Zinbarg R, Revelle W
Northwestern University.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989 Aug;57(2):301-14. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.57.2.301.
Four experiments were conducted to test hypotheses derived from 4 alternative models of individual differences in instrumental conditioning. A standard go--no-go discrimination learning task was used in each of the 4 experiments. The results indicate that individual differences in performance of this discrimination are more consistently and strongly associated with impulsivity and anxiety than with extraversion and neuroticism. In each of the experiments, high anxiety hindered the learning of a go--no-go discrimination more among high impulsive Ss than among low impulsive Ss, and in 2 of the experiments high anxiety actually facilitated learning among low impulsive Ss. These findings are incompatible with Eysenck's and Gray's hypotheses regarding extraversion but are not inconsistent with Newman's. Aspects of these results do support Spence's and Gray's models of anxiety and instrumental conditioning. However, both of these models were contradicted by other trends in the data. A modification of Gray's model of impulsivity and anxiety that emphasizes the role of expectancies was proposed to fit these data.
进行了四项实验来检验从工具性条件作用中个体差异的四种替代模型推导出来的假设。在这四项实验中的每一项都使用了标准的“去 - 不去”辨别学习任务。结果表明,这种辨别的表现中的个体差异与冲动性和焦虑的关联比与外向性和神经质的关联更一致且更强。在每项实验中,高焦虑在高冲动性被试中比在低冲动性被试中更阻碍“去 - 不去”辨别的学习,并且在两项实验中,高焦虑实际上促进了低冲动性被试的学习。这些发现与艾森克和格雷关于外向性的假设不相符,但与纽曼的假设并不矛盾。这些结果的某些方面确实支持了斯彭斯和格雷的焦虑与工具性条件作用模型。然而,这两个模型都与数据中的其他趋势相矛盾。提出了一种强调预期作用的格雷冲动性和焦虑模型的修正版本来拟合这些数据。