While the previous Chapter’s (2.5.1 and 2.5.2) has looked at the time to provide answer to a stimulus for a condition (or ‘Pop-Up’), it is also important to look at the impact of hesitations and wrong answers (or rather the subsequent wrong alert) on following test stimulus. Table 2.2 below provides an overview of the number of wrong answers and hesitations as an average per-participant per-condition.
Condition Average No.
Wrong Answers per Participant Average No. Hesitations per Participant Green X O - Red X O 4.8 28.0 Linguistic Stroop 1 4.4 38.7 Linguistic Stroop 2 9.4 39.5 Symbolic Stroop 1 9.5 31.6 Symbolic Stroop 2 11.8 35.1
Clock Face Fixed 13.8 31.6
Clock Face Rotate 23.9 37.1
Table 2.2; overview of the number of wrong answers and hesitations as an average per-participant per-condition.
As can be seen in figure 2.15 (below) both hesitation and wrong answers had effect on the time to answer following tests. Figure 2.15 (below) shows the averages for all wrong answers and hesitations across all participants and conditions. It should be noted that the ‘Wrong’ answer times are substantially higher than ‘Hesitation’ due to a higher number of wrong answers occurring in the conditions that took longer in general to answer in comparison to the conditions with faster and easier solutions (as can be seen in table 2.2 above). Where the hesitations occurred in a
As can be seen in figure 2.15 below, ‘Wrong’ answers highly influenced the answer time to the following stimulus (i.e. ‘+1’,’+2’). This can be seen as an increasing following the ‘0’ test (the test that was answered incorrectly). As previously described this increase in answering time may be caused by a reflective process interrupting the sub-conscious process of performing the condition; the wrong alert sound interrupting the on-going process and invoking a breakdown. However, ‘Hesitations’ additionally effected the following answering time. While the test incurring the hesitation (understandably) took longer, the proceeding tests (‘+1’,’+2’) additionally required more time in comparison to the preceding tests.
Figure 2.15: Effect of Wrong answers and Hesitations on proceeding tests answer times.
Wrong answer or hesitation toward stimulus occurs at 0. Increase in response time in following two stimulus can be seen following (+1, and +2) in comparison to preceding stimulus responses (-1, and -2).
The effect of ‘Wrong’ and ‘Hesitations’ on the proceeding answer times suggests a degree of reflectivity or preventative / slowing effect upon the less interrupted and ‘normal’ completion of condition tests. This also warrants their use as points of enquiry and analysis and suggests a utility for future methods.
2.5.4: Questionnaire Data
As previously described following each condition participants were asked to complete a brief questionnaire (See appendix 2.3 for Questionnaire, See appendix 2.5 for questionnaire results). Answers were given through a six-point Likert-type scale (from “Agree completely” to “Disagree completely”), and had option to provide comment following each statement. Scoring ranged from 1 =Agree Completely, to 6 = Disagree Completely.
Questions:
A. I was intentionally aware of my thoughts and feelings. Lower scores indicate Mindfulness
B. My mind wondered off and I was easily distracted. Higher scores indicate Mindfulness
C. I knew the correct answer and made my choice quickly without needing to
think too much. Higher scores indicate Mindfulness
D. I paid attention to the environment around me. Lower scores indicate Mindfulness
E. I was completely absorbed in the display/audio; so that all my attention was focused on it. Higher scores indicate Mindfulness
F. I found myself watching/listening to the display/audio but thinking of something else at the same time. Higher scores indicate Mindfulness
Comparison of Conditions
When comparing the averages (across participants) of the questionnaire results (figure 2.16 above) the most obvious disparity was found in question C: ‘I knew the correct answer and made my choice quickly without needing to think too much’. This question provided an understanding of the perceived difficulty (how much the participant needed to ‘think’ of the answer). Not only does this, perhaps unsurprisingly, show the Clock Face conditions being perceived as (by far) the most difficult; but also reveals the Stroop conditions (both linguistic and symbolic based) as holding a greater difficulty when ‘reversed’ in comparison to the previously learned answer requirements i.e. when the answer required is opposite to the previously learned Stroop condition.
Conversely question F: ‘I found myself watching/listening to the display/audio but thinking of something else at the same time’; showed a diversity across conditions. However, this appears to place the simplest task (Green X O - Red X O) alongside the more difficult Clock Face conditions. This may be explainable through theory of Flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1992). Csikszentmihalyi (1992) found while observing artists during creation of their works they would devote an intense amount of dedication and immersion to the task, ignoring food, sleep and other distractions; receiving an intrinsic pleasure “reward” from the act of making as opposed to the final outcome (to which they had comparatively little interest). Csikszentmihalyi (1992) proposes that this experience, Flow, exists in any tasks that require some form of engagement where there is a balance between possessing the skills needed to achieve a task and the demands of that task (Figure 2.17). Should a challenge outweigh an individuals skillset (i.e. be too difficult) they will experience anxiety; should a task hold little challenge in comparison to the skillset of the individual (i.e. too easy), they will experience boredom.
Figure 2.17: Adaptation of an image taken from Flow: Optimal Experience (p74, Csikszentmihalyi, 1992)
Kane et al (2007) note those experiencing boredom often report the related condition of ‘mind-wandering’, i.e. thinking of unrelated events/thoughts during a specific event/activity. As suggested by Csikszentmihalyi (1992) low challenge tasks require little impetus of flow states. While this explains a lack of focused engagement upon the easier task (Green X O - Red X O); inducing boredom and so facilitating mind wandering, it suggests that the same ‘boredom induced mind wandering’ state would not be achievable in the more difficult Clock Face conditions. In contradiction to Csikszentmihalyi (1992) understanding of how boredom might arise Acee et al (2010) report on experiences of boredom in under- and over- challenging situations in academic environments, and frame boredom as a multidimensional and situation-dependent construct. Through this it is suggested that while the Clock Face conditions were intended to prevent Mindless engagements, they may also facilitate such experiences (Mindlessness) when the challenge is perceived as too great and induces states of boredom.