San Fernando Valley State ·College
PSYCHOLOGICAL_ STRESS .A.ND AUTONOMIC .BALANCE
\\
or
The Effects of Four Variations of a Stress Technique
on Autonomic Balance
A project submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Psychology
by
James Henry Quigley
January, 1967
The project of James Henry Quigley is approved:
San Fernando Valley State College
January, 1967
11
·
.Q .
t.
..z Pfo)Rt 1214 ,A
¥k., ;; AWJ I ~M.LJ.Jji.4@44#.·.. L.(
4Ai!J ,}
g:c_ ALtd!& ti!JQC}QW,
st%4t
.
..
Contents
Section
Page
The Problem • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • •
History of tho :rrobl(1Jr\
~l'lw
.
utudy •
• • •
• • • • • •
1
5
• • •
lJ~
Method • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••
Procedure • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
16
Results • • • • • • • • • • • •
Discussion • • • • • • • • • •
Summary
• • • • • • • •
• •
Bibliography • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • •
36
• • • • • • • • • • •
49
• • • • • • • • • • •
58
• • • • • • • • • • •
60
Series of Photographs. •
• • • • • • •
Line Length Task Instructions • • • • •
Picture Description Task Instructions •
66
l'l'tliHJH't
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
• • • • • • • • • • • •
iii
27
67
68
List of Illustrations
Page
Fic;ure
Title
1
;;·t,J·~;
2o..
Neutral Vcrnion
2b
Threatening Version of Picture No. 4 • •
3
Frequency Distribution of Pretreatment A
r:r: /1. r~-vJ.T :J.t 1J. n
...• ..• ...•
.•
of Picture No. 4
0
Scores for 32 Subjects
4
24
• •
25
0
• • • • • • • • •
26
44
Frequency Distribution of Posttreatment A
Scores for 32 Subjects
5
• •
• • • • •
0
• • •
45
Pre- and Posttreatment i Means for the
Four Treatment Groups in Relation to a
Standardized AAF Mean
6
• • • • • • • • •
46
Pre- and Posttreatment A Means for 16
Subjects With Low Pretreatment Levels of
Anxiety
7
• • • • • •
Pre- and Posttreatment A Means for 16
• • • • • • • • • • •
47
Subjects With High Pretreatment Levels of
Anxiety
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
v
48
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Dr. Sheldon J. Korchin
for his interest and cooperation in supplying the necessary
information and materials for reproducing the stress technique.
Appreciation is also expressed to Dr. Robert
v.
Rainey and Dr. David M. Parker for their advisement and
constructive criticism in the completion of this project.
vi
Psydholo'gical Stre$S and
Aut~o~omic
Balance
or
T~e E$fe'cts :of Fou;r Vari.ations ~f i a i,St,r~s~ Technique
l
l
.
on Autonomic Balance
James Henry Quigley
The Problem
This study is an attempt to assess the effects which
four variations of a condensed stress technique may have on
the autonomic balance scores of college students.
variation is a different combination of
pret~sk
Each
instructions
and either imposed or no imposed perceptual errors derived
from an established stress technique.
In addition, this study will determine, through verbal
reports, the credibility of imposed perceptual errors.
The use of a stress technique developed for experimental investigation of stress behavior.of anxious patients
and normal subjects has been reported (Korchin, Basowitz,
Grinker, Hamburg, Persky, Sabshin, Heath, and Board, 1958).
The technique was based upon experimental deception involving the use of psychologically threatening instructions
1
' . - 9¥4\i
<
'
'M -'-:'. 4 ( ' ' .. UJ.l' " -. -
A.
, .......
2
'followed by imposed errors in both line and picture perception.
It was concluded from endocrinological measures and a
seven-point affect rating scale that the technique was an
effective means of experimentally inducing stress and anxiety
in both anxious and normal subjects.
Later, a revised version of the original technique
(line task deleted and picture task expanded) was used, and
it was found that this version was also an effective stress
inducer (Korchin and Herz, 1960).
The findings of that
study were also taken as evidence of the need for distinguishing the various aspects of the stress experience, the
threatening situation, the affective response, physiological
or behavioral changes, and their inter-relationships.
Lazarus (1966) feels that most experimenters ignore
(/i
v;
the psychological processes of threat appraisal which are
crucial to the actual production of psychological stress.
Korchin's stress experiments {1958, 1960) failed to explore
possible variations of the technique to determine the relative 'effectiveness of the original threatening instruction
and imposed error combination.
Using different sound track interpretations of a proven
stressful film on primitive subincision rites, Lazarus
(1962, 1964) found he could influence threat appraisal and
stress reactions.
The present study, by incorporating
different levels of instructions (psychologically
th~eaten­
ing or nonthreatening) and perceptual errors (imposed line
~·.(
-.$.. 4
LA
W.i .0, ·'·
- .:
4 .t.U_,.,_
.. k
;
;
,_)$
I
3
and picture errors or no imposed errors) will investigate
the relative effects which different combinations of these
factors may have on threat appraisal and stress reaction.
The original Korchin study (1958) relied on an affect
rating scale to record the presence and change in anxiety
i
I
levels associated with the stress technique.
However,
so~e
researchers have shown that clinical ratings of anxiety have
low correlation with anxiety factors based on many test
variables (Cattell and Scheier, 1961).
Because of the
possibility of such a measurement weakness, this study will
rely on physiological response indicators
makin~
battery known as the autonomic balance test.
balance or
A is
up a
t_e~::~,t
Autonomic
said to be a general factor of the autonomic
nervous system (A,NS) functioning which reflects the relative balance between the parasympathetic and the sympathetic
systems (Wenger, 1948).
Lazarus (1966) supports the use of
physiological indices of psychological
stress processes.
- --ft
---------~-~-----
-----~
since he feels that all psychological stress has common
physiological antecedants.
The physiological change to be investigated within the
framework of this study concerns the ANS.
Sympathetic
. dominance of the ANS is said to represent high anxiety and
fear whereas parasympathetic dominance represents
relative~
ly low anxiety levels and emotional stability (Wenger, 1966;
Ax, 1953; and Schachter, 1957) •
.,....,
;_ t_,P .. ,
01 ;: '
,,
'!
4
This study will investigate the effects of four variations of
a stress technique on autonomic balance scores to ascertain
their potential for inducing psychological stress and
situational anxiety in normal college students.
The Korchin technique also relies on credibility of
I
imposed perceptual errors.
The· subject is confronted with 1
I
errors in perceptual judgment for which only he is responsible.
This, in combination with threatening pretask instruc-
t~qns,
defines his errors as indicative of mental disturb-
ance.
This threat, in turn, leads to psychological stress
and situational anxiety.
By recording verbatim the subjects'
comments regarding their line and picture performance,
study will seelc to confirm the cred1b111 ty of
reported by Korchi_n in 1958., 1
.
;
·,;
t~1~
1mpose~---~:rJ;Rr_$
History of the Problem
Stress
In his book Psychological Stress and the Coping Pro~'
Lazarus (1966) surveys the research in the area of
stress and finds mul tipl·e meanings given to the ·term
stress, usually according to the purpose and theoretical
background of the researcher.
To deal with this dilemma, he
suggests that stress be used as a "generic term for the
whole area of problems that includes the stimuli producing
stress reactions, the reactions themselves, and the various
intervening processes" (Lazarus, 1966, p. 27).
The different levels of stress analysis can be considered within three categories:
sociological stress,
physiological. stress, and psychological stress.
Psychological Stress
Lazarus distinguishes psychological stress analysis by
the key intervening variable of threat.
Threat is basically
anticipato·ry and dependent upon cogni t1ons, such as perception, learning, judgment, and thought.
"Threat implies a
state in which the individual anticipates a confrontation
with a harmful condition of some sort" (Lazarus, 1966, p. 25).
Psychological stress is the type of stress analysis
involved in this study sinee the stress technique utilized
is based not on sociological impact nor on physiological
assault of body tissue, but rather on anticipation of possibly poor perceptual performance defined by pretask instruc-
5
6
tions as being indicative of psychological instability--a
threat Korchin feels is directed at the subject's mastery of
external reality and his own ego integrity.
Korchin et al
{1958) stated that "the primary transaction is between the
subject and the perceptual materials ••• rather than depending
on the social interplay ••• " {Korchin, et al, 1958, p. 100).!
Anxiety
Just as was the case with defining stress, anxiety has
multiple meanings according to the purpose and theoretical
background of different investigators.
The physiologist
considers anxiety to be a "specific pattern of activation
within the sympathetic branch of the autonomic.nervous
system" (Wenger, Jones, and Jones, 1956, p. 431).
The
biologist (Shands, 1957) claims that anxiety is a signal
pointing indefinitely to future catastrophe; the form of this
signal is an awareness of activity in the thoracicolumbar
division of the autonomic nervous system.
The learning theorist may consider anxiety as does
Skinner (1953). within a stimulus-response framework attaching no useful purpose to itsfunction, while another
0-1o1vrer, 1939) considers that "anxiety is a learned response
occurring to signals ••• in the past ••• followed by situations
of injury or pain 11 {Mowrer, 1939, p. 261).
Therefore, anxiety
has great biological uti'li ty for preparing the organism for
possible danger.
The psychotherapist and psychoanalyst may consider the
.,~~·'
4i
'' '
.. '
.
$(
-~-
#
%
-1.--M U t
g; L tL
, ¢
¥«}I
%, "), J.
46.0 4
.. 4@% #, .·
!--:--
.. . ki.M£$3£7- ., _¢,,
)#p . .¥$ :_<!t;.jP.f
..48. _;zp!A,W.
M¥ ... A;--:0'·•·,.·
-A-
r-
\
7
problem 1fi thin a clinical framework, focusing primarily on
pathological forms of anxiety.
c~nsider­
Freud {1936, 1949)
ed anxiety. as an internal state respons,ible for neurotic
disturbances and the source of defensive symptoms.
and Jones (1957) speak of the two main types of
Stanley
pathologic~l
anxiety, thyrotoxic goitre and anxiety neurosis.
Both,
I
I
they say, stem from represse.d aggressi9n which has failed
to achieve its proper motor release.
Benjamin (1961)
qualifies the role of the ego in anxiety b.y
statin~
that
the ego experiences anxiety rather than produces it, and
that thi.s experience cannot occur until a mature ego has
developed.
~1ay
(1950) defines anxiety in a generic sense based on
a developme'ntal approach to the problem.
He feels that
anxiety is a natural outgrowth of basic reflexes and that it
emerges as a diffuse, undifferentiated emotional response
to threat:
"An~iety
is the ap:[>rehension cued off by a
threat to some value which the individual holds as essential
to his existence as a personality."
From the above multilevel definitions and
approach~s,
it is clear that anxiety as such relies on the purpose and
theoretical background of the investigator for its meaning.
It can be considered as a source of apprehension necessary
for the healthy adaption of.the organism to its dynamic
environment and also as a source of nonadaptive neurotic
symptoms.
'.
. N ,
;; _; .
. )._)7
i.
-
41 P .
_;;.;
' · t.< n .
1
I
8
The form of anxiety considered relevant to the purposes ·
(
--\
.
of this study is iSi tuational anxiety, j1 temporary feeling of
apprehension related to specific situations (Cattell and
Scheier, 1961).
The specific situations felt to be capable
of'inducing this form of anxiety are (a) the initial test, of
autonomic balange using various types of appara~us and prbcedures, and (b) the instructions and perceptual errors
invo·l ved in the specific treatment which the subject receives.
Measures of Anxiety
The primary methods for measuring anxiety levels are as
follows:
clinical rating scales, mental tests, projective
tests, intervie1-vs, psychophysical and physiological indices.
The psychophysical method
o~
flicker fusion threshold (FFT)
was used in pilot studies as an index of anxiety level.
The
present study vdll use a more comprehensive battery of
physiological tests to establish autonomic balance scores as
an index of anxiety level.
Autonomic Balance
Since 1933, Wenger has been investigating a measurable
autonomic factor in man.
He described a factor of autonomic
nervous system functioning in adult males (1948) and young
adult females (Lucio and Wenger, 1961).
Estimates of this
factor for individuals have been determined as scores of
autonomic balance or A scores.
Scores below a standardized
I mean have been shovm to be associated with relative sympathetic dominance of the ANS whereas scores above the mean
"'
•J
).
LJ.$
) ¥A$.··.¥
. . ; .!!:OM
~.4..
.
. puu;J .
9
represent relative parasympathetic dominance.
Low scores (belo1·r the mean) have been associated with
chronic anxiety states (Holt, 1956; Parker, 1955; and
v/en(r,er, 19'+0) and vri th situational anxiety states ( Sni th and
vi enger, 1965) •
The major findings seem to indicate that low
scores are associated with fear and anxiety (Ax, 1953;
Schachter, 1957; \"lenger, Jones, and Jones, 1956), reflecting
sympathetic dominance of the ANS.
Good physical health and
psychological adjustment are associated with higher
A
scores (Wenger, 1966).
Through the use of autonomic balance scores for each
individual, it will be possible to observe measures of the·
subject's autonomic nervous system functions during specific
situations and to compare his scores with other subjects'
within his treatment group and with a larger referent
group (Army Air Force
LAAi7 personnel).
The Stress Technique (Revision and Adaptions)
A distinction must be made between the original stress
technique (Korchin et al, 1958) and the adaption of the
technique used in this study.
In the original version of the stress technique, subjects were tested on four consecutive days.
The first day
was a pre-experimental day reserved for basal measures.
The following three days consisted of treatments with increasing numbers of imposed perceptual errors on a line
task, culminating in a task with induced picture description
. t . 4l
1 .
, .F
4~
? ._ .P.. _;;I
, )
J I XU.·
)
,; ~.lA
. Q_t
• &.,.
. . h i £&.
_k
. SJG
4
10
errors on the third day.
In 1960, Korchin used a revised version of the original test using the picture description task only;
subjects
were pretested for adrenocortical functioning on one day and
then given the picture description task on the next day
without any line descrip,tion taslc, although the author
stated that there had been no suspicion aroused by the line
error task in the earlier (1958) experiment.
1.
Condensed Stress Technique
The purpose of this study is to investigate possible
variations of the instructions and imposed errors of the
~riginal
stress technique, rather than to replicate the
four-day procedure used by Korchin in 1958.
Practical
considerations involving the attrition rate of college
students participating in
'!_~n.s1_ng___the
le~gthy
teph:.n:l.que. in.t_o.
one~... day..,of-~-tast.ing
Korchin in his 1960 revision).
deletion of the line test
~:m,d
task from 8 to 12 pictures.
-
•»••o
-.•~~----'"
experiments led to
Th~t
(as did
revision called for
an ex]?ans.ion.. of. the :pj_qtu._:;ce
For the purpose of this study,
however, the following condensation of the stress
was used:
~Qn­
tech~ique
the original 45 line length estimates (15 per day
for three days) were reduced to 10 estimates, and 8 picture
L
descriptions, during one test day.
It was felt that if the stress technique could prove
effective without the line test (as in Korchin, 1960), then
it was permissible to c.ond-ense the line test in the above
11
manner to establish line error credibility (as reported in
the original study by Korchin).
2.
Pilot Studies Using the Condensed Technique
In 1963, two pilot studies were carried out to investigate the effectiveness of the condensed version of the
str~Bs
technique on psychophysical measures of stress and
anxiety.
The first study required five days of testing--the
first three days consisting of basal measures for FFT, the
four~h
day consisting of experimental application of the
stress technique, and the last day consisting of posttest
measures of FFT.
The results showed no significant drop in
FFT scores as an index of experimentally induced stress and
si tuation-al-,anxtety.
But there was a significant increase
in FFT following the revelation of the deception to the
subjects.
It was concluded that basal levels of FFT were
not accurate indices of nonstress conditions, but rather
were reflections of unintended stress similar to Korchin's
(1958) findings using endocrinological measures.
It was
suggested that the overall situation may have been more
stressful than the specific technique and that informing the
subjects of the deception had reduced this general level of
anxiety.
Later in 1963, another experiment was.performed to
compare the relative effects of the condensed stress technique and tvro control groups on FFT and galvanic skin
response (GSR) scores.
. ;
The condensed version of the stress
.t;R .... ,.C,.,P_?i-.. :--·'
~·
.
'
12
'
~·
;:
.!
..·.••·••··
technique served as the experimental treatment, while the
condensed version without threatening instructions or imposed
orrors served as one control treatment (Control Group I) and
a third, true control Group (Control Group II) did not receive either version of the technique but only FFT and GSR
I
tests over a similar time span.
The results indicated that the cond-ensed stress technique did not significantly affect FFT or GSR scores, while
the Control Group I version of the technique was associated
with significantly elevated FFT scores.
It was concluded
that the condensed stress technique was an inadequate source
of stress for college students, but that the control version
of the technique--through accurate perceptual performance-reduced overall situational anxiety associated with1 the
experiment.
The pilot studies suggested that the condensed stress
technique was not an effective source of situational anxiety
for college students.
Discussion of these negative results
indicated the need for further experimentation using different design and measurement techniques.
To test the relative
effectiveness of the condensed stress technique against
other possibly more effective techniques, a factorial design
was suggested.
To confirm the results of the FFT measures,
a standardized test should be used (i.e., autonomic balance
or A), which involves a battery of physiological indices of
situational anxiety.
t;
~.
13
:,,
3.
Further Adaptions of the Technique
Because of pilot study experiences vri th subjects -vrho
would foreot to continuo looking into the viewing box after
making line judgments, a sentence of instructions was added
stt:E:)ssing the need for the subject to continue looking into1
the box after each judgment for a possible after-image.
To provide more explicit instructions concerning the
description of the pictures, a line was added to Korchin's
original instructions.
This sentence required the subject
to describe objects, persons, and the implied meaning of the
scene.
Korchin et al (1958) noted earlier that some subjects
would only describe the picture in a'superficial way to a-.
void gross errors if they were proven wrong.
This means of
defense was greatly reduced by this new instruction.
In addition, the original technique used eight pictures
and all eight were switched so that a threatening version
was seen in the viewing box and a neutral version was presented up close for the subject to see.
ment~
utilized these
switched.
s~11e
The present experi-
eight pictures, but only four were
This is in keeping with Korchin's suggestions in
his 1960 revision.
The order of presenting the pictures was
also rearranged to rei'lect increasing·ego threat in a systematic fashion.
taJ?k.)
(See discussion of
apparat~s
for the picture
The Present Study
This study will investigate four variations of a condensed stress technique as possible methods of inducing
situational anxiety in college students.
nomic balance (.A) will serve as
i~d~ces
Scores of autoof anxiety level.
Pretreatment .A scores above a standard mean for AAF personnel (Wenger, 1948) will indicate relatively low levels '
of anxiety while scores below this mean will represent
relatively higher anxiety levels.
To control for the organismic variable of anxiety and
for individual appraisals of threat, each subject will serve
as his own control on pretreatment and posttreatment measures of autonomic balance (A) •
.A comparison of each subject's pretreatment and post-
treatment .A scores will be made to establish any significant
differences between these two measures.
.A reduction in post-
treatment score will indicate an increase in anxiety (Smith
and Wenger, 1965) whereas an elevation in posttreatment
score will represent a decrease in anxiety for that individual subject.
The form of anxiety felt to be most likely associated
with
~nitial
measures and treatments is situational anxiety.
Verbal reports will be recorded after all line and
picture tasks to establish the credibility of imposed line
and
pict~re
error techniques for college students.
The general experimental design is the factorial type
14
15
(Andrei·m, 19L~8) 1vi th before-after measures using each subject as his mm control.
Three factors (each at tw·o levels) are involved in
this study.
These factors include (a) pretreatment
anxiety level (relatively high or low), (b) pretask instruc1
tions (threatening or not threatening), and (c) perceptual I
I
errors (imposed or not imposed).
It is felt that the present study will more adequately
test the condensed stress technique, through the use of
standardized measures of anxiety and factorial design, than
was possible in pilot study experiments.
.Hethod
Independent Variables
The two factors manipulated in this experiment to induce stress and situational anxiety were instructions and
perceptual errors.
Instructions were (a) psychologically
threatening (see section on procedure), or (b) not psycho-
1
l
logically threatening.
Perceptual errors were (a) imposed (4 out of 10 lines
switched and 4 out of 8 pictures switched), or (b) not
imposed.
These variables were introduced into the following··
treatments:
1.
Treatment Group A, which received psychologically
threatening instructions followed by imposed line and picture
errors~
2.
Treatment Group B, which received psychologically
threatening instructions followed by nQ imposed line and
picture errors.
3.
Treatment Group C, which received nQ psychologically
threatening instructions, but only task instructions fol2owed by imposed line and picture errors.
-;.,
4.
Treatment Group D, which received
~
psychologi-
cally threatening instructions, only task instructions followed by QQ imposed line and picture errors.
Dependent Variables
Autonomic balance score (A) is a measure of the depend-
16
.t
I
.1
• 4
4 lOA «WiP-._,
.....·..=
-·..•.. *--. •.·.~· .•. ·~
17
ent organismic variable anxiety.
Autonomic balance scores
below the standardized mean (Army Air Force personnel M
=
69.89) represent relative sympathetic dominance of the ANS,
or the prenence of anxiety ln healthy college students
(Smith and Weneer, 19G5).
Lowering of I scores from the
pretreatment to the posttreatment experimental situation
will be taken as evidence of a shift toward sympathetic
and rw bel.np; 1ndlcn.t1ve of situational anxiety
dnrnlnn.noo
associated with that treatment.
The actual tests involved in deriving an autonomic
balance score are described in the sections onapparatus
and procedure.
Verbal report is considered a qualitative dependent
variable in
~his
study.
It is a direct means of ascertain-
ing the credibility of imposed errors connected with Treatment Groups A and C through subject report procedures.
Controls
,_-,~
The controls involved in this study are concerned
with three sources of possible experimental error:; subject variability, environmental variability, and procedural
variability.
1.
Subject Variability
The subjects were 16 male and 16 female undergraduates
attending summer classes at San Fernando Valley State
College (SFVSC).
'
"
.. ;
~
4.
.K
k!l.
They volunteered for a visual and physio-
18
logical experiment requiring one and one-half hours.
The age
range for the sample of 32 subjects was from 18 to 25 years.
Each subject had to pass the checklist of preconditions before he was given either the pretreatment or posttreatment
A test.
Preconditions for the physiological tests were as
follows:
1a) 8 hours of sleep the night before testing,
{b) no alcohol or drugs at least 24 hours before testing,
(c) no food at least 1-1/2 hours before testing, (d) no
smoking or drinking water 1/2 hour before testing, and (e)
no coffee or tea or other beverages 1-1/2 hour before tests.
The only information given
~o
the subjects prior to
their participation in the experiment was that they would be
given a series of physiological tests taking 20 minutes and
that they would, after a two-vreek period, be given a visual
test followed by the same physiological test requiring approximately an hour.
To control for sex differences on
A performance,
an
equal number of males and females was used with each treatment group consisting of four males and four females.
There
was no control over menstrual cycle over the four-week period of testing, but the effects of this factor were considered to be balanced by the equal number of females per group.
The subject differences on pretreatment I scores were
balanced by randomly assigning treatments within four homogeneous blocks of pretreatment scores.
,y
,.(
_, , u
G. ;;_,< .. P.t
~ .o.
The comparison of
tot __;,.¢¢
en . . sc.;a
A
,
s b IJ.
y .
Rf #--'
~ ,?· ,
AP-
~
-
* ·
:·.·.·ii£-1M:·~··
19
pretest and posttest A scores controlled for lntersubject
l
variability by each subject serving as his own control.
2.
Envirorunental Variability
To control for factors that could influence a subject's
physiological functioning and autonomic balance score, the
following controls were instituted.
All measures were made
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 1-1i th each subject being retested
at approximately the same time of day he was pretested.
Both
pre- and posttreatment.A tests were made under constant room
temperature.
To make data comparable with other studies,
corrections for time of day and room temperature were used
to adjust the estimates of volar skin conductance and sublingual temperature.
All testing took place in the same room, with noise
from adjacent rooms kept to a minimum.
All measures of skin
conductance were made with a potentiometer which impressed
a 40-microampere
plastic cups.
~a)
current through zinc electrodes in
Contact with the skin was by means of a 1-
per-cent ZnS04 agar paste, 1dth fresh paste applied for each
subject.
Before pretests using the seven physiological tests,
each subject "ivas told that no pain or discomfort was involved in these measures, and a five-minute survey of the tests
preceded each subject's initial
A test.
Thus, any apparatus
stress effects would have to overcome these assurances •
'~
;.
.
·''
20
3.
Procedural Variability
Throughout this study, attempts were made to adhere as
closely as possible to the physiological tests and the stress
technique procedures (Vrenger, 1948; Korchin, 1958).
Instruc=
tions 1vere read verbatim during both the .Al'{S and the perceptual tests.
Korchin et al (1958) noted that when it 1-ras
t
I
felt that the subject was becoming suspicious during the
deception, they uould refrain from sw·i tching the viewed
material.
This flexibility was also incorporated into the
present experiment and was only resorted to once during line
deception.
In the original technique, pictures were presented by
tachistoscope at 0.25-second intervals whereas the present
experiment used a transistorized on-off switch which illuminated the picture for 0.25 second by means of a 7-watt
bulb inside the viewing box.
While this study used variations of the original stress
technique, the instructions and the error technique were
identical to the previous work.
Apparatus
Apparatus for
I Battery of Tests.
The apparatus used
to administer the ANS test battery consisted of the following i terns:·
1.
Sublingual temperature.
A standard clinical
thermometer calibrated in degrees Fahrenheit, read to the
nearest tenth of a
degre~was
used.
21
2.
Salivary output.
A centrifuge tube calibrated in
milliliters lias used to collect saliva over a 3-minute period
via a negative pressure pump.
3.
Standing palmar resistance.
A Levine potentio-
meter capable of impressing a 40-A"a current through two
zinc electrodes attached to the subject's palms was used to
measure palmar resistance.
4.
rest.
Palmar conductance' during strain and reclining
The lowest palmar resistance reading by Levine
potentiometer during the first 15 seconds of a strained
posture was recorded from palmar electrodes and again while
the subject reclined (at 3-minute intervals) with current
applied only during measurements.
5.
Volar resistance.
Zinc electrodes placed 8 to
10 centimeters below the elbows and secured by rubber
straps attached to a Levine potentiometer were used to
measure volar forearm resistance.
Four measures at 3-
minute intervals were made during rest with the lowest conductance serving as the final measure.
6.
Diastolic blood pressure.
Both systolic and
diastolic blood pressure were measured in the standard
manner with cuff attached to left upper arm and stethoscope
strapped over brachial artery.
Systolic and diastolic
readings were taken together four times at 3-minute inter•
vals.
The datum consisted of the average of the two low-
est readings.
22
7.
Heart period.
To estimate heart period, the time
required for 11 pulse beats, when cuff pressure was just above diastolic pressure was recorded on a standard stop1-ratch.
Recorded datum was the mean of four readings at 3-
minute intervals.
. ("
Apparatus for Perceptual Task.
In the condensed
perceptual stress technique, a light-tight viewing box
2 feet long, 8 inches high, and 8 inches '\-Tide was used to
present the visual material (figure 1).
A clear 7-watt bulb
located inside the box beneath the binocular opening provided
1.5 foot-candles of illumination for line and picture viewing.
To approximate the tachistoscope picture exposure
described by Korchin (1958), a transistorized on-off switch
was used to illuminate the pictures for 0.25 second inside
the box.;
A 1rhi te cross, used for focusing, was painted
I
in the center of the interior viewing box surface where both
line and picture material lvould appear.
1.
Line Material.
The line length estimate task in-
volved the use of 7-inch-by-7-inch white cards w~th a pair
of printed vertical lines 4 inches apart.
These lines
ranged from 4-3/4 to 5-3/4 inches in length.
Each card con-
tained a long and a relatively shorter line.
The difference
in length between the paired lines varied from 1/4 inch
(minimum) to 3/4 inch (maximum) on the various cards.
An
ordinary ruler was used to measure the lines after each
length estimate had been made by the subject.
...... ·'·:
Only the cards
23
containine; the line difference of 1/4 inch
vTere
switched to
impose line errors.
2.
Picture Material.
required tho usc of
oic~ht
The picture description task
picture::::, four of rrhich had a
threatening version which replicated its neutral counterpart
I
in important stimulus quality except content and implied
meaning.
i
I
Each picture vTBs a photograph of one or more per- '
sons engaged in some common posture or social interaction,
except for the four threatening versions which ranged from
scenes of anger, self-destruction, death,
a~d
sexual activity,
to a scene of homosexuality {see figures 2a and 2b as
samples).
The series of pictures used in this experiment is presented in appendix 1.
Only those subjects assigned to
treatment groups with imposed line and picture error conditions saw the threatening versions before being shown the
neutral counterparts up close.
Subjects not assigned to
treatments with imposed line and picture errors viewed the
neutral picture on both occasions.
--~
j·-·,'·
.
'
-®h./
24
Vic1-vinr,
Box - ____
_
-------··-----~-----
.
Stress Subject's Position
..----- Focus Point
\__Card
Binocular
Aperture
7-Watt
Light Bulb.
Figure 1 - Stress Apparatus
--;
@.;'
,4
•
••
-·
4
25
. ;
I
·-•:.
·" '• ···.,. .
.;
.,,,
:: -. ·
) .
.
··.. ..
' .
~
d
n
'!
.,i•
;:
II
il
~I
(Courtesy:
s.
Korchin)
Figure 2a
Neutral Version of Picture No . 4
,,
)]Qt.
.:.
- 3..
Qj
.~t
s..QJ
1€? . MGJ!Ph!E ,iJ ywaec . .
x.. ~
; ;;
UElt 4Qe;.;cppts;ep
q; ,
Q _JfoiQ _.
&4£
• -~· ¢5- , AS .Gh¢
;·
(Courtesy:
s.
Korchin)
Figure 2b
.Threatening Version of Picture No. ·4
;_ ,;;z ;;; JSQE
"
4?5J; 9Ptfi\ P,t
Procedure
This study consisted of two basic parts:
the initial
pretest day for deriving autonomic balance scores under
resting conditions and the day of treatment conditions
followed by a posttreatment measure of autonomic balance.
This is a before-after type of design, with each subject
serving as his own control.
The initial pretest"required approxinately 30 minutes.
The subject was required to pass the five-item checklist of
preconditions to control for physiological variables in
A
testing.
After passing the screening test, the subject was told
that he would now be taking a series of physiological tests
requiring 20 minutes and that within the next two weeks he
would again take the same test after a 15-minute visual test.
Before actual testing, each subject was allowed a 5•minute
adaption period in which the tests he was about to take were
described in a general manner.
The subject then was given
the entire test battery consisting of the following tests:
sublingual temperature, salivary output, standing palmar
skin resistance, palmar resistance during strain and during
rest, volar forearm skin resistance, systolic blood pressure
and diastolic blood pressure, and heart period.
A sample score sheet for these tests is presented on
the following page. The equation for obtaining factor estimates is
A=
O.l4zS0+0.30zST+0.09zP0+0.09zV0+0.17zLCC+0.18
zDBP+0.4lzHP.
27
;,;._
Sample Score Sheet
Name ____________ Date _____________ Experiment·------------~
Time of Meas.
Room Temp. (Centigrade) ______
Wt.
Variable
Rai·T Score Stand. Sc.
s.o.
Milliliters output
for 3 minutes
S.T. -
.14
degrees F. plus
correction
-
P.O. - Samples at end of
first and second minutes
standing (average for raw score)
1.
2.
volts (Levine bridge)
1.
2~
micromhos from table
__
V.C. - Samples at 3-minute intervals, subject
reclining. Strain measure first.
_ . _ 3.
1. _ . . .2.
4.
volts Levine
-
Lowest conductance
mioromhos plus
from correction tabl67
P.O. - Samples of reclining P.O. at 3-minute
intervals
1.
2. .._...., 3.
4.
volts Levine
Strain ___ volts L. ___ Log micromhos minus
lowest resting P.o. ___ = LCC (in log
micromhos)
·
-
DBP
-
---
.17
- Samples at 3-minute intervals (reclining)
Systolic: 1 . _ 2 . _ 3 . _ 4 . _ M!•1 Hg
Diastolic: 1. ___ 2. ___ 3. ___ 4. ___ MM Hg
Average of DBP accompanying 2 lowest SBP
H.P. - Samples at 3-minute intervals reclining
1.
2.
3.
4./
beats per minute
1.::: 2.::: 3.::: 4.::: milliminutes/10
cycles. 10,000
= ~rn/10 cycles
Beats per min.
.41
A Score:
*
on W't. indicates reflection of a standard score by subtracting the value given in the conversion table from 100.
The explicit procedures for the above test battery were
follow·ed (1,Tene;er, 1948).
These have been dealt with brief-
-
ly in this paper under the section on apparatus for the A
test.
All measurements were made between the hours of 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m.
Each subject was tested at the same time for
both pretreatment and posttreatment
ble.
A scores
whenever possi-i
Room temperature was held constant (72° F.) during the
tests.
A table was used to transform volts to micromhos or log
micromhos, and a table based on Army Air Force personnel
norms and correction formulas was used to transform raw
scores to standard scores and to correct for time of day and
room temperature (Wenger, 1948).
After all 32 subjects had been pretested for autonomic
balance, the scores were arranged in numerical order in
separate groups for males and females.
From these two dist-
ributions, four homogeneous blocks of males and females were
formed, each block containing four males and females with
similar pretreatment A scores.
The four males and four fe-
males within each block were then randomly assigned to the
four treatments.
Following a two-week waiting period, each
subject returned for the second part of the experiment--the
visual test and the second, posttreatment
A test
.battery.
The visual test consisted of four variations of the
original stress technique, depending upon the type of instruc-
30
tions and perceptual errors involved.
An outline of the pro-
cedures associated vri th each of the four treatment groups
follows:
1.
Treatment Group A.
This group received the psycho-
logically threatening instructions followed by the imposed
perceptual errors.
This group may be considered the true
experimental group since both instructions and errors were
manipulated by the experimenter.
Before receiving the
ordinary task instructions for length judgment, these subjects were read the following psychologically threatening
instructions constructed by Korchin (1958):
"Every psychologically healthy person has to be able to
make accurate decisions about what goes on in the world
about him, both about things and about the actions of people.
As you knmf, mentally ill people are undependable or
inaccurate in what they see or hear or in the judgments they
make about things going on about them.
hear things which are not there.
Sometimes they see or
We believe that the differ-
ence between psychologically healthy and unhealthy persons
can be seen even in relatively simple perceptual
11
judgment~.
In the test I will give you now, I want to see how
accurately you can judge the size of lines.
Although judg-
ing length is not very important in your daily life, we have
found that being able to do this test is definitely related
to the ability to make important decisions. 11
It should be obvious that the above instructions are
31
purposely constructed so as to serve as a psychological
threat by defining the anticipated perceptual test as one
capable of reflecting psychological instability through poor
performance.
After the above instructions were read, the subject
I
then made 10 line length judgments from cards presented in a\
viewing box, and each judgment -vras validated by measuring
the lines up close.
Of the 10 cards vie1-red in the box, 4 were switched
(vri thout the subjects 1 knowledge) between initial viewing
in the box and later validating viewing outside the box.
This was done through the use of the task instructions and
actual manipulation of the cards.
After viewing the lines
1-l'ithin the box and making a length judgment, the subject
was asked to focus on the white cross inside the box for the
purpose of an after-image experiment.
While he focused on
the cross, the card originally seen and judged was switched
with one having lines opposite in relative lengths.
Thus,
when the subject was asked to measure the card up close to
validate his initial judgment, he discovered that he had
made an error.
The four imposed errors occurred randomly
within the presented cards.
Substituted lines were drawn
so as to eliminate any secondary. cues by which the deception could be exposed.
Following the line task, the subject was asked to
comment on his performance.
All comments were racorded
f
,./
....... ---------------------------------------------------&-K~~~·~·~.&~4L~L-~-3~----~J~U~A~.--··~<~S$·.--~--~
...
)C.
verbatim on the score sheet while the experimenter acted as
an objective recorder.
'JJhe picture description task was then introduced by
reading the following instructions (also considered threatening in content):
"In this next test, I want to see hovr accurately you
can describe a picture that you will see for a brief time
in the viewing box.
I am trying to learn if you can make
quick, precise judgments.
This test is more important than
the line measurement test because the pictures show actual
social behavior.
Although you will see the picture for
only a fraction of a second, most people are able to describe the important aspects of the scene."
This set of instructions can be considered as a logical step toward increasing anticipated harm in the form of
possible picture description errors after already having
made errors on the more simple line length task.
The pic-
tures themselves are constructed so as to bring into question the subject's ego integrity by suggesting projective
distortion of reality which Korchin calls. 11 ego disintegrative threat.
11
The subjects were then shown the eight pictures described earlier in this paper.
ated for 0.25 second each.
The pictures were illumin- ·
After seeing the picture for this
brief time, and while still looking in the darkened viewing box, the subject described what he saw.
Subjects were
t
:--...',
--------~---~......,____""""""""l!\l'l"!''""""''""".....""""~""":""""-"·'"""'"'....... ~- .........,..,.~~'
~!!<'•:~
t ..
·~
.. 34<
, . f t .. J.l.
. (,,
. -IA•.. E¢
.f1-.#*.~.·.~·t.."'.,.,;,,~···
.. ·- .. :>-. . . . ,,,..,.,,,.,
•.'"""'-
'"~'""'
··.~~
·:~~,
-1 .......
·..
...-• .
•••
33
specifically asked to describe both the content and the 1mplied meaning of each picture.
In the Korchin study (1958), many subjects relied on
the defensive maneuver of only describing the scene (when
threatened by imposed errors) in a general manner.
By
requiring the subject to define the implications of the
picture, this avenue of defense 1vas not left open.
Just as in the line deception technique, four of the
eight pictures were switched so as to impose perceptual
errors without the subjects' knmvledge.
The speed of the
initial viewing (0.25 second) was found to be more than
ample to determine the important aspects of the scene (based·
on control group accuracies during the pilot studies).
The picture description error technique was as follows:
After being informed of the task procedure, the subjects
made eight picture descriptions.
Each picture was present-
ed inside the viewing box for 0.25 second of illumination
and was then taken from the box.
While still looking into
the darkened box, the subject described the cqntent and
implied meaning of the picture he had just seen.
When his
description was complete, he was asked to validate his description by viewing the picture up close under room illum•
ination.
Errors rrere imposed in the picture descriptions by presenting rather socially unacceptable scenes which were then
switched for their neutral counterparts.
It is felt by
34
Korchin and others that this form of "ego disintegration"
implies the intrusion of consciously denied needs which should
be under ego control.
The imposed picture errors followed a systematic plan
based on increasing social importanre for male and female
college students.
Except for the pictures with sexual
implications (males receiving the picture of homosexual
behavior and females receiving the scene of the male menacing the female), all subjects had the same imposed picture
errors.
Follow·ing the picture description task, the subject .
was asked to comment on his performance.
2.
Treatment Groups B, 0, and D. Because of the fact-
orial nature of this experiment, the other three treatments
consisted of different combinations of instructions and
perceptual errors, as follows:
(a) Treatment Group B,
which consisted of eight subjects, received the same psychologically threatening instructions as Treatment Group A, but
with no errors imposed on line and picture performance.
(b) Treatment Group O, which consisted of eight
subjects~
was read only the task instructions pertaining to line and
picture descriptions and had imposed line and picture
errors.
(c)
Treatment Group D, which consisted of eight
subjects, is considered the true control group in that
neither factor, instructions nor perceptual errors, was
manipulated in a threatening manner.
This group had no
,
~~
...
35
psychologically threatening instructions and no imposed line
or picture errors.
Follov-ring each of the four treatments, subjects were
immediately tested for posttreatment autonomic balance.
~he
treatment plus the posttreatment A test took approximately
45 minutes :per subject, or 65 minutes :per subject for the
entire experiment.
Following both the line and :picture :performance by
each subject, they-were asked to comment on the complexity
of the task and to give their reactions about their performance.
~hese
comments :provided verbal records of the subjects'
feelings immediately after taking the tests.
It also served.
as a direct method of ascertaining the credibility of line
and picture deception.
!
E
Results
The tables and figures on the following pages summarize the analysis of the data.
Table 1 is an analysis of
variance of the entire 2x2x2 factorial experiment.
Tables
2 and 3 show an analysis of variance of instructions and
errors in separate 2x2 factorial analyses of high and low
anxiety groups to test the feasibility of post-hoc mean
comparisons.
Post-hoc comparisons were not feasible.
~.·
Table 4 is a T-test comparison of AAF mean and SFVSC pretreatment mean.
Table 5 is a T-test comparison of pre-
treatment and posttreatment means fqr all low-anxiety
subjects.
Table 6 is a T-test comparison of pretreatment
ana. posttreatment means for all high-anxiety subjects.
Table 7 shows credibility ratings for the.imposed line and
picture errors.
Figures 3 and 4 show frequency distributions for the
entire sample before and after treatments.
and 7 are bar graphs representing
Figures 5, 6,
p~etreatment
and post-
treatment means.
Note that in the tables (under F) the following
notations of significance apply.
No notation signifies non-
significance.
+ p {. .25
*
p ~
.05
36
**
"0 !::r
/
..
• 01
37
•rable 1
Analysis of Variance, 2x2x2 Factorial Design
{Analysis of variance summary table for a 2x2x2
factorial design with pretreatment anxiety, pretask instructions, and perceptual errorst each
at t1-ro levels, to determine if these factors
affect A scores)
SSg
df
MS
760.5
1
760.5
**12.8
36.1
1
112.5
1
112.5
+1.9
AB
72.0
1
72.0
1.2
AC
15.1
1
BC
18.0
1
ABC
10.1
1
Within error
1422.5
24
Total
2446.8
Source
A
(anxiety level)
B {errors)
c
(instructions)
F
Note.--The pretreatment median for I scores was 69.30,
closely approximating the AAF mean of 69.89, and was used as
the dividing point for high and low anxiety levels.
_________""""""'/·
--
_ IJ_" _ L, ..
~~
·
38
Table 2
Analysis of Variance for High-Anxiety Subjects
(Analysis of variance summary table for simple
2x2 factorial arrangement of pretask instructions
ru1d perceptual errors for 16 subjects having
initially high levels of anxiety)
Source
SSg
df
A (instructions)
105.1
1
105.1
B (errors)
22.5
1
22.5
AB
27.6
1
27.6
52~.:2
12
4~.6
Within
MS
F
2.41
~R:.
39
!..·
.
Table 3
Analysis of Variance for Lov-r-Anxiety Subjects
(Analysis of variance of 2x2 factorial arrangement for 16 subjects having initially low levels
. -.;
of anxiety)
Source
A (instructions)
B (errors)
Within
df
SSg
F
3
1
3
105
1
105
0
1
910
12
76
Table 4
Comparison of
~~F
Mean and SFVSC Pretreatment Mean
(Comparison of the standard Army Air Force mean
based on anN
for N
= 32
=460
with the pre-experimental mean
SFVSC students, to determine if these two
independent means are significantly different)
Group
M
AAF
69.89
SFVSC
71.16
SD
t
0.70
10.00
41
Table 5
Comparison of Pretreatment and Posttreatment lvieans for LowAnxiety Subjects
(Comparison of pretreatment and posttreatment A change
for the 16 subjects at the low level of pretreatment
anxiety, to determine if the overall reduction in posttreatment mean was significant)
.,
?,.'
Mean
M
Pre-A
80
Post-A
74
SD diff.
2
:~
t
il-*
·.
-..
-3.0
'
-'~. •
!·
42
Table 6
Comparison of Pretreatment and Postreatment Means for
High-Anxiety Subjects
(Comparison of pretreatment to posttreatment A change
for the 16 subjects at the high level of pretreatment
anxiety, to detennine if the overall increase in posttreatment mean was significant)
,,
.
~··.
Mean
SD diff.
Pre-A
59
Post-A
67
1.7
""
t
.
** 3.5
l'
------------~~~
.,.)
43
Table 7
Credibility Ratings of Imposed Errors
(This table illustrates the frequency of comments
attributing errors to each of the three categories;
(a) self-induced errors by the subject, (b) experimenter-induced errors, and (c) apparatus-induced
errors)
Picture Errors
Line Errors
Self
2
Self
Experimenter
9
Experimenter
1
Apparatus
5
Apparatus
4
Total
16
Total
11
16
Note.-- The subjects' comments pertaining to their perceptual error scores were classified into the abovementioned three categories.
Examples of each of these
categories are as follows:
Self-induced:
"Brain puts in what eyes miss."
"Inferred quite a bit."
.
Experimenter:
"Turning cards on incorrect choices. 11
"You switched them •••• " " ••• felt you
turned them over."
Apparatus:
"Lighting not bright enough for some
cards." 11 Fast exposure. 11 "Light
sa~e but pictures varied·in·difficulty."
to
to
(.1j
rl
0
10
.s:::()
9
(.1j
,· ..- .
J:il
8
p
oM
..ct
+J
oM
::;-::
r-17
(.1j
t>
H6
to
(])
+J
+J
() ·~
(])
""
.0
;3
U]
ct-1
0
J..t
(])
H5
4
3
2
.0
s
:::::$
~
1
0
Midpoints of A Class Intervals
Note.-- N = 32 .
n (males) = 16
n (females)
= 16
Mean = 71.17
SD
=10
Figure 3
Frequency Distribution of Pretreatment
for 32 Subjects
A Scores
45
";.--
[f.l
[f.l
ro
r-1
0
..ct
10
0
o:l
1::4
9
1=1
..-I
..ct
+>
..-I
:;::
[f.l
+>
0
Q)
~
..a
~
t:l)
r-1
8
o:l
~ 7
Q)
6
1:1
H
5
<t-1
0
4
H
3
0,)
..0
a~
2
l2i
1
0
Midpotnts of A Class Intervals
Note.-- N
= 32
n {males) = 16
n {females) = 16
=70.69
=8.48
Mean
SD
Figure 4
Frequency Distribution of Posttreatment
for 32 Subjects
,_ :;
--~.
'
A Scores
46
N ::: 32
n ::: 8 Subjects per Treatment Group
A
80 {Relative Parasyn1pathetic Dominance or Low Anxiety Level)
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
Group A Group B Group 0
Group D
AAF Mean ::: 69.89
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60 (Relative Sympathetic Dominance or High Anxiety Level)
Note.-c=)Pretreatment Mean
Posttreatment Mean
Group A:
Threatening instructions, imposed errors.
Group B:
Threatening instructions, no imposed errors.
Group 0:
No threatening instructions, imposed errors.
Group D:
No threatening instructions, no imposed errors.
Figure 5
Pre- and Posttreatment I Means for the Four Treatment
Groups in Relation to a Standardized AAF Mean
,),_,,_,
.. Q,._LM J{.t;;xQ ·'Alb. __.{,
·-·~~%'$}} ;, __ J g k Mi
u
=16
n
=4
Subjects per Group
A
83 (Relative Parasympathetic Dominance or Low Anxiety Level)
82
G'roup D
81 Group A
Group
B
Group
C
80
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
AAF 14ean = 69.89
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60 (Relatiye SYmpathetic Dominance or High Apziety Leyel)
Note.--
0
Pretreatment Mean
Posttreatment Mean
Figure 6
Pre- and Posttreatment I Means for 16 Subjects
With Low Pretreatment Levels of Anxiety
48
N
= 16
83 (Relative
82
n
=4
Subjects per Group
Paras~npathetic
Dominance or Low Anxiety Level)
81
80
79
78
77
Group 0
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
Group A Group B
AAF Mean
=6
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
(Relative Sympathe'tic Dominance or High Anxiety Level)
Note.--
c:J Pretreatment Mean
I(~ Posttreatment Mean
·Figure 7
Pre- and Posttreatment I Means for 16 Subjects.
With High Pretreatment Levels of Anxiety
Discussion
The major results of this study were as follows:
1.
The pretreatment level of anxiety was found to be
statistically significant as a factor affecting A scores
(table 1).
The overall effect was for subjects who were
initially anxious to become less anxious after treatments
and for subjects who were initially low in anxiety to become more anxious after treatments (tables 5 and 6).
2.
Although the threatening instructions approached
significance as a possible means of affecting A scores,
neither the instructions nor the perceptual errors were
statistically significant factors.
3.
There was no statistically significant interaction
between the three factors being investigated:
anxiety level,
threatening instructions, and perceptual errors.
4.
Credibility ratings of imposed line and picture
errors by 16 subjects who received these conditions indicated
that 9 subjects felt the lines were manipulated by the experimenter and only 1 felt that the pictures had been snitched
by the experimenter.
Imposed picture errors were considered
to have much more credibility than imposed line errors for
college students
(tabl~
7).
These results confirm pilot study findings (1963) which
showed that the condensed stress technique was not an adequate source of situational anxiety for normal college students.
The above findings also suggest that a subject's pre-
'.
..
~
:JV
treatment anxiety level is a more important factor to consider when attempting to use variations of the condensed
stress technique than the type of instructions and/or perceptual errors involved in the technique.
The credibility ratings of imposed line errors by
college students do not confirm those found by Korchin
(1958) where no suspicion of line error manipulation was indicated.
The higher credibility given to imposed picture
errors tends to support Korchin's use of pictures only in
his 1960 revision of the original stress technique on male
college students.
Figures 5, 6, and 7 illustrate the importance of pretreatment anxiety level in
A changes.
Figure 5 compares the
four treatment groups of eight subjects each, both on the
specific group's own pretreatment and posttreatment .means
and relative to the means of the other groups.
Treatment
Group A (which received the condensed version of the stress
technique) showed only a slight drop in posttreatment mean.
Treatment Group B showed a more pronounced drop in posttreatment mean towards relative sympathetic dominance.
Treatment
Groups C and D both showed a different trend--an increase in
posttreatment means toward parasympathetic stability.
These
trends would tend to suggest that Treatment Groups A and B
were associated with more stress than Treatments C and D.
Treatment B was the most stressful of the four treatments
for subjects from both high or low pretreatment anxiety levels.
f
Figures 6 and 7 show the changes occurring at both the
!
!
high pretreatment and low pretreatment levels of anxiety.
The mean score for each treatment group (figure 6) is based
on the scores of four subjects scoring above the median
(which approximates the AAF mean) initially (defined as the
low pretreatment anxiety group).
Figure 7 shows the mean
scores for those subjects defined as high pretreatment anxiety
subjects (those whose initial scores were below the median
or the AAF mean).
It is interesting to note (from figure 6) that subjects
who were initially less anxious and who showed parasympa-.
thetic dominance tended to drop in varying degrees in their
posttreatment scores.
As was stated earlier (in the section
on present study), such a reduction in scores indicates an
increase in anxiety •. It would seem that those subjects who
were less an.."{ious at the beginning of the experiment became
somewhat more anxious after treatments.
Treatment Groups A
and B actually showed the greatest increases in anxiety,
dropping well below the posttreatment means of Treatments
C and D.
Figure 7 shows that Treatments A, C, and D were followed by an elevation in mean scores for subjects considered
relatively more anxious before the treatments.
Treatment B
was the only treatment which was followed by a reduction in
mean score.
The changes in posttreatment scores just de-
scribed for the more anxious subjects suggest that those
hM¥ Mil_
@,
.Jli ....
-~A
!$)JJ1-/\.
·.M.. A
)4-),i@}@} ...
,~.~,.
Q:;tA.
A{J, ..
M,KP.¢J_..~·
('
subjects receiving Treatments A, C,
a~d
D showed less anxiety
following the treatments than on their initial pretreatment
measures.
Treatment Group B showed more anxiety after the
treatment for subjects showing both high or low pretreatment
anxiety levels.
There are several possible explanations for these
changes in posttreatment
A scores
and their relationship to
pretreatment anxiety level.
First, it is possible that chance variations due to uncontrolled sources of bias were involved, along with measurement error.
All things being equal, it seems reasonabl·e to
assume that the various control procedures for organismic ·
variables, test administration, environmental factors, along
with randomization and statistical techniques, should have
accounted for such sources of variance.
Second, it is possible that order effects which have been
shown to occur upon repeated measures of autonomic balance
somehow influenced posttreatment scores.
It has been shown
that factor estimates are usually higher on a second
than on the first.
A test
A study by Smith and Wenger (1965)
~n­
dicated that situational anxiety can overcome such effects if
it is strong enough.
The fact that, on the whole, subjects
1-1i th low scores tended to show higher scores on the second
test may indicate such an order effect, but this would also
suggest that Treatment B was the only one stressful enough to
overcome such an effect.
Subjects having relatively higher
53
t
I~
'.
initial scores sho1-red a reduction in scores (figure 6).
too vrould suggest that Treatments A, C, and D
stressful for subjects
~enerally
~r1ere
This
only
less anxious and not threat-
encd by apparatus, etc. at the outset.
A third factor that could have influenced A scores was
the possibility of apparatus and novelty stress during the
subjects' initial pretreatment measures of autonomic balance;.
It could be that those subjects showing relatively low pretreatment scores not only were anxious to begin with, but
were threatened further by the test situation and procedure's.
Korchin (1958) found that endocrinological measures
durin~
initial testing indicated that high-anxiety subjects were
more anxious during the first day of testing than at any
other time:
"One might say that for the subjects, having lived
through the first day vri thout catastrophe, later stress
sessions could not produce further disturbance" (Korchin,
1958, p. 111).
It is suggested that the first day of pretreatment
measures may have been more stressful for the more anxious
subjects than Treatments A, C, or D,- as shown in figure 7.
Treatment C shows the greatest decrease in anxiety following
only imposed errors.
Low credibility of imposed errors and
the lack of error meaning may have influenced these subjects,
but more tests are necessary to be conclusive.
Treatment D
showed the same reduction in posttreatment anxiety as in the
second pilot study, perhaps due to the success connected with
_.,.
this control treatment.
It is also suggested that Treatment
B -vras stressful enough in its makeup to overcome any "apparatus" or "novelty" effects associated with pretreatment conditions.
It seems that although pretreatment level of anxiety
-
I
is the most significant factor influencing A scores, tho4e
conditions associated with Treatment B were also relatively, if not statistically, effective.
For a more adequate test of which variation (Treatment
A or B) is the more effective, it may be necessary to test
each method on larger samples of subjects from each anxiety
level (i.e., high pretreatment anxiety subjects and low pretreatment anxiety subjects).
The fact that Treatment B (threatening instructions
1vi th no imposed line or picture errors) proved to be the
most stressful technique requires further analysis into possible reasons for its relative success on college students.
One possible reason for its success is its reliance on
anticipated perceptual errors rather than on a superficially
imposed, actual confrontation through experimentally induced line and picture errors.
Shannon and Isbell (1963)
have shown that anticipation of noxious stimuli such as
dental injections is as stressfUl as the actual injection.
Cook and Barnes (1960) found that subjects prefer immediate
shocks to shocks of greater latency time.
Mechanic (1962)
found that students become less anxious when taking a test
than when anticipating it.
Many such studies have shown
that anticipation of harm is subjectively worse than confrontation.
It is suggested here that Treatment B was more effective than the condensed stress technique (Treatment A) because it relied on a more realistic threat to college stu_.
dents--the anticipation of perceptual errors rather than
posed confrontation with errors.
im~
I
It may well be that Korchin's
stress technique serves to reduce anxiety by interferring
with this anticipation process, which is found to be essential for psychological threat.
Another factor which could reduce the effectiveness of
the condensed stress technique is the credibility of imposed
line errors.
Since the technique relies on deception to in-
duce psychological threat, the low credibility rating given
to imposed line errors by six of the eight subJects who received the condensed stress technique suggests that line
deception was not generally accepted.
It is interesting to
note that the two subjects who believed the line deception
in Treatment Group A showed posttreatment scores indicative
of higher anxiety (i.e.,
I= 58).
One subject dropped from
a nonanxious I of 84, while the other dropped from an already anxious A of 59.
Thus, it would also be valuable to hypothesize how
effective the condensed stress technique would have been if
imposed line errors were made more credible (or deleted).
But that is outside the area of the present study.
56
Purther work vri th the condensed stress technique and
autonomic balance should take into consideration the pretreatment anxiety level of the subjects to be tested, the
possible novelty and apparatus effects on both threat
appraisal and autonomic balance, the importance of credibility ratings of intended threats, the continued use of
line errors in their present form, and the theoretical
question of anticipation versus confrontation inherent in
variations of the condensed stress technique.
Considering the above factors in terms of future research using the Korchin stress technique, the following
problems should be more thoroughly investigated:
1.
Through the use of larger samples of the two levels
of pretreatment anxiety (high and low) within each treatment
group, the present findings should be confirmed.
2.
By testing the relative effectiveness of the con-
densed stress technique compared to the variation using only
threatening instructions, perhaps the anticipation versus
confrontation question could be answered.
The results would
aid in future construction of stress techniques.
3.
To make use of the subjects' initial anxiety as
part of the intended stress technique, one could administer
the stress technique as part of the initial experimental
situation, follo"Vred immediately by autonomic balance measures, which would be repeated about a month later.
4.
Future experimentation should also involve continu-
ous measures of the subjects' physiological functioning
throueh polygraph techniques to provide autonomic profiles
associated with various aspects of the stress procedures.
5.
A control group should be incorporated into future
experiments without any intervening stress technique between
I
A measures in order to specify more clearly the effects of '
novelty and apparatus stress on resting autonomic balance
scores.
. q ERW4
·
¥._
U . . P $.
Summary
Four variations of an established stress technique,
based on threatening instructions and imposed perceptual
errors, were administered to 32 college students to observe the variations' potential for inducing situational
anxiety.
Each treatment group consisted of 4 males and 4
females;
16 males and females ranging in age from 18 to 25
years made up the entire sample of 32.
Each subject served as his own control during pretreatment and posttreatment measures of autonomic balance
(A), a physiological index of relative anxiety level.
A 2x2x2 factorial design was used
·w~th
three factors
(pretreatment anxiety level, task instructions, and perceptual errors), each at two levels.
Analysis of the data
led to the following conclusions:
1.
Pretreatment anxiety level wa.s the only factor
which significantly affected change in
2.
X scores.
Credibility rating of imposed line and picture
errors by 16 subjects indicates that imposed line errors
were not convincing whereas imposed picture errors were credible.
There was evidence that one variation of the stress
technique was more stressful than the condensed version of
the original stress technique.
It was suggested that this
technique, which utilized only threatening instructions
without imposed perceptual errors, served as a more
realistic threat to sophisticated college students because
58
~-~::,,_
, .¥J iS.I# A
,~I
_.. A .AP. $¥
.o
59
it did not rely on i:nposed confrontatio.n with :perceptual
error throueh rather dubious line error :procedures.
These findings raised the question of whether or not
the original stress teclmique is an effective one for college
students since iis reliance on confrontation rather than
anticipation of harm may reduce its psychological threat
:potential.
It was also evident that the overriding effect of pretreatment anxiety level must be accounted for in fUture
studies if an adequate test of the stress technique is to be
made on samples of college students.
>-
•
'
$_,.
"'·
¢§ [., "·
'"*'~
NL
.%0..}$ '
Lf'.O,.J .. Ji¢ ...,SM.il
.
.......
Bibliography
Andrews, T. G. Methods of psychology.
New York:
John
Wiley & Sons, 1948.
Ax, A. F. The physiological differentiation between fear
and anger in humans.
Psychosom. Med., 1953, 15,
433-442.
Benjamin, J. D. Some developmental observations relating to
the theory of anxiety.
J. Amer. Psychoanal, Ass.,
1961, 9, 652-668.
Buhler, R. A. Flicker fusion threshold and anxiety level.
Unpuplished doctoral dissertation, Columbia Univer.,
1961.
Cattell, R. & Scheier, I. The meaning and measurement of
neuroticism and anxietx.
Coleman, J.
c.
New York: Ronald Press, 1961.
Abnormal psychology and modern life.
(2nd
ed.), Chicago: Scott, Foresman,& Co., 1956.
Cook, J.
o.
and Barnes, L. W. Choice of delay of inevitable
shock •. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1964, 68, 669-672.
Cox, D. R. Planning of experiments.
New York:
John Wiley
& Sons, 1958.
Darrow,
c. w. & Heath,
to personality.
L. L. Reaction tendencies relating
In
dygamics behavior.
Lashley, K.
s.
{Ed.), Studies in
Chicago: Univer. Chicago Press,
1932.
Dillon, D. Differences between ascending and descending
flicker fusion thresholds among groups of hospitalized
60
psychiatric patients and a group of normal control persons.
J. Psychol., 1959, 48, 255-252.
Farmer, E. & Chambers, E. G. Concerning the use of psychogalvanic reflex in psychological experiments. Br. J,
Psychol., 1925, 15, 237-254.
Freud,
s. Inhibitions, symptoms, and anxiety. London:
Hogarth Press, 1936.
Freud, S. Collected papers. Vol. 4. Repression.
London:
Hogarth Press, 1949.
Gravely, A. M. An investigation of perceptual tests as
measures of temperament.
Unpublished doctoral dissert-
ation, Univer. London, 1950.
Gunter, R. Investigations of the psychophysical bases of
visual fusion frequency. J. Psychol., 1960, 164,
177-214.
Haggard, E. A. Experimental studies in affective processes.
Sect. II. On the quantification and evaluation of
11
measured 11 changes in skin resistance. J, exp. Psychol.,
1951, 35, 46-56.
Hays, W. L. Statistics for psychologists. New York: Holt,
Rinehart,
&
\iinston, 1964.
Holt, J. M. T4e treatment of chronic
~iety
states by means
of partial sympathetic blockade. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Univer. of Calif., Los Angeles, 1956.
Ittelson, W. H. & Kutash,
pathology.
s.
B. Perceptual changes in psycho-
New Brunswick: Rutgers Univer. Press, 1961.
Kamin, L. Relations bet1·Teen discrimination, apparatus stress,
and the Taylor scale. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955,
51, :595.
Kilpatricl\:, F. P.
l~xplorations
ip. transactional psychology.
Hew York: New York Univer. Press, 1961.
Klein, G.
I
s.
The personal world through perception. In R. Rt
Blake & G.
v.
I
Ramsey (Ed.), Perception, an, approach to,
])ersonality. New York: Ronald Press, 1951.
s.
Korchin,
J., Basowitz, H., Grinker, R. R., Hamburg, D. A.,
~
,.'
Persky, H., Sabshin, M,,Heath, Helen, & Board, F. A.
Experience of perceptual distortion as a source of
anxiety. Arch. Neurol. & Psychiat. (Amer. Med. Ass.),
1958, 80, 98-113.
s.
Korchin,
11
J. & Herz, 1'1. Differential effects of
11
shame 11 and
disintegrative 11 threats on emotional and adrenocorti-
cal functioning. Arch. Gen. Psychiat. (Amer. 1-J!ed. Ass.),
1960, 2, 640-651.
Lacey,
o.
L. & Siegel, P.
s.
An
improved potentiometric cir-
cuit for measuring the galvanic skin response. Amer. J.
Psychol., 1948, 61, 272-274.
Lacey,
o. L.
&·Siegel, P.S. An analysis of the unit of meas-
urement of the galvanic skin response. J, exp. Psychol.,
1949, 39, 122-127.
Landis, C. An annotated bibliography of flicker fusion
phenomena.• .Ann Arbor: Uni ver. of Michigan, 1953.
Landis,
c. & Hunt, w.
A. The conscious correlates of the
galvanic skin response. J, exp. Psychol., 1935, 18,
505-529.·
. f,
Lazarus, R. S. Psycholor,lcal stress_and the
CO]~ng
process,
New Yorlc: HcGra'tr-Hill, 1966.
Lazarus, R. S. & Alfert, E. The short-circuiting of threat.
J. abno:qn. soc. J?s,;y_ch9l·, 1964, 69, 195-205.
s., Speisrnan,
Lazarus, R.
J. C., Mordkoff, A.M., & Davison,
L. A. A l:;t.boratory study of
:psycho~ogical
stress pro-
duced by a motion :picture film. Psychol. Monogr.,
76, No.
Li,
c. c.
3.l~
I
I
1962~
(whole No. 553).
Introduction to experimental statistics. New York:
~·-·.;
1-1cGraw-Hill, 1964.
.,-
,,.
Lucio, W. G. & Wenger, M. A. Prediction of teacher perform?llCe and emotional stability: a psychophysiological
pilpt
s~udy
to the U.
s.
of female student teachers.
Final report
Office of Education, Contract No. SEA83ll,
30 September 1961.
Martin, B. The assessment of anxiety by physiological behavioral measures. Psychol. Bull., 1961, 58, 234-255.
May, R. The meaning of anxiety. New York: Ronald Press, 1950.
McCleary, R. A. The nature of the galvanic skin response,
Psychol. Bull., 1950, 47, 97-113.
Mechanic, D. Students under stress. New York: Free Press of
Glencoe, 1962.
Mowrer,
o.
H. Anxiety and learning.
R. L. DeValois, D.
c.
In D. E. Dulaney, Jr.,
Beardslee, & M. R. Winterbottom
(Ed.), Contributions to modern psychology. New York:
Oxford Univer. Press, 1958. Pp. 252-262.
b4
Mundy-Castle, A. C. & McKiewer, Il. L. The psycho-physiological
significance of the galvanic skin response. J, of exp.
Psychol.
Parl\:er,
.A.
1953, 46, 15-24.
G. Nanifest anxiety and autonomic nervous system
functions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer.
of Calif., Los .Angeles, 1955.
Ricciuti, H. N. A comparison of critical flicker frequency
in psychotics, psychoneurotics, and normals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 1949.
Schachter, J. Pain, fear, and roLger in hypertensives and
normotensives: a psycho-physiological study. Psychosom.
~.,
1957, 19, 17-29.
Shaffer, G. \'l.
9~inical
&
Lazarus, R.
psychology.
s.
rundamental concepts in
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1952.
Shands, H. Some sociological and biological aspects of
anxiety. J. nerv. ment. Disord., 1957, 125, 459=468.
Siegel, S.
~onparametric
statistics for the behavioral
sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.
Silverman, R. E. Eliminating a conditioned GSR by the
reduction of experimental anxiety. J. exp. Psychol.
1960, 59, 122-125.
Skinner, B. F. Science and human behavior. New York:
Macmillan Co., 1953.
Stanley & Jones. The structure of emotion: Section II. the
physical basis of anxiety. J. nerv. ment. Disord.,
1957, 125, 247-258.
r
-~----------------~~~~~--~--~~-~·
Smith, D. B. S.
& ~·fene;er,
H. A. Changes in autonomic
balance during phasic anxiety. Psychophysiol., 1965,
l,
~o.
3, 2S7-27l.
Shannon, I. L. & Isbell, G. M. Stress in dental patients:
~ffect
of local anesthetic
prpce~ures.
Technical reI
port :No. S.Ar'l-TDR-63-29. U. S. Air Force School of Aero-i
!
space i:1edicine, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas. May, 1963.
Threat of impending disaster. Contributions to the psycho£ogy
of stress. Grosser, G. (Ed.), Cambridge: Mass. Institute
of Technology Press, 1965.
Wenger, M. A. Studies of autonomic balance in Army Air
Force personnel. Comp. Psychol. Monogr., 1948, 19, No. 4.
rlenger, M.
A~,
Jones, F. N.,
&
Jones, M. H. Physiological
Psychology. New York: Holt, 1956.
Wenger, 11. A. Studies of autonomic balance: a summary.
Psychophysiol., 1966, 2, No. 3.
Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.
Woodworth, R.
s. & Schlosberg,
H.
~perimental ~sychologz.
Nevr York: Holt, 1954.
. A#
Appendix 1
Series of Photographs
Threatening Version
Neutral Version
of another across desk.
3.
while pointing over desk.
Group of men in confer-
3.
No counterpart.
4.
Man with gun pointed
ence.
4.
Man with smoking pipe
held casually to head.
5.
at his head.
5.
Nurse tucking in smiling
patient.
6.
Nurse covering up dead·
patient.
Man sitting. and drinking
6.
No counterpart.
7.
Man bending over re-
water while reading.
7.
Doctor examining woman.
clining woman mena.cingly.
(Shown initially
only to female subjects
assigned picture errors.)
8.
Man and woman dancing.
8.
Two men dancing together.
(Shown only to
male subjects assigned
picture errors.)
66
Appendix 2
Line Length Task Instructions
"I am going to show you pairs of lines, one line on the
right and one on the left.
than the other.
longer.
One line will always be longer
I would like you to tell me which line is
Just give the position of the longer line (right
or left).
"Before each pair of lines is presented, you will see
a small white cross which will be shown again after you
judge the lines.
I would like you to keep your eyes on
th~s
cross until you see the lines, and then continue looking at
it after the lines disappear, until I tell you to take your
eyes from the eyepiece.
This is necessary to keep your
(1)
eyes in the place where the lines are being shown
•
After you make your judgment, the card will be taken from
the viewing box, and you will have a chance to look at it
more closely and to measure the lines to see if you were
correct or incorrect.
incorrect.
Tell me whether you were correct or
Measurement of the lines will give you a chance
to know how well you are doing and to improve your later
judgments.
(1)
Is this clear?"
Added· line read "and also to discover if any after-
image effects of the cross occur."
67
'.
..
J
Appendix 3
Picture Description Task Instructions
"First you will see a white cross for a fraction of a
second.
This is the signal to prepare
Y,OU
for the picture
which will then be flashed in the vievriri.g box.
After you
see the picture, the cross will be presented again.
Now,
while still looking at the place where the cross appeared,
tell me what you saw(l).
After you finish your description,
I will show you the picture again so that you can check the
accuracy of your judgment.
(1)
Is this clear?"
Added line read·:'"describe people, objects, and actions,
and also tell me what the scene implies.
68
11
ABSTRACT
PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS AND AUTONOMIC BALANCE
or
The Effects of Four Variations of a Stress Technique
on Autonomic Balance
by
. James Henry Quigley
~faster
of Arts in Psychology
January, 1967
A stress technique based on threatening task instructions and imposed perceptual errors was reported as an effective means of inducing psychological stress and situational
anxiety.
This project tested the relative effects of four
variations of this stress technique on college students using autonomic balance as an index of stress and anxietye
The sample consisted of 16 male and 16 female San Fernando Valley State College students.
Each subject was first
tested for pretreatment anxiety level as indicated by autonomic balance scores.
Scores above a group median reflected
relative parasympathetic dominance of the autonomic nervous
system or low anxiety; scores below the median represented
relative sympathetic dominance or higher anxiety levels.
The experimental design (2x2x2 factorial type) considered three factors, pretreatment anxiety level, task instructions, and perceptual errors, each at two levels.
ject served as his own control.
Each sub-
2
The four variations of the stress technique were as
follO'YlS:
Treat;nent A:
Threatening task instructions, imposed
perceptual errors.
Treatment B:
Threatening task instructions, no im-
posed perceptual errors.
Treatment 0:
No threatening task instructions, imposed
perceptual errors.
Treatment D:
No threatening task instructions, no
imposed errors.
The perceptual tasks consisted of visual line length
estimates and descriptions of photographs.
Subjects' com-
ments regarding the imposed errors served as a credibility
index.
The results of this study were as follows:
1.
Only pretreatment anxiety level significantly
affected autonomic balance.
2.
Imposed line errors were not as credible as imposed
picture errors.
It was concluded that the four variations were not
effective means of inducing psychological stress and situational anxiety.
There was evidence that Treatment B was the
only variation associated with increased anxiety for both
high- or low-anxiety subjects.
It was
hypo~hesized
that the stress technique proto-
type (Treatment A) was not as effective as Treatment B because it contained dubious line errors and relied on con-
I.;
3
J
~'
frontation vli th, rather than anticipation of, errors (as in
Treatment B).
If the stress technique is to be adequately tested in
the future, pretreatment stress must be more
c
clea~ly
de-
scribed.
·~·.
"·,.
'
.
...
>~
r(
.