Relationships between psychometric and experimental measures of arousability

Person. individ. DQ$ Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 225-231, Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved

RELATIONSHIPS EXPERIMENTAL PAUL

M. KOHN,*

1987 Copyright

0191-8869/87 $3.00 + 0.00 :Q 1987 PergamonJournalsLtd

BETWEEN PSYCHOMETRIC AND MEASURES OF AROUSABILITY MICHAEL

York University, North

P. COWLES and KATHRYN LAFRENIERE York, Ontario. M3J lP3, Canada

(Received

5 Mav

1986)

Summary-Subjects (N = 53) responded to the Extraversion Scale of the Eysenck Personality Inventory, the Reducer--Augmenter Scale, the Reactivity Scale, and the Strength of Excitation Scale of the Strelau Temperament Inventory. They then performed visual and auditory magnitude-estimation tasks plus visual and auditory reaction-time tasks. Finally, they set the volume of a stereo tape-recorder to their preferred level while listening to popular music. These procedures enabled us to intercorrelate four psychometric tests and nine experimental indices, all presumably relevant to arousability or ‘strength of the nervous system’. Although the tests intercorrelated highly while the experimental indices were somewhat less univocal, there were few significant cross-correlations between psychometric and experimental measures. all but one quite low (under 0.30). The highest single cross-correlation. that between the Reducer-Augmenter Scale and stereo volume, r(5l) = 0.40. P < 0.01, seems largely attributable to test content specifically dealing with musical volume preferences. Furthermore. significant cross-correlations involving a composite psychometric index and various composite experimental indices were also few and quite low. The particular psychometric and experimental indices of arousability studied here seem to constitute two solitudes.

INTRODUCTION

Some concept of central-nervous-system arousability is central to several current theories of individual differences. Notable examples are the concepts of subjective augmentation vs reduction of stimulus intensities (Petrie, 1967), introversion-extraversion (Eysenck, 1967), reactivity (Strelau, 1983) and strength of the nervous system (Nebylitsyn, 1964). Several authors have pointed out the similarities among some or all of these theoretical constructs (e.g. Barnes, 1976; Davis, Cowles and Kohn, 1983; Eysenck, 1981; Gray, 1964, 1967; Strelau, 1982). The consensus of theoretical interest makes measurement a critical problem. Existing psychophysical measures are cumbersome, however, and there are serious doubts about the reliability and validity of Petrie’s (1967) kinesthetic-figural-aftereffect measure of augmenting-reducing (e.g. Brass, 1978; Morgan and Hilgard, 1972; Weintraub, Green and Herzog, 1973; Weintraub and Herzog, 1973),t and several of the measures of strength of the nervous system originating in the the most popular psychophysiological measure of East (Strelau, 1983). Furthermore, augmenting-reducing, the cortical average evoked potential (AEP), may even have ‘reverse validity’ in that people who augment on the AEP correspond to what Petrie (1967) calls reducers, while those who reduce on the AEP correspond to Petrie’s augmenters (Davis et ul., 1983; Strelau, 1982). Thus, the desirability of a reliable and valid test for arousability is evident. This study examines the reliability of four tests and their correlations against experimental measures of strength of the nervous system. Indices of the latter construct were chosen because augmenting-reducing and introversion+xtraversion have been translated into the terms of strength-of-the-nervous-system theory (Barnes, 1976; Davis et al., 1983; Gray, 1964, 1967), while the concept of reactivity derives from it (Strelau, 1983). The chosen scales are the Extraversion Scale of the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI-E; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1968), Kohn’s (1985) Reactivity Scale (RS), the Strength

*To whom reprint requests should be addressed. tone research team (Baker, Mishara, Kostin and Parker, 1976; Mishara and Baker, 1978) rebutted such criticisms as follows: (a) There are consistent differential carryover effects between KFA-augmenters and KFA-reducers from pretest to pretest which make retest reliability of KFA difference scores an inappropriate index of true reliability. (b) Reliability of the KFA in terms of internal consistency is more than adequate. And (c) correspondingly, appropriate measures based on the first pretest only correlate predictably with validity criteria. Unfortunately, while the first two points are now generally conceded, recent studies have failed to demonstrate criterion validity for KFA measures based on the first pretest only (Davis, Cowles and Kohn, 1984; Herzog and Weintraub, 1982). 225

226

PAUL M. KOHN rf ul.

of Excitation Scale from the Strelau (1972a) Temperament Inventory (STI-SE) and Vando’s (1970, 1974) Reducer-Augmenter Scale (RAS). The nine experimental measures are as follows: slopes and mean judgements for brightness and loudness magnitude estimation (Reason, 1968; Sales and Throop, 1972); slopes and means for reaction times to lights and tones of varying intensities (Keuss and Orlebeke, 1977; Reason, 1968; Sales and Throop, 1972; Strelau, 1983); and personally set volume for listening to recorded popular music (Davis. Cowles and Kohn, 1984; Kohn, Hunt. Cowles and Davis, 1986). Reason (1968) found that the slope of the auditory magnitude-estimation function was positively related to the slope for auditory reaction time, an accepted measure for strength of the nervous system (Nebylitsyn, 1972a; Strelau, 1983). Sales and Throop (1972) replicated this finding, and also found both measures positively related to absolute auditory threshold, another accepted measure for strength of the nervous system (Nebylitsyn, 1972a), and the kinesthetic figural aftereffect. Petrie’s (1967) measure of reducing-augmenting. Findings correlating the slope of the reaction-time function for lights and tones of differing intensities to arousability measures have been mixed. Eastern researchers have consistently found that persons defined by other measures as having strong nervous systems display steeper slopes than persons with weak nervous systems (Nebylitsyn, 1972a; Strelau. 1983). On the other hand, the observed relationships between slope measures and extraversion have varied considerably. Mangan and Farmer (1967) and Zhorov and Yermolayeva-Tomina (1972) reported introverts to show steeper slopes than extraverts, thus identifying extraversion with the weak nervous system contrary to the formulations of Eysenck (198 1) and Gray (1964, 1967). Gupta and Nicholson (1985) recently failed to find any relationship betwen the slope function for visual reaction time and extraversion, although low neuroticism scorers on the EPI showed steeper slopes than did high neuroticism scorers. Keuss and Orlebeke (1977) examined the relationship between choice reaction time to tones of 5&105 dB, both at 1 and 3 kHz, and extraversion. At 1 kHz, there was no difference in the slopes for introverts and extraverts; however, extraverts displayed significantly faster reaction times across stimulus intensities. At 3 kHz, reaction time first speeded up and then slowed down. Furthermore, the transition occurred at lower intensities for introverts than for extraverts. The authors suggested that the transition reflected the threshold of transmarginal inhibition or the theoretical point “at which the relationship between stimulus intensity and responsiveness shifts from positive to negative” (Keuss and Orlebeke, 1977, p. 140). This should, if one equates extraversion with the strong nervous system and introversion with the weak nervous system (Eysenck, 1981; Gray, 1964, 1967) occur at lower intensities for introverts than for extraverts. Finally, the stereo-volume measure has been found to relate significantly to scores on the Reducer-Augmenter Scale (Davis et al., 1984; Kohn et al., 1986). Detailed analysis, however, suggests that this relationship may well reflect purely the factorial content of the RAS which refers to musical preferences, notably concerning loudness (Kohn et al., 1986). The stereo-volume measure was included here, nonetheless, because Kohn et al. (1986) found (but did not report) that it also related positively to extraversion on the EPI and because its relationships to RS and STI-SE, the remaining two tests of arousability used in the present study, were unknown.

METHOD Fifty-three undergraduate volunteer subjects (27 males and 26 females) responded to the Eysenck Personality Inventory, the Reactivity Scale, the Reducer-Augmenter Scale, and the Strength-ofExcitation Scale presented on the monitor of an Apple IIe microcomputer. Subjects responded by pressing an appropriate key and the order of presentation of the tests was counterbalanced across subjects. After completing the inventories, the subjects underwent a pair of magnitude-estimation tasks. Lights of intensities of 122, 224, and 740 lux were projected onto a diffusing screen. The 224-1~~ stimulus was initially presented three times as a standard and assigned a value of 100. Subjects were asked to base their numerical judgements on subjective ratios to the standard. These same stimuli, each appearing seven times in the same order as previously, were used in simple reaction-time

Measures

of arousability

227

measurement. Each stimulus appeared seven times, and order was randomized within subsets of three stimuli, one of each intensity. Subjects underwent similar magnitude-estimation and reaction-time procedures to three I -kHz tones of 45, 70, and 85 dB. The ordering of stimuli followed the same principles as above but was based on a different randomization. The presentation of the experimental tasks alternated between two orders: (1) auditory magnitude estimation, visual magnitude estimation, visual reaction time, auditory reaction time and (2) visual magnitude estimation, auditory magnitude estimation, auditory reaction time, visual reaction time. The magnitude estimation tasks were always presented first in order to eliminate the possibility of startle reactions at the commencement of the reaction-time tasks which were to follow. Finally, subjects listened to a popular song of the late 1960s (‘Summer in the City” by the Lovin’ Spoonful) on a Sony reel-to-reel stereo tape-recorder and were given instructions to set the volume as they would normally do to enjoy such music at home. Subjects’ settings of the volume controls for the left and right channels were subsequently recorded. The following measures were derived from the experimental procedures: (a) stereo volume based on the sum of the control settings across channels;* (b) slope for auditory magnitude estimation based on rise/run for the ratio of the difference in mean log estimates for the loudest and quietest tones to the difference in log values (i.e. decibels) of those stimulus intensities; (c) slope for visual magnitude estimation, analogously computed (using the difference in log lux as the denominator); (d) slope for auditory reaction time based on rise/run for the ratio of the difference between the logarithmically stabilized mean reaction times for the loudest and quietest tones to the difference between those decibel values (by logarithmically stabilized, we mean that the antilogarithm was taken of each mean log reaction time so as to minimize the biasing effects of extremely slow responses);7 (e) slope for visual reaction time, analogously computed (using the difference in lux as the denominator);; (f) mean log auditory magnitude estimate across all trials; (g) mean log visual magnitude esnmate across all trials; (h) mean log-stabilized auditory reaction time across all trials; (i) mean log-stabilized visual reaction time across all trials. Additionally, a composite psychometric measure was created by computing the z scores for each scale score and summing them after first reverse-keying the Reactivity Scale, which correlated negatively with the other tests. Four composites were similarly created for the experimental measures: Composite A, based on all nine measures; Composite B, based on eight measures, i.e. all but the slope for auditory reaction time; Composite C, based on the first five measures, i.e. stereo volume and the four slope measures; and Composite D which used four of these five measures by excluding the slope for auditory reaction time. The rationale for Composite C is that the first five measures are more conventional than all nine (e.g. Sales and Throop, 1972; Strelau, 1983). The rationale for Composites B and D is that the standardized slope for auditory reaction time

*Clearly, a decibel reading would be more objective than the summed dial-setting we used. The necessary equipment was regrettably unavailable at the time of this study. However, an unreported finding in some previous work (Kohn et al., 1986) was that the dial-setting and decibel reading measures correlated highly, r(74) = 0.95, P i 0.001. tour chosen measure for the slope of auditory reaction time is not one of the conventional ones (see Strelau, 1983). More common indices include the ratio of the mean reaction time for the least intense stimulus to the main reaction time for the most intense stimulus, and the sum of the ratios of the mean reaction times for all but the most intense stimulus to the mean reaction time for the latter stimulus. Correlations of our chosen measure against these and some other logically possible alternatives, both in log-stabilized form and not, ranged from 0.84 to 0.91 in absolute value. Furthermore, our measure provided the highest correlations against psychometric tests in 22 out of 24 cases, (The 24 cases are based on six alternative slope measures x four psychometric tests.) four chosen measure for the slope of visual reaction time showed correlations ranging in absolute value from 0.76 to 0.91 against six alternative slope measures analogous to those considered for the slope of auditory reaction time. It yielded the highest correlations against psychometric tests in 22 out of 24 cases. (For further details, see footnote above.)

PAUL M. KOHN et al.

228

correlated poorly with the sums of z scores for the other measures in Composites A and C. The last four measures in Composites A and B had to be reverse-keyed before transformation to z scores because of their relationships to the other measures (see Table 2). The psychometric composite had an alpha reliability of 0.80. Experimental Composites A, B, C, and D had reliabilities of 0.68, 0.74, 0.54, and 0.62 respectively. RESULTS

Reliabilities

and intercorrelations

of psychometric

tests

Alpha reliabilities and intercorrelations for the psychometric measures appear in Table I. The reliabilities were satisfactory: 0.76 for Extraversion. 0.79 for Reactivity. 0.85 for the Reducer-Augmenter Scale, and 0.75 for Strength of Excitation. The intercorrelations were generally quite high, ranging from 0.45 to 0.66 in absolute value. (The Reactivity Scale is conceptually reverse-keyed relative to the other measures: i.e. high reactives contrary to extraverts. reducers and high strength-of-excitation subjects have ~wrk nervous systems.) Thus. the four tests notably so the Reactivity Scale and the seem to be tapping conceptually similar content. Reducer-Augmenter Scale. Rdiubilitirs

and inter~orre2ation.s

of erpesimentrrl

tmw.suw.s

Alpha

reliabilities were computed as follows for each experimental measure: stereo volume: by treating the control settings for the left and right chanrlels ;1s items; slope for auditory magnitude estimation: by subtracting the log magnitude estimate for the 45-dB tone from that for the 85-dB tone for each of the first to seventh trials at those intensities and treating the differences as items; slope for visual magnitude estimation: analogously computed to the reliability for the slope (3) for auditory magnitude estimation; slope for auditory reaction time: by taking the antilogarithms of the ditferences between (4) the logarithmic reaction times to the 85-dB tone and the 45-dB tone for each of the first to seventh paired trials at those intensities and treating the antilogarithms as items; slope for visual reaction time: analogously computed to the reliability for the slope for (5) auditory reaction time; mean log auditory magnitude estimation: by treating the log auditory magnitude esti(6) mation for each of the 21 trials as an item; mean log visual magnitude estimation: analogously computed to the reliability for the (7) mean log auditory magnitude estimation; mean log-stabilized auditory reaction time: by treating the log reaction time for each of (8) the 21 trials as an item; and mean log-stabilized visual reaction time: analogously computed to the reliability for the (9) along with the mean log-stabilized auditory reaction time. * The alpha reliabilities intercorrelations among the experimental measures appear in Table 2. Most measures showed satisfactory reliabilities ranging from 0.89 for the slope of visual magnitude estimation to 0.99 for stereo volume. The reliability for the slope of auditory reaction time was marginally satisfactory at 0.62, while the value of alpha for the slope of visual reaction time was a wholly unsatisfactory 0.05. The problem may well be that the range of stimulus intensity we used, 122-740 lux, while sufficient for reliable measurement of magnitude estimation slopes, is too narrow to measure the slope for reaction time reliably. Anyway, our range is clearly lower than that typically used, e.g. 0.02-2000 lux (Gupta and Nicholson, 1985; Nebylitsyn. 1972a). Although there are some high intercorrelations in Table 2, it is clear that the experimental measures as a set are less univocai than the psychometric ones. Surprisingly. some fairly high correlations occur across modalities, tasks and types of measures (e.g. slopes vs means).

(1) (2)

*Some readers

might wonder why the computation of the item-equivalents for the four slope measures reflects only the numerator terms of the rise/run measures. It is because the denominators, being constant across items for each measure, would, therefore, not affect the values of the alpha reliability.

229

Measures of arousability Table

I. Correlations

among

psychometric measures system (N = 53)

of strength

Extraversion Scale Reactivity Scale Reducer-Augmenter Scale Strength of Excitation Cronbach’s Alpha

3

4

0.48’ 0.85

0.75

2

I

I. 2. 3. 4.

of the nervous

-

-

-0.45’ oso* 0.46’ 0.76

--0.66* -0.45* 0.79

lP < 0.01. Table 2. Correlations I

I. Stereo volume 2. Slope of auditory magnitude estimation 3. Slope of visual magnitude estimation 4. Slope of auditory reaction time 5. Slope of visual reaction time 6. Mean log auditory magnitude estimation 7. Mean log visual magnitude estimation 8. Log-stabilized mean auditory reaction time 9. Log-stabilized mean visual reaction time Cronbach’s Alpha ‘P

< 0.05.

**p

<

among

experimental 2

measures

of strength 4

3

of the newous 5

system (N = 53) 7

6

9

x

0.31* 0.15 0.30’ 0.03

-

-

-

0.54** -0.01

-0.13

0.36**

0.36”

-0.01

_

-

-0.3s**

-0.56..

-0.40**

-0.19

-0.45**

-0.56**

0.19

-0.14

-0.22

0.37’.

-0.41**

-0.20 0.94

-0.17 0.89

0.08 0.62

-0.53** 0.05

0.01 -0.17 0.99

-0.12

-

-0.05

-

0.04

0.50**

-

-0.08

-

-0.06

0.07 0.90

0.10 0.93

0.781’ 0.97

0.96

0.01

Cross-correlations

between psychometric and experimental measures

The key data, the cross-correlations between psychometric and experimental measures, appear in Table 3. Few cross-correlations proved significant. Two notable exceptions involve stereo volume on the one hand, and EPI-E and RAS on the other. The latter correlation was particularly high (0.40). Factor analysis of the Reducer-Augmenter Scale in an earlier study revealed three factors interpreted as Musical Reducing-Augmenting, General Lifestyle Reducing-Augmenting, and

Table 3. Correlations

between

psychometric

and experimental

Extraversion Scale I. Stereo volume 2. Slope of auditory magnitude estimation 3. Slope of visual magnitude estimation 4. Slope of auditory reaction time 5. Slope of visual reaction time 6. Mean log auditory magnitude estimation 7. Mean log visual magnitude estimation 8. Log-stabilized mean auditory reaction time 9. Log-stabilized mean visual reaction time IO. Experimental composite A (nine items) I I. Experimental composite B (eight items) 12. Experimental composite C (five items) 13. Experimental composite D (four items) ‘P

<

0.05. **P

<

0.01.

0.29.

measures

Reactivity Scale -0.13

of strength

ReducerAugmenter Scale

0.29*

0.05

0.02

0.09

0.20

0.05

0.04

-0.11

0.06

0.10

-0.351’

0.07

0.08 0.18

-0.04

Psychometric Comoosite

0.10

0.06

-0.19 -0.19

system (N = 53)

Strength of Excitation Scale

0.40**

- 0.03

0.19 0.1 I

of the nervous

0.23 0.09 -0.15 0.20

-0.01 0.1 I 0.16 -0.12

0.05 0.23 0.17 .0.14

0.16

0.26

-0.10

0.02

0.03

-0.21

--0.16

0.19

0.16

-0.08

0.23

0.1 I

0.18

0.12

-0.04

0.19

0.0x

0.13

0.26*

-0.14

0.29.

0.14

0.26

0.2 I

-0.08

0.23

0.11

0.20

230

PAUL

M.

KOHN ef trl

Physical Thrill Seeking (Kohn et al., 1986). Furthermore, the significant relationships between RAS and stereo volume in that study (r = 0.24, P < 0.05) proved to be based solely on the Musical subscale (r = 0.51, P < 0.01 between that subscale and stereo volume). Here also stereo volume correlated substantially and significantly with the Musical subscale (r = 0.46, P < O.Ol), but not with the other two factor-based subscales. The only other significant cross-correlation. a negative one (-0.35) between visual magnitude estimation and the Reactivity Scale, is theoretically counter-intuitive and can only be justified by reference to the negative relationship between slope and mean level for visual magnitude estimation. (See Table 2.) The correlation between RAS and the slope for auditory reaction time approached significance, r (51) = 0.23, P < 0.IO.[An incidental finding was that EPI Neuroticism correlated significantly with one experimental measure, the slope for auditory reaction time. r(51) = -0.27, P < 0.05.1 Consideration of the composite measures is enlightening. In only one of 16 cases did an experimental composite correlate significantly with a psychometric test, specifically the five-item Composite C and RAS. Three other cross-correlations approached significance, namely Composite C and EPI-E, the nine-item Composite A and RAS, and the four-item Composite D and RAS (P < 0.10 in all cases). The psychometric composite correlated significantly with only one experimental measure, stereo volume (r(51) = 0.29, P < 0.05), although the relationships of that composite with the slope for auditory reaction time and with mean log visual magnitude estimation approached significance (P < 0.10in both cases). Finally. the psychometric composite did not relate significantly to any experimental composite, although the relationship between experimental Composite C and the psychometric composite came close (P < 0.10). DISCUSSION

Following the original rationale of this study as a comparative validation of alternative psychometric tests for arousability, one would have to declare RAS the clear winner, with EPI-E second, RS a poor third and STI-SE nowhere in sight. However, the original rationale now seems to be somewhat beside the point, this being that the psychometric tests on the one hand and the experimental indices on the other seem to be measuring two fairly distinct sets of phenomena. One might say that the tests and indices used in this study essentially constitute two solitudes. A possible explanation for these findings resides in the concept of ‘partial’ as opposed to ‘general’ properties of the nervous system: that is, the notion that properties like strength of the nervous system or, in broader terms, arousability differ somewhat by specific modality and task. Evidence for the partiality phenomenon has been provided by Ippolitov (1972) and, most notably, by Strelau (1972b, 1983) and it was extensively discussed by Nebylitsyn (1972b). The latter identified general properties of the nervous system functionally with the regulation of behaviour and adjustment to consequent feedback, and structurally with the anterocentral cortex; in contrast, he associated partial properties with the processing and integration of sensory information, and with the retrocentral cortex as a structural locus. The implication seems clear that strong relationships are hardly to be expected between measures of general properties, psychometric or otherwise, and indices of partial properties, experimental or otherwise. Yet this appears to be precisely what we, following the logic of much previous research, tried in vain to find in this study. Interpreting our findings in these terms raises some underexamined and not fully resolved issues. What kinds of measures other than psychometric tests are appropriate to assess arousability as a general property of the nervous system? How should one validate psychometric tests of this property? One possibility which Nebylitsyn (1972b) proposed was to study the impact of temperamental differences on task performance, a challenge taken up with considerable success by Strelau (1983) and his associates (e.g. Eliasz, 1985; Friedensberg, 1985). Another possibility would be to study what one might call pathologies of over- or understimulation, e.g. Type A behaviour, burnout, boredom, and dropping out. If one seriously applies the distinction between general and partial properties to arousability, the would-be creator of psychometric tests in this area must pursue a course of construct validation rather than simplistically attempting criterion validation against such experimental indices as those used in this study.

Measures

231

of arousability

Acknowledgements-The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of Dr Caroline Davis, Steven Nusinowitz and Roswitha Roese in the execution of this study, and the analysis of the data obtained. The work was facilitated by Research Grant No. 410-83-1270 (to P. M. Kohn and M. P. Cowles) and Leave Grant No. 451~850764 (to P. M. Kohn) from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

REFERENCES Baker A. H.. Mishara B. L., Kostin I. W. and Parker L. (1976) Kinesthetic aftereffect and personality: a case study of issues in construct validation. J. person. sot. PsychoI. 34, l-13. Barnes G. E. (I 976) Individual differences in perceptual reactance: a review of the stimulus intensity modulation individual difference dimension. Can. psychol. Rev. 17, 29-52. Brass E. R. (1978) An analysis of perceptual styles: are there reducers and augmenters? (Doctoral dissertation, Duke University, 1977.) Dissert. Abstr. Inl. 38, 6136B (Univ. Microfilms No. 7807575). Davis C., Cowles M. and Kohn P. (1983) Strength of the nervous system and augmenting-reducing: paradox lost. Person. indicid. D$f:

4, 491498.

Davis C.. Cowles Person.

M. and Kohn

P. (1984) Behavioural

and physiological

aspects

of the reducinggaugmenting

dimension.

individ. 01% 5, 683-691.

of temperament. In The Biological Bases qf Personality and Behavior: Theories, Meusurrment and Derelopmenf, Vol. I (Edited by Strelau J.. Farley F. H. and Gale A.). Hemisphere, Washington. Eysenck H. J. (1967) The Biological Basis of Personuliry. Thomas, Springfield, IL. Eysenck H. J. (1981) General features of the model. In A Model,for Personality (Edited by Eysenck H. J.). Springer, Berlin. Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1968) Manual qf the Eysenck Personality Inventory. EdITS, San Diego. CA. Friedensberg E. (1985) Reactivity and individual style of work exemplified by constructional-type performance. In The Biological Bases qf Personality: Theories, Measurement Techniques and Development, Vol. I (Edited by Strelau J., Farley Ehasz A. (1985) Mechanisms Techniques

F. H. and Gale A.). Hemisphere, Washington. Gray J. A. (1964) Strength of the nervous system and levels of arousal: a reinterpretation. In Puvlor’.s Tvpolog,v (Edited by Gray J. A.). Pergamon Press, New York. Gray J. A. (1967) Strength of the nervous system, conditionability and arousal. Behac. Res. Ther. 5, 151 169. Gupta S. and Nicholson J. (1985) Simple reaction time, personality and strength of the nervous system: a signal detection approach. Person. individ. D# 6, 461469. Herzog T. R. and Weintraub, D. J. (1982) Roundup time at personality ranch: branding the elusive augmenters and reducers, J. person. sot. Psvchol. 42, 729-737. Ippolitov F. V. (1972) Interanalyzer differences in the sensitivityystrength parameter for vision, hearing and cutaneous modalities. In Biological Bases OS Individual Behavior (Edited by Nebylitsyn V. D. and Gray J. A.). Academic Press. New York. Keuss P. J. G. and Orlebeke J. F. (1977) Trdnsmarginal inhibition in a reaction time task as a function of extraversion and neuroticism. Acta psychol. 41, 139-150. Kohn P. M. (1985) Sensation seeking, augmenting-reducing, and strength of the nervous system. In Morirarion, Emorion and Personalify (Edited by Spence J. T. and Izard C. E.). Elsevier, Amsterdam. Kohn P. M., Hunt R. W.. Cowles M. P. and Davis C. A. (1986) Factor structure and construct validity of the Vando Reducer-Augmenter Scale. Person. individ. D@. 7, 57-64. Mangan G. L. and Farmer R. G. (1967) Studies of the relationships between neo-Pavlovian properties of higher nervous system activity and Western personality dimensions: I The relationship of nervous strength and sensitivity to extraversion. J. exp. Res. Person. 2, 101-106. Mishara B. L. and Baker A. H. (1978) Kinesthetic aftereffect scores are reliable. Appl. psychol. Mensurmt. 2, 239-247. Morgan A. H. and Hilgard E. R. (1972) The lack of retest reliability in individual differences in the kinesthetic aftereffect. Educ. psychol.

Measurmt.

32, 871-878.

Nebylitsyn

V. D. (1964) An investigation of the connection betwen sensitivity and strength of the nervous system. In Puvlot~‘s ~vpologv (Edited by Gray J. A.). Pergamon Press, New York. Nebylitsyn V. D. (1972a) Fundamental Properties of the Human Nervous System. Plenum Press, New York. Nebylitsyn V. D. (1972b) The problem of general and partial properties of the nervous system. In Biological Bu.ws o/ Individual Behavior (Edited by Nebylitsyn V. D. and Gray J. A.). Academic Press, New York. Petrie A. (1967) Indiridualiry in Pain and Suffering. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Reason J. T. (1968) Individual differences in auditory reaction time and loudness estimation. Percepl. mot. Skills 236, 1089-1090.

Sales S. M. and Throop Psychophysiology

W. F. (1972) Relationship

between

kinesthetic

aftereffect

and ‘strength

of the nervous

system’.

9, 492-497.

Strelau J. (1972a) A diagonosis of temperament by non-experimental techniques. Polish psychol. Bull. 3, 97 105. Strelau J. (I 972b) The general and partial nervous system types-data and theory. In Biological Buses qf Individual Behavior (Edited by Nebylitsyn V. D. and Gray J. A.). Academic Press, New York. Strelau J. (1982) Biologically determined dimensions of personality or temperament. Person. individ. D@ 3, 335 360. Strelau J. (1983) Temperument. Personality. Acficiry. Academic Press, New York. Vando A. (1970) A personality dimension related to pain tolerance. (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, NY, 1969.) Dissert. Absrr. Inr. 31, 2292B-2293B (Univ. Microfilms No. 70-18,865). Vando A. (1974) The development of the R-A Scale: a paper-and-pencil measure of pain tolerance. Person. Sot. P,sychol. Bull. 1, 28-29.

Weintraub D. J., Green G. S. and Herzog T. R. (1973) Kinesthetic aftereffects day by day: trends, differences. Am. J. PsychoI. 86, 827-844. Weintraub D. J. and Herzog T. R. (1973) The kinesthetic aftereffect: ritual versus requisite. Am. Zhorov P. A. and Yermolayeva-Tomina L. B. (1972) Concerning the relation between extraversion nervous system. In Biologicul Buses of Individual Behavior (Edited by Nebylitsyn V. D. and Gray New York.

task features. J. Psychol.

individual

86, 407423.

and the strength J. A.). Academic

of the Press.