INFORMATION TO USERS

This material wat produced from a microfilmcopy of the original document. While tha moat advanced technological meant totograph pho and reproduce this document have been wed, the quality it heavily deparot upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniquesprovided is to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear onreproduction. this

I.The sign or "target" for pages perentiy api lacking from the document photographed is "Misting Page(s)". it was possible to obtain the missing paga(s) or section, they are splicedto in the film along with adjacent pages, This may have necessitated cuttingru thi an image end duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuty.

2. Whan an image on the film is oblitsratad with a large round black mark, it is an indication that tha photographcr suspected that tho copy may have moved during exposure and caui thusise a blurred image. You will find a good image of the pega in the edjacert frame.

3. Whan a map,drawing or chart, jtc., e was part of the matarial being photographedthe photographerfollowed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet arid to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a smat overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below pie first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that textual content is of greatest value, however, a sommvhat higher qualireproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the uirstanding of tha dissartation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be tied at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving thecatalog number, title, euthor and specific pagas you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some may have indistinct print Filmed . received.

Xerox University Microfilms 900 North Z M b Road Ann Aitor, Michigan 48106 76-3551 SHARER,, Jon Wesley, 1940» 1HB BSFBC1S' QP TNO FERCEFIUAliTUALSEI SETS_____ UPON TUB WRCBPTK3NCfc P IC T U R E S !^ >

The Ohio State * University, Hi .D ..1975 JRine Alts

XeroxUnfversity Mlcrofllmtf ^Art>or,Miohisin4«ic«

0 1975

JOH WESLEY SHAKER

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THE EFFECTS OF TWO PERCEPTUAL SETS UPON THE SUBSEQUENT PERCEPTION OF PICTURES: AN APPLICATION OF THE PERCEPTUAL THEORIES OF JAMES AND ELEANOR GIBSON AND JEROME BRUNER

DISSERTATION Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy In the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By Jon W, Sharer, B.A., M.S.

The Ohio State University 1975

Reading Committee Approved by Dr. Arthur Efland Dr. Ross Norris

JDr, Kenneth Marantz S' Department of Art Education VITA August 14, 1940...... Born— Chicago, Illinois. 1963...... B.A., Roosevelt University, Chicago, Illinois. 1963-1966...... Art Teacher, John Marshall High School, Chicago, Illinois. 1966-1971...... Staff Assistant, Chicago Board of Education, Chicago, Illinois. 1968...... M.S., Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois. 1971-1975...... Teaching Associate, Department of Art Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Art Education. Studies in the Psychology of Perception. Professor Jacque Kaswan and Associate Professor Dean Owen. Studies in the Philosophy of Perception. Associate Professor Ross Norris. Studies in Art Education. Professors Kenneth Marantz and Arthur Efland and Assistant Professor Gilbert Clark.

11 TABLE OP CONTENTS Page

VITA...... U LIST OF TABLES...... V . LIST OF FIGURES...... Vi J ■ Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Problem...... 1 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Stimulus Structure...... 6 Visual and Verbal Set...... 11 Studies Comparing Linguistio and Visual Clues...... 17 The Oibsons and Bruner...... 22 Stimulus Availability...... 29 Hypotheses...... 33 III. METHODOLOGY Sample...... 35 Selection of Test Items...... 36 Test Format and Procedures ...... 39 Design...... 46 Hypotheses ...... 48 Analysis of Data— As sumptions ...... 49 IV. RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS Results...... $4 Interpretation of Results.•••• ...... 59

ill TABLE OP CONTENTS (Continued) Page Summary of Findings and Conclusions...... 65 Implications for Additional Research 66 Implications for Instruction...... •• 68

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 75 APPENDIX A. Glossary...... 83

B. Raw Data...... 87 C. Visual and Verbal Perceptual Sets...... 92 D. Titles of Pictures in Displays...... 97

lv LIST OF TABLES Table . Page 1. Inter-Judge Reliability for Target Pictures...... 38 2. Cochran's Test Tor Homogeneity of Variance, Correct Responses...... 52 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Variances for Correct Responses ...... 55 Means, Standard Deviations, and Variances for Incorrect Responses...... 56 5. Three Between One Within Partial Hierarchical Analysis of Variance Tor Correct Responses...... 57 6. Three Between One Within Partial Hierarchical Analysis of Variance for Inoorreot Responses...... 58 7. Post Hoc Comparisons for A1 and A2, Dunn's Test...... 6l 8. Post Hoc Comparisons for Levels of B, Dunn's Test...... 63 9. Post Hoc Comparisons for Cl and C2, Dunn's Test...... 65 10. Raw Data for the Gibson Orientation...... 88 11. Raw Data for the Bruner Orientation...... 89 12. Frequency of Weights for Target Groups of Pictures by Judges...... 90 13* Judges' Classification of Pictorial Descriptors...... 91

v

1 LIST OF FIQURES Figure Page 1. Arrangement of Pictures in the Learning and Criterion Displays...... 2. Preknowledge of Artist*1 Names...... 3. Three Between One Within Partial Hierarchical Design...... 4. Analysis of Interaction for AB Across Levels of C, Correct Responses....,......

5. Analysis of Interaction for A Across Levels of B, Correct Responses...... 6. Analysis of Interaction for BC Across Levels of A, Correct Responses......

7. Analysis of Interaction for C Across Levels of B, Incorrect Responses...... 8. Visual and Verbal Set for the Learning and Criterion Displays......

9. Visual and Verbal Set for the Learning and Criterion Displays...... 10. Visual and Verbal Set for the Learning and Criterion Displays...... 11. Visual and Verbal Set for the Learning and Criterion Displays......

Vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Problem Art educators advocate the use of pictures In produc­ tive! critical and historical inquiry, but little is known about how one learns from pictures.3- Teachers organize pictures, e.g., slides, on the basis of content or subject matter decisions rather than on the basis of how the ar­ rangement of pictures influences learning. Vhile this is not an either-or matter, it does reflect a lack of theoret­ ical understanding of how one's use of pictures affects learning. There has been research in art education con­ cerning perceptual learning. However, as reflected in Studies In Art Education, this research has concentrated on the effect of pictorial learning upon drawing or verbal re­ sponses rather than the effect of pictorial learning upon one's subsequent perception of pictures (Efland, 1965; Salome, 1965; Dorothy, 1974; Kannegleter, 1971; Lovano, 1970; Porce, 1970; Wilson, 1966). In contrast, the focus of this investigation is upon perceptual learning that

^The term 'picture' is being used to refer to repro­ ductions or photographs.

1 2 results from the way pictures are used and the effect of this learning upon pictures subsequently peroelved.

Underlying the study Is the notion that different meth­ ods of presenting and responding to pictures can result In different stimulus features or* different stimulus Informa­ tion being attended to and consequently differences In per­

ceptual learning.2*^ If different ends are aohleved through the detection of different Information, the differences be­

tween methods should be accounted for In Instruction. For

example, with conservation tasks the emphasis Is upon one's

conception of the stimulus and upon detecting Just enough

stimulus Information which will confirm what one knows, whereas with differentiation tasks the emphasis Is upon what

one sees and upon detecting stimulus Information which will enable one to distinguish variables of stimulation. If one

desired students to grasp a conservation task, It would not

be Instructlonally useful to use methods of presenting stim­

uli which focus on stimulus features.

Two different methods of presenting and responding to

pictures are investigated. One method emphasizes the effect

upon learning of the arrangement of pictures and the

^Perceptual learning refers to the detection of new stimulus variables or Information.

^The terms 'perception' and 'stimuli' will be used to' refer to visual stimuli and perception unless otherwise stated. 3 differentiation of these pictures from pictures of different classes. This approach Is based on James and Eleanor Gib­ son's explanation of perception. The other approach Is based on Jerome Bruner's explanation of perception. The latter approach emphasises the effect upon learning of pic­ tures ordered on the basis of Internal categories which for school-aged children are largely linguistic, and It stresses the commonality or equivalence rather than the differences among pictorial features.

Since the Oibson oriented method focuses on differen­ tiation of similarities and differences and the Bruner or­ iented method on equivalence, each Implies that different strategies are used by viewers and that different stimulus i| variables are attended to. If this Is the case, then there should be differences between each method in what Is learned

Moreover, since the Gibson approach Is more stimulus ori­ ented, one would expect that It would be more useful In sit­ uations where the Instructional emphasis Is upon detecting stimulus relationships, and since the Bruner approaoh Is cognitively oriented, one would expect It to be more useful

In situations where the emphasis Is less on the stimulus and 5 more on what one knows,

s Eleanor J, Gibson, Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. ldbd)7 ppTT22~123. 4 5see pp. 25-27. 4 The Gibsons and Bruner also differ in the consistency of their accounts of perception with the availability of stimuli, i.e., whether stimuli are presented simultaneously . (SI) or successively (SU). The Gibsons* account is con­ sistent with a SI method of presentation and the Bruner ac­ count with a SU method of presentation.** The effect of theBe variables upon learning has been studied by numerous Invest­ igators.^ Since the literature indicates that each variable per se affects pictorial learning, it is likely that their combined effects resulting from the SI and SU order will also affect learning. However, there has been no research on the combined effects of these variables. Hence, their combined effects are being studied as they are used with sequenced sets of pictures in which viewers apply what is learned dur­ ing pretraining with pictures. The problem is to clarify the conditions under which the Gibson and Bruner orienta­ tions and the availability of stimuli influence learning in these sets of pictures given the differences in the predlo- tlons of the former and the paucity of data of the latter. Both the unique effects of these variables and their com­ bined effects are being looked at in order to determine the effectiveness of each in learning to identify stimulus classes when stimuli are art reproductions.

**See pp. 30-31* ^See pp. 28-29* 5 The hypotheses.to be*explored were generated from the literature concerning James and Eleanor Gibson's and Jerome Bruner's perceptual theories, peroeptual set, cognition and stimulus availability. These are: 1) that an external vis­ ual frame of reference emphasizing differentiation will be more effective In facilitating the Identification of a class of artlBtB' styles in pictures than will an Internal frame of reference In which pictures are structured through a ver­ bal description of features critical to the target class; and 2) that the simultaneous method of presentation will facilitate the Identification of the target class to a greater extent than will the successive method of presenta­ tion and that this effect will be more pronounced when a greater number of pictures is presented. These hypotheses will be developed and specified more in the review of the literature and the chapter concerning methodology. CHAPTER II REVIEW OP LITERATURE t Stimulus Structure Perceptual learning requires that stimulus input be structured. However, there are different explanations of how stimuli are structured, as was suggested in the ear­ lier discussion of Qibson and Bruner. These explanations differ in the structure a stimulus is assumed to have or. not have. Either the distal stimulus Is assumed to be In correspondence with perception or the proximal stimulus Is assumed to be In correspondence with perception. With the former the structure of stimulus input is acknowledged but with the latter it is not. Historically, the latter orientation is implied in the writings of John Locke.

Locke held that sensory input was inadequate in ac­ counting for experience. His conception of secondary qual­ ities, i.e., those that do not correspond to the properties of the object, is a precursor of the view that the mind must supplement sensory input A In addition, Locke accounted for knowledge by the association of simple ideas into com-

t

^■Richard Taylor, ed., The Empiricist (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1961), pp. 24-28, 34r40. * 6 7 2 plex ideas. This assumption'that associative processes can be used to account for knowledge wa3 developed by others. For example, James Mill suggests that everything is the re­ sult of the association of Ideas.3

In association psychology the stimulus was also viewed as Inadequate in accounting for experience. For example, with Titchener's core context theory one is assumed to learn to perceive objects when a core of sensations has acquired a context of memory images via association. Similarly, Helm­ holtz posits that one adds to what is perceived through a process of unconscious inference,.and William James proposes that the poverty of stimulation is enriched by means of as­ sociation. These few examples suggest a tradition of assum­ ing that the stimulus is nothing more than the raw material of perception.

In contrast, gestalt psychology has attempted to dem­ onstrate that the association of discrete present and past experiences is not sufficient to explain discrimination and problem solving. Gestalt psychologists emphasized the hoi- 4 . istic and relational nature of the percept. "Instead of

^Nicholas Pastore, Selective History of Theories of Visual Perceotion 1650-19*>0 (New ¥ork; Oxford University Fress, 1571)V PP .”5 7 = ^ --- 3Ibid., pp. 136-1W. 8 being a 'bundle' of elements acquiring meaning through a context or through some higher processes of Interpretation, the perception is an organized whole from the start. Por example, Koffka argued against the notion that one's ini­ tial perceptions are a chaos of simple but meaningless and unconnected sensations. He conceived of perception as a process of articulating and differentiating the structure of the stimulus rather than a process of accretion by asso­ ciation.^ The emphasis on the structure of the stimulus by gestaltlsts is Illustrated by Gottschaldt's experiments with imbedded figures. Qottschaldt attempted to show that the processes of sensory organization override any effects of training or previous experience. He found that neither the frequency of exposure to the stimulus nor prior train­ ing influenced the recognition of embedded figures.** This emphasis on stimulus organization suggests the position of gestaltlsts concerning the Inadequate account of perceptual factors in discrimination by association theory.

**Floyd H. Allport, Theories of Perception and the Con- cept of Structure (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1555)“, "p. 115".— ^K. Koffka. The Growth of Mind (New York: Harcourt. 1931), p. 380. ^Sigmund Koch, od., Psychology: A Study of Solenos (New York: McGraw-Hill BookCompany, pp. 6b-7AV^ The conflict between gestalt and association psychology Is reflected in contemporary theories of perception• The present day counterpart for the former is found in differ­ entiation theory and for the latter in mediation theories. Mediation theories assume that discrimination learning is largely a process of supplementing or modifying stimulus in­ put by response processes arising within the viewer. With this explanation verbal or perceptual mediating responses are added to the distal stimulus, thereby increasing the distinctiveness of initially similar stimuli. "Stimulation from such processes may also be assumed to become the pri­ mary determiner of behavior in discrimination and concept tasks. For example, if the subject applies a verbal label to the common features of the stimuli in such tasks, the ver­ bal label itself is often assumed to become the effective stimulus."^ Such mediation theories tend to stress the role of verbal mediating responses. For example, in Dollard and Miller's theory a stimulus acquires distinctiveness through the verbal response to it, i.e., . . the stimuli produced by responding £to similar stimulus situations} with the dis­ tinctive name will tend to increase the differences in the 0 stimulus patterns of the two situations." This explanation

?Louise Tighe and Thomas Tighe, "Discrimination Learn­ ing: Two Views in Historical Perspective," Psychological Bulletin. LXVI, No. 5 (1966), p. 360. ft ' N. E. Miller, "Theory and Experiment Relating Psycho­ analytic Displacement to Stimulus-Response Generalization," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology. XLIXI (19*18), p. 17.^• assumes that distinctive features are not found in the ori­ ginal stimuli, i.e., the distal stimuli, but that distinc­ tive cues ere added by the response.

Theories emphasizing the role of schema or categories can also b«! classed as mediatlonal theories. Accordingly, discrimination learning involves the acquisition and refin­ ing of categories or rules for grouping stimuli. The view­ er then matches stimuli to the appropriate category, i.e., he supplements distal stimulation in the process of match­ ing it to an appropriate category. This view has been espoused by M. D. Vernon and Jerome Bruner. For example, for Vernon every act of perception is a construction in which ”. . . a percept is not Isolated, but exists as a part of a systematic categorization of experience in con­ cepts and schemata. ..9

In co ntrast to the assumptions of the above mediation theories t lat the stimulus is supplemented, differentiation theory ass jimes that the stimulus has structure, an assump- tlon remini scent of the gestalt position, and that this structure Ls reflected in the correspondence between distal stimulation and perception. One does not construct what one sees but d 3tects It and discrimination learning ls a process of lnoreas Lng the detection of undetected variables of

*M. D . Vernon, A Further Study of ViBual Perception (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1954), p. 1*1 • 11 stimulation by differentiating the similarities and differ­ ences among stimuli.10 "The change is not acquisition or substitution of a new response to stimulation previously re­ sponded to In some other way* but it is rather responding in any discriminating way to a variable of stimulation not responded to previously."11 As stimuli are differentiated, one increasingly detects more specific variables of stimula­ tion. The major exponents of this position are James and Eleanor Gibson and Ann Pick. Both the linguistic orientation of mediation theory and the stimulus orientation of differ­ entiation theory suggest different kinds of perceptual sets which have different effects on what ls perceptually learned.

Visual and Verbal Set The term 'set' has been used in a variety of ways. Gen­ erally, these variations refer to 11. . . 'tendencies,1 'dis­ positions,' or 'readiness* and their effect on activity ls one of 'facilitation,' 'selection,' 'deterrainacy,' or *guid- 12 ance.*" Sets can be created through language or through visual stimuli. For example, Kiilpe demonstrated in 1904

10Ralph Haber, ed., "The Theory of Information Pickup," Contemporary Theory and Research in Visual Perception (New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, inc., I9tb;, pp. 662-678. ^Eleanor Gibson, Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 19&9), p. 7/. 12 James Gibson, "A Critical Review of the Concept of Set in Contemporary Experimental Psychology." Psychological Bulletin. XXXIX, No. 9 (191*!), PP. 781-782. 12 that verbal instructions about attributes of a stimulus influenced what variables of stimulation one attended to. This report Illustrates how language can be used prior to the presentation of stimuli to point to relevant stimulus attributes. Similarly, James and Eleanor Gibson have dem­ onstrated that a picture of a.scribble used as a standard Influences the stimulus features one attends to In subse­ quent pictures of scribbles when the task is to detect whe­ ther other scribbles are similar or different. Subjects were not told whether their Judgments were correct, but their identification of examples of the standard scribble increased indicating that the standard facilitated the se­ lection of relevant features.1^

In addition to sets created through linguistic pointing or through stimuli whose features provide clues as to the relevant stimulus variables, there are sets created by the category one uses to classify a stimulus. Stimuli can be categorized through language and by grouping stimuli which are equivalent. In each case the classification influences the stimulus variables attended to. For example, in a study by Carmichael, Hogan, and YJalter ambiguous forms were pre­ sented which were intermediate between two familiar shapes, eyeglasses or a dumbbell. They obtained reproductions

^ E l e a n o r Gibson, Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development. pp. 77-80, 13 of the ambiguous forms In the* direction of the verbal set given subjects. In designating an ambiguous form as a par­ ticular class of objects* subjects attended to those fea­ tures relevant to this class and reflected this In their reproduction of the object.The Influence of a linguis­ tic category ls also evident In a study by Eleanor Gibson. Two groups of subjects viewed the same stimulus which was classed either as writing or as a profile of a face for each group. Subjects then were asked to recognize Instances of the class they had observed from a random presentation of stimuli from both classes. The results indicated that "Stimulus variables that specify distinctive features for one class of objects* like faces* may be Irrelevant for ano­ ther class."^5

In contrast to the Carmichael and Gibson reports on the effects of linguistic classes upon perception* Gilbert Clark and Howard Gardner have in separate Investigations studied the effects of visual classes formed by grouping equivalent stimuli upon learning to identify Instances of these classes from among exemplars of other classes. The stimuli used In

llJL. Carmichael, H. P. Hogan, and A. A. Walter, "An Ex­ perimental Study of the Effect of Language on the Reproduc­ tion of Visually Produced Form, Journal of Experimental Psychology. XV (1932), pp. 73-86. ^Eleanor Gibson, Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development. pp. 105-107^ 11* each of the studies were reproductions of art work. Stu­ dents learned to classify pictures according to style and then attempted to Identify other Instances of that style In a subsequent presentation.1**'1^ As In the earlier studies of set, stimulus features which were relevant for one class, I.e., style, were not relevant for another class. Each class of style observed provided stimulus Information that facilitated the Identification of features relevant to in­ stances of that class subsequently perceived.

The above evidence Indicates that either linguistic or visual sets Influence the detection of stimulus Information and that the same stimulus can be perceived In different ways depending on how It Is classed. The effect of both visual and verbal sets on the same stimulus, though may be different. For example, in. a study by Leeper various groups of people were given different prior experiences: a percep­ tual set through viewing an unambiguous picture of one of the ways to structure an ambiguous picture to be subsequent­ ly perceived or a verbal description of one way subsequent ambiguous pictures could be structured. The effect of an unambiguous picture on ambiguous pictures later perceived

^Gilbert A. Clark, An Investigation of Children’s Abilities to Form and Generalize Visual Concepts from Visu­ ally Complex Art Reproductions cb. S . Department of Health. Education, and Welfare Project 0-1-060, January, 1972). ^Howard Gardner, "Children's Sensitivity to Painting Styles," Child Development. XLI, No. 1 (1970), pp. 11-16. 15 18 was strong, but the.verbal condition was not.

This study suggests that linguistic clues should not be assumed to be the same as visual elues in assisting learning to attend to the characteristics of pictures. As Michael Fosner has stated, H. . .we organize our world with the aid of two quite different languages. We have an Internal visu­ al language with Its own concepts, complex rules, and asso­ ciations. We may then map a part of that visual world Into a verbal language which haB concepts and rules of Its own."*^ What ls Included In a visual class may not correspond to what is Included In a verbal class. "Visual perception . . . seems to have Its own organization not entirely coincident on with or dependent on verbal concepts.

For example, verbal classes may be based on semantic in­ formation which does not correspond to the Information used In visual classification. If A, a, and A are compared, they would not be visually classed as the same, though semanti­ cally they are the same alphabetical letter. In addition, there may be no verbal categories for Information that can

*®R. A. Leeper, "A Study of a Neglected Portion of the Field of Learning - The Development of Sensory Organization," Journal of Genetic Psychology, XLVI (1935), pp. *11-75. ^Michael Fosner, Cognition: An Introduction (Qlenview: . Scott, Foresman and Company, 1973), p. 104. 20Ibld., p. 104. 16 be visually classified. The letters A,/f* and H can be classed as equivalent visually but not verbally since there ls no verbal category for A »/ i * and A and since the last letter Is semantically different. Visual classes are based on the differences and equivalence of perceived Information whereas verbal classes are based on conventions and learned associations. This Implies a different frame of reference for visual sets In perceiving pictures than for verbal sets. For a visual set one's frame of reference Is external, I.e., the standard for perceptual judgments ls perceived, whereas for a verbal set one's frame of reference ls Internal, I.e., the standard for perceptual Judgments Is remembered. Conse­ quently, a verbal set cannot specify the same information that a visual set can. As In the above example of A > a , f \, the Information concerning the variation among Instances Is lost when It ls verbally classified in contrast to when one perceives the differences among Instances. Similarly, In­ formation is lost when one has no verbal category for the relationship among qualities In a picture. For example, while one has a verbal category 'soft' and 'graceful,1 one does not have a verbal category for the relationship between these qualities. In such cases a visual set will probably be more Informative than a verbal set since It provides an external frame of reference for the detection of the vari­ ance and Invariance among Instances of a class. External frames of reference are more available than remembered ones 3.7 21 22 and such availability augments perceptual learning. Evi­ dence In this matter, however, is not clear as ls Indicated In the section on studies comparing linguistic and visual clues.

Studies Comparing Linguistic and Visual Clues There have been numerous studies of the effects of labels and pictures upon learning. Jenkins, Neale, and Deno found greater recognition by college students of pictures than for 23 corresponding nouns. Apparently people have an extraordin­ ary recognition memory for pictures. Shepard exposed adult * * subjects to 612 pictures and found that when subjects were presented with pairs of pictures.later, one from the original set and one which they had not previously seen, that subjects were able to identify the picture they had seen with a median « 24 accuracy of 98 per cent. In a similar study Nickerson

21Lyle Bourne, Jr., Sidney Goldstein, and William Link* "Concept Learning as a Function of Availability of Previously Presented Information," Journal of Experimental Psychology, LXVII, No. 5 (1964), pp. 439-44b“ : 22Ellln K. Scholnick, "Effects of Stimulus Availability on Children's Inferences," Child Development, XLII (1971), pp. 183-194. 23 J. R. Jenkins, D. C. Neale, and S. L. Deno, "Differ­ ential Memory for Picture and Word Stimuli," Journal of Edu­ cational Psychology, LVIII (1967)* PP. 303-307. 2i*R. N. Shepard, "Recognition Memory for Words, Sen­ tences, and Pictures," Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, VI (1967), pp. I5b-lb3. 18

obtained 95 per cent accuracy.2^ Moreover, Haber exposed subjects to 2,560 photographic slides at a ratio of one every 10 seconds over a two or four day period. When later .shown a pair of pictures, one of which was previously seen, subjects were able to Identify the previously seen picture 26 85 to 90 per cent of the time. Standing, Conezlo and Haber obtained similar results with college-aged students when the presentation time was reduced to one second per minute and when the pictures were reversed In orientation from left to right In the presentation and test conditions.2^

While these studies Indicate that people can remember large numbers of pictures, this does not Indicate that pic­ tures are more useful than words In facilitating learning. In other studies words have been shown to be useful. For ex«* ample, in a study by Cantor the performance was compared of preschool children who learned the names for faces with those who simply pointed to features of them. Learning the names for the faces wasr associated with faster choice of the correct

25r. s. Nickerson, "Short Term Memory for Complex Mean­ ingful Visual Configurations: A Demonstration of Capacity," Canadian Journal of Psychology. XIX (1965), PP. 155-160. 2<*R. N. Haber, "How We Remember What We See," Sclent1- fic American, CCXXII, No. 5 (1970), pp. 104-112. 27 'L. Standing, J. Conezlo, and R. N. Haber, "Percep­ tion and Memory for Pictures: Single Trial Learning of 2500 Visual Stimuli." Psychonomlc Science. XIX (1970). PP. 73-74. ------19 28 picture. In a similar experiment Norcross and Splker found that three to six year old subjects again learned better af­ ter learning names.^ Also In an experiment with college students by Ranken, pretraining with shapes was followed by a recognition task. The control group was shown the shapes without labels and was instructed not to use words. The ex­ perimental group was given the names with the shapes and was told to use them. Then a sample shape was shown a subject and withdrawn. He was subsequently required to select it from the entire set. The results indicated that the group given labels surpassed the control group in recognition learning.3° Moreover, Ellis and Muller (1964) found that with college students when shapes were complex, a group that learned different relevant labels for each one per­ formed better on a recognition task than did a group who merely observed,

c G. N. Cantor, "Effects of Three Types of Pretraining on Discrimination Learning in School Children," Journal of Experimental Psychology. XLIX (1955), pp. 339-342, 2^K. J. Norcross and C. C. Splker, "The Effeots of Type of Stimulus Pretraining on Discrimination Performance in Pre­ school Children," Child Development. XXVIII (1957)* pp. 79-84. 3°H. B. Ranken, "Effeots of Name Learning on Serial Learn­ ing, Position Learning, and Recognition Learning with Random Shapes," Psychological Reports. XIII (1963), pp. 663-678. ^Ralph N. Haber, ed., "Transfer in Perceptual Learning Following Stimulus Predifferentiation," Contemporary Theory and Research in Visual Perception (New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston, Inc., l9bb), pp. 003-091. 20 The above experiments' Involve verbal or visual pretrain­ ing to stimuli which are used In a subsequent task. The stud­ ies suggest that language has aided recognition more than pic­ tures which Is consistent with mediation theory. This Is not, though, what one would expect from differentiation theory since it holds that pictorial pretraining should Increase dis­ crimination of variables present In stimulation. However, the evidence Is not clear. For example, In a study by Robinson with adults there was the same amount of transfer for a group whose pretraining consisted of non-relnforced same-different Judgments as for groups having reinforced labeling training. In addition, Pfafflin studied the effectB upon college stu­ dents of transfer for three types of pretraining: 1) observa­ tion, 2) Irrelevant labels, and 3) relevant labels. Each of these three groups was subdivided into three levels of mean­ ingfulness. Observation was the only condition to result In positive transfer with all degrees of meaningfulnessIn a different kind of study Dwyer attempted to determine which types of visual Illustrations preceded by questions (advanced, organizers) were most effective In promoting student achieve­ ment on five criterlal measures when students were permitted

32J. s. Robinson, "The Effect of Learning Verbal Labels for Stimuli on Their Later Discrimination," Journal of Exper- imental Psychology. XLIX (1955), pp. 112-115*;; Pfafflin, "Stimulus Meaning In Stimulus Prediffer­ entiation," Journal of Experimental Psychology, LIX (I960), pp. 269-27*1. 21 to Interact with their respective Instructional uhit for as long as they felt necessary to comprehend the Information being presented. He concluded that "the use of questions as advance organizers In visualized Instruction Is not an effective Instructional technique for Increasing student achievement when students are Interacting with more realis­ tic illustrations, "31*

The superiority of labeled stimuli In some studies, moreover, may be contingent on the length of time between training and recognition tasks. For example, In a study by Bahrick and Boucher, groups of college-aged subjects were presented lists of visual patterns, e.g., teacups. Some groups were required to name each object at the time of learning and others learned without being required to name the objects. Subjects were then tested either immediately or after six weeks. They first tried to recall the object's name, e.g., 'teacups,' and then attempted .to recognize the particular object from a list of similar objects of the same category. When tested Immediately after learning, the group Instructed to verbalize the names during learning showed su­ perior recall of the names. After six weekB, however, ver­ balization did not affect the recall of names. Instead, subjects relied heavily on visual Information as a means of

^Francis Dwyer, A Guide for Improving Visualized In­ struction (State College, Fa: Learning Services, 1972), PP. 73-74. 22 recall. Moreover, It was found that the ability to remember the object name, e.g., 'teacups,' was completely uncorrelated with the ability to pick out the particular teacup which had 35 been seen.

From the above conflicting findings concerning verbal and visual pretraining neither words nor pictures are superior for all conditions of learning. The degree to which each facili­ tates learning to detect relevant stimulus variables or re­ member them depends on the specific conditions under which they are used (e.g., kind of stimulus, task, method of pres­ entation) and the learner. Hence, In analyzing the effective­ ness of each kind of pretraining, one needs to clarify the conditions under which each Is effective rather than make blanket Judgments about them.

The Gibsons and Bruner The Gibsons? differentiation theory and Bruner's cogni­ tive theory make different assumptions about the process of perceptual learning. For the Gibsons one learns more effec­ tively when variables of stimulation or pictures are contras­ ted. For example, In a study by Gagne and Gibson (1944) mili­ tary trainees were asked to distinguish and Identify forty different makes of airplanes. In one group Instruction em­ phasized the total form of each plane. In another group

p. Bahrick and B. Boucher, "Retention of Visual and Verbal Codes of the Same Stimuli," Journal of Experimental Psychology, LXXVIII (1968), pp. 417^*52; 23 features of planes were emphasized which distinguished them. The results indicated that the group which differentiated features performed better and that by contrasting piotures the distinctive features which distinguish and Identify them were Increasingly attended to. This Indicates that the differential properties of stimulation are not necessarily those which can be perceived by the viewer at the beginning of training, but that the viewer can learn to detect vari­ ables of stimulation which are present.37 Moreover, It Im­ plies that for the Gibsons one or more stimuli are the bases for making comparisons with other stimuli, i.e., one or more stimuli provide an external frame of reference or set for de­ tecting differences or similarities. For them, the dlstlno- tlveness of a class of stimuli Is not Just contingent on their equivalence but also on the differences between instances and non-instances of a class.

Stimuli whose class Is different from the standard or target stimuli provide clues which facilitate the Identifi­ cation of Instances of the target class. By learning what Is different between instances or non-instances of a class of stimuli, one learns what features of the target class re­ main distinctive when Instances of that class are In

^Eleanor Gibson, Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development. p. 83. ^Louise Tlghe and Thomas Tighe, "Discrimination Learn­ ing," p. 361, 24 combination with non-instances. This facilitates the detee-. tlon of subtle differences among stimuli (note the 0lbson study of scribbles In the section on Visual and Verbal Set, p. 12) and leads to perception being in Increasing corres­ pondence with stimulation as increasingly more speclfio variables of stimulation are differentiated.

The effect of the perceptual context upon learning the salient features of 3tlmull has also been demonstrated by David Olson. He asked viewers to identify one of two or more stimuli. Viewers1 descriptions of the target stimulus were found to be contingent on the other stimuli present. For example, if the target were white and the other stimu­ lus black, color would distinguish them if all else were the same. However, if the target were white and round and several other stimuli were present, the features at­ tended to in the target would be those which would distin­ guish them from the other stimuli. For example, if the other stimuli were square and white and triangular and black, the features round and white would distinguish the target.3®

Hence, by varying the stimuli in the perceptual con-

David Olson, "Language and Thought: Aspects of a Cog­ nitive Theory of Semantics," Psychological Review. LXXVII, No. 4 (1970), pp. 264-265, 271-272. 25 text, one varies the stimulus* variables that are likely to be attended to, I.e., one alters the viewer's set/ It la. not enough that one can detect relevant features, though this does facilitate perceptual learning. As C...L, Hull

* found, one also needs to see critical features imbedded In different concrete instances.^9 This suggests that the stimulus Information classified through differentiation may not be the same as that which Is classified through equival­ ence and matching to a category. One Is stimulus specific and the-other Is category specific.

In addition, stimuli which are not'instances of a tar­ get class, i.e., dlstractors, can provide a common frame of reference for identifying instances of the target class from one presentation of stimuli to another. If dlstractors of the Same class occur In more than one presentation with tar­ get stimuli, identification of the target stimuli can be fa­ cilitated. Perceiving a stimulus relationship, I.e., between target and dlstractor, aids In the identification of an equi­ valent stimulus relationship as was Indicated in the discus­ sion of set.

With Bruner the comparison of stimuli Is rooted in one's Internal categories for them. Through classifying stimuli

39C . L. Hull, "Quantitative Aspects of the Evolution of Concepts: An Experimental Study." Psychological Monographs. XXVIII (1920). ------26 differently differences can be perceived. However, for Bru­ ner, the focus In matchine stimuli to a category Is upon equi­ valence between stimuli and a category rather than upon dif­ ferences among stimuli. Whereas for the Olbsons stimulus structure Is revealed through the detection of increasingly more specific information, for Bruner stimulus structure Is created by classifying the stimulus. For the latter, the stimulus Is Increasingly supplemented by one's classification of It, and there Is a decreasing correspondence between stim­ ulation and perception as the viewer uses less stimulus Input and relies more on what he knows about the stimulus to Identi­ fy it.

In classifying the stimulus, features become more dis­ tinctive. For example, if one is viewing an Impoverished stimulus, e.g., a dimly lit picture of a camouflaged deer, the features of the object depicted will lack distinctiveness un­ til It is classified. In placing an emphasis on learning which results from classlfloatory responses to stimulation, Bruner assumes the arrangement of the stimulus Is not direct­ ly related to perceptual learning. Instead, he focuses on the kind and frequency of hypotheses that can be used to structure the stimulus. This is Illustrated In an experiment by J. Bruner and M. Potter In which an everyday object Is displayed out of focus and subjects ranging In age from four to nineteen hypothesized about Its Identify as the clarity of the focus Is increased. The authors argue that the 27 mlsclasslflcatlon of the picture prolongs the time before it can be seen elearly. Apparently a subject has to reject the i wrong classification before he can hypothesize about the cor­ rect one, and it is only after he confirms the correct one ' that he can see the picture clearly.11 ®

In this process of identifying stimuli, Bruner places an emphasis on linguistic categories. While categories for him are formed through enactlve and ikonic modes of representation, for school children they are not the primary vehicles for cat­ egorizing stimuli. Rather the symbolic or linguistic mode of representation is the primary means. This is evident in Towards a Theory of Instruction where he claims: 1. "Growth is characterized by Increasing inde­ pendence of response from the immediate nature of the stimulus. 2. Intellectual growth Involves an increasing capacity to say to oneself and others, by means of words or symbols, what one has done or what one will do. 3. Teaching is vastly facilitated by the medium of language which ends by being not only the medium for exchange but the instrument that the learner can then use himself in bringing order into the environment."1*!

^°Mary Potter, "On Perceptual Recognition," Studies in Cognitive Qrowth (New York: John Wiley and Sons. Inc.. 1W»>! pp. 103-134. ^Jerome Bruner, Towards a Theory of Instruction (Cam­ bridge: Harvard University Press, 19b c>;, pp. 5-b. 28 ♦ While Bruner is not suggesting.the linguistic determinism of Benjamin Whorf, he is emphasizing the role of language as a means of ordering stimuli and of facilitating one's percep­ tion of his environment. In emphasizing language as a way of structuring stimuli, one's linguistic category plus the stimulus becomes the effective stimulus, and perceptual learning occurs as the stimulus is identified or as the category for the stimulus is supplemented or altered. Thus, it is through one's linguistic categories for stimuli that one alters one's perceptual set.

There appear to be differences between the stimulus in-, formation derived from a Qlbson orientation and a Bruner or­ ientation. These are indicated below: 1; Differentiation and cognitive approaches dif­ fer in the degree of correspondence to stimu­ lation. 2. Visual and verbal clues or sets do not faolli- . tate attending to the same stimulus information. 3. Differentiation provides different clues than equivalence in identification tasks (since it accounts for the perceptual context). In view of these differences, in situations where one needs to rely heavily on stimulus clues, as In the case of identifying Instances of novel and complex stimuli, the Gib­ son orientation seems more useful. Hence, it is hypothe­ sized that the Gibson orientation will facilitate the identi­ fication of Instances of artists' styles (i.e., novel and complex stimuli) to a greater extent than will the Bruner

orientation. 29 Stimulus Availability Availability Is contingent on the temporal order of stim­ ulus presentations. Simultaneously (SI) presented stimuli are more available than successively (SU) presented stimuli. They can be directly compared whereas successive presentations need to be remembered. Vflth SU presentations the Identification of relevant attributes depends on retaining information from one ocasslon to the next. One must hold In memory each stimulus In order to make a comparison. These mnemonic constraints hinder the detection of stimulus relationships. This Is evi­ dent In the superiority of SI presentations in contrast with SU presentations. The superiority of SI presentations has been demonstrated by numerous writers for five to eleven year olda."2- ^

However, SU presentations vary In the degree to which * they hinder perceptual learning. For example, with few

,,2Scholnick, "Effects of Stimulus Availability," PP. 183-194. ^Morton Rieber, "Role of Stimulus Comparisons In Children's Discrimination Learning." Journal of Experimental Psychology. LXXII, No. 2 (1966), pp. ZF3^ZT0'. ilk Charles Splker and Bonnie Lubker, "The Relative Dif­ ficulty for Children of the Successive and Simultaneous Dis­ crimination Problems." Child Development, XXXVI (1965), pp. 1091-1101. JlC -'Wendell Jeffery, "Variables In Early Discrimination Learning: Simultaneous vs. Successive Stimulus Presenta­ tion," Child Development. XXXII (1961), pp. 305-310. stimuli there Is little memory load and consequently little 4 difference between SI and SU. As the number of stimuli* complexity of stimuli, or the difficulty of the concept In­ creases, SI presentations are superior to SU. Evidence for this Is found in the studies of Herbert Veils; Lyle Bourne, Jr., Sidney Goldstein, and William Link; Hugh Cahill and Carl Hovland; and Thomas Drummond, Tannls Williams, and Leona Aiken.The Drummond et al. study Illustrates this nicely. Each child was shown two prototypes which were placed In front of him and covered. A block of patterns was placed down In front of him and he was instructed to view them singly and to select to which prototype each pattern be­ longed. In making a selection he could ask the experimenter to uncover each prototype separately or simultaneously. The results Indicated that there was an increase in requests to see both prototypes as the pattern to be sorted Increased in difficulty level.

^Herbert Wells, "Facilitation of Concept Learning by a 'Simultaneous Contrast' Procedure," Psychonomic .Science. IX, No. 12 (1967), pp. 609-610; Lyle E. Bourne, Jr., Sidney Goldstein, and William E. Link, "Concept Learning as a Func­ tion of Availability of Previously Presented Information," Journal of Experimental Psychology. LXVII, No. 5 (1961*), PP. **39-4^0; Hugh E. Cahill and Carl' I. Hovland, "The Hole of Memory in the Acquisition of Concepts," Journal of Ex­ perimental Psychology. LIX, No. 3 (I960), pp. 13V-1455 Thomas B . Drummond, Tann1s M. Williams, and Leona S. Aiken, "Children's Use of Prototypes in Pattern Classification," Child Development. XLIV (1973), pp. 686-688. 31 What the Drummond et al. study Illustrates Is the rele­ vance of one's frame of reference In learning to attend to pictures. If one's frame of reference Influences what Is per­ ceptually learned as the above studies Indicate, then It ought to be accounted for in the Instructional use of pictures. The Gibsons and Bruner differ In their account of one's frame of reference or perception. With each the conditions stressed In this matter vary. For the Qlbsons, perception is assumed to be veridical. In other words, one's perception Is taken to be In increasing correspondence with one's environment as one learns to differentiate new variables of stimulation. As such, the Qlbson view does not explain one's perception when the stimulus Is impoverished since under such conditions one needs to hypothesize about the stimulus on the basis of what one knows rather than what one sees. The Qlbson view is based on differentiation through a comparison of stimuli. However, with Impoverished stimuli such comparisons are not possible. « In contrast, Bruner assumes that perception usually occurs under conditions where the stimulus is impoverished. Hence, he emphasizes one's internal model which structures the stimulus and facilitates learning. His account, however, does not explain why learning takes place when stimuli are simultaneously presented. In Bruner's words, "There is probably one condition where perceptual acts are relatively free of such influences £the matching of stimulus inputs to 32 Internal categories^* and that Is in the task of discrimina­ ting simultaneously presented stimuli as alike or differ- ii7 ent . . ." Bruner's explanation Is more consistent with the sequential presentation of stimuli where the direct comparison of stimuli is not possible. "Ask the person to deal with one stimulus at a time* to array it In terms of some magnitude scale* and immediately one is baqk in the lift familiar territory of inferential categorizing."™ In con­ trast* the Gibsons' explanation is more consistent with the simultaneous presentation of stimuli since it emphasizes the direct comparison of stimuli.

While comparing pictures directly may seem to be a su­ perior method of viewing pictures, this is not always the case. For example* when simple stimuli are presented SI and SU* there was little difference between the results of these conditions in comparison with the marked difference when more complex stimuli were used,^^ These differences Indicated that with complex pictures SI presentations were. superior to SU presentations.

^Jerome S. Bruner, "On Perceptual Readiness," Contem- orary Theory and Research in Visual Perception (New York: Solt klnehart and Winston* Inc.* 190b), p. 036. **8Ibld.. pp. 638-639. ^9Lyle Bourne. Jr.* Sidney Goldstein* and William Link* "Concept Learning," pp. ^39— . 33 Hence, in this study It Is hypothesized that for con- »« plex pictures SI presentations will be superior. This hy-

. * pothesls nay seen to be a foregone conclusion. However, It a . Is not clear how the order of presentation, I.e., SI or SU, in combination with visual and verbal clues will affect per- ceptual learning. In addition, It Is not evident what ef­ fect SI or SU presentations have upon subsequent SI or SU presentations. An Investigation of these areas will provide Information about how pictures, pictorial clues, and order of presentation influence one's subsequent perception of pictures.

Hypotheses Even though studies comparing visual and verbal clues provided conflicting evidence in recognition tasks, the studies which support the use of verbal clues (see pp. 18-19) only utilized verbal clues, I.e., the naming of stimuli. For example, In the Ellis and Muller study the use of verbal clues plus observation' was compared with the use of observation only. In the writer's study, however, both visual and verbal clues are provided. The visual clues provide a frame of ref­ erence for specifying features of stimulus relationships whereas verbal clues may not reflect the relationships among pictorial qualities (see pp. 15-16). On the basis of this and the evidence provided by studies which suggest the util­ ity of differentiation, e.g., David Olson's study, it Is hy­ pothesized that a visual frame of reference and a task set 3*» to differentiate stimuli will be more effective in facili­ tating the subsequent Identification of a class of pictures than will a verbal frame of reference which describes fea­ tures critical to the target class and a task set to detect equivalence among stimuli. Moreover, since the evidence comparing SZ and SU methods overwhelmingly indicates the su­ periority of SI presentations, especially for complex stim­ uli, it is hypothesized that the SI method of presentation will facilitate the identification of the target class to a greater extent than will the SU method of presentation, and that this effect will be more pronounced when a greater num­ ber of pictures is presented.

In addition to these hypotheses, post hoc comparisons will be made among the different combinations of temporal order to determine the relative effectiveness of different sequences of SI and SU presented pictures. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Sample Students participating In the study were selected from two public Junior high schools In the Columbus area. There were two bases for the seleotlon of this age group: 1) the evidence provided by the Howard Gardner study which Indi­ cates that viewers younger than that of the sample did not attend to style but that viewers In the seventh grade could be taught to attend to Btyle, and 2) the probability that older viewers would be more familiar with the pictures and might have relied more on what they knew rather than the perceptual clues provided. The choice of the sites and classrooms was based on schools and teachers that were willing to participate In the study. Students who partici­ pated were selected from Intact seventh and eighth grade classes and were randomly assigned to one of the Indepen­ dent variables in the study. While randomization occurred in most cases, there were occasions, however, when random­ ization was not possible, e.g., refusal to participate In the study or when students originally selected were absent. A total of 96 students participated In the study which was sufficiently large to approximate a normal distribution,

35 36 but not unduly large bo as to affeet the level of signifi­ cance .

Selection of Test Items Four classes of artists' painting styles were used as target stimuli: Picasso, Chagall, Van Gogh, and Utrillo. These artists' styles have been commonly found In schools. In addition, seventeen classes of painting styles were used as dlstractors. The pictures used were reproductions by the Tudor Publishing Company. All pictures were the same size, approximately four inches by five Inches and all were about the same print quality.

The dlstractors were randomly assigned to one of the four target classes. Then, three Judges who were graduate students In art education were asked to group each of the four groups of target classes and dlstractors where were stylistically similar. Styles were grouped by referring to the surface characteristics of an artist's work. As James Ackerman has stated, "We create classes such as Impressionism, Baroque art, or Picasso's Blue Period on the assumption that a certain oomplex of elements common to a group of works is sufficiently stable, distinct, and relevant to Justify char­ acterizing It as a style," and "We distinguish one style from another by noting differences In the use of conventions, 37 materials, and techniques."1 The number of groupings for eaoh of the four target classes was fixed by the investigator. This number was equivalent to the total number of classes, i.e., target and dlstractor, present in eaoh of the four, piles of pictures being grouped.

The groupings by Judges indicated eighty-one per cent of all the target classes were placed in groupings that did not 2 Include dlstractors. In addition, the investigator accounted for the number of Instances of a target class that were grouped together in subgroups of that class. The number of pictures in a subgroup indicated the number of pictures a Judge thought to be similar but which could be subsumed under the target class. Scores were assigned to subgroups accord­ ing to the number of pictures grouped together. If seven Picasso's were grouped together, eaoh was rated a seven; if only two were grouped together, each was rated a two. The scores for these pictures are found in the Appendix. The frequency with which a particular score occurred for the groupings of a Judge was also obtained. This indicated the degree to which Instances of a target class were grouped as

^■Ralph Smith, ed., "Style," Aesthetics and Criticism in Art Education (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, I9bb), pp. 22b20b. 2The per cent estimate of groupings by Judges is based on whether a target picture was or was not in a subgroup with dlstractors and not on the scores which were assigned to subgroups. 38 similar. For example, If a*large number of Instances of a target class were grouped together and such groupings occurred frequently, a definite visual correspondence within subgroups of a class would be Indicated. With larger subgroups there would be greater correspondence, and with increased frequency of large subgroups there would be greater correspondence. Hence, the consistency with which judges formed groupings of a particular size was used as an estimate of their agreement concerning the visual correspondence among instances of a class. A correlation coefficient of .66 was calculated using the Spearman Brown formula which is sufficiently reliable for ratings of this type,^ The analysis of variance summary table and the correlation coefficient is indicated in Table 1.

TABLE 1 INTER-JUDGE RELIABILITY FOR TARGET PICTURES

Source df SS MS Reliability

Between pictures 6 1121.14 186.86 .66 Within pictures 14 876.67 62.62 Betv/een pictures 2 2.95 1.48 Residual 12 873.71 72.81 Total 20 1997.81

After the reliability estimate was obtained, then two of the target classes for each style were randomly selected to be

^B. J. Winer, Statistical Principles in Experimental De­ sign (New York: McQraw Hill book Company, T971), pp" 283-28$, 39 used In a pro training, visual set. For eaoh of the four tar­ get classes verbal descriptions were also obtained (see ap­ pendix) . Three junior high school teachers were asked to verbally describe the stylistic characteristics of each of / the four target styles. These descriptions were duplicated and three graduate students In art education circled key phrases and terms on the duplicated sheets which corresponded to the stylistic characteristics of the target class. A baseline was established that at least two Judges should agree on a description before it would be Included In a com­ posite description of a style for use as a pretraining ver­ bal set. A reliability estimate of these statements indi­ cated that inter-judge reliability was .86,**

Test Format and Procedures The Instrument fcfr each of the target styles consisted of two pictures of the target style or a verbal description of that style which were used to create a perceptual set, a learning display of four target pictures and four dlstrao- tors, and two criterion displays of eight target pictures and eight dlstractors each. For example, in Figure 1 on page 42 the perceptual set consisted of either two Chagall's or a verbal description of Chagall's style; the learning

**This estimate was based on the formulalt* ■ Po - Pe 1 - *e in Gilbert Sax's book entitled Empirical Foundations of Educational Research (Englewood cllfrs: Prentice Hall, Ino.i 1 5 W , p p . 190-191. I

ijo display consisted of -four Chagall's and four dlstraotors; and the two criterion displays each consisted of eight Chagall's and eight dlstraotors.

Each of the target classes and dlstractors were ran­ domly assigned to different learning and criterion displays so that instances of a particular class and dlstractors had an equal chance of being In the learning or criterion dis­ plays. The order In which the pictures were arranged was • 4 maintained so that the order of presentation was also ran­ dom.

The test was conducted In the classroom settings over a period of three weeks. It was administered to six stu­ dents at a time, and the order of the groups receiving the test was random. Students were given an answer sheet upon which to record their respouses*which consisted of ruled divisions for the learning and criterion displays for eaoh of the four target styles. Each of the pictures had a ran­ dom number In the lower right-hand corner and students re­ corded this number for the selections they made. There was no time limit Involved in making selections, but If students seemed to take an exceptionally long period of time, they were encouraged to finish.

The tasks involved viewing the pictures or verbal des­ cription was uBed to create a perceptual set, and then a learning display was presented either simultaneously (SI) Hi or successively (SU) and viewers were asked to identify pic­ tures in the learning display which looked like the pictures in the perceptual set or which seemed to fit the verbal des­ cription used in the perceptual set.^ Viewers were cautioned not to use subject-matter as a cue but the stylistic simil­ arity between materials in the perceptual set and the pic­ tures in the learning display. If the learning display was presented SI, the pictures or verbal description used for the set were also present, but if the learning display was presented SU, they were not present. Before the learning display was removed, viewers were asked to remember instances of the target class present so that they could identify stylistically similar pictures in the displays of pictures to follow. To become familiar with this task, viewers were first presented a sample set of pictures and only after any procedural questions were answered were the perceptual set and learning display presented. A criterion display was then presented SI or SU with the learning display not pres­ ent. Then this display was removed and another criterion display was presented either SI or SU. The arrangement of pictures in the learning and criterion displays is Indicated in Figure 1,

^viewers were also read the verbal description and were asked if they understood the terms used, e.g., 'geo­ metric •' Set Learning Display Criterion Display Criterion Display 00 0000 00000000 00000000 0 0000 00000000 00000000. Pictures Targets and Targets and dlstractors Targets and dlstractors and verbal dlstractors presented SI or SU presented SI or SU descriptions presented (VB) SI or SU

The alphabetical letters refer to the artists' names except the VB in the perceptual set which refers to a verbal set.

FIGURE 1 ARRANGEMENT OF PICTURES IN THE LEARNING AND CRITERION DISPLAYS 43 A total of four presentations were made for each group of six viewers - one for each of the four target styles. For the first two presentations the learning display was presented either SI or SU. For the second two presentations the temporal order was the converse, e.g., If the first two learning displays were presented SI, the second two learn­ ing displays were presented SU. Half of the total of six­ teen groups of viewers received an SI presented learning display first and half received an SI presented learning display second. Learning displays presented SI first were

* randomly assigned to half of the groups, I.e., eight groups, and the other half received learning displays presented SU first.

There were two orientations for the task of Identify­ ing Instances of the target class: one commensurate with James and Eleanor Gibson's perceptual theory and the other with Jerome Bruner's perceptual theory. Each orientation was intended to facilitate the detection of the target plo- tures•

With the Gibson oriented presentations a pictorial set was used since a pictorial frame of reference Is consistent with differentiation theory (see section on the Oibsons and Bruner). The plotures used In the set were a standard In relation to which the viewers oould detect similarities and 44 and differences when observing the learning and criterion dis- plays. In addition, viewers were asked to record which pic­ tures In the learning and criterion displays were different from as well as similar to the pictures In the set since differentiation theory posits attending to distinctive fea­ tures of difference as a means for perception to Increasingly correspond with the Information available in stimulation.

With the Bruner oriented presentations, a verbal set was used since Bruner's cognitive theory focuses on the lin­ guistic structuring of stimuli which otherwise remain un- organized. With such a focus the emphasis is on the inter­ nalized Information associated with the linguistic des­ cription In the perceptual set. Based on their Internal categories associated with this verbal description, viewers attempted to make a match between the pictures observed and the model. In attempting to Identify the target pictures, viewers were asked to look for the equivalence or similar­ ities only between the model they had and the pictures In the learning and criterion displays since this Is consistent with Bruner's position (see section on the Gibsons and Bru- * ner).

After viewers had recorded their responses, they were asked If they knew the names of any of the artists who painted the pictures they observed. Of the nlnety-slx par­ ticipants, nineteen reported knowing the names of one or 45 more artists. The frequency with which artists were named Is Indicated in Figure 2,

14 13 12 11 10 90 Number ® of Viewers £ 5 4 3 2 1

o

FIGURE 2 PREKNOWLEDGE OF ARTISTS' NAMES

The names of artists were requested to partially account for previous knowledge participants might have about the pictures they were viewing. Also, It provided an estimation of whe­ ther visual characteristics were being oompared, I.e., It Indicates whether viewers had prior knowledge which could be used In making selections or whether the pictures and verbal clues presented were used In making selections. 46

Design The effects of four fixed variables are being studied: A , B, C, and D. These are combined in a three between one within partial hierarchical analysis of variance design. The A variable is the kind of set of which there are two levels, one for the Gibson orientation and the other for the Bruner orientation. This variable is crossed with the B variable which is the temporal order of the two criter­ ion displays, i.e., whether they are presented SI or SU. There are four levels of this variable, one for each pos­ sible combination of SI and/or SU; each level crosses with two levels of variable C. Variable C indicates whether the learning display was presented SI or SU. Por each level of B the learning display was counterbalanced so as to ac­ count for any effects of order. Variable C reflects this counterbalancing. Nested within each level of the A, B, C combinations is a random.variable S which consists of six subjects. In addition, there is a repeated measurements variable D. It indicates performance for learning displays presented SI and SU for each viewer in a group at a level of C. The structure of this design can best be seen in Figure 3.

With this design, the following combinations of vari­ ables are possible: A, B, C, AB, AC, BC, ABC, S/ABC, D, AD, A______B______C______3______01______M S3 31/80 38 83 si/ax 33 8U/8X 33 33 83 31/30 83 83 81/80 33 SU/3X 33 A1 33 oibton Orientation 83 31/30 33 83 SU/3X 33 SU/3X 33 83 33 31/30 33 33 30/80 83 SU/3X S3 33

33 St/80 33 33 SX/SI S3 S0/3I S3 33 33 SZ/SO 33 S3 31/30 S3 SU/SX S3 A2 33 Druner Orientation 33 31/80 33 88 S0/3X 83 SU/SX 33 33 33 SI/SO 33 38 30/80 83 30/3 X 33 83

A Olbaon or Bruner orientation D SX and/or SU order of the criterion display C SX and/or SU order or the learning display 3 Viewers D1 Repeated neasures P2 Repeated meaeurea

7I0URI 3 THREE BETWEEN ONE WITHIN PARTIAL HIERARCHICAL DE3I0N 48 BD, CD, ABD, ACD, BCD, ABCD, D3/ABC. Of these variables the between group combinations are of Interest, I.e., A, B, C, AB, AC, BC, and ABC. These variables reflect the dlbson and , • ♦. • Bruner orientations, the availability of stimuli, and the *• effects of SI and SU order upon learning to Identify novel and complex pictures. The three between one within partial hierarchical design was chosen because all of the variables 4 of Interest can be related and the effect of spuriously In-

m creasing the F test due to administering the test to groups rather than Individuals can be controlled since the error sum of squares and degrees of freedom are partitioned In a hierarchical analysis. Through such partitioning one can account more accurately for the error variable.

Hypotheses It was hypothesized that significant Interaction would occur for second order Interaction, first order Interaction, and main effects. Second order or ABC Interaction was ex­ pected due to significant variations among first order In­ teraction BC over levels of A. These changes were expected since the Gibson orientation was thought to combine with lev­ els of BC which reflect SI oriented presentations. First order interaction for BC was also expected since levels of B which reflect SI oriented presentations were thought to com­ bine with levels of C which reflect SI presentations. For AC It was doubtful whether significant Interaction would oc­ cur slnoe levels of A were not expeoted to change much In 49 combination with levels of C (due to the effect of SI and SU differences being small for relatively short presenta­ tions In which memory factors are minimal)• In addition, since BC Interaction was expected and since such interac­ tion contributes to ABC Interaction, a significant ABC In­ teraction was expected.. Significant main effects were also hypothesized for A and B since significant differences were expected between the Qlbsons' and Bruner's orientations at A and between SI and SU oriented presentations at B.

Analysis of Data - Assumptions The data was analyzed using a three between one within partial hierarchical analysis of variance and It was calcu­ lated through the BALANOVA 5 computer program. In using this form of the analysis of variance several assumptions have to be met. These assumptions concern the possible in­ fluence of 1) non-normality, 2) non-independence of groups, and 3) heterogeneity of variance upon the results obtained. However, "Departures from population normality have little effect in practice relative to spuriously altering the prob- ability of committing Type I errors" with the analysis of variance. This has been confirmed by D. W. Norton (1952 and 1953) In a Monte Carlo study which investigated the ' * * . . - John J. Kennedy, An Intuitive Approach to the Design and Analysis of Educational Experiments, a pre-rpublication copy, p.%.72. effects of non-normality for an F-distrlbutlonJ Hence, the analysis of variance is very robust with respect to violations of the normality assumption.

In regards to the non-independence of groups, there is * the possibility that the performance of participants was correlated since the test was administered to groups of six and participants might have influenced one another so as to limit the variability among scoreB more than if scores had been free to vary. However, with a hierarchical design one can partially account for the degree of independence by 4 looking at the amount of variability within groups. Also, though the test was administered to groups rather than in­ dividuals, the size of the group was small so as to limit any effects resulting from groups being tested.

Extreme heterogeneity of variance was not expected since randomization was employed. Through randomization one controls for group variances being dissimilar prior to treatment. In addition, each group had an equal number of participants. With equal n's even when variances are mark- ' edly unequal the actual level of significance approximates the nominal level. This has been demonstrated by 0. E. P.

Box (195*0.8 51 In addition, Cochran*s test for the homogeneity of var­ iance was performed for the variables of interest, i.e., those for which significance was predicted. The g statis­ tics for these variables are calculated for correct and in­ correct responses in Table 2.

* The g statistics for all variables of correct and in­ correct responses were under the tabled values except for variables BC (correct response). Hence, except for BC, the null hypotheses was retained indicating that there was homo­ geneity of variance. For BC the actual level of signifi­ cance slightly exceeded the nominal level at .01 which pro- * duced a slightly biased F. However, since F tests are ro­ bust with respect to departures from homogeneity of variance, a slightly biased F is of little concern. "The experimenter need be concerned about only relatively large departures from the hypothesis of equal population variables."9

The number of correct and incorrect Identifications of the target artist's style were the dependent variables. This data was assumed to approximate inverval data. While most data in educational research is strictly ordinal or even nom­ inal, when fixed units of measurements are used, as in the number of correct responses (where each trial or response is

■

^B, J. Winer, Statistical Principles, p. 206. TABLE 2 COCHRAN'S TEST FOR HOMOGENEITY OF VARIANCE. CORRECT RESPONSES

A B AB BC ABC g - .6674 8 - .3285 g * .2062 g - .2753 g - .1161 a - 2 a ■ 4 a ■ 8 a *• 8 a « 16 n - 1 - 95 n - 1 - 47 n - 1 “ 23 n - 1 « 23 n - 1 ■ 11 R > *01 R > .01 EL > .01 R < .01 R > .01

COCHRAN'S TEST FOR HOMOGENEITY OF VARIANCE, INCORRECT RESPONSES •

A B AB BC ABC g - .5522 g - .3431 g - .2357 g - .1972 g - .1614 a - 2 a ■ 4 a ■ 8 a ■* 8 a ** 16 n - 1 - 95 n - 1 » 47 n - 1 - 23 n - 1 » 23 n - 1 - 11 R > *01 R > *01 R > .01 R > *01 R > .01 the unit), an Interval scale Is Implied. "If an Interval scale exists, some definition of a fixed unit would be stated or Implied as in 'trials to criterion' which implies that a trial is the unit of measurement.1,10 With a number of trials or responses, one is not just claiming that non- ad Jacent scores differ.more than adjacent scores. Rather, one Is specifying by how much something is greater or less,* though it is acknowledged that this specification does not adequately reflect the degree to which one's class for a target artist's style has been articulated*

If the data concerning artist's style is Interval, one accounts for the analysis of variance assumption that data be interval in nature. However, even if per chance the data were not Interval, the analysis of variance would still be the best estimate for the combination of variables being Investigated.

10Eleanor W. Villemsen, Understanding Statistical Reason­ ing. (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and company, 19^4;, pp. q-5. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS Results Goth the correct and Incorrect responses were des­ cribed statistically for levels of A,.B, AD, BC, and ABC. These are based on the raw data reported In Table 10 and Table 11 of the Appendix and they are summarized in Table 3 and Table 4.

In looking at the means and variances for correct re­ sponses, there appear to be significant differences among means for variables A, AB, ABC, and perhaps BC, though there are relatively large differences among the variances for levels of BC. However, in looking at the means and variances for incorrect responses, there appeared to be significant differences among means only for BC.1

To test for these possible differences a three be­ tween one within partial hierarchical analysis of variance was conducted for both correct and incorrect responses. The results of the analysis of variance are indicated in Table 5 and Table 6.

^-These intuitive' Judgments were based on the degree of difference among means and the degree of compactness among variances. 54 TAOLS 3 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND VANUNCM FOR CORRECT RESPONSES

Variable Naan Std. Dav. Variance

A1 25.906 5.165 26.675 96 A2 14,292 7.317 53.535 96 B1 20.750 8.222 67.596 46 02 20.146 9.802 96.085 46 21.563 48 Si 17.936 1 5 8 ?I:B! 48 A1B1 26.543 24 A1B2 27.792 ?:?!! l i A l l 24 A1B3 24.333 5.647 31.884 24 Al»4 24.956 20.825 24. A2B1 14.958 h t t l 34.650 24 A2B2 1 2 .5 0 0 7.616 58.000 24 A2B3 18.792 7.690 59.129 24 A2B4 10.917 5.702 32.514 24 B1C1 20.417 9.868 97.384 24 B1C2 21.083 6.365 40.515 21 B2C1 17.208 12.198 148.761 24 B2C2 23.083 . 5.437 29.558 24 B3C1 25.542 32*733 24 B3C2 17.583 I : S R 48.254 24 B4CI 19.625 6.665 44.416 24 B4C2 16.250 10.288 105.848 24 A1B1C1 29.500 4.210 17.727 12 A1B1C2 23.583 5.760 33.175 12 A1B2C1 28.833 3.010 9.061 12 A1B2C2 26.750 4.770 22.750 12 A1B3C1 26.333 5.140 26.425 12 A1B3C2 22.333 5.614 31.516 12 A1B4C1 24.500 4.011 16.091 12 A1B4C2 25.417 5.195 26.993 12 A2B1C1 11.333 2.425 5.879 12 A2B1C2 18.583 6.156 37.902 12 A2B2C1 5.563 2.678 7.174 12 A2B2C2 19.417 3.118 9.720 12 A2B3C1 24.750 5.101 26.023 12 A2B3C2 12.633 4.489 20.152 12 A2B4C1 14.750 4.993 24.932 12 A2B4C2 7.083 3.315 10.992 12 KEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND VARIANCES FOR INCORRECT RESPONSES

Variable Naan Std. Dav. Variance N

Ai 9.188 8.700 22.091 96 A2 8 .302 5 .2 2 0 27.285 96 B1 7.879 8.663 21.783 88 B2 8 ,0 0 0 8.126 17.021 88 11.021 5.687 31.893 88 B3 8.879 8.722 22.297 88 A1B1 6.833 8.687 21.971 28 A1B2 8.583 2 .8 8 2 8 .0 8 0 28 A1B3 11.625 8.576 20.980 28 A1B3 9.708 5.258 27.607 28 A2B1 8.125 3.687 21.599 28 A2B2 7.817 5.098 25.993 28 A2B3 10.817 83.371 28 A2B3 7.250 SJfi 13.803 28 B1C1 6.000 8.755 22.609 28 B1C2 8.958 8.153 17.259 28 B2C1 6.333 3.897 12.232 28 B2C2 9.667 8.093 16.758 28 B3C1 13.750 5.050 25.500 28 B3C2 8.292 8.912 23.129 28 BA Cl 9.582 8.891 20.172 28 B8C2 7.817 8.800 23.036 28 A1B1C1 6.817 5.915 38.992 12 A1B1C2 7.250 3.251 1 0 .5 6 8 12 A1B2C1 8.817 3.029 9.178 12 A1B2C2 8.750 2 .7 6 8 7.659 12 A1B3C1 13.083 1.975 3.902 12 A1B3C2 10.167 5.937 35.282 12 A1B8C1 9.750 5.119 26.205 12 A1B8C2 9.667 5.618 31.515 12 A231C1 5.583 3.850 11.902 12 A2B1C2 10.667 8.376 19.152 12 A2B2C1 . 8.250 2.633 6.932 12 A2D2C2 10.583 5.053 25.538 12 A2B3C1 18.817 6 .9 6 0 88.887 12 A2B3C2 6 .8 1 7 2.786 7.538 12 A2BIC1 9.333 12 A2B8C2 5.167 i:\li 1:81 12 57 TABLE 5 THREE BETWEEN ONE WITHXN PARTIAL HIERARCHICAL ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE FOR CORRECT RESPONSES

Source ar SS MS P

Between Groups A l 6>t75.1302 6475.1302 306.8631* B 3 3*17.5X56 115.8385 5.4897 C 1 68.8802 68.8802 3.2643 AB 3 675.5156 225.1718 IO.67U* AC X 118.7550 118.7750 5.6279 BC 3 12*)7.3*190 415.7829 19.7044* ABC 3 1570.3900 523.4635 24.8075* S/ABC 80 1688.0830 21.1010

Within Croups D 1 57 .*1218 57.4218 5.1437 AD 1 .6302 .6302 .0565 BD 3 106.7239 35.5746 3.1867 CD 1 166.8802 166.8802 14.9487 ABD 3 107.9320 35.9774 3.2228 ACD 1 516.7960 516.7960 46.2933 BCD 3 10.9320 3.6440 .3264 ABCD 43.0980 14.3660 1.2869 DS/ABC 80 893.0830 11.1635

•a .05 •

•

*

4 *58 TABLE 6 • • THREE BETWEEN ONE WITHIN PARTIAL HIERARCHICAL ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE FOR INCORRECT RESPONSES

Sourot df S3 M3 F

Betwoon Oroups A 1 37.6302 37.6302 1.5241 B 3 355.5572 118.5191 4.8002 C . I 5.0052 5.0052 .2027 AB 3 88.7656 29.5885 1.1984 AC 1 .8802 ,8802 .0356 BO 3 6(15.0572 215.0191 8.7085s ABC 3 288.8489 96.2829 3.8996 S/ABC 80 1975.2500 24.6906.

Within Qroupa D 1 24.7968 24.7968 3.1526 AO 1 8.7552 8.7552 1.1131 BD 3 43.5989 14.5329 1.8477 CD 1 19.3802 19.3802 2.4639 ABO 3 65.4739 21.8246 2.7747. ACD 1 484.5052 484.5052 61.5978 BCD 3 31.5156 10.5052 1.3356 ABCO 3 20.2239 6.7413 .8571 OS/ABC 80 629.2500 7.8656 •a -os 59 Interpretation of Results

In order to Interpret the significant results Indicated by the analysis of variance for correct responses, the high­ er order effects had to be accounted for first since the specific nature of these effects determines the practical significance of the lower order effects. Hence, the ABC second order interaction was examined before the AB or BC interaction and the A main effects. The ABC Interaction was analyzed by looking at the variations In AB and BC (the var­ iables of interest relative to the hypotheses In Chapter 3) across levels of C and A respectively when the means for all levels of ABC were graphed. The way In which AB interacted across C Is indicated in Figure 4.

aa ao

10 At

>i ti ■i et . HOURS I ANALYSIS OP INTERACTION FOR AB ACROSS ' LEVELS OP C. CORRECT RESPONSES 60 The interaction in Figure 4 is ordinal since there is par­ allelism in the pattern of AB combinations across C. This parallelism, though, needs to be qualified since there is peakedness at A2B3C1 which suggests interaction. However, this deviation is offset by the similar pattern for the seven other combinations. Since the second order inter­ action appeared ordinal for AB across C, the first order interaction for AB was investigated to determine if the pattern of interaction was similar to that in Figure 4.

A1

At At

PIOURE 5 ANALYSIS OP INTERACTION FOR A ACROSS LEVELS OP D, CORRECT RESPONSES •

As indicated in Figure 5, it was similar, I.e., ordin­ al. Post hoc comparisons of A1 and A2 using Dunn's test in Table 7 indicated that A1 was superior to A2 at all levels 2 of B except for possibly B3. * 2 Dunn's test was selected due to the relatively small number of comparisons phased on C < a (a-l) ^being made. 6l TABLE 7 POST HOC COMPARISONS FOR Al AND A2 DUNN'S TEST

*1 55> Z x z> 24.96 . 24.33 27.79 26.54 11.59* fti 14.95

15.29* 3&l 12.50 5.54 18.79 14.05* 10.91

*a .01

Even though Dunn's test was not necessary prior to checking the mean differences of the main effects, It did provide a better picture of the variability associated with the A1 level. The main effects were then checked In Table 5 which Indicated significant differences between the means of A1 and A 2 . Hence, the Oibson orientation Is more ef­ fective than the Bruner orientation for criterion displays of novel and complex pictures presented simultaneously and successively.

The way in which BC Interacted with various levels of A Is indicated In Figure 6. An inspection of Figure 6 in­ dicates a slightly dlsordlnal BC Interaction at Al, but a very pronounced dlsordlnal BC Interaction at A2. Since the interaction at both levels of A was dlsordlnal, the first order interactions for BC were not investigated. Also since 62

the differences among means or levels of B at Al were small it was decided not to make post hoc comparisons among them* Instead, the differences between levels of B were compared at A2C1 and A2C2. The results using Dunn's test are Indi­ cated In Table 8.

s«

at

10 it )§4-

Cl 01 01 Al U

■I -ii U I)

. FXOURB 6 ANALYSIS OP INTERACTION FOR BC ACROSS LEVELS OP A. CORRECT BE5P0NSES

On the basis of the significant results Indicated In Table 8, It appears that successively presented criterion • displays are effective In combination with simultaneously presented learning displays, but that simultaneously pre­ sented criterion displays are effective In relation to sue- cesslvely presented learning displays. This finding Is contrary to the hypothesis that SI presentations will be more effective than SU presentations. However, these 63 seemingly contradictory results may be accounted for by con­ sidering the nature of the task In SI and SU presentations of the criterion displays.

TABLE 8 POST HOC COMPARISONS FOR LEVELS OF B DUNN'S TEST

Xim. Xiisl JCwd 19.^2 18.58 5.58 11.33 -19.17* -13.42* 7ui 24.75 -9.17* X*. 14.75 6.59 7ui 12.83 12.34* 11.5* IlU 7.08

*E .01

When pictures were presented SI, viewers were attempt­ ing to Identify target pictures in each criterion display from among 16 possibilities. This involved a search pro­ cess which, due to the complexity of the context, taxed some of the viewers' capacity to discriminate relevant at­ tributes, as well as attention span, especially when one considers that viewers looked at 32 pictures in learning displays and 132 pictures in criterion displays. However, when pictures were presented SU, viewers did not have to scan the array of 16 pictures in each criterion display. Thus, the SU tasks apparently did not tax some of the viewers' discrimination skills or attention span as much 64 as the SI tasks*

Thus far, the most elesCr cut finding was that the Oib- son orientation was superior to the Bruner orientation for the conditions of the test. This finding, however, would have to be modified if more incorrect identifications of artists* styles had occurred with the Gibson orientation than the Bruner orientation. To account for this possible qualification of the differences between orientations, the significance was checked among variables in the ANOVA sum­ mary for incorrect responses in Table 6. Only the BC in­ teraction was found to be significant. The interaction for this combination of variables was graphed and it was found to be dlsordlnal as is indicated in Figure 7.

10 C l

Yiaum r ANALYSIS OF INTERACTION FOR* C ACROSS . LEVELS OF B. INCORRECT RESPONSES 65 Hence, post hoc comparisons Were made between the C mean8 across levels of B using Dunn's test. The results of this analysis are Indicated In Table 9*

TABLE 9 POST HOC COMPARISONS FOR Cl AND C2 DUNN'S TEST

Xv X* Xa Xu 9.54 13.75 6.33 6.00 3.00 Xu 9.00

• -3.33 Xu 9.66 5.46 Xu 8.29

2.12 • Xu 7.42

Since there were no significant differences, there was no modification of the claim that the Qlbson orientation » facilitated learning to identify artists' styles to a greater extent than the Bruner orientation.

Summary of Findings and Conclusions Relative to the hypotheses in Chapter III, It was found that: 1. The Qlbson orientation which focused on differenti­ ation and a visual frame of reference was superior to the Bruner orientation which focused on equival­ ence and a verbal frame of reference In facilitat­ ing the correct identification of artists' styles. 2. There were no significant differences between the simultaneous and successive arrangements of pic­ tures in the criterion display. 66 3. The simultaneous and successive order of learning displays combined with that of criterion displays so that significant differences were produced be­ tween simultaneous and successive arrangements of pictures In the learning and criterion displays. The Qlbson and Bruner orientations did not combine with the simultaneous and successive order of the learning displays so as to produce significant differences between combinations of these orienta­ tions and the temporal order of presentation. 5. The Qlbson and Bruner orientations combined with the simultaneous and successive order of the learn­ ing and criterion displays so as to- produce signi­ ficant differences between combinations of these orientations and the temporal order of presenta­ tion. These findings Imply the following conclusions: 1. Even though the same stimulus Is perceived* the same information Is not necessarily detected. Linguistic clues should not be assumed to be the same as visual clues in assisting learning to at­ tend to the characteristics of pictures. 2. One's task set structures the kind of Information attended to and responded to so that pictorial comparisons focusing on differences are not the same as those focusing on equivalence In facilita­ ting the Identification of novel and complex pic­ tures. 3* Pictorial learning is facilitated for complex pic­ tures when the standard for comparison Is external rather than Internal.

Implications for Additional Research The superiority of the Qlbson orientation to the Bruner orientation was explained by claiming that differentiation theory facilitates attending Increasingly to distinctive features. However, It may also facilitate responding to 67 more stimulus Information available than the other orientation since differences as well as similarities are being responded to (I.e., were recorded by viewers) whereas with Bruner, only similarities were responded to. This Is Indicated by the raw scores which show 2,487 correct and 882 Incorrect responses for the Qlbson orientation and 1,382 correct and 797 Incorrect responses for the Bruner orientation. From these data, dif­ ferentiation has facilitated only correct responses. However, « such Increased responding cannot be accounted for by noting that responding to differences Increases the total number of responses since this per se does not account for the Increase In responses to pictorial similarities among target classes with the Olbson orientation In contrast to the Bruner orien­ tation. Rather, one has to consider that viewers may be re­ sponding to more features of target classes since the dls- tractors provide clues which help specify features of the target, as was Indicated In the Olbson and Olson studies dis­ cussed earlier.

However, the differences between the Qlbson and Bruner orientations may be accounted for by the differences In the Information provided by visual and verbal clues which was discussed In Chapter XI. To test for these alternative ac­ counts, one could build Into the design of a study variables associated with task sets for equivalence and differentiation and variables associated with perceptual sets of visual and 68 and verbal elues. In this nay the effects upon Identifying target classes of pictures could be determined for equival­ ence and differentiation and for visual and verbal sets, as well as for various combinations of these variables (e.g., a verbal set In which one differentiates among pictures).

The effect of SI and SU presented pictorial displays may also influence the number of target classes identified. However, the results of these effects were not clear as was discussed earlier in the Results section. The number of pictures was taken to be a possible influence on the seem­ ingly conflicting results of SI and SU presented displays. This Influence, however, may have been accounted for if the number of pictures had been built into the design of the study as a classlflcatory variable. Additional re­ search which Includes this as a variable would provide a clearer picture of the differences between SI and SU.

Implications for Instruction The instructional implications of the writer's study stem from the alternative conceptions of perception held by the Gibsons and Bruner, Bach of these views of percep­ tion suggests a different way of organizing perceptual in­ put and a different way of altering perception and behavior, if it is assumed that altered perceptions result in a change of behavior. With Bruner's orientation the emphasis is upon a cognitive and largely linguistic frame of reference through 69 which perceptual Input Is organized. Before something can be perceived, It must be classified. ". . . All perceptual experience Is necessarily the end product of a categorization p r o c e s s . Hence, Instruction should provide categories through which stimuli can be organized. This Is reminiscent of David Ausabel's advanced organizer approach In which linguistic categories serve as Ideational anchors for subse­ quent perceptions. "... School learning requires the In­ corporation of new concepts and Information Into an existing and established cognitive framework with particular organ­ izational properties. Such a cognitive framework enables one to organize the stimulus and to hypothesize about what Is seen. In this process note that the emphasis Is upon the cognitive structuring or restructuring of the stimulus, I.e., classification or re-classlflcation, and not on specifying new variables of stimulation or upon the arrangement of stimuli. This Is evident In the Mary Potter study on visual recognition (see pp. 26-27) and the Eleanor Gibson study (see p. 13) In which viewers reclassify pictures In order to alter their perceptions of them.

3Jerome S. Bruner, "On Perceptual Readiness," Contem- orary Theory and Research in Visual Perception (New Yorks 6olt Rinehart and Winston, Inc., i960;, p. 035. h . David Ausabel, "Some Psychological Aspects of the Structure of Knowledge," Education and the Structure of Knowledge (Chicago: Fifth Annual Phi Delta kappa Symposium on Educational Research, Rand McNally, 1964), p. 235. 70 The teacher's role Is to facilitate the development of alternative categories for classifying stimuli and the de- * • • velopment of categories at Increasing levels of abstraction In order to alter one's perception of them. For example, a picture might be perceived differently If It Is classified as political, religious, erotic, or satirical. By using

* the appropriate Ideational anchors the teacher can facill- . tate attending to pictorial attributes which reflect vari­ ables of subject matter Interest, e.g., productive, critical, historical, social, etc. Moreover, by using Ideational * anchors at Increasing levels of abstraction, the viewer can increasingly Integrate a greater diversity of perceptual input.

This reflects Bruner's emphasis on going beyond the In­ formation given to superordinate categories that enable one to deal economically with the vast number of stimuli Imping­ ing on the retina. For example, knowing the classificatory attributes of a period of art is more economical than know­ ing the attributes of Individual pictures. Bruner's orien­ tation emphasizes the constancy of perception and a reliance on what one knows. Hence, one's re-classiflcatlon of a stimulus does not specify new stimulus variables, but is a matter of categorizing variables of stimulation which have • been encountered previously. It Is Inconsistent that pre­ existing categories should enable one to detect new stimulus 71 relationships since, as Ralph Haber indicates, it poses the problem of ". . . how one can see something that is novel when one cannot classify it correctly."5

In contrast to Bruner who assumes that one's dasslfl- • * cation of the stimulus must change if one's perception of it is to be altered, the Qlbsons assume that one's percep­ tion of something is altered as one detects other stimuli which facilitate the perception of previously undetected stimulus variables. One does not try to alter the viewer's dispositions or concepts directly, e.g., through the re­ inforcement of the appropriate responses, but provides the viewer with perceptual experiences through which he can detect new stimulus information. New stimulus information Is revealed as the viewer detects previously unnoticed re­ lationships among stimuli in the perceptual context. This is facilitated if the viewer has an external frame of ref­ erence or standard to which other stimuli can be compared and differentiated. In differentiating stimuli the attri­ butes of one stimulus Influence the attributes of another stimulus attended to. This has been demonstrated by David Olson and the Qlbsons (see pp. 24 and 12 respectively). By using stimuli which will facilitate the detection of new variables of the target stimulus the viewer can alter

^Ralph N. Haber, "Nature of the Effeot of Set on Per­ ception," Contemporary Theory and Research in Visual Per­ ception (New York: Holt Rinehart and Wln3ton, Inc., 19bb), P. 767. 72 his conception response to. the target stimulus. For example, If a viewer responds to a picture with provocative subject matter and his response Is based on the attributes of the subject, one might provide a perceptual frame of reference and context In which the BUbJect matter remains the same but In which the attributes vary. In this way the viewer Is aided In detecting variables which facilitate his perception of the attributes that produced his response to the subject.

In focusing on detecting relationships which are stimu­ lus specific the Gibson orientation leads to the formation of stimulus classes which differ from those consistent with the Bruner orientation In the degree to which they reflect stimulus variables. Bruner emphasizes the logical relation­ ship among classes whereas the Gibsons emphasize the percep­ tional relationships. This difference between classes has implications for the assumption that the correspondence be­ tween perception and stimulation is hindered by one's classi­ fication of the stimulus. It Is a commonly held view that in the visual arts one's perceptual development is hindered by the classification of what is seen or that the uniqueness of what is seen is lost when It Is classified. Accordingly, classification Is viewed as a way of coping with the abun­ dance of stimulation available since one's Internal model of the world "fills In" and is In decreasing correspondence with stimulation as was Indicated In the discussion of Bru­ ner. With this form of classification, one's category for 73 or one's knowledge of what Is seen Is considered to hinder the detection of features of the stimulus. For example, Harold Osborne has claimed that classification obfuscates ’ one's perception of nuances, of stimulation.^ Also, June McFee has Indicated that "The tendencies to rely on what Is known (e.g., our classes for things) are called constan­ cies . , . and the use of constancies alone obscures the visual qualities of things."?

However, as the Qlbson orientation haB Indicated, classification need not result In the decreasing corres­ pondence between perception and stimulation. Classes and percepts can be formed which are Increasingly specific to variables of stimulation. By differentiating stimuli one Increasingly detects new variables of stimulation which helps to distinguish one class of things from another and which helps to distinguish features which make up a class. Thus, In making comparisons which Involve the classification of pictures, teachers should not assume that the methods of making such comparisons result In similar Information being attended to. As the study demonstrates, pictorial compari­ sons based on differentiation and an external frame of

^Harold Osbourne, The Art of Appreciation (London: Ox­ ford University Press, PP. 19-29* ?June McFee, Preparation for Art (Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 19Y6), p. b5* 7* reference are different from those based on equivalence and an Internal frame of reference. Each presumes a different relationship between classification, perception, and stimu­ lation. BIBLIOGRAPHY

75 76

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, James. "Style." Aesthetics and Criticlam In Art Education. Edited by Ralph Smith• Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1966, 284-298, Allport, Floyd H. Theories of Perception and the Concept of Structure. New York: John^Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1955. Anglin, Jeremy M., ed. Beyond the Information Given. New York: W, W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1973* Arnheim, Rudolf. Toward a Psychology of Art. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972. • Aubertlne, Horace Edward. An Experiment In the Set Induc­ tion Process and Its Application In Teaching! Ed.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 19b1*. Ausabel, David. "Some Psychological Aspects of the Struc­ ture of Knowledge." Education and the Structure of Knowledge. Chicago: Fifth Annual Phi Delta Kappa Symposium on Educational Research, Rand McNally, 1964, 221-249. Bahrick, H. P., and Boucher, B. "Retention of Visual and Verbal Codes of the Same Stimuli." Journal of Exper- imental Psychology. LXXVIII (1968), 4 T M 2 2 T Bourne, Lyle, Jr;; Goldstein, Sidney; and Link, William. "Concept Learning as a Function of Availability of Previously Presented Information." Journal of Exper­ imental Psychology, LXVII, No. 5 (1964), 439-448, ■Bruner, Jerome S. "On Perceptual Readiness." Contemporary Theory and Research in Visual Perception. Edited by Ralph N. Haber. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968, 634-662. ‘ Towards a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge: Har­ vard University Press, lj)b6. 77 ._____ ; Goodnow, Jacqueline J.; and Austin, George A. A Study of Thinking, New York: John Wiley and Sons* Inc., 195b. Bryant, Peter. Perception and Understanding in Young Chil­ dren. New Xork: Basic Books, Inc., 1971** Cahill, Hugh E., and Hovland, Carl I. "The Role of Memory in the Acauisition of Concepts." Journal of Exper- imental Psychology. LIX, No. 3 (1 9 ‘6"0T, T 3 7 - T 4 T T Cantor, 0. N. "Effects of Three Types of Pretraining on Discrimination Learning in School Children." Journal of Experimental Psychology. XLIX (1955), 339-3*^5^ Carmichael, L.; Hogan, H. P.; and Walter, A. A. "An Exper­ imental Study of the Effect of Language on the Repro­ duction of Visually Produced Form." Journal of Ex­ perimental Psychology. XV (1932), 73-86. Clark, Gilbert A. An Investigation of Children's Abilities to Form and generalize Visual Concepts from visually-* Complex Art Reproductions^ U . S . Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Project 0-1-060, Janu­ ary, 1972. Dorethy, Rex E. "Motion Parallax as a Factor in the Differ­ ential Spatial Abilities of Young Children," Studies in Art Education. XIV, No. 2 (197*0, 15-27. Drummond, Thomas B.; Williams, Tannis M .5 and Aiken, Leona S. "Children's Use of Prototypes in Pattern Classi­ fication." Child Development. XLIV (1973), 686-688. Dwyer, Francis. A Guide for Improving Visualized Instruc­ tion. State College, Pennsylvania: Learning Services, 1 5 7 ? . Efland, Arthur D. The Effect of Perceptual Training upon the Differentiation of Form in Children *s Drawing.r~ Sd.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1965. Ellis, Henry C., and Muller, Douglas G, "Transfer in Per­ ceptual Learning Following Stimulus Predifferentia- tion." Contemporary Theory and Research in Visual Perception. Edited by Ralph N. Haber. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1968, 683-691. Epstein, William. Varieties of Perceptual Learning. New York: McGraw Hill, X9b7• 78 Force, L. S. "An Experimental Study to Examine the Response of Sixth-Grade Students to Programmed Instruction In Art Designed to Correspond to Selected Ability Trial Variables." Studies in Art Education* XI. No. 2 (1970). 37-50. Gardner, Howard. "Children's Sensitivity to Painting Styles." Child Development, XLI (1970), 813-821. ______, and Gardner, J. "Developmental Trends In Sensitl- vity to Painting Style and Subject Matter." Studies in Art Education. XII, No. 1 (1970), 11-16, »• Gibson, Eleanor J. Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development. New York» Appleton-Century-Crofts7 1969* Gibson, James. "A Critical Review of the Concept of Set in Contemporary Experimental Psychology." Psychological Bulletin. XXXIX, No. 9 (1941), 781-782. . "The Information Available in Perception," Leonardo. IV (1971), 27-35. The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: HoughtonMiffiln Company, l9ob. . "The Theory of Information Pickup." Contemporary theory and Research in Visual Perception. Edited by Ralph N . Haber. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968, 662-678. ______» "Visualizing Conceived as Visual Apprehending without any Particular Point of Observation." Leon­ ardo. XVII (197*0, 41-*I2. Gombrich, E. H. Art and Illusion. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 19*>9. Goodman, Nelson; Perkins, David;- and Gardner, Howard. Baslo Abilities Required for Understanding and Creation in ^ the ArtsT U. S. department...of Health, Education, and Welfare Project 9-0283, September, 1972. Cropper, George L. "Learning from Visuals: Some Behavioral Considerations." Audio Visual Communications Review, XIV, No. 1 (1966), 37-69. Haber, Ralph N. "How We Remember What We See." Sclentifio American. CCXXII, No. 5 (197U), 104-112. 79 Hull, C. L. "Quantitative Aspects of the Evolution of Con­ cepts: An Experimental Study," Psychological Mono­ graphs, XXVIII, Whole No. 123 (1 WOT. Jeffery, Wendell, "Variables In Early Discrimination Learning: Simultaneous vs. Successive Stimulus Pres­ entation." Child Development. XXXII (1961), 305-310. Jenkins, J. R.; Neale, D. C.j and Deno, S. L. "Differen­ tial Memory for Picture and Word Stimuli." Journal of Educational Psychology. LVIII (1967),_ 303-307. ______; Stack, We3ner Bj and Deno, Stanley L. "Children's Recognition and Recall of Picture and Word Stimuli.". Audio Visual Communication Review. XVII. No. 3 (1969), 25BT57T:— ---- "--- “ ----- Kannegeiter, Ruthan B. "The Effects of a Learning Program in Activity upon the Visual Perception of Shape." Studies in Art Education. XII, No. 2 (1971), 18-27. Kennedy, John J, An Intuitive Approach to the Design and Analysis of Educational- Experiments, a pre-publication copy. Kennedy, John M. The Psychology of Picture Perception. San Francisco: Jossey-Hass Publishers, 197^. Koffka, K. The Growth of Mind. New York: Harcourt, 1931. Leeper, R. A. "A Study of a Neglected Portion of the Field of Learning - The Development of Sensory Organization." Journal of Genetic Psychology. XLVI (1935), 41-75. Locke, John. "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.” The Empiricist. Edited by Richard Taylor. Garden city: Doubleday & Company, 1961, 7-133. Lovano, Jessie J. "The Relation of Conceptual Styles and Mode of Perception to Graphic Expression." Studies in Art Education. XI, No. 3 (1970), 39-51. McFee, June, Preparation for Art. Belmont: Wadsworth Pub­ lishing Company, inc., 1'97oY Meyers, Lawrence S., and Grossen, Neal E. Behavioral Re- search. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, i m r 80 Miller, N, E. "Theory and Experiment Relating Psychoanaly­ tic Displacement to Stimulus-Response Generalization." Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology. XLIII (19*18),

MIrels, Herbert L., and Efland, Arthur D. A Cognitive Ap­ proach to the Assessment of Esthetic Responses. UT 3. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare ProJect 9-0047, December, 1970. Mussen, Paul H., ed. Carmichael^ Manual of Child Psycholo­ gy . New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1970. ^ Nickerson, H. S. "Short Term Memory for Complex Meaningful Visual Configurations: A Demonstration of Capacity.n Canadian Journal of Psychology. XIX (1965), 155-160. Norcross, K. J., and Splker, C, C. "The Effects of Type of Stimulus Pretraining on Discrimination Performance in Pre-school Children." Child Development, XXVIII (1957), 79-84. Olson, David. "Language and Thought: Aspects of a Cognitive Theory of Semantics." Psychological Review, LXXVII, No. 4 £1970) 257-273. Osbourne, Harold. The Art of Appreciation. London: Oxford University Pres3, 1970, Pastore, Nicholas. Selective History of Theories of Visual Perception 1650-1950. New York: Oxford University Press, 19/1.------Pfafflin, S. M. "Stimulus Meaning in Stimulus Predifferen­ tiation." Journal of Experimental Psychology, LIX (I960), 26$^Z7T; Posner, Michael. Cognition: An Introduction. Glenview: Scott Foresman and Company, 1973. Postman, Leo. "Perception and Learning." Psychology: A Study of Science. Edited by Sigmund koch. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963, 66-71. Potter, Mary. "On Perceptual Recognition." Studies in Cog- nitive Growth. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc7, 1'96'6V 103-1J4. Ranken, H. B. "Effects of Name Learning on Serial Learning, Position Learning, and Recognition Learning with Ran­ dom Shapes." Psychological Reports, XIII (1963), 663-678. 81 Rieber, Morton. ,fRole of. Stimulus Comparisons in Children's Discrimination Learning." Journal of Experimental Psychology. LXXII, No. 2 ( 1 9 ^ 7 7 ^ 5 ^ 5 7 0 ^ Robinson, J. S. "The Effect of Learning Verbal Labels for Stimuli on Their Later Discrimination." Journal of Experimental Psychology. XLXX (1955)* 112-115. Salome, R. A. "The Effects of Perceptual Training upon the Two Dimensional Drawings of Children." Studies in Art Education, VII, No. 1 (1965), 18-33. Sax, Gilbert. Empirical Foundations of Educational Research. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., l9bb. ! “ Scholnlck, Ellin K. "Effects of Stimulus Availability on Children's Inferences." Child Development, XLII (1971)» 183-19*1. Segall, Marshall H.; Campbell, Donald T.; and Herskovlts, Melville J. The Influence of Culture on Visual Per­ ception . Indianapolis: The Bobbs-taerrill Company, Inc.,

Shepard, R. N. "Recognition Memory for Words, Sentences, and Pictures." Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, VI (1967)7! i Hovland, C. I.; and Jenkins, H. N. "Learning and Memorization of Classifications." Psychological Mono­ graphs . LXXV, Whole No, 517 (1961). Spiker, Charles,.and Lubker, Bonnie. "The Relative Diffi­ culty for Children of the Successive and Simultaneous Discrimination Problems." Child Development, XXXVI (1965), 1091-1101. Standing, L.; Conezlo, J.; and Haber, R. N. "Perception and Memory for Pictures: Single Trial Learning of 2500 Vis­ ual Stimuli." Psychonomlc Science, XIX (1970), 73-7*1. Tighe, Louise, and Tighe, Thomas. "Discrimination Learning: Two Views in Historical Perspective." Psychological Bulletin, LXVI, No. 5 (1966), 353-370. Travers, Robert M. W. Second Handbook of Research on Teach­ ing. Chicago: Rand McNally Publishing Company, 1973. Vernon, M, D. A Further Study of Visual Perception. Cam­ bridge : Cambridge University Press, 1954. 82 Walk, Richard D. "Concept Formation and Art: Baslx Experi­ ment and Controls," Psychonomic Science. IX. No. 4 (1967), 237-238. Wells, Herbert. "Facilitation of Concept Learning by a 'Simultaneous Contrast' Procedure." Psychonomic Sci­ ence, IX, No. 12 (1967), 609-610. Willemsen, Eleanor W. Understanding Statistical Reasoning. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and company, 1974. Wilson, Brent 0, The Development and Testing of an Instru­ ment to Measure Aspectlve Perception of Paintings. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio Spate University, 1966. Winer, B. J, Statistical Principles in Experimental Design New York: MeGraw Hill Book Company, 1971* APPENDIX A Glossary

83 84

GLOSSARY

ASSOCIATION PSYCHOLOGY— psychology whose basic principle i s the association of ideas or images and which holds that perception is supplemented by such associations* CATEGORY— a grouping based on the similarity among quali­ ties or characteristics of items or objects; used syn­ onymously with class. CLASS— a group or aggregate of items, things, or objects which manifest certain characteristics that collect­ ively set this group apart from others;.refers either to the representation of this group or to the items grouped; U3ed synonymously with category. COGNITIVE— a .term referring to a process intervening be­ tween stimulus and response for which it is assumed that what is learned is mediated by central processes and what one knows. CROSSED— an arrangement of variables in the design of a study in which all levels of one variable combine with all levels of another variable. DETECTION— the discrimination of variables of stimulation as is reflected by Judgments of whether stimuli are the same or different or by the identification of stimuli. DIFFERENTIATION— the process of distinguishing or detecting * differences between variables of stimulation. DISCRIMINATION— a general term referring to the noticing of differences between stimuli which are presented simul­ taneously or successively. DISPLAY— two or more pictorial stimuli presented to the senses as a group. DISTRACTOR— a pictorial stimulus which does not belong to the target class of stimuli and which is scored in­ correct if selected. 85 ♦ EQUIVALENCE— a relationship among similar but different stimuli which evokes the- same or similar responses; specifically referred to as stimulus equivalence. IDENTIFICATION— the detection of stimuli which are similar to those seen previously. INTERACTION— the joint effect of two or more Independent . variables upon the dependent variable. Ordinal Interaction— interaction that occurs when all cell means associated-with levels of the first variable occupy the same ordinal position at each level of the sec­ ond variable so that if the means for levels of each of the different variables were graphed, their curves would not cross or intersect. Pisordinal Interaction— interaction that occurs when means associated with T levels of the first variable do not occupy the same relative position over means of the second variable so that if the means for levels of each of the dif­ ferent variables were graphed, their curves would cross or intersect. First Order Interaction— the Interaction between two variables. Second Order In­ teraction— the interaction among three variables. MEDIATION THEORY— a theory in which perception is governed by intervening processes which supplement the stim­ ulus. NESTED— an arrangement of variables in the design of a study in which all levels of one variable do not combine with all levels of another variable. PERCEPTUAL LEARNING— the detection of previously unnoticed variables of stimulation. PERCEPTUAL SET— a tendency or disposition which facilitates the detection of stimuli or stimulus variables; the state of readiness resulting from pretraining whloh is reflected by a change in variables of stimulation responded to. PICTURE— a stimulus configuration which is usually drawn, painted, or photographed. POST HOC COMPARISONS— a posteriori comparisons among cell means. RECOGNITION— the detection of stimuli which are the same as those seen before. 86 SECONDARY QUALITIES— qualities which are not descriptive of physical objects because they do not Inhere In them, e.g., color. SIGNIFICANT MEAN DIFFERENCES— the statistical probability that differences among means are not due to chance. Nominal Level of Significance— an arbitrary level which Is based on a hypothetical sampling distribution (repeated sampling of the same population) and is designated by convention that Indicates the point at which mean differences are not assumed to occur by chance. Actual Level of Significance— the observed level based on the actual sample which reflects dif­ ferences among means for the groups within the sam­ ple (groups which may be samples of the same or dif­ ferent populations). STIMULUS— a change In physical energy that results in physi­ ological activity in a sense organ; physical units need not be described, but the possibility of such descrip­ tion is implied, e.g., 'red' is not a physical term, but 'red' does imply light which is a form of physical energy. Distal Stimulus— light in the environment which can potentially serve as a proximal stimulus. Proximal Stimulus— light which impinges on the retina. STIMULUS AVAILABILITY— the temporal relationship of one stimulus to another. STIMULUS FEATURES— relational variant and invariant charac­ teristics of a distal or proximal stimulus. TARGET STIMULUS— the stimulus which is to be identified as indicated by the task set and the perceptual set. TYPE I ERROR— the rejection of the hypothesis that there are only chance differences when actually only chance dif­ ferences are obtained. VERBAL FRAME OF REFERENCE— the verbal clues which are used in a task to influence the viewer's perception of the stim­ ulus. VISUAL FRAME OF REFERENCE— the visual clues which are used in a task to influence the viewer's perception of the stim­ ulus. APPENDIX B Raw Data for the Gibson and Bruner Orientations Frequency of Weights for Target Groups of Pictures by Judges Judges* Classification of Pictorial Descriptors

87 TADL8 10 86 RAW DATA FOR.THE. QXDSON ORIENTATION

TOTALS TOTALS TOTALS TOTALS D D1 D2 S C D A SI 29 (18) 35 (9) 6* S2 28 (6) 26 (3) 5* (9) Cl S3 29 (15) 35 (13) 6* 35* (77) S* 27 (1) 28 (2) 55 S5 22 (2) 36 (*) 58 S6 32 (3) 27 (1) 59 B1 637 (16*) SI 21 (7) 16 (10) 37 (17) S2 28 (*) 21 (11) *9 C2 S3 31 (12) 27 (11) 58 (87) S* 21 (3) 16 (5) 37 S5 31 (8) 28 (5) 59 S6 27 (3) 16 (8) *3 SI 30 (8) 35 (6) *5 (1*) S2 28 (12) 30 (7) 58 (19) Cl S3 27 (6) 29 (6) 56 (12) 3*6 (101) s* 25 (7) 29 (6) 5* (13) S5 29 (13) 31 (10) 60 (23) S6 23 (6) 30 (1*) 53 (20) B2 667 (206) SI 32 (7) 30 (7) 62 (1*) S2 27 (9) 25 (12) 52 (21) C2 S3 31 (6) 28 (U) 59 (17) 321 (105) S* 35 (8) 22 (12) 57 (20) S5 2* (9) 23 (13) *7 (22) S6 26 (*) 18 (7) ** (11) AI 2487 (882) SI 21 (16) 25 (13) 46 S2 23 (1*) 27 (10) 55 {f?l Cl S3 22 (11) 29 (10) 51 (21) 316 (157) s* 26 (1*) 3* (15) 60 (29) S5 21 (1*) 37 (13) 58 (27) S6 21 (12) 25 (15) 46 (27) B3 58* (279) SI 21 (16) 17 (1*) 38 (30) S2 28 (6) 18 (10) 46 (16) C2 S3 28 (16) 2* (19) 52 (35) 268 (122) s* 30 (2) 20 (10) S5 21 (2) 13 (3) 5P3* S6 30 (9) 18 (15) 48 SI 23 (8) 21 (9) 4* (17 S2 2* (9) 29 (9) 53 (18 Cl S3- 2* (10) 25 (5) 49 (15 29* (117) S* 27 (22) 33 (12) 60 S5 17 (1*) 2* (5) 41 S6 22 (12) 25 (2) *7 B* 599 (233) SI 31 (10) 27 (9) 58 S2 21 (6) 22 (6) *3 (12) C2 S3 29 (13) 1* (20) *3 305 (116) s* 32 (6) 26 (8) 58 \lil S5 31 (1*) 2* (18) 55 S6 26 (1) 22 (5) *8 Total 1267 1220 (*3*) (**8) . TABUS 11 89 7 RAW DATA FOR THE BRUNER ORIENTATION

TOTALS TOTALS TOTALS TOTALS B S D1 D2 • 3 C B A SI 13 (2) 11 (6) 24 (8) S2 9 (4) a (11) 17 (15) Cl S3 11 (5) 14 (4) 25 (9) 136 (67) St 7 (2) 13 (10) 20 (12) S5 11 (3) 15 (11) 26 (14 S6 13 (2) 11 (7) 24 (9) B1 359 (195) SI 16 (8)' 25 (9) 41 (17) S2 26 (13) 17 (6) 43 (19) C2 S3 12 (11) 15 (7) 27 (18) 223 (128) St 16 (9) 20 (10) 36 (19) S5 20 (15) 29 (20) 49 (35) S6 7 (5) 20 (15) 27 (20) SI 7 (5) 0 7 S2 6 (2) 7 (4) 13 (6 Cl S3 5 (5) 7 (6) 12 (11 67 (51) St 8 (3) 4 (2) 12 (5 S5 6 (0) 2 (5) 8 (5) S6 5 (2) 10 (8) 15 (10 B2 300 (178) SI 14 (17) 18 (5) 32 (22) S2 21 (5) 17 (7) 38 (12) C2 S3 22 (17) 21 (9) 43 (26) 233 (127) 34 17 (9) 19 (5) 36 (14) S5 26 (16) 17 (9) 43 ! S6 21 (18) 20 (10) 41 (28) A2 1382 (797) 51 33 24 (26) 52 17 ‘(11 28 (11) Cl S3 32 (10) 28 (15)P60 (25) 307 (173) S4 30 (9) 23 (11) 53 (20) S5 24 (7) 24 (28) 48 (35) S6 23 (11) 21 (18) 44 (29) B3 461 (250) SI 4 (10) 14 (4) 18 (14) S2 8 (6) 11 (2) 19 (8) C2 S3 20 (5) 13 (4) 33 (9) 154 (77) S4 12 (8) 10 (?) 22 (17) S5 .17 (7) 19 (4) 36 \lll S6 13 (11) 13 (7) 26 (18) SI 17 (6) 13 (9) 30 (15) S2 13 (7) 11 (12) 24 (19) Cl S3 17 (3) 8 (10) 25 (13) 177 (112) S4 24 (13) 13 (18) 37 (31) S5 21 (5) 15 (11) 36 S6 18 (9) 7 (9) 25 (18) B4 262 (174) 51 3 (3) 12 52 I 5 (2) 11 (10) C2 S3 6 is;(7) 5 (4) 11 (11) 85 (62) S4 16 (8) 5 (7) 21 (15) S5 9 (5) 6 (5) 15 10 36 7 (8) 8 (2) 15 (10) Total 715 667 (371) (426) TABLE 12 FREQUENCY OF WEIGHTS FOR TARGET GROUPS OF PICTURES BY JUDGES

Picture Weights Judges A B C

PI 9 5 1 P2 8 6

P3 15 6 18 P4 12 20 28

P5 20 39 10 P6 2k 6 18

P7 0 7 1

Note: The numbers after P indicate the weights and the cells Indloate the frequency. 91 TABLE 13 JUDGES' CLASSIFICATION OP PICTORIAL DESCRIPTORS

Descriptors Judges A B C 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 1

3 1 1 1 4 1 1 1

5 1 1 1 6 1 1 1

7 8 1 1 0

9 10 11 12 1 1 1 13 O i l U 1 1 1 15 16 1 0 1

17 1 1 1 18 1 1 1

19 O i l APPENDIX C Visual and Verbal Perceptual Sets for the Learning and Criterion Displays

92 93

This artist paints geometrlc-looking shapes which are over­ lapped. He alters the objects that he paints so that they appear many-sided. His work sometimes looks like a collage because he uses different materials. FIGURE 8 This artist uses dream-like subject matter which seems to float free. He tends to use yellow colors. Also, the things he paints may have a different meaning than they do ordinarily. FIGURE 9 This artist uses expressive thick brush strokes. He creates a flowing swirling movement which Is rhythmic• His colors are bright and Intense and there are strong textures in his work. He interprets rather than copies what he sees. FIGURE 10 This artist paints linear compositions. His colors have a soft quality. His brush strokes are textured and shapes In his pictures vary from light to dark. FIGURE 11 APPENDIX D Titles of Pictures by Artists for Pictorial Displays

97 TITLES OP PICTURES BY ARTISTS FOR PICTORIAL DISPLAYS

Target Pictures

Chagall, Mare "No Matter Where Out of the World" "The Lovers" "Sunday" "The Candlestick" "Solitude" "The Bride*s Chair" "The Fiances at the Eiffel Tower" "Dusk" "The Fiancee In Black Gloves" "The Drinker" "The Yellow Rabbi" "The Fiddler" "Soldier Drinking" "The House that Burns" "Paris from the Window" "Over Vitebsk" "The Poet Lying Down" "Purim" "The Grey House" "The Birthday" "The Gates of the Cemetery" "The Green Violinist" Picasso, Pablo "A Straw Covered Rum Flask and Glass" "Still-Life with Can Chair" "Bottle of Suze" "Guitar and Cup of Coffee" "Student with Pipe" "Glass, Bottle and Newspaper on a Table" "Bass" "Guitar Player" "Papier Colle for the Cover of the Review *Minotaure *" "The Coffee Pot" "Faun Playing the Flute" Picasso (Continued) "Composition11 "Faun" "Vase of Flowers and Sea Urchins’* "Cuttle-fish, Muraena, Fish, Lemons and Sea Urchins" "Still Life: Octopus and Cuttle-Fish'' "Still Life - Water Melon" "Sea-Urchin Eater" "Fisherman Leaning on His Elbow" "Owl on Chair and Sea Urchins" "Woman Lying Down" "Ulysses and the Sirens" » Utrillo, Maurice "The Church at Chatillon-Sur-Selne" "A Church in the Suburbs" "A Lime-Tree Path at Montmagny" "The Church of Saint-Gervais" "A Country Church" "The Church of Saint-Pierre and the Sacre Coeur" "The Church of Saint Jean-Au-Bois Near Compiegne" "The Church of Deuil, 'The Little Communicant'" "Church in Corsica" "The Church of Montmagny" "The Church of Notre-Dame De Clignancourt" "The Church of Saint Pierre De Montmartre" "The Church of Notre-Dame Des Marais, Villefranche-Sur-Saone" "The Moulin de la Qalette? "The Rue Norvins" "The Impasse Cottin" "The Impasse Trainee" "The Rue Muller" "The Rue Sainte-Rustique, Montmartre" "The Rue Jeanne D' Arc in Winter" "Berlioz's House" "The Lapin Agile" Van Gogh, Vincent "Cafe at Night" "Sunset near Arles" "Moored Boats" "Portrait of the Artist after Cutting Off His Ear" Van Gogh (Continued)* • "The Crau at Arles: Peach Trees In Blossom" "Corridor of the Salnt-Paul Hospital" "Portrait of the Artist" "Boats at Auvers-Sur-Oise" "Road near Auvers" "Street at Auvers-Sur-Oise" "Mademoiselle Qachet at the Plano" "Cottages at Cordeville" "Garden and Houses" "The Church at Auvers" "Portrait of Dr. Cachet" "Stone Cottages at Chaponville" "The Mairie at Auvers on July 1*1 th" "Plain near Auvers" "Field and Blue Sky" "Cornfield with Crows" "Portrait of the Artist" "Portrait of the Artist with His. Ear Cut Off Distractors

Bonnard.w Paul * - "The Grapes" "The Little Laundress" "Family Scene" "The Bath" "Barrow Boy" "House in a Courtyard" da Vinci, Leonardo "St. Anne" Degas, Edgar "Before the Races" "Gentlemen's Race: Before the Start" "Jockeys" "Wounded Jockey" "At the Races: Gentlemen Jockeys Near a Carriage" "The False Start" "Jockey" Dufy, Raoul "Homage to Mosart" "Interval" Dufy (Continued) "The Yellow Console and Violin" "Homage to Claude Debussy" "Homage to Mozart" "The Studio with the Blue Portfolio" "The Violiniet" Ernst, Max "Two Nude Oirla" "Paris Dreams" "Le Pacteur Cheval" "Pieta or Revolution at Night" "Petrified City" "Men Will Know Nothing About It" "Woman, Old Man and Flower" "Oarden Plane-Trap" Goya, Franciseo "Lady with a Fan" "Portrait of the Artist" "Manuel Osorio" Klee, Paul "Relief of a Vase of Flowers" "Child on the Step" "Before the Snow" "Signs in Yellow" "Motif from Hammamet" "Little Blue Devil" "City of Lagoons" Manet, Edouard "The Balcony" "Lola of Valencia" "Soap Bubbles". "The Old Musician" Matisse, Henri "The Bank" "Woman with the Hat" "Zorah in Yellow" "Margot" "Pierre Matisse" "Algerian Woman" "Young Sailor" Matisse (Continued) "Marguerite Matisse" "Salnt-Tropea" "Brook with Aloes'* "The Siesta" "Pink Onions" Mlro, Joan "The Red Sun Gnaws the Spider" "Qreen Background" "Woman Struggling to Attain the Unattain­ able" Piero della Francesoa "The Restitution of the Cross to Jerusalem" "Resurrection of the Young Man from the Dead" "Wounded Soldier" "The Tiber" Rembrandt van Rijn "Portrait of the Artist" "The Painter at the Easel" "Rembrandt Dressed as an Officer" Renoir, Auguste "The Girl Against a Blue Background" "Girls In a Meadow" "The Caillebotte Children" Russian Icons "St. Boris and St. Gleb" "St. George" "Entry into Jerusalem" Stael, de "Rosny, Boat on the Seine" "The Musicians" Toulouse-Lautrec, Henri "La Goulue and Her Sister" "The Englishman of the Moulin Rouge" "Jane Avril Dancing" "May Belfort on the Stage" Velasquez, Diego "Prince Balthasar Carlos in Hunting Dress" "The Infant Maria-Theresa"