The conditions of (1) (a) were exactly those of the earlier experiments with the exception that the groups were undistinguished save by position. In (1) (b) one group was so placed between the other and the observer that there might be as little increased effort as possible in viewing the farther. In the up-down movement more muscles are involved in the lift than in the fall of the eye. So really we have here a case of (3) but not so marked. In (2) the groups were put to the right and left at such distances that, when sitting between, the observer could just take each one in without turning his head. This brought a decided strain upon the eye-muscles. In (3) (a) the groups were separated by the length of the table—a distance of 90 cm.; and the observer placed in alternate series before each; as he was in (3) (b) where the farther group was carried to the limit of vision to be reached without turning the head. Here the strain was like that in (2), but for one group only.
An incompleteness in experimental analysis lies in the impossibility of separating the factors of distance and strain.
TABLE VII
| A | B | C | D | E | ||||||
| Baldwin 46 experiments Hutchinson 78 experiments Equal strain (minimum) | 52 experiments with each subject Equal strain (minimum) | 52 experiments Equal strain (maximum) Eyes Turned | 104 experiments with each subject Head and eyes turned | 52 experiments | ||||||
| Right | Left | Lower | Upper | Right | Left | Ease | Strain | Ease | Strain | |
| Subjects | Baldwin | Hutchison | 2 | Baldwin | 2 | Baldwin | ||||
| Av.% of | ||||||||||
| difference | ||||||||||
| in favor of | 30.4 | 28.2 | 68.3 | 71.2 | 52.4 | 80.8 | ||||
Here are the facts of chief interest: (1) The following tabulation gives us a ready view of the character of the results in Table VII; and shows the extent to which they are consistent:
| A | B | C | D | E | |
| Baldwin favors | right | {upper | left | {farther | {nearer |
| {strain | {strain | {no-strain | |||
| left | left | ||||
| Hutchison favors | left | {upper | {farther | ||
| {strain | {strain | ||||
| left |
(2) The only inconsistency in the strain-distance complex is with Baldwin in E. He reported that the more distant group appeared rather as an undifferentiated mass whose number was not so well obtained, while in the near the individuals were significant. He seemed to be in the midst of these. The case seems analogous to that of the observer whose introspection was reported under Table I, and who at first accepted what we may call the objective analysis, by which the scattered group gave up more distinct objects than the compact; but later attempting voluntarily to disintegrate the compact, found a bewildering confusion in the task that made this group seem very numerous, and brought about in the end an exact reversal of tendency. (3) Can we now separate in the results between the influences of strain and of distance? So far we have regarded them as one complex. But the introspections speak merely of the space-characters of the objects, Hutchison agreeing with Baldwin that the more remote group is judged as an area rather than as a collection of definite objects. (4) The almost entire absence of correct judgments in these experiments adds new evidence to that of the immediately preceding experiments in proof of the insignificance of the actual numerical relation for the judgment of relative number.
IV. THE INFLUENCE OF FACTORS OUTSIDE OF THE OBJECTS AND IN OTHER SENSE-FIELDS