Activation Theory and Task Design: An Empirical Test of Several New Predictions

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).

[1]  G Aronsson,et al.  Social psychological and neuroendocrine stress reactions in highly mechanised work. , 1978, Ergonomics.

[2]  J. O'hanlon,et al.  Boredom: practical consequences and a theory. , 1981, Acta psychologica.

[3]  A. B. Hill,et al.  Extraversion and variety-seeking in a monotonous task. , 1975, British journal of psychology.

[4]  M. Humphreys,et al.  The interactive effect of personality, time of day, and caffeine: a test of the arousal model. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[5]  W. E. Scott,et al.  The effects of variations in task design and monetary reinforcers on task behavior , 1980 .

[6]  Etienne Grandjean,et al.  Effects of Repetitive Tasks with Different Degrees of Difficulty on Critical Fusion Frequency (CFF) and Subjective State , 1979 .

[7]  R. Lazarus.  Psychological stress and the coping process , 1970 .

[8]  W. E. Scott,et al.  THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALES AS MEASURES OF “MORALE” , 1967 .

[9]  J. Farh,et al.  The experimental effects of "autonomy" on performance and self-reports of satisfaction. , 1983, Organizational behavior and human performance.

[10]  B. Houston.  Psychophysiological responsivity and the type A behavior pattern , 1983 .

[11]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[12]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  Techniques in Psychophysiology , 1980 .

[13]  George A. Quattrone.  On the congruity between internal states and action. , 1985 .

[14]  R. Sternbach,et al.  Handbook of psychophysiology. , 1972 .

[15]  W. H. Teichner,et al.  Interaction of behavioral and physiological stress reactions. , 1968, Psychological review.

[16]  Barry D. Smith.  Extraversion and electrodermal activity: arousability and the inverted-U , 1983 .

[17]  W. F. Prokasy,et al.  Electrodermal Activity in Psychological Research , 1973 .

[18]  D. Holmes.  An Alternative Perspective Concerning the Differential Psychophysiological Responsivity of Persons with the Type A and Type B Behavior Patterns. , 1983 .

[19]  J. Weil.  A neurophysiological model of emotional and intentional behavior , 1974 .

[20]  M. Zuckerman.  Sensation Seeking : Beyond the Optimal Level of Arousal , 1979 .

[21]  Jay S. Kim.  Relationships of Personality to Perceptual and Behavioral Responses in Stimulating and Nonstimulating Tasks , 1980 .

[22]  J. Hackman,et al.  Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey , 1975 .

[23]  Richard T. Mowday,et al.  The Motivational Properties of Tasks , 1977 .

[24]  C. Spielberger,et al.  Stress and Anxiety , 1981 .

[25]  J. Easterbrook.  The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. , 1959, Psychological review.

[26]  Ulf Lundberg,et al.  Adrenal-medullary and adrenal-cortical responses to understimulation and overstimulation: Comparison between Type A and Type B persons , 1979, Biological Psychology.

[27]  M. Humphreys,et al.  Personality, motivation, and performance: a theory of the relationship between individual differences and information processing. , 1984, Psychological review.

[28]  T. Cox,et al.  Human stress and cognition: Vernon Hamilton and David Warburton (Eds) John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pp 502, £19.50 , 1980 .

[29]  Eugene F Stone.  Some Personality Correlates of Perceptions of and Reactions to Task Characteristics , 1977 .

[30]  W. E. Scott.  Activation theory and task design , 1966 .

[31]  K Kishida,et al.  Temporal change of subsidiary behavior in monotonous work. , 1973, Journal of human ergology.

[32]  Norman Ginsburg.  Flicker Fusion Bibliography, 1953–1968 , 1970, Perceptual and motor skills.

[33]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  The Ubiquity of the Technique of Goal Setting in Theories of and Approaches to Employee Motivation , 1978 .

[34]  R. Levenson.  Personality research and psychophysiology: General considerations ☆ , 1983 .

[35]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[36]  A. Weber,et al.  Psychophysiological effects of repetitive tasks. , 1980, Ergonomics.

[37]  C. Hulin,et al.  Job enlargement, individual differences, and worker responses. , 1968 .

[38]  H. Eysenck.  Biological Basis of Personality , 1963, Nature.

[39]  P. Venables,et al.  Research in Psychophysiology , 1975 .

[40]  W. E. Scott,et al.  The generality and significance of semantic differential scales as measures of “morale” , 1970 .

[41]  P. H. Venables,et al.  CHAPTER 1 – Mechanisms, Instrumentation, Recording Techniques, and Quantification of Responses , 1973 .

[42]  T. Mitchell,et al.  PATH-GOAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP , 1975 .

[43]  B. J. Winer.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[44]  H. Eysenck.  Is there a paradigm in personality research , 1983 .

[45]  D. G. Gardner.  ACTIVATION THEORY AND TASK DESIGN: DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND AN EMPIRICAL TEST , 1981 .