Activation Theory and Task Design. An Empirical Test ...

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/19417014

Activation Theory and Task Design. An Empirical Test of Several New Predictions ARTICLE in JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY · SEPTEMBER 1986 Impact Factor: 4.31 · DOI: 10.1037//0021-9010.71.3.411 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

READS

52

100

1 AUTHOR: Donald G. Gardner University of Colorado Colorado Springs 47 PUBLICATIONS 1,401 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE

Available from: Donald G. Gardner Retrieved on: 03 December 2015

Copyright 1986 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0021-9010/86/$00.75

Journal of Applied Psychology 1986, Vol. 71, No. 3,411-418

Activation Theory and Task Design: An Empirical Test of Several New Predictions Donald G. Gardner University of Wisconsin—Madison Predictions from activation theory concerning task design are presented. Activation theory is modified to (a) account for the frequent empirical finding that relatively nonstimulating tasks cause elevated arousal levels and (b) allow for effects of individual differences on task-characteristics/taskresponse relationships. An experiment was conducted to test the hypotheses that (a) a relatively nonstimulating task would cause more negative reactions (increased arousal, decreased satisfaction) than a moderately high-stimulating task; (b) electrodermal lability and extroversion would moderate task-stimulation-level/task-response relationships; and (c) there would be inverted-U relationships between activation levels and performance. Modest support for each of the hypotheses was obtained. Activation theory is discussed as an explanation for the process that intervenes between task stimulation and responses of task performers.

Activation theory has been used to explain the effects of variations in task design on responses of task performers (Scott, 1966), but little empirical research has evaluated activation theory's utility as a task design theory. This shortage of research may be due to a belief that activation theory allows only vague predictions (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Steers & Mowday, 1977), or does not consider effects of individual differences (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Hulin & Blood, 1968), in explaining task-characteristic/task-response relationships. The present study addresses these issues in an empirical test of activation theory. Activation theory is based on the concept of activation level, denned here as the degree of neural activity in the reticular activation system (RAS), a major part of the central nervous system (Fiske & Maddi, 1961; Scott, 1966). Activation level is monotonically related to the total stimulation impact on the RAS from external (e.g., noise), internal (e.g., heart rate), and cerebral cortex (e.g., cognitions) sources. Because activation level is difficult to measure directly, it is typically inferred from other measures of central nervous system activation (e.g., electroencephalograms) and/or physiological arousal (e.g., skin conductance).

Activation and arousal can be distinguished (though other authors refer to the constructs with different terms and in different ways). Activation level is a function of central nervous system activity, whereas arousal level is determined by peripheral (primarily autonomic) nervous system activity. The RAS receives neural input from virtually all sensory pathways, but it also contains collaterals that control lower central, and peripheral nervous systems activity (Lindsley, 1957). For these reasons, arousal levels can be both a manifestation and a determinant of activation level (Berlyne, 1960; Duffy, 1972; Fiske & Maddi, 1961), regulated to some degree by the cerebral cortex (Lindsley, 1957). Arousal levels do not necessarily covary with activation levels. At least three hypotheses may be derived from activation theory (see Fiske & Maddi, 1961; Scott, 1966; and Scott & Erskine, 1980). First, each person has a characteristic level of activation (CLA) and is motivated to maintain it. If experienced activation level deviates from the CLA, an individual will engage in stimulation-modifying behaviors (cf. Fiske & Maddi, 1961) that alter his or her experienced level in a direction toward the CLA (e.g., Hill, 1975; Kishida, 1973). Experienced activation levels that deviate from the CLA cause decreases in positive affect (Maddi, 1961) and behavioral efficiency (Lindsley, 1957). A second activation theory prediction is that for a given task and task performer, there is an inverted-U relationship between experienced activation level and level of task performance. That is, every task has associated with it an activation level that results in maximum possible performance. As the experienced activation level of a task performer positively or negatively deviates from the optimal level for the task, performance declines. This decline in performance is most likely caused by impaired information-processing capability (e.g., Easterbrook, 1959; Hockey, 1979; Humphreys &Revelle, 1984). Because the information-processing requirements of tasks vary, the specific form of the inverted-U relationship also varies across tasks (see Figure 1). Note that optimal activation levels for task performance need not coincide with CLA of a task performer.

This article is based on a thesis submitted to the Department of Organizational Behavior at Purdue University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree. An abbreviated version of this article was presented at the 1982 meeting of the Academy of Management. Support for this research was provided by Purdue University through a David Ross Fellowship. The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance (and persistence) of his dissertation committee: Eugene F. Stone (chair), Chris J. Berger, Donald C. King, and Gavriel Salvendy. Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Donald G. Gardner, who is now at the College of Business Administration, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, Box 7150, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80933-7150.

411

412

DONALD G. GARDNER

Electrodermal Lability

Bl|h

ACTIVATION LEVEL

Figure 1. Hypothesized task design effects on the inverted-U relationship.

A third prediction derived from activation theory is that the total stimulation that results from task performance is monotonically related to the activation level of a task performer. A few studies using indirect measures of activation support this prediction (e.g., Scott & Erskine, 1980; Weber, Fussier, O'Hanlon, Gierer, & Grandjean, 1980). However, a number of related studies, using measures of arousal (e.g., heart rate), have found arousal to be higher for low-stimulation tasks than for highstimulation tasks (e.g., Johansson, Aronsson, & Lindstrom, 1978; O'Hanlon, 1981). This consistent finding does not contradict the theory, because activation and arousal levels are not monotonically related at all times. Recent research (Baschera & Grandjean, 1978; Weber etal., 1980) suggests that high arousal occurs under conditions of low stimulation because of a "compensatory reaction" (Teichner, 1968) to increase depressed activation levels. It is further hypothesized here that this compensatory reaction occurs when experienced activation level is less than the CLA, and other stimulation-enhancing behaviors have failed. Arousal level should decrease as experienced activation level approaches the CLA, then increase as experienced activation level deviates above the CLA (for different reasons; cf. Weil, 1974). Arousal measures are useful in inferring central nervous system reactions to various levels of task stimulation, as well as being important dependent variables in their own right (like task performance and task satisfaction).

Individual Differences in Sensitivity to Stimulation The present study examined two variables that appear to fit in an activation theory framework: electrodermal lability and extraversion. These variables were selected because they reflect individual differences in sensitivity to stimulation.

A number of operationalizations of electrodermal lability exist. The most frequently used operationalization is to count the number of skin responses (skin resistance changes) an individual emits in a relatively stimulus-free environment (e.g., a soundproof chamber). Individuals who emit a high number of such responses, labiles, are believed to be highly sensitive to environmental stimulation. Individuals who emit a low rate of skin responses in the same environment, stabiles, are believed to be relatively nonreactive to environmental stimulation (see Gardner, 1982, and Katkin, 1975, for reviews). If labiles are more sensitive to stimulation than stabiles, then given the same task environment labiles should experience higher activation levels than stabiles. Relating this to the above discussion, it may be predicted that labiles react less negatively to nonstimulating tasks than stabiles because they experience a smaller deviation of resultant activation level from the CLA. A moderately stimulating task should obscure lability differences because deviations from CLA would be minimal for both types of individuals (negative for stabiles, positive for labiles). A highly stimulating task should cause labiles to experience activation levels higher above their CLA than stabiles experience above their CLA.

Extroversion Extraversion is hypothesized to be a trait that reflects individual differences in RAS sensitivity (Eysenck, 1967). There is substantial evidence that introverts are more sensitive to stimulation than extraverts (see Eysenck, 1967,1983; and Smith, 1983, for reviews). Thus, introverts experience higher activation levels than extraverts in a given task environment. Analogous to predictions for electrodermal lability, it may be hypothesized that introverts experience a smaller deviation of resultant activation level from the CLA than extraverts when performing a nonstimulating task. A moderately stimulating task should minimize differences between introverts and extraverts as both types should experience only small deviations from CLA. And, introverts should experience larger deviations of activation level from CLA than extraverts while performing highly stimulating tasks.

Hypotheses Much of the preceding discussion is based on research in various fields (e.g., psychophysiology, industrial psychology, industrial engineering) that was not concerned with testing activation theory predictions. The present study examines several of the predictions discussed above in an explicit investigation of activation theory's utility as a task design theory. Specifically, it was hypothesized that 1. A relatively nonstimulating task would result in lower activation, and higher arousal and task dissatisfaction than a moderately high stimulating task. 2. There would be an inverted-U relationship between activation level and task performance level. The predicted relationship should be more discernible for a task with high information processing requirements than a task with low information processing requirements.

ACTIVATION THEORY AND TASK DESIGN

3. Task stimulation level would interact with electrodermal lability such that A. Labiles are more satisfied, less aroused, and perform better than stabiles on a relatively nonstimulating task, and B. Stabiles are more satisfied, less aroused, and perform better than labiles on a moderately high stimulating task. 4. Task stimulation levels would interact with extraversion such that A. Introverts are more satisfied, less aroused, and perform better than extraverts on a relatively nonstimulating task, and B. Extraverts are more satisfied, less aroused, and perform better than introverts on a moderately high stimulating task. For ethical reasons a moderately high-stimulation task (vs. very high) was examined in this experiment. For this reason, effect sizes were expected to be smaller for Hypotheses 3B and 4B than 3A and 4A (Gardner, 1982).

Method Subjects Subjects were 54 students (26 male, 28 female) randomly selected from an introductory organizational behavior course at a midwestem university. Participation was voluntary, though subjects received class credit for their participation.

Procedure The present laboratory experiment is a one-way design with two levels of task. A laboratory design was chosen because it provides a high degree of control over environmental stimulation. The two tasks used were chosen on the basis of several criteria. Both tasks can be performed with one hand and require about the same amount of physical exertion. But the tasks differ in the degree to which they are (a) stimulating, and (b) require subjects to cognitively process task-based information. Extensive descriptions of the tasks, and the rationale underlying their selection, may be found in Gardner (1982). One task, low on the stimulation and information-processing dimensions, required subjects to sort electronic resistors according to explicit instructions. In this task, the nonstimulating task, subjects were provided with (a) a box containing approximately 9,000 resistors, (b) a key to which 10 different color-coded resistors were attached, and (c) a stack of 35 blank white envelopes. After receiving oral instructions from the experimenter, subjects sorted through the box of resistors and, one at a time, pulled out a resistor that matched an identical one on the key. Subjects matched the resistors in the same order as indicated (1-10) on the key, placing the resistor from the box next to the matching one on the key. The experimenter was seated about 1 m from the subjects' work table, and could immediately determine when subjects had matched the 10 resistors. At that time, the experimenter put the unattached resistors in one of the envelopes and placed them out of subjects' view. Subjects then repeated the process for 45 min. No oral statements were made by the experimenter (or subjects) during the entire performance period. Subjects did not know how well (or poorly) they were performing the task, because (a) the experimenter provided no performance feedback, (b) subjects had no standards for comparison, and (c) filled envelopes were not visible to subjects. In addition, no rewards or punishments were explicitly or implicitly tied to performance at the task. Subjects

413

were simply told to perform the task for 45 min so that the experimenter could determine the effects of performing the task on their arousal levels. In sum, the nonstimulating task involved repeatedly performing one operation that varied only in the color codes of the resistors. The other task was moderately high on the stimulation and information-processing criteria. This task, henceforth termed the stimulating task, was an in-basket exercise similar to that used by Kim (1980). Subjects played the role of a newly hired supervisor and responded, in writing, to 15 memoranda and letters pertaining to the job. The in-basket materials differed in terms of dates and importance, and subjects had to attend to these specifics to do well on the exercise. Except for task instructions and the task, conditions for this treatment were virtually identical to those for the nonstimulating task. The experiment was conducted in three phases. In the first phase, subjects reported to group pretesting sessions, where they completed a measure of extraversion. In the second phase, subjects individually reported to a laboratory in which physiological recording equipment was set up. Subjects were briefed on how the equipment worked, after which the equipment was connected to subjects (see below). They then relaxed for 20 min, and resting (baseline) measures of the arousal and activation variables were obtained. The major purpose of the second phase was to acclimate subjects to the equipment, the laboratory, and the experimenter, as recommended by Venables and Christie (1973). In the third phase of the experiment, subjects again individually reported to the laboratory at the same time of day as the second phase. The equipment was connected to subjects, and 10 min of baseline data were obtained. Following this, subjects were orally given instructions for the task which they were to perform, to which subjects were randomly assigned. Arousal measures were continuously obtained during the 45 min that subjects performed their task. After task completion, measures of activation level, task satisfaction, and perceptions of task characteristics were obtained. Last, subjects were debriefed and dismissed. It has been suggested that introverts and extraverts experience different sleep-wake cycles, with introverts being more activated early in the morning than extraverts, and extraverts being more activated in the evening than introverts (Revelle, Humphreys, Simon, & Gilliland, 1980), though the issue is controversial (Eysenck, 1983; Humphreys & Revelle, 1984). Nevertheless, this being a potential source of error variance, Phases 2 and 3 were conducted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., when cycles for introverts and extraverts supposedly coincide.

Measures Task satisfaction. The satisfaction measure was a 10-item semantic differential scale developed by Stone (1977). The bipolar adjectives are frustrating-gratifying, satisfying-dissatisfying, boring-interesting, good-bad, liked-disliked, pleasant-unpleasant, nice-awful, sad-happy, pleasurable-painful, pleasing-annoying. Subjects responded on 7-point scales to the stem "This task is:". Coefficient alpha was .97 for this scale in the present study. Perceived task characteristics. Two measures of perceived task characteristics were used. The first was the perceptions of core job characteristics scales from the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). This measure results in a "Motivating Potential Score" (additive formula) that indicates the degree to which a task is perceived as "enriched." The second perceived task characteristics measure was specially developed for this experiment, based upon activation theory constructs (viz., intensity, complexity, meaningfulness, novelty, and variation of stimulation). The scale results in two summary scores for perceived task stimulation level and freedom to modify stimulation impact. These measures were primarily used as manipulation checks on the task stimulation level treatment.

414

DONALD G. GARDNER

Electrodermal lability. Electrodermal lability was determined during the baseline period of the third phase. It was operationalized as the number of nonspecific skin responses emitted during the last 8 min of the 10-min period. Nonspecific skin responses are changes in skin resistance not attributable to any known stimulus (e.g., somatic movements). Extroversion. The Eysenck Personality Inventory (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1968) was used to measure extroversion. Task performance level. Performance level on the nonstimulating task was indexed by the number of envelopes filled during the experimental session. Performance on the stimulating task was measured by the author with a scoring key developed by the author and two professors of organizational behavior familiar with the task. This key results in a score of 0, 1, or 2 for each of the IS responses, depending on both the quantity (decision vs. no decision) and quality of subjects' decisions. The 15 individual scores were summed to obtain a total performance score on the task. Coefficient alpha was .66 for this measure in the present experiment, suggesting that at a minimum all items were (modestly) tapping the same underlying construct. Arousal. There is no single measure that adequately reflects autonomic nervous system arousal (Levenson, 1983). Different measures of arousal reflect different autonomic arousal systems (Levenson, 1983), which is one reason different arousal measures rarely intercorrelate within a given sample. Three measures of arousal were used in the present study to increase the likelihood of indexing autonomic arousal: (a) tonic (average) skin resistance level, (b) number of phasic skin responses, and (c) pulse rate. All three are widely used as indicators of arousal (Martin & Venables, 1980). Tonic skin resistance level was measured with a Grass Instruments Model 7PIE preamplifier in line with a Model 7DAF driver amplifier and a Model 79 writer unit. Grass Instruments 9-mm silver/silver chloride electrodes were attached to the medial phalanxes of the third and fourth fingers of subjects' nondominant hands. Electrode paste was unibase adjusted to .05 molar sodium chloride electrolyte content. This apparatus results in data expressed in kilo-ohms (Kohms) of resistance. Higher resistance levels indicate lower arousal levels. Phasic skin responses were derived from the tonic skin resistance level data. Skin resistance changes were counted as phasic responses using criteria set forth in Edelberg (1972). Scoring for this variable was the number of phasic skin responses emitted during the 45 minute experimental period. Pulse rate was measured with a Grass Instruments Model 94E preamplifier in line with a Model 7DAF driver amplifier, a Model 79 writer unit, and a Model PTTL-6 photoelectric transducer attached to subjects' earlobes. Data were expressed in beats per min for statistical analyses. Activation. Two measures of activation were used. The first was critical fusion frequency, a measure of central nervous system activation (Baschera & Grandjean, 1979; Weber et al., 1980). Although not a perfect measure of RAS activation, critical fusion frequency scores are more easily obtained than direct readings from electrodes implanted in the RAS (also see Ginsburg, 1970). Critical fusion frequency was measured with an American Hospital Supply Flicker Photometer at the end of baseline and experimental periods. With this apparatus, subjects viewed a light source that initially flickered at an extremely fast rate (3300 cycles per min) but that decreased in rate until subjects pressed a button that stopped the apparatus. Subjects pressed the button at the moment they first perceived the light source as flickering. That rate, the flicker fusion threshold, is considered a measure of activation: Higher rates indicate higher activation. Critical fusion frequency was expressed in cycles per min for data analyses, and was the average of three trials for each subject. The second measure of task-induced activation was a four-item, se-

mantic differential scale developed by Scott (1967; Scott & Rowland, 1970). Evidence that such measures more accurately reflect activation than (autonomic) arousal may be found in Lazarus (1966) and Zuckerman (1979). This measure was used primarily as a manipulation check on the task stimulation level treatment.

Data Analysis Data were analyzed with multiple regression/correlation procedures (Cohen & Cohen, 1975). Analyses involving the physiological measures were conducted twice: First with the raw score units noted above, and second after conversion to the Autonomic Lability Score (ALS) form recommended by Lacey (1956). A liberal alpha level (pn

P

-«l

p —• i

s^ ss £ s s

s —ss

i s IS

I

§ -!

2

I

i ESS

I

\o

i i

I

— ON O «S 1 1

i

o o

0

i g2 &

1

i i

—

_c

r

i

1 1

i

SO

-32

S S82

—

;

i i

= 28S i i i S

23

I

^f

4

^5 1

1

NO

0

1

0

O »o

i i & ss 1

«N

416

DONALD G. GARDNER

Hypothesis 2 was tested with polynomial regression analysis (cf. Cohen & Cohen, 1975). There was a significant linear relationship (A/?2 = .08, p < .10) between ALS critical fusion frequency and stimulating task performance level, and an even stronger quadratic relationship (AR2 =. 15, p < .05). This effect, when plotted, clearly reflected an inverted-U relationship, as hypothesized. In contrast, no statistically significant linear or quadratic relationships were obtained for nonstimulating task performance level. The latter result was not unexpected, as stated in Hypothesis 2 Hypotheses 3 and 4 involved predictions about interactions of task assignment and individual difference variables on satisfaction, arousal, and performance. The satisfaction and arousal aspects of Hypotheses 3 and 4 were tested with hierarchical multiple regression (Cohen & Cohen, 1975). The performance aspects of Hypotheses 3 and 4 were tested with subgroup analysis, because of nonequivalence of the performance measures across tasks. The arousal and performance aspects of Hypothesis 3 received no support. There were no statistically significant interactions of task assignment and electrodermal lability on the arousal measures, nor were there any statistically significant correlations between electrodermal lability and task performance level. The task satisfaction aspect of Hypothesis 3 was supported by a significant interaction of task assignment and electrodermal lability on task satisfaction (A/?2 = .04, p < .05). This interaction, when plotted, indicated a positive relationship between electrodermal lability and task satisfaction for the nonstimulating task, and a slight negative relationship for the stimulating task. Labiles were more satisfied than stabiles performing the nonstimulating task, whereas the reverse was true for the stimulating task. The satisfaction and performance aspects of Hypothesis 4 received no support. There were no statistically significant interactions of task assignment and extraversion on the satisfaction measures, nor did extraversion significantly correlate with either task performance measure. There were, however, three statistically significant interactions of task assignment and extraversion on experimental skin resistance level (A/?2 = .11, p < .05), experimental pulse rate (A.R2 = .08, p < .05), and ALS pulse rate (A/?2 = .18, p < .01). All three of these interactions indicated (a) a positive relationship between extraversion and arousal for the nonstimulating task, (b) a negative relationship between extraversion and arousal for the stimulating task, (c) extraverts were more aroused than introverts performing the nonstimulating task, and (d) introverts were more aroused than extraverts performing the stimulating task. These three interactions clearly supported the arousal aspects of Hypothesis 4, and are unchanged when time-of-day is entered (first) as a covariate.

Discussion Activation theory was presented above as an explanation for the effects that task-related stimuli have upon affective, behavioral, and physiological responses of task performers. The results of the present experiment provide modest support for that explanation in three different hypothesized ways. First, a relatively nonstimulating task caused higher experienced arousal levels, and lower activation and satisfaction levels, than did a

moderately stimulating task. This finding is consistent with the extensive research on understimulation and catecholamine excretion rates conducted in Sweden (e.g., Frankenhaeuser, 1975) as well as on divergence of activation and arousal measures for low stimulation tasks (e.g., Weber et al., 1980). Second, electrodermal lability moderated the relationship between task stimulation level and task satisfaction, whereas extraversion moderated the relationship between task stimulation level and measures of arousal. The hypothesis that deviations of experienced activation level from the CLA causes high arousal is consistent with this finding, though this could only be proven with direct measures of activation level and CLA. Perhaps a useful new application of activation theory might be in studies of Type A/ Type B behavior patterns, where there appears to be some consistent differential responding to conditions of under- and overstimulation (e.g., Lundberg & Foresman, 1979; also see Holmes, 1983, and Houston, 1983). Weil's (1974) model of brain-behavior relations may be useful in extending activation theory into this area of research. No moderating effects on the performance measures were found. Moderator effect sizes do tend to be small in magnitude (e.g., A/?2 less than . 10) and perhaps the performance measures used were insufficiently sensitive to demonstrate those mild effects. The inverted-U relationship between critical fusion frequency and stimulating task performance level provides a third avenue of support for activation theory. This finding, however, is least convincing as support for activation theory, as it is not yet possible to demonstrate a one-to-one relationship between heightened activation levels and impaired information processing capability (cf. Humphreys & Revelle, 1984). Indeed, the obtained relationship cannot be considered as strong evidence against McGrath's (1976) opposing hypothesis of a linear relationship between arousal and performance. Though there were no significant correlations between measures of arousal and performance, one might also argue that highly activated subjects in the stimulating task condition, as opposed to less activated subjects, may have (a) had more difficulty with the task (i.e., less ability), or (b) failed to respond to memoranda (resulting in low scores) because of "the kind of fixation, perseveration, or focusing of attention and effort which is often said to accompany 'stress' (arousal)" (McGrath, 1976, p. 1379). Thus, the present study does little to distinguish the competing hypotheses. Perhaps if future researchers use multiple measures of activation, arousal, and task performance the complex relationships between these variables will become better understood. Should activation theory ever become a well-supported theory of work behavior, it does have different implications for work design than the more popular job characteristics approach (e.g., Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Scott (1966), Scott and Erskine (1980), and Farh and Scott (1983) discuss these differences in detail, and they need not be repeated here. Perhaps the major inference from the present study is that monotonous work is not only dissatisfying, but is also "stressful" (i.e., causes elevated arousal levels). To the extent that activation theory validly explains this finding, the theory becomes a potential integrating framework that unites the job design and job stress literatures. More importantly, this result highlights the need to redesign work that likely causes low experienced activation levels.

ACTIVATION THEORY AND TASK DESIGN For example, field researchers might compare the effects of variation in worker control over work environment stimulation on behavioral, affective, and physiological worker responses. Allowing production workers to (responsibly) take "breaks" from their jobs at times of their own choosing, as opposed to no breaks or company-controlled breaks, is one way in which worker control over the work environment may be enhanced. It may be hypothesized from activation theory that such a manipulation will reduce arousal and increase satisfaction, because it allows workers to better control their experienced activation levels (e.g., walking to the coffee room to counteract feelings of fatigue and boredom). Or, one might compare the effects of variable leadership styles (e.g., alternating the four styles derived from path-goal theory; House & Mitchell, 1974) with single consistent styles. It may be hypothesized that variable styles of leadership will be more effective than a single consistent style in nonstimulating work environments. The key, consistent with activation theory, is to increase stimulation in the work environment in any feasible way—not only in ways dictated by narrower theories. . Activation theory is far from being a refined theory of work behavior. The present study attempted to refine the theory a bit by distinguishing activation and arousal and by incorporating moderator variables. Results are weakly supportive of those refinements but suggest further study. It would be particularly enlightening to test these hypotheses, and others (cf. Scott, 1966) in a well-controlled field study. Such field research is not easily done, because all major sources of work stimulation must be controlled, and measures of arousal and activation are hard to obtain.1 It would also be fruitful to empirically contrast physiologically oriented activation theory with cognitive-oriented theories of work behavior. For example, one might test the hypothesis that specific, difficult, accepted goals have effects mediated by changes in activation level, versus conventional cognitive interpretations (e.g., Locke, 1978). Indeed, it may be that industrial/organizational psychology has overemphasized the role of cognitions in work behavior, as has been suggested in other areas of psychology (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Quattrone, 1985). At a minimum, activation theory serves as a heuristic that focuses researchers' attention on the "whole" worker, not only the aspects that can be measured easily. 1 Interested researchers should consult appropriate references before embarking on such research. Martin and Venables (1980) and Levenson (1983) are useful starting points. To that this author would add that critical fusion frequency is relatively easy to obtain in field settings, and that a wide array of arousal measures may now be telemetrically obtained.

References Baschera, P., & Grandjean, E. (1979). Effects of repetitive tasks with different degrees of difficulty on critical fusion frequency (CFF) and subjective state. Ergonomics, 22, 377-385. Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Duffy, E. (1972). Activation. In N. S. Greenfield and R. A. Sterbach (Eds.), Handbook of Psychophysiology (pp. 577-622). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

417

Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66, 187-201. Edelberg, R. (1972). Electrical activity of the skin: Its measurement and uses in psychophysiology. In N. S. Greenfield & R. A. Sternbach (Eds.), Handbook of Psychophysiology (pp. 367-418). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Eysenck, H. J. (1983). Is there a paradigm in personality research? Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 369-397. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1968). Manual for the Eysenck Personality Inventory. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service. Farh, J. L., & Scott, W. E. (1983). The experimental effects of "autonomy" on performance and self-reports of satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 203-222. Fiske, D. W., & Maddi, S. R. (Eds.). (1961). Functions of varied experience. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Frankenhaeuser, M. (1975). Sympathetic-adrenomedullary activity, behavior, and the psychosocial environment. In P. H. Venables & M. J. Christie (Eds.), Research in psychophysiology (pp. 71 -94). New York: Wiley. Gardner, D. G. (1982). Activation theory and task design: Development of a conceptual model and an empirical test. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 3477B-3478B. (University Microfilms No. 8200673) Ginsburg, N. (1970). Fusion frequency bibliography, 1953-1968. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 30, 427-482. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hill, A. B. (1975). Extraversion and variety-seeking in a monotonous task. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 9-13. Hockey, R. (1979). Stress and the cognitive components of skilled performance. In V. Hamilton & D. Warburton (Eds.), Human stress and cognition (pp. 141-178). London: Wiley. Holmes, D. S. (1983). An alternative perspective concerning the differential psychophysiological responsivity of persons with the Type A and Type B behavior patterns. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 40-47. House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 5, 81-97. Houston, B. K. (1983). Psychophysiological responsivity and the Type A behavior pattern. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 22-39. Humphreys, M. S., & Revelle, W. (1984). Personality, motivation, and performance: A theory of the relationship between individual differences and information processing. Psychological Review, 91, 153184. Hulin, C. L., & Blood, M. R. (1968). Job enlargement, individual differences, and worker responses. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 41 -55. Johansson, B. G., Aronsson, G., & Lindstrom, B. Q (1978). Social psychological and neuroendocrine reactions in highly mechanized work. Ergonomics, 21, 583-599. Katkin, E. S. (1975). Electrodermal lability. In I. G. Sarason & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Stress and Anxiety (Vol. 2, pp. 141 -176). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Kim, J. S. (1980). Relationship of personality to perceptual and behavioral responses in stimulating and nonstimulating environments. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 307-319. Kishida, K. (1973). Temporal change of subsidiary behavior in monotonous work. Journal of Human Ergology, 2, 75-89. Lacey, J. I. (1956). The evaluation of autonomic responses: Towards a

418

DONALD G. GARDNER

general solution. Annals New York Academy of Sciences, 67, 125163. Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Levenson, R. W. (1983). Personality research and psychophysiology: General considerations. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 1-21. Lindsley, D. B. (1957). Psychophysiology and motivation. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 5, pp. 44-105). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Locke, E. A. (1978). The ubiquity of the technique of goal setting in theories of and approaches to employee motivation. Academy of Management Review, 3, 594-601. Lundberg, U., & Foreman, L. (1979). Adrenal-medullary and adrenalcortical responses to understimulation and overstimulation: Comparisons between Type A and Type B persons. Biological Psychology, 9, 79-89. Maddi, S. R. (1961). Unexpectedness, affective tone, and behavior. In D. W. Rske & S. R. Maddi (Eds.), Functions of varied experience (pp. 380-401). Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Martin, I., & Venables, P. H. (Eds.) (1980). Techniques in psychophysiology. London: Wiley. McGrath, J. E. (1976). Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1351-1396). Chicago: Rand McNally. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231259. O'Hanlon, J. F. (1981). Boredom: Practical consequences and a theory. Ada Psychologica, 49, 53-82. Quattrone, G. A. (1985). On the congruity between thoughts and action. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 3-40. Revelle, W, Humphreys, M. S., Simon, L., & Gilliland, K. (1980). The interactive effect of personality, time of day, and caffeine: A test of the arousal model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109,131. Scott, W. E. (1966). Activation theory and task design. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1, 3-30.

Scott, W. E. (1967). The development of semantic differential scales as measures of "morale." Personnel Psychology, 20, 179-198. Scott, W. E., & Erskine, J. A. (1980). The effects of variations in task design and monetary reinforcers on task behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 311-335. Scott, W. E., & Rowland, K. M. (1970). The generality and significance of semantic differential scales as measures of morale. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 576-591. Smith, B. D. (1983). Extraversion and electrodermal activity: Arousability and the inverted-U. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 411-419. Steers, R. M., & Mowday, R. T. (1977). The motivational properties of tasks. Academy of 'Management Review, 2, 645-659. Stone, E. F. (1977). Some personality correlates of perceptions of and reactions to task characteristics (Paper No. 54). Institute for Research in the Behavioral, Economic, and Management Sciences, Purdue University. Teichner, W. H. (1968). Interaction of behavioral and physiological stress-reactions. Psychological Review, 75, 271-291. Venables, W. R., & Christie, M. J. (1973). Mechanism, instrumentation, recording techniques, and quantification of responses. In W. F. Prokasy & D. C. Raskin (Eds.), Electrodermal activity in psychological research (pp. 1-124). New \fork: Academic Press. Weber, A., Fussier, C., O'Hanlon, J. F., Gierer, R., & Grandjean, E. (1980). Psychophysiological effects of repetitive tasks. Ergonomics, 23, 1033-1046. Weil, J. L. (1974). A neurophysiological model of emotional and intentional behavior. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill. Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Received February 15,1985 Revision received October 9,1985