Response, and C-Control. The seccnd subject: A-Response, B-Control, and C- Set. The third subject: A-Control, B-Set, and C-Response. Thus for every three subjects a complete replicatia: Of the conditions occurred, with each block Of questions asked under each condition once. The impossibility Of exhausting all possible order effects in the fif- teen questions necessitated the use Of a random sequence Of presenta- tion which tended to eliminate practice effects and sequence effects of the three conditions. This sequence of presentatim of the questions was determined by a chance drawing from a receptacle con- taining the numbers one to fifteen. Since the condition depended upon the number of the question and the block of the question, the different conditions were randomized for order of presentatim in the same draw. The questions were made as different as possible to necessitate a change 0'? set regardless of order of acquaintance. The experiment was run in two sections, the first thirty subjects were scored on correct or incorrect responses but not on time of in- correct responses. This permitted an analysis of error data but not of time scores. The second thirty subjects were scored on time and correctness Of response for all items. This permitted an exam- ination of the time data in terms 41' medians. The only procedural difference between the two groups was in the composition of the blocks of problems A, B, and C, which,on the basis of the additional data derived from the first half of the experiment, were again equated to eliminate a difference of seven percent error frequency which had becane apparent in the first division into blocks. Apparatus In this experiment the stimuli were presmted by means Of an electrically Operated exposure apparatus. (See Figure 1) While two of the presentation alleys were used tO permit the succesive exposure of WO cards to the subject, the third was blocked Off and a doorbell and transformer installed in it. Tie wiring circuits were arranged (See Figure 2) so tint upon pressing the stm'ter one light would come on and main for five seconds, after which it would be turned Off and a second light in the other alley would turn on. This second light would remain on until the subject pushed me of the five response keys or until the experimenter turned it Off. The door- bell was wired in such a way that it could be presented simultan- eously with either light or not at all. The timing unit was installed on the same circuit as the second light so that it measured the period from the switching On of the second light until the circuit was broken by the subject's use of the response keys. The cards‘on which the questions were presented were of thin white cardbOrad, unlined, eight inches by four inches. The questions were typed on the cards in capitals with double spacing between the letters. Since a single mirror was used to present the card to the subject, the writing had to be done in mirror image. This was accomplished by use Of carbons. One of the major difficulties Of the experiment me this mirror image. The printing mich resulted from the carbon was not clear at the presentation distance of about three feet and tended a. b. Ce do e. f. FIGURE 1 Apparatus O i d d s“\'6 l I \ 9;: \. ' —- .1 .L0 _ k a p e e e e e Relays g. Transformer Lights h. Doorbell Screens 1. Interval current timer Presentation positions J. Clock Mirror k. Keyboard Half silvered mirror - 11 - to blur further with usage. It is suggested that in any further work a double reflection be used to eliminate this difficulty. Subjects The subjects'were selected.from.e1amentary psychology students. They ranged in age from seventeen to thirty-two, both male and female. All were volunteers. Testing periods ran.from.eight in the morning to five at night. The subjects for the first half of the study, run during the smmner, averaged three years older than those used in the second.ha1f of the eXperiment. Age was not a major.factor in determining performance in errors or time. FIGURE 2 Wiring Diagram Bell Switch Relay Interval Clo Ck .Timer .. 13 - Procedure First the subject was shown the interior of the exposure apparatus and instructed in this manner: This is a mirror tachistoscopc. When I push this button a light comes on, after exactly five seconds it turns off and another light comes on. (Demonstration) You may turn this light off by pushing one of these response keys. You notice also that I have a bell in lure that I can ring at u discretim. (Close boar) The subject was seated in front of the Opening of the apparatus and instruction continued: By mans of those lights I am going to show you two cards. On these cards will be written a question which you can answer by pushing one of these keys. You will notice the keyboard is labeled cue, two, three, four, five, a, b, c, d, and e. All of the questions I am going to show you will have one of these ten answers. Your job will be to push the key that corresponds to the correct answer. When you push the key please hold it down for half a second till I can break this switch. If you don't the light will come back on. (Demonstration) 0n the first card I-show you 1:111 be all of the questicn except one word. 0n the second card will be the missing word. You put the ' missing word in the blank on the first card and then answer the ques- tion. Fa.- instance the first card might say "What number is three plus blank?” and the second might say "one"; well, three plus one is four so youfipush key four. Any questitns‘f The subject was then given three trial pairs to familiarize -m- himself with the procedure. The subject is asked if he has am fm'ther questions. If so, they are answered, giving no information about the nature of the experiment, if not, then the final instructions are given: You will be mrked on both speed and accuracy in your responses, do not sacrifice either for the other. From the time the second card comes on you will have twenty seconds to respond, if you don't we will start the next question. The subject is then presented with the fifteen questions in the correct crder and under the detemined conditions, and is informed of both errors and correct responses. This entire procedure requires betwaen fifteen and twanty minutes for each subject. RESULTS The results fall naturally into two areas, one for each of the dependent variables, errors and tine. Let us first consider the time differences between the conditions; then secondly look at the variation of the freezes, which are defined as those cases in which no response is made during the twenty second period allowed. Finally the error frequencies may be considered. In the time scores it was found to be impossible to work with normal distribution statistics for two reasons; first, the highly skewed nature of the distributions, and secondly, the existence of six percent of the total responses as freezes which have no actual length. The time data were therefore analyzed by means of medians and chi square. The median response time for the response condition trials was 3.38 seconds; for the set condition trials the median was 3.77 seconds; and for the control condition trials the median was h.05 seconds. A test of the number in each condition over and under tie total median yielded a chi square of 2.78 for a two-by-three table, which is signif- icant at the 25% level. For a two-by-two table, in which response cmdition trials were compared with the other two groups of trials combined, a chi square of 2.1a was obtained which is significant at the 15% level of confidence. It is interesting to note that the percentage of freezes varied in the three conditions to a significant degree. The p'Oportions of -16- TABLE 1 ANALYSIS OF ERROR DATA ORIGINAL DATA BY CONDITIONS Set-Control Set-Response Reaponse-Control Differences by .103 .060 .016V Pr0portion t-test without cor- 2.861 1.622 1.1h3 rection for Correlation Level of Signif- 0.3% 6% 13% icance t-test corrected for 3.133 1.796 1.28h Correlation Level of Signif- 0.1% 5% 11% icance corrected , TABLE 2 Set Condition Response Condition Control PrOportion of .323 .263 .220 Errors Median Time 3.77 3.38 14.05 Pr0p0rtion Of 0080 .027 0%? Freezes -17- freezes in each condition were: Set, .080; Control, .067; and Response, .0267. The difference between the Set and Response conditions is sig- nificantat the five percait level. The analysis on the basis of percentage of errors may be based on the entire sixty cases and nine hundred reaponses. A breakdown of error frequencies depending on condition of presentation betwem the first and second halves shows the stability of the tested factors. The error scores by frequencies for the Cmtrol condition trials in the first and second halves of the experiment were reSpectively 31 and 35, for Response they were 37 and ’42, and fer Set condition they were ’45 and 52. There is a small increase of four percent in total errors in the second half cf the experiment, which lacks significance. The total figures for each condition in prOportions are: Control, .220; Response, .263; and Set, .323. When tasted by the standard error of a difference betnen means, tln difference between the Set and Control condition scores is found to be significant at the .3% level, while the difference between the Set and Response cmdition scores is significant at the six percent level. The final difference, tint of the Control from the Response condition errors is significant at only the 13% level. By computing iretead the difference betwaen the groups individu- ally for each subject and hence tin actual sigma cf the difference, thus eliminating the correlation factor, the figures may be raised slightly. The levels of significance now become 0.1% for the Set- Control conditicns, five percent for the Set-Response cmditims, and finally 11% for the Reaponse-Control conditions. -18- DISCUSSION It is the experimenter's belief that the results of this study while not conclusive may be considered as definite support of tin general hypothesis. The first results to be considered will be the error data, followed by the freeze data, and finally the time results. In conclusion a possible framework for considering the results will be presented. In the error data, the crucial test of the first specific hypothesis lies in the Set-Response condition difference. This was significant at the five percent level, which, when taking into consideration the masking factors in this study such as the poor visibility of the stimuli, appears highly significant. Tm other two differmces are as expected. The Set-Control and Response-Control differences tend to establish that ringing a bell at any point or time in problem solution will tend to interfere with the accuracy of response as any layman muld doubtless predict. The variation in freezes between the combined Set and Control groups and the Response group is also reasonably Open to explanation. Since the pair of conditions are alike in presenting no Opportunity to turn off the bell, while the Response conditim does provide this possibility; the difference may be considered as caused by a normal dislike for having a bell ringing in one's ear and the subsequent guess to turn it off as Opposed to freezing. -19- rThe time data, while they lack the high statistical significance of the error scores, may be considered as indicative. The medians show an interesting inversion from expectations in the location of the Control condition median. ( R-3.h, 8-3.8, C-h.l ) It was expected that lack of distraction would permit the fastest soluticn time in this group. While the first hypothesis stands as sup- ported by the error data, it becomes obvious that tie apparent sat- isfaction of the second hypothesis is due to a misstatement of the situation. While the vaothesis states that the Set condition will cause higher scores than the Response conditicn, it should read, on the basis of the Control conditiai, that tlm Response condition will produce lower scores than the Set condition. The hypothesis as stated implies an increase from Control conditim to both Set and Response conditions which does not occur. It now becomes obvious that we have a difference in order between the error data and the time data. The errors increase from Control to Response to Set, while the time increase runs from Response to Set to Control. If we set up a small framework of three propositions an explanation Of the difference emerges. These statements are: 1) Set formation is the major pcrtion of problan solving. a) Response, once set has been formed, is largely mechanical and unalterable. 2) Increase in tension, above a minimum, causes rigidity of behavior. a) Once a complete set has hem formed an increase in tension will not change the response. 3) Increase in tension tends to cause the organism to react. a) The higher the tension, the faster the a'ganism tench to react. Morgan (7) and Davis (2) have demonstrated that noise, either during a task or at rest, causes a state of tension in tin individual, whether this tension is purely physical or has a mental component has not been established, but the latter appears probable. The bell in this experiment may be safely assumed to produce a state of tension in the subjects. Let us now consider the results in the light of these suggestions. First, the third proposition simply enough accounts for the scarcity of freezes under Response condition, the pesence of the bell producing a high tendency to action. The order of the times also falls into place. The Response condition causes the highest tension state via the present bell and therefore the fastest responses. In the Set condition the bell is just past and its effect is therefore partially dissipated but still present. This produces a speed of response between that d the Response condition with tie bell present and tint of the Cmtrol con- dition with its lack of bell-produced tension. The error scores. renain fa' explanation. Under the Set oonditim, the tension is introduced during the attempted change of set and thus causes through rigidity a poor set formation and hence a high prOportim of errors. The incremnt in the Response condition errors over those of the Control conditicn are accounted for by a flaw in the division of the set and response periods. Actually a part of set formation, albeit a small one, is carried into the response period with the presentation of the final material necessary for the solution. This could account for a large part of the Control—Response difference. While this stucbr must be considered as exploratory in its area we still find strong support for tie first Inlpothesis. The second vaothesis is apparently misstated and therefore incorrect. -21- EWMARY AND CONCLUSICNS An experiment was run on elementary psychology students using an exposure apparatus and bell in which questims were presented. The questions were divided into an orientation section and a cue sec- tion from which combined an answer could be located on a multiple response keyboard. The questions were presented under three conditicns, bell in set period, bell in response period, and no bell as a control. The sequence and conditions of presentation of the fifteen questicns were randomly varied. Each subject was given equivalent questions under each condition. Response differences were analyzed in toms of errors and time of response. The error data indicate strongly that the Set condition causes the must errors, followed by the Response and lastly the Control conditions. The time data indicate that the Response condit icn causes the most rapid responses followed by the Set condition, and finally the Control period. . The percentage of no response answers proved significantly less in the Reaponse condition than in the Set period. These results tend to prove the mummy of the first hypothesis and the misstatement of the second. Significance levels varied between the one and twenty-five percent levels. -22- The results suggest a framework of three prOpositicns: 1) Set formation is the major>portion of problem.solving. 2) Increase in tension above a minimum.causes rigidity of behavior. 3) Increase in tension tends to produce response in the organism. 1. 2. 3. h. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 13. 1h. 15. -23.. BIBLICXIRAPHY H n Ach, N. Uber d_i_e_ Willenstetigkeit 9E 29; Denken. Gottingen, 1905, From (3). Davis, R. C. The muscular tension reflex and two of its modifying conditions. Ind. Univ. Publ., Science Serv., 1935, No. 3. Fran Poffenberger, A. J. Princi les of A lied Pflcholog, D. Appelton-Century Co., New IorE,—I9 . Exner, S. Ar gas Physiol, 1871:, 8, 526-537. From (15) Gibson, E. J., & McGarvey, H. R. Experimental studies of thought and reasoning. Psychol. Bull., 1937, 3h, 327-350. Gibson, J. J. A critical review of the concept of set in con- temporary experimental psycholog, Psychol. Bull., 191:1, 38, 781-817. May, M. A. The mechanism of controlled association. Arch. Psychol., Morgan, J. J. B. The Overcoming of Distraction and Other Resistances. Arch. Psychol., New York, 1916, No. 35. Mowrer, 0. H. Preparatory Set (expectancy)—some methods of measurement. Psychol. Monogr., 1910, 52, No. 2. , & Rayman, N. N., & Bliss, E. L. Preparatory set (expectancy)-an experimental demonstration of its 'central' locus J. exp. Psychol., 1910, 26, 357-372. Rees, H. J. 8: Israel, H. E. in investigatim of the establishment and Operation of mental sets. Psychol. Monogr., 1935, 1.16, NO. 210’ 1.260 Sell, S. B. The Atmosphere Effect, Arch. Psychol., New York, 1936, 29, NO. 200. Telford, C. W., The Refractory Phase of Voluntary and Associative Responses. J. Exp. Psychol., 1931, lb, 1-16. Watt, H. J. Experimentslle Beitrage zur einer Theorie des Denken. Archiv. ges. Psychol., 1905, 1:, 289-1136. From (15). Woodrow, H. The faculty of attention. J. exp. Psychol., 1916, 1, 285-318. Woodworth, R. 3. Experimental Psycholog. Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1938. APPENDIX Questions Used What letter falls three letters before in the alpha- bet? Card two: G . Answer: D What letter occurs most often in the group ? Card-two: FBAAFAAF Answer: A How many sides are always found in a ? Card two: Square . Answer: A What number is one fourth of : plus five? Card two: 0 Answer: 5 What is the fourth number before seven in the group ? Card two: 32156789 Answer: 2 What compass reading is one hundred and eighty degrees from ? Card two: W ““' Answer: E If an inch is one, and a foot is two, what is a ? Card two: Rod Answer: 4 What number turned on its side looks 1 he the letter ? Card two:ln Answer: 3 With what letter does the opposite of end? Card two: Black Answer: E What letter falls before in the alphabet? Card two: C Answer: B What number is missing from the group ? Card two: 658245791 Answer: 3 What is the second digit of the number in a ? Card two: Dozen Answer: 2 What number said aloud sounds like the word ? Card two: Sun Answer: One What letter follows M in the name of the last ? Card two: President Answer: A If D minus C equals A: what is minus B? Card two: E Answer: 0 Form on Presentation Card WITH WHAT LETTER DOES'THE OPPOSITE OF END? iCt‘i use 0 _ "I7'11?ATAWATTW