要求水準と現実度
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
Problems.Taking account of the exprimental results of J. D. Frank, R. Gould and L. B. Heathers, we consider that one of the important factors determining the values of correlation of goal discrepancy scores (G. D. scores) between many different experimental situations is the similarity grade of experimental situations. We may generally explain this problem of situational differences by the differences of the degree of reality of experimental situations. It will be related to the fact that goals selected in the behavior lelated to level of aspiration have different meanings and the dynamics of aspiration level also is different respectively. Heve we attempt to clarify the different meanings of aspiration level by setting up several experimental situations consisted of different instructions, different condisions, different characters and structures of tasks. Moreover, in relation to the situational variations, we intend to study the mechanism of success and failure stated by subjects. This is a new method of studying success and failure in level of aspiration.Experimental method and procedure.Subjects: six boys and six girls in the 4th and 5th year classes of the primrry school.Tasks: 1. Addition. 25 items in Kraepelin's successive addition paper. Scaled in secnd. The quecker the better.2. Isolation-play. (Solitaer-Spiel). A task used in Hoppe's experiment. Scaled in number. The fewer the better.3. Block-building. building up a gate of blocks by copying a model. Scaled in second. The quicker the better.4. Quoits. Throwing ten rings in two meters distance. Scaled in number. The more the better.The character of the former two tasks was serious and the latter two were the playful tasksExperimental conditions.Experimental conditions were changed from one to another mainly by changing the instructions.Condition A. The first situation. Instruction: "What will you expect to get next time?"Condition B. The second situation. Instruction was the same as in A. But this time subjects became more familiar to the tasks and the experimenter than in A.Condition C. The third situation. Instruction: "What will you hope to get next time?" This instruction was apt to evoke the ideal or hope level.Condition D. The fourth situation. Instruction: "What will you really get next time?" This expects the real level.The experimenter and the experimental room were the same through the above four conditions.Condition E. The fifth situation. Instruction was the same as in A and B. But this time the experimenter and the experimental room were different from the before and unfamiliar to the subjects in order to add the social prersure.Subjects were tested individually. A two-week interval was inserted between each situation.Experimental results1. From the viewpoint of J. F. Brown's theory which hypothesizes that the life space of irreality grade has more fluid medium than of reality grade, we may assume that in the irreal situations the number of spontaneous speaking of subjects will be increased than in real situations. The number of times of spontaneous speaking was as follows.(1) C<A, B, D<E. (2) Quoits, block-building>addition, isolation-play. (The sign of unequality shows the significant difference between the means at 5% level of significance.)We can conclude that condition C, quoits and block-building are the situations of higher irreality grade.2. The value of G. D. score is as follows.(1) In the task of addition: C>A, B, D>E. (2) In isolation-play: C>A, B, D, E. A>E. (3) In block-building: C>A, B, D>E. (4) In quoits: C>A, B, D, E.We can verify that these results are independent ftom the factors concerning the performance sccre and so we may conclude that these results are explained in conection with the reality grade of experimental situations.3. Shifts values of aspiration level were
- 公益社団法人 日本心理学会の論文