BANDT, Phillip Lee, 1938- GENERALIZED CONTROL EXPECTANCIES and PERCEPTUAL RESPONSES to THREAT
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 68-2948 BANDT, Phillip Lee, 1938- GENERALIZED CONTROL EXPECTANCIES AND PERCEPTUAL RESPONSES TO THREAT. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1967 Psychology, clinical University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan GENERALIZED CONTROL EXPECTANCIES AND PERCEPTUAL RESPONSES TO THREAT DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University by Phillip Lee Bandt, B.S., M*A. The Ohio State University 1967 Approved by Adviser [rtment of Psychology ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am deeply appreciative of the generous assistance and sustained interest of Dr, Lyle D, Schmidt under whose supervision this research was carried out, I am also grateful to Dr. Frank M. Fletcher, Dr, James C, Naylor and Dr, W, Bruce Walsh who read and contributed both to the original proposal and the final manuscripts to Mr, Orlando Mullins who assembled and maintained the necessary apparatus? to Mr, Michael J. Donovan who assisted with the problems of data analysis? and to Mrs, Joann Lloyd, Miss Susan Kelchner and Mr, Frank Marlor who helped to prepare materials and collate data. Further acknowledgment is made to those fellow graduate students who contributed suggestions and criticisms that led to increased so phistication of the research design and to the undergraduate co-eds who served as interested and cooperative subjects. Finally, I am grateful for the use of the data processing facilities of the Computer Center at The Ohio State University. ii VITA March 22, 1938 Born - Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin I960 , * » . B.S., The University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 1959-1963• • • Special Group Assistant, Division of Residence Halls, The University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin (Summers) 1960-1961, , , Graduate Resident Assistant, Men's Residence Halls, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1961-I9 6 2, , , Graduate Resident for Program, Men's Residence Halls, Tho Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1962-1963. • • Teaching Assistant, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1963 • • • « • M,A,# The Ohio State University,' Columbus, Ohio 1963-196^, • • Counseling Assistant, University Counseling Center, Tho Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 196*4—1 9 6 6, , , Assistant Instructor, Department of Psychology, Tho Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1966 • , * , • Field Assessment Associate, University of Hawaii Peace Corps Training Center, Hilo, Hawaii 1966-196 7, , , Teaching Assistant, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio PUBLICATIONS Schmidt, L, D«, Bandt, P, L#, & Fretz, B. R. Practice in effective study, Cincinnati? Tri-State Offset, Rev,, i9 6 0, Schmidt, L, D., Meara, Naomi M,, & Bandt, P. L, Instructor's guide to the teaching of the psychology of personal effectiveness, Columbus? The Ohio State University, Department of Psychology, 1967 (mlmeo), FIELDS OF STUDY Major Fields Counseling Psychology Professors lyle D, Schmidt, Frank M» Fletcher, Harold B, Pepinsky, Franois P. Robinson, Maude A, Stewart, and W, Bruce Walsh iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................. AA VITA ....... ...................................... ill CONTENTS .............. lv TABLES . vi FIGURES. .... ..... vii CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM IN PERSPECTIVE ............... 1 Generalized Expectancy as a Theoretical Concept •••••••.•••• ....... 1 Anticipatory Physical Threat Stress......... 3 Situational Studies Relating Control Expectancies to Threat. ^ Research on ’’Perceptual Defense5' ••••••• 5 A Study of Generalized Expectancy and Responses to Threat 7 II. METHOD ............................... 9 Design and Hypotheses. •••••••••••• 9 Samples. ••••••••••••••••••• 11 Treatments 13 Controls •••«••••«••. •• 17 Instruments and Data-types •••••••••. 19 Analysis . ...... •••••...••■•• 21 I H . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION........................ 23 Visual Recognition Thresholds. ..•••••• 23 Associative Reaction Times ........... 33- Summary. 36 Discussion •••»•••••••••••.•• 39 IV. SUMMARY....................................... 45 iv Page APPENDIXES I. INTERNAL-EXTERNAL CONTROL SCALE................ 48 II. THE RAW D A T A ................................. 54 REFERENCES............................................. 57 v TABLES Table Page 1. Internal-External Control Scores for the Subject Pool and Final Samples* 13 2, Age and ACT Levels of the Samples, 14 3* Tests of Homogeneity of Variance for the Threat- and Monthreat-associated stimuli, •••••••• 21 4, The Stimulus Words and Anagrams, 22 5# Cell Means and Standard Deviations for Recognition Thresholds. , , , •••••,••«• ,••••« 24 6. Analysis of Variance of Recognition Thresholds , , . , 27 7. Newman-Keuls Test of Significance between Mean Recognition Thresholds for Factor C (Samples) , . 28 8. Newman-Keuls Test of Significance between Mean Recognition Thresholds for Factor A (Trials), • , 29 9* Comparisons of Hypothesized Differences in Mean Recognition Thresholds, 30 10, Cell Means and Standard Deviations for Reaction Times ,••••••••«•«•••*,•••,• 32 11, Analysis of Variance of Reaction Times ••••,••• 35 12, Newman-Keuls Test of Significance between Mean Reaction Times for Factor A (Trials),, , , , , * 35 13* Comparisons of Hypothesized Differences in Mean Reaction T i m e s 37 14, Means and Standard Deviations for Related Personality Measures •*,,,................. 41 15* Comparisons between Sample Means for Related Personality M e a s u r e s 42 vi FIGURES Figure Page 1« Hypothesized Differences in Recognition Thresholds for Threat^As so ciated Stimuli* 12 2. Hypothesized Differences in Reaction Times for Threat-Associated Stimuli* •**••»••*•• 12 3* Main Effects for Recognition Thresholds ......... 25 ^* Cell Means for Recognition Thresholds ........* 2 6 5* Main Effects for Reaction Times *••••••••*• 33 6, Cell Means for Reaction Times •*••*•••••*• Jk vii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM IN PERSPECTIVE We spend much of our lives anticipating, seeking and avoiding situations because of our expectancies that they 11111 be pleasant or unpleasant, exciting or frightening, successful or unsuccessful, re warding or punishing. Tho basis for these expectancies lies primarily in our past experiences with similar events or, in relatively novel situations, in generalizations derived from more tangential experiences• As wo mature, we bogin to differ in the extent to which we anti cipate predominantly positive or negative reinforcements* We also differ in tho degree to which we learn to expect reinforcement to be typically a function of our own behavior or of contingencies outside our immediate control. An experiment was designed to test hypotheses relating differences in the extent and direction of generalized expec tancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement to be havior following personal failure. Generalized Expectancy as a Theoretical Concept Social learning theory (Rotter, 195^» 1955® I960) Involves four central conceptss Situation, behavior potential, expectancy and rein forcement value* In a given situation, tho potential for any behavior to occur is seen as a function of the expected occurrences of the various potential reinforcements in that situation and of the values of those reinforcements. Expectancy in this model is defined in terms 1 of probabilities and is considered to be a function both of past ex perience in situations perceived to be the same as the presont ono and of generalizations from other situations involving the same or functionally related behavior. One expectancy construct , locus of control of reinforcement (Rotter 9 Soeman and Liver ant , 1962)9 has been subjected to research under both situation-specific and generalized expectancy conditions. In a given situation9 locus of control is seen as a function of whether reinforcement is expected to be contingent upon one's own behavior (skill) or under a source of control external to tho individual (chance). Studies involving skill versus chance manipulations have consistently confirmed the predictive utility of this construct, having demonstrated that in chance situations behavior is more eratic and less heavily in fluenced by past experience (e.g., James and Rotter, 1958? Phares, 1957? Rotter, Livorant and Crowne, 1961). As generalized expectancy, the internal-external control dimen sion becomes a personality variable. Based on varying reinforcement histories, individuals are assumed to differ with respect to the extent to which they accept personal responsibility for their experience. In this sense, locus of control "...is considered a generalized expectancy, operating across a large number of situations, which relates to whether or not tho individual possesses or lacks power over what happens to him" (Lefcourt, 1966, p. 207) • Various instruments, of which the most frequently used and fully developed is the Internal-External Control (I-E) Scale (Rotter, Soeman and Livorant, 19625 Rotter, 1966), have been utilized to measure this dimension. Studies using these measures have found that individuals with more ©xbernal orientations behave in a similar fashion as do sub jects in chanco as opposed to skill situations (James, 1957*" Phares, 1957)• Additional research has demonstrated that internal-control subjects tend to be more knowledgeable about their environments and more actively involved in the shaping of their lives (e.g. James, Woodruff and Werner, 1965? Seeman and Evans, 19625 Strickland, 1965)* The general literature on locus of