In spite of the manifold special inconstancies and disagreements, these general tendencies are decidedly well-featured in the results. We may say that we have found a kind of standard illusion that will serve us for a guide through our later studies.

2. The Influence of Distribution.

TABLE XX

Subject = HutchisonSubject = Olmsted
Trials with
each number
324623

For the meaning
of these figures
see under Table
XIX. Hutchison
overestimated the
standard group
only 5 times,
never the
mixed-size
group, and 9
times the
small-size
group.
Olmsted never
overestimates at
any time.

Original
numbers
First
Standard
Series
Second
Standard
Series
Mixed
Sizes
Small
Sizes
StandardMixed
Sizes
Small
Sizes
25 -5 -2 -3 -1 -8 -8 -12
30 -4 0 -5 0 -11 -14 -16
35 -6 -5 10 1 -8 -5 -14
40 -11 -5 -5 -13 -18 -17 -20
40 -12 -9 -13 -11 -13 -18 -22
45 -7 -4 -15 -10 -18 -20 -18
50 -14 -10 -20 -12 -19 -18 -23
50 -13 -8 -15 -15 -22 -15 -27
55 -10 -7 -20 -11 -24 -28 -23
60 -19 -18 -25 -20 -22 -23 -27
65 -15 -7 -20 -5 -28 -28 -33
65 -15 -10 -10 -18 -22 -28 -23
70 -14 -3 -15 -20 -27 -30 -28
75 -21 -17 -28 -23 -32 -23 -27
75 -25 -20 -20 -24 -33 -25 -32
80 -24 -17 -30 -19 -27 -23 -33
85 -17 -13 -35 -13 -27 -38 -38
90 -13 -7 -25 -20 -33 -40 -37
95 -25 -13 -40 -23 -39 -55 -40
100 -22 -13 -35 -24 -36 -15 -37

The first of the modifying factors to be considered has to do with the arrangement of the objects. Hitherto they had been thrown loosely into the frame. Now in successive studies they were, first, well scattered over the surface and, second, brought together into several compact nuclei. The last arrangement was adopted in preference to that of a single mass as being less open to comparison with preceding judgments and to judgment on the basis of form and size of group.

The results are shown in Table XIX: (1) The effect of scattering the objects is very markedly to raise the apparent number. Baldwin's preceding overestimations soar still higher; while Miller's former tendency to underestimation is checked to such an extent that 13 overestimations appear. (2) The effect of compacting the objects is just as markedly in the opposite direction. Baldwin gives 31 underestimations, and Miller reverts in a measure to his former type. (3) When similar arrangements were up for study in relative number we found two classes of observers, one favoring the compact, the other the scattered. The present results of Baldwin and Miller put them into the latter class.

3. The Influence of Complexity of Group-Content.

This new factor of complexity in the content of the group was realized experimentally by making up the collection out of steel balls of two sizes, 1/8 in. and 3/8 in. The former looked almost infinitesimal beside the latter. The same objective numbers were still maintained and divided between the two sizes except where in so doing a five must be broken. In such a case the extra five went to the larger balls.

The results are found in Table XX. Olmsted shows no definite influence of the new factor. Hutchison, however, shows a very evident decrease in his estimations, when comparison is made with his second standard series. With the earlier series the new results rather closely correspond. That the latter are not simply a vacillating reversion seems fairly clear from this observer's account of his method. The small balls, he says, did not distinctly come in visually. To his judgment of the large he added an amount based on a very insecure estimate of the small. The number of the latter seemed from time to time pretty constant.

This situation corresponds very fully to that in the investigation of the same factor by use of a group of mixed colors, where relative number was in question. (Section II.) The tendency there discovered was to neglect the other colors in favor of one which thus surpassed the others in vividness. There as here the mixed group seemed smaller.