Approved For Release 2000108111 CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400180002-3 aesthetic criteria, subjects consistently selected certain instances and avoided other ones; whereas one would expect each Instance of a Particular element to be chosen about an equal number of times - specifically 106116, or 6.625 times- there were Instances which had been chosen just once or twice, and others chosen 15 or even 20 times!. BY comparison to the conflicts induced by the scanning task, the timing task was effortless and entertaining. Given that all subjects went through both conditions, it is Possible that the significant t1ming-task result simply. reflects a Preferential effect: this condition may have fared better because subjects perceived it as less frustrating. Alter- natively, insofar as subjects had little control over their selections during the tlmlng-task, and just had to press the button when they felt the time was "right", they were less Prone to counter-productive Psychological sets (e.g., trying too hard) and more apt to adopt a Passive, "goal -oriented" approach. The study's results may be seen as analogous to those of RNG-PK studies suggesting the superiority of goal- oriented over PCOCesS-orlented strategies (Morris, Nanko and PhIlilPs, 1979; Levi, 1979), or of hidden RNG-PK tasks over explicit ones