IV. Certainty and output motivation

Abstract

Scores of certainty in the correctness of performance were derived from tests of reproduction learning, recognition learning and single recognition (changing stimuli), using a sample of 100 normal subjects. The analysis of response consistency with practice revealed a distinct difference between certainty and performance. The former variable yielded fairly high reliability already for the first two trials when performance reliability approximates chance level. — The optimal relationship between certainty and performance was 0.8, 0.5 and 0.2 for the three tests and was taken to indicate considerable variation in task ambiguity. A similar analysis within tests showed that the first two trials of learning tasks are also characterized by high ambiguity. — Questionnaires of extraversion ( E), neuroticism ( N), manifest anxiety ( MAS), rigidity ( NR), dogmatism ( Do), intolerance of ambiguity ( IA), positive extreme response set ( PFCL + 2), as well as age and intelligence were correlated with certainty separately for practice stages. E provided to significant results. N and MAS correlated negatively under conditions of relatively low ambiguity. NR and PFCL + 2 correlated negatively at the lowest and positively at the highest ambiguity level. Age and intelligence, correlating negatively and positively respectively, depended also on the ambiguity function, the coefficients being highest for low ambiguity and practically zero for high ambiguity. — During the initial trials of learning, a transient set for a positive correlation between rigidity and certainty emerged. — Analysis for judgment discrepancy revealed results to depend on ambiguity, somewhat similar to the analysis of certainty level. Under the condition of highest ambiguity rigid subjects would overrate and anxious subjects would underrate their performance. — A score of output motivation was found to be positively correlated with rigidity and negatively with intelligence.