Harvard Psychological Studies, Volume 1 / Containing Sixteen Experimental Investigations from the Harvard Psychological Laboratory.

by Unknown

With the complex fillings at the left, it will be seen, firstly, that in every case the left judgment on No. III. is less than that on No. II. With the figures reversed, the right judgments on No. III. are less than on No. II., with the exception of subjects E and H. Secondly, four of the subjects only (E, F, G and H) had judgments also on the side which gave the complex filling the larger space; to E, F and G, these were secondary preferences; to H they were always primary. Thirdly, the judgments on No. III. are less, in spite of the fact that the larger component parts of No. II., might be taken as additional weight to that side of the line, and given, therefore, the shorter space, according to the principle of the lever.

The subjects, then, that appear not to substantiate our suggested theory are E and H, who in the reversed figures give the shorter space to the less complex filling, and F and G, who, together with E and H, have always secondary judgments that allot to either complex filling a larger space than to the simple horizontal. Consider, first, subjects E and H. For each, the difference in division of II. and III. is in any case very slight. Further, subject E, in judgments where the complex filling exceeds the horizontal parallels in length, still gives the more complex of the two fillings markedly the shorter space, showing, apparently, that its additional complexity works there in accord with the theory. There was, according to his introspection, another principle at work. As a figure, he emphatically preferred II. to III. The filling of II. made up, he found, by its greater interest, for lack of length. He here secured a balance, in which the interest of the complex material compensated for the greater extent of the simpler horizontals. This accounts for its small variation from III., and even for its occupying the smaller space. But in judgments giving the two complex fillings the larger space, the more interesting material exceeded in extent the less interesting. In such divisions the balance was no longer uppermost in mind, but the desire to get as much as possible of the interesting filling. To this end the horizontal parallels were shortened as far as they could be without becoming insignificant. But unless some element of balance were there (although not present to introspection) each complex filling, when up for judgment, would have been pushed to the same limit. It, therefore, does seem, in cases where the complex fillings occupied a larger space than the horizontals, that the subject, not trying consciously to secure a balance of interests, was influenced more purely by the factor of complexity, and that his judgments lend support to our theory.

Subject H was the only subject who consistently preferred to have all complex fillings occupy the larger space. Introspection invariably revealed the same principle of procedure—he strove to get as much of the interesting material as he could. He thought, therefore, that in every case he moved the complex filling to that limit of the pleasing range that he found on the simple line, which would yield him most of the filling. Balance did not appear prominent in his introspection. A glance, however, at the results shows that his introspection is contradicted. For he maintains approximately the same division on the right in all the figures, whether reversed or not, and similarly on the left. The average on the right for all four is 67; on the left it is 74. Comparing these with the averages on the simple line, we see that the right averages coincide exactly, while the left but slightly differ. I suspect, indeed, that the fillings did not mean much to H, except that they were 'interesting' or 'uninteresting'; that aside from this he was really abstracting from the filling and making the same judgments that he would make on the simple line. Since he was continually aware that they fell within the 'pleasing range' on the simple line, this conclusion is the more plausible.

Perhaps these remarks account for the respective uniformities of the judgments of E and H, and their departure from the tendency of the other subjects to give the more complex filling constantly the shorter space. But subjects F and G also had judgments (secondary with both of them) giving to the complex filling a larger extent than to the parallels. With them one of two principles, I think, applies: The judgments are either instances of abstraction from the filling, as with H, or one of simpler gravity or vertical balance, as distinguished from the horizontal equivalence which I conceive to be at the basis of the other divisions. With F it is likely to be the latter, since the divisions of the figures under discussion do not approach very closely those of the simple line, and because introspectively he found that the divisions giving the complex the larger space were 'balance' divisions, while the others were determined with 'reference to the character of the fillings.' From G I had no introspection, and the approximation of his judgments to those he gave for the simple line make it probable that with him the changes in the character of the filling had little significance. The average of his judgments in which the complex filling held the greater space is 66, while the averages on the simple line were 65 on the left, and 64 on the right. And, in general, abstraction from filling was easy, and to be guarded against. Subject C, in the course of the work, confessed to it, quite unsolicited, and corrected himself by giving thenceforth all complex fillings much smaller space than before. Two others noticed that it was particularly hard not to abstract. Further, none of the four subjects mentioned (with that possible exception of E) showed a sensitiveness similar to that of the other five.

With the exception of H, and in accord with the constant practice of the other five, these subjects, too, occasionally found no pleasing division in which the complex filling preponderated in length over the horizontals. It was uniformly true, furthermore, in every variation introduced in the course of the investigation, involving a complex and a simple filling, that all the nine subjects but H preferred the complex in the shorter space; that five refused any divisions offering it in the larger space; that these five showed more sensitiveness to differences in the character of fillings; and that with one exception (C) the divisions of the simple line which these subjects gave were nearer the ends than those of the others. It surely seems plausible that those most endowed with æsthetic sensitiveness would find a division near the center more unequal than one nearer the end; for one side only slightly shorter than the other would at once seem to mean the same thing to them, and yet, because of the obvious difference in length, be something markedly different, and they would therefore demand a part short enough to give them sharp qualitative difference, with, however, in some way, quantitative equivalence. When the short part is too long, it is overcharged with significance, it strives to be two things at once and yet neither in its fulness.

We thus return to the simple line. I have considered a series of judgments on it, and a series on two different figures, varying in the degree of complexity presented, in one of their fillings. It remains very briefly to see if the introspection on the simple line furnishes further warrant for carrying the complexities over into the simple line and so giving additional validity to the outlined theory of substitution. The following phrases are from introspective notes.

A. Sweep wanted over long part. More attention to short. Significance of whole in short. Certainly a concentration of interest in the short. Short is efficacious. Long means rest; short is the center of things. Long, an effortless activity; short, a more strenuous activity. When complex fillings are introduced, subject is helped out; does not have to put so much into the short division. In simple line, subject introduces the concentration. In complex figures the concentration is objectified. In equal division subject has little to do with it; the unequal depends on the subject—it calls for appreciation. Center of references is the division point, and the eye movements to right and left begin here, and here return. The line centers there. The balance is a horizontal affair.

B. Center a more reposing division. Chief attention to division point, with side excursions to right and left, when refreshment of perception is needed. The balance is horizontal and not vertical.

C. A balance with variety, or without symmetry. Centers at division point and wants sweep over long part. More concentration on short part. Subjective activity there—an introduction of energy. A contraction of the muscles used in active attention. Long side easier, takes care of itself, self-poised. Line centers at division point. Active with short division. Introduces activity, which is equivalent to the filling that the complex figures have; in these the introduced activity is objectified—made graphic.

D. Focal point at division point: wants the interesting things in a picture to occupy the left (when short division is also on left). Short division the more interesting and means greater complication. When the pleasing division is made, eyes move first over long and then over short. Division point the center of real reference from which movements are made.