Table Of ContentFACILITATION AND IV2ERFB&B&GB IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF SIMPLIFIED TASKS ON
THE MODIFIED MASBBDHN APPARATUS
by
Edwin Ralph Dusek
A d isse rta tio n subm itted in p a rtia l fu lfillm en t of th©
requirem ents for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy,
in th© Department of Psychology in the Graduate
College of th© S tate U niversity of Iowa
August 1951
ProQuest Number: 10598610
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
uest.
ProQuest 10598610
Published by ProQuest LLC (2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346
AC KNOWDED0EMEMT
The w riter wishes to express his appreciation to
Professor Don l»©wls for his help In form ulating the problem
and for h is valuable advice and assistan ce throughout the
course of th is investigation*
i i
TABIaE OF CQHfEHTS
Gh&pter Page
I Introduction * « • * * * * » * * « * « » * 1
A* Background « • « * » « * • • * « « 1
B* Statem ent of Problem * » • * » » • 6
II Experim ental Procedure * * « • • * • • • • 8
A« Apparatus * • » « • • • • * * « » 3
B* Subjects # • # • • • » « • * • « * 11
0* Be-sign of Experiment • * » • • « * 11
III Results + » , « * * « « • * » * ' • # # » 17
A# Proactive E ffects • « • * • • • « 17
1* Humber of Matches * . « * * • 17
0* Humber of E rrors « » » » * • 28
B* R etroactive E ffects • » • » * » » 56
1* Humber of Matches 36
2m lumber of E rrors * . « • » * 41
C* D ifficu lty of Tasks * * • ' , » * 45
IV D iscussion « * » • • . . * « » • » « • » » 51
V Summary a 55
Appendix A * , * . 58
Appendix B * . . • • • . * * < * * * * • » * 74
Appendix € » • * ' • • • » « • « » « » • » 77
B ib lio g rap h y ....................... « « . * ....................... 80
l i i
TABL.B OF FIGURES
Figure Page
X Mean number of matches and mean number of
erro rs mad© on Tasks A or B by Groups I and
II on eaoh trl^ l of OB. IB, and RB .................... , 20
2 Mean number of matches and mean number of
erro rs made on Tasks A or C by Groups III
and IV on each tr ia l of 0X», IB, and BL * * « . 23
3 Mean number of matches and mean number of
erro rs made on Tasks A or B by Groups V
and VI on each tr ia l of OL, I&, and RB • • • * 25
4 Mean number of matches and mean number of
erro rs mad© on Tasks A or E by Groups VII
and V III on each tr ia l of Oh, IL, and RL * » • 26
5 Mean number of matches and mean number of
erro rs mad© on OL on Task® A, B, C, B, and
& and during IB train in g on Task A for
Groups I I, IV, VI, and V III , • * , , * * * ip 29
iv
TABLE OF TABLES
Table
I Tasks used in th© experim ent * • * ♦ * » • • • « 10
IX Experim ental design for tasks used * • • * * • « 12
XII Mean number of matches made on a task during
f ir s t tr ia l of OL and f ir s t tr ia l of II* and
significance of difference between the mean® * * 19
IV Mean number o f erro rs made on a task during
f ir s t tr ia l of OL and f ir s t tr ia l of II# and
significance of differences in the cum ulative
frequency d istrib u tio n s of these scores as
determ ined by z scores fo r Mann-f^hitney V te s t « 31
V Levels of confidence a t which th© hypothesis
of no difference in the cum ulative frequency
d istrib u tio n s of f ir s t tr ia l erro rs fo r IL
on Task A fo r Groups XI* XV* VI, and V III
were equal could be rejected on th© b asis
of th© Mann^Whitney 0 te s t 35
VI The an aly sis of variance of mean changes in
matches from la s t tr ia l of OL to f ir s t tr ia l
of Bh fo r Groups I* III* V* and VII • « * » * * 37
VII The an aly sis of variance of mean changes in
matches from la s t tr ia l of OL to f ir s t tr ia l
of RL for Groups II* IV, VI* and V III * * * * * 39
VIII Levels of confidence a t which th© hypothesis
of no difference in the cum ulative frequency
d istrib u tio n s of change® in erro rs from la s t
tr ia l OL to f ir s t tr ia l RL on Task A for
Groups I* III* V* and VII could be rejected
on th® b asis of the z scores fo r the Mann-
Whitney U te s t * * • * * * , ♦ • « * * * * ♦ . * « 42
XX Levels of confidence a t which th© hypothesis
of no difference in the cum ulative frequency
d istrib u tio n s of changes in erro rs from la s t
tr ia l OL to f ir s t tr ia l RL fo r Group® IX, IV,
VI* and VIII could b© reje cte d on the basis
of th© % scores fo r the Mann-Whitney 0 te s t * * 44
Table Fag®
X Trend analysis of 01 on Tasks A, B, 0, and
K by Groups V, 11* IV* and VIII* respectively*
w ith matches scores summed fo r groups of
five tria ls * * « * . * < * * * * » * ♦ , # * * # * < » 47
XX Levels of confidence a t which the n u ll hypo*
th esis fo r differences between general means
fo r OL matches on Tasks A, B, C, and E by
Groups V, I I , IV, and V III, resp ectiv ely ,
could be reje cte d using t te s ts w ith in te r
subjects variance fo r groups compared used
as erro r term • 43
vl
1’
Chapter t
XRTBODTJG$20N
In a recent unpublished paper lew is (6) has sug
gested th a t four sets of response tendencies — dexterity#
fa c ilita tio n , sk ill# and in terferen ce — are responsible
fo r th© lev el of performance on a complex motor task pro
vided m otivation is in v arian t and fatig u e and work in h ib i
tio n are kept a t a minimum* flex terity co n sists of inherent
or long-ingrained tendencies to perceive a task and to exe
cute th© kinds o f movements which are basic to It* F a c ili
ta tio n co n sists o f acquired tendencies to make appropriate
responses in re la tio n to the underlying unchanging features
of a task# S k ill co n sists of acquired tendencies to make
appropriate responses to aspects of the stim ulation situ a tio n
which change in e ith e r random or system atic ways during some
specified In terv al of time* In terferen ce co n sists of tend
encies to make inappropriate responses in re la tio n to any
aspect of the task situation* Performance p o te n tia l is in
ferred from these four sets of response tendencies and is
some function o f a ll tendencies to make appropriate responses
minus some function of th© combined strengths o f a ll tend
encies to make inappropriate responses*
2
When studying the e ffe c ts o f p ractice on one task
on subsequent acq u isitio n of proficiency on another task#
responses appropriate for th© f ir s t task may be inapproprl**
at© for th© second# Some o f the s k ill acquired in re la tio n
to the f ir s t task may th erefo re become in terferen ce when
p ractice is given on the second task# As defined by Lewis#
fa c ilita tio n and In terferen ce are quite Independent and do
not In te ra c t or compete in a can cellatio n sense# 3?hey may
ex ist sim ultaneously although one may be stronger than th©
other so th a t its effects obscure those of the other or they
may both be about equal in stren g th so th a t there ia no
change in performance level#
Studies on which th is form ulation is based have
been conducted a t the S tate U niversity of Iowa# Lewis and
Shephard (9#10>1!) were successful in constructing several
devices w ith which re lia b le measures of fa c ilita tio n and
in terferen ce may be obtained* One o f these devices is th©
M odified Mashburn Apparatus (9)# Lewis# M cAllister# and
Adams (7) conducted an experiment In which they reversed th©
controls on th is apparatus fo r th© In terp o lated task a fte r
d iffe re n t amounts of o rig in al training* They obtained two
performance measures ~ number of matches and number of ©r*
ro rs per tria l* An erro r was made when an in itia l movement
o f a control was in the wrong direction* fa c ilita tio n was
re fle c te d by Increases in number of matches and/or decreases
In number o f errors# w hile In terferen ce resu lted In de
creases In matches and/or increases in errors* The acq u isi
tio n of proficiency on the o rig in al task both fa c ilita te d
and in te rfe re d w ith in itia l performance on the In terp o lated
reversed task although th ere was no d e fin ite re la tio n sh ip
between amount of o rig in a l train in g and th© amount of fa
c ilita tio n and interference* H etroactive in terferen ce was
m anifested by a ll groups during relearning# but only one
group fo r which the amount of o rig in a l and in terp o lated
train in g was small* showed any sign® of re tro a c tiv e f a c ili
tation* Luring the early stages of relearn ing the absolute
decrements as w ell as th© re la tiv e decrem ents in number of
matches were p o sitiv ely rela ted to amount of o rig in al learn
ing* Th® absolute increm ents in number of erro rs were seem-
ia ly unrelated to amount o f o rig in al learning*
The concepts of dexterity# fa c ilita tio n # sk ill# and
in terferen ce were the outgrowth of the changes noted in the
performances of sub jects when they f ir s t learned a complex
task* were then given p ractice on a sim ilar but reversed
task , and fin a lly relearned the o rig in al task* There is
l i t t l e em pirical data on the v ariab les changed in going from
one task to another and the re la tio n sh ip of such v ariab les
to changes in the subjects* responses* Experiments conducted
