Harvard Psychological Studies, Volume 2

by Unknown

(4) If the alternating figure was to be so subordinate, was there any difference between its significance, and that of an empty space? This was everywhere answered in the same way. The alternating, or minor figure, had a very distinct value, and any irregularity in it was even more irritating than in the principal unit itself. When the space was empty they thought nothing of it, the equality of the interspacing was taken for granted; while if they felt an irregularity in it, it destroyed their pleasure in the whole series. But there was no feeling for the empty space until its regularity had been violated, while there was a distinctly pleasant factor in the minor figure, even though different in quality from the principal element.

In the foregoing experiment the differences between the spatial and temporal type of observer were still strongly marked. The former type invariably grouped the elements (usually with the three-group in the centre and a pair on each side) and they took their pleasure in the symmetry of each figure so made, moving from the centre of one to the centre of the next adjacent. In this method of apperception there was no empty space between repetitions, for the whole group of three figures was taken as the repeated unit. The empty or rest-phase was gotten in moving from the centre of one to the next, in which passage the limiting pair was ignored. One spatial subject, finding the proportions of this artificial grouping poor, got no enjoyment at all.

With the temporal type, the experience was quite different. They moved across the field with the three-group as their stopping-points. These principal elements were what they looked for, and their pleasure seemed to consist in expecting and meeting it. What part the pair played, they had difficulty in analyzing. Some said that while the three-groups occupied most of their attention, they gave a lesser degree to the pair, so that the rhythm of the passage across was marked by heavier and lighter beats. Another found the figure in the alternate space only an obstacle, and felt he was hindered in the passage from unit to unit, the only compensation being, that the "hindrance" came at regular distances. Others felt that two repetitions were actually being carried on at once. By this they meant that the two sets of elements were kept distinct, although objectively combined, but the repetition of the pair was subordinate in interest to that of the three-groups.

I tested the same thing (accents or major elements, and the value of the alternating minor elements) by simply doubling every other string of the series 50 mm. apart. In every case the effect was found poor. It was "confusing," "too much work." They all felt adjusted to the repetition of the double string and then encountered the single one, which hindered them, and by trying to keep both elements going at once they were fatigued. Most of them had a distinct feeling that they wanted to swing from one element to the next, and were baffled by the alternate. In this arrangement, even members of the spatial type who had not been able to get any rhythmic feeling before, felt the movement in the series as if they were going across, although they went (in two cases) in groups instead of single elements. They all, however, felt the single string as an obstacle which hindered their enjoyment, whether the double string or a group was taken as element. This suggested the question: What makes the difference between the minor figure being an enrichment to the experience and being a hindrance? They insisted some rest-period was necessary; some really empty space between the repeated units, and when in place of rest they had more to do, it spoilt the pleasure.

Next, two strings were hung at equal distances between the double strings, and the latter put 100 mm. instead of 50 mm. apart. This was liked better in every case, and the reasons given were much alike. The double string was still the repeated unit, while the two strings between did not feel repeated. In spite of the obvious inconsistency of the statement that they did not feel the alternates to be repeated even when they knew that they were so, just as much as the double string, several subjects made the same remark. V. felt the series as a rhythm, where the double strings were all he was interested in, although he knew he should notice if the others were changed. B. could not detect that they were of any importance, except as he imagined them absent. B. could feel either the double strings or the two strings between them as the major unit, only, whichever one he took, the other retired into obscurity. He felt the minor units in a different way as being repeated together with the majors, but very weakly, and not at all unless he previously considered that he ought to do so. L. said his attention was fastened on the double strings, but it was the "effort or ease with which he passed over the alternates which formed the pleasure." Another temporal subject felt the rhythm as the others did, with more emphasis on the double strings. But the major units seemed the rest-phase in his rhythm, i. e., he paused here in observation of the series, although his attention was most active; vice versa, the minor units required little attention, but were the active or moving parts of the rhythm. Since they all considered the strings in the alternate space merely as steps or lesser beats on the way to the major element which they sought, and as obstacles rather than otherwise, why did they prefer the space with two strings rather than one? This suggested that some factor in the alternate spaces was important other than simply the amount of resistance to overcome in getting past the two lines. In answer to this they could only say that the two strings in the alternate space formed a pleasanter unity by itself, although, as they went across, they did not think of it in terms of unity.

What, then, is the real rest-phase of the rhythm of alternating repeated objects?

In the beginning of the discussion, when the analogy between visual and auditory rhythm was felt so strongly in a certain type of subject, they had expressed themselves as if the object which they called the unit of the repeated series were the active stimulated part of the experience, while the alternate space was the rest-phase, valuable only as a period of repose or blankness before the object was again encountered. But in this case, although they felt they were putting no attention or emphasis on this space, in reality they were keenly alive to what was hung in it, even preferring more "hindrance" in the way of strings than less, which suggested that the alternate space was of more value than they were conscious of. (Some of this increase in pleasure was of course due to the increased actual distance between the double strings, but some also to the extra string.) The introspection on this question as to which part of the rhythm was actually the rest-phase (if there were any such) was difficult for them all. They felt they spent more time on the major element; that was what they looked for and found pleasure in meeting again.

One said, "The unit is what I look for; as soon as I have it the pleasure ends and I want to move on again. The pleasure does not consist in resting on it after it is found, but in knowing I am going to meet it again, and in doing so." As to the alternate spaces, he could only say he was not consciously interested in them, he took them for granted, but knew he should feel it, if they were changed. His feeling for them was wholly negative. The other temporal subjects agreed essentially with this. The alternate figures had to be passed, but passing them was only of importance as it helped or hindered the perceiving of the major elements. All agreed that any change was noticed and felt irritating at once, although they could not understand how it should, since so little attention was paid them normally. One subject felt the alternating strings only as obstacles between the doubles, and demanded an actual, empty rest-period between any repeated units. When asked if it were really the rest-period between elements or on them, he said he felt there was a complete discharge of attention on the major units, and an attempted one on the minor or alternate units, and the attempted ones became confused.

These introspections would point to the fact that alternate minor spaces while affording rest for the attention were periods of activity of some other kind. The fact that no one could say what kind, and yet insisted on the feeling of its being important and distinctive, and moreover repudiated the idea of change in a minor space even more than in a major—this seemed to show that there was a value in the alternate spaces quite aside from attention, but fully as distinct in its own way.