the effects of number priming on achievement

Running head: NUMBER PRIMING ON ACHIEVEMENT 1

The Effects of Number Priming on Achievement

Christy G. Coberly

Armstrong Atlantic State University

Author Note

Christy G. Coberly, Psychology Department, Armstrong Atlantic State University.

This research was made possible due to the help of Rachel Butler, Deondra Curry, and

Gordon Wery. Also, a special thanks to our supervising professor, Dr. Angie Koban.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christy Coberly,

Department of Psychology, Armstrong Atlantic State University, Savannah, GA 31419. E-mail:

[email protected]

NUMBER PRIMING ON ACHIEVEMENT 2

Abstract

Many students deal with the plight of test anxiety along with other stressors in life, which may

affect performance inside and out of the classroom. Many studies have been conducted in hopes

of explaining how such anxiety can cause positive or negative priming for achievement.

According to previous research, positive or negative thoughts, as they relate to task performance

and generalized expectations for performance, are key factors in priming for positive or negative

achievement (Goodhart, 1985). Many professors currently mark tests with arbitrary numbers

before administering them to easily distinguish between various test formats. In our study, we

observed the effects produced by either “99” or “49” placed at the top of an anagram test prior to

the test being administered. We hypothesized that the tests labeled with “99” would yield higher

achievement than the tests labeled with “49”. This knowledge could be applied in educational

settings in order to increase the learning and performance of students. Although our study failed

to yield statistically significant results, further studies should be conducted in regards to number

priming and the ability to affect test performance.

Keywords: number priming, subliminal, achievement, grades, performance attainment


The Effects of Number Priming on Achievement

It has been noted that markings on achievement tests, such as color or numbers, may have

effects on achievement due to these marks resulting in either a positive or negative prime (Bargh,

1990; Oettingen, Bulgarella, Henderson, & Gollwitzer, 2004/2005). Priming occurs when a

subject is exposed to stimuli which trigger previously formed concepts. The stimulus used as the

prime increases the likelihood that the concepts will be reactivated and functional to the novel

situation presented. Once an association has been made between two stimuli, these stimuli are

capable of being used as non-conscious primes that can produce a subconscious influence on

psychological functioning (Bargh, 1990). Bargh’s 1990 model further assumes that when a goal

is capable of being consciously pursued, this goal can also be triggered in a subconscious

manner. These goals can be triggered outside of awareness by means of presenting pertinent

concepts supraliminally or subliminally (Chartrand & Bargh, 1996).

These results should be taken into consideration with the administration of achievement

tests administered throughout primary school, secondary school, higher education, and any other

form of testing in which strict test administration policies are set for the success of the students.

Some major issues left out of these policies include the test administrators’ choice of clothing

and sometimes even the use of numbers placed at the top of each form in order to easily

distinguish test formats and expedite grading. It has been documented on multiple accounts how

such subtle primes can influence an individual’s expectancies of performance (Chartrand &

Bargh, 1996; Elliot, Maier, Moller, Friedman, & Meinhardt, 2007; Goodhart, 1985; Oettingen, et

al. 2004/2005).


Some of the leading priming studies which have concluded shocking evidence involve

the influence of color and associated negative thoughts on achievement tasks (Elliot et al., 2007;

Oettingen et al, 2004/2005). Conscious versus non-conscious priming theories have been tested

and produced results of similar performance between the participants assigned to conscious

priming groups and those assigned to non-conscious priming groups (Oettingen et al.,

2004/2005). These groups reacted in very similar ways, however, the non-conscious group

showed higher levels of negative affects. These negative feelings were noted most likely due to

the subliminally produced reactions causing the participants to become unaware of what

prompted their behavior.

Elliot et al.’s 2007 study further demonstrated how these stimuli can affect performance

on a subconscious level. Elliot et al.’s study suggests the ability of the color red to provoke

avoidance behavior and weaken performance ability. Red has been associated with avoidance

and danger situations such as stop lights, fire alarms, and the red ink used by many teachers

while grading in order to mark incorrect answers. If a negative association has been made, there

is a possibility of a negative impact on achievement performance. These negative associations

may enhance anxiety, increase distractions from set tasks, and may elicit self-protective

processes (Elliot, 2005).

Other findings have suggested that positive thinking leads to increased performance only

when the positive thinking is relevant to the task at hand. When the activity being performed is

not associated with the thought, negative thought may increase performance (Brickman,

Linsenmeier, & McCareins, 1976). When negative thoughts are relevant to the task at hand,

expectancies of performance may be developed and set a commitment effect for poor

performance (Sherman, Skov, Hervitz, & Stock, 1981).


This study is a within-groups design expanding on previous research of conscious versus

non-conscious priming in achievement situations (Chartrand & Bargh, 1996; Elliot et al., 2007;

Goodhart, 1985; Oettingen et al., 2004/2005). We will be placing a number of either “99” or

“49” in black ink at the top right hand corner of an anagram test prior to administering this

achievement task to participants. We expect to find a correlation between a subconscious prime

for positive thinking and increased performance with anagrams marked with “99”. With the

anagrams marked with “49,” we expect to observe a subconscious prime for negative thinking

and decreased performance. According to Brickman et al., participants in this study must: (a)

notice the number at the top of their anagram test; (b) associate this number with a past

experience obtaining a passing or failing grade for accurate priming; and (c) imply an expectancy

for their performance on the task in which they are about to engage.

Although the subjects may not directly associate the number at the top right of their paper

with a grade received on a previous anagram test, there may be some generalization. If the

number can be associated with a grade of failure or achievement to previous achievement tasks,

it is suspected that participants in this study will be primed for increased performance when their

paper has been marked with “99” opposed to “49”.

Method

Overview

There were two experimental groups in this study. One group received an anagram

labeled with “99” in the top right corner. The second group received an anagram with “49”

written in the top right corner. Between these two groups, we hypothesized a positive correlation

between the grade received on the anagram test with “99” printed on the top right corner of the

anagram opposed to “49” printed on the top right corner of the anagram.


Participants

Using the Armstrong Atlantic State University SONA system, we had 100 Armstrong

students sign-up to participate in this experiment, 70 females and 30 males. Of those participants,

43 were freshmen, 35 were sophomores, 17 were juniors, and 5 were seniors. These students

consisted of psychology majors and psychology 1101 students. The participants received half of

a point extra credit for participating in the study.

Materials

In order to conduct our research, we placed an ad on Armstrong’s SONA system (see

appendix A), we used a short article (see Appendix B), an anagram test (see Appendix C), a

survey (see Appendix D), and medium black ball point pens made by Jot. We obtained the article

from CNN.com called Memorable Moments in Grand Central's 100 Years. The anagram used

was a mixture of both easy and difficult items adding up to a total of 15 anagrams. The survey

we used asked a few brief questions: (a) regarding the article read; (b) about the number placed

at the top of the participant’s paper as a manipulation check and (c) classification questions. The

participants were also given a consent form at the beginning of the study (see Appendix E) as

well as a debriefing form before leaving the study (see Appendix F). The first thirty-five students

participated in Room 1 (University Hall room 205) which was a twelve foot by 8 foot and 6

inches office. The walls were a beige color and consisted of only a plain board hanging on the

left wall. This room contained an “L” shaped desk, as well as a pink colored chair, a filing

cabinet, and a shipping crate board in the room (see Appendix G). The last sixty-five students

participated in Room 2 (Science Center room 224) which was a 10 foot and 9 inches by 8 foot

and 2 inches office. This room had beige walls, a white board against the far wall, a two-way

mirror against the right wall, a filing cabinet, and a large bookshelf against the left wall. This


room had many more files, books, and pictures hanging on the wall compared to Room 1 (see

Appendix H).

Design

This experiment was a between-groups design involving 100 participants. Group one

received an anagram marked with the number “49” in the top right corner of the first page. The

second group received an anagram marked with the number “99” in the top right corner of the

first page. The independent variables were these numbers of either “49” or “99” marked on the

top of the anagram test. The dependent variable was the score achieved on the anagram test.

Procedure

We placed an ad for participants to sign up for our research on Armstrong Atlantic State

University’s SONA system. Students participated one at a time and were given 30 minutes to

complete each session. Participants were placed in a room which consisted of neutral colored

walls. We greeted the participants one at a time by introducing ourselves and having them read

through a consent form which they signed at the bottom. Once the participant had agreed to

participant in our research, they were given the article to read as a deception to the real purpose

of the research. The researcher stepped out of the room and gave the participant five minutes to

read the article. Upon the researcher’s return to the room, they collected the article and gave the

participant the anagram test. The participant either got an anagram test labeled with “49” or “99”

which was determined by a random number generator. The researcher let the participant know

they would have five minutes to complete the 15 anagrams and the researcher would return to the

room when time had expired. Following the administration of the anagram, the participant was

given the survey. Our survey asked questions regarding their memory of the article; it contained

a question asking if the participant noticed the number at the top of their anagram as a


manipulation check, and finally, asked classification questions of the participant. Once the

participant finished the survey, they were given a debriefing form which they were asked to read

through and sign. After the participant signed the debriefing form they were thanked for their

participation and told they were welcome to leave.

Results

We compared the scores achieved on the anagram tests between the group who received

tests labeled with “49” compared to the group who received tests labeled with “99” using the

Mann-Whitney nonparametric independent samples test. Using an alpha of .05, we had to reject

our hypothesis that participants whose anagram tests where marked with a higher number would

perform significantly better.

The scores obtained by the participants in the “49” condition (D = .145, p = .026)

compared to scores of participants in the “99” condition (D = .125, p = .025) did not conform to

normal distributions. Participants in the “99” condition (Mean Rank = 52.28) scored non-

significantly higher compared to participants in the “49” condition (Mean Rank = 48.04, Z =

-.728, p = .467) (see Figure 1).

Due to the experimental room change between participants 35 and 36, we have also

obtained data from the separate rooms. We obtained slightly opposite data between the rooms;

however, this data was still statistically insignificant. For the first 35 participants who

participated in room one, scores obtained by individuals in the “49” condition (W = .924, p

= .248) compared to participants in the “99” condition (W = .894, p = .027) did not conform to

normal distributions. Participants in the “49” condition (Mean Rank = 20.32) scored statistically

non-significantly higher compared to participants in the “99” condition (Mean Rank = 16.45, Z =

-1.105, p = .269) (see Figure 2). For the last 65 individuals who participated in room two, scores


obtained by participants in the “49” condition (D = .132, p = .200) compared to participants in

the “99” condition (D = .153, p = .029) did not conform to normal distributions. Participants in

the “99” condition (Mean Rank = 36.46) scored statistically non-significantly higher than

participants in the “49” condition (Mean Rank = 28.43, Z = -1.711, p = .087) (see Figure 3).

We did not receive any statistically significant results for participants who were aware of

the number at the top of the page compared to individuals who were not aware of the number.

We had 25 participants who were not aware of their number and 75 that were aware of their

number. Of these individuals, the participants that were not aware of the number printed on the

top of their anagram test (D = .138, p = .200) and participants that were aware of the number

printed on the top of their anagram test (D = .124, p = .006) did not conform to normal

distributions. Participants that were not aware of their number (Mean Rank = 51.58) obtained

statistically non-significantly higher scores compared to the participants that were aware of their

number (Mean Rank = 50.14, Z = -.216, p = .829) (see Figure 4).

We obtained data comparing scores obtained between genders and did not receive

statistically significant results. Scores obtained by females (D = .142, p = .001) compared to

scores obtained by males (D = .213, p = .001) conformed to normal distributions. Females who

participated (M = 4.83, SD = 2.997) did not show a statistically significant difference in scores

compared to the males who participated (M = 4.93, SD = 3.493; t(98) = -.152, p = .879) (see

Figure 5).

As a final point, we ran an ANOVA to obtain data for scores compared between classes

which showed statistically insignificant results. Freshmen (D = .130, p = .064), sophomores (D =

.138, p = .089), juniors (D = .202, p = .062), and seniors (D = .300, p = .161) all obtained scores


which conformed to normal distributions. There was no statistically significant difference in

scores between freshmen (M = 5.00, SD = 2.878), sophomores (M = 4.77, SD = 2.981), juniors

(M = 4.65, SD = 4.387) and seniors (M = 5.00, SD = 1.871); F(3,96) = .065, p = .978, ɳ2 = .002

(see Figure 6).

Discussion

In conducting this research, we anticipated to expand on the findings of color priming as

demonstrated by Elliot et al. (2007) and Elliot (2005). We hypothesized that students would be

primed by a pass or fail grade already placed on their paper prior to testing. This hypothesis

arose from the implications that the color red is capable of priming for failure, or poor

performance in achievement situations as suggested by Elliot et al. (2007) and Elliot (2005). Our

expectations were to demonstrate to professors a reason why they should refrain from using

numbers, as well as colors, on student examinations. With the given results of our study, we had

to reject our hypothesis. However, this does not imply that statistically significant results are

inconceivable. This study’s lack of statistically significant results may be due to limitations

observed which resulted in a null effect.

According to Brickman et al. (1976), the prime must be associated with previous

performance in order for the prime to work effectively. For this reason, it appears as if the

anagram test we used may not be closely associated with the given prime. Because many of the

participants may have never previously received a “pass” or “fail” score on an anagram test, the

prime to “pass” or “fail” may have been ineffective. Therefore, it is possible if a more prevalent

subject associated with prior grades was used as the main test of achievement in this study, we

may have observed more statistically significant results.


Demand characteristics may have also been prevalent in the lack of statistically

significant results for this study. All participants who took part in this study were psychology

students who have had some form of education in psychological research. Many of these

participants were very knowledgeable of the research process and wanted to understand exactly

what they were being tested on. Because our participants were deceived into believing they were

going to be tested on their memory, they felt as though the anagram portion of this study was

being used as an interference of their memory. Therefore, the students believed the anagram was

insignificant, and did not completely focus on the test. Many students commented that they did

not want to forget the information they had just read in the short article we had provided them as

they thought this would be the most important piece of the study. In opposition to these students,

other participants, typically the more highly educated in the field of psychology, noticed the

number on their anagram test and deciphered its level of importance. Due to these students

awareness of our goal for this study, the number may have not actually worked as a prime in the

way it was intended.

The issues of demand characteristics stemmed from our study’s biased sample. Due to

this research being conducted with limited time and resources, all participants were recruited via

Armstrong Atlantic State University’s SONA system. Individuals with access to signing up for

our study were students of Armstrong’s psychology department. In extent to this limitation, the

only students whom were chosen for the research were all participants who had invited

themselves.

A testing threat presented to our study may have also contributed to the statistically

insignificant results obtained in our data. There were multiple psychological studies being

conducted simultaneously to our own which our participants were also participating in. Some of


these other studies included an anagram test which our participants took part in. Following

participation in these other studies, the students would then partake in our study. However, the

anagrams used between the various studies did not contain the same words or level of difficulty,

these students may have demonstrated practice effect and, subsequently, done better on our

study’s anagram test opposed to if they had not previously taken a similar test on the same day.

It should also be noted, the experimental room used in our study changed scenery and

location between participant number 35 and participant number 36. However, we did see some

slight differences in scores between participants in room one opposed to room two; these results

were not statistically significantly different and did not appear to affect the underlying results of

the study.

Although statistically significant results were not obtained in our study, we hope to see

this question expanded on and new research be conducted to entail more statistically significant

results. For future studies, a more general population of students should be obtained for the

experimental sample. With a more appropriate sample, a different test format should be used for

the achievement portion of the study (e.g. math, science). We believe it is possible if the format

of our experiment is slightly altered, this research question could produce more significant

results and questions in the field of psychology.


References

Bargh, J.A. (1990). Auto-Motives: Preconscious Determinants of Social Interaction. In E.

Higgins, & R. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of

Social Behavior (pp. 93-130). Location: New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Brickman, P., Linsenmeier, J.A.W., & McCareins, A.G. (1976). Performance Enhancement by

Relevant Success and Irrelevant Failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

33(2), 149-160.

Chartrand, T.L., & Bargh, J.A. (1996). Automatic Activation of Impression Formation and

Memorization Goals: Nonconscious Goal Priming Reproduces Effects of Explicit Task

Instructions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 464-478. doi:

10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.464

Elliot, A.J. (2005). A Conceptual History of the Achievement Goal Construct. In A. Elliot, & C.

Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of Competence and Motivation (pp. 52-72). New York, NY:

Guilford Publications.

Elliot, A.J., Maier, M.A., Moller, A.C., Friedman, R., & Meinhardt, J. (2007). Color and

Psychological Functioning: The Effect of Red on Performance Attainment. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 136, 154-168. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.154

Goodhart, D.E. (1985). The Effects of Positive and Negative Thinking on Performance in an

Achievement Situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 117-124. doi:

10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.117


Oettingen, G., Grant, H., Smith, P.K., Skinner, M., Gollwitzer, P.M. (2004/2005). Nonconscious

Goal Pursuit: Acting in an Explanatory Vacuum. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 42, 668-675. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.10.003

Sherman, S.J., Skov, R.B., Hervitz, E.F., & Stock, C.B. (1981). The Effects of Explaining

Hypothetical Future Events: From Possibility to Probability to Actuality and Beyond.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17(1), 142-158.


Figure 1. Bar graph displaying the mean scores for participants whose anagrams were marked

with “49” and “99”. The error bars indicate 1 standard deviation of test scores for each

group.


Figure 2. Bar graph displaying the mean scores for the first thirty-five participants whose

anagrams were marked with “49” and “99”. The error bars indicate 1 standard deviation of test

scores for each group.


Figure 3. Bar graph displaying the mean scores for the last sixty-five participants whose

anagrams were marked with “49” and “99”. The error bars indicate 1 standard deviation of test

scores for each group.


Figure 4. Bar graph displaying the mean scores for the participants who were aware of the

number on their test compared to those who were not aware. The error bars indicate 1 standard

deviation of test scores for each group.


Figure 5. Bar graph displaying the mean scores for females compared to males. The error bars

indicate 1 standard deviation of test scores for each group.


Figure 6. Bar graph displaying the mean scores for freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors.

The error bars indicate 1 standard deviation of test scores for each group.


Appendix A

The SONA Ad


Appendix B

The Short Article


Appendix C

The Anagram Test

The following pages contain the anagram test.

Do not open until instructed to do so.

You may begin once the timer is activated.

You will have five minutes to complete the test.

Please write your final answer on the line provided.


1) UTPIN ——————

2) AULMB ——————

3) TBOIG ——————


4) BIACN ——————

5) FNYAC ——————

6) OYNHE ——————


7) LAEKN ——————

8) PHMCI ——————

9) GADRU ——————


10) IFHAT ——————

11) TOBAN ——————

12) ODNME ——————


13) NDXEI ——————

14) LWDRA ——————

15) OPRUG ——————


Appendix D

The Survey

Questionnaire

1) How old is Grand Central Terminal?

2) Where is Grand Central Terminal located?

3) What is the shape of the clock at Grand Central Terminal?

4) How many people pass through the Terminal on a daily basis?

5) What are the operating hours of Grand Central Terminal?

6) What was the number located in the upper right corner of your anagram test?

7) What is your age?

8) What is your sex?

9) What is your classification (e.g., Freshman, Sophomore…)?


Appendix E

The Informed Consent Document

Informed Consent Document

Please read this consent form carefully. If you have any questions, feel free to ask the researcher at this time.

In this experiment, you will be asked to complete an anagram test. There is no risk to you as the participant. We are exploring the ability of college students to complete timed anagram tests.

Please understand that your confidentiality will be held in the highest regard, and at no point will your name be attached to this study. The results of your study will not be shared, and no information obtained will be attached to you personally.

Even if you agree to participate, please note that participation is voluntary. If you choose to withdraw from the study, you are free to do so, without any reprimand from us. If you withdraw from the study, your data will be discarded and you will not be recorded as a participant in this study.

If you have any questions concerning your participation in this project or your rights as a research subject, you should contact Dr. Angie Koban at Armstrong Atlantic State Universityby phone at 912.344.3278 or by email at [email protected], or you may contact John R. Kraft (Chair of the Institutional Review Board) by phone at 912.344.3100.

By signing below you are stating that you have read, understand, and agree to the terms of the above document, and that you are informed as to the nature of this study and agree to participate.

Name: _______________________________________________________________

Date: ___/___/_______


Appendix F

The Debriefing Form

Debriefing FormFor the Study Entitled:

The Effect of Number Priming on Performance Attainment

Dear Participant:

During this study, you were asked to complete a test. A number was printed on the upper right hand corner of your test. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the value of visible numbers affects test performance.

We did not tell you everything about the purpose of the study because we did not want our data to be skewed. You are reminded that your original consent document included the following information: You will complete a test and your accuracy will be scored. If you have any concerns about your participation in light of this disclosure, please discuss this with the experimenter. We will be happy to provide any information we can to help answer questions or concerns you have about this study.

If your concerns are such that you would now like to have your data withdrawn, and the data is identifiable, we will do so.

Please understand that our results rely heavily on maintaining this level of deception, so we ask that you not divulge the knowledge received in this debriefing to any of your peers.

If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact Dr. Angie Koban by e-mail: [email protected] or by phone: (912) 344-3278 or Dr. John R. Kraft (Chair of the Institutional Review Board) at (912) 344-3100.

Please again accept our appreciation for your participation in this study.

Name Date _______________


Appendix G

The Picture of Room 1


Appendix H

The Picture of Room 2

the effects of number priming on achievement

Documents