Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Field dependence and a neopiagetian model of information-process capacity Eccles, Elsie Marie 1968

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1968_A8 E33.pdf [ 4.21MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104340.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104340-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104340-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104340-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104340-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104340-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104340-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104340-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104340.ris

Full Text

FIELD DEPENDENCE AND A NEOPIAGETIAN MODEL OF INFORMATION-PROCESSING CAPACITY  by ELSIE 3.A., U n i v e r s i t y  MARIE ECCLES o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1966  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of Psychology  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g required standards  to the  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH CDLUM3IA  August,  1968  In requ  presenting this  rements f o r an advanced  Columbia, able  I agree  that  f o r r e f e r e n c e and  for  extensive copying  may  be  granted  sentatives. this  thesis  thesis  written  by  the  study. of t h i s  thesis  1968  agree  that  for scholarly  that  copying  gain s h a l l  Psychology Columbia,  not  the  of  make i t f r e e l y  Department o r by  permission.  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, B.C.  shall  I further  the Head o f my  for financial  f u l f i l m e n t of  d e g r e e a t the U n i v e r s i t y  Library  It i s understood  Department o f  August,  in partial  British avail-  permission purposes  his repre-  or p u b l i c a t i o n  be a l l o w e d  of  without  my  i  ABSTRACT  purpose of  The field of  dependence and  children  test  of  to those  Each age field  Embedded  tuted  could  one  simple  p i e c e of  i n t e g r a t e c t one  mation-processing  colour. these.  task  a field  circumstances tasted.  dependent  b a s i s of  the  to  (FD)  the C h i l d r e n ' s  administered  a  test  E q u a l D i f f e r e n c e s t a s k as d e s c r i b e d  t e a c h i n g each age  schemes.  to determine  Simple  into  abilities  p u r p o s e was  initially  They were then  a Finite  separate  a separate  designed  A third  ( F I group on  c o n s i s t e d of  with  11.  of  effsct  information-processing  developmental  divided  the  (1967).  Pascuai-Lsone  associated  9 and  to determine  under w h i c h i t was  Figures Test.  number o f  was  the  model o f  independent  Training  on  7,  group was  which c o n s t i t u t e d by  study  age  ages 5 ,  a Ncopiagetien  different  and  this  how  That  i s , one  response.  simple  stimulus  information.  The  many s e p a r a t e  schemas the  time,  specific  Each schema t h e n testing  t h a t i s , to determine  c a p a c i t y o f the  groups.  c o n s i s t e d of  dimensions  stimuli  group a  such  as  consti-  session  a  screen.  was  children the  infor-  shape  T e s t i n g s t i m u l i were m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l c o m b i n a t i o n s S t i m u l i were p r o j e c t e d on  was  and of  ii.  Response  mode was  s i m p l e s t i m u l u s was The  results  performance  p u s h i n g b u t t o n s on a p a n e l .  associated with a s p e c i f i c supported the p r e d i c t e d  o f F l Ss o v e r FD  w-jre a b l e to  coordinate  The  of v a r i a n c e  analysis  l e v a ! f:.ir thz  Each  button.  superiority  5s f o r each age  group.  of  F l 5s  more s e p a r a t e schemas t h a n FD !5s. approached  main e f f e c t  of f i e l d  significance  ot t h e  .05  dependence-independences  t h e m a t h e m a t i c a l e x p e c t a t i o n W P S h i g h e r f o r t h e F l group a t anch  agj l e v e l :  and  t h e F l v a r i a n c e was  greater  a t each  age  level. The sing  predicted  agt. wns  significant  superiority  also confirmed. -^t t h e .005  level  mathematical expectations FD and  did  groups; FD  and  The  of performance analysis  with  of variance  f o r t h e main e f f e c t  increased  variance increased  increa-  w i t h age  of  was  age;  f o r b o t h F l and  w i t h age f o r b o t h t h e F l  groups. The  analysis  o f v a r i a n c e showed no i n t e r a c t i o n  The  performance  o f t h e groups i n t h i s  not match t h e p e r f o r m a n c e s  the e m p i r i c a l  results  predicted  of Pascual-Loono  effect.  study i n general  by t h e model,  (1967).  Reasons  nur for  iii.  this the  wnro d i s c u s s e d medo o f s t i m u l u s  differences task  i n terms  presentation  i n response  uffsjcts of  on a t t e n t i o n a l  discriminability;  a c t i v i t y requirements  subjects.  of the; d i f f e r e n t  factors;  and t h e e f f e c t o f  on t h e a r o u s a l l e v e l  of the  iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I  CHAPTER II  INTRODUCTION C e n t r a l Capacity and Information Processing Information-Processing Research Information-Processing Capacity i n Children Piaget's Stage Theory and Information Processing Experimental Results not Supporting Stage Theory Witkin's FieId-Dependence-Independence Dimension Gardner's Conception o f I n d i v i d u a l Differences Piaget's Concept of Perceptual A c t i v i t y and i t s R e l a t i o n to I n d i v i d u a l Differences S c a l i n g Developmental Stages: A Neopiagetian Model  ....-20  METHOD Subjects Apparatus and Test M a t e r i a l s Stimulus D i s p l a y and Response Panel Stimuli Tests  ...,26 .... 26 ....26 ....26 .... 27 .... 28  PROCEDURE Determination of FDI Groups General Procedures Treatment of Data  29 ...,29 ....30 ....32  CHAPTER I I I RESULTS A n a l y s i s of Variance Mathematical Expectations Variance Analyses Estimsted Mean Capacity 5imple 5 t i m u l i Analyses Compound S t i m u l i P r o b a b i l i t i e s Error Analysis  1 2 5 9 ...,10 .,..12 ....13 ....15 ....16  ....35 ....35 .....35 ....35 ....39 ....41 ....43 ....49  CHAPTER IV  DISCUSSION  ....51  CHAPTER V  SUMMARY  ... .66  REFERENCES  ....69  V APPENDIX A  Apparatus  APPENDIX B  Table  Diagrams  of Positive  74 and  Instances o f Simple APPENDIX C APPENDIX D  APPENDIX E  Negative Stimuli  T a b l e o f Compound S t i m u l u s F r e q u e n c i e s Over Ages T a b l e of Simple t r i b u t i o n over t h e Task  ..... 76 77  Stimulus D i s each H a l f o f ..... 78  T a b l e o f Compound S t i m u l u s D i s t r i b u t i o n o v e r Each H a l f o f t h e Task  79  T a b l e o f S u b j e c t s - Age, I.Q. FD I  80  Table of E m p i r i c a l P r o b a b i l i t i e s o f Compound Responses  81  APPENDIX H  Table of Variances  85  APPENDIX  Table of Mathematical tions  APPENDIX F APPENDIX G  I  APPENDIX J  F i g u r e s o f Simple  Expecta-  Stimuli  Analyses APPENDIX K  APPENDIX L  APPENDIX M  ,'••«* 86  ..... 87  T a b l e s o f T h e o r e t i c a l and E m p i r i c a l P r o b a b i l i t i e s from P a s c u a l Loone (1967)  90  T a b l e s o f Group P r o b a b i l i t i e s Empirical, T h e o r e t i c a l , Estimated  94  Table of E r r o r  95  Analysis  vi  LIST OF  FIGURES  1.  V a r i a n c e A ; r c s s Ages f o r F l and FD 55  37  2.  Mathematical Expectations Across f o r FD and F l Ss  38  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  Ages  T o t a l Group P r o b a b i l i t i e s : E m p i r i c a l , T h e o r e t i c a l find E s t i m a t e d f o r Age 5 FD - F l 5s  45  T o t a l Group P r o b a b i l i t i e s : E m p i r i c a l , T h e o r e t i c a l and E s t i m a t e d f o r Ago 7 FD - F l Ss  46  T o t a l Group P r o b a b i l i t i e s : E m p i r i c a l , T h e o r e t i c a l and E s t i m a t e d f o r Age 9 FD - F l Ss  47  T o t a l Group P r o b a b i l i t i e s : E m p i r i c a l , T h e o r e t i c a l and E s t i m a t e d f o r Age 11 FD - F l Ss  48  Error  50  Analysis  vii  LIST OF TABLES  TABLE 1.  Information-processing  Research  Factors  6  TABLE 2.  A n a l y s i s of Variance  ...... 36  TABLE 3.  Estimated  ...... 40  TABLE 4.  P r o p o r t i o n Successes 5 t i m u l i P e r Group  Mean C a p a c i t y Simple  ...... 42  AC KNOWLEDGEMENT  My t h a n k s a r e e x t e n d e d supervised to  for this  thesis.  D r . G. Plum and D r . R. P a t a s h i n  guidance. Dr.  the research  t o Dr. Juan  are also  gratefully  I am a l s o  for their  The s u p p o r t and encouragement  G, F i n l e y  P a s c u a l - L e o n e who grateful  a d v i c e and  o f D r . T. Storm and  acknowledged.  CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION  The of can  do  serve  two p u r p o s e s :  age;  i t can s u p p l y  and i t can p r o v i d e  not c o n f o r m t o t h e g e n e r a l  Independence  purpose o f t h i s  information  study  information-processing  processing will  cognitive  their  task  f o r which s p e c i f i c  as a F i n i t e  chapter  a general  review  Equal  of the evidence  c a p a c i t y , and i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g  be p r e s e n t e d .  be r e v i e w e d .  be d i s c u s s e d ,  Some s i m i l a r i t i e s  t h e o r y and  Then i n d i v i d u a l - d i f f e r e n c e s  i n c l u d i n g Witkin's  and G a r d n e r ' s  in characteristics  works w i l l  be m e n t i o n e d .  r u l e s between s t a g e s  fora  Next, t h e o r i e s and s t u d i e s r e l a t e d t o  i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l and i n d i v i d u a l  reviewed.  simple  T h i s t a s k was based on  processing  ition  which  p e r f o r m a n c e on a compound-  developmental stages  development w i l l  variables w i l l positions.  cases  System.  In t h i s  research  those  increas-  was t o compare t h e p e r f o r m a n c e  l e a r n i n g was c o n t r o l l e d .  a model which d e s c r i b e s Differences  about  with  on t h e  pattern.  (FDI) d i m e n s i o n w i t h  stimulus-response  central  a d d i t i o n a l evidence  age groups o f c h i l d r e n r a t e d D n t h e F i e l d - D e p e n d e n c e -  different  stimulus  combination  and i n d i v i d u a l - d i f f e r e n c e s frameworks  changes i n c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g which o c c u r  The of  o f c o g n i t i v e development from a  information-processing  general ing  study  Finally,  of information-  d i f f e r e n c e s frame-  a m a t h e m a t i c a l model f o r t r a n s -  o f c o g n i t i v e development w i l l  be  2.  Ce_ntra 1 C a pac i t y and I n f o r m a t i o n - P r o c e s s i n g .  Cognitive processing  functioning  system has p r o v e d  and e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n .  areas,  i n c l u d i n g problem  ment.  Systems a n a l y s i s , t h a t  tion  appropriate  (Miller,  performed  to closed  1963).  tions  and p r o b l e m s can be s t o r e d  that is,  list  therefore,  to t h e s u b j e c t , active only  store  communication  of s e r i a l  order  (1951).  He p o i n t s  out that  inadequate to account "This  serial  theories  representastructures. l i s t s and  Next, t h e t h e o r i e s  a t a time  he c a l l s  i n behavior  There  and e x t e r i o r  :t  (5imon, 1967).  of M i l l e r ' s  These  i s also discussed  by  The Lashley  theory i s  i n language o r b e h a v i o r . order:  This  (1956)  '"channel c a p a c i t y . "  the a s s o c i a t i v e chain  f o r syntax  assume  p r o c e s s e s which c a n h a n d l e  i s t h s e s s e n t i a l problem o f s e r i a l  generalized  systems  and l o n g - t e r m memory.  :,  question  such  i n memory  between e v e n t s i n t e r i o r  h e a r k e n s back t o t h e s e v e n chunks which  o r t o open  are isomorphic with  end between s h o r t - t e r m  article,  informa-  and m o d i f y t h e s e s t r u c t u r e s .  a c e r t a i n amount o f m a t e r i a l  quoted  on s t o r e d  t h e y assume t h a t  (Simon, 1 9 6 7 ) .  processes are b a s i c a l l y  notion often  structures  structures  active cognitions  First,  attain-  information-  In g e n e r a l  assumptions.  branching  different  systems such as t h o s e  of thinking,  s h a r e some b a s i c  These r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l  t o many  i s , an a n a l y s i s o f  may a p p l y  organisms  of s t i m u l i  f o r both  s o l v i n g , r o t e memory and c o n c e p t  to computer-simulation  such as l i v i n g  information-  I t has been a p p l i e d  i n terms o f t h e o p e r a t i o n s  and i n c o m i n g d a t a ,  as an  t o be a u s e f u l f o r m u l a t i o n  theory  processing  considered  He s t a t e s  the existence of  schemata o f a c t i o n which d e t e r m i n e t h e sequence o f  3. specific  acts,  acts  seem t o have no order he  which  temporal valence...."  i n motor p a t t e r n s  states  i n themselves or  (e.g.  the  in their  Going on  to d e s c r i b e  f i n g e r movements o f a  " S e n s o r y c o n t r o l o f movement seems to be  such a c t s .  They r e q u i r e  the  associations  postulation  of  serial  pianist)  ruled  out  some c e n t r a l  in  nervous  mechanism. , . . " Lashley  talked  of  A f u n c t i o n a l mechanism o f  t h i s c e n t r a l n e r v o u s mechanism as  integration."  postulated  such  postulated  a central control  which  a mechanism.  s c r e e n s snd  prescreened  by  organizes  the  into be  the  organizes  "comprehension  ( 1 9 6 3 ) , or field  of  tion.  the  of  he  is left  of  This  integration  (1963).  to  e v e n t s coming from (Miller,  of  assumption  how  Broadbent,  psychology  af  world  Chomsky  Indeed, same  Piaget's func-  this central the  co-ordination  information.  It applies  as  stored  well  as  to  to  memories  a central integrating factor raises  much i n f o r m a t i o n  what i s i t s c a p a c i t y ? one.  external  of  to  1963). The  question  the  pieces  strings  and  mechanism i s the  name g i v e n  (1965)  appears  space" of M i l l e r  centration  of s e p a r a t e  function  Reitman  This  mechanism, a l l a u t h o r s c o n c e i v e i t s p u r p o s e t o be and  same  by  "  being  o p e r a t o r maps i n p u t  t h e i r meaning.  Whatever the  perceiver  after  The  indeed,  example  c a l l e d "the  i s mentioned  m i x e r " o f Dsgoode  the  1956).  (1963), f o r  which  ^ c e n t r a l computing  equilibrium  a u t h o r s have,  neuronal events.  operator."  "cognitive  (Piaget,  input  behavior  i n t s r n a l representations  a n a l o g o u s to the  Miller  f a c t o r which  s e n s e o r g a n and  w h i c h s c r e e n s and as  J.G.  5everal  a  states  The  problem o f  discussing "The  i t can  point  or  i n o t h e r words,  central capacity  thrs v a l u e of of  integrate;  the  communications  is a  crucial  theory  permanent v a l u e which w i l l  to  remain  4. in  psychology w i l l  be  the  emphasis on  capacity...."  (Broadbent,  195S). Many a t t e m p t s have been made to d e t e r m i n e the handling in  r a t e o f the  conclusions  similar  span o f a b s o l u t e severe  process  stimulus  input  In g e n e r a l ,  to t h o s e  judgement and  limitations  receive,  ively  adult.  on  and  the  Second  (1958) s t u d i e d  reading,  typing,  stimulus  displays.  found  He  information  th-it  the  speed  of  values  notes t h a t r e c e p t o r than  that  the  that  o f the  i s transmitted.  the that  criticism  the  that  used  by  will  now  the be  the  observers  In o t h e r may  be  i s , the  studies concentrate  understanding  successleast  1956).  25  by  glancing  bits  per bits  second, at a  n e u r a l mechanisms a c c e p t  The  limitation  at  make 5 t o 6  a s s i m i l a t e 15  more  t h e n comes from  are  They p o i n t  out  p o i n t o f view may  differ  words, s e v e r a l " b i t s "  from  1  Ss on  percipients."  (1966).  Quastler's  "chunked ' to c o n s t i t u t e one " g r a i n " i s not  known.  "defining, analyzing  perceptual  discussed.  s t u d i e s such as  o f Green &. C o u r t i s  subject.  viewpoint  subject,  and  the  processing.  " b i t " from  observers  transmit  to  of i n f o r m a t i o n  i n d i v i d u a l s can  and  Though g e n e r a l l y v a l i d , open t o the  able  (or at  p l a y i n g , m e n t a l a r i t h m e t i c and  He  "The  impose  organizing  (Miller,  r a t e s of t r a n s m i s s i o n  o v e r a range o f 30  glance.  are  manage to break  s u c c e s s f u l a s s o c i a t i o n s pc-sr s e c o n d , operate  we  - "By  informational bottleneck...."  piano  that  i n t o s e v e r a l d i m e n s i o n s and  i n t o a sequence o f chunks, we  Quastler  First,  immediate memory  amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n  simultaneously  this  (1956).  span o f  remember...."  stretch)  most a t t e m p t s have r e s u l t e d  of M i l l e r the  information  s t r a t e g i e s and  the  bit for  They  and  from  recommend  eventually  categories actually  Some s t u d i e s which a t t e m p t  t o do  this  5. Information. Processing. Research Table. ,1 l i s t s be  considered  compiled  Nevertheless,  the complexity  The i n t e r a c t i o n  f a c t o r s make t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n  between s t i m u l u s  form o f r e s e a r c h  subject-stimulus-response  i s to study  with  from  5 to 9 geometric  5 replications  figures,  Wilson, with  o f t h e same f i g u r e .  the e f f e c t s  difficult  alternatives.  some c a r d s  similarity.  cards  containing 1  A t 2G0 msec e x p o s u r e accuracy  proved  number o f s t i m u l u s  T h e r e was a l s o a s y s t e m a t i c  i n c r e a s e d element  of exposure  (1964) p r e s e n t e d  i s t h e d u r a t i o n o f an a v e r a g e f i x a t i o n ,  a power f u n c t i o n o f t h e r e c i p r o c a l  with  characteristics,  of the s u b j e c t ' s " g r a i n " a  on t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f f i g u r e s .  be  of f o l l o w i n g the advice of  between  time  which  listed  indeed. •ne  to  was  t h e l a r g e number o f f a c t o r s  of the task  t o mention the i n t e r a c t i o n  task  This l i s t  from a l a r g e number o f s t u d i e s , but no c l e i m f o r c o m p l e t e -  Green &. C o u r t i s . not  f a c t o r s which can  i n information processing studies.  ness can be made. indicate  some o f t h e n x p s r i m s n t a l  time, to  element  increase i n accuracy  6. TABLE I  Information  Procnssing  Research  Factors  STIMULUS  FACTORS:  Exposure time. S i m u l t a n e o u s vs s e q u e n t i a l . Modality. Type o f s t i m u l u s (words, l e t t e r s , figures, etc.) D i s c r i r n i n a b i l i t y of items. Number o f s t i m u l i . Patterns: Elements (dots, e t c . ) . Forms ( l i n e s , contours). Orientation; v e r t i c a l - Horizontal.  RESPONSE  FACTORS:  Scanning Focusing  behavior. factors (fovial, peripheral). F i x a t i o n s - on t a r g e t o r nontarget . Latency: Stimulus sampling time, p r o c e s s i n g time, sensory storage, queing o f overload, perception, short term memory. response: choice motoric sign.  time,  SUBJECT FACTORS:  Ability  - a p p r o p r i a t e task physical cognitive. Individual differences - i n t e l l i gence, c o g n i t i v e s t y l e , age, e t c .  MEASUREMENT FACTORS:  Successes. Errors - omission. - commission. Report - v e r b a l , s i g n a l . Eye Measures F i x a t i o n s - number, d u r a t i o n , p a t h movements - d i r e c t i o n , length. Pupil dilation.  7. Further processing often  complications  are i l l u s t r a t e d  taken  &. i l e t l a y  see  v  of the focus  but d i d n o t s e e .  directed  a t the missed  Results  signal  vigilance  f o r which  showed  in a 1 dial  30 p e r c e n t  fixated. being  o f the missed  F i x a t i o n s then  question  t h a t t h e eye was a l w a y s task  i n which Ss watched Gn a 2 d i a l  were n o t a t l e a s t  be c o n s i d e r e d  o f whether p e r c e p t i o n  whether m u l t i p l e s t i m u l i where p r o c e s s i n g &. L i n d s a y  cation  (51) and r e s p o n s e  whereby 2 s t i m u l i shared  simultaneously,  each w i t h  responses  indicating  selection  were a p p a r e n t l y having  (RS) t h e y  they  responded  were a n a l y z e d  devised  response  had l o n g e r  the l a t t e r  T h i s shows how  However, response  i s not supported stimulus-response  can i n f l u e n c e p e r f o r m a n c e .  Another study  (1966).  own r e s -  and n o t c l a s s e d by d e f a u l t . .  for  versus  their  t o as w h o l e s .  and RS s e r i a l  interaction  and 30 s t i m -  f i g u r e s with 5  p o s t u l a t e t h a t SI i s p a r a l l e l of stimulus.  identifi-  an e x p e r i m e n t  response,  The  type  Lindsay  stimulus  The s t i m u l i w i t h  a common  or s e r i a l ,  importance.  5 t i m u l i were g e o m e t r i c 2 values.  - that i s ,  o f whether c h o i c e time i s  each had i t s own s p e c i f i c  multiple stimuli  times,  lay  partially  i s parallel  P o s t u l a t i n g 2 subprocesses,  1 response.  dimensions, pective  are perceived  (1966) s t u d i e d t h e q u e s t i o n  or p a r a l l e l .  llel  task,  a measure o f what i s  i s sequential, • i s of c e n t r a l  serial  the  cannot  s t u d i e s to  attended t o . The  uli  signals  However,  t h e s u b j e c t s were  a r e v o l v i n g p o i n t e r t o d e t e c t 0.5 s e c . p a u s e s . only  F i x a t i o n s are  of a t t e n t i o n .  (1964) p e r f o r m e d  i f t h e eye was aimed a t a s i g n a l  watching  of information  i n the f o l l o w i n g study.  as an i n d i c a t i o n  Mackworth, K a p l a n  i n the study  serial  r e l e v a n t to the important  p r o c e s s i n g i s t h a t o f Kaplan,  They s o u g h t  question  of para-  C a r v e l l o s and Met-  answers t o t h e q u e s t i o n s :  how many t a r g e t s  B. did  5 remember from one g l a n c e a t a s u b j e c t ;  several targets task eye  movements were p h o t o g r a p h e d could  set.  be c o u l d  be compared  In t h e second  as  5 cancelled  did  not need  Results  target  subject  experiment, targets.  letters  search  well-known t a r g e t s , The  varied  presented the  from  - i.e.  of target  to that  the c o n t a i n i n g  indicated that  question  proportional  that  search  influence still can  be c l e a r l y  may  be s i m u l t a n e o u s f o r  i s , of  specified.  Eriksen  &. L a p p i n  a v i s u a l a n g l e o f 1.7^.  o f t h e number o f forms  forms i n t h e d i s p l a y .  channels i n v i s u a l  to s t i m u l i ,  informational  perceived  independence of s t i m u l i  present  They  post-  perception.  i n d i c a t e that  (1966) was a p p r o p r i a t e :  t h e 5s r e s p o n s e  needed b e f o r e  t o t h e number o f  S t i m u l i were p r e s e n t e d a t  square with  of the other  t o 4.07  In t h e second  processing.  These few examples c f s t u d i e s Green S. C o u r t i s  discovered.  independence - t h a t  of perceptual  (a) i n d e p e n d e n t  they  f o r newly s p e c i f i e d t a r g e t s .  of p a r a l l e l  ulate at least s i x p a r a l l e l  of  Thus,  has an e q u a l p r o b a b i l i t y o f b e i n g  o f an i m a g i n a r y  (b) i n d e p e n d e n t  sub-  t h e time t o r e a d  was s e q u e n t i a l .  of stimulus  the notion  was  text.  .35 s e c o n d s f o r one l e t t e r  to d i f f e r e n t f o v e a l areas.  corners  of viewing  once t h e y had been  but s e q u e n t i a l  to the idea  Identification and  so time o f v i e w i n g  time was a l s o  w h e t h e r each s t i m u l u s  (1967) s u p p o r t  search  o f two e x p e r i m e n t s  i n the c o n t a i n i n g  experiment  The a u t h o r s c o n c l u d e  relsvant  In t h e f i r s t  t o remember t a r g e t s  of the f i r s t  target  time - i . e . - was t h e  e x p e r i m e n t , hand movements were p h o t o g r a p h e d  s e c o n d s f o r 10 l e t t e r s  is  reduce search  simultaneous or sequential?  ject  the  together  and d i d remembering  the a d v i c e  many f a c t o r s a p p e a r t o  and e m p i r i c a l  evidence i s  f a c t o r s of stimulus  The f u r t h e r r e l e v a n c e  and r e s p o n s e  of these  studies  to the present r e s e a r c h w i l l of  b:-:coms more o b v i o u s  i n the: d i s c u s s i o n  results.  I n f o r ma tio_n-.Prp_c.ess j n q C a pa c i t v i n Z h i I d r en.. There different  seems t o be no d i s a g r e e m e n t  orientations  w i t h age.  that  F o r example,  information processing capacity increas  Kendler  &. K e n d l e r  z o n t a l c h a i n i n g o f s u c c e s s i v e S-R occurring  simultaneously.  non-reversal behavior interaction evidence  suggest  loaded  on what might be c a l l e d  . ..."  Munn,  "Beth  independent  chains  "With age an i n c r e a s e o c c u r s i n vertical  memory span and s e r i a l  levels,..."  learning  e general factor  (1965) r e p o r t s t h a t  digit  Further  1963).  are heavily  of learning  ability  span i n c r e a s e s up t o age 12  memory f o r o b j e c t s i n c r e a s e s up t o age 13. White  different  He s u g g e s t s laid  laid  the evidence  begins  th3t  during esrly  from  a t about  t o be i m p l e m e n t e d . of mediating  between v e r t i c a l  t h e growth o f i n f e r e n t i a l K e n d l e r &. K e n d l e r .  ability  They compared  i s , delay of  t o be a n a l o g o u s  chains of Kendler  response  o f Reese  with  level"  layer" i s  c f the " c o g n i t i v e  appears  type  a g ^ 5 t o 7.  stage, a ^cognitive  repertoire  This process  (1962) and t o t h e m e d i a t i n g  different  development an " a s s o c i a t i v e  These e r e " t e m p o r a l l y s t a c k e d " , t h a t  allows the response  a number o f  a qualitatively  to occur i n c h i l d r e n  down, :.nd a t t h e t r a n s i t i o n  down.  response  (1965) r e v i e w s  s o u r c e s which a l l s u g g e s t  of performance  act  with  i s t h e i n c r e a s e i n memory span w i t h age ( J e n s e n  states:  is  (1962) p o s t u l a t e a h o r i -  age changes i n r e v e r s a l -  among c h a i n s o f d i f f e r e n t  Jensen  and  units,  To e x p l a i n  thoy  among p s y c h o l o g i s t s o f  layer" to the  &. K e n d l e r  (1962).  White  age i s d e m o n s t r a t e d  k i n d e r g a r t e n and t h i r d  states  by grade  10. children  on a t a s k  which  s e q u e n c e s , A-B, X - Y G.  ?.nd B-G.  More s p e c i f i c a l l y  button  isA - B  Fifty six  percent  percent  children  -s b u t t o n  bearing  two r o u t e s  that  obtained  route  o f AB - BG.  t h e t o y , 50 p e r c e n t  A study  which  one d i r e c t , B - G.  the t o y , but only  68 p e r c e n t  by t h s d i r e c t  shows i n c r e a s e d  a toy (G).  i s A - B, X - Y ,  o f the younger c h i l d r e n o b t a i n e d  to get  a marble ( B ) :  and (B) o b t a i n e d  the reward;  indirect;  separate  '.-X, thc-;y were t o l d  (A) p r o d u c e d  (Y);  to obtain  - G, t h e o t h e r  by t h e d i r e c t  c a p a c i t y with  Then g i v e n  pushing  (X) p r o d u c e d a b a l l  T h e r e were t h e n , that  r e q u i r e d thf=m t o l e a r n t h r e e  of the o l d e r  route.  information-processing  age i s t h a t o f P i s h k i n , V;olfgang &. Rasmussen  (1967)  who s t u d i e d d e v e l o p m e n t a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o n c e p t  l e a r n i n g i n 270  subjects  Sorting Test,  varied  age 10 t o 18.  f o r t h e s u b j e c t s on any t r i a l .  of a v a i l a b l e i n s t a n c e s ;  as  the Wisconsin  t h e number o f p r e v i o u s l y p r e s e n t e d  available  both.  Using  correctly  Analysis of variance  information  of past  they  i n s t a n c e s which were made They a l s o v a r i e d t h e t y p e incorrectly  sorted, or  i n d i c a t e d that the decrease  a f u n c t i o n o f age was l i n e a r .  more from  sorted,  Card  i n errors  A l s o , younger s u b j e c t s  i n s t a n c e s - t h a t i s , from  benefited reduced  memory l o a d  Piaqet's The  stage  S t a g e T h e o r y .and. .Informat i o n theory  o f c o g n i t i v e development c a n be c o n s i d -  ered  as p o s t u l a t i n g an i n c r e a s e i n . i n f o r m a t i o n  with  age, b u t i n a d i s c o n t i n u o u s  School great this  has s t a t e d t h a t : importance  statement:  Processing..  manner.  "Information  i n the study  processing  Inhelder,  processing  o f development."  capacity  o f t h e Geneva  techniques  are of  5he e l a b o r a t e s on  11. Information-processing t e c h n i q u e seem t o c o n s i s t , on the one hand, o f s e l e c t i o n , o f s t o r a g e , and of r e t r i e v a l of r e l e v a n t cues. Dn the o t h e r hand, t h e s e t e c h n i q u e s imply t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n and i t s co-ordination. T h E l a t t e r i s our f u n d a m e n t a l c o n c e r n . To us, t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n i m p l i e s a s s i m i l a t o r y and a c c o m a d a t o r y p r o c e s s e s which, u n l e s s c o o r d i n a t e d , oroduce d e f o r m a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n . Out e x p e r i m e n t s seem to show t h a t whereas s e l e c t i o n , s t o r a g e and r e t r i e v a l can bo l e a r n e d i n p r o c e d u r e s , co-ordination cannot- ' ( I n h e l d e r , Bovet &. S i n c l a i r , (1966, p. 163). I t can the  be  seen t h a t  P i a g e t i a n framework, an  processing. the  transformation  the  basic processes  1950). but  The  organism  "Modifies  own...." "The  of adaptation does not imposing  in  turn  i s an  It  i s a process,  o r schemas.  s t a t e d as  i n the  on  in Piaget's  stage  theory.  are (Piaget,  environment,  i t a c e r t a i n s t r u c t u r e of i t s is assimilation. always l e a d s  them...."  In  accommodation  to a s i m p l e  modification  Intelligence i s adaptation,  of g e n e r a t i n g  :;  5 t a g e s or o f  ( P i a g e t , 1950).  He  which  accommodation.  recurrent behavioral  I n t e l l i g e n c e i s a matter of  forms o f e q u i l i b r i u m , . . . "  necessary  above q u o t a t i o n ,  e q u i l i b r i u m between a s s i m i l a t i o n and then,  is in  information  submit p a s s i v e l y to the  This  of circumstances  action affecting  of i n t e l l i g e n c e ,  accomodation  of i n f o r m a t i o n  ( P i a g e t , 1950).  pressure  o f the  i t by  concept  increasing capacity for  A s s i m i l a t i o n and  for  the  patterns,  successive  further states  B e h a v i o r becomes more ' i n t e l l i g e n t ' as the pathway between the s u b j e c t and the o b j e c t s on which i t a c t s ... become more complex. Thus p e r c e p t i o n o n l y r e q u i r e s s i m p l e p a t h s , even i f the o b j e c t p e r c e i v e d i s v e r y remote. A h a b i t might seem more complex, but i t s s p a t i o - t e m p o r a l a r t i c u l a t i o n s a r e welded i n t o a u n i q u e whole w i t h ne dependent or s e p a r a b l e p a r t s . An a c t o f i n t e l l i g e n c e , on th:= o t h e r hand, ... i n v o l v e s a c e r t a i n number o f p a t h s ( i n space and t i m e ) which can be both i s o l a t e d and s y n t h e s i z e d . Thus from the p o i n t o f view o f the s t r u c t u r a l mechanism, e l e m e n t a r y s e n s o r y - m o t o r a d a p t a t i o n s a r e both r i g i d and u n i d i r e c t i o n a l , w h i l e i n t e l l i g e n c e t e n d s towards r e v e r s i b l e m o b i l i t y . That ... i s the e s s e n t i a l p r o p e r t y o f the o p e r a t i o n s which characterize living logic in action. Dut we can se"; t h a t  that:  12. r e v e r s i b i l i t y i s the v e r y c r i t e r i o n o f e q u i l i b r i u m (as p h y s i c i s t s have t a u g h t u s ) . To d e f i n e i n t e l l i g e n c e i n terms o f the p r o g r e s s i v e r e v e r s i b i l i t y o f the m o b i l e s t r u c t u r e s which i t forms i s t h e r e f o r e to r e p a a t ... t h a t i n t e l l i g e n c e c o n s t i t u t e s a s t a t e o f e q u i l i b r i u m towards which t e n d e l l the s u c c e s s i v e a d a p t a t i o n s o f a s e n s o r i - m o t o r and c o g n i t i v e n a t u r e , as w e l l as a l l a s s i r n i l a t o r y and accommodatory i n t e r a c t i o n s between o r g a n i s m rind e n v i r o n m e n t . . . . (Piaget, 1950, p. 1 0 - 1 1 ) . :  Thus P i a g e t ' s postulates  the  (1962) g i v e s  formulation  existence  the  o f c o g n i t i v e development  of discontinuous  criteria  f o r these  stages.  stages  Inhelder  which can  be  summarized  thusly: (1) .  Each s t a g e structure.  (2) .  The a t t a i n e d s t r u c t u r e o f one p o i n t c f the n e x t .  (3) .  The o r d e r i n which s t a g e s o c c u r ages may v a r y w i t h i n l i m i t s .  (4) .  E a r l i e r s t r u c t u r e s become s u b s t r u c t u r e s structures.  Exp-jrimentnl The who  which  t o them s h o u l d  be  situations;  structure.  not  stage  they  call  operation  stage  he  has  recognizing  stage  capable  theory  Stage  of  arc  mastery of c o n s e r v a t i o n  Theory  operation  by  and  (Flavell,  1963).  r e q u i r e s the  acquired  reversibility  conserving  thst  amount o f w a t e r poured  who  the  in  same  his associates  within  child  is  that operation  "stages  However, t h e  the  i s that c h i l d r e n  Piaget  tasks  but  later  thc;t i s i n s i t u a t i o n s w i t h by  mental  starting  i s constant,  of a p p l y i n g  " h o r i z o n t a l decalages"  the  i s the  wherein a l o g i c a l  However, r e s e a r c h  of r e v e r s i b i l i t y .  o r g a n i z a t i o n of  Supoortinn  l e d them to p o s t u l a t e thc:t t h e r e  example, t h e  that  Results  i m p l i c a t i o n o f the  appropriate  logical has  a characteristic  hi-'v?: a t t a i n e d a c e r t a i n  available all  has  stages" For mental  demonstrates  substance  (e.g.  from a s h o r t wide j a r  13. into  '. t a l l  operation  thin  j a r r e m a i n s tht, same) i s u n a b l e t o a p p l y t h o  to the conservation This f a i l u r e  e x p e c t .d h i g h opmental l,:vcl question  o f int'?r-t:isl< s u c c e s s  intercorrcilotions  j  to  the stage  theory  example d i d n o t s u p p o r t  the  conservation  classes  to  Piaget's  f i n d i n g s of Pieget  he c i t e s  theless  as P i a g e t  &. D l g i v i e  (1961)  (1962) i n a t t e m p t i n g  i n the a c q u i s i t i o n  to  of the l o g i c of  a l a r g e degree o f v a r i a b i l i t y . that the v a r i a b i l i t y  responses to s p e c i f i c  mey be due  situations,  he n e v e r -  t h a t "Development i s n e i t h e r as r e g u l a r n o r s s has s u g g e s t e d . . . . "  (1963) i n a l o n g i t u d i n a l apparent  Lovell  f i n d i n g s i n t h e sequence o f  Dodwell  the p o s s i b i l i t y  concludes  s number o f r e s e a r c h e r s  o f development.  of weight.  l e a r n i n g of s p e c i f i c  simple  hns c a u s e d  end c a r d i n a l number found  Although  and a l s o t h e l a c k o f  among s u b j e c t s o f t h e same d e v e l -  c t t h e same t a s k  for  replicate  uf weight.  study  Almy, C h i t t e n d e n  of conservation  r e v e r s a l s of the i n v a r i a n t order  &. M i l l e r  discovered  postulated  some  by t h e Geneva  group, as w a l l as soma r e g r e s s i o n s t o "no c o n s e r v a t i o n . " A possible solution to  stage  theory  as W i t k i n ' s  t o t h ^ i n s t a n c e s which e r e c o n t r a r y  may be i n t h e f i e l d  FDI, which a f f e c t s  of i n d i v i d u a l  d i f f e r e n c e s such  p ^ r f c r m a n c e under v a r i o u s  situational  factors.  Witkin's Witkin,  Field  experimenting  framework d i s c o v e r e d orienting (Witkin, found  Dependence _- .Independence  Dimension.  w i t h i n an o r g a n i s m i c - v a r i a b l e s  that i n d i v i d u a l s  h;"d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  t h e m s e l v e s i n s p a c e which were s t a b l e a c r o s s 1949).  ways o f  situations  These c o n s i s t e n t p e r f o r m a n c e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  t o a p p e a r i n th^; spe;jd w i t h  which  individuals  could  were  discover  14. figures the  embedded  i n l a r g e r f i g u r e s ( W i t k i n , 1950).  many r e l a t e d , f i n d i n g s , t e s t  Witkin,  Dyk,  postulated dence  Faterson,  Goodenough &. Karp  cognitive style  (FDI)  intercorrelations,  i s based on  (1962).  dimension F i e l d  a theory  A summary  of  e t c . appears i n The  resulting  Dependence -  of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n .  Indepen-  Witkin  (1967)  states: P e r c e p t i o n may be c o n c e i v e d as a r t i c u l a t e d , i n c o n t r a s t t o g l o b a l , i f the p e r s o n i s a b l e t o p e r c e i v e items as d i s c r e t e from o r g a n i z e d ground when the f i e l d i s s t r u c t u r e d ( a n a l y s i s ) , and to impose s t r u c t u r e on a f i e l d , and so p e r c e i v e i t as o r g a n i z e d , when the f i e l d has l i t t l e i n h e r e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n ( s t r u c t u r i n g ) . Progress from g l o b a l t o a r t i c u l a t e d , which comes about w i t h growth, o c c u r s not o n l y i n p e r c e p t i o n , where we a r e d e a l i n g w i t h an i m m e d i a t e l y p r e s e n t s t i m u l u s c o n f i g u r a t i o n , but i n t h i n k i n g as w e l l , where s y m b o l i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s a r e involved. ...The f a c t t h a t t h e v a r i o u s i n d i c a t o r s o f • d e v e l o p e d d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n tend to 'go t o g e t h e r ' i n t h e same p e r s o n s u g g e s t s t h a t they a r e not d i s c r e t e a c h i e v e ments o f s e p a r a t e c h a n n e l s o f growth but r a t h e r d i v e r s e e x p r e s s i o n s o f an u n d e r l y i n g p r o c e s s of development toward g r e a t e r p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o m p l e x i t y , . . . (Witkin, 1967). Witkin basis  specifically  of  the  ability  "Whan we  use  the  term a n a l y t i c ,  t o overcome an  an  independently  part...."  (Witkin, Studies  i n c r e a s e s with relative Witkin,  we  embedding o f an  refer  FDI  d i m e n s i o n on Thus he  organized  the  stated:  quite s p e c i f i c a l l y  context,  that i s , to  field  o f which  to  the  experience i t is a  1963).  have d e m o n s t r a t e d  age.  the  t o overcome embeddedness.  ability item  defined  However, i n any  that f i e l d given  perfcrmancs remains s t a b l e a c r o s s Goodenough &. Karp,  1966).  independence  group, the ages.  (Fl)  individuals  (Witkin,  1962;  15. Gardner'_s Gardner, between a p p a r e n t size  Conception of I n d i v i d u a l following  judgments were c o r r e l a t e s  the s t a n d a r d . ' subjects this  Another  performance  characteristic  Articulation attend  (a)  of Scanning  ions.  Factor analysis  II.  Proneness  to s a t i a t i o n  Subjects demonstrating  Scanning  i n which (b)  (Gardner,  measures and t e s t e d  related  c f the r e s u l t s related  produced  effects.  on Type  Gardner  equated  However, r a t h e r  Gardner  become o b v i o u s  equated  I illusions."''  the f i r s t  then  conception of decentration  III. factor  involving  that  only  i t also  involves  cues.  The  with P i a g e t ' s d e c e n t r a t i o n t o sample w i d e l y from t h e  whether t h e a s p e c t s sampled  i n the next  factors:  and i g n o r e i r r e l e v a n t  E x t e n s i v e s c a n n e r s were found  However, t h i s  1*.  Scanning,  of i l l u s -  II i l l u s i o n s .  to attend to r e l e v a n t  field  must  t o elements o f  on Type  the a b i l i t y  stimulus  the subject  three  t o overcome embeddedness, he s t a t e d  mechanism.  end F i e l d  them on a b a t t e r y  the a b i l i t y  factor,  Witkin  1961).  to performance  to performance  w i t h W i t k i n ' s FDI d i m e n s i o n .  second  influence  s u b j e c t s on W i t k i n ' s FDI measures and on  Articulation,  Scanning,  1961).  to s i t u a t i o n s  himself.'  mey  'errors of  by t h e t i : s t s by which  o u t s i d e himself or  rated  extent  Field  Articulation.  (Gardner,  are 'relevant  Gardner  he p o s t u l a t e d  arc differentiated  memory schemata w i t h i n  assumed t h e  of extensiveness of scanning  f a c t o r which  i s Field  to s t i m u l i  deployment,  E x t e n s i v e s c a n n e r s make fewer  d e f i n e s h i s FDI d i m e n s i o n  I.  P i a g e t ' s research i n the r e l a t i o n s  magnitude and a t t e n t i o n  ( G a r d n e r &. Long, 1962).  Differences.  were r e l e v a n t  or not.  i s n o t a c c u r a t e , as w i l l  section.  P i a g e t c a l l s i l l u s i o n s t h a t d e c r e a s e w i t h age Type I; .that i n c r e a s e w i t h age Type I I " . ( V u r p i l l o t , 1957). :;  :;  those  16.  Fiaqot's  Concept  of P e r c e p t u a l  Activity  and . i t . . . 1  3  Reflation t i ; I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s . G a r d n e r ' s t h e o r i z i n g a p p e a r s t o have s t a r t e d from get's term  w--rk  on  ( G a r d n e r &. Long, 1 9 6 2 ) .  " c e n t r a t i o n " to stand  estimation are  perci.jpti.jn  studies.  The  o f prim;:, i m p o r t a n c e  child  f o r each l o o k  processes  theory.  therefore  bir.sing  e f f e c t s of a s i n g l e c e n t r a t i o n .  tention  (centration) w i l l  fall  characteristic  i n the  rather  than  transfurmotiuns  stntic  s t a t e of a given  nn  field.  not  this  periment.  The  transformation insists ding  the  child of the  cuntrates liquid  dimension  implies  about t h e  o f one  matter:  size  decentration  ( P i a g e t , 195Q).  most o b v i o u s  nf  two  static  states  do  "The n t  Une  yet  could  c u n t r a t i . j n s are  well-known w a t i - r - l ' . v ^ l  upon a s h o r t any  wide j a r , s^es  being  removed,  j a r i s more  i s holding and  at-  :.-r s a l i e n t  on  195B)  the  His  s t a t e to another  products  coordination  in  unable to balance  &. P i a g e t ,  thin  Piaget's  preoperational  i t s m c d i f i c a t i ns  without  t"ll  than i n d i s c r i m i n a t e scanning t o sny  the  The  chile? c e n t r e s  example i s the  amount i n t h e  upon which  decentration  An  the  (Inholder  t o mean t h a t  co-ordinated.  The  state; and  form a s i n g l e s y s t e m . . . " interpret  on  uses  standard  of c e n t r a t i o n and  in Piaget's  i s unable tn decentre.and  at the  He  Pia-  the  yet  (or l a s s ,  h i s a t t e n t i o n ) . The  depennotion  c o n t r o l -if p e r c e p t i o n  i n Gardner's sense.  Piaget  ex-  has  of  rethur this  17.  The development o f p e r c e p t i o n b - a r s w i t n e s s t o thu e x i s t e n c e o f a p ' _ r c e p t i c o l a c t i v i t y l e a d i n g to d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n s , t r a n s p u r t c t i o n s (spnt i a l and t e m p o r a l ) , c o m p a r i s o n s . . . . T h i s a c t i v i t y i n c r e a s e s w i t h age and i t i s b e c a u s e t h e y do nut pasc;ss i t t n a s u f f i c i e n t d e g r e e t h a t young c h i l d r e n p e r c e i v e i n a ' s y n c r e t i c ' or ' g l o b a l manner or e l s e by a c c u m u l a t i n g d i s c o n n e c t e d d e t a i l s . . . . (Piagot, 1950, p. B5) 1  Piaget tion  goes on  to sensori-mator  to  discuss  intelligence.  p e r m i t s C D e . j n t r a t i o n a n d the transportations  (separated  Perceptual  perceptions) But  tn develop.  of s p a t i a l  or  pore ;ntual  activities  and  the  integrates  which  temporal  ar:. ' c l o s e l y bound'  i n i t s development  Once d e v e l o p e d ,  percep-  activity,  to  i t approaches  o p w r e t i ;nal a n d i s u n e o f t h . : f a c t o r s which a l l o w s  thought on  r e l a t i o n s h i p of  co-ordination  s;.;nsori-mut.jr i n t e l l i g e n c e . the  thu  operational  o p e r a t i n a l mechanism them w i t h  itself.  acts  Piaget  enntinuos; I t i s s u f f i c i e n t t h a t the a c t i v i t y u n d e r l y i n g p e r c e p t i o n s h u u l d pass beyond immediate c o n t a c t w i t h the o b j e c t a n d a c t a t i n c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e s i n space and t i m e f o r i t t o t r a n s c e n d t h e p..rc;.:ptual f i u l d i t s e l f and t h u s f u r i t t o be l i b u r a t ^ d from t h e l i m i t a t i o n s t h a t p r e v e n t i t frurn a t t a i n i n g c . m p l e t e m o b i l i t y and r e v e r s i b i l i t y . . . ( P i a g e t , 1950, p.85-86). This ment i n v o l v e s the  may  (Primary  termines  the  interpr itcd v  t o mean t h a t  a pr'jgr. s s i v e movement away fr-.m  o r g a n i s m by  fects'  be  perception perception)  attention  Piaget's  and  cognitive  develop-  direct control  its susceptibility  'field  ef-  S t a t - , which  de-  of some g e o m e t r i c i l l u s i o n s  may  towards a c o n c e p t u a l  to  of  deployment.  explanations  IB  help  t i , explicate the question.  oth~i  His explanation  v i s u a l d i s t o r t i o n s have been based This  ber  c e n t r a t i ^ n s t o t h e number o f p o s s i b l e  (Piaget,  1950).  i s based  on h i s l a w o f r e l a t i v e  eventrations.. of actual  formula  o f t h e s e and  Primary  illusions  result  secondary  illusions  from  tual  activity,  This  view  both  typ.os o f i l l u s i o n s .  has been m o d i f i e d  Vurpillot  a s a manifestation  the  subject,"  lot  gouS  on to explain  r. f i e l d  in the  most  (Vurpillot,  will  attention.  d i r e c t :d t a o b j e c t s tn  a n incr„asing  t h e form  increasing  deployment,  discussed  by V u r p i l l o t .  illusory  t h e most o b v i o u s  Vurpilobject  c a n be  i s a continuum o f  between p r i m a r y and  no l i n g e r be made.  appears t o c o i n c i d e  attintian  stronger  perceptual  translation).  There  need  a  "We  mora and more d i s t a n t i n t i m e n r s p a c e , end  secondary  i n this  by  age, thi.- a t t e n t i u n  and t h e d i s t i n c t i o n  C">nsid:rGd  account:  number u f "c-ncuuntors" - o r  porccptua! a c t i v i t y  This  activity.  a common a c c o u n t f o r  taken  1966, w r i t e r ' s  number u f o b j e c t s .  illusions  of percep-  of the n t t o n t i o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n uf  the greatest  With  o f t h e num-  centrations  a lack  perceptual  offers this  the t h e s i s that  receive  from  t n t r y t a give  p r o p o S ' - t:. do i t by c o n s i d e r i n g activity  upon t h e r j l a t i a n  although  context effect  That  with  Gardner's  (1961) view o f  individual differences  a r u not  individual difforencos  should  be  i s shown b y G a r d n e r who d e m o n s t r a t e d on t h e i - l u e l l o r - L y u r l i n e s  for 5s  1  who  19.  measured low vidual  an  the  FD  o f the  strated  a progressive (with  (1967)  Gw^zdocki  a slight  with  age.  in  magnitude o f i l l u s i o n  FD  Ss  the  poral  c - . n t r o l has  at ago  7).  mstrated (1957)  a c l e a r stage  demon-  fr..m  and  and  Pascual-Leone in  decrease  5 to 1 1 ,  age  ago  decrease i n  effect  subjects  by  Leibowitz  a progressive Eccles  indi-  whereas  decline. from p e r c e p t u a l  been summarized  amount o f r e d u n d a n t  by  information  information  th-.t i s , s e l e c t i v i t y  separation  dem  Vurpillot  Britain,  developmental trend  amount o f i r r e l e v a n t  creases;  rise  amoung FI  showed a p r o g r e s s i v e  Thu  a l s o be  d e c r e a s e i n amount o f i l l u s i o n  however, d e m o n s t r a t e d  conceptual  can  a l s o demonstrated  amount o f i l l u s i o n  The  need f a r c o n s i d e r i n g  Poggendorff i l l u s i o n .  5 to adulthood  way.  The  differences in perception  studies  (1968)  scale.  Kessun  c o n t r o l to (1962)  required  t h a t can  be  increases  and  the  o v e r which i n f o r m a t i o n  can  be  in  this  decreases;  tolerated i n spatial  and  tem-  integrated  increases, The  common d e n o m i n a t o r between d e v e l o p m e n t a l  o f p..rcopti..n and a p p e a r s t o be and  lus  then,  conception.  field  offacts.  field  randi,  i n thu  Research the  d i f f e r e n c e s aspects  amount of d i s t a n c e  A n o t h e r way  attract  1967).  individual  has  of s t a t i n g  the  perception  i t is in susceptibility  (Piaget, 1 9 5 0 ;  W i t h i n c r e a s i n g age,  of a t t e n t i o n  between  shown t h a t s a l i e n t  attention  aspects  ability  aspects  of a  Mackworth and to r e s i s t  to  stimuf'lQ •  this  20.  attraction ability  increases.  t u resist  increases. results  This  the f i e l d  perf•irmance  bottles  un P i a g e t i a n (1966).  line.  Field  ject  to the influence  characteristics  The combination (b)  increasing  the  possibility  of a n a t u r a l  (Wchlwill,  suggests  (Kesson,  1963).  ordinal  stages  o f development i n c-mputing  capacity scale  A main p r o b l e m  with  age, r a i s e s  t o e s t a b l i s h such a  i s to specify  c i t e s Piaget  o f accommodation  and a s s i m i l a t i o n attempt  s p a c e and  of q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n -  Kesson  1962).  i s , the compelling  h Ne_opjj^g^et_i_a_n Model.  have boen a t t e m p t i n g  other t h e o r i s t s  a representa-  t h a n wore F l b u y s .  between s t g o s ,  that  water  o l d buys w«_.ro mure s u b -  of a c e n t r a l  infarmatiun-procussing  by  obtained  uf i m a g i n i n g  - that  outlines  of discontinuuus  scale  the; n a t i o n s  factors  Developmental Stages;  Some r e s o a r c h u r s  rule  and t e s t e d  and drawing  (FD) 9 y e a r  of f i e l d  ces.  and  FDI and t h e t a s k  (a) the notion  with  theory.  Among th:. many p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s  dependent  notion  stage  t a s k s was p o s t u l a t e d  of the b o t t l e  5cnlinq  f o r t h ^ confusing  Piaget's  i n different orientation,  tive  sition  to test  i n part  i n t e r a c t i - n o f FDI and d i f f e r e n c e s i n  was a c o r r e l a t i o n between in  e x i s t , end p e r s i s t a c r o s s age  a t least  designed  possible  Pascuel-Louna  factors  nay a c c o u n t  of research The  Howuvjr, i n d i v i d u a l c i i f f o r ^ n c e s i n t h e  the t r a n -  (1937) as u s i n g  as t r a n s i t i o n r u l e s  to solve  this  problem  21*  Iii d i s c u s s i n g ciov ;loprnent| Simbn  the problem (1962)  of t r a n s i t i o n s i n a t  states.  '•••'e u a i n h i n t s nf how t o d e a l w i t h t h e s e p r o b l e m s from t h e c l a s s i c a l dynamic systems o f t h e p h y s i c a l sciences, Thcris, t r a n s i t i o n i s d e a l t w i t h by d i f f e r e n t i a l e q u a t i o n s or d i f f e r e n c e e q u a t i o n s ; The e q u a t i o n s answer t h e q u e s t i o n , "As a f u n c t i o n o f what we h-:.d a t t i m e T ,, what w i l l t h e system be l i k e a t t i m e T^? In orcler t o h a n d l e m a t t e r s i n t h i s way, wo must have T , o r n way o f d e s c r i b i n g t h e s y s t e m a t a p a r t i c u l a r t i m e ; nnd we need n ^ e t o f d i f f o r t j n t i a l and c o n t i n g i e n t r u l e s - t h a t d e s c r i b e t h e p r o c e s s o f change,.. (Simon, 1962, p. 1 5 4 ) , 11  Pascual-L;;one of developmental computing and  stage t r a n s i t i o n .  Hu  above from P i a g e t ,  1950).  a repertoire  Thus,  each  the subject  Pascual-Leone  states;  an M - p l a c e s  a model  'central  grows w i t h  age,  as a d a p t a t i o n - a  patterns  o r sehemas  i s assumed t o have  h i s past experience.  "Formally t h i s  He  which  a  tested  acquired  The  i n t h e number o f  transition independent  can c o o r d i n a t e a t t h o same t i m e .  o p e r a t o r which  at t h e same t i m e . . . "  behavioral  as t h e i n c r e a s e  sehemas which  postulated  intelligence  subject  o f schomas from  can be d e p i c t e d  successfully  channel capacity  of generating recurrent  (Piaget,  rule  and  s p a c e ' or s i n g l e  as c i t e d  process  (1967) p r o p o s e d  factor  can bo c o n s i d e r e d as  can a p p l y upon H i n d e p e n d e n t  calls  this  factor  an  schemes  "H-operator"He  states: I t may be p a s s i b l e t a a s s i g n n u m e r i c a l v a l u e s t o t h e M - o p c r a t a r d e f i n i n g each P i a g e t i a n s t a g e when t h e k i n d o f e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n t o be used i s s p e c i f i e d and t h e r e p e r t o i r e o f t h o s u b j e c t known. Under t h o s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s the d e v e l o p . i i c n t a l growth o f t h e H - o p e r a t o r i s assumed t a be d e s c r i b e d by a l i n e a r f u n c t i o n . ( P a s c u a l - L o o n e , 1967, p. 8-9).. He  assumes t h e H - o p e r a t o r  functions  t o be an i n t e r v e n i n g  i n an a l l - o r - n o n e manner.  variable  which  I t t a k e s on d i s c r e t e  integral  22. values  which  Differences an  d e f i n e a s c a l e which c o n s t i t u t e s a ' F i n i t e S c a l o " ( Suppes &. Z i n n c s ,  information-processing  amount o f d e v e l o p m e n t a l operator for  age  value  f o r age  9 to ten,  5-year o l d can informations order  data,  M = 4 and  he  Having  a n a l y s i s on  postulates  f o r age  the  2;  f o r age  11  t o 12,  - i . e . schemas.  so t h a t  on  a Finite  the  He  calls  the  first-order  Equal  a  H value  considerable  7 t o 8, M = 5.  M =  3;  Thus  the  M-operator a  variables  second-  (schemas).  D i f f e r e n c e System, a t a s k  of t h a t  M-  independent  number of schemas a group h.-d  postulated  performed  upper l i m i t  p a r a l l e l - p r o c e s s ( i n t e g r a t e ) two  Thus t o c o n s t r u c t  matched t h o  of j o b  5 t o 6 t o be  v a r i a b l e which a c t s  devised  type  1963).  Equal  was  to l e a r n  group, p l u s  a  constant-.  Thus, Ng = K + Mg  (1)  where N = number of u n i t s t o be and  g = the  difficulty The child  a v e r a g e age  f o r each group  task  learned  a square, the clap  the  (i.e. six, 3"x6" for  cards age  5,  The  (Pascual-Leone,  to a s s o c i a t e a motoric r e s p o n s e was  hands.  so  sample.  H = M-oparator  to r a i s e  task  i s then  stimuli  response.  For  f o r the  F i v e yrjar o l d s l e a r n e d  five  such simple  Seven y e a r  on.  A f t e r l e a r n i n g , compound s t i m u l i  with  2,  and  3,  4 or  5 of the  c l a s s e s of s t i m u l i  I t was  assumed t h a t  simple  stimuli,  the  child  so i n one  had  up not  equal  simple  to 8 f o r the learned  c e n t r a t i o n of t h e  color  olds  11  units  presented  combined, year  t o "chunk"  compound  red,  loarned  were  stimuli  the  example, f o r  arm;  = 3 + 2).  of  t o which  the  ( 1 ) , Ng  value,  1967).  c o n s i s t e d of a set of simple  from f o r m u l a and  o f the  learned,  olds. the  stimuli,  23i he  could process  his  M-value,  pool  has  a number o f s i m p l e  (Each atom i s from  tho  compound s t i m u l u s w i t h o u t could process  M-value,  but  sampling  with  Tho  each  a different  t h a t i B time  time  from  than  a scanning s t r a t e g y ,  the t o t a l  sample^  o f groups o f s i n g l e  then  form  becoming  "strings"  that i s ,  string  c o u l d be-  Following were computed  (a,b)  groups.  f o r computing  occupancy problems.  Sequential l e n g t h of a  F o r example, f o r M -  model, t h e o r e t i c a l  f o r the d i f f e r e n t used  The  The  sampling  space i s  Bcso-Einstoin s t a t i s t i c s  (Pascual-Leone,1967)•  tical  colls.  probabilities  coefficients ages 9 and  In t h i s  scanning 1967),  number o f t r i a l s  were computed  i s also  f o r ages 5 and  of  interpretaballs  M,  7,  predictions  thrown  TheoreFrom  these,  f o r the  11, tested  were f i e l d  presented  5 seconds,  The  were d e r i v e d which a l l o w e d  Pascual-Leone groups who  2 the  probabilities  t h a M - o p o r a t o r v a l u e becomes M i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e  randomly i n t o  (atoms)  (a,a).  a stochastic  to that  stimuli  "molecules."  of molecules.  equals the s u b j e c t s M-value.  tion,  tha  replacement.  string  and  each  onough t o s c a n  to develop  was  which a r e p a r a l l e l - p r o c e s s e d ,  similar  p o o l , but  a number o f c e n t r a t i o n s e q u a l t o h i s  sampling  model c o n s i s t s  centrations  (atoms) e q u a l t o  same c o m p o s i t i o n ) ;  In " f r e e - t i m e " v i e w i n g  the c h i l d  stimuli  independent.  manually  which was  without Empirical  children  by t h e  found  i n the  5,  7 9 and  sufficient  allowing scanning probabilities  age  S t i m u l i wore drawn on  experimenters.  t o be  11  Exposure for "free  strategies,  were computed  cards  time  was  time"  (Pascual-Leone, f o r the  different  24. classes  o f compound s t i m u l i (M = 2 , 3 . . . 8 ) .  d e m o n s t r a t e s how  close  the  empirical  thci.T.iticnl p r o b a b i l i t i e s .  t o the retical  and  empirical  ances which a r e  p r o b a b i l i t i e s are  also  mathematical expectations  very  f o r the  age  g r o u p s , he  o r d e r t a maximize the  retical  predictions.  dimension a " t h i r d variables  - e.g.,  selected  subjects  were f i e l d  He  c a l l s Witkin's  Field  the  M-operator.  the  It i s a  tion-processing  research limits,  stages af i n c r e a s i n g  ment: thw  response-bias bohaviar  difficulties or c a p a c i t y ;  variables;  intellectual  deployment  field  .ccssing to  e f f e c t s and  how  individual differences  increase  or o v e r l e a r n i n g  were t a u g h t  s i m p l e S-r  (M-value).  variables; stages.  To  To  to  a model f o r  s p a c e and  avoid  avoid  postu-  capacity  differences  of i n f o r m a t i o n s - t o - b e - i n t e g r a t e d , a s s e c i a t i ns.  the  develop-  they r e l a t e  in information-processing  across developmental stages "grain"  capacity;  deployment t o i n d i v i d u a l  model assumed a c e n t r a l computing  a crnstant  informa-  development  intellectual  thi: t r a n s i t i o n r u l e between d e v e l o p m e n t a l  lated  the  information  in establishing  information-pr  of a t t e n t i o n  d e v e l o p m e n t a l and  The  (Pas-  i n t h i s c h a p t e r have been:  r e l a t i o n s h i p of a t t e n t i o n  differences  order  1967).  the  relationship  theo-  upon s e c o n d  e v i d e n c e f o r assuming a c e n t r a l - c o n t r o l f a c t o r i n  as  who  Dependence  p r o b a b i l i t y of any  Quostiuns considered  processing;  tha  independent,  p r o b a b i l i t y of matching  v a r i a b l e which changes t h e cual-Lecjnc,  vari-  fi-veluos are  o r d e r v a r i a b l e " which a c t s on  and  close.  wore above a v e r a g e i n t e l l i g e n c e and in  thuc-  she-wn a r -  Since Pnscual-Leones' postulated upper l i m i t  Appendix K  confusion  Ss by  in  25  individual In first, and  that  diffjrcnccs tha l i g h t FD 5s  therefore  Their  f a c t o r s , only  o f t h e above f a c t o r s , i t can bo e x p e c t e d  would be more s u s c e p t i b l e  l e s s able  to control their  p e r f o r m a n c e on a F i n i t e  inferior  to that  FI Ss wore u s e d .  o f FI Ss w i t h  attention  Equal D i f f e r e n c e s t h e same  Second, i t can be e x p e c t e d  that  effects,  deployment.  task  should  be  M-value. FD and FI Ss w i l l  per-  form b e t t e r  with  groups w i l l  f i t t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p r e d i c t i o n s mar-- c l o s e l y t h a n  the  increasing  to f i e l d  age, t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e FI  good f i t i n t h e P a s c u a l - L e o n e  (1967) s t u d y .  26  II  CHAPTER  MEtHDD  2 Subjects  The 28 N =  subjects  grade two;  26  Stimulus  and  e x p e r i m e n t were 22 27  grariB  kindergarten,  six children  (Total  The  2.  so  and  t o the  had  panel  c o u l d be  switches  a plug f o r connecting  r e a r o f the  Power s u p p l y  recorder  Pulse  intervals  had  nine  l i t i n any  pushbuttons. d e s i r e d com-  which c o n t r o l l e d i t to the o t h e r  the  front  panel.  control  (110  lighting,  former,  which p r o v i d e d  by  a tape  D/C  equipment.  which  perpen-  provided  power f o r the  one-half  programmer.  r e c o r d e r pens on  of s l i d e  and  volts),  but-  Rustrak  pulse-former.  controlled  Rustrak  and  button  pens and  4.  5.  front  the b u t t o n s  back p a n e l  power to the  time  The  A white m a t t e - f i n i s h stimulus d i s p l a y screen,  3.  t o r and  T H B equipment i s diagrammed  Response Panels.  It consisted of:  lights  ton l i g h t s ,  dicular  Test M a t e r i a l s  Response P a n e l .  bination.  2  and  Appendix A .  These had  the  grade 4,  rJisplay. and  li  A/C  in this  1D3). Apparatus'  in  (Ss)  channels  second  pulses  I t drove the 1 and  5 to  at  projec-  indicate  presentation.  G e r b r a n d ' s tape  programmer which programmed p u l s e s  to  ~ * ~ " " " " — ' ' The a u t h o r ' s s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n i s e x t e n d e d to Mr. J e n v i e and h i s s t a f f a t S i r W i l l i a m O s i e r E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l , V a n c o u v e r , whose c o o p e r a t i o n and i n t e r e s t were t r u l y encouraging. L  27 t h e p r o j e c t o r and t o t h e r e c o r d e r s  -.i=rk  t o  t h o  t i n e  of  p r o j e c -  tion . 6.  Kodak C a r o u s e l  7.  Rustrak  The  equipment was a r r a n g e d  jected  Projector.  Recorders  (two),  four channels  so t h a t  on t h e back o f t h e s c r e e n .  a slide,  Rustrak  following  stimuli  Rustrak  group.  pro-  Each  channel.  t h e r . c o r d i n g o f sach  f o r each  were  When t h e p u l s e - f o r m e r  A p a t t e r n o f b u t t o n s was a r r a n g e d simple  the s l i d e s  pens #1 and #5 marked t h e e v e n t .  o f t h e p a n e l marked a d i f f e r e n t were r e c o r d e d  each,  drove button  Thus  responses  stimulus.  t o match t h e a p p r o p r i a t e  F o r example,  illuminated  f o r age 5 t o 6: b u t t o n s  were t a u g h t  t o push b u t t o n #1 i f a s q u a r e  five  buttons  1, 6, 7, B and 9. appeared  were  Children  on t h e s c r e e n  #6 f o r r e d , and so on. 5timuli. square, tabled  The s t i m u l i  red, c i r c l e - i n - t h e - m i d d l e . i n Appendix C.  introductory. set That age  of total  learning  The s i m p l e  S t i m u l i were a r r a n g e d and t e s t i n g . .  c l u e s such as  s t i m u l i are  i n three  sets,  Each s e t i n c l u d e d t h e sub-  s t i m u l i a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e age-group b e i n g  tested.  i s f o r age 5, t h e s e t s i n c l u d e d S^ t o 5^, age 6, 5^ t o Sg, 7, 5^ t o 5y and age 11, 5^ t o Sg. The  training  introductory set  c o n s i s t e d o f simple v i s u a l  stimuli  and l e a r n i n g  c o n s i s t e d o f two s e t s , sets,  had two c a r d s t o i l l u s t r a t e  contained  three p o s i t i v e  lus;  t h e second  ces.  Stimuli  respectively. each  simple  t o as  The i n t r o d u c t o r y  stimulus; the f i r s t  and one n e g a t i v e i n s t a n c e o f t h e s t i m u -  c o n t a i n e d one p o s i t i v e  appearing  referred  later  and t h r e e n e g a t i v e  i n t h e s e t were sometimes  instan-  combined  28 with  earlier  ones,  forming  e compound  stimulus.  The second s e t  o r l e a r n i n g s e t c o n s i s t e d o f a s e r i e s which had a maximum o f one positive  i n s t a n c e p e r c a r d , end seme c a r d s  negative  instances.  was s t i m u l u s learning simple  compound  the t e s t i n g stimulus  which  task  a  specific  s t i m u l i were combined  c l a s s e s o f from two t o e i g h t s i m p l e  5 compound  stimuli  shown i n Appendix C.  stimuli,  f o r each  stimuli  might be a  stimulus  8,  line,  Age 5 were  age 7 up t o c l a s s  6,  The number o f  group and t h e t o t a l s  This corresponds  i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n .  and compound  i n order  i n the middle of i t .  7, and age 11 up t o c l a s s  o f compound  as d i s c u s s e d  stimulus  into  t h e o u t l i n e o f which c o n s i s t e d o f a broken  on up t o c l a s s  9 up t o c l a s s  simple task  s e t , the simple  had a s m a l l c i r c l e  each c l a s s are  purpose o f t h e  s e t was t o a s s o c i a t e t h e c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e w i t h  An example o f a c l a s s - f o u r compound  tested age  purpose o f the i n t r o d u c t o r y s e t  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , whereas t h e p r i m a r y  s m a l l red square, and  only  stimulus.  For  each.  The p r i m a r y  which c o n t a i n e d  to a F i n i t e  Differences  The numbers o f each  were b a l a n c e d  i n each  to c o n t r o l f o r i n t e r t a s k l e a r n i n g .  half  of the  (See A p p e n d i c e s  D and E ) . The  s t i m u l i were drawn on 4 x6" c;.-rds and p h o t o g r a p h e d by t,  a c o m m e r c i a l p h o t o g r a p h e r t o make 35 mm.  slides.  Tests.  Test  Konstadt,  The c h i l d r e n ' s Embedded 19&3) was a d m i n i s t e r e d  Figures  to a l l Ss.  (f.EFT; Karp and  29 PROCEDURE Determination  o f FDI Groups.  groups, f i e l d  dependent  basis  (FD) o r f i e l d  o f t h e CEFT s c o r e s .  on t h e means g i v e n p e a r s i n Appendix For  independent  ( F l ) on t h e  C r i t e .ion f o r the d i v i s i o n  by Karp and K o n s t a d t ( 1 9 6 3 ) .  was based  A summary ap-  F.  the kindergarten  70.2 months w i t h  Each c l a s s was d i v i d e d i n t o two  F l group  (fJ = 12) t h e mean age was  a range o f 64 t o 75.  The FD group  [ti  = 10)  mean age was 71.5 months, and t h e range 67-75 months. d r a w i n g s were s c a l e d on t h e H a r r i s s c a l e mean i n t e l l i g e n c e  score  r a n g e o f 94-148,  F o r t h e FD group  (Harris,  Figure  1965).  The  f o r t h e F l group was 112,16, w i t h a t h e mean i n t e l l i g e n c e  score  was 108.1, range 90-131.  The mean CEFT s c o r e  f o r t h e F l group  was 8.83, range B t o 11.  FD mean CEFT was 4.3, range 2 t o 6.  Grade 2 F l Ss ( N = 14) mean age was 92.8 months, 89 t o 98. to  103,  FD (N = 14) 5s mean age was 94.10 months, r a n g e 89  Teacher i n t e l l i g e n c e  average-to-bright 10 t o 22.  bracket.  112 t o 129.  (l\l = 16) mean age was 119.37 months, ( N = 10) mean age was 120.30  Teacher i n t e l l i g e n c e  groups i n t h e a v e r a g e - t o - b r i g h t  mean s c o r e  both groups i n t h e  F l group CEFT s c o r e was 14.7, range  The FD group  months, range 112 t o 128. both  ratings placed  FD group CEFT s c o r e was 7.4, range 4 t o 9.  The grade 4 F l group range  range  category.  was 19.43, range 16 t o 25.  ratings placed F l group  CEFT  FD mean CEFT was 10.80,  range 6 t o 15. The grade 6 F l group 129 t o 148.  The FD group  range 132-153.  (l\l = 16) mean age was 142.92,  range  ( N = 11) mean age was 143.82 months,  F l group mean s c o r e  on t h e O t i s  intelligence  30 t e s t was I1B.62; range 103-130; t h e FD group mean was 115.36, range 102 t o 12B. 23.  FI group CEFt  The FD group CEFT me.;n was 14.45, range B t o 17. -  General  Procedure.  children spent  i n order  with  E spent  game w i t h the  some time  to develop  rne? '  5he then  :  rapport with  everything  and t h e s l i d e s  c h i l d r e n were a c q u a i n t e d the response  panel,  "Would you l i k e  took  equipment was s e t up.  with  language.  the messages.  The  first  (e.g.) a . s q u a r e ,  ta  button."  a square  manually  him  said  E touched  very  t o come and p l a y a room where to look at  Most o f t h e  E then  s a t the c h i l d  "Da you know  we a r e s p i e s and we have  t e a c h you t h e s i g n a l s f o r I will  send  were expanded  was s t a r t e d .  at this  speed.  you some  upon i f i t was  stage  E said,  The p r e s e n t a t i o n  i n nrder  t o accom-  "Whenever I show you  the a p p r o p r i a t e button. and s a i d :  I f the c h i l d  "You push t h i s  That's  testing  you l e t mo know you g o t t h e message by  on t h e s c r e e n  push f o r t h i s ? "  I will  When  goad".  one.  was  understood.  modate t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l s '  this  pretend  introductory slide  t i m i n g was c o n t r o l l e d  n.  him and s a i d :  The i n s t r u c t i o n s  t h a t the c h i l d  E x t r a time  was e n c o u r a g e d  When you know them w e l l ,  messages."  not c l e a r  them.  to another  projectors.  sat beside  to  secret  each age group o f  p o i n t e d o u t t o him*  W e l l , we w i l l  a sscrr.t  the c h i l d  The c h i l d  what a spy i s ? " talk  with  t h e k i n d e r g a r t e n and grade 2 c h i l d r  began, E would ask a c h i l d  at  mean was 20.31, range IB t o  Will  E then  "Now which  E then  you push i t f o r me now,  p a i n t e d a t each p o s i t i v e one?"  painted  b u t t o n w i l l you  d i d n o t push t h e b u t t o n ,  "What do you push f o r t h i s  pushing  E told please?  i n s t a n c e and  When the n e g a t i v e  instance  31 was  encountered,  hesitated. button "No, for  that  later  E then s a i d :  f o r that  that  the p r o c e d u r e was  one."  i s not one one."  I f the c h i l d  that  one",  was  to ensure  and  yet to avoid i n the  o f our c l u e s .  fine.  You  that  5 realized  reached  the c r i t e r i o n  (Pascual-Leone,  This  "You  g o i n g t o send  pressing  machine.  was  push  any said:  any  button  t o push  a learning  this  it.  button  The  could  set or  encountered  button, E  have pushed  the s t i m u l i  s e t had  be  purpose  compound  'chunking  the  repeated u n t i l  complete  1  strate-  learning  the c h i l d  had  s e r i e s without a mistake  you  know our s e c r e t  language  some messages.  I will  the b u t t o n s .  'free-time'.  enough f o r a few.  t h e t i m e , t h e sequence  may  so  the messages  I will  have more t h a n one  1967),  was  each  slide  Theoretically,  start  the  message,  so  for 5  response  by means o f p r e - t e s t i n g too l o n g f o r most S s , and  S i n c e the t a p e was  ready?  s e t t o expose  Practically,  5 seconds  s i t sideways  Now  message."  t a p e programmer was (of Pascual-Leone,  very w e l l .  o n l y know about  Are you  slide  e b u t t o n f o r each  that  been c o m p l e t e d ,  s e r i e s was  o f one  Remember, each  determined long  a button, E  more t h a n one  the c h i l d  I c a n ' t see the s c r e e n , a n d l w i l l  seconds  push  1967).  E then s a i d :  The  usually  child.  introduced.  push  child  don't  don't  also  that  establishing  s e t was  you  You  could  but d i d not ask  When t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y  by y o u r  You  pushed  i n the s e t , i f S d i d not push  for  I am  right.  The  When i n s t a n c e s o f compound s t i m u l i were  remarked: "That's  gy  "That's  the same.  5 second  programmer c o u l d  slide  exposure,  time  i t was not  quite  net v a r y  f o l l o w e d by  32 5 second  dark  Since with  the  the  once the  the  testing  5ome Ss occurred,  tended  E asked  hear.  t o be  tained. 5 got  f a r as  in relation  simple  appearing  were d e t e r m i n e d addition, for  each  the  fore  apply  to the  and  FD  5s u s u a l l y  p o s s i b l e the  scored  for  and  S^R^  correct would  the  4,  be 4.  8 groups  effects  of  successes, for  p r o p o r t i o n of  5,  3 stimuli,  These  10,  6 and  ob-  and the  the pro-  proportions  (see Appendix  p r o p o r t i o n s were  G).  In  obtained  Appendix L ) .  were o b t a i n e d  These p r o b a b i l i t i e s  F l grou  could  responses  i n 4 o f the  proposed  this  'enemy s p i e s "  stimulus  the  nece-  number o f p o s s i b l e s u c c e s s e s  probabilities  groups by  When  class  from t h e  assumed  M - v a l u e f o r the  the  group.  Pascual use  They  of  the  there-  s.  In a d d i t i o n , e s t i m a t e d Fl  Older  i f t h e r e were 10  ( F i g u r e s 3,  o f the  more  much a t t e n t i o n t o E  of c o r r e c t  determined  t o the  in cell  (1967) s t u d y .  upper l i m i t  was  t o t a l - r e s p o n s e success  group.  t o be  non-  Ss.  frequency  f o r each o f the  Theoretical Leone  The  of responses  F o r example,  portion  among  Responses were then  omissions.  o n l y one  pay  t o m i n i m i z e as  of Data.  successes  d i d not  so t h e  Treatment  each c l a s s  found  f r e q u e n t l y a t E.  silent  verbal a b i l i t i e s  and  making o c c a s i o n a l  began.  differing  errors  and  t o keep i n c o n t a c t  t o v e r b a l i z e the cues a l o u d .  him  T h i s was  blanks).  T h i s was  looked  screen  period  dsrk  s m i l i n g and  remarks.  f o r y o u n g e r Ss who on  by  q u i t e l o n g , E attempted  looking alert,  encouraging  concentrated  not  (produced  t a s k was  5 by  contingent ssary  screen  probabilities  were o b t a i n e d  f o l l o w i n g procedure.  for  both  Computer-derived  33 p r o b a b i l i t i e s were o b t a i n e d from F e l l e r For cells,  by  me--.ns of  the  following  formulas  (1950).  indistinguishable  with only  p a r t i c l e s , w i t h r p a r t i c l e s and  distinguishable  n  a r r a n g e m e n t s , each i s a s s i g n e d  probability: / N + r - 1\  Here, r p a r t i c l e s  stimuli  probability  represent  that  Stimulus classes  exactly n s  4 and The  f o r the  group was  ]  = -m I  groups were used*appropriate  4  then e x a c t l y  response only  r e m a i n empty i s the here,  i f the  probability, the  number o f  cells  section  For For  probability  one  the  group, and  n  the  0,  1,  2 or  is correct,  checked.  probability  another section (simple  were kept c o n s t a n t .  by  of  the  did  stimuli)  miss some derives  the  ( 3 )  the not  data and  sheets  model f o r a  will  9 and  10,  the  data  pre-  sheets  thrown  into  remain empty. that  match the s h e e t s was  What changed was  particu-  the  3  procedure  the  the  common t o a l l  probability In  the  that  (M-value) are  3 cells the  will  computer d a t a  4 stimulus,  i f 4 balls  figure  largest  example, f o r age  a class  that  empirical  cells  •\  of  5s  empty i s : r - l \ r J  n  the  that  formula  jremain+  5 which a r e  checked.  g i v e the  if  M cells / r -1} \n-m-l /  the  M-value p r e d i c t e d  M-value i s 4.  cells,  probability  i n compound s t i m u l i ,  pm  dicted  M-value o f  the  compute the  f  lar  (2)  stimuli.  In o r d e r to simple  1  * J  V simple  _  cells  followed theoretical checked:  number o f the  Thus,  empty  number o f  balls  34 thrown  (i"l-value).  a theoretical probability  Thus, d i f f e r e n t  probability  was  found.  assumes t h a t the Ss but  vary over  the  were o b t a i n e d 5 stimuli. as  the  do  f o r each  The  estimated  from  the computer d a t a .  3,4,5  and  groups An  possible  o f the  two  they  had  no  model, and Figure  group  (See T a b l e  H end  5 for class taken  Using  were drawn  along  with  i n Appendix  L  and  v a r i a n c e s were computed f o r  I; F i g u r e s 1 and  performed  computed.  on  2).  the s i m p l e  stimuli.  versus  y o u n g e s t age  the number o f  Noncumulative p r o p o r t i o n s  groups d e m o n s t r a t e d  an  are  empirical re-  o f z e r o - t h a t i s , f o r some compound  correct  The  Appendix J ,  responses.  i s presented  as an  T h i s i s not error-analysis  stimuli,  i n accord with i n Appendix  M  the and  7. A two-way a n a l y s i s  o f v a r i a n c e was  o b t a i n e q u a l l\ls, Ss were randomly dropped The  M-values  3),  probabilities  These a r e p r e s e n t e d  also  was  4 and  sponse-category  same M-value,  M-values was  group number o f s u c c e s s e s  successes  The  estimated  e x p e c t a t i o n s and  (Appendices  shown i n T a b l e  the  This  6.  a n a l y s i s was  proportion  noted.  group - 4 f o r c l a s s 4 s t i m u l i ,  empirical probabilities  Mathematical all  use  until  the e m p i r i c a l  In t h i s manner, 9 e s t i m a t e d  M-value, t h e o r e t i c a l  and  then  consistently  M-value o f the  this  Figures  not  M - v s l u e was  average of these  estimated  theoretical  which most n e a r l y matched  The  task.  M-values were checked  a n a l y s i s was  stimuli  based  only - those  on  p e r f o r m a n c e up  performed. from  In o r d e r  groups w i t h  N  to C l a s s 5 compound  c l a s s e s common to a l l groups,  (Table 2).  to *10.  35.  CHAPTER I I I RESULTS  Analysis, .ijf Variance R e s u l t s : Table 2 presents the r e s u l t s • f the two-way a n a l y s i s of variance between the FDI dimension and  age.  Tho FDI dimension has an F value of 3 . 5 0 2 9 ,  approaches s i g n i f i c a n c e at the . 0 5 l e v e l . The  age e f f e c t i s s i g n i f i c a n t  (p  ,005),  (f  .05 =  which 3.9B).  and th.. i n t e r a c t i o n  e f f e c t i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . Variance R e s u l t s : each group.  Figure 1 shows the e m p i r i c a l variances f o r  Also shown arc t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l variances  from Pascual-Leone study. the present  Like the l a t t e r , the variances of  study show a p r o g r e s s i v e i n c r e a s e with age.  How-  ever, the r a t a show that f o r both the FI and FD groups, the variances are greater i n t h i s study.  The greatest d i f f e r e n c e s  occur between the age 7 and age 9 groups f o r both FD and FI Ss. It a l s o can be noted §BUW  that the age 9 FD and FI groups variances  the greatest" d i f f e r e n c e to the variances of t h e o r e t i c a l  .and Pascual-Leone v a r i a n c e s .  As f o r the d i f f e r i n c c s  within  age groups, the d i f f e r e n c e between age 11 FD and FI groups i s groat ..st.. Mathematical E x p e c t a t i o n :  Figure 2 shows the mathematical expec-  t a t i a n s computed f o r n i l groups i n t h i s study, as w e l l as the t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l oxp c t a t i o n s from the Pascual-Leone (1967) r e s e a r c h .  The e m p i r i c a l expectations of the FD groups of  a l l ages arc: balow the expectations of a l l other groups.  The  36.  TABLE 2 ANALYSES  5ourcc  SS  F.D.I. Age Interaction Within Error  'Total  * P^.Q5 **  P < .005  (P  UF  VARIANCE  df  MS  2215.5125  1  2215.5125  54559.2375  3  18186.4125  1985.1375  3  661.7125  4553B.3000  72  632.4763  104296.1875  79  .05=3.98)  3.5029* 28.7542** 1.0462  F I G . 1.  T h e o r e t i c a l a n d e m p i r i c a l v a r i a n c e f o r age From P a s c u a l - L e o n e ( 1 9 6 7 ) .  groups  and  FDI  • 2.  Mathematical E x p e c t a t i o n s a c r o s s age and FDI Prom Pascual-Leone (1967).  39. curve  however, i s a f a i r l y  consistent  i n c r e a s e with  The  age  expectations pectation.. tations, 31,3s tions  o f t h a t eg.., but  but  lower  11  of the  than  e x p e c t a t i o n s are FD  the t h e o r e t i c a l  group was  probabilities  stimuli.  These e s t i m a t e d  estimated  Figures  3,  4,  For theoretical retical  5,  curve,  result.  two  empirical  expectation.  by  section,  an  averaging  M-values The  are  correspondence  than  and  the  R^.  the  The  FD  theoretical are  Estimated  the  good,  probabilities  shown i n A p p e n d i x L  uf  and  curve  falls  close to  higher  the  (1967)  theo-  S i n c e t h e M-values match, t h i s  i s an  drawn fr_m  The  the  Pascuel-Leone  F l estimated  probability  values  than  Empirical Fl probability  estimated  from  compound  i s nut  curve,  the t h e o r e t i c a l  R' , R^  expecta-  shown i n Tab.le 3 a l o n g  R^  but  However,  estimated  5 of thu  response  R^  expec-  M-values  av .rr.ge M-value o f 5 shows l o w e r and  the  ex-  6.  probabilities..  expected  above a l l o t h e r  which most n e a r l y matched  moan c a p a c i t i e s  5 and  ago  other  1  f o r C l a s s e s 4 and  5 group.  are  ages.  found  the p r e d i c t e d v a l u e s . ago  showing a  f a r above t h e t h e o r e t i c a l  analyses  probabilities  empirical  oxc" pt f o r t h e  line  g r e a t e r only than  groups a t t h e s e  M-value f u r each  these  not  the t h e o r e t i c a l  E s t i m a t e d Mean C a p a c i t y ' " "s" ti'e^'cTin'ia l"n t h e  with  o x p e c t a t i ns  7 i s above the  age  straight  ages.  5 Fl empirical  The  9 and  accurate  value.  with  probabilities  for  for  values f o r i s higher  an  TABLE 3 MEAN CAPACITY:  PREDICTED AND ESTIMATED  FUR AGE AND F . D . I . GROUPS  AGE  5  7  9  11  Predicted  4.00  9.00  16.00  25.00  F.  4.10  5.40  7.10  9.20  5.00  6.66  8.10  10.88  D.  F. I.  41. For group,  and  age  7,  6.66  the averaged  f e r t h e FI gruup.  show h i g h e r p r o b a b i l i t i e s probabilities  M-value i s 5.4 The  f a r the  estimated  f o r the l o w e r  classes  f o r the h i g h e r ' c l a s s e s than  the  FD  curves and  lower  theoretical  curves. In  both  t h e age  9 and  show h i g h e r p r o b a b i l i t i e s probabilities cal  and  S^mpJLe, S t i m u l i  tical  Analysis  less  (See A p p e n d i x K ) .  age less  11,  5^  probable  of the s t i m u l i .  d e t e c t a b l e than An  inspection less  o n l y f o r FD  both  S_  7,  study  and  but  a c r o s s groups  the p r o p o r t i o n f a l l i n g  groups,  5_- show a f a i r l y  as docs  of the  5 . 1  (1967)  stimuli.  study  except  However,  sugthe  is  jumps a t age  9 to  9 FI g r o u p .  The  f o r the l a t t e r  fairly  statis-  ' b i g ' being  of the data of t h i s  show  constant across  i n c r e a s e w i t h age.  variation  and  The  and  the remainder  ages 5 and  are e i t h e r  or show a l i n e a r  t h e FI groups  theoreti-  probabilities  'square'  t h e same l e v e l as f o r t h e age  study, the l e a s t  for  the  lower  Pascual-Leone  w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f 5g.  the p r o b a b i l i t i e s  (Table 4 ) .  and  p r o b a b l e f o r a l l groups  shape o f t h e c u r v e s f o r t h i s  groups,  curves  Appendix K show t h e  the t h e o r e t i c a l  of p r o b a b i l i t i e s ,  remains  FI group  approximately  that  than both  T a b l e 4 and  to generate  clusters  significantly  gests that  classes,  of s u c c e s s e s of the s i m p l e s t i m u l i .  model used  two  f o r the lower  estimated  curves.  assumes t h e i n d e p e n d e n c e found  groups,  f o r the h i g h e r c l a s s e s  empirical  proportions  11  age  In t h e p r e s e n t  i s shown by 5^ f o r  between  .612  and  .706  constant i n c r e a s e with  age  421  TABLE 4 Proportion* Successes Simple S t i m u l i Por Grbu'p FD  h  *2  3  5-6  i326  i447  i362  .600  *542  7-8  .300  ;65S  .310  i625  i635  *516  9-10  .406  .B47  .651  *558  i727  .579  *633  11-12 .620  .834  .712  .790  .781  .695  *834  3  5  4  h  S  8  S  h  8  .328  Fl  5-6  *316  i512  .612  i739  .515  7-8  .510  ;823  ;706  .586  .641  .638  9-10  .510  .817  .671  .735  ;692  .524  .753  11-11  .773  .365  .686  .835  .787 ' .634  .837  .33-  43. F o r t h e FD  group,  improvement w i t h ago, fr-'.-m 5 t d 7.  5^,  in probability  age  th=j r e s t  ago  at  age  for  f o r age  decline  7 r a t h e r than  reaches  5^  and  9.  of the s t i m u l i  there i s a s i m i l a r at  though  age  5^  o f t h o 5^  11.  any  F o r t h e FI  f o r each  (1967).  b". d i s c u s s e d h e r e . Figure e s t i m a t e d FD of t h i s  The  data appears  fall  vs.  and  total  group  can  c o o r d i n a t e two  off.  I t can  c u r v e s conform  be  well  The  but  lower  curve at R  i s due  responses.  Thus, though  seen  will  and  that i s , The  a t P^ ner  curve.  level  FI,  predicts  n e i t h e r t h e FD  with FI  The  (Proportion=  of the e m p i r i c a l  to the higher p r o b a b i l i t i e s tho FI groups  from  1967).  peaking  at a much l o w e r  probability  FD  schemas —  to the t h e o r e t i c a l  this  K.  model  (Pascual-Leone,  that  giving  probabilities  The  c u r v e shows a s h a r p  tabl:-.s f o r  tables  empirical  5.  pro-  groups..  tables  i n Appendix  FI c u r v e s f o r age  probability  .584).  Tho  3 shows t h e t h e o r e t i c a l ,  FI c u r v e does peak a t F^* .410  t h e group  have an M-value o f 2.  theoretical  empirical  wore computed.  Only  FD  probabilities  a r e p r e s e n t e d i n Appendix G w i t h comparable  Pascual-Leone  group  Empirical  FI and  data  a sharp  also  o n l y , shows a much l o w e r  cell  they  52  quite sharply  each  that  groups,  but i t o c c u r s  groups.  7 r a t h e r than  o t h e r s t i m u l u s f o r both  Compnund S t i m u l i A n a l y s i s .  5s  to  whereas i t i n c r e a s e s p r o g r e s s i v e l y  p r e s e n t f o r r.ge 11  than  that  due  group,  5g,  and  decline  i t s maximum a t  probability,  9 as f o r t h e FD  9 f o r t h e FI group,  bability  show a s l i g h t  reaches  at age  i t s maximum v a l u e a t age  t h e FD  5^  show a p r o g r e s s i v e  however, shows c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n  a drop 9,  most s t i m u l i  FI  f o r a l l other  gave more R  1  responses  than the  model p r e d i c t s ,  r e s p o n s e s t h a n the The  FD  In ted  by  the  R^  age  7,  f o r R^  .jqual  are  appear t o  are  the and  highest R...  highest  lities  also  are  lower f o r the  1,  5 and  6 empirical  theoretical  f o r R^ than  docs the  probability  l o w e r , whereas the the  bility  FD  that  for  ths  f o r R^  The point  at  Probabilities lities, are  level.  predic-  The  FD  Fl data.  empirical  for  f o r R^  drops lower.  R^  R^  group which  FD  group 9 t h e o r e t i c a l The  f o r R^  The  FD  highest and  Rj.  class. R^  The  probability  only  predicted  by  probability age the  c u r v e has  Fl probability  i s also  at  R_,  7 model.  i t s maxii s at  predicted  F l p r o b a b i l i t i e s for R^,  are  proba-  Thus, t h e  lower than the  maximum p r o b a b i l i t y  How-  probabilities  higher.  empirical  are  empirical  that  pro-  theoretical  theoretical  probability  the  d a t a shows a  probabilities. exceeds the  probabi-  h i g h e r than  Also,  empirical  but  However,  a p p r o x i m a t e s the  Fl probability  and  empirical  Class 4  p r o b a b i l i t i e s are  theoretical  whereas the  higher.  empirical  are  response c l a s s e s ,  g e n e r a l i s lower than that  R^.  probabilities  F l group, t h e  which i s c o n s i d e r a b l y  performance i n  mum  predicted  probabilities.  which more n e a r l y  about e q u a l t o  is  theoretical  probabilities.  probability  is  the  the  f o r t h e s e two  as  e v e r , the  However,  lower than t h a t  theoretical  For  high  bability  level.  above t h e  be  R^.  p e r f o r m a n c e at  predicted  slightly  as  classes  R^  and  mrdel.  probabilities not  highest  f a r below t h e  and  R^  gave mure  predicts.  performances  For about  was  f o r R^  general,  model  group gave the  P e r f o r m a n c e at responses  they a l s o  R^,  probabi-  R^ but  and  R^  lower  IT)  R1  R2 COMPOUND  F I G . 3.  R3 RESPONSE  R4  R5  CLASSES  T h e o r e t i c a l , e s t i m a t e d and e m p i r i c a l p r o b a b i l i t i e s o f compound r e s p o n s e s f o r age 5 groups.  COMPOUND FIG. 4.  RESPONSE  CLASSES  T h e o r e t i c a l , e s t i m a t e d , and e m p i r i c a l p r o b a b i l i t i e s o f compound r e s p o n s e s f o r age 7 groups.  COMPOUND FIG. 5.  RESPONSE  CLASSES  T h e o r e t i c a l , e s t i m a t e d and e m p i r i c a l p r o b a b i l i t i e s o f compound responses f o r age 9 groups.  IO  COMPOUND RESPONSE CLASSES PIG. 6.  T h e o r e t i c a l e s t i m a t e d and e m p i r i c a l p r o b a b i l i t i e s o f compound r e s p o n s e s f o r age 11 groups.  than is  tho F l p r o b a b i l i t y  very c l o s e  cal  te that  probability  probabilities whereas R^  o f R^»  for that  f o r t h e FD  and  Rg  A g a i n , t h e group the  f o r that ar  Tho  FD  >d i s h i g h e r t h a n  class, group  as i s t h a t are lower  probabilities performance  class.  the  o f R^.  than t h s  are approximately  i s poorer  theoreti-  than  that  R^ .and  R^  theoretical, t h e same. predicted  by  model. Age  11  data i n d i c a t e s  its  maximum a t R^,  All  the c l a s s e s  h i g h e r than  group  the t h e o r e t i c a l  Error Analysis docs  the F l e m p i r i c a l  below t h e e m p i r i c a l maximum show  performance  1967)  that  lower  than  i s lower  The  v a l u e s , and  than  a l l the c l a s s e s  model used  t h e model  in this  study  M and  or  higher  I t can  be  that  z e r o p r o p o r t i o n s , and classes.  This l a t t e r  probability  of simple s t i m u l i  f a r any  youngest  (b) gave a l l wrong r e s p o n s e s .  seen  (a) y o u n g e r , (c) t h a t  point  errors  and  comgroups (a) d i d  Appendix across  (b) FD  SS  had  mare o c c u r r e d f o r t h e  i s possibly  of a zero response  Once a g a i n ,  on which t h e y  F i g u r e 7 show t h e p r o p o r t i o n s o f t h e s e  classes.  lower  at a l l ,  above them  (Pascual-Leone,  pound s t i m u l u s . However, t h e d a t a f o r t h e two  not r e s p o n d  R,..  predicts.  responses  t h e s e Ss d i d hava some t r i a l s  reaches  probabilities  the t h e o r e t i c a l v a l u e s .  not a l l o w f o r z e r o c o r r e c t  shows t h a t  data  whereas the t h e o r e t i c a l maximum i s a t  show p r o b a b i l i t i e s  in  probability  due  to ths  when t h e r e a r a l a r g e r  - i . e . i n h i g h e r compound s t i m u l u s  decrease numbers  classes.  -I  $2  1 S3 C O M P O U N D  FIG.  7.  1 S4  1 S5  RESPONSE  Error Analysis: Proportions  1 S6  CLASSES  o f c l a s s e s h a v i n g no c o r r e c t responses  51 CHAPTER IV  DISCUSSION  The by  predicted  the study.  superior  The a n a l y s i s  which a p p r o a c h e d  p e r f o r m a n c e by F l Ss was af v a r i a n c e  p r e d i c t i o n i s the greater  all  F l groups.  expected and  According  Karp, 1 9 6 2 ) ,  (Table  3),  are higher  error analysis  t h c i  age 5 and 7 F l groups  stimuli,  Dyk, F a t e r s o n ,  The supported ficant  7).  data  performance f o r  F l groups had fewer  r e s p o n s e p r o b a b i l i t y d a t a shows  more r e s p o n s e s o t t h e p r e d i c t e d  and a t a l l c l a s s e s  level  zero  that  o f compound  above i t . the predicted  p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e F l groups i s c o n f i r m e d . predicted  s u p e r i o r i t y of older  by t h e d a t a .  main e f f e c t  The a n a l y s i s  f o r ago (p  c o n s i s t e n t l y with  estimated  me.:n c a p a c i t y :  of t h s p r e d i c t e d  bilities  Goodenough  f o r t h e F l groups f o r a l l a g e s .  (Figure  increased  rate  for  can be  mean c a p a c i t y  On t h e above e v i d e n c e i t seems c l e a r t h a t superior  confirming  variance  data a l s o i n d i c a t e s s u p e r i o r  The compound  groups g i v e  (Witkin,  greater  e x i s t s i n the estimated  The  Fl  Also  Evidence f o r t h e s u p e r i o r i t y o f t h e F l groups  Figures  responses.  affect  mathematical expectancies,  to Witkin,  from t h e F l groups  performance a l s o  showed a main  s i g n i f i c a n c e a t t h e .05 l e v e l .  the  supported  were h i g h e r  age g r o u p s i s a l s o  of variance  .005).  showed a s i g n i -  Mathematical  expectancies  age, as d i d t h e v a r i a n c e s .  increased  M-value.  with  The  age, t h o u g h not a t t h e  The compound r e s p o n s e  f o r the l a r g e r stimulus  classes  probaf o r the  52 older  S s , and t h e p r o p o r t i o n  were i n g e n e r a l  higher  of successes  f o r the older  of simple s t i m u l i  groups.  Performance d i d not reach t h e l e v e l s p r e d i c t e d P a s c u a l - L e o n e model, however, e x c e p t  A l l ather  predicted.  This  groups r e a c h e d  The that  analysis  subjects  c o n t i n u u m make b e t t e r  continuum.  r e s u l t s support  on t h e f i e l d  use o f t h e i r  s e n s e , t h a n do Ss m e a s u r i n g  capacity,  due t o e x p e r i -  the hypothesis  independent  s i d e o f t h e FDI  i n t e l l i g e n c e , i n the Piagetian  on t h e f i e l d  T h a t i s , t h e y more f u l l y  tion-processing  that  below.  of variance  measuring  but a t a l o w e r  a maximum one c l a s s below  lower performance i s probably  m e n t a l f a c t o r s as d e s c r i b e d  by t h o  f o r t h e age 5 F I group,  which had a maximum p r o b a b i l i t y a t P^ as p r e d i c t e d , level.  1  dependent  use t h e i r  end o f t h e  central  informa-  o r i n t h e terms o f P a s c u a l - L e o n e , t h e  M-operator . The the  s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e main e f f e c t o f age i n d i c a t e s  ability  increases As ing  t o process information  i n the introduction, Piaget  i n t e l l i g e n c e as a p r o g r e s s i v e  immediate p e r c e p t u a l  field,  tion,  t o mediate.  or the a b i l i t y  change i s p e r c e p t u a l  time,  task,  develop-  freedom from c o n t r o l by t h e  a mova f r o m p e r c e p t i o n  activity  The p r o c e s s  - the a b i l i t y  t o concep-  underlying  this  to decantrate  and  over space or  (1966) who works c l o s e l y i n t h e P i a g e t i a n  work e q u a t e s p e r c e p t u a l  that  (1950) s e e s  the products of separate c s n t r a t i o n s  Vurpillot  Gardner  i n this  with age.  stated  coordinate  as r e p r e s e n t e d  that  activity  (1962) s t a r t i n g from  with  attention  a Piagetian  frame-  deployment,  framework, has f o u n d  W i t k i n ' s FDI d i m e n s i o n i s r e l a t e d t o a f a c t o r he c a l l s  field  articulation.  This  a t t e n t i o n s ! deployment a similarity ployment  factor,  53 and a s c a n n i n g f a c t o r i a r e  mechanisms.  There  between t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l  and t h o i n d i v i d u a l  i s evidenco than o f  n o t i o n o f a t t e n t i o n de-  differences  n o t i o n of. a t t e n t i o n  deployment. However, t h e a n a l y s i s no i n t e r a c t i o n L.ione  effect.  In t h e B r i t a i n ,  (1968) s t u d y t h e a n a l y s i s  interaction  affect  T h e r e f o r e , though factors,  Eccles  there i s  and P a s c u a l -  between age and FBI on degree t h e two v a r i a b l e s  s i n c e t h o FDI d i m e n s i o n  intelligence,  that  of variance also i n d i c a t e d  i n the Piagetinn  This  no  of i l l u s i o n *  may be dependent  t h e y . a r e n o t t h e same v a r i a b l e .  important, and  of variance i n d i c a t e s  on s i m i l a r  distinction i s  i s independent  of i n t e l l i g e n c e  framework, d e v e l o p s  partly  out o f p e r c e p t u a l a c t i v i t y . The for  g r e a t e r v a r i a n c e s f o r t h e F l groups  i n Witkins  1  can be a c c o u n t e d  terms:  To s a y t h a t a p e r s o n i s r e l a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d moans t h a t he i s c a p a b l e o f o p e r a t i n g a t a h i g h l e v e l of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . He may sometimes o p e r a t e a t a l o w e r l e v e l , however, whether o r not he o p e r a t e s a t h i s h i g h e s t p o s s i b l e l e v e l may depend upon m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s and/or upon t h e demands o f a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n . ( W i t k i n , Dyk, F a t e r s o n , Goodenough and Karp, 1962, p . 5 4 ) . T h u s , t h e F l Ss would  M - v a l u e s , and sometimes l o w e r v a l u e s .  their  FD Ss however, c a n n o t forcedly, tently  either  use a g l o b a l  perform  Tho  in  sometimes use t h e upper  adopt  an a n a l y t i c  approach.  at a lower l e v e l  Witkin states  approach,  some o f t h e f a c t o r s  consis-  and show l e s s v a r i a n c e :  or Pascusl-Leone used  that  and s o , e n -  They would t h e r e f o r e  r e a s o n s why t h e v a r i a n c e s a r e g e n e r a l l y  the t h e o r e t i c a l  l i m i t of  t o attempt  h i g h e r than  v a r i a n c e s may be found t o account f o r the  54 probability t o be  the  d i f f e r e n c e s below.  stimulus  fluctuation. stimuli pects The  by  The  "hypnotic"  cause g r e a t e r  relevant  projection could  were a t t e n d e d of t h o  t o on  of the  r e s p o n s e would  the  and  as-  presentations.  presentation  v a r i a t i o n i n performance;  of  i n f l u e n c e which  different  stimulus  h e r e seem  accentuate a t t e n t i o n a l  l a r g e r more l u m i n o u s p r e s e n t a t i o n  effect  characteristics ble  f a c t o r s which might  moans o f s l i d e  of s t i m u l i  Particularly  the  would  low  also  arousal  also c o n t r i b u t e to v a r i a -  performance. The  estimated  none of t h e of t h e i r tors  mean c a p a c i t y  groups except  capacity.  Attention  and/or s t i m u l u s  simple  and  this  not  sufficient  the  p e r f o r m a n c e was  The stimuli  effect.  f a c t o r s , as  The  other  due  fac-  discussion  below c o u l d  a l t e r n a t i v e i s that  to t h i s  maximum  to subject  mentioned i n the  to e s t a b l i s h a f i r m s-r  main q u e s t i o n success  stimulus One  was  schemas r e p e r t o i r e ,  r a t h e r than to using  of  account  learning  which a r i s e s i n c o n s i d e r i n g  proportions  and  less-than-  f a c t o r to consider As  f o r the  f o r l e a r n i n g was f o r the  discriminablc the  i n the  table.  present  In t h e  the  responses, present  case i s the  (1967) r e s e a r c h ,  all-correct  Pascual-Leone study, overlearned  simple due  to  both.  Pascual-Leone one  the  i s whether d i f f e r e n c e s a r e  or r e s p o n s e f a c t o r s , or  criterion.  hitting  f l u c t u a t i o n due  at t h e  M-values.  optimal  ever,  5 were o p e r a t i n g  compound r e s p o n s e p r o b a b i l i t i e s  for  terion  age  r e s u l t s appear t o i n d i c a t e t h a t  learning the  learning series. r e s p o n s e s were  such as  study,  clapping  criHow-  highly hands  and  r e s p o n s e s were d i s -  55 criminable  o n l y by  the p o s i t i o n  panel.  (Sec Appendix A ) .  correct  criterion  associations Another  was  not  possible  w i t h i n easy  right  responses FD  hand. bable  The  5^  Though no that  response Ss  to l e f t  easiest  ege  7 FI S s .  response  5^,  suggesting  sponse w h i l e seen  that  level  be  button  lies  probability  buttons.  closest  and  f o r 5^ that  t o the  other responses response  this  was  Karp,  end  those  right  the  easiest  f o r FI  inhibiting  for this of  the c l o s u r e  probabilities  9 f o r t h e FD  other response  FD  the  probabilities  number 8,  ability  of  1962),  allows i n h i b i t i n g  a t age  two  five  Support  become s t r e n g t h e n e d .  drops  the  made, i t i s p r o -  f o r them.  f o r button  the  bottom  f o r t h e age  tho r e s p o n s e  higher mediation  Ss t h a n  age  seen  while a l l other response  suggesting this  drop  t h e two  o f handedness was  the g r e a t e s t inxoase i n the  The  be  t h e most p r o b a b l e  drawn from  occurs,  for  I t can  i s t h e most p r o b a b l e  drops  this  s-r  If impulsiveness i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  The  that  firm  Though a l l of  F a t e r s o n , Goodonough, and  perhaps  ono-sories  the c o r r e c t  These r e p r e s e n t r e s p o n s e s  response  response  which c o u l d have i n f l u e n c e d  most Ss were r i g h t - h a n d e d ,  response  view can  and  of a l l c h i l d r e n ,  assessment  ( W i t k i n , Dyk,  the  to e s t a b l i s h  stimuli  respectively.  t o make.  on t h e  that  of the b u t t o n s .  reach  are e m p i r i c a l l y  group.  sufficient  factor  b u t t o n s were c l o s e s t . from  It i s probable  between t h e s i m p l e  curves i s the convenience p a n e l was  of the buttons  rise,  of t h i s I t can group,  rebe  a t which  probabilities  occurs l a t e r  f o r FD  Ss. i n response  n i n e might be  probability  e x p l a i n e d by  5-, i s i n t r o d u c e d - r e s p o n s e  button  f o r 5g  - button  noting that number 3.  at t h i s The  number level,  probability  4-  of  this  the  response i s higher  l e a r n i n g s o t , 5g j u s t  learned  response,  Perhaps t h i s  not y e t o v e r - l e a r n e d ,  i s inhibited  close together,  f o r age 11 i s e s s e n t i a l l y  FD and F l g r o u p s .  The one e x c e p t i o n  number 1 - S^, - which d r o p s from f i f t h place  f o r FD S s .  The p o s s i b l e r e a s o n s  stimulus,  position  of i t s response - button  a s s e m b l y , would The  plicated,  D f stimulus  The c u r v e s  respectively,  offer  i n that  figures,  Observational  form. the  for this  S^ i s t h e f i r s t  the data  probabilities  seventh  learned  and t h e of the  must t h e r e f o r e be  S^ and S2 - s q u a r e and r e d ,  which  5^ i s somewhat  appears.  confirm  For a l l other  t h a t Ss f r e q u e n t l y p r e s s In t h e t a s k  button  in this  study,  on t h e  i s s o m e t h i n g which can be d i s c r i m i n a t e d a p a r t  i n this  gave n l a r g e r e x t e n t stimulus,  be-, o v e r l e a r n e d .  task  from  employed 4"x6" c a r d s ,  were a p p r o x i m a t e l y  t o bo s c a n n e d .  form.  only  t h e s a l i e n c e of the s t i m u l i  (1967) t a s k  com-  That i s ,  i s the only response a s s o c i a t e d with  Whereas t h e P a s c u a l - L c o n e  learned  button  are d i f f i c u l t to  i t ' s a p p e a r a n c e i s not i n v a r i a n t .  projected stimuli  which  to  size  i s response  a basis f o r discussion.  i s p o s s i b l e that with  screen,  t h e same f o r  number 1, i n t h e c e n t r e  number 7 (R3) f o r t h e l a r g e s q u a r e . it  The o r d e r o f  t o be o v e r l c a r n u d ,  for stimuli  i s sometimes a ' b i g s q u a r e '  large  buttons  appear t o be u n i q u e l y d i s c r i m i n a b l o .  question  considered.  it  so i s most l i k o l y  while the  p l a c e f o r F l Ss t o  s u r m i s e from t h e r e s p o n s e p o i n t o f v i e w . simple  occur.  In  first-  The r e s p o n s e  and i n t e r f e r e n c e c o u l d  response p r o b a b i l i t i e s both  f o r FD 5 s .  p r e c e d e s Sy.  5^ i s i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e r e p e r t o i r e . arc  56  f o r age 9 F l Ss than  9"x7",  52 i s t h e s e c o n d -  and p r e s u m a b l y r a n k s second i n i t s o p p o r t u n i t y I t s response button  i s number 6, t h o upper  57  left  button.  seems l o s s  From t h o r e s p o n s e p o i n t  s a l i e n t , and  i s certainly loss  number 1, t h e r e s p o n s e f o r S^. top  b u t t o n s - i t has  o f view,  an upper  unique t h a n b u t t o n  B u t t o n number 6 i s one right  counterpart.  1 i s u n i q u e l y i n the c e n t r e o f t h e p a n e l . seem t o o p e r a t e i n f a v o r As can be  o f h i g h e r 5^  s c o n from t h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s  52 i s moro p r o b a b l e t h a n S^. is  w i t h 5y  lowr.st i n p r o b a b i l i t y Sg. 7,  9 and  It  i s possible  tion  11.  f o r t h o FD  than shape.  than form. 'gets i n nitive support  present that  color  in spite  f o r t h i s view  has a d i f f e r e n t  i n the Pascual-Leone  i n the d i f f e r e n c e  p u r p l e background  The  rusults,  the  anomalous f o r ages  5, 7 and  9.  d i s c r i m i n a b i l i t y funccolor  i s more s a l i e n t  'cog-  response prothe  J i t can be  Sg - p r o b a b i l i t y  f o r both groups.  cnlor  Some  (1967) s t u d y and  o f Appendix  was  The  t a s k became a  seen  high.  explanation  i n d i s c r i m i n a b i l i t y of the c o l o r .  of the Pascual-Leone  'shaded'  remains  f o r ages  ' s h a d i n g ' i n t h o s l i d e s made f o r t h i s s t u d y , due graphy.  5^  shares  t o g r a s p i t ( S h e p a r d , 1964.)  In t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , i t i s low lies  and  o f t h e o b s e r v e r - a p p a r e n t l y nc  ths Figures  S2  groups,  probability  can be f o u n d i n comparing  Comparing  factors  (1964) a g r e e t h a t  f o r Sg f o r t h e P a s c u a l - L c o n o  one.  9.  11.  has t h e h i g h e s t  (1967) and S h e p a r d  act' i s required  babilities  f o r ago  Many o b s e r v e r s n o t e t h a t  Lappin almost  1  7 and  has t h e l o w e s t p r o b a b i l i t y that  number  probabilities.  o f r e s p o n s e s f o r a l l . but t h e  F o r t h e F l g r o u p s , 52  two  ( T a b l e 4) f o r a l l g r o u p s ,  Moreover  ( t h e 'X')  of  Button  A l l these  {square)  t h o most p r o b a b l e r e s p o n s e f o r ages  equi-probability  b u t t o n number 6  The  background  to the  s l i d e s were c l e a r l y d i s c r i m i n n b l e  photofrom  58  t h e nan-shaded s l i d e s . the t e s t i n g look  indicated  However, a n e c d o t a l n o t e s that  Ss o f t e n  f o r the background,"or,  said  " I haven't  made d u r i n g  " I keep f o r g e t t i n g t o time  t o look f o r the  background". This  raises  Investigation  the point  showed t h a t  o f 'compact figures  that  embedded, i n t h e G o t t s c h a l d t s e n s e ) ted  than  sent  figures  that  When t h e s a l i e n t  p u r p l e was l o s t  t h o s h a d i n g which remained which r e q u i r e d  were more e a s i l y  were compact  t h e main f i g u r e ,  (Shepard,  1964).  were combined ( n o t  were d i s t r i b u t e d  study, a l l f i g u r e s  'nested' w i t h i n  figures'  over  space.  discriminaIn t h e p r e -  - a l l simple s t i m u l i  except  were  f o r the background.  i n t h e photography  was a ' d i s t r i b u t e d '  perhaps  s t i m u l u s - one  a separate act of a t t e n t i o n .  However, arguments a g a i n s t t h e n o n - e q u i p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h e color  stimuli  also  exist.  Egcth  of t h r e e simple s t i m u l i - f o r m , to f i t a s e r i a l - p r o c e s s i n g of the s t i m u l i . who r e v i e w s There  least  and a l i n e  l i e approximately probable responses.  For these halfway  i s t h e 5-,R  ?  groups,  color  attracts  this f o r  Ss ( r e d ) p r o -  between t h e most  Another  (1964)  i n children.  does n o t u p h o l d  (1967) s t u d y .  Appendix J , f o r no group  studies  -  equiprobability  f o r young c h i l d r e n ,  The p r e s e n t s t u d y  the Pascual-Leone  w i t h t h e form  argument i s d i s c u s s e d by Corah  FD o r FI age 5 g r o u p s .  babilities  the processing  model, and i m p l i c i t l y  i s g e n e r a l agreement t h a t  either  from  color,  color-form discrimination  more a t t e n t i o n .  and  Another  (1966) found  probable  piece of evidence As can be seen  curve h i g h e s t .  from  comes  59  A cause  o f t h e c l i f f e r e n c e may  ences.  The  c o l o r was,  salient  i n tho s l i d e  Pnscur.l-Leonc and  from  further  found  differ-  i n t h e o b s e r v a t i o n of E, much more  However, i t seems b o t h  of the l i t e r a t u r e , t h a t  investigated  i n the task  p r e s e n t a t i o n t h a n i n t h e c a r d t a s k used  (1967) .  a review  be  from  this  this  by  study,  q u e s t i o n must  b e f o r e d e f i n i t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s can  be  be  reached. Jne  o t h e r a s p e c t of the s i m p l e - s t i m u l u s a n a l y s i s  deserves  comment.  Whereas few  t h e FD c u r v e s , t h e FI c u r v e s exception  o f 5^  and  5g,  invarianccs  offer  displaced.  tening  o f t h e c u r v e s between ages 7 and but i s a l s o  may  be  an i n d i c a t i o n  has  equ'.probability  probability The to  that  uf p a r t i c u l a r  differ  each  of these  bo  duo  that  task,  the  has  of simple s t i m u l i ,  undertaken  i s upheld,  not been d e m o n s t r a t e d  and  t e the l e s s e r  discriminability  of responses  c r i t e r i o n may  difference  both p r o and FD  con  groups,  f o r some s t i m u l i .  have been t o o low.  view.  different  may  i n this  Possibly,  In r e g e r d t o t h o response  are  the  Reasons  i n stimulus p r o b a b i l i t i e s .  to t h i s  stimuli  different  (1967).  learning  This  discrimination-.  of n q u i p r o b a b i l i t y  has  a  of Pascual-Leone  mance o f FI and exist  each  5^.  those  there i s a r e a l •exists  but  flat-  especially  f o r t h e s e FI 5s,  of tho a n a l y s i s  from  This i s and  a c r o s s t h e group,  the  similar,  , 5^  Equiprobability  results  With  discernable in  e s t i m a t e i f the assumption  equivocal.  J).  i n t e r ..st i s t h o  9.  - af s t i m u l u s or of response  results  discerned i n  the curves are n o t i c e a b l y  linearly  f o r b ^,  be  some (Appendix  though  clear  can  data  Evidence perfor-  probabilities  In g e n e r a l , t h e FI group  c u r v e s show  60 more i n v a r i a n c e , w i t h f o r 4 of  6  The study  empirical probability  were f o u n d t o f i t t h e  poorer  Several  results  could  f o r ths  screen  was  factors could  in this  purple  brilliant  have d i s c u s s e d  as  than  gests  types  that  two  and  unanalyzable.  are  reacted  of the  tion".  Analyzablc  properties  through  A number o f  Corah, 1966). must be  and  by  Jenkins,  He  'gets  as  analyzablc  "those  stimuli  Ss  states that  may  sample  (1967) s t u d y  equivalent  (Shepard,  stimulus.  The  were p r e s e n t e d  in this  rela-  attenwith  different  upon d i f f e r e n t , p r e s e n t a t i o n s . a p o s s i b l e cause 1964).  A n o t h e r f a c t o r r e l a t e d t a method o f s t i m u l u s of the  "...  i n ' a p p e a r s t o be  " f l u c t u a t i o n s i n a t t e n t i o n " as  size  that  ( S h e p a r d , 1964.)  ( S h e p a r d used c i r c l e s  independent.  1961;  (1964) s u g -  however,  of i n d e p e n d e n c e o f s t i m u l i  projected  researchers  stimuli not  example,  translucent  a t t i t u d e or s t a t e uf  of lack  Pascusl-Lenne  presenta-  subjects  of a n a l y z a b l e  resulting  the  the  offers  the  to  (1967)  (see  For  the  Shepard  latter  a stimulus. that  well  distinguished;  c h a r a c t e r i z e s the  Shapard  is  9  Many a g r e e t h a t i t i s more  (Shepard, Hovland  1967;  very  probabilities.  s dimension.  information  uninfluenced  are  curves  manner of s t i m u l u s  compelling.  example of such  lines)  Pascual-Leone  homogenous, u n i t a r y w h o l e s "  tively  radial  Tho  of s t i m u l i  He  t o as  i s an  nature  groups 7 and  have c o n t r i b u t e d  stimulus  form  Leppin,  the  study.  and  S h e p a r d , 1964;  Colour  age  of the  background, c o l o u r  colour  perceived  curves  theoretical  have changed tho  except  easily  across  stimuli.  Appendix K ) .  tion  f l a t t e n e d curves  study  on  measured  presentation  stimuli 4"x6"  in  the  cords.  >pproximately  Tho 9"x7"  61 Tho in  size the  d i f f e r e n c e moy  s a l i e n c e of d i f f e r e n t  investigators pects and  ore  "useful  1967).  field  The  to process  ent  tho  may  have been t o o  The  increase that  presentations  short  of the  Various  ( P i a g e t , 1950;  as-  Mackworth  mean t h a t t h e  p. 119)  5s  i s reduced,  so  whole f i g u r e , more r o f i x a t i o n s a r e  stimuli.  If that f u r the  f o r the  and  different  figure.  i n s i z e may  appropriate  in size  difference  t h a t more o b v i o u s f i g u r a l  inereese  than f o r s m a l l e r  probability  of the  (Mackworth, 1967,  e x p o s u r e t i m e which was task  considerable  attention targets.  of v i e w "  i n order  necessary  aspects  neve d e m o n s t r a t e d  s e l e c t e d as  ilaranrii,  that  have p r o d u c e d  dimensions w i l l as  5 second  Pascual-Leone  (1967)  also increase  the  be  differ-  sampled  suggested  Contextual  f a c t o r s , which i n f l u e n c e t h e  perception  may  a l s o have d i f f e r e n t  the  task.  s a l i e n c y may  stimuli,  i s so,  by  Shepard  probability  effects  on  of  (1964).  stimulus  under d i f f e r e n t  size  conditions. 5ize  of s t i m u l u s  ence- i n " p e r c e p t u a l and  perceptual  L-nno  (1967) s t u d y  buted  t o the  versus  Leone s t u d y ) t h e may  of t h i s  not  ( P i a g e t , 1950), or i n  styles study  (Gardner,  results  i n two  ovcrlearnod  motoric  learning criterion  have been h i g h  have been s t r o n g  tcd  by  M-capacity  5.  The  could  present  responses  enough.  The as  fact  scanning  from the  ways; F i r s t ,  enough t o q u a l i f y of t h e  This  of one  differ-  1961).  which d i f f e r s  d i s c r i m i n a b l o i n the  not  the  magnify i n d i v i d u a l  i s mode of r e s p o n s e .  different  responses are l e s s  series  activity"  articulation  Another aspect  position,  would l i k e l y  hove  Pascualcontri-  because  task, f o r the  completely  the  (button Fascualenrroet  s-r associations  may  schomas-to-be-intcgrathat  an e m p i r i c a l  zero  62  category should  exists  be  s u p p o r t s tho n o t i o n t h a t  more s t r i n g e n t  the Pascual-Leone duo  to loss  (1967) t a s k .  response  dependent S s .  in  The  combination  and  t h e form  the  The  luminance,  on  Anecdotal notes  ship in  can  o f 5s be  who  on them  T h i s may  possively  also  bo t h a t  contribute attentional  the s c r e e n . and  watching  physical  drowsy.  much t o t h e a r o u s a l l e v e l  from  source of response  etc. -  physically  effect cite relation-  1964).  Ss were 5ome Ss  or two  The  carried  over  However, i t c o u l d t a s k was  long,  f o r r e s p o n d i n g would o f S.  indicates  have  buttons.  and  not  Therefore, greater  occur.  the l i t e r a t u r e variability.  E  though  of a habit  or m o v i e s .  required  f l u c t u a t i o n s would  the  o f s t i m u l i would  o n l y one  to i n t e r f e r e n c e  effort  by  tho study d i s c u s s e d  Motley,  to higher classes  television  field  interacted  Some  were m i s s e d  (i-iackworth, Kapl~.n, and  t h e 5s were g e t t i n g  Evidence  which was  t o have a h y p n o t i c  situation  p e r i o d s where t h e y pushed  from  be  therefore alert.  d u r i n g t h e t a s k by  i n which s i g n a l s  have boon due  the minimal  taken  also  of the p r o j e c t e d s t i m u l i ,  e t c . appeared  were r e s p o n d i n g w e l l  regression  salience  between t h i s  the i n t r o d u c t i o n  fixated  i n more required  and  repertoire  a p p a r e n t l y " h e l d " by  seen  and  of s t i m u l u s p r e s e n t a t i o n probably  the c o l o u r ,  instances  necessary f o r  standing-up,  of a r o u s a l ,  of a r e s p o n s e  present study.  the 5s.  i n younger,  the motoric responses  in a state  criterion  z e r o c a t e g o r y might  task hand-raising, clapping,  kept t h e i n d i v i d u a l  easy  t a s k than was  The  inhibition  Secondly,  Pascual-Leone  for this  tho l e a r n i n g  another  possible  63 Kaplan, that  C a r v o l l a s and M c t l n y  s e a r c h may  simultaneous is  ta  f o r w e l l known targets.-  dimensions  i f they  with  practice  figure.  bo p e r c e i v e d as e l e m e n t a r y  unitary  (5hapard,  in this  study  Hovland  qualify  "unitary" effect.  such  that sensorial  independence.  independence on  that  separate  stimulus  independently  sensorily  independent.  In t h e p r e s e n t is eye  comparable  areas.  so  (1967) c o n c l u d e stimuli,  Corcoran  t h a t for. t h e  t h e y must  (1966) a l s o  to tho t a c h i s t o s c o p i c  that a single  exposure time  t o assess  fall  concludes  of a multi-dimensiunal  t a s k , even assuming  seems  t o warrant  only i f the s t i m u l u s dimensions  movements, i t i s d i f f i c u l t  overlap,  produce  of s t i m u l i  independence i s necessary  dimensions  are judged  may  f o r the e f f e c t t o  on t h e i n d e p e n d e n c e  E r i k s e n and L n p p i n  fovial  o f "compact"  of dimensions  necessary  of simultaneously v i s u a l  nonovorlepping  stimuli  the i n d i v i d u a l .  Some o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e to i n d i c a t e  oimensions  each o f t h e  The  the p r a c t i c e  Ths number and t y p e  and t h e amount o f p r a c t i c e  i f  They may become a  under S h c p a r d ' s d e f i n i t i o n  the  o c c u r may w e l l v a r y w i t h  is,  between  and J e n k i n s , 1 9 6 1 ) .  a t some p e r i o d d u r i n g t h e t e s t i n g ,  easier  He p o s t u l a t e s t h a t i n  properties.  and  unified,  finding  become  " g i v e n " and not have t o be c o n s t r u c t e d from  dimensions used  t a r g e t s , but  That  the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s t i m u l u s , the i n t e r a c t i o n s may  research  studies, stimuli  a r e o f t h e "compact" t y p e .  a r c added t o a s i n g l e  their  Related to t h i s  that i n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  m u l t i p l e r e l e v a n t dimensions,  classify  from  be s e q u e n t i a l f o r newly s p e c i f i e d  Shcpurd's f i n d i n g  with  (1966) c o n c l u d e  stimulus arc  ccntration  which  obviates  t h e degree of f o v s a l  and t h e r e f o r e o f s t i m u l u s i n t e r a c t i o n .  I t seems s a f e  64 t o say on  5g  at l e a s t i n tho  action  exists  transient 1967).  that  visual  until  no  was  which o c c u r s  further effect ICO  msec, however  the  variables ros-arch  evidence  considered. storage"  stimulations  R e s e a r c h by uf one  (Neisser,  Eriksen  stimulus  by  i n the  and another  and  d e m o n s t r a t e d whan t h o Tho  or  in "tran-  simultaneously,  ( N e i s s e r , 1967)  cited  demasking  usual length  of  fix-  so i t i s u n l i k e l y  perception  of t h e  stimuli  has  not  results  in this  the  o f the  yet  which may and  machine.  the  Pascual-Leone  I t was  who  and  the  few  However*  the  aura  o f f r e s p o n s e s may  5s who  (1967) r e s e a r c h  i t too long d i d not  have i n f l u e n c e d t h e found  criterion  of response i n order  arrangement whereby t h e  is  i t too  long  t o "beat  S or E c o u l d  more c o n d u c i v e  and  selected  became  always f i n d  of " r e l e n t l e s s  apparently  different  s t a t e d above i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n  found  Those who  s p o n d i n g would be  forms which  have c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e  t h a t a 5 s e c o n d r e s p o n s e t i m e was  a compromise between Ss or i m p a t i e n t ,  of m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l  clarified.  study  procedures  enough.  h e r e i n d i c a t e s , t h e r e a r e many p o s s i b l e  influencing perception  Another f a c t o r  of the  inter-  task.  As  use  a l s o bo  input i s s t i l l  i t .  was  of t h e  i n "sensory  msec l a t e r .  such i n t e r f e r e n c e o c c u r s  of t h i s  cut  while  were p r e s e n t e d  presented  i s 200  question  occurs  (1964) i n d i c a t e d t h a t masking  stimulus ation  The  which i s s u p e r i m p o s e d  c e n t r a t i o n s should  interaction  g r e a t e s t when both  clined  5^,  memory between s u c c e s s i v e  A stimulus  Collins  with  figure.  s t o r a g e " may.interacts with  sient  that  centre of the  between s u c c e s s i v e  Evidence  was  t h a t Sj: i n t e r a c t s  bored  i t long  machine" which behavior  may  would  of a l l S s .  have adopted  t h e machine".  signal  as  completion  a lower An of r e -  t o maximum p e r f o r m a n c e .  65 Many o f t h e independence of Pascua.l-Loonc  factors discussed s t i m u l i , end  (1967) n o t e d  load  above c o u l d  indicate lack  to poorer performance.  i n r e l a t i o n t o the  two  of  compared w i t h  the  empirical tho  R  thot in  tha  ^-F^*  In  set  of values w i l l  s p i t e of t h i s b i a s ,  poor match of  empirical  study could  be  due  w  <2 s h o u l d  fairly expect  p r o b a b i l i t y weights  theoretical predictions  t h - present  stimulus  S^-R-^ and  p r e d i c t i o n s , the  ordered  origin...."  matched t h e  units  be  displaced  his  quite  poor that,  of  the  toward  empirical  well.  As  apparently  l o w e r p r o b a b i l i t y s t i m u l i i n h i s s t u d y : " G i v e n the dotectability  of  data  It i s  possible  data to  theoretical  predictions  to the  task-induced  change i n  and/or r e s p o n s e p r o b a b i l i t i e s .  66 CHAPTER V  SUMMARY  The  purpose of t h i s  of i n d i v i d u a l based  on  a Neopiagetian  by  implies tho  is  adr.ed t o t h e  ability  Equal  t o each s t a g e  evidence  was  discussed.  That  estimating  i n t e g r a t e d and  problem c i t e d information ting  I t has  coordinated  received  i s that  to  signs  (a)  versus  subject  such as  be  repre-  constant  transi-  amount u f  by  the  This  increment  same  each  many d i f f e r e n t has  orientations.  infor-  individual.  processing.  The  R e s e a r c h was  parallel  processing;  f a c t o r s (b)  fixations  and  problems  eye  field  stimulus  Gnu  of main  af  cited  indica-  in  exposure  time;  independence  f a c t o r s , and a t t e n t i o n a l  movements  (See  by  piece  considered  Examples a r e :  but  been s t a t e d  of what c o n s t i t u t e s a s e p a r a t e individuals.  capa-  labels,  c a p a c i t y were d i s c u s s e d .  many p r o b l e m s which must be  measuring i n f o r m a t i o n  due  of t h i s  for different  simultaneous  can  f o r such a c e n t r a l i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g  limits  some o f t h e  task This  ^qual  c a p a c i t y at  c a p a c i t y means t h e  from q u i t e d i f f e r e n t the  onna  i s , the  t h s n e c e s s i t y f o r p o s t u l a t i n g such a c a p a c i t y researchers  effects  o f measurement.  i n v o l v e s an  information.  Information-processing  Tho  performance  D i f f e r e n c e s system  information-processing  be  the  d i s c r e t e developmental stages  to process  m a t i o n which can  city  been t o t e s t  model of d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t a g e s .  transition  in  tion.  that  a Finite  that  has  d i f f e r e n c e s v a r i a b l e s on  model p o s t u l a t e s sented  research  Table  1).  67 frem d i f f e r e n t o r i e n t a t i o n s wa9  Developmental l i t e r a t u r e considered there  i s en i n c r e a s e It  creasing This  which p o i n t s  i n information-processing  has been shown t h a t  doctntratc,  ability  that  i s t o look  to other  aspect,  ducts  of these  separate  Piaget's  theory  able  studies It  results  may  that  structures.  and p e r i o d i c  the pro-  Howjver, many r e s e a r c h e r s  each  of conservation that  the lack  acquisition.  fall  into this  of consistency  consistent  postulates  are r e l a t i v e l y  stage  under-  have been un-  and i n seme c a s e s  i n stage  stages  reorganization  Behavior within  bo due t o i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s  whose t h e o r y  P e r s o n s who  and c o o r d i n a t e  stimulus  qualitatively discrete  formation  reversals  s e a r c h e r who p o s t u l a t e s Witkin,  of the  i n s i t u a t i o n s which have t h e same  i n the area  was s u g g e s t e d  a b i l i t y to  centrations.  structure.  apparent  w i t h age.  with i n c r e a s i n g ago.  one a s p e c t  t o damonstrate t h i s c o n s i s t e n c y ,  •-'omnnstrated of  away from  due t o t h o c o n t i n u o u s  logical  ability  postulates  would show c o n s i s t e n c y  that  theory postulates i n -  end t o i n t e g r a t e  schemas, o r c o g n i t i v e  lying  capacity  comes about by t h e i n c r e a s i n g  field  of  Piagetian  information-processing  incraasod  occur  t o t h e agreement among r e s e a r c h e r s  have M number  category.  i n experimental  variables,  L'neTe-  individual differences i s  differences  undifferentiated  in differentiation. perceive  i n a global  manner, whereas d i f f e r e n t i a t e d p e r s o n s  a r t i c u l a t e aspects of the  perceptual  field.  "field  the  "field  former  p-ndence studied  The l a t t e r dependent"  he c a l l s  independent" ( F I ) ,  ( F D ) . The f i e l d - d e p e n d e n c c - i n d e -  (FDI) d i m e n s i o n i s a c o n t i n u u m . individual differences  variables.  Gardner  (1/62)  He p o s t u l a t e s  also that  6B  differences of  in attention  deployment  determine the  performance  Ss. A r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between the  postulated older tion  5s  by  Piaget,  Witkin  were p o s t u l a t e d  deployment  and  and  perceptual  Gardner.  mechanisms  Therefore,  t o have more c o n t r o l  t h u s mora e f f i c i e n t l y  F l Ss  over t h e i r  use  and  atten-  their central  capacity. Using  a Neopiagetian  stage increase tested  on  in central capacity  a task  mounts o f  model which d e m o n s t r a t e d a  which r e q u i r e d  information,  or numbers o f  c o n t r o l l e d , and  Equal Differences  system.  Results both F l and  confirmed older  f i t the  Ss.  did  not  far  t h i s were d i s c u s s e d  assumptions considered led  of  poorer  the  predicted  schemas. task  However, e m p i r i c a l  the  i n terms a f  model as  presentation  as  p e r f o r m a n c e o f Ss  possible in this  learning a  of  Finite  performance  o f the  model.  of  Reasons  v i o l a t i o n s of  squiprobability.  differences  attentional fluctuations. discussed  Tho  response p r o b a b i l i t i e s  possible  to stimulus  were  different  constituted  superior  theoretical predictions  r e s p o n s e ware a l s o t o the  the  were s t i m u l u s  to l a r g e r  ( P a s c u n l - L o o n c , 1 9 6 7 ) , Ss  them t o i n t e g r a t e  t h e s e schemas was  cunstant  Also  which c o u l d  Differences contributing study.  basic  have  i n mode of factors  69  REFERENCES  Almyj M., C h i t t e n d e n , E., M i l l e r , P; Young C h i l d r e n ' s T h i n k i n g . Now York: T e a c h e r ' s e o l l c g e P r e s s , T e a c h e r ' s C o l l a g e Universityi 1966. 3 r i t a i n , S.D,, E c c l e s , E.M., Pascual-Leone. J . The magnitude o f tho P o g g u n d o r f f i l l u s i o n as a f u n c t i o n of age and f i e l d dependence. In p r e p a r a t i o n . B r o a d b e n t , D.E. Perception Pergamon, 1558,  and  Communication.  New  C o r a h , N.L. C o l o r and farm i n c h i l d r e n ' s p e r c e p t u a l f ' e r c c p t . Hat. S k i l l s . 1964, IB, 313-316.  York; behavior.  C o r c o r a n , D.W.J. P r e d i c t i o n of r e s p o n s e s t o m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l from r e s p o n s e s t a u n i d i m e n s i o n a l s t i m u l i . J . exo. P s y c h o l 1966, 71 ( 1 ) , 47-54. D a d w e l l , P.C. R e l a t i o n between t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e l o g i c o f c l a s s e s and o f c a r d i n a l number i n c h i l d r e n . inneri. J . L ^PJ1°1«» 1962, 16, 152-160. S  Egoth,  H.E. P a r a l l e l versus s e r i a l processes s t i m u l u s d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . P e r c e p t , and 1, 245.  i n multidimensional P s y c h o p h y s . . 1966,  E r i k s e n , C.W. and L a p p i n , J.5. Independence i n t h o p e r c e p t i o n s i m u l t a n e o u s l y p r e s e n t e d forms at b r i e f d u r a t i o n s . „J. exp. P s y c h o l . . 1967, 7_3, ( 3 ) , 468-472.  of  F e l l o r , Wm, An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P r o b a b i l i t y T h e o r y and, . i t s Applications. V o l . I, New Y o r k : John W i l e y , 1950. F l a v e l l , J.H. The T o r o n t o : D.  developmental Van N o s t r a n d ,  Psychology 1963.  o f Jean  Piaget•  G a r d n e r , R.W. C o g n i t i v e c o n t r o l s o f a t t e n t i o n deployment as determinants of v i s u a l i l l u s i o n s . J . abnorm. and Soc. P s y c h o l . . 1961, 62, 120-127. G a r d n e r , R.W. and Long, R.I. C o g n i t i v e c o n t r o l s o f a t t e n t i o n and i n h i b i t i o n : A s t u d y of i n d i v i d u a l c o n s i s t e n c i e s . . B r i t . J . . P s y c h o l . . 1962, 5_3, 381-388. G r e e n , R.T. and C o u r t i s , M.C. I n f o r m a t i o n t h e o r y and f i g u r e p e r c e p t i o n : t h e metaphor t h a t f a i l e d . Acta Psychol.. 1966, 25, 12-36.  70 Harris,  D.B. C h i l d r e n ' s Drawings as Measures of I n t e l l e c t u a l Maturity. Mow Y o r k : H a r c o u r t , B r a c e "nd W o r l d , 1963.  I n h e l d e r , B. Some " s p o c t s a f I i a g e t ' s g e n e t i c a p p r o a c h t o c o g nition. In W. Kossen and C. Kuhlman ( E d s . ) . Thought i n tho young c h i l d . Monograph of t h e Soc. f o r Res, i n C h i l d L e v c l o o m . . 1962, 27. Whole of No. 2, pp. 19-34? I n h e l d s r , 3 . , 3 o v e t , M., S i n c l a i r , H., Smock, C D . un c o g n i t i v e development. American P s y c h o l o g i s t . 1966, 2_1 ( 2 ) , 160165. Inheld:.r, 3., and P i a g e t , J . The Childhood to adolescence.  Growth of L o g i c a l T h i n k i n g from New York: d a s i c 3ooks, 1958.  J e n s e n , A. L e a r n i n g a b i l i t y i n r e t a r d e d , a v e r a g e and g i f t e d children. M e r r i l l - P a l m e r Q u a r t . . 1963, 9. ( 2 ) , 123-140. Kaplan,  I.T., C a r v e l l a s , T., l i e t l a y , W. V i s u a l S e a r c h and immediate memory. J . exp. P s y c h o l . . 1966, JJL, ( 4 ) , 493.  K a r p , S.A. ded New  488-  and K o n s t a d t , N.L. Manual f o r the C h i l d r e n ' s EmbedF i g u r e s Test (1963). C o g n i t i v e t e s t s , P.Li. Box 4, York.  K e n d l e r , H.H. cessus  and K e n d l e r , T.S. V e r t i c a l and h o r i z o n t a l p r o in problem-solving. P s y c h . Rev. . 1962, 6_9, 1-16.  K e s s e n , Wm. " S t a g e " and " S t r u c t u r e " i n t h e s t u d y o f c h i l d r e n . In Wm. Kossen and C. Kuhlman ( E d s . ) Thought i n t h e Young Child. Monographs of t h e Soc. f o r Res, i n e h i l d ijovelopm. 1962, 27, Whole No. 2, pp. 65-32. Lappin,  J.S. A t t e n t i o n i n t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of s t i m u l i i n comp l e x v i s u a l d i s p l a y s . J . exp. P s y c h o l . . 1967, 75, ( 3 ) , 321-328.  L a s h l o y , K.5. The p r o b l e m of s e r i a l o r d e r i n b e h a v i o r . In L.A. J u f f r e s s (Ed.) C e r e b r a l Mechanisms i n B e h a v i o r : The Hixon Symposium. New York; John W i l e y , 1951, pp. 112-136. L e i b o w i t z , H.'W. and G w o z d e c k i , J . The magnitude o f t h e Pogend o r f f i l l u s i o n as a f u n c t i o n of ago. P e r c e p t . Mot. Skills. 1967, 9, 573-580. L i n d s a y , R.K. and L i n d s a y , J.M. R e a c t i o n t i m e and s e r i a l v e r s u s p a r a l l e l information processing. J . exp. P s y c h o l . . 1966, 71 ( 2 ) , 294-303. Lovell,  K. and u g i l v i e , E. The growth of t h e c o n c e p t o f volume in junior school children. J . of C h i l d P s y c h o l , and F s y c h i n t . . 1961, 2, 11B-126.  71 Mackwurth, N.H. Percept,  A s t a n d camera f o r l i n e .of s i g h t r e c o r d i n g . and F s y c h o p h y s . . 1967, 2, 119-122.  Mackwnrth, M.H., K a p l a n , I.T. and M e t l a y , W. ing v i g i l a n c e . P e r c e p t . Mot. S k i l l s .  Eye movement d u r 1964, 18, 397-402.  Mackworth, N . H ; , nnd M o r a n d i , A . J . The gaze s e l e c t s i n f o r m a t i v e details within pictures. P e r c e p t , ond P s v c h o p h v s . . 1967, 2, ( 1 1 ) . Miller,  G.A. The m a g i c a l number s e v e n , p l u s or minus two: l i m i t s on our c a p a c i t y f o r p r o c e s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , P s y c h o l . Rev.. 1956, 63, C l - 9 7 .  some  Miller,  G.A,, and Chomsky, N . F i n i t e r y models o f l a n g u a g e u s e r s * i n R. Li. L u c o , R.R. Bush and E. G.-l-:nter, ( E d s . ) Handbook o f M a t h e m a t i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . . V o l . 2., New York: John W i l e y , 1963, pp. 419-491.  Miller,  J.G. The i n d i v i d u a l as an i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g s y s t e m . In W.S. F i e l d s , and W. A b b o t t (Eds.) I n f o r m a t i o n s t o r a g e and N e u r a l C o n t r o l . 5 p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas, 1963.  Munn, N , L . The E v o l u t i o n and Growth o f Human B e h a v i o r . .3;ston: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1965.  (2nd  Ni.isser,  1967  U .  Cognitive  Psychology.  New  York,  Osgood;, C.E. On u n d e r s t a n d i n g and c r e a t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t . 1963, 18, 735-751.  Meredith, sentences.  Ed.)  Amejr.  P a s c u a l - L e o n e , J . P i a g e t ' s p e r i o d o f c o n c r e t e o p e r a t i o n s and W i t k i n ' s f i e l d dependence: A s t u d y on c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s ".nd c h i l d r e n . Paper r e a d at C P . A . , M o n t r e a l , June, 1966. Pascual-Leone, J . A m a t h e m a t i c a l mcricl f o r t h e t r a n s i t i o n r u l e i n P i a g e t ' s developmental s t a g e s . Research Report, G r a n t T:RC APA 234 ( C a n a d a ) . U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. Mimeograph, 1967. Piogtit,  J. La C o n s t r u c t i o n du R e e l chez L'enfant,. D e l a c h c u x e t N i e s t l e , 1937.  Nouchatel;  Piaget,  J. The P s y c h o l o g y Regan"Paul, 1950.  Rnutledge  of I n t e l l i g e n c e .  Lon  on:  and  Pinget, J . Les s t a d e s du developpemont i n t e l l e c t u a l do l ' o - n f a n t et de 1 a d o l e s c e n t . In F. U s t c r r i e t h , J . P i a g e t , R . < de S a u s s u r e , J.f'i, T a n n e r , H. W a l l a n and R* Z a z z a ( E d s . ) Le p r o b l e m c des s t a d e s cn p s y c h o l o g i c de 1 ' e n f a n t . Paris: P.V.F., 1956, Pp. 33-49. 1  72 r i s h k i n , \l. , ' e l f gang, A., ".nd R a s r . i u „ s ~ n , E. Age, sex, amount, and t y p e o f memory i n f o r m a t i o n i n c o n c e p t l e a r n i n g . J . exp. P s y c h o l . , 1967, 73 ( 1 ) , 121-124. ' i u a s t l e r , H.; In Human P :.rf ormance i n I n f o r m a t i c n T r a n s m i s s i o n . Cantr:.-1 Systems L a b o r a t o r y , R e p o r t No. R-62. Urbane, U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , 1955. Roase, H.W. V e r b a l m e d i a t i o n -::s r f u n c t i o n o f age l c v . . l '."'sychol. Bull.. 1962, 59 ( 6 ) , 502-509. R c i t m a n , W. R. C o g n i t i o n and t h o u g h t ; An i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g approach. New York: W i l e y , 1965. S h o p a r d , R.N., A t t e n t i o n snd t h e m e t r i c s t r u c t u r e o f t h o s t i m u l u s space. J . Math. P s y c h o l . , 1964, 1, 54-87.., S h e p a r d , R.!-.!., H o v l o n d , C . I . , J e n k i n s , H.M. L e a r n i n g and memor i z a t i o n of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . P s y c h o l , i l o n . , 1961, 15^, Whole No. J.3. Simon, H.A. An i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g t h e o r y o f i n t e l l e c t u a l development. In W. Kossen and C. Kuhlmnn, Thought i n t h . young c h i l d . Monog. o f t h e 5oc. f o r Res, i n C h i l d Developm. 1962, 27 ( 2 ) . Pp. 150-161. " " " Simon, H. A. An i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g e x p l a n a t i o n o f some p e r c e p t u a l phenomena. B r i t . J . P s y c h o l . , 1967, 5B ( 1 0 2 ) , 1-2. V u r p i l l u t , E . L ' i n f l u e n c e de l a s i g n i f i c a t i o n du m a t e r i e l s u r l ' i l l u s i o n de P o g g e n d o r f f . Annas' P s y c h o l . , 1 9 5 7 . 57, 340-357. V u r p i l l o t , E . La d i s t i n c t i o n e n t r e i l l u s i o n s p r i m a i r e s e t s e c o n d a r e s se j u s t i f i e - t - e l l e ? I n ^ F . B r e s s o n c t M. do Mnntma 1 1 i n (Eds.) P s y c h o l o g i c e t E p i s t e m o l o g i e G e n e t i g u e : Thomas P i e g „ t i e n s . P a r i s : Dunod, 1966. Wilson,  J.D. Span o f a p p r e h e n s i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e number o f s t i m u l u s a l t e r n a t i v e s . P e r c e p t . Mat. S k i l l s , 1964, 18, 449-454  W h i t e , 5.H. E v i d e n c e f o r h i e r a r c h i c a l arrangement o f l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s e s . In L.P. L i p s i t t and C.C. S p i k e r ( E d s . ) Advances i n C h i l d Development and B e h a v i o r . V o l . 2. New Y o r k , Academic P r e s s , 1965. Witkin,  H.A. P e r c e p t i o n the v i s u a l f i e l d .  c f body p o s i t i o n and o f t h e p o s i t i o n o f P s y c h o l . Monog. 1949, 63, Whole No. 302.  73  Hthti  Witkinj  I n d i v i d u a l d i f f c r a n c u s i n cose o f p e r c e p t i o n embedded f i g u r e s . J_. P e r s o n a l i t y . 1950, 19, 1-15.  Witkin,  Hiki D i s c u s s i o n of " P s y c h o l o g i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of s t y l e s conceptualization;" 5oc jRes . Ch j.ld Devulopm .Monoq., B a s i c C o g n i t i v e Pra-cesses i n c h i l d r e n , 1963, 28., ( 2 ) , 118-122,  Witkin;  H<Ai h c o g n i t i v e - s t y l e a p p r o a c h t o e r u s B - c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c h . I n t e r n e t . J . P s y c h o l . . 1967, 2, ( 4 ) , 233-250.  Witkin,  H « A i , G jodonough, D.R., and Karp, S.A. S t a b i l i t y of c o g n i t i v e s t y l e from c h i l d h o o d t o young a d u l t h o o d . 1966 mimeo. Downstate f i e d i c a l C e n t r e , S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y o f Mew York,  Witkin,  H.A., Dyk, R.E., F a t o r s o n , H.F., Goodenough, Karp, S.A. P s y c h o l o g i c a l D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . Mew Wiley, 1962.  D.R., York:  of  1or2 channel  light switches  ight switches  connecting plug  I  APPENDIX A.  Response  Panel  GerbrandV Tape Programmer  Projector  1  u  Power Supply and Control  Screen  Panel  i  Response  Rustrak Recorders  APPENDIX A.  Equipment  Arrangement  76  APPENDIX SIMPLE  STIMULI  Positive  Dimension  B  Instance  Negative  Instances  1.  Shape  Square  Circle, cross.  2.  Colour  Red  Blue, yellow, green.  3.  Size  Large  Small  4..  Closure,. (Broken Outline)  Broken  Soli*  5. - C i r c l e i n c e n t r e of f i g u r e  Present  Absent  6 . - Frame a r o u n d f i g u r e (same s h a p e )  Present  Absent  Present  Absent  Present  Absent  7-  'X'  i n centre of figure  8,  Purple  background  triangle,  77  APPENDIX C COMPOUND STIMULUS FREQUENCIES OVER AGE  CLASS  2  3  "  5  6  7  5  24  18  15  5  7  15  18  21  15  5  9  10  10  21  21  15  5  11  10  10  10  22  24  12  8  TOTALS  AG-E 62 74 82 5  93  78  APPENDIX D SIM LE STIMULUS DISTRIBUTION OVER E.ACH HALF OF THE TASK  AGE' STIMULUS  "T"  1 _2  _ _ 1_  7  3~~ZZZ~iT  _2_  _2  _1___  .  S^ (Square)  17  17  20  20  23  24  28  30  S  (Red)  17  17  23  22  24  24  27  28  S^ ( C l o s u r e )  19  20  24  24  30  29  29  31  S  19  19  23  22  26  25  28  31  1  23  23  24  26  2  5  30  30  25  22  28  26  30  30  26  28  30  31  28  27  2  5  (Circle)  S3 (Bis)  S^ (Frame) Sy ( X) S  0 Q  (Background  APPENDIX  E  COMPOUND STIMULUS DISTRIBUTION OVER EACH HALF OP THE TASK  AGE Class 2  5  7  " 1 2 12  3  9  1  12 9  2  1  7 9  2  8  9  11  9  1 2  4  6  5  5  6  4  5  5  4  8  7  11  10  10  11  4  6  5  2  3  8  7  11  10  11  11  2  3  8  7  12  12  6  80  APPENDIX F GROUPS MEAN AGE, I.Q., CEFT 1  Kindergarten: F l (N=12) FD (N=10) Total(N-22)  70.21 '71.51 70.86  112.16)* 108.10 110.13  8.8,3 4.30 6.56  -  14.70 7.40 11.05  Grade 2: F l (N=14) FD (N=10) Total(N-28)  92.80 94.10 93.45  Grade 4: F l (N=16) FD (N=10) Total(N=26)  119.37 120.30 119.83  -  19.43 10 .'CO 15.11  Grade 6: F l (N=16) FD ( N = l l ) Total(N=27)  142.92 143.82 143.37  H a r r i s F i g u r e Drawing Otis I n t e l l i g e n c e Test  118.62** 115.36 116.99  20.31 14.45 17.38  APPENDIX G EMPIRICAL PROBABILITIES OP COMPOUND RESPONSES POR EACH CELL  AGE w r-i  T o t a l No. Responses*  Rl  R2  5 R4  R3  R5  1•  -P c . Field-,Indep e n  CU  265  S2  .551  .449  209  S3  .311  .431  180  S4  .179  .387  60  S5  .117 .355  714  Total Task  ,258 .353  .081  .200  .283  .250  .067  .410  .188  .041  .006  =1,933  2  =.757  o rH  II  •p a  cu -O C cu P-, cu  O  200  S2  .690  .310  163  S3  .478-  .405  .117  14 6  S4  .404  .336  ,212  .,048  50  S5  ,280  .320  .280  v  080  .040  Total Task  ,517  .345  ,114  .019  .004  I  •X3  r-l  cu  559  =1.64 5  * Not showing zero response c a t e g o r y :  2  =.621  See Appendix N  APPENDIX Cr  82  (continued)  AGE  Total No.* Responses  c  R2  I*  R4  R5  R6  S2  .494  .504  231  S3  .229  .519  .251  290  S4  .115  .338  .396  .110  209  S5  .139  .220  .392  .225  .024  70 70  S6 S6  .106 .106  .200 .200  .171 .171  .342 .342  .185 .185  .000  Total Task  .228  .377  .272  .105  .018  .000  204  S2  .397  .602  249  S3  .221  .506  .273  291  S4  .086  .268  .478  .168  208  S5  .058  .144  .380  .322  .096  70  S6  .014  .128  .300  .314  .200  .057  Total Task  .170  .358  .300  .135  .033  .004  (U  c  R3  182 rH  II  Rl  7  CU  i  982  rH  2  II •P  Field-Hndepende  c  *  1022  t =2.308; <r =.987 2  1=2.515  /=1.106  Not showing zero responses category: See .-ippendix N.  83 APPENDIX  G  APPENDIX  G  (continued)  AGE  T o t a l No. sponses o  R1  R2  R3  9 R4  R5  100  S2  .460  .540  100  S3  .220  .450  .330  a <u  210  S4  .114  .304  .404  .176  CU  210  35  .038  .166  .323  .309  .161  150  S6  .040  .146  .213  .340  .173  7  S7  .020  .100  .180 . .300  Total  .130  .274  .276  -P 13 C  £1.  cu  p  13" • 3 'r-l  777  T  a  s  k  R6  .240  R7  .040  .204 .087 .023 .002 $=2,909; <y =1.6l3 2  160  S2  .387  .612  160  S3  .206  .462  .331  336  S4  .026  .285  .437  .250  OJ  336  S5  .041  .127  .318  .330  .181  C  240  S6  .054  .100  .237  .258  .24 5  .104  S  80  S7  .050  .137  .262  .187  .225  .137  .258  .285  .211  .102  .032  .008  CO  H II  -p  c  13  CIJ  a  (—! I  i3 H  1312  Total m nlr  .099  0  *  X. =3.072; << =1.729  B4  APPENDIX G (continued)  AGE T o t a l No. Responses  R2  R3  R4  R6  R5  R7  R8  160  S2  .381  .618  160  S3  .112  .400  .487  160  SA  .068  .193  .462  .275  -P  352  S5  .025  .079  .238  .477  .178  lepe nde  R1  11  384  S6  .005  .046  ...127  .354  .-335  .127  192  S7  .031  .125  .177  -.348  .234  .083  c  80  S8  .012  .125  .175  .462  .212 .012  .208  .263  .183  .088  .022 .000  i-t  ll  c  M  Field  1  ,—i i—1  pendent  II  1438  T o t a l .067 Task  (=3 .671  <£=2.216  110  S2  .281  .718  110  S3  .118  .363  .518  110  S4  .109  .163  .454  .272  242  S5  .024  .119  .326  .359  .169  264  S6  .011  .079  .151  .367  .3- 0  ,049  .022  .045  ..136  .212  .303  .257  .022  __.J3_1_8 __._036_ . ..r 0?P__ .290  .418  .109 .018  .068  .008 .001  132  S7  CU Q  55  S8  rH CU *H  1023  i T3  PH  .165  Total Task  .066  .189  .240  .241  1  .182  <=3 .510  o' =1.972  85  APPENDIX H VARIelTC'iD ACfeOSS A 'r.U •IJTJJ P . D . I .  5  7  9  11  Theoretics 1  .409  .737  1.147  1.871  E n r D i r i c ^ l - •( Pa's c u a l - l G one, 1967)  .4 06  .617  1.136  1.745  F.  D.  .621  .9H7  1.613  1.972  P.  I.  .757  1.106  1.729  2.216  AGE  86  APPENDIX I  MATHEMATICAL  EXPECTATION ACROSS AGE AND P.D.I.  AGE Theoretical  5 1.868  7 2.652  9 3.470  11 4.169  1.723  2.443  3.372  4.149  P. D.  1.645  2*308  2.909  3.510  P. I .  1.933  2.515  3.072  3.671  Empirical-Pascual-Leone 1967  03 CD  APPENDIX J . (continued)  P r o p o r t i o n s of simple stimulus successes f o r age Prom Pascual-Leone (1967).  groups  APPENDIX J . (continued)  Proportion of successes FD g r o u p s .  o f simple  stimuli  for  age  90.  APPENDIX K T h e o r e t i c a l ( P r ) and e m p i r i c a l ( P r ) p r o b a b i l i t i e s o f compound r e s p o n s e s . P r e d i c t e d and e m p i r i c a l m a t h e m a t i c a l e x p e c t a t i o n s and v a r i a n c e s o f Ry . ( P a s c u a l - L e o n e , 1967). Age 5 N+13 ComTotal Fo. o f pound Stimu- Respon^1 lus ses pp Pr  Pr  Pr  s  2  351  .40  .527  .60  .473  s  5  309  .20  .297  .60  s  4  117  .114  .162  s  5  13  .071  .274  Total Task  R  R5  2  R  Pr  Pr  .536  .20  .117  .514  .573  .343  .077  .429  .30:3  .376  .584  .529  R  4  5  Pr  Pr  .243  .029  .017 .000.000  .429  .S38  .071  .077 .000.000  .136  .091  .00  .004 .000.000  c  Pr  Pr  Expectations:  Predicted Empirical  = =  1.868 1.723  Variances:  Predicted Empirical  = =  .409 .406  £ ON  APPENDIX K (continu ed) Age 11 (N=14)  Compound Total". Stimulus No. of Rl Pr Responses Pr  Pr  R2  Pr  Pr  R3  Pr  Pr  R4  R5 Pr _ _Pr  ?r  Pr  R6 _ Pr  s  140  .077 .079 ,923 .921  S  140  .009 .000  .205 .114 .786  130  .001  .000  .044 .029  .337 .279  .618  374  .000  .005 .010  .029  .116 .128  .426 .414 . 448 .422  334 .  .COO  .000  168  .000  .000 .000 .000  .013 .036  .096 . 065 .303 .369 .404  11  ..000  .000  .000  .005 .000  .042 .000  3 4  S  5 S  6  a S  7  8 S  Total Task  .886  .003 .003 .039 .045  .000  R7 Pr Pr  .009 .101 .130 .124 .164 .179  .213  . 669  . 228 .447 .431  .298  .177  .364 .354  .252 .254 .285  .284 .132  E x p e c t a t i o n s t P r e d i c t e d - 4.169 E m p i r i c a l - 4.149 Variance:  Predicted Empirical  - 1.871 - 1.745  R8 Pr Pr  APPENDIX K (continued) Ag-e 7 (N=14) Compound Stimuli 2" S 3 S 4 S 5 S 6 S  Total Task  T o t a l No.of Responses^  Pr  Rl  Pr  Pr  R2 ^ Pr  R3 ^ Pr Pr  R4 Pr Pr  R5 Pr Pr / N  208  .20  333  .055 .066 .436 .568 .509 .366  336  .018 .021 .218 .330 .509 .586 .255 .063  139  .007 .014 .112 .094 .392 .525 .392 .531 .097 .036  14  R6 Pr  Pr  .341 .800 .659  .003 .000  .060 .214 . 2 8 0 . . 3 5 7 . . 420 .429 .210 .000 .027 .000  .065 .099 .390 .440 .387 .385 .420 .429 .210 .000 .027 .000  Expectations:  P r e d i c t e d - 2.652 E m p i r i c a l - 2.443  Variances:  P r e d i c t e d -.737 B n p i r l c a l -.617  £  AP.'. ENDIX K (continued) A'-e 9  (N=15)  Compound Stimuli S  T o t a l No. Of Responses  Rl ^  r  R2 p  r  Pr  A  R3 Pr _ P r A  Pr  R4 Pr  A  Pr  R5 ?r  A  Pr  R6 . Pr Pr  150  .118 .187 .882 .813  150  .020 .033 .214 .333 .686 .633  375  .004 .011 .093 .112 .433 .440 .470 .437  390  .001 .000 .031 .051 .217 .254 .470 .467 .281 .228  15C  .0C0 .000 .011 .027 .103 .133 .335 .333 .402 .413 .168 .093  R7 Pr  A  Pr  3 S 4 S 5 S S  6 7  S To t a i Task  15 _  .000 .000 .004 .000 .049 .0^0 .215 .200 .._384_.733 .282 .067 .067 .000 .018 .030 .183 .193 .298 .308 .336 .325 .143 .0.32 .021 .012 .001 Expectations:  P r e d i c t e d - 3.470 E m p i r i c a l - 3.372  Variances:  P r e d i c t e d - 1.147 S n p i r i c a l - 1.136  .000  APPENDIX PROBABILITY Theoretical  94  I  DISTRIBUTIONS  - Estimated  -  COMPOUND RESPONSE R1  R2  R3  R4  Empirical CLASSES R5  R6  R7  R8  Age 5 Theoretical E s t i n p t e r i P .D. E s t i m a t e d P .1. E m p i r i c a l P .D. E m p i r i c a l F .1.  .274 .2^3 .183 .517 .^5  .584 .558 .516 .3^-5 .410  .136 .173 .216 .114 .188  .005 .025  .065 .132 .086  .390 .476 .391  .3r57 .320 .368  .377'  .272:  .358  .300  .142 .0^8 .138 .105 .135  .033  .000 .000 .001 .000 .004  .029 .019 .041  .000 .000 .001 .004 .006  Age 7 T h e o r e t i c ^ ?1 E s t i m a t e d F.D. Estimated P.I. E m p i r i c a l P.D. E m p i r i c a l P.I.  .228 .170  .016  . 003 .017  .018  Age 9 T h e o r e t i c !a l Estimated P Estimated P Empirical P Empirical P .A£e  .D. .1. .D. .1.  .013 .054 .045 .130 .099  .183 .302 .271 .274 .258  .298 .383 .370 .276 .285  .336 .215 .244 .204 .211  .143 .043 .063 .087 . .102  .021 .003 .006 .023 .032  .001 .000 .000 .002 .008  .D. .1. .D. .1.  .009 .032 .025 .066 .067  .130 .203 .177 .189 .165  ,164 .307 .267 .240 . 208  ,252 .297 .304 .241 .263  .285 .134 .176 .182 .183  .132 .024 .045 .068 .088  .026 .002 .005 .008 .022  11  Theoretical Estimated P Estimated P Empirical P Empirical P  .001 .000 .000 .001 .000  APPENDIX M ERROR ANALYSIS: PROPORTION OP CLASSES HAVING NO CORRECT RESPONSES  A G E  S3  F.D,  S2 7TEZ  TUgl  70*23  S4  TOT  S5  S6  P.I.  .079  .032  .038  .000  P.D..  .133  .083  .013  .004  .000  P.I..  .028  .011  .010  .009  .000  5  A G E 7  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104340/manifest

Comment

Related Items