Portable Rod-and-frame Test (RFT) scores and the Jackson Personality Inventory (JPI) scale scores were obtained for 41 male and 41 female college students. Two partial RFT scores were computed: the summed deviations of RFT Trials 1 to 8 and RFT Trials 9 to 16. The results suggest that RFT performance of men and women is a function of different determinants and that, at least for men, performance on Trials 1 to 8 is a function of different determinants than performance on Trials 9 to 16. To explain a major portion of the variance of RFT performance an arousal interpretation appears useful for men and an interpretation in terms of energy level for women.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlockJ. A.A study of affective responses in a lie detection situation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 55, 11–15.
2.
CallawayE.The influence of amobarbital (amylbarbitone) and methamphetamine on the focus of attention. Journal of Mental Science, 1959, 105, 382–392.
3.
CohenS. I.SilvermanA. J.ShmavonianB. M.Psychophysical studies in altered sensory environments. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 1962, 6, 259–281.
4.
EfroymsenM. A.Multiple regression analysis. In RalstonA.WilfH. S. (Eds.), Mathematical methods for digital computers. New York: Wiley, 1960. Pp. 191–203.
5.
ElliottR.Interrelationships among measures of field-dependence, ability, and personality traits. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 27–37.
6.
FitzgibbonsD.GoldbergerL.EagleM.Field dependence, incidental learning, and arousal. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, New York, 1966.
7.
GrossF.The role of set in the perception of the upright. Journal of Personality, 1959, 27, 95–103.
8.
HaronianF.SugarmanA. A.Field-independence and resistance to reversal of perspective. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1966, 22, 543–546.
9.
HebbD. O.Drive and the C.N.S. (conceptual nervous system). Psychological Review, 1955, 62, 243–254.
10.
HustmyerF. E.KarnesE.Background autonomic activity and “analytic perception.”Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 68, 467–468.
11.
JacksonD. N.Independence and resistance to perceptual field forces. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958, 56, 279–281.
12.
JacksonD. N.Personality Research Form manual. Goshen, N. Y.: Research Psychologists Press, 1967.
13.
KatoN.The validity and reliability of a new rod and frame test. Japanese Psychological Research, 1965, 7, 120–125.
14.
MorfM. E.HowittR.Rod-and-frame test performance as a function of momentary arousal. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1970, 31, 703–708.
15.
MorrisJ. B.The rod-and-frame box: A portable version of the Rod-and-frame test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1967, 25, 152.
16.
NunnallyJ.Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
17.
OltmanP. K.Field dependence and arousal. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1964, 19, 441.
18.
OltmanP.A portable rod-and-frame apparatus. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 26, 503–506.
19.
ShipmanW. G.HeathH. A.What does the rod and frame measure?Paper read at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May, 1967.
20.
VaughtG. M.Correlations between scores for a portable RFT and a stationary RFT. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1969, 29, 474.
21.
WitkinH. A.LewisH. B.HertzmanM.MachoverK.MeissnerB. P.WapnerS.Personality through perception. New York: Harper, 1954.
