Personality differences in responding to noncontingent reinforcement

PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES IN RESPONDING NONCONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT H. WISEFIELD

ANTHOW

of Psychology. Thr Umlersily

Department

and

of Adelaide. Australia

J.&NETA.

TO

ROURRE

P.O. Box 499. Adelaide.

South .Australia 5001.

Summary-Subjects exposed IO noncontIngent reinforcement in ;1 cogmlive task wre cslegorlzed on the basis of their subsequent perfcrrnunce into one of three croups: those showing fxil~lalion. those shownp interference and those showing no effect. The purpose was IO ascertain whether the groups differed in personality. Using Cattell‘s I6 PF 1cs1. it was found that subJecls showing facilitatwn enhlbiled ;LdIKerent personality protile than SubJecls rho*inp no elect. By conlr;Lsl. suhjecls showing interference did not ditTer significantly from subjects shwlng no etTccr. It is argued that experiments demonslwting human helplessness may have dlsgulwd the fact that not merely do not all subjects become helpless. but that a minorily may react In the opposite manner. The orlF’n;‘I dog enperlmcnts demonstrated bimodahly m performance (inlcrfcrencc or no clfccl). In humans it stems that lhcre may be lrimodality In performance (inlerfercncc. fwlitatwn or no t3Tcfc). The present cxpcnmsnt heyins lo cwminc pcrwnality E~clors that may mcdlarc such pcrfornwncc dilTcrcncc\-

Lcarncd

rcfcrs

liclpl~s~ncss

to impairctl

pcrformuncc

induced

(rcspc’nsc-noncontin~crlt)

outcomes.

It was originally

1967;

1067)

has since been rcportcd

the

Scligman original

& Maicr, animal

uncontrollable shuttle

box,

clcctric

1975)

shocks

took

many studies

ever taken

experiments.

F’or this

is an appropriate Wincficld.

intcrfcrcnce)

(e.g.

19YI;

for

attempt

Roth

&

or

intcrfcrcncc

91 Scligman,

had

humans.

been

theory

shocks

of learned

in performance.

In

exposed

to cscapc from

to in ;I

helplessness

but merely

to immunize

outcomes

for example.

fail

whether

elTccts obscrvcd

In

them

ascribed against

to

proposed

(hclplcssncss) and that

the term ‘learned

rather

explain

1966).

occurs

such

This

will

Another

facilitation

theory

depend

between

Although

both

of possible

theories

is

(Jardine

(as

assumes

well

as

that whcthcr

on the amount

them

individual

problem

learned helplrssncss

will

of prior

bc curvilinear.

address

clyccts. they have not received strong

to take account

in the dog

helplessness’

than intcrfcrcnce

a model integrating

the relation

(1980).

in no case has the reported as was the USC

in humans.

facilitation

order

(1975)

and intcrfcrcncc

and they

in humans,

in performance

reactance (Rrehm,

has been made by Roth

19X9)

(197X)

A

the problem empirical

dilfcrcnccs

of

support

in responding

outcomes. reformulation

seeks to explain

that whether

on lvhcthcr

;I ‘global’

helplessness

will

experiments

to learn

dcticits

have questioned

1975).

and Rrehm

of psychological

attributional

attribution

which

t‘hc original

S’s have reported

Kubal.

Wortman

both facilitation

Barber,

Teasdale

dogs

failed

breakdown

the interference

human

to uncontroll;tblc

to uncontrollable The

the

to uncontrollable

spccics including

GLSCS. have hclpcd

performance

some writers

using

(reactance)

explaining

in other

bimodality

in some

of ;I complctc

reason.

and the theory

similar

obscrvcd

might,

have rcportcd

description

rlTccts,

facilitation exposure

harness

Icarnccl normally.

of this

which

the form

that some experiments

theory

third

of

exposure

in dogs (Ovcrmicr

(p. 7-l).

Although

&

two-thirds

in ;I Pavlovian

no ;~cco~nt

it to the clogs’ p:~st history helplcssncss

about

cxpcrimcnts

but the remaining

(Scligm;tn,

deficit

antI

by prior

dcmonstr~~tcd

learned

(as opposed

persist

is given.

of hclplcssncss individual

The

over

time

usefulness

has been questioned

theory

difTcrenccs

hclplcssncss

will

to ;I ‘specific’) depends of this

gcncralizc attribution

on whcthcr assumption

by some writers

proposed

in terms

is given,

in explaining & Curtis.

Scligman

attributions.

to new learning

a ‘stable’

(e.g. Oakes

by Abramson,

ofcausal

situations

depends

and that whether

(as opposed results 1987).

and

It is assumed, learned

to an ‘unstable’)

of human Moreover,

helplessness the revised

theory uho

does not attempt

make internal.

attempt

seriously

specific

to explain

and unstable

by tryin, 0 harder

to compensate

facilitation

effects

beyond

(e.g. lack of effort)

on the next

task

date

no

characteristics

systematic detininp

those who show for this

those

outcomes

purpose

uncontrollable xariablc

the experiment

outcomcs lY70).

much grcatcr pcrformancc no clTcct.

variability

It was

pcrsorialily mcasurcd

sccnis

i\ith

I.‘cw/or

rcspcct

abstract

and ;ire quitters.

tligh

higher

reuctance

and low

Fdcfor

scorers

C (~wro~icmr//~~

arc easily

pcrturbcd

not let cmotional likely

Fwfor

frtr.sltrhlc

e.xpcctcd to show values.

and

low

Loiv scorers

seems indicated

with

lo high

indolent

respect

disciplined.

High

scorers

seem indicated

High

High

with

Ftlc/or I (1oq4 reliant. Again.

practical

respect

no predictions

were

mental

(whcrc

lhc primary

prccisc,

objcctivc.

No

prcrliction

capacity,

judgment.

inability lower

learning.

l’asl

>ecm more

would

scorers adjust

amI

arc sober,

might

show

likely

to

morale bcttcr

to

show

get rmotion;il

when

mature.

to facts. High

frustrated.

stable.

scorers

calm,

would

do

seem

docile

;lnd

and rcbclliou,.

humhlc.

Thus

High

scorers

high scorers

are

would

bc

helplessness. rctlcctive,

serious.

cheerful.

slow.

happy-go-lucky.

be expected to show

cautious

frank,

reactance,

and stick

quick.

alert

and

but no clear prediction

scorers. Low

scorers

to this

logical.

gcrlcrall/;ition.

carclcss.

poorer

arc emotionally

to show

scorers

;irc

arc persevering.

quitting.

active.

tickle.

determined.

rcxtance

are shy. timid,

arc adventurous.

ttritlc/clc/-rc~trcf~,r and

by ;I pair

to ShO\V helplessness.

bvould be expected to show

scorers

or of the

char;iclcristics

factors,

critical.

arc insightful.

Low

headstrong

Ftwfor I/ (.s/r~~~-.~~t,ttc~trt~.sott~~,), Low scorers and considerate.

cshihit

on most

riial;iclapl~~~

;ird

low

show

arc submissive.

scorers

.c.otr.sc.if,tllioIr.v).

and undcpcnd;tblc.

show

factc~rs and prcdictionx

trusll‘ul

scorers

scorers

scorers

scorers

L.;I~UCS. Low

C; (c.vptdttwI

High

arc enthusiastic.

rctlcct the group Fu.irc.lor

Eber

would

or fxilit;ition,

pol:ir

second o&r

show

capacity,

situation

scorers

and low

t Iigh scorers

(Cuttcll.

outcomes

significantI)

dctachcd.

casual.

scorers

sftrth).

ol‘a

independent-mirided,

rc;Ict;lncc

The

lour

organixd.

High

up.

xllities Low

Ftrcror F (sohcr -ittlpl.sirc,). to inner

mental

-ettrotiotrcll!l,

needs obscure

aggressive.

the I6 PF

the

to

helplessness.

to give

re;ict;ince

Low

pcrsovcring.

to show

E (/tlrtrrh/t,-cf.c.srrlir.t,).

assertive.

responders

on the depcndcnt

and that they would

and

dillcr.

ol‘thc

cast

well

less

high

arc

and tend

to show

measures

of

to

masterable.

of

intcrfcrcnce.

the description

;irc easygoing.

LV bc

show

and

scorers

SK

\vould dill’cr

arc rcscrvcil.

ittrt,lli,ycw/).

arc apt

morale

types

inventory,

exposed

factor.

-tttort’

problems,

judgment.

more

to lhis

is readily

three

as bhvlving

Ss

the

exposed

arc given.)

scorers

1ligh scorers

U (lc.s.s itt/(*/li,ytvll

(In lhc

than

Ss

etTcct may be viekvcd

to uncontrollable

~voul~l

Imtlctl.

L.ow

identify

lo iriappropriatc

subgroups

it involves

task

does not

Rather.

in Lvhich each factor. is surnrnari/cd

Ivhcrc

lo give rise

arc sigriilicantly oul,qoirt,~).

helplessness

and

the reason

helplessness.

helplessness

than control

inventory

arc givcri hclou.

arid sccptical.

LV;IS made

handle

they

.,I (r~*.sm~~*~/

tlistrusll’ul

likely

learned

on a test

personality cxposcd

the groups

Spccilically,

that tlio cxpcrirncntal

by ivhich

I,irc.lor

that

Possibly

~vell as test task.

to bc classilicd

in the I6 PI:

phra\c\.

they sccmcd appropriate)

x

pcrformancc

them

iriclutlcd

hq the flict0r.s

it was prcdlctcd

that Ss

in suhscqucnt permitting

or

(pretest).

to

personalit!

facilitation.

outcomes.

bvhich. in itself.

was

1975).

identify

lvho show

displa!

learned

to a task here

them on a standard

further

adjcctivcs

The

to

Specificall>,.

ivorse

Ss.

reaction

hypothesised

factors

polar

significantly

It was hypnthcsized

dilTtxcnccs

actually

bet\veen groups.

control

baseline

those

may 1980.

as interference

Sr Brehm,

attempts

used in demonstrating

described

by using

and then to cornpart‘

&I Tatsuoka.

factors

performing

that

failure

Sr Seligman.

as uell

FC’ortman

to uncontrollable

individuals

differences

and no treatment

Garber

facilitation

interference.

exposure

which

or maladaptive.

of

reported

show

design

to identify

outcomes

as an inappropriate. The

prior

on demonstrating

to uncontrollable controllable

been who

experimental

the experimenter

etfect depends

has

individuals

no effect. following

is that the triadic

enable

of

research

that individuals

for an initial

(.Abramson.

P. 22). The only theories that have attempted to explain overall take little or no account of individual differences (Roth. 1930; To

assuming

attributions

and low scorers

emotionally

friendly

frivolous.

responsible

to show helplessness.

cautious,

and impulsive.

self-indulgent. and emotionally

restrained. No chxr

careful

predictions

factor. ttlitdd).

High

Low

scorers

are

made concerning

this

scorers

are

tough-minded.

tender-minded, factor.

insecure,

unsentimental, gentle

and

sclf-

sensitive.

Personality

Fuc~or L (trrtsring-suspicious). scorers are jealous, Fucror

suspicious,

differences

Low

;tl @ructical-imuginafirr).

,V forrhrighl-shrercd). there

Low

Low

seems no reason

pliant

No predictions

scorers are practical,

scorers nature.

to expect

are forthright.

to changes guided

and tolerant. realities

content artful

would

and

to be no good reason

unpretentious.

reactance-helplessness

High

this factor.

by objective

appear

scorers are astute. worldly.

High

that

283

were made concerning

and absent-minded. There would to be mediated by this factor.

comes and have blind trust in human Again.

reinforcement

scorers are trusting,

tyrannical.

steady. High scorers are imaginative for expecting reactance-helplessness Fuclor

and noncontingent

with

what

and insightful.

be mediated

by this

factor. Factor 0 (pluck-upprehensive). Low scorers are self-assured, resilient, expedient. unafraid and rudely vigorous. High scorers are worrying. anxious. depressed. overcome by moods, hypochondriacal

and inadequate.

Low scorers might

be expected

helplessness. Fuclor Q I (conserl.cltil.e-e.rperirtlctrtirrg). scorers are experimenting. liberal. analytical

to show reactance

Low scorers are conservative of temperament. High and free-thinking. High scorers would be expected to

show reactance and low scorers to show helplessness. Fuctor Q_’ (grwp tkperrtlent -.sc!l-slrfflcicnt). Low scorers are sociably and

sound

followers.

High

scorers

are self-sufficient

and

urges and arc carclcss of social rules. High scorers arc controlled. Thcrc seems to bc no reason to suppose that this factor would

[ligh

~err.re). Low scorers arc rclaxcd.

scorers arc tcnsc, frustrated.

to show

rcactancc

driven.

amI high scorers

tranquil,

overwrought

to show

group

resourceful.

expected to show reactance and low scorers to show helplessness. Factor Q_’ (lortli.rc.iplirrctl-cr,rl~roll~~(l).Low scorers are uncontrolled.

ellticts. Fuc.tor Q4 (relt:.rcd

and high scorers to show

dependent,

High

scorers

lax, tend to follow

‘joiners’ might

be

their own

socially precise and compulsive. mediate rcact:lncc-hclplessncss

torpid,

and fretful.

unfrustrated

and composed.

Low scorers might

bc cxpcctcd

hclplcssncss.

S~~c.on(l-ortk~rJirc~~v Q1 (itlmwerreri e.~~rcrrw[td). (Primary factors involvod: A + , E + , F f , H + , Q2-.) Low scorers tend to bc introvcrtcrl and high scorers to bc extravcrtcd. There is cvidcncc that introverts. more likely

as classilicd

tasks (Tiggcmann, would

by Eyscnck’s

personality

to hccomc holplcss than oxtravcrts

show

Win&Id

helplessness

Sr Brcbncr.

qucstionnairc

in an cxpcrimcnt

1982). Consequently,

and high scorers would

show

(Eyscnck

91 Eysenck,

using instrumental it was prcdictcd

1975). arc

test and training that

low scorers

reactance.

Secorrtl-order /ilc.lor Q/l (/ON irr ut~xi~~~~+-/~i,~lt in unxiet!). (Primary factors involved: C- , H - , L + , 0 +, Q3 - , Q-I + .) Low scorers arc well adjusted, high scorers are anxious. Low scorers might bc expected

to show

rc;Ict;lnce

and high scorers to show helplessness.

Secwrrl-ortkr /i~clor Qfll (Iencler n~itderl-lolrgh minded). M - .) Lou scorers show a tendency to feel rather than think. There seems to be no good Secotd-order

jirclor

Q/l’

reason to expect that this factor

(Primary factors involved: A - , I -, High scorers are more cortically alert. would

(.slrhthrctl-itr(l~~perltkmr). (Primary

Q I +. QZ+ .) Low scorers arc subdued

whereas

mediate

factors

reactance-helplessness.

involved:

high scorers are independent.

bc expected to show facilitation and low scorers to show helplessness. In summary, the following personality profile for individuals showing

E +,

L +,

M + ,

High scorers would

reactance.

or facilitation

is anticipated: B+. C+, E+, F-, G+. 0-. Qlf. Q2+. Q4-, Ql+, QII -, QIV+ (for each factor ;I negative sign represents greater proximity to the first of the polar adjectives describing each factor, and a positive sign rcprescnts grcatcr proximity to the second of the polar adjectives). personality profile prcdictcd for individuals showing helplessness. or interference is as follows: C-,

E-.

G-,

O+.

Ql-.

Q2-,

Q4+.

QI-.

Qll+.

The B-.

QIV-.

METHOD

The Ss were 57 volunteers or acquaintances

from the general

of the second author.

Their

population ages ranged

(24 men and 33 women) from

who were friends

16 to 55 yr (M = 25.14). AII were

native speakers of English. Ss were allocated to the experimental group (n = 44) and to the control group 01 = 13) in such a way as to match the groups with respect to age and sex distribution. This

2Y-l

H. U’INEFIELD and JANET A. ROLRKE

ASTHWY

resulted

in the experimental

group

comprising

(hl = 15.38. SD = 12.63) and the control of

16-50

larger

yr

(M = 24.00,

than

the control

SD

= 12.10).

group

was

19 men and 25 women.

group (The

comprising

reason

the intention

with

an age range of 1655

5 men and 8 women.

for making

to divide

with

_eroup so much

the experimental

it into

three

yr

an age range

subgroups.)

,Uaterials The

treatment

each task.

Ss

task

vary along four or kvhite). The

(large

Ss

with

and test tasks median

form

All

Ss

anagrams.

As you know,

of two minutss

problems

values

for each: shape (circle or triangle).

color

(black

anagrams

IO anagrams

(circular

or square).

selected

from

were matched

for

lists

prepared

by

both

frequency

of

time.

A of the

16 PF

personality

the experiment,

were then given the following anagrams

you

Ss

with

have

(Cattell

completed

instructions:

arc words

for each enc. When

inventory

the letters

1970).

A of the 16 PF You

will

tell me what

have a time limit

it is. If you arc right,

I will give you the next enc. If you are wrong,

I will tell you and you can try again.” rccordcd

IO anagrams

f;ollowing

completion

inslructions: to show Each

“I

have

you sonic

pattern

one pattern look

can vary by saying

in four

but

notccl

ways,

prcclctcrmincd

‘problem’

50%

three

for

you,

group

wcrc

called concept

Ss

wcrc then

each enc.

given

the following

problems.

I am going

on it, one on the Icft and one on the right. siLc,

color

and border.

allows

I want you to choose

or not you have chosen

you to choose

correctly

After

each one. the S was asked:

aflirmativcly.

correctly.

on each card. You

Each

you think

thcrc

he/she was asked to state the rule. The

reply

‘problem’

of ‘correct’

comprised

I6

and

‘incorrect’

following

were called ‘correct’

and 50%

‘incorrect’,

scqucnccs

to solve

of ten seconds.”

given.

sequence

of the rcsponscs

(The

rule which

wcrc presented. was

rcquircd

I will tell you whcthcr

;I m;iximum

no fcsdback

the time

in the cxpcrimcntal

that is shape. and

It’ the S answered

clitTcrcnt. ‘incorrect’.

fi)r

‘problems’ rule?”

Ss

of problems

Each card has two patterns

‘Icft’ or ‘right’

al c;ich card

I~;IS ;I cc)nsistcnt

scrics

to find ;I consistent

‘l‘hrcc difl.crcnt

was

of the prctcst, dilfcrcnt

il

cards.

I avant you to try may

and the cxpcrimcntcr

personality

like you to try to solve some

jumbled.

the word.

found

form

“I would

cl trl..

given

the

For could

border

two figures.

1966). figures

IO 5-letter

two sets of

(Levine. The

of surrounding

each comprised The

concept learning

cards each containing

two possible

before commencing

inventory.

Levine-type

16 stimulus

and shape

(1966). solution

completed

Immcdiatcly

three

with

or small)

and Mayzner

use and for All

dimensions

size

pretest

Tresselt

comprised

were presented

wcrc as follows:

“Did

trials

with

Ss

receiving

each response. with

ICICICICCICCICII.

the lasl

In

;I

each

lwo cailcd

CICICCICICICCIII

and

IICCCCIICCIIccII.) Ss

in the control

wcrc instructed

I ask you.”

Each

t-ollouing follo\ving

“tiow

you

completing Lvcrc you

following

bcforc attempting

that

you

you

to try

procedure

will

the trcatmcnt

will

and trcatmcnt

tasks

wcrc under

some

Ss

shown

as for

and test tasks. arc you

then

the pretest

task.

the cards.

each card when

the concept

the cxpcrimcntal

Ss

the anagrams,‘concept All

control?”

questions

wcrc given the

which

arc similar

presented

the experimental

to do the concept

to solve

All

anagrams were

Ss

with

the

were asked

the

problems~anngrams’?” problems~anagrams?”

were asked

wcrc you to do the anagrams/concept your

simply and turn

the test task.

more

bc the same.”

be able

bc able to solve

would

carefully

to complete

to solve

the same procedure

you

the task but wrre pattern

3 SK.

were required

I. “HOW motivated

arc you

the prctcst

each stimulus

for

like

The

I. “H ow motivated that

study

all Ss

uould

two questions:

the following

problems?” problems?”

kverc answered

2. “HOW 3. “How

2. On three

confident much

on a scvcn-point

did Scale

I = not at all. and 7 = cxtrcmcly.

At the conclusion dcbricfcd. task

task.

bcforc.

IO anagrams

you feel that lhings with

“I

did

conlidcnt

qucslions:

“Please

card was presented

instructions:

Immcdiatcly f~~llowirig

tvho were not asked to attempt

the trcatmcnt

to the OIW remaining

group,

as follows:

Particular

was not solvable.

of the experiment care was taken All

Ss

seemed

all Ss

were thanked

to reassure perfectly

Ss

for their

participation

in the experimental

happy

with

their

group

participation

and thoroughly that the treatment in the experiment.

differences and noncontingent

Personality

reinforcement

285

RESL’LTS The groups

were well matched

the respective

mean latencies

on the anagrams

pretest.

No S failed

any of the anagrams,

were 24.49 set (SD = 15.40) for the experimental

(SD = 16.77) for the control

group.

group

and

and 26.47 set

r(55) < 1.00.

For each S. a ratio score was calculated by subtracting the mean pretest latency score and dividing by the mean

the mean test task latency score from pretest latency score. A positive score

showed improvement (facilitation) and a negative score showed deterioration (interference). This was felt to be a more reliable measure than the simple difference score because of the large between-S

variation

in anagram

solving

ability.

The mean ratio

the experimental group and 0.29 (SD = 0. I I) for the control in variance between the two groups was highly significant. means. on the other

hand.

did not differ

significantly,

the mean.

lay within

On this basis it was decided

these limits

to classify

(0.1 2 - 0.46) as showing

(SD = 1.82) for

r(55) = 1.39, P > 0.05 (although

variance assumption was of course seriously violated). The range of ratio scores was 0.13 - 0.45 for the control from

scores were -0.42

group. As predicted. the difference F(43. II) = 273.75. P < 0.001. The

group

the equal

so that all lay within

those experimental

I.5 SDS

Ss whose ratio

scores

no effect. those whose scores were at least 3 SDS

below the control group mean (-0.04) as showing interference and those whose scores were at least 3 SDS above the control group mean (0.62) as showing facilitation. Only 7 Ss did not fit into any of thcsc three categories and their results were dropped from subsequent analyses. leaving a reduced total of 37 expcrimcntal Ss. Of thcsc, 8 were in the no efTect subgroup, IS wcrc in the intcrfcrcncc subgroup

and I I Ss wcrc in the facilitation

subgroup.

The mean ratio

scores were 0.22 for the no

subgroup and 0.65 for the facilitation subgroup. The clTcct subgroup, - 1.54 for the intcrfcrencc subgroups had not dilycrcd significantly on the pretest with mean latencics of 22.97 XC (SD = 15.33) for

the facilitation

subgroup,

3 I .20 see (SD = 19.34) for

the no clfcct

subgroup

(SD = ti.6h) for the intcrfcrcncc subgroup. F(2. 34) = 1.66, P > 0.05. Table I shows the ratio scores, and sex profiles of the three cxpcrimcntal control

group.

As can bc seen. the interference groups (67% vs 47%/u), although

the other x2( I) = 2.24, P > 0.05. Rcsponscs to the prc- and shown in Table 7. Overall on any of the questions.

post-test

subgroup contained the difrerencc was

qucstionnuires

and the

women than significant, subgroups

significant differences between lower perception of control

the test task

(compared

with

their

responses

F( I, 34) = 7.09. P < 0.05. and for reported

confidence,

2. it was the no effect, and facilitation

The interference

group

exhibited

little

following

the pretest).

For

arc

the subgroups following the

task, F( I, 34) = 5.40, P < 0.05. motivation and confidence before

rcportcd contidcncc sifter completing the treatment Finally. there was an overall increase in reported

Table

19.36 SW

trc;\tmcnt task than following the pretest, F( I, 34) = 90.50, P < 0.00 I 1confirming of the experimental manipulation. Similarly there was a significant reduction

(unsolvable) elTectivcncss

from

subgroups

rclativcly more not statistically

for the three expcrimcntal

there were no statistically There was a significantly

and

reported

the in

attempting motivation,

F( I, 34) = 9.2 I, P < 0.0 I. As can be seen

groups

that were responsible

for the increases.

change.

The next series of analyses attempted to produce personality profiles based on the I6 primary factors and 4 second-order factors of the I6 PF inventory. Table 3 shows mean sten scores (and SDS) for the experimental and control groups on each of the I6 primary Factors and 4 second-order factors. There were no significant differences scores (and SDS) for the three experimental The

initial

indcpcndent

analysis variable

comprised and

on any of the factors. subgroups.

a multivariate

the 20 primary

analysis

and second-order

Table I. Charactcmws of three cxpcrimcntal

1n1errcrcncc No ctTcct Fac~h~~ion ControI

IR

6

R II I3

5 6 5

I? 3 5 8

of

Table

variance

factors

with

subgroup

as the dependent

subgroups and con~ol

- I.SJ 0.22 0.65 0.29

4 shows the mean sten

I .97 0.04 0.10 0.1 I

as the variables.

sa3uaJalj!p +I ‘p cyql?l UIOJJ II?UO!)3”J!p 3~3~

sJo)3I:J

61’9

(f9.1)

Zi’L

(LC’ I)

0l.L

(L9.f1

c9 9

Ii9

I)

5,01x)/ (IL’!)

Z6L

(fX‘I) (06’1) (L9’1) (99’ qro (6O’i) (Z9.1)

(SS’I) IC9

(OO’i)

(90

i)

IC c

00 P

(Oi’i)

5-x 9

(Xl)

Sl’9

(t-l’i)

I Ii’;)

L9’9 IS’9 XS’9

=

(PC

I? 3J3qM

3J3qM

1sq

SJO)X:J

=

a)

3q)

L6 9

(iO’i)

XC’S

(98’1)

i6‘9

109.1)

LL b

(6L’Il

(60’;)

s I ‘i

(56. I ) f L’9

LL’9

(86

5X.f

(xl)

LL’S

(6S’I 1 (9X I) (xX.1) I)

SI’S

(XV’I)

(9X’

‘13343

JO

dIlOJ8

1’UI!

d

=

m)

UO

OU

(60.;)

Al0 Ill0 lb

rb rb :b IO 0

N N -1

LS’S

I H

YC’S I)

LS’C

!3 3

09’9

(06’1)

3

SE S

(WI) (6t

Sh

3

9L.9

R

V

I) LX’t

CDUaJ3JJ3)U!

U! SlSI?J)UO3

dllOJ8

llO!]l:]!]!XJ

JOA

‘9s’~

XJq)

X/l

]SOul Slynq SSXJ~K,Il~>qIlS)

(SL’I)

dIlOJ8 al{)

=

ssnl

=

(tc

U3q)

pUC 3q) SJ~)~ITJ

pCWUI?ld ‘(‘)E’g

=

iy)

(XL’L = w) JO]WJ

OU 3q) ‘I()‘()

>

dIIOJf!

‘)Wj)l

OU

JOI~I:_I

U!

s!y)

i6 0 6X.0

f9 G ho’<

i0 0i.l

GO

l6P

IS.1

;R’;

6s’ I

I

SL’C

=

(pt‘

x’; 19s

;c I SI I

JO

sanux3.1j!p p~:q

UO!lI?l!~!3l’J

JO~

WS~l”UI:

‘(nib u!

110 uxq

Y)!M

=

nij~

u0!1xp5~d :~X~‘ll.“(~J’~d

pull 3pvUl

JO )3S ));3U 311) /cq SV)

‘((,X’S

‘10 prlI

3lI.L

1’““01[‘?) ‘S()‘()

=

W)

>


JllOJ8

)U3!3!l]IlS-J1,7S

‘(~U”!~~~~“‘-J~“S

(SC.9

3JOUl

)U3I’U”d”l’)

W)

JIlOJ8

JIIOJS

)33_1):,

UO!)~:)!I!~I?J

hew!.!d

~013~~

SSS.i~CUC

311) J~.J

3)l?!Jl:.4!Un

pssl?q uoyxu!mddu

uo

19 r

LC

JO:!

SS;nl JO) “i)d

PUC

10

53UI?!JCh

S.SYI!+‘,

6X l’

Cl’1 I

‘50’0

>

J

s.ol?~ %!sn

,“alu,P5,, N,,V ,s>,xd ,a,,V .li)J,“cn pant2s,>d ,531 aloJag ,sawd ‘a,,V :>3uapyuo3 ,sa, a,ojag ,sa,xd J~IJV :“OW!*l,O~<

90’S I I’S

Ii I f9 I

X~ul?hpl:

33U>J3JJ31U!

UO!)l!)![!3l:J 311)

()U3pU”d3P

‘6z.9

“4)

Su!nq (9c.s = cy)

~JOUI

p3)lIlS”J

‘I?\>wI:~

iI.; Xr’r oc r

00’S S; t

Ii.1 LI’I

(,1‘,3,,?“I3 rrar.4) L; I 8Zl

6O’f

ryr”, WnJsnul.

XRI rtL

IE’I rr.1

OS t rl 5

09 I ZS I

LZ’S

Sh

qx3

KJ~:uI!J~)

p3S!JcfUlOCl dIlOJ;7

dnoJ9 J>\‘J”-}W”““S

UITl{) J

.7DU3J;)JJS)U!

8U!)U3UI!J3~K,

‘(~u!)u~~U!J~J~,~~~A!)I~AJ~SUO~) ~UCX$U8!S

I? u! p.7)~Il”SJ

00 9 St 5

09’0 6;‘I

I

Alb

q)!M

W)

JO)

‘;)d

S,7XK,J,?L)!p

)ucn!l!u~!s

)S2_ll:,

;)I]]

‘(bC.9

(3~!1I?hJ~si103

>

JO

‘()p)_d

3Sll3

133_1)” OU 3q)

‘(XN3pUXbpU!

al/) ky)

iCJIXlI!Jd

rjloq uuyl

(8~

~unpu”dnpu!

Jo)

‘l)d

(&= JO]XJ

nyl

‘go.0 .7y]

=

Ilb

I ) ZLI’E ,“‘L’.‘“~ 0L’9 LR’f 59’9 L6’9

(IX’l) IX 9 (l’6’ I ) X0 b

(05.1) i6P (Pi’ I) LL L

i6.b

(Sb’O)

UI?~I JaicaL? 3Ja.m sdnoJ2 i3ada ou put uo!Ic1!1!31:j aq~ uxht13q 3q um ~1: ‘lwau23 UI .palonb am sanlm d paly-3uo *apw usaq

~33s

JI?313

siseJiuo3 pmuryd (p:uoSoqvouou) 0~1 ZU!M~~I~J .mpJo-puonns pur! @ ‘zo ‘IQ ‘0 ‘9 *:I ‘2 ‘3 ‘[I

SUO!&Xp3Jd

‘(b8.s

(pmpqns ‘LC’C

ZM3J3JJ3)Ul $?ll!>q & ou

q)!~

31()

‘SJOIXJ ‘(8.1

s-

00 P

L9 I St'I

2i t

ii I 61’1

J%w ‘JOJ% .~3”~py”o~ M,JV =?wJ :“o!,e.wo~~

XL i l’6.f 9i t tt’t

69 I i9’ I

-y’rv ruawrnal~

9x:

pauo!lsanb asnesaq

pue

aheq

swpm

‘UOScaJ

[IZU~JO

ssaussaldlaq

pauJea1

~0 Klp2wJou

s!ql

~uetu

JOA

slew!ue aql

‘Xem

UO!lt?laJ q3”a

,SS

J!aqI

PUr!

u!

‘sawoDIn ‘I[e

le

YSCl

st!

ISal

‘15aJa

3yewneJi p!p

KlawaJlxa pue IBM

asncsaa

S!qJ_

SSJl./l

SaJO3S ~0)

uaA!3

U!

pasn WOJJ

01

iCpnlS

IOU

a.~cy

‘I”!YM

UO!lSSJ!p ‘( - po

JO

aU0

3JaM

‘Lg.1

S

PUr!

qD!qM

pavadxa

asUC)JDJJalU! d

PUC

‘(asu3i

dnOJ8

OU PUI’

)UCDtJ!U3!S

JO

(+/\I0

3q1 u! aJaM

UO!)C,!l!3l?J

= (Pf)I

‘luapuadnp

PUI:

/$I0

aql

SSSl

Ssal)

so

pllI2

dnoJ3

>

= (PC)1

SCM

JO l iclU0

>

J

pur:

s3op

ou

ucwny

apew

u! umoys

‘s5Jnsc3w

W~JJ

~2~03s

S2JO3S

JO

Aaql I3aJa

au!lascq

alqeJt?dwoD lUaWlcaJ]aJd UO!,C)!~!X?J

It?]wiu!Jadxa

JO

UO!]llq!J]S!p ]UJW]C2J] ySnoq1Iv puodssJ

JO s]lnss~

JaL/)!CVl

CC~U~J~JJJ~U!

(+A10

‘-lib

JOJ .~pnw

>

J

Ul

q~

~I:~~‘!lsyrTls

‘( -&

PUr:

al/l JOJ ‘ISl:J]UO3

‘+ln

241

‘gs.1

,/

‘-0 ;I

>

‘-3) JO

[[

= (PC)/

110

= (tc)I .I

L]l!M

~~~L~“‘:OJddI!
U! J%\O[)

‘I’s’1

DJOLLI)

Q)‘()

>

Cl

‘(.lA!SU~1{.7Jddl:

:SJOl?l!l

J.7~‘JO-}“lO”.‘S

dllOJ3

UO!1l?1!~!.7l?J

11OA.7n~llnJ~~l]![’

I”“.llCI OU PUI:

sqi

‘(lu~y[~ns-_~~.7s

~Vn!]s!ll!)s

yiCln!xul!

:g()‘() > ‘JOqOS

p”J>.l1!1’

ll.‘l:“Jddl:

.SdnOJ3

01 ].).7ChJ

= (t$-)1

JOJ aSUl:D!@!s

‘J.7AO7JOC4.l ‘50’0

= (PC)1 10 SS,,l

Il:S!]S!ll?]S

3110 @IO

suo!~~!l~~.‘d

pslcdguc

$1’0

0~)

p>lIHl’>Jd

“)(,‘I SS.ll)

‘(,7AlSlndwI

OU 3111 WOJ_1 .il]Ul!~!~!U3!S

%I!3

SI:.M a~aqi

s!yl

llS!I+M

dnOJ8

PUC

z

-11~‘-~~‘+~~‘+I~‘-o’+~‘-~~‘+~

po J3qlO

SnDUsJ~Jl!p

Q)‘()

‘3A!]l?AJ.7SUOD


InalJ:,

‘~>UI:>!]!U3!S ‘lo)

ayl

h1t?uosJad

5JOw)

kJI?w!Jd

ss.71) AJO ,7JOW

:S()‘()

UO dnOJ3

UO!~I?I!~!~I:J

JOJ sa]yoJd

‘p3xclaJ

:SJO]nCJ

UO!11:1!~!“l?~ Dql llCQMl.lq ‘panpqns

‘(3U!lU2W!J>dX~ 0

CKIJl{]

= (t+)I dIlOJ3

put?

~IT~!30~0~n.kd)

aq 01 ss

anc%

pasnpoJd

ou

~LI!.%IO~~OJ AlIuaJaJ]!p

~Joll:JOldxa

~lll?D!lS!H?lS

pamdxa aql U! aJ3M suo!ls!paJd I I aql a3ucny!u%!s IC~!IS!ICIS pay3voJddc

* + ~0)

/flll:“!IS!1l71S uo!i3aJ!p

‘+a)

>

]“aJ]S

5JOW

= (tit-1

3JOW) AJl:W!Jd

OM1

‘()I ‘0 > d ‘(jf’l

s~uaw!~adxa

01 IJoda

aJa++4

JO suoycJ)suowaa

a.tr:q .hjl

~0~1~0s

SS!J

IITaJ3 lICJ3h0

01 aJnSOdXa

aAeq

adcssa

Jeal3

pauJca[

u53q ‘ss

IUaWlCaJI-ISOd

‘(aDUI?lrG?aJ

SC pay!ssl:ls &l!q”!Jl?A

aJuaJ>jJalu!

IUa8U!lUO~UOU 3~0~1s

y3OyS io!lcpow!q

01 alqrun

sno!AaJd

UO

UO SaJO3S

8u!moys

QJeal3

aql

(uo!lcl!l!Dvj

01 IJoddns

u! ssaussaldlaq

LjJ!Ssvl3

OMI

UO!,EslJ!SSRlD

aDuaJaJJalu!

alqeqs!nZuys!p

‘PUT.?

paD!paJd

IuawasJoJu!aJ

aql

IOU

:paAJasqo

alzcq suewry

~0 sa!pnls

paqDlI?W

Sl?M

pauJeal)

‘sdnoJ3 OSl”

UJeal

Jaqi!a Jahau

Ienp!A!pu!

SWEJ%t?UE

E UO paSl?q

‘(ssaussaldlaq

3uyqEua SB aql

ss

uewnq SYSE,

JO uos!Jr?dwoa ou

I”np!A!pu!

‘pals!paJd

Icluaw!Jadxa

a~qI?~~oJIU05Un)

~(sawoDln0

cap!

aql

paJoJJ!w

s!y

pssn IOU aA2eq sswssaldlaq qI!M

IDa3Ja

JO

aql

leql

sIcnp!A!pu!

~3111:3!~!113!s

‘( -z(), psyDr?oJddn -3) Afl

lUCn!~!IJ3!S ‘+3

‘dnoJ8 ‘O[‘() DJOW SdnOJ8

‘(Iuapusd.7pu! ‘%(,‘I

SS.71 ‘plsI?ld

&

‘]Sl:JlUO:,

(lUs!J!llllS-~l”S-n.,U.lpUndsp

(Xl) Yi'Y (;Y IJ YY'Y

p”1”!l>“Jd

~~ll~J~~~J~1”!

Dtll

.711) p![’

21/l Us,7Ml.Dq

(l-h I J l-x’s (hi I, hX’9 (Ii’ll SS’L (YY I, OI’Y

(i9’l I CL.9 (LS’IJ I KY

(S8.1) (lt’l) (IL’O, (09 I I (R; II

(911’1)i8.9 (K ;) ;I P ..(RL.l) OX’S (Gr’;J Of 9 (08’1, RL 9 (5 ITI 9s.t (Of’,) 95s (06’1) 8;‘L (;I’;) tt.s (IL I) ;;‘j (S-6 I) E8.f (i9’1, RL’9 C;;‘:) 8;9 (00’;) 00 5 (5 1.1) 9s.9 (051) 00 5

OC’L h‘i C $19 Ri 9
I) oor

(;b

(SC-I) 5: r (o;I) 00 L

(SL~I) (69.1) @c~;, (0”‘) LL Ko’;l (l-9 II t1r.1, (L& I)

K’S

009 00 c r9.1 SC.9 (I’S OS’9 8i’S

whether

the

helplessness

interference theory,

of alternative

effects

that

have

or are appropriately

explanations

occurred

have been proposed

Frankel

Br Snyder.

1978;

Kuhl.

lability.

is responsible

for

exposed

to repeated

failure

1953)

which

the interference. on a task

need to be explained

characterized

as ‘learned

(e.g. Boyd. assume

19s::

that

Frankel

Coyne.

repeated

& Snyder

react by trying

less

in

terms

helplessness’. htetalsky

failure.

(1978)

of

Indeed,

learned a variety

Bi Lavelle.

rather

than

for example.

1980;

uncontrol-

propose

hard on a subsequent

task

that Ss

as a form

of

ego defense. The

problem

although

of separating

& Winefield,

1981:

by

to

exposure

reported

here

Kofta

Although

not

to

achievement

(Cohen.

Rothbart

Pittman.

lY79). For

than identifying ‘rcactanco’

display

those

arc of value

personality cntcrprisc

prolilc must

Icvcl.

controls

but

(if one exists)

bc to identify

for individual

dili’crcnccs

one showing

facilitation on scvcrat

er III.,

tY70).

although

those

showing

Further

research

replicated

the

point

personality

technique

could

of control

ncssjreactancc

Ss

of view,

factors

developed

reinforcement locus

using

fitting

well

be used for

extravcrsion

facilitation who

resourccfulrtcss

failure. either

to

variables identified

of control Pittman t’r trl.,

(Rosenbaum

that extreme

groups

to uncontrollahlc

&

1951).

& JafTc,

(in

terms

outcomes,

intcrfcrcncc). involved

of

rather

those who showed

in the rlevcloprncnt

they

arc able

person.

cxpcrirncnt.

in Cattell’s

this

personality

finding.

(Cattell,

to see whether and

rather

showing

overall

need to Third.

there is any correlation

of those

style.

responses

personality

been shown

than

no effect. be

interference

be useful.

attributional

that have already

based

interference, 1965; Cattell

the findings

would

on the basis of their

investigation

the Ss

First,

profiles

groups

reactance)

demonstrating

which

that the three groups

t 6PF

from

at the

measure.

one showing

a

step in this

merely

not

ratio

01

to provide

lirst

distinguishable

performance.

differed

The

Icvcl. Our

(or psychological

experiments

individuals further

been

(Tiggcmann

We wcrc able to show

described

be interesting

motivation,

have

at the individual

helplessness;‘reactance

here for classifying

and achievement

no cffcct.

the different

it would

1974:

to which

and pretest

factors

Second,

mediating

locus

Hiroto,

(or hclplossncss-prone)

to substantiate

tasks.

IYSJ),

1970;

mcchanisnts

the extent

helplessness)

needed

Kuhl.

gave rise to three clearly

showing

(learned

instrumental

effects

a theoretical

it was the Ss

is clearly

using

facilitation

and one showing

IYSI:

(shoucd

in the present

in ability,

difTerence

variables

in rcsponsc

or facilitation

pcrformancc

of the personality

interference

in

this

experiment task

have been reacting

or individual

on showing

possibic

intcrfcroncc

The from

no cfrcct.

of the helpless

bctwccn test task

also tlilTered

showctl

limit4

WC seem to have achicvcd

on the relation

IYSO).

hccamc ‘hclplcss’

who

failure.

(Buys

can be induced

such

& Wright.

and tearned

dilrcrcrtccs

who

arc

Winefield,

Chart&r

& Carver.

in suggesting

they

several

have rcticd

significant

and those

hctplcssncss’

Pr

IYSJ),

studies

individuals

(facilitation)

studies

such

could

into personality

outcomes.

Sr Tiggcmann,

part.

perceived

19S5)

uncontrollability

me identified

research

(Glass

of

difficult.

) and interference

to both.

Gregory,

proneness

Barnott

the most

one of the variables)

group

or

has proved

19s I

& Tiggemann. of

the etTects

(Jardine

1976;

Barnett

whom

failure.

motivation

Rr Phillips.

experimentally

S: IVinetield.

independently

separate

uncontroltablc

coronary

(Winclicld.

‘learned

to

(Jurdine

Winefield.

outcomes

designed

or to perceived

responses

including

1989;

there has been no systematic

mediating

Such

uncontrollability

the three types of responders

uncontrollability,

1083).

from

& Sedek.

uncontrollable

was

consequently

IQ

failure

there is evidence that both facilitation

or from

between

Finally,

the

to noncontingent variables.

to mediate

such

as

helpless-

etTects.

.l~.X~~r~~~~l~~r~~~~~~~~~~~/.~--Thir rcscarch ~3s conducrcd by rhc second author drgrcs of B.A. (Ilonourr) undrr rhc supervision of the first aurhor.

in partal

fulfilmcnl

of the rcquircmcnts

for the

REFERESCES Abrumson. L. Garber. J. Press. Abramson. L. /0rrrnul of

Y.. Garbcr. & Sclipman.

J. Br Scligman. M. E. P. (1980). Learned hclplcssncss in humans: an attributional analysis. In M. E. P. (Eds). Ifw~wr /wlp/~wwr~: %wr~~ cm
Y.. Scliyman. M. E. P. & Tcasdalc. A h~rornlul P.~~dlolqr, s7. .l9 -7-l.

J. D. (1978).

Learned helplessness in humans: cntiquc and reformulation.

6R;

IuaUJXJOJUlaJ

,Ua%J!lUOXJOU

pUC

Sa3UXa~tp

i,l],?UOSJad