- A thesis presented in partial
fulfillment of the requirements of the Honors
Program,
- Bachelor of Arts, Arizona State
University, 1991
- pdf
of the thesis
-
- ABSTRACT
-
- Recent research has shown that yawning is a
social and perhaps a contagious phenomenon. It
is our feeling that yawning is a contagious
phenomenon (contrary to the suggestions of
Baenninger,
1987) and that subjects exposed to a high status
other who yawns will be especially susceptible
to the contagious quality of a yawn. Subjects
were assigned to one of four conditions: high
status/yawning model, high status/non-yawning
model, low status/yawning model, and low
status/non-yawning model. It was found that
yawning does seem to be contagious, in that
subjects yawned more frequently after observing
a yawning model. Although there was no
significant overall tendency for greater yawning
in response to a high status yawner, there was
some evidence to suggest that high Self-Monitors
yawn more in the high status/yawning condition
than in the other three conditions and that high
Independence of Judgment yawned less in that
condition.
-
- Tous
les articles sur la contagion du
bâillement
- All
articles about contagious
yawning
-
- We frequently yawn because of a lack of
sleep or because we are bored. A more
interesting phenomenon occurs when we see
someone else yawn and we yawn in response. Some
research (Moore 1947; Provine 1986; Provine,
Tate & Geldmacher 1987; Baenninger 1987;
Provine 1989) has been done on the phenomenon of
social yawning. Much of this research on yawning
has been done by Robert Provine. He has offered
some interesting insights into the strange yet
wondrous world of yawning.
-
- Before Provine, Joseph Moore
(1947) contributed one of the first studies to
investigate the social aspects of yawning. In
his initial experiment, Moore trained
confederates to yawn in certain social places,
such as church, a school assembly and a library.
He found that, on average, two yawns of the
confederate produced a yawn in response from
others.
-
- In his second experiment, blind (seeing
impaired) and nonblind subjects listened to a
phonograph with sounds of yawns. The
investigation found that 0% of the nonblind
subjects yawned to the phonograph sounds.
However, 43% of the blind subjects yawned to the
same sound.
-
- In the last experiment, Moore Ehowed to la
class a film of a girl yawning. From
self-reports, 33% of the class yawned from
watching the filin. This establishes that seeing
a yawn will elicit yawning and hearing a yawn,
if subjects really are in tune with it, is
enough to elicit a yawn.
-
- Recent research has added to these findings
(Provine 1986; provine, Tate & Geldinacher
1987; Provine, Hamernik & Curchack 1987). In
one of the first investigations, Provine (1986)
confirmed some of the results that Moore (1947)
found. He showed his subjects a videotape of a
man smiling or yawning 30 times in each
condition. Provine found that 55% of his
subjects yawned when shown the yawning man as
compared to only 21% of the subjects who yawned
when the man smiled. This reaffirms that seeing
someone yawn will elicit a yawn.
-
- Robert Provine and Heidi Hamernik (1986)
also investigated yawning as a result of being
bored. Subjects viewed a videotape with either
rock videos or an unchanging color-bar test
pattern. Through self-reports, the color-bar
pattern produced 5.78 yawns as compared to 3.41
yawns, which was found to be significant. This
indicates that something interesting will not
produce as many yawns as something that is
uninteresting.
-
- In another study, Provine (1986)
investigated the effect of reading about
yawning. He found that if people read about
yawning, they will yawn than those who read
about something else such as hiccupping. Also,
they. will not only yawn more, but will think
about yawning more than those who read about
hiccupping.
-
- All of this research seems to suggest that
yawning is a social and contagious phenomenon.
Another study by Provine, Tate and Geldmacher
(1987) confirms this hypothesis. Subjects were
asked to think about yawning while exercising at
the same time. The results showed that increased
exercise had no effect on yawning. Therefore,
yawning is not a respiratory event; it may be a
muscle stretch that may have a signal function.
Provine speculates that both yawning and its
resulting physiology are contagious, thereby
synchronizing the physiological state of a
group. This is consistent with the idea yawning
is a signal to other group members. This idea
was reinforced by earlier research (Provine,
Hamernik, & Curchack 1987) in which subjects
were more likely to yawn before bedtime and
after waking. Also, 47% of these subjects'
stretches were accompanied by yawns, but only
11% of the yawns were accompanied by the
stretches. It seems that stretching is more
frequent shortly after waking and, when
accompanied by yawns, only occurs in the
morning. This leaves open the speculation that
yawning may be a signal for drowsiness, both in
the morning and at night. However, when it
combined with stretching, it may mean everyone
in a group should relieve themselves of the
drowsiness, whereas when it occurs alone, it may
signal the need to decrease activity and sleep.
Again, this may be to synchronize the
physiological state of a group.
-
- However, there is some criticism of this
research. Ronald Baenninger (1987) suggested
that yawning is not a contagious phenomenon.
Subjects were observed on subways, in classes
and in leisure activities, such as watching
television. Baenninger found that more yawns
were elicited in empty subways, the library and
during leisure activities. However, in crowded
subways, there was not as much yawning as
expected. One very interesting aspect of this
study was that Baenninger viewed not only
humans, but other animals' yawns as well. His
data suggested that the absence of interesting
stimuli may elicit yawns in our species, but
that the presence of such stimuli prompted
yawning in other species.
-
- His second experiment investigated a
previous conclusion (Provine & Hamernik
1986) that uninteresting stimuli will provoke
more yawns than interesting stimuli. Subjects
watched or heard someone read a passage from
Alice in Wonderland and during the course of the
reading, the reader would yawn. The results
showed that simply feeling bored was not enough
to provoke yawning in the experiment. There
seems to be a logical explanation to this
conclusion. It may be that in our society, there
is some social anxiety and disapproval
associated with yawning. If yawning is
associated with something boring, it may be that
to yawn in another's presence is an insult. This
is supported by Baenninger who found that only
three out of the forty human subjects yawned in
the laboratory, yet twenty (50%) said they felt
like yawning. This seems to suggest that if
individuals are confronted with a high prestige
(and presumably interesting) stimulus person,
they will yawn less than if confronted witha low
prestige stimulus person.
-
- However, we think this relationship will be
reversed because of the attention and contagious
factors of yawning. If we tap in on the "signal"
on others to yawn, a high prestige person,
namely the leader of a group, will probably
elicit more yawns than a low prestige person.
People will conform more to a high prestige
model than a low prestige model, especially if
they are looking to social cues to determine
their behavior. A pair of ways to measure this
tendency is through the Self-Monitoring Scale
and the Independence of Judgment Test.
-
- To determine if people look to the social
situation to determine how they should act can
be measured by the Self-Monitoring Scale
developed by Mark Snyder (1974). Snyder took
questions from five different categories
relating to high self-monitoring, such as
concern for social appropriateness, and gave a
forty-one true or false statement questionnaire
to 192 Stanford undergraduates. He found that
twenty-five (later trimmed down to eighteen) of
those items had a significance of <.O5 and
<.O1, respectively, tapping into the social
cues a person must look to in order to know how
to behave. The validity of the test was shown
through a variety of experiments. Snyder (1974)
gave this questionnaire to a group of stage
actors, who obviously are attuned to the social
cues for monitoring their self-presentation, and
they scored much higher on the test as compared
to the Stanford group. However, when Snyder gave
the questionnaire to a group of psychiatric ward
patients, who are unable or unwilling to monitor
their selfpresentation, they had much lower
scores than the Stanford group.
-
- Further evidence (Snyder & Swann 1976;
Snyder & Kendzierski 1982; Snyder &
Gangestad 1982) shows that people who have low
selfmonitoring scores will enter situations more
focused on their own attitudes and beliefs.
Also, if they had the opportunity to change a
situation or the character in a certain
situation, low selfmonitors would change it to
suIt their own beliefs. On the other band, high
self-monitors will not change a situation unless
the actions of the character are undefined
(Snyder & Xendzierski 1982). Also, if given
the opportunity, high self-monitors will look
more often to the majority in order to be
socially appropriate (Snyder 1974)
-
- Another measure of if people will conform to
social cues is by the Independence of Judgment
Test (Barron 1953). The test was designed on the
basis of two hundred questions that were related
to the personality traits that would determine
independence of judgment. It was created as a
result of the Solomon Asch studies on
conformity. The list was trimmed down to
eighty-four questions and given to a random
group of subjects. Only those questions with a
significance level of pc.O5 and c.01 were
retained, leaving a total of twenty-two
questions that were found to determine the
difference between a yielder and an independent
in the Asch conformity situation.
-
- The present experiment was designed to
investigate the contagious and signal power of
yawning. If there is an effect, then in terms of
the contagious factor of yawning: 1) subjects
should yawn more if a yawning model is presented
than if a nonyawning model is shown. In terms of
the signal power, evidence has shown that if
people are in a situation in which a suggestion
or action is requested by a high prestige model,
more people will conform to that suggestion or
action (Lefkowitz, Blake & Mouton 1955
Bickman 1974). This is not only true for adults,
but very obvious among young children (Patel
& Gordon 1960). Because this is the case, it
is predicted that 2) if subjects see a high
status model yawn, they should yawn more than if
they see a low status model yawn; 3) if the
score on the Self-Monitoring Scale is high and
the score on the Independence of Judgment Test
is low, more yawns should be elicited in the
high status/yawning model condition as compared
to the low status/yawning model condition
because these subjects tend to look to social
cues (like status) for behavioral direction; 4)
in the non-yawning model conditions, the high
status model should provoke fewer yawns than the
low status model because the high status model
is a more interesting stimulus.
-
-
- METHOD SECTION
-
- SUBJECTS
- Two hundred introductory psychology students
of both sexes participated in the study for
partial fulfillment of a course requirement at
Arizona State University. The first eighteen
were pilot subjects and nineteen were dropped
from the analysis because of suspicion that they
were being secretly observed. The remaining one
hundred and sixty-three subjects were used for
the analysis of the present experiment.
-
- APPARATUS
-
- A VCR, a hidden television camera, and two
television monitors were used so that: 1) on one
monitor, subjects could view the model on one of
two ten minute videotapes; 2) and, on the other
monitor, the subject's yawning activity could be
viewed secretly in an adjoining room. One of the
three research assistants, who were blind to the
conditions, observed and counted the subject's
yawning activity on the television monitor in
the adjoining room. Before the start of the
experiment, the research assistants watched a
practice videotape of a person randomly yawning
and stifling yawns and there was 75% perfect
agreement between all three in their labeling of
yawns and stifled yawns. A stopwatch was used to
measure the latency of yawns. The Independence
of Judgment Test (Appendix A), the
Self-Monitoring Scale (Appendix B), a question
naire asking-how the subject feels (Appendix C),
a questionnaire asking the subject to rate the
confederate on the videotape based on
personality characteristics (Appendix D), a
status manipulation check questionnaire
(Appendix E), a questionnaire assessing the
confederate's and subject's yawning and stifling
behavior (Appendix F) and a debriefing
questionnaire (Appendix G) were used.
-
- PROCEDURE
-
- Subjects were told they were participating
in a study of first impressions". During pilot
testing, a few changes were made. The original
videotape was five minutes long and had the
confederate yawning six times at various
intervals. Unfortunately, only two of the
eighteen subjects yawned during the tape and
only one yawn each. Also, subjects sat in desk
and would frequently cover their mouths with
their hands, making it impossible to see if they
were actually yawning or not. The minor changes
made were: first, the tape was increased to ten
minutes with the confederate yawning ten times
at various intervals.: Second, the subjects sat
in a chair with no arms. This forced the subject
to sit with arms crossed, leaving the face in
full view of the observers.
-
- In the actual experiment, each subject was
assigned to one of the four conditions: high
status/yawning model, high status/nonyawning
model, low status/yawning model and low
status/non-yawning model. In the yawning
condition, the confederate on the videotape
yawned ten times at various intervals while
supposedly doing a "free association" task. In
the non-yawning condition, the confederate did
not yawn at all while performing the same task
during the ten minutes. At the outset of the
experiment, each subject was asked to fill out a
couple of questionnaires (Appendix A & B)
just to help them get into the "flow" of the
experiment. These were the Self-Monitoring Scale
and the Independence of Judgment Test.
After-completing the questionnaires, depending
on the condition, the experimenter either gave
the subject a high status profile of the person
they would be viewing on the tape, which was the
following:
-
- SUBJECT: #105 SEX: Male
- OCCUPATION: Regional Manager for C-Pec
Corporation, an Arizona based computer and
microchip product supplier. Currently in charge
of 40 employees in five major departments within
the corporation. He does the marketing and
business planning for each department, in
addition to supervising employee performance.
His monthly working budget is about $40,000 for
business purposes.
-
- or a low status profile, which was the
following:
-
- SUBJECT: #105 SEX: Male
- OCCUPATION: Truck driver for C-Pec
Corporation, an Arizona based computer and
microchip product supplier. Currently drives to
40 businesses in five major districts in the
Valley. He delivers products, obtains signatures
for the merchandise received, and calls in to
check on any changes in the scheduling. His
monthly working budget is about $400 for truck
maintenance.
-
- The subject was told that the person on the
videotape they would be watching was taped while
performing a previous experiment that required
him to free associate to two geometric figures
that were place on two cards in-front of him.
The subjects were instructed to pay attention to
the proceedings of the experiment and to form a
"first impression" of the confederate in their
minds and that after the tape was finished, the
experimenter would be giving the subjects the
confederate's free associations to help them
with their first impressions. If there were no
questions, the experimenter left the room and in
another room, started the videotape. At the
beginning of the tape, the experimenter and
observer started two stopwatches. The
experimenter left the room for the duration of
the tape. The observer, watching on a TV
monitor, recorded the number of yawns and/or
stifles made by the subject and the time that
each occurred.
-
- When the tape was finished, the experimenter
returned, turned off the tape and returned to
the experiment room. The subjects were first
asked to fill out a questionnaire on how they
were feeling "right now" after having watched
the tape (Appendix C). The subject was then
asked to fill out a personality assessment of
the person on the videotape, with personality
characteristics such as likeable/unlikeab].e
(Appendix D). The next questionnaire asked
subjects to rate their perceptions of the job
the person on the videotape held (Appendix E).
This was manipulation check on the status
factor. The next questionnaire was given to
assess subjects' memories of the confederate's
yawning and stifling behaviors during the tape,
as well as their own while watching the
videotape (Appendix F). Lastly, a debriefing
questionnaire was given to each
subject-(Appendix G). The experimenter examined
the questionnaire and employed it to check for
suspicion. Finally the subject was debriefed and
allowed to leave.
 - RESULTS
-
- A two factor ANOVA was done on the majority
of the study's dependent variables. The two
factors were: Status of Model (High/Low) and
Model Yawns (Yes/No). Two other factors,
SelfMonitoring Scale scores and Independence of
Judgment scores, were examined as predictors of
yawning activity through correlational
analyses.
-
- MANIPULATION CHECKS
-
- The first manipulation check dealt with
whether subjects were able to detect that the
confederate they were watching yawned or not.
Those results are shown in Table 5. The main
effect on subjects' estimate of the number of
times the confederate yawned for the yawning
model factor (whether the confederate yawned or
not) was significant F(l,157)=2,037, p<.00l.
The main effect for status was non-significant
(l,157)=0.33, ns. The interaction of the yawning
model factor and the status factor was also
nonsignificant (].,l57)=0.33, ns.
-
- The second manipulation. check assessed
whether subjects accorded the model.
dïfferential.tatus in,the high and low
status conditions. There were three scales
inquiring about the status of the model, ranging
in value from 1-7, with the following items:
high/low prestige, high/low importance, and
high/low status.
-
- Table 2
 -
- The third prediction was that if the score
on the SelfMonitoring Scale is high and the
score on the Independence of judgment is low,
more yawns should be elicited in the high
status/yawning model condition because these
subjects will tend to look to social cues.
-
- table 3 - 4
 -
- This analysis is divided into two parts. The
first part tests the hypothesis that the
correlation between Self-Monitoring and yawning
will be more positive in the high status/yawning
model condition than in the low status/yawning
model condition. By computing Fisher's Z
transformation of correlation coefficients, we
obtain a value for this analysis of z=2.29,
<.05 (See Table 3). The second part of the
analysis tests the, hypothesis that the
correlation between Independence of Judgment and
yawning will be more negative in the high
status/yawning model condition that in the low
status/yawning model condition. Again, computing
the Fisher's Z, we obtain a value of z=-1.06, ns
(See Table 4).
-
- The fourth prediction was that in the
non-yawning model conditions, the high status
model shôuld provoke fewer yawns than the
low status model because the high status model
is a more interesting stimulus. Comparing the
high status/non-yawning condition against the
low status/non-yawning condition, the computed t
score was t(159)=.30, ns (See Table 2).
-
- SECONDARY ANALYSES
-
- With further analysis, some very interesting
results, with specific variables, were
encountered. In terms of the interaction main
effect, no secondary results were found.
However, the model yawns main effect produced
significant effects with some specific
variables.
-
- A yawning model main effect appeared on two
rating of the confederate:
intelligent/unintelligent, E(11157)=6.10,
p<.02 and alert/drowsy, F(1,157)=166.07,
p<.001. That effect also appeared for the two
questions: 1) Did-the person you watched yawn?
F(1,l57)=2,037, p<.001 and 2) How many
times?, F(1,157)345.81, p<.001. Finally for
questions 5 (Did you stifle a yawn?) F(1,l57)
=12.56, p<.00l and 6 (How many times?)
F(1,l57)4.12, <.04 significant effects
resulted for the yawning model main effect (See
Table 5). In terms of the status main effect,
only ratings of the confederateon the
intelligent/unintelligent dimension showed a
significant result with F(1,157)=36.03,
p<.001 (See Table 5).
-
- When analyzing within cell correlations,
there was a substantial positive monitoring
correlation with question 4 (How many times did
you yawn?) and a substantial negative
correlation with question 6 (How many times did
you stifle a yawn) in the high status/yawning
model -condition as compared with the other
three conditions (See Tables 6 & 7)
-
 -
- When comparing the Self-Monitoring and the
self-reported yawning correlation in the high
status/yawning model condition against the
average of that correlation in the other three
conditions, a Fisher's Z transformation computed
a z=l.]9, ns. When comparing the
Self-Monitoring and the self-reported stifling
correlation in the high status/yawning model
condition against the average of that
correlation in the other three conditions, the
computed z=2.51, 2<. 05 .
-
 - DISCUSSION
-
- In terms of the predictions, there was
evidence to show that if a person is presented
with a model who yawns, a yawn in response is
more likely. The yawning conditions produced
more yawns than the non-yawning model
conditions. However, it seemed that status did
not make a substantial difference in whether a
subject yawned more or not; however, the
analysis indicated that the trend is in a
direction suggesting that a high status person
would make someone yawn more than a low status
person.
-
- In terms of the Self-Monitoring Scale, there
is a significant tendency for high Self-Monitors
to yawn more in the high status/yawning model
condition than in the low status/yawning model
condition. This tendency does provide evidence
that high SelfMonitors are paying more attention
to the high status person as would be predicted
by Self-Monitoring theory. This attentional
focus is further shown by the self-reports of
yawning and stifling behavior by subjects. High
Self-Monitors reported both greater numbers of
yawns and stifled yawns in the high
status/yawning model condition, indicating they
weré paying more attention to the high
status model rather than trying to imitate him.
In the second part of the analysis, it seems
that the higher the score on the Independence of
Judgment Test, especially in the high
status/yawning model condition, the fewer yawns
occurred. Unfortunately, this difference was not
significant, but again, in the right direction,
suggesting that people with high independence of
Judgment will try to avoid yawning, especially
in the high status/yawning model condition, to
resist forms of influence as benign as a yawn.
What was really interesting was that the
correlations with yawning for the
Self-Monitoring and Independence of Judgment
were in the opposite directions. This is further
evidence that not only are the two concepts not
correlated, but that people who are either high
Self-Monitors or high in Independence of
Judgment are-behaving in a different manner. It
was also found that in terms of the non-yawning
model conditions, the status cells did not
differ in terms of the number of yawns that were
provoked, suggesting that our high status model
may not have been seen as a more interesting
stimulus than the low status model.
-
- In the secondary analyses, it seemed that if
the confederate on the tape yawned, he was found
to be more unintelligent and more drowsy that if
he did not yawn. It was also shown that subjects
were able to tell if the person was yawning and
be able to recall closely (8.2) the number of
yawns the confederate actually performed (10).
The subjects also reported a great deal more
stifling in the yawning model conditions than in
the non-yawning model conditions.
-
- In the overall analysis, the study indicates
that there is evidence suggesting that people
looking to social cues are influenced by a high
status other to engage in something as mundane
as yawning. However, just the opposite effect is
suggested with people who rely on their own
judgment to determine their behavior.
-
- REFERENCES
-
- Baenninger,
Ronald. "Some Comparative Aspects of Yawning
in Betta splendens, Homo sapiens, Panthera leo,
and Papio sphinx." Journal of Comparative
Psychology. 1986, 101(4), 349-354.
-
- Barron, Frank. "Some Personality Correlates
of Independence of Judgement." Journal of
Personality. 1952, 21, 287-297.
-
- Bickmnan, Leonard. "The Social Power of a
Uniform." Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
1974, 4(1), 47-61.
-
- Leftkowitz, Monroe, Blake, Robert R. and
Mouton, Jane Srygley. "Status Factors in
Pedestrian Violation of Traffic Signals."
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.,
1955, 51, 704-706.
-
- Moore,
Joseph E. "Some Psychological Aspects of
Yawning." Journal of General Psychology. 1947,
289-294.
-
- Patel, Ambalal S. and Gordon, Jesse E. "Some
Personal and Situational Determinants of
Yielding to Influence." Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology., 1960, 61(3), 411-418.
-
- Provine,
Robert R. "Contagious Yawning and Infant
Imitation." Bulletin of the Psychononiic
Society. 1989, 27(2), 125-126.
-
- Provine,
Robert R. "Yawning as a Stereotyped Action
Pattern and Releasing Stimulus." Ethology. 1986,
72, 109-122.
-
- Provine,
Robert R. "Face as Releasers of Contagious
Yawning: An Approach to Face Detection Using
Normal Human Subjects." Bulletin of the
Psychonomic Society. 1989, 27(3),211-214.
-
- Provine,
Robert R., Hamernik, Heidi B. and Curchack,
Barbara C. "Yawning: No Effect of 3-5% CO,
100% 0 and Exercise." Behavior and
Neurobiology., 1987, 48, 382-393.
-
- Snyder, Mark. "Self-monitoring of Expressive
Behavior." Journal of Personality and Social
Psycholoav. 1974, 30(4), 526-537.
-
- Snyder, Mark and Kendzierski, Deborah.
"Choosing Social Situations: Investigating the
Origins of Correspondence Between Attitudes and
Behavior." Journal of Personality. 1982, 50(3),
280-295.
-
- Snyder, Mark and Kendzierski, Deborah.
"Acting on One's Attitudes: Procedures for
Linking Attitude and Behavior." Journal of
Exerimenta1 Social Psychology. 1982, 18,
165-183.
-
- Snyder, Mark and Swann, William B. Jr. "When
Actions Reflect Attitudes: The Politics of
Impression Management." Journal of Personality
and Social Psycholoqy. 1976,
34(5),1034-1042.
-
-
- APPENDIX A
-
- Answer the following questions by circling T
(True) or P (False).
- Please answer all questions.
-
- 1. T or F What the youth needs most is
strict discipline, rugged determination, and the
will to work and fight for family and
country.
-
- 2. T or F Some of my friends think that my
ideas are impractical, if not a bit wild.
-
- 3. T or F Kindness and generosity are the
most important qualities for a wife to
have.
-
- 4. T or F I have seen some things so sad
that 'l almost felt like crying.
-
- 5. T or F I don't understand how men in some
European contries can be so dnongtrative to one
another.
-
- 6. T or F I must admit that I would find it
hard to have for a close friend a person whose
manners or appearance made him somewhat
repulsive, no matter how brilliant or kind he
might be.
-
- 7. T or F A person should not probc too
deeplf into his own and other peoples' f
oclings, but take things as they are.
-
- 8. T or F 1 could cut my moorings--quit my
home, family, and friends-without-suffering
great regrets.
-
- 9.- T or F 1 prefertcam games to games in
which one individual competes against
another.
-
- 10. T or F What this country needs moat,
more than laws and political programs, is a few
courageous, tireless, devoted leaders in whom
the people can put their faith.
-
- 11. T or F I acquired a strong interest in
intellectual and aesthetic matters from my
mother.
-
- 12. T or F Human nature being what it is,
there will always be war and conflict.
-
- 13. T or F 1 believe you should ignore other
peoplcs faults and make an effort to get along
with almost everyone.
-
- 14. T or F The best theory is the one that
has the best practical applications.
-
- 15. Tor F I like to fool around with new
ideas, even if they turn out later to be a total
waste of time.
-
- 16. T or F The unfinished and the imperfect
often have greater appeal for me than the
completed and polished.
-
- 17. T or F I would rather have n few inteni
friendships than a great many friendly but
casual. relationships.
-
- 18. T or F Perfect balance is the essence of
all good composition.
-
- 19. T or F Science should have as much to
say about moral values as religion does.
-
- 20. T or F The happy person tends always to
be poised, courteous outgoing, and emotionally
controlled.
-
- 21. T or F Young people sometimes get
rebellious ideas, but as they grow up they ought
to get over them and settle down.
-
- 22. T or F it is easy for me to take orders
and do what lam told.
-
-
-
- APPENDIX B
-
- Answer the following questions by circling T
(True) or F (False).
- Please answer all questions.
-
- 1. T or F I find it hard to imitate the
behavior of other people.
-
- 2. T or F At parties and social gatherings,
I do not attt to do or say things that others
will like.
-
- 3 • T or F I can only argue for ideas
which I already believe.
-
- 4. T or F I can make I pr ytu speeches even
on topics about which I have almost no
information.
-
- 5. T or F I guess I put on a show to ilTress
or entertain others.
-
- 6. T or F I would probably make a good
actor.
-
- 7. T or F In a group of people I an rare-ly
the center of attention.
-
- 8. T or F In different situations and with
different people, I often act like very
different persons.
-
- 9. T or F I an not particularly good at
making other people like me.
-
- 10. T or F I'm not always the person I
appear to be.
-
- 11. T or F I would not change my opinions
(or the way I do things) in order to please
someone or win their favor.
-
- 12. T or F I have considered being an
entertainer.
-
- 13. T or F I have never been good at games
like charades or inprovisational acting.
-
- 14. T or F I have trouble changing my
behavior to suit different people and different
situations.
-
- 15. T or F At a party I let others keep the
jokes and stories going.
-
- 16. T or F I feel a bit awkward in public
and do not show up quite well as I should.
-
- 17. T or F I can look anyone in the eye and
tell a lie with a straight face (if for a right
end).
-
- 18. T or F I may deceive people by being
friendly when I really dislike then.
-
-
- Because physiological and emotional states
may affect one's judgement, we would like you to
rate the way you feel at this time along the
following series of scales. Please mark (with an
X or check) the category on each scale which
most closely describes how you feel at the
moment.
-
  -
-
-
 -
- APPENDIX F
-
- 1. Did you notico that the person ,you
watched yawned during the tine you were
observing him?
-
- 2. If you sa: him yawn, about how many times
would you say he yawned?
-
- 3. Did you yawn at all during the period of
observation?
-
- 4. If you did yawn, how many tires did you
do so?
-
- 5. Do you remember feeling the need to yawn
during the period of observation but stifling
it?
-
- 6. If yes, ho'.i many times did you stifle a
yawn?
-
-
-
- APPENDIX G
-
- 1 Describe in your own word; what you think
was the hypothesis of this study.
-
-
- 2. Often psychology students read in their
classes about experiments in which things are
not as they seem, and this occasionally disturbs
their natural responses wiicn they are subjects.
As you think back honestly, did you feel any
doubts about any aspects of this experiment
while you were participating? If so, what re
they? Describe in what ways, if any, they
affected your behavior.
-
|
