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 non-frustrated 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 TaskXXXX condition Reaction TimeIncongruent 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 recognizex3 – 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: frustrationWithin subjects: Stroop (XXXX, Incongruent)

Interactionp=.088, alpha=.1

Simple Main EffectsXXXX: p = .772Incongruent: p = .195

Stroop Effect Reaction Times

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 wereNot invested in succeeding at taskDisengaged from taskFrustrated prior to taskUnaware 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