Table Of ContentCONFLICT B1BAYI0B. MB A FOTOMOW OF STSSKHIS
“ of coiimxm mspohsi Tjaoraoxxs
fef
Xfift liellosaXi. Bilodeau
A d issertatio n submitted is p artia l fulfillm ent of the
requirement* for the degree of Bootor of Philosophy,
is the Department of Psychology in the Graduate
College of the S tate U niversity of Iowa
JTune, 1989
ProQuest Number: 10598583
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
uest
ProQuest 10598583
Published by ProQuest LLC (2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346
CL
A oroow L im »f
The author wishes to express her gratitude to
Dr* Ju&son 3, Brown, who formulated the problem, and to
Dr# J'Qhn Hi Knott for their helpful suggestions and
criticism s during the course of this investigation.
TABLB Of G O W S W m
■Chapter page
I Introduction* * • * • • » * . * * * . . « « 1
II Purpose * ...............................* * » 8
III Procedure * . * * ........................................................ 10
A* Subjects* • • • • « * « . * * . . * * ♦ 10
B. Apparatus « 10
0* Procedure # « * * * « * • * * * • * * • 12
D« Scoring of the records* * * . * * * • « 16
IV E esults and discussion* « • » « * • * » * • 18
A* E ffects of variations in the strengths
of equal competing tendencies * * . * • 18
B* E ffects of variations in the difference
in the number of pre-conflict tria ls
to the two lig h ts * • « * « * * • • • • 34
0» E ffects of variations in the distances
from the avoidance stim uli* . . . . . . 4?
V Summary * • * * « • • « * * * * ................... • 36
A* References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
B* Instructions to the subjects* * * * * * 62
i l l
T&Bm OF FIGURES
Figure page
1 Humber® of failu res to respond and completed
response® w ith increasing pre-conflict tra in
ing to the two lights# (Means of co n flict
trial® 1 and 3), » , • « * , * , , , » » « , , 31
8 Mean amplitude of in itia l and maximum.
responses with increasing pre-co n flict train
ing to the two lig h ts, (Means of conflict
trial® 1 and 8), * , # * , * , * » , , , » * , 84
3 Mean movement time on conflict tr ia l 1 with
increasing p re-con flict trainin g to th© two
light® , » • * . » , , » * 39
4 lumbers of failu res to respond and completed
responses with decreasing difference in pre-
conflict training to th© two lig h ts, (Means
©f co n flict tria ls 1 and 8)* , , * • * « « * » 3?
3 Mean amplitude of in itia l and maximum
responses with decreasing difference in pre
co n flict training to the two light® , (Mem®
of conflict tria ls 1 and 8). • * , * « , * , » 40
6 Mean movement time on co n flict tria l 1 with
decreasing difference in pre-conflict train
ing to the two lig h ts, 44
iv
7ABLS TABLES
Of
Table page
I Summary of the Experimental Conditions* * . * * 14
IX Humber of Subjects Making a Given Type of
C onflict Be spouse as a function of the Absolute
Humber of Pre-C onflict T rials « » * « * , , • , 19
XIX Humber of Subjects Making an In itia l Response
Away from the Left and Bight Stimulus Lights
for the Three Conditions with Equal Training
to the Two Lights , . * * « » . « * * , » * . • 22
I¥ Mean Amplitude of Bespouse in 1/16 inch as a
function of Increasing the Huafcer of T rials
to Each Light i » , . * • » • 25
¥ Median Amplitude of Response in 1/16 inch as
a function of Increasing the Humber of T rials
to Each Light ............................... 26
FT Movement Time in Seconds on the F irst C onflict
T rial as a Function of Increasing the Hus&er
of T rials to Each Light * * * * • « * # # * « # 2©
¥IX Humber of Subjects Making a Given Type of
C onflict Response as a Function of the Dif
ference in the Eutsher of P re-conflict T rials
to the Two Lights * * « « • • • # # • * » * • * 35
TU I Frequency of Responses in the Predicted and
Opposite D irections as a Function of the Dif
ference in the Humber of P re-conflict Trial©
in the Two Lights . « « # ............................................. 38
IX Mean Amplitude of Response in 1/16 inch as a
Function of the D ifference in the Muafcer of
P re-conflict T rials to the two Lights • • • « • 41
X Median Amplitude of Response in 1/16 inch as
a Function of the D ifference in the Humber
of P re-conflict T rials to the Two Lights* • * « 42
f^r
W 1 OF TABU23 {Continued)
Table page
XX Movement Time in Seconds on the f ir s t
C onflict T rial as a function of the Dif*
t arenas in the lumber of Pro*conflict
T rials to the Two Lights 45
XXX Number of Subjects Making a Civen Type of
C onflict Beepons© as a function of the Distance
of Kaeh Light from the Center* « » • * * « * # 40
XXII Amplitude of Besponse in 1/16 inch for the
Subjects who Moved Away from the Hearer Light
on C onflict T rial 1* ....................... * • « • • • » 51
XIV Movement Time In Seconds for the Subjects who
Moved the Maximum Distance Away from the
Hearer Light on C onflict T rial ! • « « • • • • 53
vi
i
chapter I
INTROOTCTIQ*
When several stim uli, each independently capable
of e lic itin g a response are presented sim ultaneously and
a ll the responses cannot occur a t the same time, the situa
tion is called a co n flict situ atio n and the resu ltin g
behavior co n flict behavior* Although co n flict behavior can
be described In terms of its qu alitativ e differences from
the behavior evoked by the presentation of a single stim ulus,
i t can also be described in terms of the latency, am plitude,
and frequency of response to each stimulus* If we assume
that the latency, am plitude, and frequency of response to
a single stim ulus are functions of reaction potential (sEr)
(10), it is a reasonable extension to assume that the
behavior in co nflict situ ation s can be accounted for in
term® of the excitatory potentials of the competing responses »
Each stimulus separately, following Hull*® formula
tion, is assumed to have an excitatory strength, the magni
tude of which is a m ultiplicative function of habit strength
{sHr} and drive {13}* Habit strength is assumed to be (1) an
increasing function of the number of reinforced evocations
of the response to the conditioned stim ulus and {£) a
decreasing function of the difference in j*n«d.*s between
2
the trace of the conditioned stim ulus and the trace of
another stim ulus along the aam sensory dimension (10)*
I t is fu rther assumed th a t when a single stim ulus
or the several stim uli operating in any situ atio n lead to
incom patible responses {responses which cannot occur a t
the same tim e), the response which w ill occur is the one
w ith the larg est momentary excitatory tendency (is* 1? )#
The p rinciple of o sc illa tio n offered by Hull .{10} can be
used to account for the occurrence of a response when the
separate excitatory tendencies are of equal strength and
for the occasional domination of the weakest of the com
peting tendencies* The principle of o scillatio n proposes
that the momentary strength of an effective reaction
potential of a given strength may take any lesser value
w ithin a constant range, depending upon the magnitude of
a depreaant p o ten tial (sGr), the magnitude of which varies
from moment to moment according to the normal probability
function* If two reaction p o ten tials are of equal strength,
each should be dominant fifty per-cent of the time* When
a difference in the excitatory strengths ex ists, but the
ranges of the o scillato ry p o tentials overlap, the response
determined by the larger s ir is expected to occur more
frequently, but not to the complete exclusion of the other
response* Since the range of o scillatio n is aseused to
be constant, an increase in the difference between the
3
■Strengths of two reaction tendencies reduces the probability
th at the sm aller w ill be sedentarily dominant#
The present treatm ent makes the additional assuujp*
tie s th at when two reaction p o tentials are sim ultaneously
aroused in a co n flict situ atio n , the net effectiv e reaction
p o ten tial (air.) is leas than when the dominant potential
is alone present, the competing tendency acting to, m btract
from the momentarily dominant reaction potential# Accord*
tag to th is form ulation the co n flict behavior depends upon
the difference in the strengths of the reaction potentials
(sir) ana should vary with the relativ e strengths of ths
sim ultaneously aroused response tendencies# It proposes
also that the momentary difference in excitatory strengths
(sir) must exceed the reaction threshold in order to evoke
a response# When a single stim ulus is presented* Hull
assumes th at the momentary effective reaction potential must
exceed the reaction threshold (sir) before a response
w ill occur (10}* She present treatm ent assumes that in
co n flict situ atio n s it is the difference between the eoapet*
ing tendencies which must exceed the threshold# from these
assumptions it follows that as the difference between two
1# In Hull*® system the effective reaction p oten tial (sir)
is expressed as the difference between the reaction
p oten tial (sir) and an inhibitory potential (Ir) *
where one component of ir is a habit phenomenon (sir)*
(10)
