Journal ol Applied Psychology 1973, Vol. 60, No. 4, 518-S20
Task, Setting, and Personality Variables Affecting the Desire to Work James A. Russell and Albert Mchrabian University of California, Los Angeles Undergraduates (A7 = 120) rated their desire to work in (verbally described) situations varying in setting and task variables. Desire to work was significantly greater fcr (a) easier tasks, (b) less arousing settings, (c) more pleasant tasks, and (d) more pleasant settings. Predicted interaction effects showed that easier tasks and more pleasant settings also allowed more tolerance for arousal from the settings. The results supported a proposed expansion of the YerkesDodson law (performance is an inverted-U shaped function of arousal) in which pleasure and task difficulty affect the optimum arousal level for performance. Based on Yerkes and Dodson's (1908) pioneering work, Duffy (1962), Hebb (195S), Malmo (1959), and other investigators have proposed and found evidence for the inverted-U, or Yerkes-Dodson, law: Performance at a task is an inverted-U shaped function of the worker's arousal level. In other words, performance is optimum when arousal is intermediate, but is hindered when arousal is extremely high or low. Arousal is defined here as an emotional dimension ranging from sleep at one extreme, through states of drowsiness and then alertness, to frenzied excitement at the opposite extreme. Arousal has been shown to be produced by a variety of factors including the intensity, complexity, novelty, and moving (versus static) quality of stimuli impinging on the worker (Berlyne, I960, 1967). These arousal-eliciting factors can be grouped together in a single dimension, information rate, which has been shown to be correlated with arousal (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974, chap. 5). The Yerkes-Dodson law, therefore, provided a basis for considering the effects of the physical setting on a worker's performance: Performance or the desire to work is an inverted-U shaped function of the arousing quality (or its correlate, information rate) of the physical surroundings. For example, evidence has shown that performance is an inverted-U shaped function of the arousing quality of the background noise (see the review by Mehrabian & Russell, 1974, chap. 6). This study was supported by United States Public Health Service Grant MH 13509. Appreciation is expressed to Michael Blythe for his help in carrying out this study. Requests for reprints should be sent to Albert Mehrabian, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024.
Although no evidence is currently available, analogous relationships may be expected between performance and the arousing quality of thermal, visual, olfactory, or other physical properties of the work setting. More precise predictions of performance and the desire to work can be obtained by integrating the variable of task difficulty within the YerkesDodson law. The optimum arousal level for performance on an easy task is higher than the optimum arousal level for performance on a difficult task (Schroder, Driver, & Streufert, 1967). An easier task, in other words, produces more tolerance for arousal from the setting where it is performed. For example, a person tolerates more background noise when he is performing an easy task than a difficult one (Plutchik, 19S9). One explanation of this interaction effect is that difficult tasks are more arousing than easy ones. Russell and Mehrabian (in press) proposed a further modification of the Yerkes-Dodson law by hypothesizing that pleasure increases the optimum level of arousal for performance. In other words, a pleasant setting or a pleasant task (in the same manner as an easy task) provides a greater tolerance for arousal for optimum performance; whereas an unpleasant setting or task (like a difficult task) requires a lower level of arousal for optimum performance. One final variable, arousal-seeking tendency, was hypothesized to account for individual differences in the optimum arousal level for performance. Mehrabian and Russell (1973) showed that high-arousal seekers, compared to lowarousal seekers, prefer more arousing settings. It follows that high-arousal seekers have more tolerance for arousing settings. The present study, therefore, included setting arousal, task difficulty, setting pleasantness, task
518
SHORT NOTES pleasantness, and arousal-seeking tendency as independent variables affecting the desire to work. It was hypothesized that tolerance for arousal from the setting is higher for (a) easy compared to difficult tasks, (b) pleasant compared to unpleasant settings, (c) pleasant compared to unpleasant tasks, and finally, (d) high- compared to low-arousal seekers. These hypotheses predicted a set of interactions between setting arousal and each of the other independent variables. Task pleasantness and setting pleasantness were also hypothesized to directly increase the desire to work. It was further hypothesized that the subjects, who imagined themselves performing moderately arousing mental tasks, would desire to perform easier tasks and would desire to perform their tasks in less arousing settings. METHOD A sample of 120 university undergraduate subjects responded to a verbal questionnaire. To provide variations in the physical environment, 24 separate settings (including building interiors, outdoor scenes, rural and urban places) were used, each described in a small written paragraph. Settings were selected (from the fuller list given in Appendix A of Mehrabian & Russell, 1974) to obtain a completely crossed factorial design with setting pleasantness and setting arousing quality as independent factors. The settings had been previously rated by groups of subjects on pleasantness and arousing quality (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974, chap. 2). The selected settings were grouped into a 3 X 2 design with four instances per cell: three levels of pleasantness and two levels of arousing quality. Although two levels of arousal did not allow a test of the inverted U, they did allow a test of the hypothesized interaction effects. Subjects were asked to assume that "all the problems are of a type you can actually solve and that you can solve them in your head." Task pleasantness was varied by further describing the problem as "unpleasant to work on" or "pleasant to work on." Task difficulty was varied by describing easy problems as "very familiar, very simple, and very easy for you to do" and difficult problems as "novel, complex, and very difficult for you to do." The dependent measure of the study, desire to work, was assessed by two questions, one worded in a positive direction, the other in a negative direction: (+) "Is this time a good opportunity to work on this problem?" and (—) "How much would you dislike working on this problem at this time?" On the actual rating form the plus
519
and minus scoring keys of the two items were omitted. Items were answered on an 8-point scale ranging from "not at all" to "extremely so." Procedure Each subject read a description of one physical setting and was asked to take a minute to get into the mood of the place. He then read a description of the problem he was to consider working on. That is, the pleasant or unpleasant and the easy or difficult properties of the problem were specified. He next rated his desire to work on the problem using the two items given above. He was asked to consider working on the problem just after he had been in the setting described, but while still in the mood created there. This instruction was introduced to minimize the importance of the particular physical properties of the setting and to better concentrate on their emotion-inducing qualities. This procedure of rating desire to work at a type of problem in a particular setting was repeated a total of 48 times by each subject (4 types of problems in each of 12 settings). Order of presentation of settings and problem types was random. Finally, each subject responded to Mehrabian and Russell's (1973) arousal-seeking tendency questionnaire. A total of 60 subjects responded to one set of 12 physical settings; a different set of 60 subjects responded to an alternate and replicate set of 12 settings. The experiment was thus a complete factorial design with one replication. Within each replication the design was repeated measures. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The reliability of the dependent measure, desire to work, was assessed by computing the correlation of responses to the two items within the measure across all subjects and all conditions. The obtained correlation of —.78 was judged adequate, and responses to the two items were summed, after reversing the sign of the negatively worded item, to form a composite dependent measure, desire to work. Analysis of variance was used to explore desire to work as a function of the main and interactive effects of three levels of setting pleasantness, two levels of setting arousal, two levels of task pleasantness, two levels of task difficulty, and, using a median split, two levels of arousal-seeking tendency. With the repeated measures design the 120 subjects contributed a total of 5,760 observations. The hypothesized main effects were all highly significant (p < .01) and in the expected direc-
520
SHORT NOTES
tion. There was a greater desire to work at pleasant tasks than at unpleasant ones, F(l, 236) = 686.9; and there was a greater desire to work in pleasant settings than in unpleasant ones, F(2, 472) = 34.93. College students doing mental tasks had a greater desire to work on easy problems than on difficult ones, F(l, 236) = 278.3. They also had a greater desire to work in less arousing settings, F(l, 236) = 82.33.1 It was hypothesized that setting arousal interacts with each of the other independent variables. The hypothesized Setting Arousal X Setting Pleasantness interaction was obtained, F(2, 472) = 9.40, / > < . O I : There was more tolerance for arousal in pleasant settings than in less pleasant ones. The Setting Arousal X Task Difficulty interaction, F(l, 236) = 15.33, p < .01, was exactly as expected and showed that an easy task allowed more tolerance for arousal than did a difficult task. Two other expected interactions with setting arousal, one with task pleasantness and one with arousal-seeking tendency, were not obtained. The Setting Arousal X Arousal-Seeking Tendency interaction, although nonsignificant, F(l, 236) = 2.25, was in the expected direction. In highly arousing settings, high-arousal seekers expressed more desire to work than did low-arousal seekers (p< .10). Two obtained interactions had not been hypothesized: 1. Setting Pleasantness X Task Pleasantness, F ( 2 , 472) = 24.85, p < .01. The pleasantness of the setting strongly increased the desire to work at pleasant tasks. In contrast, for work at unpleasant tasks, the pleasantness of the setting had less of a beneficial effect. Thus, the pleasantness of the task set a limit on the benefit that was obtained from the pleasantness of the setting. 2. Task Pleasantness X Arousal-Seeking Tendency, F(l, 236) -1.93, / > < . 0 1 . High-arousal seekers expressed more desire to work on pleasant tasks than did low-arousal seekers; there was no difference on unpleasant tasks. High-arousal seekers like to achieve arousal by working on a task (which is a source of arousal)—provided the task is pleasant. The results obtained in this study are admittedly preliminary because of a question regarding their external validity. That is, to what settings, to what tasks, and to what other populations can these results be generalized? This "question of external validity, like the question 1 Cell means for all main and interaction effects can be obtained from the second author.
of inductive inference, is never completely answerable' 1 (Campbell & Stanley, 1963, p. 5). But, it is an empirical question, and the results here do invite replications to test the generalizability of the results to actual settings and actual tasks. In conclusion, the results generally supported the proposed framework. The obtained interaction effects would not have been predicted from merely the Yerkes-Dodson inverted-U law. A framework that includes pleasantness along with arousal, therefore, allows more precise predictions for designing settings to maximize the desire to work on specific types of problems. The results were encouraging in supporting a framework that is parsimonious but general in its scope—encompassing relevant attributes of the task, of the work setting, and of the worker—in predicting the worker's desire to perform the task. REFERENCES Berlyne, D. E. Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. Berlyne, D. E. Arousal and reinforcement, In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. I S ) . Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1967. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quad-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. Duffy, E. Activation and behavior. New York: Wiley, 1962. Hebb, D. 0. Drives and the C.N.S. (Conceptual nervous system). Psychological Review, 1955, 62, 243-254. Malmo, R. B. Activation: A neuro-psychological dimension. Psychological Review, 1959, 66, 367386. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. A measure of arousal seeking tendency. Environment and Behavior, 1973, S, 315-333. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. An approach to environ mental psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1974. Plutchik, R. The effects of high intensity intermittent sound on performance, feeling, and physiology, Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 133-151. Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. Some behavioral effects of the physical environment. In S. Wapner, S. Cohen, & B. Kaplan (Eds.), Experiencing the environment. New York: Plenum, in press. Schrcder, H. M., Driver, M. J., & Streufert, S. Human information processing. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1967. Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative and Neurological Psychology, 1908, 18, 459-482. (Received August 26, 1974)
Task, Setting, and Personality Variables Affecting the Desire to Work James A. Russell and Albert Mchrabian University of California, Los Angeles Undergraduates (A7 = 120) rated their desire to work in (verbally described) situations varying in setting and task variables. Desire to work was significantly greater fcr (a) easier tasks, (b) less arousing settings, (c) more pleasant tasks, and (d) more pleasant settings. Predicted interaction effects showed that easier tasks and more pleasant settings also allowed more tolerance for arousal from the settings. The results supported a proposed expansion of the YerkesDodson law (performance is an inverted-U shaped function of arousal) in which pleasure and task difficulty affect the optimum arousal level for performance. Based on Yerkes and Dodson's (1908) pioneering work, Duffy (1962), Hebb (195S), Malmo (1959), and other investigators have proposed and found evidence for the inverted-U, or Yerkes-Dodson, law: Performance at a task is an inverted-U shaped function of the worker's arousal level. In other words, performance is optimum when arousal is intermediate, but is hindered when arousal is extremely high or low. Arousal is defined here as an emotional dimension ranging from sleep at one extreme, through states of drowsiness and then alertness, to frenzied excitement at the opposite extreme. Arousal has been shown to be produced by a variety of factors including the intensity, complexity, novelty, and moving (versus static) quality of stimuli impinging on the worker (Berlyne, I960, 1967). These arousal-eliciting factors can be grouped together in a single dimension, information rate, which has been shown to be correlated with arousal (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974, chap. 5). The Yerkes-Dodson law, therefore, provided a basis for considering the effects of the physical setting on a worker's performance: Performance or the desire to work is an inverted-U shaped function of the arousing quality (or its correlate, information rate) of the physical surroundings. For example, evidence has shown that performance is an inverted-U shaped function of the arousing quality of the background noise (see the review by Mehrabian & Russell, 1974, chap. 6). This study was supported by United States Public Health Service Grant MH 13509. Appreciation is expressed to Michael Blythe for his help in carrying out this study. Requests for reprints should be sent to Albert Mehrabian, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024.
Although no evidence is currently available, analogous relationships may be expected between performance and the arousing quality of thermal, visual, olfactory, or other physical properties of the work setting. More precise predictions of performance and the desire to work can be obtained by integrating the variable of task difficulty within the YerkesDodson law. The optimum arousal level for performance on an easy task is higher than the optimum arousal level for performance on a difficult task (Schroder, Driver, & Streufert, 1967). An easier task, in other words, produces more tolerance for arousal from the setting where it is performed. For example, a person tolerates more background noise when he is performing an easy task than a difficult one (Plutchik, 19S9). One explanation of this interaction effect is that difficult tasks are more arousing than easy ones. Russell and Mehrabian (in press) proposed a further modification of the Yerkes-Dodson law by hypothesizing that pleasure increases the optimum level of arousal for performance. In other words, a pleasant setting or a pleasant task (in the same manner as an easy task) provides a greater tolerance for arousal for optimum performance; whereas an unpleasant setting or task (like a difficult task) requires a lower level of arousal for optimum performance. One final variable, arousal-seeking tendency, was hypothesized to account for individual differences in the optimum arousal level for performance. Mehrabian and Russell (1973) showed that high-arousal seekers, compared to lowarousal seekers, prefer more arousing settings. It follows that high-arousal seekers have more tolerance for arousing settings. The present study, therefore, included setting arousal, task difficulty, setting pleasantness, task
518
SHORT NOTES pleasantness, and arousal-seeking tendency as independent variables affecting the desire to work. It was hypothesized that tolerance for arousal from the setting is higher for (a) easy compared to difficult tasks, (b) pleasant compared to unpleasant settings, (c) pleasant compared to unpleasant tasks, and finally, (d) high- compared to low-arousal seekers. These hypotheses predicted a set of interactions between setting arousal and each of the other independent variables. Task pleasantness and setting pleasantness were also hypothesized to directly increase the desire to work. It was further hypothesized that the subjects, who imagined themselves performing moderately arousing mental tasks, would desire to perform easier tasks and would desire to perform their tasks in less arousing settings. METHOD A sample of 120 university undergraduate subjects responded to a verbal questionnaire. To provide variations in the physical environment, 24 separate settings (including building interiors, outdoor scenes, rural and urban places) were used, each described in a small written paragraph. Settings were selected (from the fuller list given in Appendix A of Mehrabian & Russell, 1974) to obtain a completely crossed factorial design with setting pleasantness and setting arousing quality as independent factors. The settings had been previously rated by groups of subjects on pleasantness and arousing quality (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974, chap. 2). The selected settings were grouped into a 3 X 2 design with four instances per cell: three levels of pleasantness and two levels of arousing quality. Although two levels of arousal did not allow a test of the inverted U, they did allow a test of the hypothesized interaction effects. Subjects were asked to assume that "all the problems are of a type you can actually solve and that you can solve them in your head." Task pleasantness was varied by further describing the problem as "unpleasant to work on" or "pleasant to work on." Task difficulty was varied by describing easy problems as "very familiar, very simple, and very easy for you to do" and difficult problems as "novel, complex, and very difficult for you to do." The dependent measure of the study, desire to work, was assessed by two questions, one worded in a positive direction, the other in a negative direction: (+) "Is this time a good opportunity to work on this problem?" and (—) "How much would you dislike working on this problem at this time?" On the actual rating form the plus
519
and minus scoring keys of the two items were omitted. Items were answered on an 8-point scale ranging from "not at all" to "extremely so." Procedure Each subject read a description of one physical setting and was asked to take a minute to get into the mood of the place. He then read a description of the problem he was to consider working on. That is, the pleasant or unpleasant and the easy or difficult properties of the problem were specified. He next rated his desire to work on the problem using the two items given above. He was asked to consider working on the problem just after he had been in the setting described, but while still in the mood created there. This instruction was introduced to minimize the importance of the particular physical properties of the setting and to better concentrate on their emotion-inducing qualities. This procedure of rating desire to work at a type of problem in a particular setting was repeated a total of 48 times by each subject (4 types of problems in each of 12 settings). Order of presentation of settings and problem types was random. Finally, each subject responded to Mehrabian and Russell's (1973) arousal-seeking tendency questionnaire. A total of 60 subjects responded to one set of 12 physical settings; a different set of 60 subjects responded to an alternate and replicate set of 12 settings. The experiment was thus a complete factorial design with one replication. Within each replication the design was repeated measures. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The reliability of the dependent measure, desire to work, was assessed by computing the correlation of responses to the two items within the measure across all subjects and all conditions. The obtained correlation of —.78 was judged adequate, and responses to the two items were summed, after reversing the sign of the negatively worded item, to form a composite dependent measure, desire to work. Analysis of variance was used to explore desire to work as a function of the main and interactive effects of three levels of setting pleasantness, two levels of setting arousal, two levels of task pleasantness, two levels of task difficulty, and, using a median split, two levels of arousal-seeking tendency. With the repeated measures design the 120 subjects contributed a total of 5,760 observations. The hypothesized main effects were all highly significant (p < .01) and in the expected direc-
520
SHORT NOTES
tion. There was a greater desire to work at pleasant tasks than at unpleasant ones, F(l, 236) = 686.9; and there was a greater desire to work in pleasant settings than in unpleasant ones, F(2, 472) = 34.93. College students doing mental tasks had a greater desire to work on easy problems than on difficult ones, F(l, 236) = 278.3. They also had a greater desire to work in less arousing settings, F(l, 236) = 82.33.1 It was hypothesized that setting arousal interacts with each of the other independent variables. The hypothesized Setting Arousal X Setting Pleasantness interaction was obtained, F(2, 472) = 9.40, / > < . O I : There was more tolerance for arousal in pleasant settings than in less pleasant ones. The Setting Arousal X Task Difficulty interaction, F(l, 236) = 15.33, p < .01, was exactly as expected and showed that an easy task allowed more tolerance for arousal than did a difficult task. Two other expected interactions with setting arousal, one with task pleasantness and one with arousal-seeking tendency, were not obtained. The Setting Arousal X Arousal-Seeking Tendency interaction, although nonsignificant, F(l, 236) = 2.25, was in the expected direction. In highly arousing settings, high-arousal seekers expressed more desire to work than did low-arousal seekers (p< .10). Two obtained interactions had not been hypothesized: 1. Setting Pleasantness X Task Pleasantness, F ( 2 , 472) = 24.85, p < .01. The pleasantness of the setting strongly increased the desire to work at pleasant tasks. In contrast, for work at unpleasant tasks, the pleasantness of the setting had less of a beneficial effect. Thus, the pleasantness of the task set a limit on the benefit that was obtained from the pleasantness of the setting. 2. Task Pleasantness X Arousal-Seeking Tendency, F(l, 236) -1.93, / > < . 0 1 . High-arousal seekers expressed more desire to work on pleasant tasks than did low-arousal seekers; there was no difference on unpleasant tasks. High-arousal seekers like to achieve arousal by working on a task (which is a source of arousal)—provided the task is pleasant. The results obtained in this study are admittedly preliminary because of a question regarding their external validity. That is, to what settings, to what tasks, and to what other populations can these results be generalized? This "question of external validity, like the question 1 Cell means for all main and interaction effects can be obtained from the second author.
of inductive inference, is never completely answerable' 1 (Campbell & Stanley, 1963, p. 5). But, it is an empirical question, and the results here do invite replications to test the generalizability of the results to actual settings and actual tasks. In conclusion, the results generally supported the proposed framework. The obtained interaction effects would not have been predicted from merely the Yerkes-Dodson inverted-U law. A framework that includes pleasantness along with arousal, therefore, allows more precise predictions for designing settings to maximize the desire to work on specific types of problems. The results were encouraging in supporting a framework that is parsimonious but general in its scope—encompassing relevant attributes of the task, of the work setting, and of the worker—in predicting the worker's desire to perform the task. REFERENCES Berlyne, D. E. Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. Berlyne, D. E. Arousal and reinforcement, In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. I S ) . Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1967. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quad-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. Duffy, E. Activation and behavior. New York: Wiley, 1962. Hebb, D. 0. Drives and the C.N.S. (Conceptual nervous system). Psychological Review, 1955, 62, 243-254. Malmo, R. B. Activation: A neuro-psychological dimension. Psychological Review, 1959, 66, 367386. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. A measure of arousal seeking tendency. Environment and Behavior, 1973, S, 315-333. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. An approach to environ mental psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1974. Plutchik, R. The effects of high intensity intermittent sound on performance, feeling, and physiology, Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 133-151. Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. Some behavioral effects of the physical environment. In S. Wapner, S. Cohen, & B. Kaplan (Eds.), Experiencing the environment. New York: Plenum, in press. Schrcder, H. M., Driver, M. J., & Streufert, S. Human information processing. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1967. Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative and Neurological Psychology, 1908, 18, 459-482. (Received August 26, 1974)
