View
107
Download
10
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Frustration, Anxiety & Boredom . (I picked a fun one). Presentation: Cameron Betts version 1 28 March 2011, WPI. Frustration. Frustration – Aggression Theory. Frustration : “a state that sets in if a goal-oriented act is delayed or thwarted” Dollard at al, 1939 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
PAGE 1
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Frustration, Anxiety & Boredom
Presentation: Cameron Betts version 1 28 March 2011, WPI
(I picked a fun one)
PAGE 2
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Frustration
PAGE 3
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Frustration: “a state that sets in if a goal-oriented act is delayed or thwarted”
Dollard at al, 1939• Aggression is always the result of frustration
Aggressive behavior requires the existence of frustration The existence of frustration leads to some kind of aggressive behavior
• The closer one is to a goal, the greater the excitement and anticipation of success• Being prevented from reaching a goal causes frustration proportionate to the
excitement, degree of interference and frequency of interference
Barker, Dembo and Lewin (1941) showed that children’s play was more destructive when they were able to see the toy for a time before being allowed to play with it
Frustration – Aggression Theory
PAGE 4
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Only some kinds of frustration:
1. Unreasonable Goal Interference Researchers asked about hypothetical situations, and found that people would only
become frustrated if the block was illegitimate (Pastore) or arbitrary (Cohen) Aggression is more likely if the block is socially inappropriate
2. Unexpectedness of the Goal Interference There is a problem here, as unreasonable blocks tend also to be unexpected
1. Intentional interference Aggression only ensues if the interference is perceived to be intentional This emphasizes the role of social inhibitions
Frustration – Aggression Modifications
PAGE 5
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Buss, 1963 – Varying Drive Strengths Students were paired with a bad partner and so prevented form betting a better grade Students competing for a grade gave their partners worse punishments
Harris, 1974 – Expectation Violations Researchers cut in front of people standing in line at banks and stores The closer to the front of the line, the more aggression was displayed
Worchel et al, 1976 Aggressive movie watchers showed more hostility, compared to comedy watchers Aggressive movies with commercials got the most hostility
Frustration Experiments
PAGE 6
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Referent Cognitions Theory (Folger) Frustration is heightened if the one can imagine attaining the goal under other
circumstances This could be because the goal was that much more expected
Attribution of Interference One is more likely to be openly aggressive if the interference is perceived as
purposeful One is less likely to be openly aggressive if the interference is perceived as
socially appropriate
Cognitive & Metacognitive Factors
PAGE 7
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Russell’s affect model might show frustration as a negative valence – high arousal state
(Baker et al, 2010)
Beyond Aggression
Does Russell’s model of affect inform the discussion on frustration – aggression?
PAGE 8
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Frustration and Boredom• Perkins & Hill proposed that frustration leads to boredom, and
showed an association between them (Perkins & Hill 1985)
• Frustration levels are consistent across subjects, but vary by type of activity (Larson & Richards 1991) High frustration activities do not correspond with boring activities
• Talking with a teacher (72%) • Correcting a Test (40%)• Discussion (36%)
• Baker showed that boredom was less problematic for learning than frustration (Baker et al 2010) Frustration was defined (for participants) as dissatisfaction or
annoyance Observed Frustration behaviors included banging on keyboard or
mouse, pulling hair, sighing deeply, statement such as “What is going on?!”
Do these behaviors correspond to aggression?
Do these situations correspond goal interference?
PAGE 9
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Anxiety
PAGE 10
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
“painful or apprehensive uneasiness of mind usually over an impending or anticipated ill” - Merriam Webster
Two basic types of anxiety (Alpert & Harper): •Facilitating Anxiety
Leads to task directed drives and on-task efforts (so as to get it over with)•Debilitating Anxiety
Leads to anxiety drive and off-task responses Liebert & Morris break this down to:
• Worry – “any cognitive expression of concern about one’s own performance”• Emotionality – autonomic reactions (e.g. sweating, heart racing)
While earlier models suggested that these were mutually exclusive, Alpert & Harper suggested that they may be independent
There is also a question of Trait versus State
What is Anxiety?
PAGE 11
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
• Liebert & Morris: Anxiety divides attention between the task and worry
Interference Model
Test anxiety interferes with the recall of prior learning
Deficit Model
Questions the Interference model because techniques that reduced test anxiety did not improve test scores
Anxiety is caused by one’s awareness of under-preparation
Think about anxiety dreams and their relationship to preparedness
Why does Anxiety reduce performance?
PAGE 12
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Review of 562 studies on academic test anxiety, looking at:
Test Anxiety & Self Esteem, gender differences, performance, treatments
Is test anxiety cognitive or behavioral?
Is there a relationship between facilitating and debilitating anxiety?
Does test anxiety cause poor performance, or does anticipation of poor performance cause test anxiety?
Hembree: Test Anxiety
PAGE 13
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Hembree:
Results – High vs Low ability
Low ability students experience more debilitating test anxiety than high ability students
PAGE 14
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Hembree:
Results - Ethnicity
Ethnicity differences in Debilitating Test Anxiety diminish in higher grade levels
PAGE 15
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Hembree:
Results - Gender
Females consistently show more debilitating Test Anxiety…
…however this does not translate into a performance difference
PAGE 16
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Hembree:
Conclusions• Inference model was more compelling than the Deficit model
Behavioral and Cognitive-behavioral treatments worked where study-skill training failed
• Behavioral treatments for test anxiety were more effective, and reduced both Emotionality and Worry. Hembree concludes that test anxiety is behavioral:
• Debilitating Anxiety and Facilitating Anxiety are independent and can be experienced simultaneously However treatments for debilitating anxiety also seem to increase facilitating anxiety
Emotionality -> Worry(Behavioral) (Cognitive)
PAGE 17
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Boredom
PAGE 18
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
What is Boredom?
A context in which skills are above average and challenges are below average- Stein, Kimiecik, Daniels, and Jackson (1995)
Boredom derives from one’s inability to regulate attention in a directed, focused manner- Fisher (1993)
Unpleasant feelings, lack of stimulation, and low physiological arousal- Harris (2000)
Boredom: Trait or State?
PAGE 19
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
What makes us Bored?When others are:
Passive
Tedious
Distracting
Exhibiting low affectivity
Exhibiting boring ingratiation
Serious
Negatively egocentric
Self-preoccupied
Banal
Leary et al.
At work, when there is: Nothing to do
Only simple, undemanding tasks
Excessively difficult tasks
The absence of coworkers
Organizational constraints
Fisher
How do we handle it? Day Dreaming
Motor restlessness
Exploration
Response variability
Withdrawal from the boring situation
Smith
PAGE 20
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Cognitive and Meta-cognitive factors• Attention
Individuals with high or low distraction levels are less bored (Laird) Boredom implies a difficulty in focusing attention (Fisher)
• Time perception Boredom leads to a perception that time is moving more slowly (Watt)
• Mood-Monitoring Scrutinizing and directing attention towards one’s mood May reduce one’s ability to focus attention on external matters (Swinkels & Giuliano)
• Mood-Labeling Identifying and categorizing one’s mood Correlated with positive affect (Swinkels & Giuliano) “Enables one to concentrate on the situation at hand, without attention focused on
oneself or being distracted by mood” (Harris)
PAGE 21
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Control – Value & BoredomPekrun 2010
Control-Value Theory speaks to boredom in several ways:
• High Control can lead to boredom An individual’s capacities are high compared to task demands (Csikszentmihayli)
• Low Control can lead to boredom Demands exceed one’s abilities (Acee, 2010)
• Perceived Value is low Specifically if the task is thought to have a low intrinsic value
Would goal-orientation predict boredom in learning?
PAGE 22
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Boredom vs. Neutrality• Boredom is not the same as lack of interest
Lack of interest implies neither a wish to engage in in an activity nor avoid it (lack of approach)
Boredom leads to desire to escape the situation (avoidance)
Where neutrality has no valence or arousal, Boredom has negative valence and low-arousal
PAGE 23
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Why does Boredom affect Performance?Pekrun 2010
• Split attention Boredom reduces task-focused attention Promotes task-irrelevant thinking like day-dreaming
• Motivation to avoid the task Boredom is an aversive emotion that one wants to escape
• Non-strategic thinking When we are bored we do not employ meta-cognitive strategies as often Self-regulation is also reduced
• Active goal setting, strategy selection, outcome monitoring
• As a result, boredom has a more consistent negative impact on performance than other negative affects There is a positive correlation between boredom proneness and anxiety
PAGE 24
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Larson & Richards (1991)Three models of Boredom were put to the test:
Under-stimulation model• Psychological Model• Boredom happens in situations that are repetitive, habituated and unchallenging• Would indicate: more boredom in high-ability students, equal boredom in and out of school
Forced Effort Model• Psychological Model• Boredom happens in situations perceived to be homogeneous• Would indicate: more boredom with challenging material and less control
Resistance Model• Social Construct• Boredom is an active social response to power relationships• Would indicate: boredom would be correlated with anger• Boredom may be defined by a school experience
5th – 9th graders reported their boredom level and activity multiple time a day, as prompted by a pager.• Boredom was put on a scale of Boring to Exciting
PAGE 25
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Larson & Richards:
Where are we bored? Self-explanations results
Location Activity is boring Nothing to do
School 36% 15%
Away from School 17% 49%
“Math is dumb”
“No one around”
PAGE 26
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Larson & Richards:
What are we doing when we get bored? Kids get bored doing school work – All three models would predict this
PAGE 27
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Larson & Richards:
Subject MattersMore boredom duringabstract academic subjects
Less boredom during hands-on, applied classes
Supports psychological models
PAGE 28
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Cameron Betts
Larson & Richards conclude that boredom is a characteristic trait:
• Kids who are bored at school are also likely to be bored away from school (r=0.68) But not associated SES variables Consider also that the causes of boredom in school and out of school differ
• No correlation between boredom and disruptive behavior Goes against resistance model
But… there is also evidence that boredom is a state:
• High-ability students are more bored in school than at home As predicted by the Under-stimulation model
Larson & Richards:
Boredom as a Trait
PAGE 29
Metacognition, Motivation & Affect – Spring 2011
Discussion
Recommended