Coping

Table 4.8 summarises the main findings of the data pertaining to the coping potential manipulation. The results on the percentage error showed a declining error rate with learning, supporting the premise that the contingencies were schematised.

Furthermore, the data indicate that when the size of ship-power contingencies were reversed, the errors increased strongly, even exceeding the percentage error observed at the start of the experiment. The reaction time data follows a similar pattern, with longer reaction times at the start of the experiment and after reversal, and shorter reaction times for the schematised and newly schematised trials. The increase in reaction time from the schematised stage to the stage after reversal is relatively large, indicative of the difficulty the players experienced in overriding the learned

contingency (which is compatible with the pattern of percentage error). Furthermore, there was a marked difference in reaction time between the low and high power trials.

The longer reaction times to the low power situation are in line with the hypothesis

that appraisals of low power lead to task disengagement (and greater feelings of resignation, see Pecchinenda & Smith, 1996) and thus slower reaction times to pick up either gun to fight. The difference was greatest for the first two stages of the experiment, with a reduced difference after reversal, and finally no difference for the last stage. This pattern is unlike that observed for the conduciveness manipulations, where the reaction times between friend and enemy were highly similar before reversal. For these conduciveness trials, a difference occurred merely after

contingency reversal. The contingency reversal for coping potential did not have an effect on the reaction times other than diminishing the difference between low and high coping.

Table 4.8. Summary of the main effects of experiment 2, expressed in increases or decreases with respect to each of the within-subjects conditions.

Before reversal After reversal Confirmed predictions?

Measure: Low High Low High

Reaction time + 0 ++ + Yes

SNS

Corrugator - 0 0 0 No

Zygomatic + + 0 0 No

Forearm Extensor 0 0 0 0 No

ANS

Inter-beat interval + 0 ++ + Yes

SC magnitude first response - + - + Partly

Skin temperature slope 0 0 0 0 No

Note: The data excluding reaction time errors are reported. The effects are expressed in terms of higher/lower/no change relative to the other conditions. Low = low power manipulation; High = high power manipulation. SC = skin conductance. + = higher; - = lower; 0 = no significant difference. Only two levels of the Contingency-factor are reported, for ease of interpretation of the table.

Apart from the first stage, the pattern of results for inter-beat interval indicate an effect of varying cognitive load. Inter-beat interval increased after contingency reversal and then decreased with relearning. Why the difference scores were close to zero at the start of the experiment is unclear, but could be due to higher anticipatory uncertainty and tension caused by relative unfamiliarity with the game, the effects of which would have been stronger than those related to event-onset. A trend was found

for the inter-beat intervals to be longer in response to the low power condition than to the high power condition, which corresponds to the predictions of lower heart rate (or higher inter-beat intervals) related to low coping potential and resignation. These results are in line with those of reaction time, as discussed above. This trend did not occur in the analysis for which all observations were included, which makes sense as the opposite appraisal (i.e. that of high power) would result in engagement and lower inter-beat intervals. Including these trials where the player appraised the event as high in power hence would have balanced out the effect due to low power and blurred the result.

The results for the expressive measures did not show a systematic effect of either manipulations. Corrugator activity was lower in the schematised stage of the experiment for the low power trials than for the high power trials, which is in line with the original predictions made by Scherer (e.g. 1987) and not with the revised predictions made for this experiment (table 4.1). This difference, however, did not persist for the trials for which the contingencies were reversed, and was not observed for any of the other stages in the experiment. The zygomatic activity did not show any of the predicted effects of coping potential and did not show any relevant effects for the manipulated contingencies. Again, as with the conduciveness manipulations, no effects were found for the EMG activity measured over the forearm extensor.

The skin conductance magnitudes showed no effect whatsoever of the contingency reversal. A reliable difference, however, was observed between the high and low coping potential trials, whereby the response magnitudes were higher for the high coping trials than for the low coping potential trials. This effect is in line with previous findings, using task difficulty to manipulate the appraised coping potential (e.g. Pecchinenda & Smith, 1996), where such an effect was also observed. These skin conductance data are consistent with the data for inter-beat interval (and reaction time) and converge with the self-report data which showed higher levels of

resignation in response to the low power compared to the high power manipulations.

Furthermore, this difference between high and low coping trials is observed despite the players not actually performing (i.e. coping with) the task, but rather awaiting their moment to act upon the game situation. Hence, the difference unequivocally resulted from the appraisal of coping potential rather than from performing, or

actively solving, the task which evokes physiological changes in itself (see Johnstone et al, in press).

Despite previous findings of skin temperature (e.g. Smith, 1994) being reliably affected by manipulations of task difficulty, this experiment did not show effects for skin temperature. Whilst effects of skin temperature have been observed in

experiment 1 and other studies using a computer game to manipulate appraisals (e.g.

Banse et al., submitted; Johnstone et al., 1998) this study neither showed significant effects of manipulated conduciveness nor of manipulated coping potential appraisals.

The self report data indicated that differences between high and low appraised power on the reported emotions actually reflect a positive-negative distinction, similar to the conduciveness manipulation. The results show that the trials with high power were related to higher reported intensities of challenge, relief and feeling fine than low power trials. Low power trials gave rise to higher intensities of resignation,

disappointment and irritation. The self-report data of challenge and resignation is in line with the findings of Pecchinenda & Smith (1996), where participants engaged or disengaged when they appraised their coping potential in performing a task as high or low respectively. While the conduciveness manipulations failed to affect irritation significantly, the coping potential manipulations evoked more irritation when the shooting power was low compared to when it was high. Also, challenge did not show an effect of conduciveness while the coping potential manipulations differently affected the reported intensities of challenge. This was partially expected, based upon the idea that certain emotional terms are more closely related to a specific appraisal dimension than others. For instance, challenge would occur when coping potential is appraised as high, and resignation when coping potential is appraised as low (e.g.

Pecchinenda & Smith, 1996). Shame is elicited when the situation (or one’s action) is evaluated as not corresponding to one’s own ideal self in addition to the evaluation of the situation as relevant (Scherer, e.g. 1987). However, the hypothesis of a closer relation between certain appraisal dimensions and emotional states, tested here for coping potential and conduciveness, was not supported. Besides the expected differences in reported feelings of challenge and resignation, the self-report data showed a similar pattern of results for the coping potential dimension and the conduciveness dimension.

In summary, there was no suggestion of any influence of schematic appraisal of coping potential when the appraisal was presumably in conflict after reversal of the contingencies. The difference in reaction times to the low and high power modes was muted after reversal, which at best could be considered as an indirect effect of

conflicting schematic appraisal, but in no means did this pattern of results compare to that of conduciveness. The inter-beat interval showed an overall increase for the discrepant stage compared to the schematised stages indicating increased cognitive intake or load, and a superimposed effect of coping potential with, as expected, a lower inter-beat interval for high power trials than for low power trials. This largely is in line with the findings of the reaction times. Increased electrodermal activity was also observed for high power compared to low power. Thus, all measures point to higher task engagement and accompanying arousal for the high power trials, and lower engagement with arousal for the low power trials, which is perfectly in

agreement with the literature on task difficulty and ANS (in particular cardiovascular) activity (see a review by Pecchinenda, in press). The expressive measures did not show much effect of the coping potential manipulations, nor did general muscle tension measured over the forearm extensor of the non-dominant arm. Skin temperature failed to show any effect of coping potential.