Kinesthetic aftereffect, commonly administered with alternate forms given on two separate occasions, has been used to assess individual differences in personality and perceptual style. Recent criticisms have questioned whether this task gives a worthwhile measure of individual differences. This paper represents a further response to such criticisms by extending to Petrie's alternate-form procedure our argument that lack of test-retest reliability is associated with practice effects which differentially bias second-session scores. Findings indicate that second session bias does occur with this procedure, and, as expected, there was an inverse relationship between magnitude of retest reliability and differential bias. Although use of the alternative-form procedure is contraindicated, a single-session procedure remains a promising personality measure since it is not affected by differential bias.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakanP., & ThompsonR.On the relation between induced and residual kinesthetic aftereffects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1962, 15, 391–396.
2.
BakerA. H.MisharaB.KostinI. W., & ParkerL.Delinquency and stimulation seeking: Reanalysis of Petrie's study of kinesthetic aftereffects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1974, 39, 400–402.
3.
BakerA. H.MisharaB. L.KostinI. W., & ParkerL.Kinesthetic aftereffect and personality: A case study of issues involved in construct validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 1–13.
4.
BakerA. H.MisharaB.ParkerL., & KostinI.When “reliability” fails, must a measure be discarded?—The case of kinesthetic aftereffects. Journal of Research in Personality, 1978, 12, 262–273.
5.
ComptonN. H.Perceptual characteristics of delinquent girls. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1967, 24, 596–598.
6.
DeauxE.A psychophysiological influence on the choice of illicit drugs. Physiological Psychology, 1976, 4, 400–404.
7.
GuptaB. S.Stimulant and depressant drugs on kinesthetic figural aftereffect. Psychopharmacologia, 1974, 36, 275–280.
8.
GuptaB. S., & KaurS.The effect of dextroamphetamine on kinesthetic figural aftereffect. Psychopharmacology, 1978, 56, 199–204.
9.
HerzogT. R., & WeintraubD. J.Preserving the kinesthetic aftereffect: Alternating inducing blocks day by day. American Journal of Psychology, 1977, 90, 461–474.
10.
McDonaldA.The lack of effect of d-amphetamine on perceptual reactance and personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1974, 83, 87–90.
11.
McNemarQ.Psychological statistics. (4th ed.) New York: Wiley, 1969.
MisharaB. L., & BakerA. H.Individual differences in old age: The stimulus intensity modulation approach. In KastenbaumR. (Ed.), Old age on the new scene. New York: Springer, in press.
14.
MisharaB.BakerA. H., & KostinI.Do people who seek less environmental stimulation avoid thinking about the future and their death? A study of individual differences in kinesthetic figural aftereffects. Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1972, 7, 667–668.
15.
MorganA., & HilgardE.The lack of retest reliability for individual differences in the kinesthetic aftereffect. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1972, 32, 871–878.
16.
MorganA.LezardF.PrytulakS., & HilgardE.Augmenters, reducers and the reaction to cold pressure pain in waking and suggested hypnotic analgesia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 16, 5–11.
17.
PetrieA.Individuality in pain and suffering. Chicago: Univer. of Chicago Press, 1967.
18.
PetrieA.Reduction or augmentation? Why we need two “planks” before deciding. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1974, 39, 460–462.
19.
PetrieA.CollinsW., & SolomonP.Pain sensitivity, sensory deprivation and susceptibility to satiation. Science, 1958, 128, 1431–1433.
20.
PetrieA.McCullochR., & KazdinP.The perceptual characteristics of juvenile delinquents. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 1962, 134, 415–421.
21.
PlattD.HoltzmanP., & LarsonD.Individual consistencies in kinesthetic figural aftereffects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1971, 32, 787–795.
22.
PoserE.Figural aftereffects as a personality correlate. Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Psychology. Amsterdam: North Holland Publ., 1960. Pp. 748–749.
23.
RyanE. D., & FosterR.Athletic participation and perceptual reduction and augmentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 6, 472–476.
24.
SalesS.Need for stimulation as a factor in social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 19, 124–134.
25.
SalesS.Need for stimulation as a factor in preferences for different stimuli. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1972, 36, 55–61.
26.
SalesS., & ThroopW.Relationship between kinesthetic aftereffect and strength of the nervous system. Psychophysiology, 1972, 9, 492–497.
27.
SalterL. G.The relationship among four personality dimensions and pupillary response. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Southern Mississippi, 1972.
28.
SchoolerC.BuchsbaumM., & CarpenterW.Evoked response and kinesthetic measures of augmenting/reducing in schizophrenics: Replication and extensions. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1976, 163, 221–232.
29.
SweeneyD. R.Pain reactivity and kinesthetic aftereffect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1966, 22, 763–769.
30.
WeintraubD.GreenG., & HerzogT.Kinesthetic aftereffects day by day: Trends, task features, reliable individual differences. American Journal of Psychology, 1973, 86, 827–844.
