1 / 15

Frustration and Automatic Processing

By: David Phelps, Kristine Schuster, and Isaac Weinkauf Hanover College. Frustration and Automatic Processing. Previous Literature. Barker (1938) studied the effect of frustration upon Cognitive Ability

fisk
Download Presentation

Frustration and Automatic Processing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. By: David Phelps, Kristine Schuster, and Isaac Weinkauf Hanover College Frustration and Automatic Processing

  2. Previous Literature • Barker (1938) studied the effect of frustration upon Cognitive Ability • Dollard et al. (1939) define frustration: “an interference with the occurrence of an instigated goal-response at its proper time in the behavior sequence” • Bessiere (2002) and Ceaparu (2003) investigated frustration produced by computers • Knott (1971) studied how frustration constricts selective attention

  3. Research Question • How does frustration affect performance of Automatic Processing and Attentional Override of Automatic Processing as measured by the Stroop Effect Task?

  4. Hypothesis • Frustration will constrict attentional processes such that frustrated participants will be worse at overriding the automatic process of reading as measured by the Stroop Effect than non-frustrated participants

  5. Hypothesis

  6. Procedure • Informed Consent • Instruction Sheet • Working Memory Task • Randomly assigned to: • Control • Frustrated Manipulation (delay) • Stroop Effect Task • XXXX condition Reaction Time • Incongruent condition Reaction Time • Completed in random order • Debriefing Form

  7. Methods • Frustration Manipulation • Shown series of words in modified Working Memory Experiment • 5 - Number of words to recognize • x3 – Seconds Delay Between Responses • 15 – Seconds Needed to Complete Recognition • 12 – Seconds Available for Recognition • What this computes to is a relatively easy task made impossible to correctly select all words before time runs out

  8. Participants • Self report • N=24 • 8 female • Ages 19-22 • Undergraduate students • Voluntary participation • Some completed for extra credit

  9. Results • 2X2 mixed ANOVA • Between subjects: frustration • Within subjects: Stroop (XXXX, Incongruent) • Interaction • p=.088, alpha=.1 • Simple Main Effects • XXXX: p = .772 • Incongruent: p = .195

  10. Stroop Effect Reaction Times

  11. Discussion • Results do not support the hypothesis

  12. Discussion • Frustrated participants performed faster at the Incongruent Stroop Task than Non-frustrated participants • Perhaps under frustration attention does not constrict, but focuses. Alternatively, under frustration automatic processes are inhibited.

  13. Limitations • Manipulation of frustration may have been ineffective if participants were • Not invested in succeeding at task • Disengaged from task • Frustrated prior to task • Unaware of the goal of the task (recognition of words within a time limit) • Resilient to frustration

  14. Future Directions • Stronger frustration manipulation • Effects of frustration on other cognitive abilities • Explore mechanisms behind frustration’s effects on performance

  15. Questions?

More Related