Bogus physiological feedback and response thresholds of Repressers and Sensitizers

JOURNAL

OF RESEARCH

Bogus

IN

PERSQNALITY

Physiological

Thresholds

7,

78-87 (1973)

Feedback

of Repressers

and and

Response

Sensitizers

MICHAEL D. WHITEI AND WALLACE WILKINS~ University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida Repressem and Sensitizers viewed tachistoscopically presented TAT transparencies under conditions of high and low bogus physiological feedback. As predicted, during high bogus physiological feedback, Repressers showed a significant increase and Sensitizers showed a significant decrease in response thresholds. These results serve to extend the validity of bogus physiological feedback procedures in the analog investigation of emotion and offer theoretical implications relevant to the areas of personality, emotion, psychophysiology, and psychopathology.

Experimental procedures involving the presentation of bogus-butcredible physiological feedback have emerged from the psychological laboratory as an analog method in the study of the cognitive and behavioral effects of physiological activity. While these procedures have a definite pragmatic utility, circumventing the difficulties and risks involved in the chemical or surgical manipulation of actually occurring physiological events, their ultimate contribution rests upon the validity of the assumption that bogus physiological feedback procedures function in a manner analogous to veridical proprioceptive stimulation. The validity of this assumption may be established, in part, by demonstrating that the results generated by bogus feedback procedures parallel those generated by procedures which effect changes in actually occurring physiological activity. Several studies in which actual physiological activity was changed chemically (Schachter & Singer, 1962; Schachter & Wheeler, 1962) or by electric shock (Nisbett & Schachter, 1966) yielded results which indicate that if subjects (8s) have no’ immediately available explanation for a ‘This paper is based, in part, on a thesis submitted to the Department of Psychology, University of Miami, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Science degree. The research project was supported by U. S. Public Health Service, National Institute of Mental Health, Training Grant 5 TLl MH10471-08. *Requests for reprints should be addressed to Dr. Wallace Wilkins, Department of Psychology, Box 8185, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida 33124. 78 Copyright @ 1973 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

BOGUS

PHYSIOLOGICAL

FEEDBACK

79

change in physiological activity, environmental events will be interpreted in such a way as to provide an adequate account for the physiological activity. The results of bogus physiological feedback procedures employed in the study of attitude change and psychopathology provide a direct parallel to these findings. Bramel, Bell, and Margulis (1965)) for example, demonstrated an increase in the level of danger attributed to Russia when relatively neutral Russia-related stimuli were accompanied by high bogus GSR feedback. Preferences for and attractiveness of Playboy pin-ups increased in a study by Valins (1966) when their presentation coincided with a change in bogus heart-rate feedback. Wilkins (1971) showed that reports of ambiguous stimuli were more emotional when high bogus feedback accompanied stimulus presentation. Conversely, Valins and Ray (1967) showed a decrease in fear when the presentation of fear-related stimuli was accompanied by bogus heart-rate feedback indicating relatively low level of activity. Gaupp, Stern, and Galbraith (1972) provided further support for the effect of this bogus feedback procedure in fearreduction. Kent, Wilson, and Nelson (1972) report similar results on a self-report measure, but not a behavioral measure, of fear reduction. These studies, taken together, suggest the validity of bogus physiological feedback procedures within a relatively limited sphere of psychological investigation. Personality measurement, research, and theory offer another avenue through which bogus physiological feedback procedures may be validated and extended. Byrne (1961) indicated that individuals differ along the dimension of Repression-Sensitization (R-S) according to characteristic ways of responding to threatening stimuli. Research evidence presented by Byrne (1964) supports the theoretical formulations that Repressers tend to avoid or deny threatening, emotional material, while Sensitizers appear to seek and approach threatening stimuli. When exposed to tachistoscopically presented stimuli, Repressers exhibit relatively high report thresholds for emotional stimuli and relatively low report thresholds for neutral stimuli, while the report thresholds for Sensitizers are in the reverse direction. If bogus physiological feedback procedures function as a valid analog of emotional events, Ss presented with information reflecting an increase in physiological activity should attribute that increase to concomitantly presented environmental stimuli and then respond to those stimuli through their dominant mode of dealing with emotional event,s. Stated specifically, as opposed to the performance of Sensitizers and Repressers exposed to control procedures, the response threshold of Sensitizers was predicted to be lower under conditions of high bogus physiological feedback than under conditions of low feedback and the response threshold of Re-

80

WHITE

AND

WILKINS

pressers was predicted to be higher under conditions of high bogus physiological feedback than under conditions of low feedback. The existence of individual differences in relation to what constitutes an emotional stimulus and how emotional responses are expressed have contributed as unidentified and uncontrolled sources of experimental error in several previously conducted investigat.ions. While an experimenter may define a situation as emotional, as in Schachter and Singer (1962), that emotion may not be induced in all 8s. In addition, individual differences in how emotion is expressed and perceived may contaminate observers’ ratings of emotion expressed ‘by Xs, as in the procedures employed by Schachter and Wheeler (1962) and Wilkins (1971). The tachistoscopic procedures employed in the present study reduce both of these sources of uncontrolled variability. The ambiguity of the stimuli presented allows Ss to attribute their own type of emotion to the stimuli. As such, the stimuli may be considered, within limits, to be individualized for each S. Response threshold serves as an objective, easily quantifiable measure of the emotional quality S attributes to the tachistoscopically presented stimuli and eliminates the possibility of uncontrolled variability stemming from individual differences between Ss and raters. The issue of perceptual defense vs response suppression has been raised in relation to the interpretation of results of earlier studies employing response threshold of tachistoscopically presented stimuli as a dependent variable (Goldiamond & Hawkins, 1958; Postman, Bronson, & Gropper, 1953; Ruiz & Krauss, 1968; Zajonc, 1962). As will be discussed later, this issue is quite cogent in attempting to identify the processes through which personality variables affect performance. However, in validating bogus physiological feedback as an analog procedure, that issue is not relevant: regardless of whether perceptual defense or response suppression accounts for performance, if the results of bogus feedback procedures parallel the results of previously employed research methods, the validity of bogus feedback as an analog procedure is supported. METHOD Subjects. Thirty-nine female students participated as Ss for credit in fulfilling an introductory psychology course requirement. A group of 20 Ss -were selected at random from each extreme quartile of the distribution of R-S scores resulting from a classroom administration of a battery of psychological tests which included the Revised R-S Scale (Byrne, Barry, & Nelson, 1963). The Repressers and Sensitizers were each divided into two subgroups matched closely on the basis of R-S scores; one subgroup was assigned at random to the control condition, the other to the experimental condition. One S could not be scheduled; this and the elimination of the data of a randomly selected S from the three other groups resulted in four groups of nine Ss each. St.atistics descriptive of the R-S distributions involved in

BOGUS

PHYSIOLOGICAL

FEEDBACK

81

this study are: Total Female S-pool: a = 36.7, SD = 19.7, N = 131; Experimental Repressors: g = 15.9, SD = 8.2, N = 9; Control Repressers: a = 16.1, SD = 9.3, N = 9; Experimental Sensitizers: ..% = 65.8, SD = 11.6, N = 9; Control Sensitizers: a = 64.0, SD = 13.4, N = 9. Apparatus. Stimuli consisted of eight 35mm transparencies of cards 3GF, 5, 6GF, 7BM, SBM, 10, 12M, and 13MF of the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) projected onto a rear-projection viewing screen to a seated S via a Lafayette Model 42011 Projection Tachistoscope. Since the TAT cards would be presented at very brief exposures, they were not selected on the basis of content, but because they appeared similar in their relative distribution of black and white space. Near the screen was a galvanometer, with dial readings ranging from -4 to +4, the needle position of which was controlled by the male experimenter (E) from behind the screen. All Ss were provided with a sheet of paper with columns for the recording of dial readings. Procedure. A set of physiologically oriented instructions was read to Ss in the experimental group. The Ss in the control group received a similar set of instructions modified to exclude reference to physiological activity (Table 1). Following the delivery of instructions, a bogus electrode leading from the galvanometer was attached to the nondominant hand of experimental Ss. The bogus electrode was kept out of sight from control Ss. Each of the eight slides was then presented for four trials at each ascending exposure time of l/125, l/60, l/30, l/15, l/S, l/4, l/2, and 1 set until criterion. Intertrial intervals, except when Ss recorded the dial readings, were approximately 5 sec. Criterion was reached whenever S called out a word or phrase which reflected S’s perception of the mood, feeling, or content of the slide. At this time, E recorded the exposure time immediately preceding S’s report and informed S that a new slide would be presented at the fastest exposure setting. All Ss were instructed to record the dial reading for each slide after its third presentation at the fastest setting. This insured that experimental Ss had received the bogus physiological feedback and, for control Ss, controlled for any inadvertent effects the recording activity may have had on the dependent variable. The first two slides served only a warm-up function; data included in the statistical analyses were gathered during the presentations of the last six slides. During slides predesignated to accompany a high dial reading, the needle position was gradually increased from -4 during the first two slide presentations, reached its maximum at approximately +4 by the third l/125-set exposure, and remained at that level until 10 set after S’s verbal report, after which time the needle was returned to its baseline position. During the presentations of slides predesignated to accompany a low dial reading, the needle remained at its baseline position. Each level of dial reading accompanied half the slides in an order randomized within the constraints that each level was presented once during the practice slides and neither level was presented more than twice in succession. The orders of slide presentations and dial readings were counterbalanced across experimental and control Ss. Throughout the study, E remained experimentally blind in regard to early data returns and Ss’ R-S classification. RESULTS

The exposure times, with a possible range from 1/25 to 1 set, of the last slide presentation preceding a criterion verbal report were converted

82

WHITE

INSTRUCTIONS

READ

AND

WILKINS

TABLE 1 TO EXPERIMENTAL

AND

CONTROL

Experimental This react

is a study

on subliminal

physiologically

SIJBJECTS

control perception.

We are especially

to

interested

in how

people

1 perceive

pictures which convey certain meaning, know that people see and react

connotations

and

feelings

to the viewer.

We

the pictures

are.

physiologically to pictures even though This is the phenomenon

they are not initially aware called subliminal perception.

of exactly

what

To measure your physiological reactions we will attach to the surface of your skin a sensitive device which detects small changes in the amount of moisture on the surface of your skin. The amount of moisture det,ected reflects the degree to which a person is physiologically aroused. Your arousal will be reflected by the position of the needle on the table in front of you. Basically a needle position to the left of the dial indicates a low degree of arousal and a needle position to the right indicates a high degree of arousal. During thii session you will see eight different slides presented on the screen before you. Each slide will be presented a number of times in succession for very brief flashes. Each flash will be slightly longer than the one before it. It will be your task to determine the mood or feeling that each slide expresses to you just as quickly es you are able to do so. As soon as you have an idea of the mood or feeling expressed by a slide you are to call it out loud. It. may seem difficult for you to report the feelings expressed by these pictures because they are presented for such brief periods of time. However, we have found that people are quite accurate in what they report even if they feel that they are only guessing. People perceive the slides subliminally and, if they report what they think the feeling or mood is, they are usually quite accurate. In order for us to keep a record of your physiological activity as you view the slides, you will be asked to keep a record of the dial readings indicating your physiological arousal.

In order for us to control for distracting tasks other groups are performing during this experiment we are asking your group to keep a record of the readings on the dial before you.

You are to do this twice for each slide. After the third presentation of each new slide you are to record the dial reading under a column marked, “dial reading after three trials.” Then as soon as you have been able to identify the mood or feeling of that slide and have called it out loud, record the reading on the dial under a column marked, “dial reading after recognition of slide’s mood.” The experiment will end when you have identified the mood or feeling expressed by each of the eight slides.

koous

PHYSIOLOGICAL

83

PEEDEMX

to their decimal equivalents and multiplied by 1000 to yield whole numbers which maintain a direct relationship with original shutter speedslarger numbers indicating greater criterion exposure times. These were summed for each S across the three slides accompanying high dial readings and the three slides accompanying low dial readings. The sums were analyzed via a 2 (Represser vs Sensitizer Group; RS) X 2 (Experimental vs Control Group; EC) X 2 (High vs Low Dial Reading: HL) repeated measures analysis of variance. The crucial source of variance bearing on the hypothesis of this study was the RS X EC x HL interaction factor which, as predicted, was statistically significant (F( 1,32) = 41.93, p < 901). As displayed in Table 2, the cell means differ significantly from each other only in directions that were predicted from the hypothesis of this study. Multiple comparisons among the cell means presented in Table 2 showed that the mean report threshold for Sensitizers in the Experimental Group receiving high bogus physiological feedback was significantly lower than each of the other cell means (p < 901 for all comparisons) and that the mean report threshold for Repressers in the Experimental Group receiving high bogus physiological feedback was significantly higher than each of the other cell means (p < .OOl for all comparisons). No other comparison among cell means reached an acceptable level of statistical significance (p > .05 for all other comparisons). In addition to the RS X EC X HL interaction factor, significant staMEANS

TABLE 2 AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THRESHOLD SCORES FOR REPRESSERS AND SENSITIZERS IN EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS UNDER CONDITIONS OF HIQH AND Low BOGUS PHYSIOLOGICAL FEEDBACK Feedback Low

Group

Experimental

Control

Sensitizer 2 SD Represser x SD Sensitizer x SD Represser a SD

High

156.2 34.1

63.2 29.3

151.1 33.4

322.4 34.2

163.9 32.5

156.2 33.4

152.4 32.5

148.3 32.6

84

WHITE

AND

WILKINS

tistical variance was associated with the RX main effect (F( 1,32) = 11.05, p < .005) and the RS X EC (F(1,32) = 14.99, p < .OOl), RS X HL (F (1,32) = 44.25, p < .OOl), and EC X HL (F(1,32) = 5.00, p < .05) interactions. The entries in Table 2 suggest that RS main effect and these lower-order interactions reflect the significant RS X EC X HL higherorder interaction and do not identify additional differences. DISCUSSION

The results of these analyses, taken together, show that while there were statistically nonsignificant differences between the performance of Repressers and Sensitizers in the Control group and statistically nonsignificant differences between Repressersand Sensitizers receiving low bogus physiological feedback, there were significantly higher responsethresholds for Repressers and significantly lower response thresholds for Sensitizers under conditions of high bogus physiological feedback. These results serve to extend the validity of bogus physiological feedback as an analog procedure in psychological research. Bogus feedback procedures have previously generated results paralleling the effect of chemical intervention and, in the present study, have generated results consistent with previous personality research. Not. only are bogus arousal feedback precedures of a definite pragmatic utility in psychological research, but these results, together with other related research, offer theoretical implications for the R-S personality dimension, emotion, psychophysiology, and psychopathology. The single dependent variable chosen in this study to validate bogus feedback procedures does not provide for a differentiation of perceptual variables from responsevariables. As such, an empirical resolution of the issue of perceptual defense vs response suppression in relation to the R-S dimension cannot be deduced directly from the data. However, an examination of the methodological procedures unique to this study offers implications bearing upon that issue. The method employed in the present study differed from most previously reported methodologies in the areas of perceptual defense in at least four aspects: (1) the stimuli presented were more ambiguous-TAT cards presented at fast. exposures rather than words; (2) there were no external criteria for the correctness of a response-response threshold was recorded at S’s first verbal report of the slide, not when S verbalized a response which correctly mat,ched the stimulus presented; (3) experimental Ss were instructed that the dial reading measured their level of physiological arousal, not the degree to which they were threatened; and (4) emotionrelated cues, through bogus feedback procedures, were varied independently of the content of the stimuli presented. From the means generated by Repressers and Sensitizers who received

BOGUS

PHYSIOLOGICAL

FEEDBACK

85

no bogus feedback, it appears that the slides, in themselves, communicated little or no threat or emotion to either Repressers or Sensitizers. If the slides, per se, communicated any threat, Control Repressers should have had higher thresholds than Control Sensitizers; however, Table 2 shows just the opposite pattern. Further, it is evident from point 4, above, that the characteristics of the visual stimuli, per se, do not account for differences in performance. The same slide was associated with different response thresholds depending on the level of bogus feedback which accompanied the slide. From these considerations, it does not appear to be the actual quality of the stimulus that determines response threshold for Sensitizers and Repressers, but rather it is S’s emotional state-or, most relevant to the analog, the information received about S’s emotional state-that affects response threshold. Given feedback of physiological arousal, Represser and Sensitizer mechanisms were applied nonselectively even to stimuli which were neutral in the absence of bogus feedback. The nonselective nature of Represser and Sensitizer mechanisms argues against the case for selective perceptual processes as contributors to threshold differences and suggests that an account for these differences might better be provided by response bias interpretations: Repressers employ more conservative response criteria and Sensitizers employ more liberal response criteria under conditions of high bogus physiological feedback. That there were no external criteria for the accuracy of S’s responses (methodological point 2, above) would also seem to offer more latitude for response biases, as opposed to perceptual processes, to affect performance. Methodological considerations also suggest that the range of stimuli affected by Represser and Sensitizer mechanisms may be considerably wider than those originally formulated by Byrne (1966). As long as S is emotional or receives information indicating arousal, not only may threatening stimuli be processed by Repressers and Sensitizers, but nonthreatening or even nonemotional stimuli may be subjected to the same processes. Point 3, above, precludes the interpretation that Ss must necessarily have perceived the dial reading as an index of threat. The possible interpretation that the slides accompanying high bogus feedback must necessarily have conveyed threat is further attenuated by previous research procedures involving both chemical intervention and bogus feedback which have been shown to affect not only negative emotions and attitudes (Schachter & Singer, 1962; Bramel, Bell, & Margulis, 1965), but also positive emotions and attitudes (Schachter & Singer, 1962; Schachter & Wheeler, 1962; Valins, 1966). It may be, in some cases, that actual emotion-producing qualities of stimuli lead to the implementation of Represser or Sensitizer mechanisms; however, it appears from the results of this analog procedure that the state of emotional arousal rat.her than

86

WHITE

AND

WILKINS

the emotion-producing qualities, per se, of certain stimuli lead to the application of these mechanisms. The results of this study are also related to the formulations on emotion presented by Schachter and Singer (1962). Previous evidence resulting from manipulations of actual physiological activity (Schachter & Singer, 1962; Schachter & Wheeler, 1962; Nisbett & Schachter, 1966) and bogus physiological feedback manipulations (Bramel, Bell, & Margulis, 1965; Valins, 1966; Wilkins, 1971) indicate that if Ss experience change in physiological activity for which they have no immediately available explanation they will engage in a search of environmental cues to provide an adequate account and label and express emotion in a manner consistent with those environmental events. Barefoot and Straub (1971) also documented the importance of search activities in providing an account for bogus feedback of physiological activity. The present study suggests, further, that individuals differ, in a predictable direction, in the search through which an explanation for physiological change may be obtained. Repressers appear to engage in a search strategy involving a more conservative criterion for a recognit,ion response under conditions of high bogus physiological feedback, while Sensitizers exhibit a more liberal criterion in reporting the recognition of stimuli accompanying high feedback. A final implication to be drawn from the results of this study and other studies employing bogus physiological feedback procedures involves the role in emotion played by naturally occurring physiological events. If, as it has been demonstrated in bogus physiological feedback studies, information presented independently of ongoing physiological activity, by itself, generates results which paralleled those produced by changes in actual physiological activity, then it, becomes a distinct possibility that the critical role played by actual physiological activity in emotion is simply as a source of information. Other aspects of actual physiological activity may not be as critical or necessary in accounting for emot,ional events as their information value. In light of earlier work conducted by Wyatt and Campbell (1951) and Davison (1964), the information emanating from a person’s physiology may function as a constraint set (Davison, 1964) reducing the veridicality of interpretations of environmental events and, as presented by Wilkins (1971)) increasing the probability of a distortion or misinterpretation of environmental stimuli leading to deviant-appearing behavior. REFERENCES J. C., & STRAUB, R. B. Opportunity for information search and the of false heart-rate feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 154457.

BAREFOOT,

effect 1971,

BOGUS PHYSIOLOGICAL

FEEDBACK

87

BRAMEL, D., BELL, J. E., & MARGULIS, S. T. Attributing danger as a means of explaining one’s fear. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 267-281. BYRNE, D. The Repression-Sensitization Scale : Rationale, reliability, and validity. Journal of Personality, 1961, 29, 334349. BYRNE, D. Repression-Sensitization as a dimension of personality. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research. Vol. I. New York: Academic Press, 1964. BYRNE, D., BARRY, J., & NELSON, D. Relation of the revised Repression-Sensitization Scale to measures of self-description. Psychological Reports, 1963, 13, 323-334. DAVISON, G. C. The negative effects of early exposure to suboptimal visual stimuli. Journal of Personality, 1964, 32, 278295. GAUPP, L. A., STERN, R. M., & GALBRAITH, G. G. False hear&rate feedback and reciprocal inhibition by aversion relief in the treatment of snake avoidance behavior. Behavior Therapy, 1972, 3, 7-20. GOLDIAMOND, I., & HAWKINS, W. F. Vexierversuch: The log relationship between word-frequency and recognition obtained in the absence of stimulus words. Journal of Experimental PsychoEogy, 1958,56, 457463. KENT, R. N., WILSON, G. T., & NELSON, R. Effects of false heart-rate feedback on avoidance behavior: An investigation of “cognitive desensitization.” Behavior Therapy, 1972, 3, l-6. NISBETT, R. E., & SCHACHTER, S. Cognitive manipulation of pain. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1966, 2, 227-236. POSTMAN, L., BRONSON, W. C., & GROPPER, G. L. Is there a mechanism of perceptual defense? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1953, 48, 215224. Rum, R. A., & KRAUSS, H. H. Perceptual defense versus response suppression. Jourd of Psychology, SCHACHTER, S.,

1968,69,

33-37.

& SINGER, J. E. Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 1962, 69, 379-399. SCHACHTER, S., & WHEELER, L. Epinephrine, chlorpromazine, and amusement. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962,65, 121-128. VALINS, S. Cognitive effects of false heart-rate feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966,4, 400-408. VALINS, S., $ RAY, A. A. Effects of cognitive desensitization on avoidance behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 7, 345350. WILKINS, W. Perceptual distortion to account for arousal. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1971,78,252-257. WYA~, D. F., & CAMPBELL, D. T. On the liability of stereotype or hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1951,46,496500. ZAJONC, R. B. Response suppression in perceptual defense. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 64, 206214.