Frustration and Automatic Processing

1
Frustration and Automatic Processing

• By David Phelps,
• Kristine Schuster,
• and Isaac Weinkauf
• Hanover College

2
Previous Literature

• Barker (1938) studied the effect of frustration
  upon Cognitive Ability
• Dollard et al. (1939) define frustration an
  interference with the occurrence of an instigated
  goal-response at its proper time in the behavior
  sequence
• Bessiere (2002) and Ceaparu (2003) investigated
  frustration produced by computers
• Knott (1971) studied how frustration constricts
  selective attention

3
Research Question

• How does frustration affect performance of
  Automatic Processing and Attentional Override of
  Automatic Processing as measured by the Stroop
  Effect Task?

4
Hypothesis

• Frustration will constrict attentional processes
  such that frustrated participants will be worse
  at overriding the automatic process of reading as
  measured by the Stroop Effect than non-frustrated
  participants

5
Hypothesis
Classic Stroop Under Frustration
XXXX Faster Reaction Time Same
Incongruent Slower Reaction Time Worse
6
Procedure

• Informed Consent
• Instruction Sheet
• Working Memory Task
• Randomly assigned to
• Control
• Frustrated Manipulation (delay)
• Stroop Effect Task
• XXXX condition Reaction Time
• Incongruent condition Reaction Time
• Completed in random order
• Debriefing Form

7
Methods

• Frustration Manipulation
• Shown series of words in modified Working Memory
  Experiment
• 5 - Number of words to recognize
• x3 Seconds Delay Between Responses
• 15 Seconds Needed to Complete Recognition
• 12 Seconds Available for Recognition
• What this computes to is a relatively easy task
  made impossible to correctly select all words
  before time runs out

8
Participants

• Self report
• N24
• 8 female
• Ages 19-22
• Undergraduate students
• Voluntary participation
• Some completed for extra credit

9
Results

• 2X2 mixed ANOVA
• Between subjects frustration
• Within subjects Stroop (XXXX, Incongruent)
• Interaction
• p.088, alpha.1
• Simple Main Effects
• XXXX p .772
• Incongruent p .195

10
Stroop Effect Reaction Times
11
Discussion

• Results do not support the hypothesis

Classic Stroop Under Frustration
XXXX Faster Reaction Time Same
Incongruent Slower Reaction Time Better
12
Discussion

• Frustrated participants performed faster at the
  Incongruent Stroop Task than Non-frustrated
  participants
• Perhaps under frustration attention does not
  constrict, but focuses. Alternatively, under
  frustration automatic processes are inhibited.

13
Limitations

• Manipulation of frustration may have been
  ineffective if participants were
• Not invested in succeeding at task
• Disengaged from task
• Frustrated prior to task
• Unaware of the goal of the task (recognition of
  words within a time limit)
• Resilient to frustration

14
Future Directions

• Stronger frustration manipulation
• Effects of frustration on other cognitive
  abilities
• Explore mechanisms behind frustrations effects
  on performance

15
Questions?