W. John Schuldt

Effects of Self-Imposition and Experimenter Imposition of Achievement Standards on Performance

This research assessed the effects of imposition of achievement standards on crank-turning within conditions in which apparent reinforcements were present. Subjects were assigned to one of four experimental conditions: self-imposition of achievement standards, experimenters imposition of achievement standards, apparatus-feedback control, and baserate control. A steady decline in cranking over the period was noted. Subjects given experimenters standards cranked faster than did subjects in the baserate condition but did not differ significantly from subjects in the apparatus-feedback condition. Subjects under self-imposition cranked faster than did subjects in any other conditions.

Effects of Explicit and Implicit Achievement Standards on Performance

This study investigated effects of achievement standards—self-selected, explicitly imposed, and implicitly imposed—on performance in conditions where no tangible rewards were present. Subjects who had no standards performed significantly less than subjects who had standards. When subjects selected standards they performed significantly more than when experimenters explicitly imposed standards; no significant difference was found between subjects who selected standards and subjects who had standards implicitly imposed by experimenters.

Components of Self-Reinforcing Events

This research was designed to assess the independent effects of two elements of self-reinforcing events, self-imposition of achievement standards and self-administration of rewards (ns = 16/group). Achievement standards, in the absence of rewards, and self-administration of rewards increased performance. Subjects who selected achievement standards did not differ significantly from subjects who had such standards imposed by an experimenter. No significant interaction was found between achievement standards and rewards.

The Experimenter-as-Fixed-Effect Fallacy

ABSTRACT Few studies in psychology are designed to provide a valid basis for generalizing beyond the specific—fixed—sample of experimenters who conducted the study; that is, they commit the experimenter-as-fixed-effect fallacy. We conducted a model experiment to demonstrate remedies to this fallacy by (a) creating an experimenter factor with each experimenter construed as one level of the factor and by (b) statistically treating the experimenter factor as random. Results are compared, using the appropriate design and statistics, with results that would have been reported if the experimenter factor had been treated as fixed or ignored altogether. In this article, we also discuss the use of a random experimenter factor to increase generalization and to avoid failure to replicate.

Live and taped relaxation instructions: Effects of procedural variables

Two experiments were designed to assess the effects of relaxation training, therapist presence or absence, live versus taped voice, and response-contingent versus noncontingent instructional progress on measures of subjective relaxation and frontal EMG. In the first experiment, it was found that subjects receiving taped instructions showed greater within-session subjective relaxation and lowering of within-session frontal EMG than subjects in a control condition. No differential training effects of therapist presence or absence was noted. In a second experiment, no significant differences in relaxation measures were found between subjects receiving live, response-contingent instructions and subjects receiving live, noncontingent instructions. Moreover, no meaningful differences in relaxation measures were found between subjects receiving live and taped instructions.

Effects of choice, goal difficulty, and need achievement on performance

Investigated the parameters in which choice of goals–a component of the self-reinforcement process–is motivating. The effects of goal conditions–choice vs. experimenter imposition, level of goal difficulty, and need achievement–were assessed. College students (N = 188) performed a wheel-turning task in which easy, moderately difficult, or very difficult goals were self-selected, experimenter imposed, or not present. Choice was motivating for low need achievers, who selected a very difficult goal. However, experimenter imposition was motivating for low need achievers with easy goals. No differential effects were found for low need achievers who worked toward chosen or imposed goals of moderate difficulty. No significant effects were found for high need achievers. Presence of goals was motivating for Ss except low need achievers, who chose an easy goal. Thus, it has been demonstrated that performance varies as an interactive function of goal difficulty, need achievement, and goal conditions–choice vs. experimenter imposition.