AUTOMATIZATION AND THE DEBILITATION OF HUMAN PERFORMANCE: INADEQUATE INFORMATION ACCOUNTING OR MOTIVATIONAL DEFICIT

Recent research has suggested that performance debilitation resulting from task overpractice may be explained in terms of an inability to recall the necessary task components. This information accounting explanation of performance debilitation assumes that overpractice leads to "mindless" task performance and that social circumstances inducing competence assessment causes an accounting of requisite task components which are not consciously accessible. The inability to recall task requisites causes an inference of incompetence and subsequent performance debilitation.; The present dissertation critically examines this information accounting approach to performance debilitation and provides evidence in support of an alternative motivational account.; In phase one of the present experiment, pairs of subjects were randomly assigned individually to one of three groups: (1) an overpractice group which translated nine sentences into a code; (2) a moderate-practice group which translated two sentences; and (3) a control group which did not perform the coding task in phase one--they performed a maze problem.; In phase two, pair members were introduced and asked to perform three puzzles as a team; one was assigned a boss role, the other was assigned an assistant role.; In phase three, subjects were separated again and asked to perform the same coding task the overpractice and moderate practice groups experienced in phase one on one sentence. During this phase one-half of the subjects received an incentive manipulation (an expectation of comparative performance feedback).; The primary dependent variable was the change in accuracy score, measured as the difference between the number of errors subjects made on the phase three coding task and the phase one coding task. It was hypothesized that subjects who automatized the coding task in phase one and who were assigned a subservient role in phase two (the assistant role) would, when compared to the moderate practice group or those who had received overpractice but who were assigned an effectual role in phase two (boss), exhibit task debilitation on the final coding task only if they were not expecting comparative performance feedback.; The results indicated that: (1) the assistant performed more accurately after overpractice than after moderate practice whereas the reverse occurred for the boss; (2) in the absence of anticipated feedback, the automatized bosses and moderately experienced assistants increased in accuracy less than the automatized assistants and moderately practiced bosses, while this differential performance was not obtained in the feedback conditions; and (3) the motivational impact, as evidenced by the second point was exhibited by females but not by males who evidenced a similar practice pattern regardless of feedback manipulation.; The results were discussed in terms of the meaning of the role labels and the controlling nature of the incentive manipulation and its differential impact on males and females.