Time and Performance Pressure Effects on Anagram Solving
This research paper investigates how time pressure and performance pressure influence the ability of college students to solve anagrams. Using a 2×2 between-subjects experimental design with 37 undergraduate participants, the study manipulated whether participants were timed and whether they were told that anagram performance reflected intelligence. Contrary to the hypothesis that pressure would impair cognitive performance, results showed that time pressure trended toward improving performance rather than hindering it. The performance pressure manipulation failed to induce significant stress. Findings are interpreted in light of the Yerkes-Dodson law, suggesting that moderate arousal from time pressure may have provided an optimal level of stress for problem-solving performance.
- Introduction: Literature review on stress, anxiety, and cognitive performance
- Method: Participants, design, materials, and procedure
- Results: ANOVA outcomes and manipulation check statistics
- Discussion: Interpretation of findings and Yerkes-Dodson law
- References and Appendices: Citations, anagram stimuli, and survey instrument
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper clearly states a falsifiable hypothesis and honestly reports that results ran counter to the predicted direction, demonstrating intellectual integrity and transparency in reporting null or unexpected findings.
- The manipulation check is a methodological strength — by separately confirming whether each independent variable successfully induced the intended psychological state, the authors can diagnose why the performance pressure condition failed rather than simply noting a non-significant result.
- The discussion connects the unexpected results to a well-established theoretical framework (the Yerkes-Dodson law), recontextualizing a "failed" hypothesis as consistent with existing psychophysical research.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates the use of a factorial between-subjects ANOVA design to isolate main effects and interaction effects. The 2×2 design allows the authors to test not only whether time pressure and performance pressure each individually affect performance, but also whether their combination produces a distinct effect — a more powerful approach than two separate single-factor studies.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows standard APA empirical format: an introduction reviewing prior literature on test anxiety and cognitive interference; a method section detailing participants, materials, design, and procedure; a results section reporting ANOVA outcomes and manipulation check statistics; and a discussion that interprets findings, acknowledges limitations, and proposes improvements. Appendices provide the actual anagram stimuli and manipulation check survey for replication transparency.
Introduction
Stress has been demonstrated to affect an individual's performance on a number of cognitive tasks (Sarason, 1984; Morris & Liebert, 1969). Stress has been hypothesized to lead to anxiety, which can result in cognitive interference in anxious individuals (Sarason, 1984). This cognitive interference can diminish the ability to pay attention, focus on the task at hand, and engage in effective self-monitoring — causing individuals to focus on self-evaluation rather than on the task itself.
For example, Holroyd, Westbrook, Wolf, and Badorn (1978) compared the performance of participants with high test anxiety to those with low test anxiety on a test of executive functioning and the ability to suppress automatic cognitive processing. They found that high test anxiety participants performed significantly more poorly and made more negative self-attributions than low test anxiety participants, despite having similar autonomic nervous system responses during the task. Holroyd et al. concluded that differences in performance between high and low test anxiety individuals were not due to maladaptive autonomic nervous system responses.
Zatz and Chassin (1985) examined the cognitions of high and low test-anxious children. Children who were highly test-anxious tended to engage in greater negative self-statements, and their focus on the task was disrupted by significantly more off-task thoughts. These children also produced more self-statements related to coping with anxiety, and their performance was negatively affected by the perception of a threatening environment or negative appraisal.
Morris and Liebert (1969) investigated how the knowledge of being timed affected high worriers on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Test (WAIS). High worriers performed poorly when they knew they were being timed compared to when they were untimed. This contrasted with low worriers, who actually performed better when timed.
Thus, the pressure of being timed or evaluated can affect cognition and lead to decrements in test performance, especially in individuals with high test anxiety. The current study set out to test the effects of cognitive interference on the ability to solve anagrams in college students. It was hypothesized that stress induced by the knowledge that one is being timed while solving difficult problems, personally evaluated, or both would inhibit problem-solving ability. Specifically, the greater the stress induced, the greater the decrements in performance relative to conditions involving less or no pressure.
Method
Participants were undergraduate Introductory Psychology students (N = 37). Participants were recruited via the university's subject pool and completed the experiment as a course requirement.
The materials consisted of 20 anagrams for participants to solve (see Appendix A), a clock for the timed conditions, a stopwatch for the experimenter to time participants, and a three-question manipulation check survey that each participant completed following the experiment (see Appendix B).
A 2×2 between-subjects design was used. The independent variables were time pressure (yes/no) and performance pressure (yes/no). The dependent measure was the number of anagrams solved by each participant. A three-question survey was also administered following the experiment to check whether the manipulations of time pressure and performance pressure had been effective.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions and were instructed to solve as many anagrams as they could. Each participant, regardless of condition, received the same 20 anagrams. The instructions differed for each condition.
In the combined pressure condition, participants were informed that the ability to solve anagrams was a measure of their intelligence (performance pressure) and that they would have a limited amount of time — five minutes — to solve as many anagrams as possible, so they must work quickly (time pressure). In the time pressure only condition, participants were not told that anagram performance measured intelligence but were informed that they would have only five minutes to solve as many anagrams as they could. In both conditions involving time pressure, the experimenters placed a clock in front of participants while they worked to increase stress. The clock was not used in the other two conditions.
In the performance pressure only condition, participants were informed that the ability to solve anagrams was a measure of their intelligence but that they would have plenty of time to complete the task. In the no pressure condition, participants were informed that their performance was not significant and that they would have ample time to solve the anagrams. Regardless of condition, all participants had five minutes to work on the anagrams.
After the experiment, each participant completed the manipulation check and was then debriefed. The manipulation check questions were rated on a 10-point scale measuring: how much stress the participant felt to perform, how strongly they believed that solving anagrams was a measure of intelligence, and how much time constraints affected their performance. Higher scores indicated greater agreement or perception of stress.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.