Sixteen Experimental Investigations from the Harvard Psychological Laboratory, Hugo Münsterberg [top fiction books of all time TXT] 📗

necessary to

restrict his attention to the general field upon which the ideated

objects might appear, and to note what occurred on the field. The

period of introspection, which followed immediately the disappearance

of such retinal images as remained, after the closing of the eyes to

the external objects, lasted sixty seconds. The reports, like the

signals, were given in a just audible tone. They were in such terms as

‘right—left,’ ‘small—large,’ ‘circle—star,’ terms the simplest that

could be found, or such as seemed, in any given case, most naturally

or automatically associated with the object, and therefore least

likely to disturb the course of the observation. And each report was

noted down by the experimenter at the instant it was given, with the

time of each phase, in seconds, as indicated by a stop-watch under the

experimenter’s eye.

 

It will be remarked that the attitude required of the observer was one

which is not commonly taken. And it may be objected that the results

of an attitude so unusual towards objects so ghostly and attenuated

must be too delicate, or too complex, or influenced by too many alien

suggestions, to be plumply set down in arabic numerals. The subjects,

in fact, did at first find the attitude not easy to assume. A visual

object may hold the attention by controlling the reflexes of the eye.

But an ideational object has ordinarily no sure command of the

conscious field save under the influence of a volitional idea or some

strongly toned affectional state. But with a little practice the

difficulty seemed to disappear. The subject became surer of his

material, and the mental object gradually acquired the same sort of

individuality as the visual object, though the impression it made

might be less intense.

 

After a few preliminary experiments, figures were devised for the

purpose of testing the effect of mere difference in the complexity of

outline. That is to say, the members of every pair of objects were of

the same uniform color-tone (Bradley’s neutral gray No. 2), presented

the same extent of surface (approximately 42 sq. cm.), were exposed

simultaneously for the same length of time (5 seconds), and were in

contour usually of like general character save that the bounding line

in the one was more interrupted and complex than in the other.

 

In another series the variant was the extent of surface exposed, the

color-tone (neutral gray), outline, and other conditions being the

same for both members of each pair. The smaller figures were of the

same area as those of the preceding series; in the larger figures this

area was doubled. Only one member of each pair is represented in the

diagrams of this and the next series.

 

In a third series brightness was the variant, one member of each pair

being white and the other gray (Bradley’s cool gray No. 2). All other

conditions were for both figures the same.

 

In still another series strips of granite-gray cardboard half a

centimeter wide were cut out and pasted on black cards, some in

straight and some in broken lines, but all of the same total length

(10 cm.). These were exposed under the same general conditions as

those which have already been described, and were intended to show the

relative effects of the two sorts of lines.

 

TABLE I.

 

1 2 3 4 5 Totals. Averages.

L R L R L R L R L R L R L R

I. 45 45 25 29 27 27 31 24 36 20 164 145 32.8 29

II. 20 25 28 28 28 19 31 31 28 14 135 117 27 23.5

III. 11 12 17 28 0 7 0 15 27 23 55 85 11 17

IV. 7 6 47 22 17 21 17 45 31 30 119 124 23.8 24.8

V. 27 33 46 36 40 31 44 31 26 35 183 165 36.6 33.2

VI. 11 14 32 29 34 21 14 35 0 46 91 145 18.2 29

VII. 36 33 30 30 50 50 22 22 52 52 190 187 38 37.4

VIII. 41 44 33 33 45 45 34 44 37 28 190 194 38 38.8

IX. 45 45 39 46 42 47 47 47 44 44 217 229 43.4 45.8

X. 40 39 24 25 19 21 21 23 18 25 122 133 24.4 26.6

XI. 51 53 52 50 42 42 42 42 42 42 229 229 45.8 45.8

 

334 349 373 356 344 331 303 359 341 359 1695 1754 30.8 31.9

 

The Arabic numerals at the head of the columns refer, in every

table, to the corresponding numerals designating the objects

in the diagram accompanying the table.

 

L: left-hand object.

R: right-hand object.

 

The Roman numerals (I to XI) indicate the different

subjects. The same subjects appear in all the experiments, and

under the same designation. Two of the subjects, IV and

VIII, are women.

 

The numbers under L and R denote the number of seconds

during which the left-hand image and the right-hand image,

respectively, were present in the period of introspection (60

seconds).

 

General average: L, 30.8 sec.; R, 31.9 sec.

 

[Illustration: FIG. 1.]

 

Series No. 1.—For the purpose of obtaining something that might

serve as a standard of comparison, a series of observations was made

in which the members of every pair were exact duplicates of each

other, and were presented under exactly the same conditions, spatial

position of course excepted. The records of these observations are for

convenience placed first as Table I.

 

In treating the facts recorded in the accompanying tables as phenomena

of inhibition no assumption is implied, it may be well to repeat, that

the ideational images are forces struggling with each other for

mastery. Nor is it implied, on the other hand, that they are wholly

unconditioned facts, unrelated to any phenomena in which we are

accustomed to see the expression of energy. Inhibition is meaningless

save as an implication of power lodged somewhere. The implication is

that these changes are conditioned and systematic, and that among the

conditions of our ideas, if not among the ideas themselves, power is

exerted and an inferior yields to a superior force. Such force, in

accordance with our general presupposition, must be neural or

cerebral. Even mental inhibition, therefore, must ultimately refer to

the physical conditions of the psychical fact. But the reference, to

have any scientific value, must be made as definite as the case will

allow. We must at least show what are the conditions under which a

state of consciousness which might otherwise occur does not occur.

When such conditions are pointed out, and then only, we have a case of

what has been called psychical inhibition; and we are justified in

calling it inhibition because these are precisely the conditions under

which physiological inhibition may properly be inferred. And, we may

add, in order that the conditions may be intelligibly stated and

compared they must be referable to some objective, cognizable fact.

Here the accessible facts, the experiential data, to which the

psychical changes observed and the cerebral changes assumed may both

be referred, are visual objects, namely, the figures already

described.

 

What may occur when these objects are precisely alike, and are seen

under conditions in all respects alike except as to spatial position,

is indicated in Table I. The general average shows that the image

referred to the left-hand object was seen some 30 seconds per minute;

that referred to the right-hand image, some 31 seconds. Sometimes

neither image was present, sometimes both were reported present

together, and the time when both were reported present is included in

the account. In this series it appears, on the whole, that each image

has about the same chance in the ideational rivalry, with a slight

preponderance in favor of the right. Individual variations, which may

be seen at a glance by inspection of the averages, show an occasional

preponderance in favor of the left. But the tendency is, in most

cases, towards what we may call right-handed ideation.

 

Series No. II.—In the second series (Table II.) we find that, other

things being equal, _an increase in the relative complexity of the

outline favors the return of the image to consciousness_. Including

the time when both images were reported present at once, the simpler

appears but 27 seconds per minute as against 34 seconds for the more

complex. No attempt was made to arrange the figures on any regularly

increasing scale of complexity so as to reach quantitative results.

The experiment was tentative merely.

 

TABLE II.

 

1 2 3 4

S C S C S C S C

I. 21.5 23.5 14.5 35 22.5 21.5 15 27

II. 35.5 21.5 32.5 48 32 33.5 32.5 21.5

III. 27.5 39 20.5 47.5 24.5 46.5 8 22.5

IV. 31.5 26.5 38 23.5 34.5 22 24 29.5

V. 48 50 48 39.5 41.5 51.5 51 47.5

VI. 11.5 35 26.5 28.5 21 33 29 17

VII. 29.5 35 47 47 10.5 52 29.5 33.5

VIII. 12.5 41 32 28.5 13 26.5 17 41.5

IX. 10.5 25.5 27.5 34.5 14.5 44 33 44.5

X. 24 25.5 20 23 16.5 28 23 21

XI. 46 46.5 31.5 53.5 18 53.5 27 50.5

 

298 369 338 408.5 248.5 412 289 356

 

5 6 7 Averages.

S C S C S C S C

I. 20.5 21 14.5 27 7.5 37.5 16.57 27.50

II. 31.5 32 50 45.5 49.5 39.5 37.64 34.50

III. 19.5 32.5 13 31 29 18 20.28 33.85

IV. 40.5 46.5 27 30.5 26 32 31.64 30.07

V. 47.5 47.5 50.5 48.5 38 38 46.35 46.07

VI. 14.5 29 14 33 21 28.5 19.64 29.14

VII. 25.5 43 42.5 30 28 41.5 30.35 40.28

VIII. 8 34 24 27 33 14.5 19.92 30.42

IX. 41.5 27 29.5 27.5 29.5 28 26.57 33.00

X. 10.5 36.5 17 27 18 25 18.42 26.57

XI. 21.5 53.5 40.5 43.5 30 45 30.64 49.42

 

281 402.5 322.5 370.5 309.5 347.5 27.10 34.62

 

S: Outline simple.

 

C: Outline complex.

 

In this and the following tables the numbers in the body of

the columns represent, in each case, the combined result of

two observations, in one of which the simpler figure was to

the left, in the other the more complex. The figures were

transposed in order to eliminate any possible space error.

 

General average: S, 27.10 sec.; C, 34.62 sec.

 

Can anything be said, based on the reports, by way of explanation of

the advantage which complexity gives? In the first place, the attitude

of the subject towards his image seems to have been much the same as

his attitude towards an external object: to his observation the image

became, in fact, an object. “When the image was gone,” says one, “my

eyes seemed to be in search of something.” And occasionally the one

ideated object was felt to exert an influence over the other. “The

complex seemed to affect the form of the simpler figure.” “It seemed

that the complex actually had the effect of diminishing the size of

the simpler figure.” From time to time the images varied, too, in

distinctness, just as the objects of perception vary, and the superior

distinctness of the more complex was frequently noted by the subjects.

Now the importance of the boundary line in perception is well

understood. It seems to have a corresponding importance here. “What I

notice more in the simple figure,” says one observer, “is the mass; in

the complex, the outline.” “The simple seemed to lose its form,” says

another, “the complex did not; the jagged edge was very distinct.” And

it is not improbable, in view of the reports, that irregularities

involving change of direction and increase in extent of outline