Harvard Psychological Studies, Volume 2

by Unknown

In three cases this arrangement was preferred to the regular one previous, and each time for the same reason. The four-group was made more noticeable by being unsymmetrical, and hence more easily distinguished from the other. The two were easier kept apart, and the alternation between the two was made more clear-cut and obvious. With others the change was unpleasant for the reason that it affected them in an exactly opposite manner. The four-group lost its individuality, and, by separation into two unsymmetrical parts, could not be distinguished so well from the three-groups as formerly, hence the effect was spoiled.

A distinction was made between the relative importance and interest attached to the units, when symmetrical and when unsymmetrical. Every one agreed that making the four-group unsymmetrical gave it more prominence of a certain kind. With the first three subjects mentioned, this prominence was enough to accent the rhythm still more than before, and differentiate the two units more strongly. But with the other there was a feeling that while it gained prominence and was more noticeable, it lost coherence and interest, thence it could not be kept as the principal unit, but the attention passed over to the three-group which maintained its unity.

It would seem, then, that the mere fact of one unit in a series alternating with another, and being more noticeable, taking up a larger space, being more complicated, etc., did not insure its being the chief unit in the series. One subject voiced essentially the feeling of all, in his comment on the series: "There is a constant struggle between the prominence which the four-group gains from size and eccentricity, and the insignificance which it deserves on account of its looseness and lack of unity; it cannot hold its own as one individual thing, and because the three-group still does, it becomes in one way more prominent, while the four-group remains so in another." Another subject felt he gave more time to the four-group than before, because being separated it would not bind together again without effort. At the same time the three-group gained in interest because it was easy to find and did not vary. Another subject felt that the time spent on a unit had nothing to do with its rhythm; it was all a matter of interest and attention. Often he looked a longer time at one unit, choosing another for the chief element in his series, because it interested him more.

All this introspection brought out two things clearly:

(1) The apperception of a series of alternating units, whether of the spatial or temporal type, is not fixed, but any variation of its unit is liable to shift the emphasis. Thus, as in the present case, when a symmetrical major unit is made unsymmetrical, it may not remain the principal unit, but becomes the minor one, because the attention shifts to the other which was before relatively unimportant.

(2) Whether either element shall be the principal one or not, does not depend wholly on its objective prominence, but on the amount of beauty or interest which it holds for the observer. Neither size, complexity, nor eccentricity can force a certain unit to be taken as the major in a series, unless it thereby presents an interest which makes the observer choose it.

The next change was to vary the three-group in a similar way, by pushing the middle string to the left, thereby making it unsymmetrical.

The responses were as follows: Five said it did more violence to the series to have the alternate varied than the major unit; it was more confusing. Three preferred it, giving as their reason that it made the elements more different from each other than before, hence more easily distinguished. The preponderance of evidence was, therefore, that, although any variation from symmetry in a unit was likely to be detrimental to the repetition, it was more likely to be tolerable in the major unit than in the alternate space. In either case it was demanded that the two units be distinctly different, and it depended on the individual subject, whether in this experiment the variation of one unit or the other brought out this distinction more obviously. Aside from this consideration, however, it appeared that the alternate spaces as such required equilibrium more than the principal unit. Also, variation of symmetry in the major unit, while it made it more prominent in the way of eccentricity, also made the symmetrical minor unit more prominent in the way of interest. As one subject expressed it, "Since the others vary, the attention requires something which does not vary, and forces prominence on the minor unit, because it remains symmetrical"; and "The minor unit is too small to merit such prominence as it gets by lack of symmetry. It is distorted, and has not enough content to bear it."

These introspections from temporal and spatial subject alike, all point to the fact of a certain value attached to the alternating units in a series. (1) The units must not be too much alike in interest, or they rival each other. (2) They must not have more prominence given them as regards the whole than they have interest to sustain. (3) There must be a congruity between the two elements so that one shall not be noticeable in one way, and one in another, thus carrying the attention in two different directions.