Abstract

Asked 32 undergraduates to influence a trail of dots that were gradually moving from top to bottom of a TV screen under the control of a random -number generator. Half were asked to bias the trail to end up on the right side of the screen; the other half were asked to bias the trail to the left. Half of each of these groups were self-described high -competitive Ss, and half were self-described low-competitive. Within each of the 4 subgroups, half of the Ss were given instructions encouraging them to adopt active, competitive, striving strategies; the other half were encouraged to adopt relaxed, noncompetitive, nonstriving strategies. All Ss were given 8 runs apiece in which they received continuous feedback from the display and 8 runs in which they received feedback only at the end of each run. Ss given striving instructions scored significantly below chance, whereas those given nonstriving instructions scored significantly above chance; the difference between the groups was highly significant. No other factors produced significant effects. Thus, it appears that nonstriving strategies are appropriate for both high- and low-competitive student Ss, whereas striving strategies appear to induce psi-missing. (14 ref)