An attempt was made to test the hypothesis that Ss identifying with or having high admiration for E would perform better than control Ss to which E was unknown. The results were insufficient to support the prediction, but the present authors advance the hypothesis that, this failure may be due to the original level of motivation of the individual Ss.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KirkR. E.Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks-Cole, 1968.
2.
LucaccjniL. F.FreedyA.LymanJ.Motivational factors in vigilance: Effects of instructions on performance in a complex vigilance task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 26, 783–786.
3.
McCormickP. D.A two-factor theory of vigilance. British Journal of Psychology, 1962, 53, 357–363.
4.
McCormickP. D.A two-factor theory of vigilance in the light of recent studies. Acta Psychologica, 1967, 27, 400–409.
5.
McFarlandB. P.HalcombC. G.Expectancy and stimulus generalization in vigilance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1970, 30, 147–151.
6.
SmithR. L.Monotony and motivation: A theory of vigilance. Santa Monica, Calif.: Dunlap & Associates, Inc., 1966.
7.
WienerE. L.Money and the monitor. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1969, 29, 627–634.
