The Effect of Short Periods of Food‐deprivation on Human Performance

Abstract

This study reports the effect of periods of food-deprivation varying from 0 to 10 hr on human performance in two simple tasks. The argument is advanced that an interpretation of the results in terms of traditional Hullian multiplicative drive theory is unsatisfactory. A possible alternative to this approach is considered.There are comparatively few studies of the effects of short periods of food deprivation on the performance of human subjects. In the main, these have directed attention towards selective effects in perception, and systematic changes in wordassociation tasks (Brown, 1961). However, information on the effects of food deprivation in a variety of situations, including more complex learning tasks, is of some importance for traditional Hullian theory (Hull, 1943(Hull, , 1951. I n particular, this theory would assume food deprivation to contribute directly to strength of drive ( D ) , which, in turn, is related to performance in a monotonic fashion. Thus, if the effects of inanition may be ignored over short periods of time, performance would be expected to improve steadily as the level of deprivation increased from, say, 0 to 10 hr.There is now a considerable body of evidence for a curvilinear relation between various measures of 'arousal' and performance (Malmo, 1958). This arousal theory, which is to a degree physiologically committed, suggests that an optimal level of cortical activity is necessary for the performance of a task. The Hullian theorist with regard to the mechanism of the hunger drive in human subjects would presumably speak in terms of some substance present in the blood which bathes the neural structures constituting and thereby 'sensitizes ' them, increasing the probability of their responding. Although the argument seems somewhat tenuous it could be suggested for the arousal theorist that stimuli characteristic of increasing deprivation would serve to raise the level of cortical activity. Both theoretical systems remain viable in spite of their physiological encumbrances. Malmo (1958) equated 'arousal ' and 'drive ', suggesting a relation between drive and performance distinct from that of the Hullian theorist. Differential prediction is made difficult by the fact that obtained curvilinearity in the relation of drive to performance may be derived in the Hullian case by the postulated positive relation between inanition ( E ) and deprivation; and also by the fact that D may be expected to enhance not only 'correct ' responses, but also competing ,'incorrect ', response tendencies. This paper discusses the performance of human subjects in two situations: a relatively simple checking test (Minnesota Clerical Test, Andrew & Paterson, 1946), and a more complex paired-associate verbal learning task.For the checking test, the arousal theory would predict an 'inverted U ' relation, the exact position of the optimal level being a function of the difficulty of the task, and open to determination. In this case it is difficult to see how a multiplicative