Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Stoeber, Joachim (1996)
Publisher: Pabst Science Publishers
Languages: English
Types: Part of book or chapter of book
Subjects: BF
According to Schönpflug, an ecologically valid model of behavioral regulation should contain antecedent, focal, and consequential problem variables while allowing for a classification of primary versus auxiliary actions. To study individual differences in dynamic problem solving, the task simulation RISK is introduced. Within this task, highly anxious subjects were expected to demonstrate a greater safety expertise because of a hypothesized tendency to focus on risks and modify them. The results, however, indicated a preference for a more narrow focus: Highly anxious subjects directed their regulatory efforts primarily to focal and consequential problem variables. Yet, in RISK, this was a safe and also successful strategy.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Atwood, M. E. & Polson, P. G. (1976). A process model for water jug problems. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 191-216.
    • Baum, W. M. (1989). Quantitative prediction and molar description of the environment. Behavior Analyst, 12, 167-176.
    • Beck, A. T., Brown, G., Steer, R. A., Eidelson, J. I., & Riskind, J. H. (1987). Differentiating anxiety and depression: A test of the cognitive content-specificity hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96, 179-183.
    • Butler, G. & Mathews, A. (1987). Anticipatory anxiety and risk perception. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11, 551-565.
    • Dörner, D., Kreuzig, H. W., Reither, F., & Stäudel, T. (Eds.). (1983). Lohhausen. Vom Umgang mit Unbestimmtheit und Komplexität [Lohhausen. Problem solving in uncertain and complex problems]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
    • Eysenck, M. W. (1979). Anxiety, learning, and memory: A reconceptualization. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 363-385.
    • Eysenck, M. W. (1992). Anxiety: The cognitive perspective. Hove, England: Erlbaum.
    • Funke, J. (1992). Dealing with dynamic systems: Research strategy, diagnostic approach, and experimental results. German Journal of Psychology, 16, 24-43.
    • Hardy, L. & Parfitt, G. (1991). A catastrophe model of anxiety and performance. British Journal of Psychology, 82, 163-178.
    • Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58, 47-77.
    • Herrmann, C., Liepmann, D., & Otto, J. (1987). Problem-solving and action control as determinants of test anxiety. In R. Schwarzer, H. M. van der Ploeg, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in test anxiety research (Vol. 5, pp. 87-96). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
    • Hyes, J. R. & Simon, H. A. (1977). Psychological differences among problem isomorphs. In N. J. Catellan, D. B. Pisoni, & G. R. Potts (Eds.), Cognitive theory (Vol. 2, pp. 21-41). New York: Wiley.
    • Lang, P. J. (1985). The cognitive psychophysiology of emotion: Fear and anxiety. In A. H. Tuma & J. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp. 131-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    • Laux, L., Glanzmann, P., Schaffner, P., & Spielberger, C. D. (1981). STAI. Das StateTrait-Angstinventar. Theoretische Grundlagen und Handanweisung [STAI. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Theoretical background and manual]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz Testgesellschaft.
    • Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333-352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    • Müller, E. (1991). Risikoverhalten in komplexen Problemsituationen [Risk behavior in complex problem-situations]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Free Universtiy of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
    • Müller, E., Schönpflug, W., & Stöber, J. (1990). Risikoverhalten in simulierten Arbeitssituationen [Risk behavior in simulated work environments]. In Mental work and automation. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Work Psychology (pp. 157-162). Dresden, Germany: Technical University.
    • Mündelein, H. & Schönpflug, W. (1983). Regulation und Fehlregulation im Verhalten. VIII. Über primäre (unmittelbar zielgerichtete) und sekundäre (auxiliäre und präventive) Anteile von Tätigkeiten [Behavioral regulation and disregulation. VIII. On Schönpflug, W. (1985). Goal directed behavior as a source of stress: Psychological origins and consequences of inefficiency. In M. Frese & J. Sabini (Eds.), Goal directed behavior: The concept of action in psychology (pp. 172-188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    • Schönpflug, W. (1986). RISIKO [RISK] [Computer software]. Berlin, Germany: Author.
    • Schönpflug, W. (1987, August). Strategies in complex problem solving: What is prevention and does it pay off? Paper presented at the Wolfgang Köhler-Symposium in Berlin, Germany.
    • Schönpflug, W. (1989). Anxiety, worry, prospective orientation, and prevention. In C. D. Spielberger & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 12, pp. 245-258). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
    • Schönpflug, W. (1992). Anxiety and effort. In D. G. Forgays, T. Sosnowski, & K. Wrzensniewski (Eds.), Anxiety. Recent developments in cognitive, psychophysiological, and health research (pp. 51-62). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
    • Schoppek, W. (1991). Spiel und Wirklichkeit - Reliabilität und Validität von Verhaltensmustern in komplexen Situationen [Play and reality: Reliability and validity of behavior patterns in complex situations]. Sprache & Kognition, 10, 15-27.
    • Seipp, B. (1991). Anxiety and academic performance: A meta-analysis of findings. Anxiety Research, 4, 27-41.
    • Spielberger, C. D. (1966). Theory and research in anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior (pp. 3-20). New York: Academic Press.
    • Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Anxiety as an emotional state. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety. Current trends in theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 23-49). New York: Academic Press.
    • Stäudel, T. (1988). Der Kompetenzfragebogen. Überprüfung eines Verfahrens zur Erfassung der Selbsteinschätzung der heuristischen Kompetenz, belastender Emotionen und Verhaltenstendenzen beim Lösen komplexer Probleme [The Kompetenzfragebogen (competency questionnaire). Test of an instrument for assessing self-estimates of heuristic competency, stressful emotion, and behavior tendencies in complex problem-solving]. Diagnostica, 34, 136-148.
    • Stock, J. & Cervone, D. (1990). Proximal goal-setting and self-regulatory processes. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 483-498.
    • Stöber, J. (1990). Hochängstliche als "Sicherheitsexperten" [High-anxious individuals as "safety experts"]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
    • Strohschneider, S. (1986). Zur Stabilität und Validität von Handeln in komplexen Realitätsbereichen [On the stability and validity of complex problem-solving behavior]. Sprache & Kognition, 5, 42-48.
    • Süß, H.-M., Kersting, M., & Oberauer, K. (1991). Intelligenz und Wissen als Prädiktoren für Leistungen bei computersimulierten komplexen Problemen [Intelligence and knowledge as predictors of performance on complex computer-simulated problems]. Diagnostica, 37, 334-353.
    • Tomaszewski, T. (1978). Tätigkeit und Bewußtsein. Beiträge zur Einführung in die polnische Tätigkeitspsychologie [Action and consciousness. Introductory contributions to Polish action psychology]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz. Figure 3. Trait-anxiety and the frequency of regulatory actions in the RISK simulation.
    • N = 60. * p < .05, ** p < .01, one-tailed.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article