Transcript By: David Phelps, Kristine Schuster, and Isaac Weinkauf Hanover College Previous Literature  Barker (1938) studied the effect of frustration upon Cognitive Ability  Dollard et al.

By: David Phelps,
Kristine Schuster,
and Isaac Weinkauf
Hanover College
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
Research Question

How does frustration affect performance
of Automatic Processing and Attentional
Override of Automatic Processing as
measured by the Stroop Effect Task?
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 nonfrustrated participants
Hypothesis
Classic Stroop
Under Frustration
XXXX
Faster Reaction Time
Same
Incongruent
Slower Reaction Time
Worse
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
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
Participants
Self report
 N=24
 8 female
 Ages 19-22
 Undergraduate students
 Voluntary participation

 Some completed for extra credit
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
Stroop Effect Reaction Times
2500
Reaction Time
2000
1500
XXXX
Incongruent
1000
500
0
Not-Frustrated (No Delay)
Frustrated (Delay)
Discussion

Results do not support the hypothesis
Classic Stroop
Under Frustration
XXXX
Faster Reaction Time
Same
Incongruent
Slower Reaction Time
Better
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.
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
Future Directions

Stronger frustration manipulation

Effects of frustration on other cognitive
abilities

Explore mechanisms behind frustration’s
effects on performance