Table Of Contentjjuuj ummAim m m
ukal
r Q ltiflM TMiSHtldS !H TtfS
nil
K m m 9f msArn m m
pm Mom srmi
AUTHOR
MICH S f t f t Cctt>
UNIVERSITY DATE
M W
DEGREE PUBLICATION NO
l!!ll
mnm:
y UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS
J
/ U I LUI t k Ik A k k i I A I I I A A k I
DURATION THRESHOLDS IN THE PERCEPTION
OF UNPLEASANT WORTS
By
David. M. Sterne
A Thesis
Submitted tc the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology
1952
d
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The writer wishes to express his appreciation to
Dr. Albert I. Rabin, his committee chairman, whose suggest
ions, encouragement, cooperation, and foresight contributed
so significantly to the completion of this dissertation.
Thanks are also due Dr. Milton Rokeach, Dr. M. Ray Denny,
and Dr. C. A. Lawson, the other committee members, for their
stimulating questions and advice which did much to help the
writer clarify his own thinking in the formulation and treat
ment of the problem.
Dr. Gerald Hover, Chief Clinical psychologist at the
Saginaw Veterans Administration Hospital, was instrumental
in providing the writer with time, materials, and ’’moral
support1’ when these were most needed. To Mr. Richard Eehan
who was of valued assistance in the statistical treatment of
the data, the writer feels particularly indebted. Further
appreciation is also due the members of the Michigan State
College Department of Psychology who permitted the writer to
use members of their classes as experimental subjects, and
to the staff of the Veterans Administration Hospitals at
Ft. Custer, Michigan, and Saginaw, Michigan, who cooperated
in the use of hospital patients as subjects. Above all,
however, the writer wishes to make mention of his gratitude
ii
iii
lose patient individuals, the experimental subjects,
to t'r
withe 'ut whose services this project and the tar.v others like
it wer-uld have been impossible.
4
TABLE OP’ CONTENTS
A CK K 0 V. LEDGI.'E NTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF APPENDICES
INTRODUCTION
General Character!stics of* Studies in
the Problem Area
Recent Studies
Explanatory Concepts for Motivational
Factors in Perception
Studies Supporting the Importance of*
Motivational Determinants in Perception
Differences of Opinion and Criticism
Studies Casting Doubt on 1 he Generality
of the Results of the Foregoing
Experiment s
Summary
OFF PROBLEM
the s -lect i o n or stimulus l o rd s
Methods Investigated
Summary
PREPARATIONS FOR THE EXPERIMENT
Special Problems
The hospital Group
The College Group
Summary
METHODOLOGY
Summary
:e '.t o *-1 the data
Tests for Homogeneity and Transfornation of
the Data
Variables Investigated
Sub-categorizing the Variables
The Analyses of Variance
CULTS
The hospital Sample
The College Sample
SCUS31ON OF THE RESULTS
The Hypotheses
Interpretations and Conclusions
Additional Conclusions and Comments
Comparison of Results with those of Related
Studie s
.Summary
General Conclusions
FI IGGRAPHY
LIST O? TABLES
Table Page
No • No.
I Homogeneity of Variance of Duration 66
Thre shold s
II Frequencies in the Arbitrary Groupings of 81
Unpleasant Stimulus Worcs
III Summary of Analysis of Variance of the 98
Number of Exposures to the Point of Word
F.ecognition by Thirty Hospital Patients
IV Summary of Analysis of Variance of the 99
Number of Exposures to the Point of Word
Recognition by Thirty-two Hospital Patients
V Summary of Analysis of Variemce of the 100
Number of Pre-reco nition Hypotheses made
tv Hosoital Patients
V —
VI Summary of the Analysis of Variance of the 101
Number of Exposures to the Point cf Word
Recognition ty College Students
VII Summary of the Analysis of Variance of the 103
Number of Pre-recognition Hypotheses made
by College Students
VIII A Comparison Summary of Analyses of Var
iance with the College and Hospital Samples loif
IX Interaction of Unpleasant vs. Control x 106
Categories of Patients' Pre-recognition
Hypothe se s
X Interaction of Unpleasant vs. Control x 107
Strongly Disliked vs. Mildly Disliked,
with Students
XI Interaction of Unple asant vs. Control x 108
Common vs. Uncommon, with Students
XII Comparison of Mean Duration Thresholds 128
and Mean Thorndlke-Lorge Frequency Ratings
for Short and Long 'Words
-vi-
APPLTIDICES
A.v,p endix
:~c.
1. Questionnaire - Personal LI leer and Dislikes
2. Adams Sentence Completion Test
3. Word List of 952 Unpleasant Lords
Hospital Peer Group Word List
5. Pleasant and Control Lords List
6. College Peer Group Word List
.
7 College Subject Questionnaire
8. Taboo Lord Hating List
-vii-
INTRODUCTION
General Characteristics of Studies In the Problem Area
Since the time of Wundt, considerable attention has
been focused upon the experimental exploration of perceptual
processes. More recently, those aspects of perception which
have seemed to demonstrate the effects of personal motiva
tion have been examined with increasing concern. Within the
last decade especially, the interest in experimentally in
vestigating motivational determinants of perception has
risen to the point of stimulating many ingenious studies,
and these in turn have inspired a number of provocative
hypotheses.
One avenue of investigation has employed stimulus
material under a variety of circumstances in which numbers
of relatively plausible interpretations could be given to the
stimulus. The particular interpretations made by the exper
imental subjects have then been used as bases for making
inferences as to the motivational background of the responses
selected. The use of ambiguous stimulus material to provoke
responses from which it is possible to Infer antecedent mo
tivational processes in the observer is hardly novel; It
occupies a central position among the techniques familiar to
the clinical psychologist today. A primary justification
for the use of such ’’projective’1 personality tests, as
are the Rorschach and the Thematic Apperception Test, is
that they frequently reflect motivational factors - often
factors of which the test subject is unaware. In effect,
such tests capitalize upon certain overt responses sugges
tive of other responses occurring below the limen of
consci ousness.
In an article in which he reviewed experimental studies
of unconscious behavior in relation to perception, I.Iiller
(l6} listed investigations carried on as early as 1863*
These and somewhat later studies covered areas of subliminal
perception, subliminal learning and conditioned response,
reportable effects of subliminal neural stimulation, and
related topics. In Miller*s own study, in which he presented
his subjects with geometric figures on a transparent mirror,
the subjects were able to discriminate between the various
figures at illumination intensities below the level at which
the bare presence of the figures could be detected. His
results have been rather generally accepted as evidence
supporting the existence of discriminatory responses in
which the subject was reacting to subliminal cues. This in
terpretation has been criticized by Lazarus and McCleary (8)
on the grounds that: (a) the criterion of the subliminal per
ception was the correctness of the subject’s verbal statement
(and thus apparently was not as strictly ’’subliminal" as
would have been an indication of response over which the
