1. Frustration and Automatic Processing
By: David Phelps,
Kristine Schuster,
and Isaac Weinkauf
Hanover College

2. 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

3. Research Question
How does frustration affect performance of Automatic Processing and Attentional Override of Automatic Processing as measured by the Stroop Effect Task?

4. 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

5. Hypothesis Classic Stroop Under Frustration XXXX Faster Reaction Time
Same
Incongruent
Slower Reaction Time
Worse

6. Procedure Informed Consent Instruction Sheet Working Memory Task
Randomly assigned to:
Control
Frustrated Manipulation (delay)
Stroop Effect Task
XXXX condition Reaction Time
Incongruent condition Reaction Time
Completed in random order
Debriefing Form
Frustrated Manipulation- 3 second delay in between selecting word answers and recognizing the choice
XXXX-measuring color identification
Incongruent- automatic interference in color identification

7. Methods Frustration Manipulation
Shown series of words in modified Working Memory Experiment
5 - Number of words to recognize
x3 – 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

8. Participants Self report N=24 8 female Ages 19-22
Undergraduate students
Voluntary participation
Some completed for extra credit
All had normal or corrected normal vision

9. Results 2X2 mixed ANOVA Interaction Simple Main Effects
Between subjects: frustration
Within subjects: Stroop (XXXX, Incongruent)
Interaction
p=.088, alpha=.1
Simple Main Effects
XXXX: p = .772
Incongruent: p = .195

10. Stroop Effect Reaction Times

11. Discussion Results do not support the hypothesis Classic Stroop
Under Frustration
XXXX
Faster Reaction Time
Same
Incongruent
Slower Reaction Time
Better

12. 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.

13. Limitations
Manipulation of frustration may have been ineffective if participants were
Not invested in succeeding at task
Disengaged from task
Frustrated prior to task
Unaware of the goal of the task (recognition of words within a time limit)
Resilient to frustration

14. Future Directions Stronger frustration manipulation
Effects of frustration on other cognitive abilities
Explore mechanisms behind frustration’s effects on performance

15. Questions?