Abstract
In a series of previous investigations, a relationship between figural aftereffect potency and measures of field dependence was uncovered. More specifically, field-independent Ss exhibited more potent aftereffects than did field-dependent Ss. In order to rule out the possibility that a S’s sex rather than field-dependence attribute determines aftereffect magnitude, the present investigation controlled both sex and field-dependence parameters. The results show that field-dependence measures rather than sex relate to aftereffect potency.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
DODWELL, P. C. Figural after-effects and field dependence: Another ground for skepticism. Psychonomic Science, 1969, 14, 84.
IMMERGLUCK, L. Visual figural after-effects and field dependence. Psychonomic Science, 1966a, 4, 219–220.
IMMERGLUCK, L. Figural after-effects, rate of “figure-ground” reversal, and field dependence. Psychonomic Science, 1966b, 6, 45–46.
IMMERGLUCK, L. Further comments on “Is the figural aftereffect an aftereffect?” Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 70, 198–200.
PRESSEY, A. W., & KOFFMAN, G. Figural aftereffects, illusions and the dimension of field dependence. Psychonomic Science, 1968, 10, 279–280.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Supported by a U.S. Public Health Service research grant, MH 14047-02
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Immergluck, L. Figural aftereffect potency: A function of sex or field-dependence?. Psychon Sci 18, 317–318 (1970). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03332373
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03332373