Delayed Auditory Feedback: Personality and Order of Administration

From an introductory course in psychology 40 subjects received credit for their participation in an experiment on delayed auditory feedback. Subjects read two lists, I and 11, under conditions of delayed and non-delayed auditory feedback. The order of lists was reversed for half the subjects, and 10 subjects each were assigned to delay-first or delay-second conditions with each list order. Both delayed feedback and non-delayed conditions were administered via the Allison Model 22 Clinical and Research audiometer. Delay was presented monaurally with a ,266-sec. lapse, and non-delay conditions involved simultaneous sound reproduction, also through earphones. All subjects were pretested with pure tones to ensure that no hearing loss greater than 10 dB was present, and passages were read by subjects with all feedback occurring at 40 dB above threshold. A 2 X 2 X 2 partially repeated analysis of variance was used to evaluate differences in toral reading time according to delayed feedback (present, absent), order of passage (1-11, 11-1) , and order of delay (yes-no, no-yes) . Significant differences appeared for the main effect of delay ( p < .01), and for the interactions of delayed feedback with order of delay and order of passage ( p < .01). Specifically, increased reading time with delayed feedback appeared only when delay was administered in the first position (190.6, 163.1 sec.; p < .01) . A significant decrease of reading time under delayed feedback was associated with the appearance of delay in the second position (183.5, 174.7 sec.; j~ < .05). Errors of blocking, omission, addition, repetition, substitution, and pronunciation were also evaluated. Numbers tended to be small and distributions extremely deviant from the normal for these scores. Applications of the non-parametric sign test both within and across cells yielded suggestive ( p < .25) increases in error associated with delay for blocking and pronunciation. Reliability of rater for the blind identification of all errors from taped material ranged from . 85 to 1.00 ( p < .01). For groups with a significant effect of delayed feedback, the time difference (delay minus non-delay) was correlated with scores from Cattell's 16 PF. In one cell, results indicated that effects of delayed feedback were maximized for subjects with a lower intellectual level (B, .42, p < .15) , and greater emotionality (C, .41, p < .15) , trustfulness (L , .61, p < .05) , and apprehension (0, .78, p < .05). For the second group delayed feedback was associated with greater humility (E, .41, fi < .15) , practicality (M, .59, p <, .O5), experimental thinking (41, .54, p < .05) , control (Q3. .GI, p < .05) , and tenslon (Q,, .54, p < .05). Yates ( 2 ) , in his review of early research, notes differences in delayed feedback occurring relative to reading material (where subtle differences may exist), adaptation, and personality. He also cites studies in which delayed feedback provided a "stressful experience" and experiments in which a GSR reaction is associated with performance under delayed feedback. The present experiment utilized a delay slightly greater than the generally optimum . 2 sec. ( 1 ) which might explain the extreme adaptation effects associated with order of delay. Correlations of effects, where these occurred, with personaliry variables support the stressful (sympathetic activation, emotional) nature of the experience. Order of passage probably led to significant effects because of the subtle, i.e. presently unclear! , factors ( 2 ) . In overview, the current experiment may be regarded as a replication of effects of order, passage, and personality which have been reported previously, though not in unison, by various authors.