Loyola University Chicago Loyola University Chicago

Loyola eCommons Loyola eCommons

Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations

1968

The Effects of Examiner and Instructional Variables on The Effects of Examiner and Instructional Variables on

Intelligence Test Performance Intelligence Test Performance

Luke A. Shanley Loyola University Chicago

Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses

Part of the Psychology Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Shanley, Luke A., "The Effects of Examiner and Instructional Variables on Intelligence Test Performance" (1968). Master's Theses. 2331. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/2331

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact ecommons@luc.edu.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1968 Luke A. Shanley

THE D'J'EOTS OJ' EXAMINER AND INSTRUOTIONJ.L

VARIABLES OB IBTELLIGEIOE TEST PERFORMANOE

by

A Thesis SUbmitted to the iacul~ of the Graduate

School ot Lorola University 1n Partial

Pul.t1llment ot the Requirements

tor the Degree ot

Master ot Arts

January

1968

LIFE

LUke A.. Shanle7 vaa born in Goshen, lfew York,

Januarr 17, 1943. Be graduated trom Florida'• s.s. Seward Institute 1n June, 1960, and received a Bachelor

ot Arta in Pa7oho1og and Ph11oaoph7 troll the Un1versi ty

ot Scranton, Scranton, Pennsylvania, 1n June, 1964.

The author entered LoJola Uni vera1 t7 as a

graduate student 1a Qlinioa~ Ps7oholo17 in September,

1964. lroDl Sept8llber' -~964, through June 1965, he

worked as a teaching assistant. from Jul1 1965, till

June 1967, he worked as a Ps7ehology fra1nee at

Veterans Administration Hospital, Hines, Illinois.

In JulT 1967, he began a Psychology InternShip with

the Mental Hfg1ena Ol1n1o of the Veterans Administration

West Side Hospital, Oh1oago, Illinois.

.A.ODO WLEDGMlll TS

The author 1s eapeo1all7 grateful and pr1mar11T

indebted to Dr. Ronald :1. Walker who prov1de4 the im­

petus tor this stwsr. Gratitude is expressed to Dr.

Robert o. Bioolar, Dr. J'ranlt J. Kobler, and Dr. M.

Hen17 Pitts, as well as to Dr. Walker, ~or tbt1r

interest 1n and encouragement ot not onlf the present

research, but&Lso the writer's career as a graduate

student.

Much 1s owed to Jolm Downs, .A.nne lCennedr, and Miles

Patterson who have contributed so WillinglT and sign1-

.f'1oantly to this work. Finall;r, the author would like

to express his special appreciation to Ida Parlanti

tor her help.

I.

II.

III.

IT.

'·

Iatro4uot1o:a

Methot ••

:aeeulta ••

• • • • • • • • • • •

Page

1

8

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

»1aouas1on • • • • • • • • • •

&u.Bl7 •••••••••••

11bl1ograp4J • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

• • • • •

• • • •

.10

CHAPTER I

+ntro4uotion !e! Literatste Review

The present study has grown out of a body of research

which is concerned general17 with the effects of anxiety on

intellectual functioning. The specific aim was to determine,

by the manipulation of certain examiner (!) and instructional

variables, the effects of experimentall7 induced stress on

intelligence test performance.

One purpose of this study was to investigate the effective­

ness of an instructional variable 1n altering the impact ot

experimental stress. This was accomplished specifically by

testing the hJpothesis suggested b7 Walker, Neilsen, and

Bicola1 (1965) that subjects (.§.s) given .. ambiguous" instructions

following failure will perform significantly more poorl1 on a

subsequent intellectual task than those .§.s given t•anchor"

instructions following failure. Assesament of the effects ot

instructional variables has implications tor research design

and is an attempt to follow Sarason' s (1960) urging that tech­

niques tor the experimental reduction as well as arousal of

anxiety responses be developed.

The present stud7 was also concerned, in part, with the

differential effects ot white and Negro Js 1n inducing further

stress in white !• who have alread7 been stressed b:r 1n1t1al

- 1 -

- 2 -failure in intellectual performance. The hypothesis tested was

that the stress induced by failure will be accentuated because

it is experienced 1n the presence of an ! of another race, and

that such stress will significantly alter, for the worse, the

white !'s performance on an~telligance test. Validation of

this htpothasis would permit turther generalization concerning

the examiner variable in experimental settings, and also has

implications tor social theories ot race interaction.

Reviewers of research relevant to the effects of experimente~

(!) attributes on the behavior of subjeota (!s) unanimousl7 agree

on the need for a more systematic study of ! and ! variables

(Barger, 1954; Bernstein, 1956; Dreger and Miller, 196o; Kintz,

1965; Masling, l96o; Rosenthal, 1963; sarason, 1960; Winkel and

Sarason, 1964). In his review of e£feots of !'• se~, religion,

race, status, warmth, likeability, etc., Bosenthal (1963) noted

that one reason for psychologist's slowness to stud7 themselves

as researchers compared to psychologist'e willingness to stud7

themselves as clinicians may lie in a collective illusion about

the! as a non-person. Despite Hammond's (1954) caution that

representative design demands that both ! and ! populations be

adequately sampled if generalizations are to be made to larger

groups of j and i• none of the studies reported by Masling (1960)

extensively sampled the ! population, and most studies utilized

only one E. -

- 3 -Sarason (1960) wrote that the question of ! as an agent in

creating a ~treat to ! is a particularly relevant problem in

the creation of experimental stress situations. That theories

of anxiety should incorporate such variables as !'• sex, physi­

cal characteristics, and personality attributes was suggested

by Kamin and Olark (1957) and has been dramatically illustrated

by the University of Rochester group (Axelrod et al, 1956:

Heilizer et al, 1956). The Bocheater group has consistently

found significant interactions between anxiety scores, sex of

S and E characteristics. FOr example, the latter two variables - -related more powerfully to anxiety ot Sa than did task com--plexit7.

The present study is concerned, in part, with the differen­

tial effects of white and Negro !S in inducing further stress

in white !s who have already been stressed by initial failure

1n intellectual performance. Of previous researches investi­

gating the J race variable, moat have used Negro as, few have

used both Negro and white Sa, and fewer have been concerned -only with the reactions of white !•· Only those studies with

immediate relevance will be mentioned here.

To Allport's (1954) thesis that a .,foundation for group

prejudice lies 1n the hesitant response that human beings have

to strangeness," Dreger and Miller (1960) add that an American

cultural pattern (that is, the virtually universal use of white

.. 4 -

characters as illustrations, at least in publications white

people see) has the result that whites tend to see white as

people and black as Negro. Trent (1954) found a significant

difference between the influence of white and Negro !s on the

test behavior of white and Negro kindergarten children with a

mother identification test consisting of three pictures of

women, one white, one light and one dark-skinned Negro mother.

When tested by the white J, the white children preferred the

white mother but shifted from a preference tor light-s.k:inned

Negro mothers to a preference for dark-skinned Negro mothers

when tested by the Negro !• White children tested by white !s

verbalized no racial remarks, while 47.5% of the white children

tested by Negro !• gave spontaneous racial remarks.

Winslow and Brainerd (1950) reported significant differen­

ces 1n the responses of wh1 tea and Negroes to the Rosenzweig

P•F Test, but did not systematically vary ! color. With the

White .§.s, extrapun1tive responses were more frequent if the

frustrating agent in the test waa a Negro than if he were white.

Rankin and Oampbell {1955) report a highly significant differen­

tial on the GSR of wh1 te .§.s to two js, with the greater res­

ponse being made to the Negro !• These authC~·rs anticipated

their critic (Bosenthal, 196') by noting that an interpretation

of these results as a differential response to race alone was,

although highly likely, nonetheless arbitrarily made. Since

- 5 -the two Es differed along dimensions other than skin color, e.g. -height, weight, age, the experiment ... to be definitive for an

interpretation in terms of race - would have to be run with a

sampling of a nlllllber of different white and Negro js.

One earlT study will serve to illustrate the negative

findings of the effects of skin color of the ! upon the behavior

ot his §.s. Oanady (1936), using both Negro and white js in

giving intelligence tests to Negro and white §.s who had not

been stressed by initial failure, did not find any reliable

effect of !'• skin color on §.s test performance. The present

study tested the hypothesis thata the stress induced by initial

failure will be accentuated because it is experienced 1n the

presence of an 1 of another race, and that such stress will

a1gnificantl1 alter, tor the worse, the white §.' s performance

on an intelligence test.

A second purpose of this study .-a to investigate the

effectiveness of an instructional variable in reducing the 1m-• pact of experimental stress. Mandler and Sarason (1952) note

that among important variables tor further research is the

specific instruction given. That is, does the test situation,

per se, produce the differences between high a.nd low anxious

groups, or .is this difference a function ot spec1.f1o instruc­

tions given b7 the !? Finding that high anxious §.s respond

more positivel7 to instructional reassurance in an experimental

situation than do low anxious Sa, sarason (1960) encouraged -the development of techniques tor the extinction rather than

the arousal of anxiet7 reaponsea. Sarason et al (1952) found

that While non-ego-involving instructions have no differential

effect on high anxious and low anxious groups, ego-1nvolv1ng

instructions do promote anxietr reactions of !• who are prone

to such tendeacies 1n a testing situation. Oiting inconsistent

relationships found in reports of correlations between measures

of general anxiet7 such as MAS (~&Jlor, 1956, 1959). and in•

tellectual measures, Saraaon (196o) suggests that indices ot

specific anxieties such as test anxiet7 mar prove more valuable

for specific purposes than more general 1n4ioes like the MAS.

several 1nvestigators have also suggested that stress must be

introduced into any situation before anxiet7 will affect per­

formance on complex taSks (Sarason, 19601 Spence, l963J !a7lor,

1959). Wal*er et al (1965) tested the hJpotnesis that tor

college studen~s. the peraonality variable of anxiet7 is

negativelt related to intelligence test performance under stress

conditions, provided that such conditions are directl7 associa•

ted wi\h the testing instrument. these investigators, finding

that on11 one o:r three experu ental groups s1pitioantl7 con­

tixmed the negative relationships between anxie~ andiltell1•

gence expected under stress, suggested that an explanation be

found in differential instructions. Apparentl7, "ambiguous"

- 7 -

instructions increased the stress induced by failure, while

"anchor" instructions lessened the impact of stress. The

preeent study tested the hypothesis that §.s given .. ambiguous"

1natruot1ons following failure will perform a1gaificant1J more

poor11 on a subsequent intellectual task than those §.a given

anchor instructions following failure ..

In 8Wilme.J7, this atwl7 tested two bJ'pothesea: (1) the

stress induced by initial failure will be accentuated because

it is experienced 1.n. the presence of an 1 of another race, and

that such stress w1ll s1p1f1caatly &1 ter, tor the worse, the

White !'• performance on an intelligence test; and, (2) §.s

g1Ten "ambiguousu instructions following failure will perform

sign1t1cant17 more poorly on a subsequent intellectual task

than tho ae !• gi Ten "anchor" 1nstruct1ons toUovi!C' failure.

CHAPTER II

Method

§u)3eots. The _!s were 120 males enrolled in introductory

psychology sections at Lorola University. Ss were randomly -assigned to one of four male !•• two ot Whom were Negro and

two of whom were white. Each ! adm1n1atered an experimental and

a control condition, the independent variable being differential

instructions.

&P!&•MT !Qd IQtell1senq~ Measures. Anxietr was measured

by the Tqlor MAS and the subteats M, o, P, of the N1oolq­

W11lker PRS. These testa had been adm1n1atered as part ot a

regular classroom exercise b7 ja other than !• 1n this experi­

ment. Performance on the ob3eot assembl7 (OA) ot the WAIS was

used as the criterion tor intelligence and was the only task the

!• were eXpected to perform.

ProoedU£!• All §a were tested individually in soundproof

l>ooths. Bach ! was asked to cooperate in taking part of an

1ntell1genoe test and tol4 that the 1 waa attempting to ea­

tabl18h norma tor college students. The ! lilts then presented

W1 tb. u impossible obJect assembly task, consisting ot randomly

selected pieces .from the WISO OA.t and inatlt\loted. "I.t these

pieoea are put together correctly thq will make something. Go

ahead ud put them together as ca.uicltly as you can." Sa were -- a ..

given 60 seconds and then told "Time is up." All .§.s, of course,

"failed" the task, and it was assumed that this experience was

stress.tu.l for them. Next, Ss in each of the four experimental -conditions were given the "ambiguous" 1natruot1onss Put this

together as qu1cltl.T as you can." !• 1n each of the tour con­

trol groups were given the "anchor" 1nstructionss "That first

one was the hardest, the next ones will be easier. •• They were

then showed the OA manikin. Following that, the standardized

procedure for the WAIS OA was followed tor all groups. During

testing, the 1 answered 8.111 ql1est1ons in an unstructural manner,

and did not otherw1ise enter into cU.souaaion w1 th the §. during

the testing. When testing was completed, the ! read to .§.s

"What I have just given you 1s onl7 one part of an intelligence

test, and as such. it only :measures one verr Um1 ted aspect of

your ~tal intellectual fUnctioning. We are interested in your

reactions to this approach. When data are ana]J'aed, the results

Will be discussed 1n your PBToholog class, and we will then

be able to explain more oompletel,y what it is that we were

looking tor, and what we have found." The .! then thanked !

for his cooperation and time, and escorted h1m to an adjacent

testing booth were ! oompleted an in.tormation sheet which con­

sisted ot questions concerning h1s subjective reactions to the

test1ns situation.

Ohapter III

Results

Table l presents the means and standard deviations for

the eight experimental groups on each of the variables. Random

assignment of is to the different experimental conditions was

effective in yielding groups whose mean differences on the

anxiety tests were not significantly di.tterent.

An analysis by inspection of the scatter plots of each

of the experiment's eight subgroups' perf'ormanoe on the in­

telligence measures as a function of' eaoh of the five anSiety

measures has been made. Based on this inspection, the followin

analyses were conducted. Pearson E,.S (McNemar, 1962) were

computed to determine the degree of correlation of each ot

the anxiety scores (M.O.P.T of the Nioolay•Walker Personal

Reaction Schedule, and the T&Tlor Manifest Anxiety Scale) w~th

each of three criterion measures of intellectual functioning

(Time tor Manikin, Total Time for Object AssemblJ, and Total

Score for Object AsseDSbly). Table 2 gives the Pearson .£8 which

were computed separately for each of the experiment's eight

conditions: N1E, N1o, N2E, N2o, w1E, w1o, WaE, w2o {where

N= Negro_!, W= white !J l, 2= Number of .1 within Race; Er:

Experimental group Instruction; and 0: Oontrol group Instruc­

tion. Thus, N1E represents Negro Examiner #l, Experimental

Group Instruction; Nl o. Negro Examiner lit Oontrol Group Ins true

- 10 -

-u-

t1on; w20= White Examiner #2, O.ntrol Group Instruction, etc.).

Several of the Pearson prod~ct moment correlation coefficients

supported the predicted interaction between anxiety, as measured

by the Personal Reaction Schedule and the Manifest Anxiety Scale,

and test performance. However, the number of Pearson .£8 which

reached significance was not as great as had been expected.

Since anal7ses of variance indicated that the introduction of

the instructional variable (Anchor versus Ambiguous instructions)

had not yielded the expected significant differences in intelli­

gence test performance, each Examiner's Control (Ambicuous

Instruotionl:i and Experimental (Anchor Instntotion) groups were

combined and Pearson I.• were computed tor each Examiner with

N of 30, disregarding the 1nstnct1onal variable. Table 3

gives the Pearson I.• for this second grouping, few of wh1oh

supported the predicted interaction between anxiety and 1ntell1•

gence test performance.

Two analy'ses of variance were oonductedr one for !•' Time

for Manik1nJ and one for !•' total Score on Ob3eot Aaaembl7.

Ana.lfsis of variance for a 2x2 nested~ design was used to anal7ze

the data on both ot these criterion measures of intelligence

test performance (ltiwar4s, 1964). Table 4 presents the summary

of the analYses of variance tor Race, Instructions, Raoe x

Instructions, Examiner w1 th1n Bace, and Instructions x Examiner

- 12 -ld th1n Race ;ri th .§.s scores on Time :for Manikin. Inspection of

Table 4 reveals that none of the Fs reached the required level -of s1gn1t1oanoe. None of the groups under the various conditions

of Examiner, and Race, and Instructions manifested s~gn1!1cant

difterenoes 1n scores on the or1 ter1on of ~1me tor Manikin.

Table 5 presents the summary of the analra1s of variance for

Race, Instructions, Race x Instructions, Examiner w1 thin Baoe,

and Instructions x Examiner within Race for Total Score on

Object Assemblf. None of the Fs reached the required level of -s1gn1£1oance. None of the groups under the vario·u.s cond1 tions

ot Examiner, and Race, and Instructions manifested significant

differences in the aeoond criterion of intelligence test per­

formance, Total Score !or Object Assembly.

Table 6 presents the summary ot analysis done on !s post-

test questionnaire data. Sa had been asked to record whether -or not theJ felt anxious during the testing prooedure. For

the final a.nal7s1s, Ja were d1Y1ded into groups according to

Experimental (Anchor Instructions) and Control (Ambiguous In­

struot1on) oond.1 tions. In evaluating the difference bet·ween

two proportions based on two independent samples (McNemar, 1962)

1t was found that the d1fterenoe between the proportion of

those under the Ambiguous Instruction who noted having exper1enceL

anxiety (54 out of 60 §.s; P1•.90) and the proportion of those

under the Anchor Instructions who noted having experienced

- 1) -

anxiet1 (48 out of 60 !s; p~.80), tailed to reach the z of 1.64

required for s1gnit1oance at the .05 level for a one tail test.

~or a second evaluation of the difference between two propor­

tions based on two independent sample,, I• were diVided aooord1ng

to whe'ther the7 had. had. a Negro or white .1• ~e difference

between the propor'tion of' §.s having a Negro !':and 1t1:1oording

having experienced anxiety (54 out ot 6o .§.BI p1a.90) and the

proportion of 1• haVing a wh1 te ! and. recording haVing exper1encec

anxiet7 during testing ( 48 out of' 60 J.sJ Pz-•80) failed to

reaoh the z of 1.64 required tor sipitioanoe at the .05 level

for a one tail test.

.. 14 -

Tae1e 1

Means J.lld Staa4arcl DeY1a,1ons hr .All Tar1a81ea

Mau1k1n Maatld.n TOUl. Total Time Soore Time soon

Oon41t. !. .& J( SD I SD I !! - -••a· Bxper. 16.1 6.) 6.1 .19 225.5 73.1 32.5 5.7 ro 11 Oon,nl 15.1 ).9 6.5 .81 227.1 110.6 32.6 6.3

Oomb. 15.6 s.a 6.6 .eo 226.3 93.8 32.5 6.0

Neg• Bxper. 14.4 2.3 6.3 1.00 185.2 68.1 33.9 5.3 ro 12 Ooatro1 14.0 4.3 6.6 .95 197.1 84.0 32.3 5.7

Oomb. 14.2 3.4 6.4 .99 191.1 76.9 33.1 5.6

Wb.1 te :Bxper. 14.9 5.8 6.8 .77 2)8.6 64.7 )1.1 s.s #1 Control 15.5 6.2 6.6 .sa 239.9 1gz.6 31.8 5.1

Comb. 15.2 6.0 6.7 .83 239.3 .a 31.5 5.3

Wl:d.te ibcper. 13.5 ).1 6.8 .62 176.3 56.1 35.8 4.1 12 Oontrol 14.5 ).9 6.8 .75 2:50.) 70.9 31.8 5.4

Comb. 14.0 3.6 6.8 .69 203.3 69.4 3).8 5.2

- 15 .-;;;;

Table 1 (coat.)

Means And S~ard Dev1atloae lOr All Var1ables

Motor Ob3eot Pereonal Total MAS

I Ooa4. I D... !1 8lJ I a I .& I u -Jxp. 10.1 3.9 7.8 3.1 8.6 3.4 26.5 8.5 U.7 5.1

11 Ooat. 10.3 4.9 8.3 5.5 9.2 4.2 27.7 12.9 13.1 a.s Comb. 10.2 4.5 a.o 4.5 8.9 3.8 27.1 10.9 12.4 7.2 llxp. 10.4 3.9 7.6 2.8 9.3 3.5 21.'!> 7.9 14.5 7.6

1'2 Oont. 9.4 5.4 9.0 3.5 8.5 3.5 21.0 U.4 15.2 10.5 Comb. 9.9 4.8 8.3 '·' 8.9 3.5 27.2 9.8 14.9 9.2

lap. 9.8 5.2 s.s 4.6 10.1 4.9 28.4 11.9 16.0 9.6 11 Ooat. 10.6 4.1 9.7 3.9 10.4 4.8 30.7 U.6 15.5 8.6

COmb. 10.2 4.7 9.1 4.3 10.3 4.9 29.5 11.8 15.7 9.1

Bxp. 11.5 5.7 10.6 4.3 12.5 6.0 34.5 14.7 19.3 12.5 tf2 Oont. 8.2 ).4 8.7 a.6 10.2 3.6 27.1 7.8 13.5 1.0

Oomb. 9.8 s.o 9.7 3.1 11.3 5.1 30.8 12.4 16.4 10.5

- 16 ..

Table 2

Correlations of Time for Manikin, Score for

Manikin, Total Time for Object Assembly, and

Total Score for Object Assembly with Scores on

Taylor MAS and with M.O.P.T. of Nicolay-Walker PRS*

Examiner 14: 0 p T I·U.S

Jfl E Manikin Negro Time .37 .62 .28 .51 .48

!•l 0 a a Manikin

Bxper. Score -.16 -.60 -.17 -.36 -.41 Oond. c

Total Time .19 .16 -.13 .10 .19

Total So ore -.19 -.28 .02 -.18 -.11

·1~ Manikin Negro Time .49 .19 .12 .31 .09

E 1 - a Manikin

Oont. Score -.43 -.15 -.16 -.28 -.11 Oond.

Total Time .29 .03 .23 .19 .10

Total Score -.38 -.25 -.36 -.37 -.29

*df::13 a::p .t: .05 bcp z .025 cap<. .01 clap .c:: • 005

- 17 -

table 2 (coat.)

aorrela t1oaa o~ ftlle tor Maalld.a, soore tor

fttal score tor Ob~eot Aes•b17 wl th sooree on

faJ1or MAS aad with M.O.P.f. o~ H1oo1aJ•Walker PRS*

b•iner M 0

•a• Mau1k1n time .}6 .20 .16 .,2 .39

••Jrl Haaild.n soen -.2, .14 .OJ -.os -.19

Bxper. OOncl. Total

ftme ..... ..o6 .()9 .24 ·" a Total Soon -.40 .06 -.11 -.23 -.41

MaD1kh .120 filae -.60 -.46 ··f!T -.52 -.45

Hesro Maaild.n J. 12 soore .s1 .48 .24 .so .41

Ooat. !otal. Oon4. Ttme -.21 -.23 -.18 -.23 -.07

Total Soore .25 .14 .04 .18 .05

- 18 -

fable 2 ( OOl'l1i.)

Oorrelatlo:aa ot flme tor Man1kln, soore tor

Man1k1n, To'tal. Tlae tor Ob3eot uae•bl:r, aw1

Total score tor Obleot .&.aeerablT with soores on

Ta7lor MAS aact with M.O.P.~. ot N1colq-walke.r P.RS*

Ex•1ner M 0 MAS

Maa11d.n w1B fbe -.26 -.51 -.•s -.so -.a

White Ma:&t1ld.n J.ll score .rt .so .56 .54 .34

Bxper. rotal OOD4. !lme -.22 -.4) -.47 -.45 -.09

a fetal soon .15 .53 ·'' .52 .21

Maulkb w1o Time .05 -.29 -.26 ··19 -.19

Wlllte Manlkb. .Ill SOON -.16 .17 .16 .01 .11

coat. Total Ooa4. fbe .39 .46 .48 .49 .30

a a a fo\al score .... It() ... 41 -·"'' -.46 -.~ a

*d..t::rl) __,<.as .,., < .025 o.p< .01 .., <.005

- 19 -

Table 2 (cont.)

Oorrelatione of flae tor Manikin. Soore tor

Hanikln, To'tal T1Jae tor Olt3eet AeaemblJ, and

Total Score tor Ob3eet Aaa .. blJ with Soores on

Tqlor K4S aa4 With M.O.P.T. of liloolq•Walker PRS*

liulllner 0 p

Wr White

Jl2

lxper. Oon.4.

w2o White

j 12

Ooat. Ooa4.

Mulkln Time

MaaSJd.n So ore

Total !be

Total Score

Manlld.n Time

Man1kln soore

Total f1me

foVJ. Soore

*4f'el3 a.p L. .os blip<- .025 cap.:: .o1 htpL .005

-.32

.)0

.26

.as

.32

-.17

.36

-.34

-.29 -.12 .26 -.14

.31 .11 .25 .15

.06 -.21 -.17 -.18

.12 .17 .22 .17

-.23 .os .09 .04

.45 .06 .u .13

-.04 .os .17 .oa

.07 -.11 -.17 -.06

- 20 -

Table 3

Oorre1at1ena ot Time tor HaaU:1n, Soon tor

MaD.11d.D., Total !1me for O'D~eot .Uaem'DJ.7, and

Total soore for Object A.aa•bl7 w1 ih Soorea on

!qlor MAS and with M.O.P.T. of lf1oolq-Walker PU*

kallliner

···-:to /11

Haalld.:a Tille

Maa1k1n score

To 'tal flme

Total Score

*dfs28 aap ~.os b:rp <~ .025 Gap< .01 dap ,.::_ • 005

.39 b

-.31 a

.as

0 p

.,. .19 .,1 .24 a b

-.31 -.17 -.31 -.22 a a

.06 .10 .16 .12

-.25 -.20 -.22

- 21-

Table 3 (eont.)

Oorrelat1oaa of T1JIIe tor Mani:till, Score tor

Haa11d.D., Total Tille tor Ob~eot A••••blJ, ancl

Total Score tor Ob~eot Assemblf With scores on

Taylor MA.S aad w1 th H.O .P. f. ot B1oolq•iial.ker PRS*

0 p

-.'Z7 -.11 -.29 .... 22

Man1ld.n Beg- lOOft ro 12

.20 .)4 .12 .25 .15

fetal 'lime .02 -.lit -.01 -.06 -.12

Total Soore .01 .01 -.02 .02 -.14

*4ta28 a.p ,c:.os b=rp L .025 Cap<. .01 d:p<. .oos

- 22-

fa'ble 3 (ocmt.)

Oorrelat1o.na of fime tor Ma.nlkill, Score for

Man1k1nt Total fime tor O'b~eot AasembJ.7, and

Total Soon tozo Ob3eot J.aeubl7 w1 th Scores on

Taylor KJ.S and with M.o.:r.T. ot 11oolq-Wallter PB.S*

Examiner M 0 MAS

Whith

H'a111ld.n 'flme

Jfa1111d.a Score

Total Tille

total Soozoe

4f"a28 a=p .c. .os bapL .025 cap< .01 dap L_ .005

-.u

.o6

.12

-.40 -.36 -.34 -.20

.32 .34 .28 .23

.09 .12 .13 .13

,12 .12 -.01

Table 3 (cont.)

Oorrelat1ons of Time for HaD1k1n, Score tor

l-tan1k1n, Total firae for Object Assembly, and

Total Score tor Objeet AssemblT with Scores

Ta7lor MAS and with M.O.P.T. of N1oolay-Wal.kar PRS*

Examiner

White 112

Man1k1n Seore

Total Time

Total Score

df=r28 a.p~ .05 b=rp .:::_ • 025 o=rp L,Ol d•p<, .005

H

.... oa

.11

-.12

.14

0 p MAS

-.14 -.09

.35 .09 .19 .14

-.09 ·.-17 -.14 -.17

.16 .17

- 24 ..

Table 4

Analysis of Variance for Race, Instructions, Race x

Instructions, Examiner within Race, and Instructions x

Examiner w1 thin .Race on f1me for Manikin

Source df MS

Race l 2.7 .3300 Instructions l .02 .0011 Race x Instructions 1 14.71 .8109 Examiner within Race 2 8.18 .3462 Ins·truotions x Examiner

w1 thin Ra.oe 2 18.14 .6812 Within Group 112 23.63

Total 119 22.33

-as-

fable 5

6aal7da ot fU'iaaoe tor Baoe, Iaetno\lona, aa.oe x

lnsUU.Otlout IDII1aer wltala Baoet aa4 IutnoUou.a X

BzMt.nu w1 tala Baoe ftl' Toal soon on Ob3eot A.a .. bll'

sovoe df MS 1'

aaoe 1 1.19 .0165 XutruUoaa 1 45.64 1.0"5 Baoe x IaeUUot1ou 1 5.64 .1281 Jaalaezt wt tb1a aaoe 2 12.09 2.322' IuU.oU.u x 81Mi.au

Vl11ll1a ... 2 44.02 1.4180 11 t1Wl croup U2 31.64 foUl. 119 ,1.61

- 26-

Table 6

Significance of Ditterenoes Between Independent

Proportions lor $ubjeot1ve Anxietr Baaed on !

Groups Divided Acoording to .Ambiguou Instruction Versus

Anchor Instructions And Begro ! Versus White 1

Varied Oondit1ona

Instructions

Ambiguous

Anchor

Examiner !lagro

White

one-tailed test

.go

.go

.05 level of s1gn1t1oanoe .!. Z.l.64

z

.so

.80

OHA;PT,ER IV

D1!0USS,Ott

Analysis of the data did not reveal significant differences

between the groups for either !'• race or the instructional

variable. The fact that the l wh1oh most approached s1gn1fi•

canoe (1n the anal;rsis of variance for Total Score on the Object

Assemb]J') was for the effect of "Examiner within Race" (!.= 2.32)

suggests the operation of 1 attributes other than race or parti•

cular instruction given. Suob an interpretation, at leaet for

the variable of ! race. would be in aooord. wit1h that of Dreger

and Miller (1960) who report diff'erenoee between J.s of the

same race which are as great or greater than d1tferenoea between

!8 of different races. While 1t appears plausible that examiner

attributes other than race or instruction given were most impor­

tant in determining !B responses, 1 t. would be hazardous to

generalize to larger groups of ! :f'rom the presentl.T restricted

sampling of N:2 w1 thin race (Hammond, 1954; Masllng, 1960).

Sampling a white college population. Rankin and O&mpbell

(1955) found a higher differential GSR to a Negro l than to the

white !• but critics (Maaling, 1960; Trent, 1954) point out

that there was no oonolue1ve proof that the d1f'terenoe was a

function of skin color, since the two Je differed along other

pertinent dimensions. S1gn1t'ioantl1 different reactions to

Negro and White J.s b7 lagro and white Js have been reported

- 27 -

- 28 -

(AtheJ et al, 1960& Katz et al, 1964; Katz et al, l965J Rice,

1964; Trent, 1954; Williams, 1964; Winslow and Brainerd, 1950).,

but these studies, for one reason or another, are not directly

comparable to the present research. !rent (1954) fou.nd that

wb1te kindergarten children Shifted from a preference for light­

to dark-skinned Negro mother pictures when tested by a Negro !·

Other researchers (OUpbell, 19591 Williams, 1964) however, have

noted that !' s status, as well aa I' s race, oan have an effect

1a determining .§.s' responses. It is verr l1kel1 that an a4u.lt

Negro ! ha4 more "atatus effect" 1n determining reactions of

white kindergarten children 'ihan 414 a4ul t llegro Js testing

college §.s w1 th1:n their own age range as was the case in the

present research. Supporting this interpretation are the results

of the ana1Js1s of i'• post test data Which parallel the objec­

tive test results 1n failing to rield significant differences for

Bxam1ner Race groups. The proportion of White .§.s recorded as

having felt anxious while being tested bJ a Negro 1 was not

s1gnitioantlf greater than the proportion of white !• who

reported having felt anxious while being tested by a white .1•

A.nother important dimension along which the present research

and Trent's (1954) differ is that the nbject matter of the

latter experiment itself was racial in nature. It seems likel7

that a Begro J will have more ot an efteot in influencing .§.' s

response to a racial picture choice than he Will in an 1ntelli•

- 29 -

gence test where performance has no ostensible connection with

the race of !· Athe;r et al (1960) found a signit1cantlf dif­

ferent response to interviewers belonging to different ethnic

groups, but again, their !• were responding to ~~estionnaires

whiCh direotq 1nvolnd racial issues. Thus, while several

studies reveal significant d1tterences 1n White .§.s response to

Negro and wh1 te Js, the subject matter has been, 1n moat of

theae researches, racd.al in nature, and there 1a 1i ttle evidence

to suggest a sim1lat effect due to ! race in intelligence test

research. Rice and White (1964) .round that their 1•• white

southern college students, revealed prejudice b7 s1gn1tioantlf

more competitive tnan cooperative game behavior against a h1•

pcthetical Negro peer as compared w1 th their treatment of a

}lJ"pothetical white peer. There is the poasibili t7 that in the

present stud;r, white .§.s, experiencing anxiet7 due to initial

failure, perceived themselves 1n a competitive situation with

the Negro examiner who appeared more like a peer than an

authorit;r tigure, and thus, the;r tended to overcempensate

suooesstu117 tor the experienced arud.etT. It has long been

argued and demonstrate4 in research (Katz, 1964; Xatz, 1965;

Dreger and Miller, 196o) that Begro .§.s perform intellectual

tasks less eff1oientJ.y *'ban the ! is white rather than Negro,

but there is 11 ttle evidence to support the contention that

white §.s will react similarlT to Negro Js when the roles are

reversed.

That no consistent and e1gn1!1cant d1tterencee were found

in objective test reaults or subjective report data between the

~ups for the instructional variable Dtight be explained, at

least 1n part, by individual examiner d1tterences already dis­

cussed. Noting that the problem of variance among !• in the

manner in which instructions are oommUBicated cannot be over­

emphasized, sarason (1960) wrote that "even when quite explicit

instructions are administered to s, there remains the problem

ot the admtnistrator ot these instructions." The adcli tional

tact that so tew ot the correlations oomputed between Object

Assemblf criteria and anxietT measures came out signit1oantly

1n the predicted direction, raises another question basic to

the discussion ot the present experiment; namel7, the sensi­

tivi tT of the WA.IS OA as an anxiet1 indicator. It has been

proposed that 1.t an ! wiShes to determine Whether or not a

! has been anxious during intelligence testing, ! might do

better to simplT ask him rather than to rely on certain tra­

ditional WAIS subteat indicators (walker and Spence, 1964).

This sug.gestion renects the reservations ot many who have

researched WAIS subtests individually and 1n patterns tor

diagnostic cues o£ anxiety (Gilhooly, 1950; Guertin et al,

- :51 -

1956; Guertin et al, 1962; Lewinski, 1945; Matarazzo, 1955J

Ma tara.zzo et al, 1954; Mold.awa}Q' and Moldaws}Q', 1952). For

example, Warner (1950) found, 1n contradiction to traditional

assertions b7 Rapaport (1945), Mayman et al (1951) and Wechsler

(1958), that OA was higher w1 th anx1et7 a•rot1os than w1 th

normal controls. Siegman (1956) reported that none ot the

individual WAIS subtests correlated sign1t1cantl1 with the MAS.

Rashk1s and Welsh (1946) found that OA. was one of the signs

showing the least d1scrtminator,v value among WeChsler anxiet7

indicators.

In summary, included among suggestions tor improvement in

the design of the present exper1Jaent wvul.d be: a substantial

increase in the N of _Ia as well as N of .§.s J 1norease in status

distance between ! and ~ and utilization or an intellectual

task Which is •ore sens1 tive to the effects ot a.nxiet7, possibl7

paired associate learning,

Swam an

The present etud,J was intended to determine, by the mani­

pulation of certain examiner (!) and instructional variables,

the effects of expe.r1mentall1 induced atress on intelligence

teat performance. The specific hypotheses were: (l) Stress

induced by initial failure will be accentuated becsase it is

experienced in the presence of an E of another race, and that -such stress will significantly alter, for the lrorse, the white

!' s performance on an intelligence test; and, (2) !}.s given

»ambiguous" instructions following failure will perform signi•

f1oantl1 more poorly on a subsequent 1ntelleotual t4sk than

those !• given "anohorn 1nstru.ot1ons :f'ollowing failure. A

oonourrent hfpothesis predicted negative correlations between

the personality variable of anxiety (as measured by standardized

anxietr questionnaires) and intelligence test performance under

atreas conditions directly associated with the testing instrument

Eight groups of undergraduate !• (11:120) were administered

the WAIS Object AssemblJ' ( OA.) sub test and two anxietr questio.n­

nairea. The administration of OA was preceded by an ~possible

task for all subjects. Eaoh of the four Js (two Negro and two

white) administered "ambiguoustt instructions follo'tdng initial

failure to his eXperimental group (1:::15) • an "anchor'1 instruction

to his control p-oup (N::l5). The predicted significant and

- 32 -

... 33 ....

differentiating effects due to the variables of ! race, 1n•

struot1ons, and their interactions were not found. That 1s,

ne1 ther hypothesis "l" nor hypothesis .,2 .. were eont1:rraed.

Partial support, however, was found tor the concurrent h7•

pothea1s of negative eorrel.ation ·between W..US OA. scores and

anxiety scores.

BIBLIOG1W'HY

Allport, G. . ~l"fthf'de.ts!1St• oam~r14ge, riUN.Ohua•ttss A441aon es ey a mp&D¥, 1954.

Ather, x.a., Ooluaa, J.:s., Ra1tloan, A..P., rua,. J. 'l'WO expert• tO& ta ahowlas the et'.teot o£ the 1ute.rri.wer' e racial baclc• ground on napoaaea to tuaat1omaa1ree coaoemJ.Ag racial iaauea. JIR.IA& It M:aJ.I.Ii illoJMtiUI• 1960, 44, 244-246.

Beraer, D. :&za.ntlne,;r 1atluenoe on the Beraoaaoh. ill~£~~6 It Q~IJasal IU:IlllltRt 1954,. 20, 245-248.

lleraate1n, L. l'he e.naer u an 1nb1 bl t1q taotor 111 olbioal teat1q. if!Uilt'& at Qu!!Q!lM &KaJ!al.aa:• 1956, 20, 287•2.90.

O&mpbell, :r.A., :V144laa:ma., P. B. The .Ueot of ezutur ataW.a upon Borsohaab pertoaanoe. Jq!lli!M at i:ll.tUSUI lilt!.• DJ.I'Uit 1959, llt lOl-306.

Dnser, a., !.UUe:r, It. Oomparat1Ye PIJl'Oholog1oa1 atwi1ea of Becroes an4 White• ill the u.s. lK&IIRI&:al I!J.I:Ix&l• 1960, 57, 361•JtS.

G1lhoo1J, 'I. r.z. Weoluller-Bellewe re11ab111 v ad val.1d1 tT ot oerta.J.n 41agnoatlo ld.pua ot Jlet.U'Oeia. :liii:DI.i At QpAQlllRs i!Rilli&ISI• 1950, 14, 83-87.

Gtuartla, W'.u., !Ta.ntc1 G.H., Bab1n, A.. I. baearoh w1 th the Weohaler-Bell$YU InteUlgenoe 80ale1 1950•1955. lK!Wt• iUlaJ. lll61~llb 1956, 53, 235-257 •

Guertin, v.u., Rabh, &.I., l'l'&nk, a.a., La44, o.s. Reeearch w1 th the Weob.sl.eJ" 1a telUpau aoalea ot adul trn 1955-1960. IRiilllilal :t.l.IJal,ttJa, 1962, 59, 1•26.

HauoD41 K.R. Repreaa:tat1ve venue •18teu.t1o 4ea1sn 1A o11n1• Oal. P$3ob.Ol.eQ • il&tH~Idlli lla661l&At 1954, 51, 150•159 •

Kata, I. Renew o.t m4aoe relat1q to .Ueots ot 4eeegrasa­t1oa on 1a telleotual f'•~".tomuoe ot Nelftea. Alallilll lU:fM&III• 1964, 19, '81•397.

lata, I., Hobert•• s., Beblasoa, J. Etteota ot task 41tt1cult7• race ot a.d.mlnlauator, aDd 1natrut1ou on d1g1 t epbol performance ot Nepoea. ;Jo~~ of Pe.~~~~'t_l .~ .~o1~

- 34 -

- 35 -ll[gholqsz, 1965, 2, 53·59.

ra tz, I. , 1o binson. J. , Bppa, B. , Val7, P. Baoe ot experlmen ter and instructions in the expression o~ hostil1~ b7 Negro bo7s. i2i*Bil 2&. §!gal Isg1.UJ!, 1964, 20, 50-64.

1C1ntz, B., Delprato, D., Mettee, D. t Persona, O. 1 SOhappe, i. the experimen-ter etteot. fslgbtj.oiQo§J; blJ.ttaA, 1965, 63, 223-232.

Lewinski, R.J. The pqohOmetrtc pattea 1n anx1et7 neurosis Jpu!j!!ll 2.t ql1p.1q!l Pszo;tw:}.oq, 1945, 1, 214-221.

HoNem:i! Q. l¥o:t.a~W, Statlstig!. New ~rlta John Vile7 Sons, c., •

Maslhg, J.M. The effects of warm aa4 cold interaction on "the interpretation ot a project1Te protocol. iO'J!lA!rl. 9! PD~tcttre TeoJmiq!St 1951, 21, 317•383.

Mataraaao, R.G. The relationship of manifest amd.et7 to W'-B subtest performance. JourMl 2l. 29a&Sl t1ps Pgr9!l!t.ill'• 1955, 19, 218.

Matarazzo, J.D., Ulett, G.A., Gaae, S.J., Ballow, G. fhe relatio:rumip between anx1et7 lenl and several measures of intelligence. JoJf!U'l. 2l Oqa!ltw iC!Mlos;r, 1954, 18, 201-205.

Mayman, M., Schafer, R., Rapaport, D. Interpretation of the Weohsler•Bellevu.e IntelUpnce Scales in Personal1 t7 Appraisal. In H. .. H. Anderson aad G.L. Anderson. a, ~~rofy.sr¥lh'tis:~ft31•liii l:•ohu&IB••· liew Yorks rent c&- , •

Moldawsq, s .. , MOldaws:t.T, P.O. Digit span as an amd.etT indica­tor. Jom~ 2!: OcuunU.t1M P!JlghoJoQ, 1952, lo, us-us.

Bank1D., R.E., Oampbell, B. T. GalYaDio sld.n response te Nesro and white eJperimenters. Jou.~ 21 A.pgo~ E! §29&!4: l•l9Pii9Sl• 1955, 51, 30•33:

Rapaport, D. D1aft:Rt&c IH~fttlos&oal ~J:tstw +· Ohloagcu Year Book Ae cal 'u s ere, 1§~5.

-36-Rashkis, H.A., Welsh, G.S. Detevtion of anxiet1 by use of the

Wechsler Soale. Journal !l !*1n1cal Pslchologz, 1946, 2, 354-357.

Rice, G., White, K. The effect ot education on preJudice as revealed b7 a game si tuat1on. Psz!)lol;orQc§Y. Record, 1964, 14, 341-)48.

Rosenthal' R. Experimenter attributes a4 4et.a1nuta of sub• Ject s responses. Jo~ ot ~f••l&;' !'!!;1ques !I! lersonal1tz Ags••I!!Bt, 6~ 5), 14-' •

Rosenthal, a. Experillental. modeling etteots _. deteminaats ot subjects responses. Jo!f§al 2l Pro;••tg;t Te!RB1gsea an4 :rusonal1tz Asstsagt; ~:3,21 (4 , 4 ~'11

Rosenthal, B.., lode, IC. P87ohOlogy of the scientist: V. Three Experiments in exper1menter bias. ;rszcholos&!!l Jepo£ls, 1963, 12, 491•511.

Sarason, I. *Pir1ca.l findings and problems in the use ot anxiety scales. l•z!Aolosioal l!!!Metin, l96o, 57, 403--13.2.

Sarason1 s.B., Mandler, G., or&ign1ll, P. The effects of differential instructions on anxiet7 and learning. Jgurnal 2! Abnormal; !1JA SOcial Pazmolog, 1952, 561·565.

Siegman, A.W. The effect of anxie'T on a concept formation task, a non-directed learning task and on timed and un­timed 1ntell1genoe teats. Jouraa$ ![ Oon!!lt&!S iqrcsolOSlt 1956, 20, 176-178.

Taylor, J. A personalit7 scale of manifest anxiet7. ~§oMEBal ££ Aine~mtl and §tg1a6 lszcholocr, 48, 1953, 285- •

Trent, R.D. The color ot the 1nYestigator as a Yariable in experimental researoh w1 th Negro and White subjects. I.2.!!£· !'\!l 2t §2g1N: Pazcsa1qgz, 1954, 40, 281-287.

Walker, R., Neilsen, M., Nicolay, R. The effects of failure and anxiety on intelligence test performance. iSMm!l !! Ol1nie4.. Pazoholosz:, 196~ 2l, 400-402.

Walker, R. , Spence, J. T. Relationship between digit span and anxiety. Jg¥~ 2! Oons'Q$ tins PBlCholosz, 1964, aa. 228-223.

Williams, J. Interviewer respondent b1teraot1ons A study of

- 31 -

Winslow, o., Brainerd, J. A ooapar1eon of the reactions ot Whites and Beg:roea to fnatratioa as measured bJ the aoaenzweig picture frustration teat. jmt£12an l!J9h0\2SZ• 1950, s, 297.

Winkel, G., Saraaon, I. SUb~eot, exper1mn.ter, and situational var1ablee 1n research on anxlet7. f .. S:. 4b19Dl6 !!l §Jfifl. l•ltholoq, 1964, 68, 60 . •

AfPRQVAL §HEET

The thesis submitted by Luke A. Shanley has been

read and approved by the director of the thesis.

Furthermore 1 the final copies have been examined by

the director and the signature which appears below

verifies the fact that any necessary changes have been

incorporated 1 and that the thesis is now given final

approval with reference to content and form.

The thesis is therefore accepted 1n partlal fulf11lment

of the requJrements for the degree of Master of Arts.

Date