Psychological R e p o m , 1375, 3 7 , 1055-1065.
@ Psychological Reports 1975
EFFECTS OF DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY DURING COMPUTER-ASSISTED LEARNING' EDWARD RAPPAPORT University of Miami
Summary.-60 female college students were selected on the basis of extreme scores on the Dogmatism Scale and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Trait Anxiety (A-Trait) Scale to work on a computer-assisted learning task of difficult mathematical problems. Contrary to expectations, high and low dogmatic subjects, when controlled for A-Trait, did not differ in the level of state anxiety ( A-State) displayed during the learning task. As hypothesized, high A-Trait subjects had significantly higher levels of A-State during the experiment than low A-Trait subjects. Neither A-Trait nor dogmatism was related to errors on the task. However, a significant interactive effect of mathematical ability and A-State on performance was observed. Consistent with drive theory, high AState resulted in more errors for subjects of low mathematical ability but had no effect on the performance of subjects of high mathematical ability.
In The Open and Clored M i d Rokeach (1960) presented a theoretical structure for dogmatism intimately related to the concept of anxiety. Rokeach and Restle (1960) wrote chat the closed-minded or highly dogmatic individual tended to believe that "the world one lives in or the situation one is in at a particular moment is a threarening one" (p. 3 6 ) . This suggests closed-mindedness is associated with high anxiety. In contrast to this position, Rokeach and Restle also stressed that the closed mind serves as a defense to allay anxiety. Spielberger's (1966b, 1972) distinction berween state anxiety (A-State) and trait anxiety (A-Trait) can be useful in reconciling chis apparent discrepancy in Rokeach's formulations and in suggesting a design for examining dogmatic defenses. A-State is characterized by transitory feelings of apprehension accompanied by heightened autonomic activity. A-Trait refers to individual differences in disposition toward experiencing different levels of A-State in situations perceived as threatening. The ambivalence regarding the relationship between dogmatism and anxiety in Rokeach's theoretical framework can be cleared by considering the process through which dogmatic defenses serve to reduce anxiety. It is possible that high dogmatic individuals are more anxious than low dogmatic individuals because they initially respond to stressful situations with greater increments in A-State. 'This study is based on a Master's thesis submitted to the Psychology Department, Florida State University. Appreciation is expressed to Charles D. Spielberger for his direction and assistance throughout this investigation. The author is also indebted to Harold F. O'Neil, Jr. for h ~ sadv~ceand assistance in implementing this study. This research was supported by the Offlce of Naval Research, Contract No. N0001-68-A-0494, Project N R 154-280. Requests for reprints should be sent to: Edward Rappaport, Counseling Center, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida 33124.
10%
E. RAPPAPORT
As the defense mechanisms of the high dogmatic individual become more effective, he may subsequently show a greater decrease in A-State than the low dogmatic individual. While other investigators (e.g., Hallenbeck & Lundstedt, 1766; LoScuito & Hartley, 1963) have demonstrated that dogmatism is associated with defensive behavior, there is no direcc evidence that the closed mind serves to allay anxiety. Since closed-mindedness is associated with high A-Trait (Vacchiano, Strauss, & Hochman, 1969), and A-Trait is directly related to A-State elevations, it follows that level of A-Trait should be controlled when studying the effects of dogmatism on changes in A-State. The present study investigates the operation of dogmatic defenses by examining changes in A-State as a function of dogmatism during a stressful computer-assisted instruction mathematical task while controlling - for A-Trait. Individual differences in dogmatism can also be relevant to the computerassisted learning process. Ehrlich and Lee (1969) reviewed the literature on dogmatism and learning and reported the mode of presentation of learning material as one of five intervening variables that may affect the relationship between dogmatism and rate of learning. Anxiety is another variable which can influence performance under computer-assisted instruction. According to the drive theory offered by Spence (1758) and Taylor (1756), the effects of anxiety (drive level) on learning depend upon the relative strength of correct and competing incorrect response tendencies elicited by the task. For example, on difficult casks where competing error response tendencies are stronger than correct responses, high anxiety or drive leads to poorer performance. However, on simple tasks where correct responses dominate over incorrect response tendencies, anxiety facilitates performance. Spielberger, O'Neil, and Hansen ( 1972) examined a series of studies concerned with anxiety and computer-assisted learning and concluded that the findings were generally consistent with drive theory. The primary purpose of this study was to investigate changes in A-State during computer-assisted instruction for subjects who differ in dogmatism and ATrait. The subjects were selected on the basis of extreme scores on the StateTrait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) A-Trait Scale (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) and the Dogmatism Scale (Rokeach, 1956). The task contained difficult mathematical problems. A-State and errors during the task were the dependent variables. It was hypothesized thac when controlled for A-Trait, high dogmatic subjects would display higher levels of A-State than low dogmatic subjects during the initial part of the learning task, since according to Rokeach closed-minded individuals perceive the world as more threatening. However, during the final part of the computer-assisted instruction, high dogmatic subjects were expected to exhibit lower levels of A-State than low dogmatic subjects. This hypothesis follows from Rokeach's position that the defenses of the dogmatic individual serve to allay anxiety. On the basis of Spielberger's traitstate anxiety theory it was also predicted that high A-Trait subjects would dis-
DOGMATISM, ANXIETY IN COMPUTER-ASSISTED LEARNING
1057
play higher levels of A-State than low A-Trait subjects throughout the experiment. While no hypotheses were offered concerning errors during computerassisted instruction, a secondary purpose of this investigation was to examine the effects of dogmatism and anxiety on performance.
MBTHOD Subjects
The Dogmatism Scale and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory were administered in a group-testing session to 198 females enrolled in the introductory psychology course at Florida State University.? Subjects with scores in the upper third on the Dogmatism Scale were designated as high dogmatics, while those with scores falling in the lower third of the distribution for this scale were designated as low dogmatics. The cut-off scores for the two groups were above 144 and below 131, respectively. Students with A-Trait scores which fell in the upper quartile of the norms for undergraduate females (Spielberger, et al., 1970) were designated as high A-Trait, while those whose scores fell in the lower quartile were designated as low A-Trait. The cut-off scores for the high A-Trait and low A-Trait subjects were above 41 and below 33, respectively. Subjects with extreme scores on both the Dogmatism Scale and the anxiety inventory were selected to participate in the computer-assisted instruction. The experimenter contacted each subject both by letter and by telephone. The experimental design required 15 subjects in each of the four experimental groups. However, to guard against the possible loss of data in the computer system, an additional 20 subjects were asked to participate. After the experiment was completed it was determined that no data were lost in the system. Thus, in order ro have 15 subjects in each group, it was necessary to elmmate 13 low-dogmatic/ low A-Trait subjects, 6 high-dogmatic/high A-Trait subjecrs and 1 low-dogmatic/high A-Trait subject. These subjects were eliminated in a manner such that the Dogmatism and A-Trait scores were appropriately matched in the experimental groups. The means and standard deviations of the Dogmatism and A-Trait scores for the four experimental groups are presented in Table 1. All the subjects reported that they had no prior experience with computer-assisted learning. TABLE 1 MEAN (fSD) DOGMATISM AND A-TRAITSCORES FOR FOUR GROUPS (IS = 1 5 ) Dogmatism
Group
Dogmatism
A-Trait
High High ,Low Low
Low High Low
A-Trait
High
'A correlation of .26 ( p < .01) was obtained between scores on the Dogmatism and StateTrait Anxiety Inventory A-Trait Scales.
E. RAPPAPORT
Experimental me as we^ The major experimental measures employed in this study derived from instruments' designed to assess dogmatism, A-Trait, and A-State. The Dogmati~mScale.-The Rokeach (1956) Dogmatism Scale has 40 statements to which subjects respond on a 7-point agree-disagree format. The Dogmatism Scale measures general authoritarianism and intolerance regardless of specific ideology. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory.-The inventory (Spielberger, et al., 1970) was used to measure both A-Trait and A-State. The A-Trait Scale has 20 statements that ask people to describe how they generally feel. The A-State Scale similarly has 20 items; however, the instructions require subjects co indicate how they feel at a given moment in time. The 20-item inventory was administered during the group-testing and prior to beginning the experimental task. In addition, a short form of the A-State Scale, employed by O'Neil ( 1972 ) , of the five items with the highest item-remainder correlations in the normative sample for the inventory was used to measure A-State immediately after each of the three sections of the learning task. These items were: ( a ) "I am tense;" ( b ) "I feel at ease;" ( c ) "I am relaxed;" ( d ) "I feel calm;" ( e ) "I am jittery." The subject responded to each item by rating herself on the following four-point scale: ( a ) "not at all;" ( b ) "somewhat;" ( c ) "moderately so;" ( d ) "very much so." Learning Materials The computer-assisted instruction consisted of difficult mathematical learning materials relating to the field properties of complex numbers. These materials were adapted from the computer learning task used by O'Neil, Hansen, and Spielberger (1969). The task was composed of three sections, labeled A, B, C, and contained five problems per section. The subjects were required to solve each successive problem correctly before they could proceed to the next one. The learning materials were presented by an IBM 1500 instructional system. Experimental Procedzlre The experimental procedure was based upon the design employed by O'Neil ( 1972). Each subject was seated at a terminal and given an introductory booklet employed by O'Neil which contained the following statement: It has been found that success in this program does not require mathematical or quantitative ability; it requires instead, the ability to make the same kind of observations and generalizations that you are expected to make in many college courses.
The subjects were then given a description of the operation of the terminal and the experimenter answered questions and demonstrated the procedures. Prior to beginning the task, each subject responded to the 20-item A-State Scale which -lac presented by the computer.
DOGMATISM, ANXIETY IN COMPUTER-ASSISTED LEARNING
1059
Each subject proceeded at her own speed during the computerized task. Immediately after each of the three sections of the learning task, the short form of the A-State Scale was presented by the computer with the instructions to "indicate how you felt during the section of the task you have just finished." After each subject completed the learning task, she was administered a questionnaire which inquired about her reactions to the task and her mathematical ability. After completing the posttask questionnaire, each subject was debriefed.
RESULTS Effect of Dogmatism and A-Trait on Changes in A-Stdte The means and standard deviations of the A-State scores for the four experimental groups are reported in Table 2 for the pretask period and the three sections of the computerized task. These data were evaluated by a three-way analysis of variance in which dogmatism, A-Trait and periods were the independent variables, with repeated measures on the last factor. The resuits of this analysis yielded only the main effects of A-Trait (F = 5.25, df = 1/56, p < .05) and periods (F = 20.05, df = 3/168, p < .001). The main effect of A-Trait suggests that high A-Trait subjects displayed higher levels of A-State than low ATrait subjects throughout the experiment. The hypothesized interaction of dogmatism by periods did not materialize. Furthermore, the absence of a significant main effect of dogmatism indicates that dogmatism had no influence on A-State during the study. In order to examine hrther the periods main effect, two additional analyses of variance were performed on the A-State data. First, initial reactions to the computerized task were evaluated by comparing A-State scores in the pretask period with Section A of the task. In this analysis, the significant periods main TABLE 2 MEANSAND SDS OF FIVE-ITEM A-STATESCORES AND ERRORS
FOR
FOUR EXP~RIMENTAL
GROUPS IN PRETASK PERIOD AND SECTIONSA, B,AND C
. Groups Dogmatism A-Trait High
High
High
Low
Low
High
Low
Low
All
Mean A-State Scores A B C
Pretask M
SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
7.1 2.5 7.7 2.4 9.3 3.6 7.7
1.7 8.5 2.7
12.2 2.7 10.8 2.7 11.7 3.8 10.7 2.8 11.5 3.0
12.6 3.5
9.9 2.7 10.6 3.1 7.6 2.4 10.7 3.1
12.5 3.9 10.3 2.8 10.3 3.0 10.8 2.8 11.0 3.2
Errors A
B
C
6.3 5.0 5.0 3.4
3.7
2.5 2.1 2.8 2.7 2.2 3.3 3.6
4.0 4.1
5.0 2.5 5.1
3.8
4.0
2.7 1.7 2.3 3.0 2.8 3.5 2.8 3.2
4.4
2.8 3.3
lOG0
E. RAPPAPORT
effect ( F = 33.91, df = 1/56, p < ,001) indicated that A-State scores were higher during the computerized task. A significant main effect of A-Trait ( F = 5.68, df = 1/56, p .05) was also found in this analysis. Nexq A-State reactions during Sections A, B, and C were evaluated. In this analysis of variance none of the main effects or interactions were significant. However, there was a tendency for A-State scores to drop from Section A to Section B (F = 3.00, df = 2/112, p < . l o ) . Furthermore, while the main effect of A-Trait ( F = 3.38, df = 1/56, p < . l o ) failed to reach an adequate level of statistical significance, high A-Trait subjects consistently responded with higher levels of A-State during the task.
@ Psychological Reports 1975
EFFECTS OF DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY DURING COMPUTER-ASSISTED LEARNING' EDWARD RAPPAPORT University of Miami
Summary.-60 female college students were selected on the basis of extreme scores on the Dogmatism Scale and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Trait Anxiety (A-Trait) Scale to work on a computer-assisted learning task of difficult mathematical problems. Contrary to expectations, high and low dogmatic subjects, when controlled for A-Trait, did not differ in the level of state anxiety ( A-State) displayed during the learning task. As hypothesized, high A-Trait subjects had significantly higher levels of A-State during the experiment than low A-Trait subjects. Neither A-Trait nor dogmatism was related to errors on the task. However, a significant interactive effect of mathematical ability and A-State on performance was observed. Consistent with drive theory, high AState resulted in more errors for subjects of low mathematical ability but had no effect on the performance of subjects of high mathematical ability.
In The Open and Clored M i d Rokeach (1960) presented a theoretical structure for dogmatism intimately related to the concept of anxiety. Rokeach and Restle (1960) wrote chat the closed-minded or highly dogmatic individual tended to believe that "the world one lives in or the situation one is in at a particular moment is a threarening one" (p. 3 6 ) . This suggests closed-mindedness is associated with high anxiety. In contrast to this position, Rokeach and Restle also stressed that the closed mind serves as a defense to allay anxiety. Spielberger's (1966b, 1972) distinction berween state anxiety (A-State) and trait anxiety (A-Trait) can be useful in reconciling chis apparent discrepancy in Rokeach's formulations and in suggesting a design for examining dogmatic defenses. A-State is characterized by transitory feelings of apprehension accompanied by heightened autonomic activity. A-Trait refers to individual differences in disposition toward experiencing different levels of A-State in situations perceived as threatening. The ambivalence regarding the relationship between dogmatism and anxiety in Rokeach's theoretical framework can be cleared by considering the process through which dogmatic defenses serve to reduce anxiety. It is possible that high dogmatic individuals are more anxious than low dogmatic individuals because they initially respond to stressful situations with greater increments in A-State. 'This study is based on a Master's thesis submitted to the Psychology Department, Florida State University. Appreciation is expressed to Charles D. Spielberger for his direction and assistance throughout this investigation. The author is also indebted to Harold F. O'Neil, Jr. for h ~ sadv~ceand assistance in implementing this study. This research was supported by the Offlce of Naval Research, Contract No. N0001-68-A-0494, Project N R 154-280. Requests for reprints should be sent to: Edward Rappaport, Counseling Center, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida 33124.
10%
E. RAPPAPORT
As the defense mechanisms of the high dogmatic individual become more effective, he may subsequently show a greater decrease in A-State than the low dogmatic individual. While other investigators (e.g., Hallenbeck & Lundstedt, 1766; LoScuito & Hartley, 1963) have demonstrated that dogmatism is associated with defensive behavior, there is no direcc evidence that the closed mind serves to allay anxiety. Since closed-mindedness is associated with high A-Trait (Vacchiano, Strauss, & Hochman, 1969), and A-Trait is directly related to A-State elevations, it follows that level of A-Trait should be controlled when studying the effects of dogmatism on changes in A-State. The present study investigates the operation of dogmatic defenses by examining changes in A-State as a function of dogmatism during a stressful computer-assisted instruction mathematical task while controlling - for A-Trait. Individual differences in dogmatism can also be relevant to the computerassisted learning process. Ehrlich and Lee (1969) reviewed the literature on dogmatism and learning and reported the mode of presentation of learning material as one of five intervening variables that may affect the relationship between dogmatism and rate of learning. Anxiety is another variable which can influence performance under computer-assisted instruction. According to the drive theory offered by Spence (1758) and Taylor (1756), the effects of anxiety (drive level) on learning depend upon the relative strength of correct and competing incorrect response tendencies elicited by the task. For example, on difficult casks where competing error response tendencies are stronger than correct responses, high anxiety or drive leads to poorer performance. However, on simple tasks where correct responses dominate over incorrect response tendencies, anxiety facilitates performance. Spielberger, O'Neil, and Hansen ( 1972) examined a series of studies concerned with anxiety and computer-assisted learning and concluded that the findings were generally consistent with drive theory. The primary purpose of this study was to investigate changes in A-State during computer-assisted instruction for subjects who differ in dogmatism and ATrait. The subjects were selected on the basis of extreme scores on the StateTrait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) A-Trait Scale (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) and the Dogmatism Scale (Rokeach, 1956). The task contained difficult mathematical problems. A-State and errors during the task were the dependent variables. It was hypothesized thac when controlled for A-Trait, high dogmatic subjects would display higher levels of A-State than low dogmatic subjects during the initial part of the learning task, since according to Rokeach closed-minded individuals perceive the world as more threatening. However, during the final part of the computer-assisted instruction, high dogmatic subjects were expected to exhibit lower levels of A-State than low dogmatic subjects. This hypothesis follows from Rokeach's position that the defenses of the dogmatic individual serve to allay anxiety. On the basis of Spielberger's traitstate anxiety theory it was also predicted that high A-Trait subjects would dis-
DOGMATISM, ANXIETY IN COMPUTER-ASSISTED LEARNING
1057
play higher levels of A-State than low A-Trait subjects throughout the experiment. While no hypotheses were offered concerning errors during computerassisted instruction, a secondary purpose of this investigation was to examine the effects of dogmatism and anxiety on performance.
MBTHOD Subjects
The Dogmatism Scale and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory were administered in a group-testing session to 198 females enrolled in the introductory psychology course at Florida State University.? Subjects with scores in the upper third on the Dogmatism Scale were designated as high dogmatics, while those with scores falling in the lower third of the distribution for this scale were designated as low dogmatics. The cut-off scores for the two groups were above 144 and below 131, respectively. Students with A-Trait scores which fell in the upper quartile of the norms for undergraduate females (Spielberger, et al., 1970) were designated as high A-Trait, while those whose scores fell in the lower quartile were designated as low A-Trait. The cut-off scores for the high A-Trait and low A-Trait subjects were above 41 and below 33, respectively. Subjects with extreme scores on both the Dogmatism Scale and the anxiety inventory were selected to participate in the computer-assisted instruction. The experimenter contacted each subject both by letter and by telephone. The experimental design required 15 subjects in each of the four experimental groups. However, to guard against the possible loss of data in the computer system, an additional 20 subjects were asked to participate. After the experiment was completed it was determined that no data were lost in the system. Thus, in order ro have 15 subjects in each group, it was necessary to elmmate 13 low-dogmatic/ low A-Trait subjects, 6 high-dogmatic/high A-Trait subjecrs and 1 low-dogmatic/high A-Trait subject. These subjects were eliminated in a manner such that the Dogmatism and A-Trait scores were appropriately matched in the experimental groups. The means and standard deviations of the Dogmatism and A-Trait scores for the four experimental groups are presented in Table 1. All the subjects reported that they had no prior experience with computer-assisted learning. TABLE 1 MEAN (fSD) DOGMATISM AND A-TRAITSCORES FOR FOUR GROUPS (IS = 1 5 ) Dogmatism
Group
Dogmatism
A-Trait
High High ,Low Low
Low High Low
A-Trait
High
'A correlation of .26 ( p < .01) was obtained between scores on the Dogmatism and StateTrait Anxiety Inventory A-Trait Scales.
E. RAPPAPORT
Experimental me as we^ The major experimental measures employed in this study derived from instruments' designed to assess dogmatism, A-Trait, and A-State. The Dogmati~mScale.-The Rokeach (1956) Dogmatism Scale has 40 statements to which subjects respond on a 7-point agree-disagree format. The Dogmatism Scale measures general authoritarianism and intolerance regardless of specific ideology. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory.-The inventory (Spielberger, et al., 1970) was used to measure both A-Trait and A-State. The A-Trait Scale has 20 statements that ask people to describe how they generally feel. The A-State Scale similarly has 20 items; however, the instructions require subjects co indicate how they feel at a given moment in time. The 20-item inventory was administered during the group-testing and prior to beginning the experimental task. In addition, a short form of the A-State Scale, employed by O'Neil ( 1972 ) , of the five items with the highest item-remainder correlations in the normative sample for the inventory was used to measure A-State immediately after each of the three sections of the learning task. These items were: ( a ) "I am tense;" ( b ) "I feel at ease;" ( c ) "I am relaxed;" ( d ) "I feel calm;" ( e ) "I am jittery." The subject responded to each item by rating herself on the following four-point scale: ( a ) "not at all;" ( b ) "somewhat;" ( c ) "moderately so;" ( d ) "very much so." Learning Materials The computer-assisted instruction consisted of difficult mathematical learning materials relating to the field properties of complex numbers. These materials were adapted from the computer learning task used by O'Neil, Hansen, and Spielberger (1969). The task was composed of three sections, labeled A, B, C, and contained five problems per section. The subjects were required to solve each successive problem correctly before they could proceed to the next one. The learning materials were presented by an IBM 1500 instructional system. Experimental Procedzlre The experimental procedure was based upon the design employed by O'Neil ( 1972). Each subject was seated at a terminal and given an introductory booklet employed by O'Neil which contained the following statement: It has been found that success in this program does not require mathematical or quantitative ability; it requires instead, the ability to make the same kind of observations and generalizations that you are expected to make in many college courses.
The subjects were then given a description of the operation of the terminal and the experimenter answered questions and demonstrated the procedures. Prior to beginning the task, each subject responded to the 20-item A-State Scale which -lac presented by the computer.
DOGMATISM, ANXIETY IN COMPUTER-ASSISTED LEARNING
1059
Each subject proceeded at her own speed during the computerized task. Immediately after each of the three sections of the learning task, the short form of the A-State Scale was presented by the computer with the instructions to "indicate how you felt during the section of the task you have just finished." After each subject completed the learning task, she was administered a questionnaire which inquired about her reactions to the task and her mathematical ability. After completing the posttask questionnaire, each subject was debriefed.
RESULTS Effect of Dogmatism and A-Trait on Changes in A-Stdte The means and standard deviations of the A-State scores for the four experimental groups are reported in Table 2 for the pretask period and the three sections of the computerized task. These data were evaluated by a three-way analysis of variance in which dogmatism, A-Trait and periods were the independent variables, with repeated measures on the last factor. The resuits of this analysis yielded only the main effects of A-Trait (F = 5.25, df = 1/56, p < .05) and periods (F = 20.05, df = 3/168, p < .001). The main effect of A-Trait suggests that high A-Trait subjects displayed higher levels of A-State than low ATrait subjects throughout the experiment. The hypothesized interaction of dogmatism by periods did not materialize. Furthermore, the absence of a significant main effect of dogmatism indicates that dogmatism had no influence on A-State during the study. In order to examine hrther the periods main effect, two additional analyses of variance were performed on the A-State data. First, initial reactions to the computerized task were evaluated by comparing A-State scores in the pretask period with Section A of the task. In this analysis, the significant periods main TABLE 2 MEANSAND SDS OF FIVE-ITEM A-STATESCORES AND ERRORS
FOR
FOUR EXP~RIMENTAL
GROUPS IN PRETASK PERIOD AND SECTIONSA, B,AND C
. Groups Dogmatism A-Trait High
High
High
Low
Low
High
Low
Low
All
Mean A-State Scores A B C
Pretask M
SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
7.1 2.5 7.7 2.4 9.3 3.6 7.7
1.7 8.5 2.7
12.2 2.7 10.8 2.7 11.7 3.8 10.7 2.8 11.5 3.0
12.6 3.5
9.9 2.7 10.6 3.1 7.6 2.4 10.7 3.1
12.5 3.9 10.3 2.8 10.3 3.0 10.8 2.8 11.0 3.2
Errors A
B
C
6.3 5.0 5.0 3.4
3.7
2.5 2.1 2.8 2.7 2.2 3.3 3.6
4.0 4.1
5.0 2.5 5.1
3.8
4.0
2.7 1.7 2.3 3.0 2.8 3.5 2.8 3.2
4.4
2.8 3.3
lOG0
E. RAPPAPORT
effect ( F = 33.91, df = 1/56, p < ,001) indicated that A-State scores were higher during the computerized task. A significant main effect of A-Trait ( F = 5.68, df = 1/56, p .05) was also found in this analysis. Nexq A-State reactions during Sections A, B, and C were evaluated. In this analysis of variance none of the main effects or interactions were significant. However, there was a tendency for A-State scores to drop from Section A to Section B (F = 3.00, df = 2/112, p < . l o ) . Furthermore, while the main effect of A-Trait ( F = 3.38, df = 1/56, p < . l o ) failed to reach an adequate level of statistical significance, high A-Trait subjects consistently responded with higher levels of A-State during the task.
