Perseverative behavior in a concept formation task as a function of manifest anxiety and rigidity and of punishment

97 Pages·05.571 MB·English

by  Wesley, Elizabeth J. L

m u m m m iftft m uvxon bt a concept task as
mam
a fohctxgn of manxjsst and exgxbity
AND OF P U M
Elizabeth\Letts Wesley
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillm ent of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philos­
ophy, in the Department of Psychology,
in the Graduate College of the
State University of low®
August, 1950
ProQuest Number: 10598605
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 10598605
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
I 0 \ c ay*.
O \ . O .J)
\ \ ^ 5 o .
Co^, 2L
ACKNGWI^DCMiSOTS
The author wishes to acknowledge th© a ssists no©
of Dr# X* B# Farber and Dr* Arthur I** Beaton In .th©
preparation of th is thesis* Xn particular, she Is grate­
fu l for the careful guidance of Dr* Farber throughout
th© course of th is Investigation*
d .
II
The University of Iowa
LIBRARIES
table of cgmfeots
Page
Experiment I
Introduction * * * * * * * 2
Experimental Procedure * * 10
Results and Discussion * * IB
Summary « . * . » * * » « w
References * . * . * , . * 51
Experiment II
Introduction * * * * * * * 54
Experimental Procedure * * 59
Results and Discussion * 61
Summary * . * * * * • * . 77
References « « * * « * « « 80
Appendix A * * « * * • • » 81
Appendix 3 • » * * • • « » 82
Appendix 0 • » « * • « « • 84
Appendix D « » • « » « • * 86
Appendix!** * * * * * * * 8?
Appendix F * * * * * * * * 88
i• •n •
OF IX9CKSSS
Figure Page
1 Mean Anxiety Scores as a Function
of D ifferent letrels of R igidity * , • « 19
2 Median Humber of Trials'to Or It or ion
for Rigid, Anxious and Hormal Groups
on Series I , II, III and XT * * . . . • 23
3 Median Humber of Corrected T rials to
O riteflon for R igid, Anxious and Hormal
Groups on Series II, III and IV * * * * 26
4 Median Humber of Perseverative Responses
Made by Rigid , Anxious and Hormal Groups
on Berios XI, III and IF * « , * . * * 33
5 Median Humber of Trials to Criterion
for formal and Hormal Shook Groups
on Series X, II, 111 and IV * * . * . . 63
6 Median Humber of Persesrerativ©
Responses Mad© by Hormal and Hormal
Shook Groups on Series II, XII and I? » 69
.iv
fABM Of TABLES -v
Table Pag©
X Order of Correct Cuss 16
IX Mean®, Standard Deviations and Medians
of Humber of Trials to Criterion
Esquired by the Rigid* Anxious and
Hormal Croups on Four Series of
T rials
XIX Means, Standard Deviations and Medians
of Corrected Scores for the Eigi^ Anxious
and normal Croups on Series II, III
IT x/s»D* Deviates and Corresponding
P robabilities Based Upon g Tests Between
Corrected T rials to Criterion Scores of
Anxious vs Rigid, Anxious vs Hormal and
"orraal Croups for Series XX,
28
T Means, Standard Deviations' and Medians
of the Differences Between Corrected
Scores on Series XI and Series IT for the
R igid, Anxious and Hormal Croups • * » . 29
VI Means, Standard Deviations and Medians
of Perseveretiv® Response; frequency for
R igid, Anxious and Hormal Croups on
Series II, XII and IT . * . • • • . . * * 32
VII x/3*D* Deviates and Corresponding
P robabilities Based Upon V Test Between
Perseveretive Scores of the Rigid, Anxious
and Hormal Croupe for Series II, III
and IT 35
VIII Means Standard Deviations and Median©
of th® Differences Between Perseveration
Responses on Series II and Series IT
for th© Rigid, Anxious and Hormal
Croups 36
v
W OF TABUS (continued)
fa tie Page
IX Mean®* Standard Deviation® and Median®
of Itaber of Trials to Criterion Required
by the Normal Stock and Normal Groups
on Four Series of Trials • « * * » • « « » 62
X Means, Standard Deviations and Medians
of Corrected Scores for Noritai Stock and
Normal Groups for Series II, Series III,
and Series IT * « » « « • « # « • » * » # 65
XI Means, Standard Deviations and Medians
of Persevarative Response® of the Hormal
Shock and Normal Groups for laoh Series# # 6?
vi

z
Chapter I
IOTBGDIJCTIGN
Performances on clin ica l teats have often been
regarded as indicators of general personality character­
istics* One way of substantiating th is idea in sp ecific
instances is to identify a given personality characteristic
of an individual by some independent means and then
T
investigate its relationship to performance on the clin ica l
task that presumably measures it* Among the personality
characteristics often alluded to in clin ica l testing
situations is that of behavioral or symptomatic rigidity*
It is a dimension of behavior widely referred to in
descriptions of both normal and abnormal individuals and
occupies an important place in the verbal stock-in-trade
of clin ica l psychologists and others interested in
personality description (
In general, rigid ity may be conceived of as the
tendency to p ersist in responses that may previously have
been suitable in th is or some other situation, but that
no longer appear adequate to achieve current goals or to
solve current problems, as considered from the point of
view of an observer* Examples of the type of studies
concerned with th is concept of rigid ity afi applied to normal
groups ar© thqse of Spearnan and his students { ^ 12)
5?helr procedure was to atoinflistersuch tests as the
alternation of simple motor responses, the alternation
of creative effort task^, sensory perseveration, and
persistanc© In a single activity* On the basis of a
factor analysis of the resu lts of these te sts, Spearman
concluded that a common factor of perseveration, "p",
was isolated* Using a sim ilar technique, Thurston© (19)
factor analyzed a battery of tests including tests of
reasoning a b ility , motor coordination, spatial relations
a b ility , etc#, and found m rfEw factor which he called the
a b ility to sh ift set. C attell (3,4 } has also u tilized
a factor analysis technique for studying perseveration of
response. Although his original battery of tests was
essen tially the same as that of Spearman, hi- factor, which
h© ca lls "disposition R igidity," is not based upon per­
formances on sensory perseveration tasks or motor persistence
tasks which were among those used to define Spearman1 s
"p" factor, but is based chiefly upon performance on tasks
involving the alternation of creative effort. G attell
d e sc r ie s dispositional rigid ity in terms of the tendency
to perform a task in some old, accustomed fashion as opposed
to the tendency to perform It in some new (but not
lnt©lligence~demanding) fashion.