Personality differences in volunteering for experiments were studied in 231 college students. The Eysenck Personality Inventory was used to measure extraversion and neuroticism. Ss were asked to volunteer for four experiments: general, boring, social, or shock experiment. Ss who volunteered for the general and social experiments were significantly more extraverted, while the high neuroticism-extraverts volunteered significantly more for the shock experiment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BellC. R.Personality characteristics of volunteers for psychological studies. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1962, 1, 81–95.
2.
EysenckH. J.EysenckS. B. G.The Eysenck Personality Inventory. San Diego, Calif.: Educational & Industrial Testing Service, 1963.
3.
GrayJ. A.The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1970, 8, 249–266.
4.
LondonP.CooperL. M.JohnsonH. J.Subject characteristics in hypnosis research. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1962, 10, 13–21.
5.
MartinR. M.MarcuseF. L.Characteristic of volunteers and nonvolunteers for hypnosis. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1957, 5, 176–180.
6.
RamsayR. W.Introversion-extraversion and volunteering for testing. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 9, 89.
7.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L.The volunteer subject. In RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (Eds.), Artifacts in social research. New York: Academic Press, 1969. Pp. 59–118.
8.
SchubertD. S. P.Arousal seeking as a motivation for volunteering: MMPI scores and central-nervous-system-stimulant use as suggestive of a trait. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1964, 28, 337–340.
9.
TuneG. S.A note on differences between cooperative and non-cooperative volunteer subjects. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 7, 229–230.
10.
TuneG. S.A further note on the differences between cooperative and noncooperative volunteer subjects. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 8, 183–184.
