Abstract
Twenty-four subjects made same-different responses to pairs of simple outline forms. The forms were either physically identical or numerically identical (having the same number of composing elements) or physically and numerically different. The forms were shown in either spatially adjacent or spatially separated positions. In two independent conditions, same responses for physically identical forms were significantly faster when the forms were shown spatially adjacent than when they were shown spatially separated. Same responses for numerically identical forms were not affected by spacing. The results were seen as supporting Posner’s (1969) interpretation of spacing effects observed in Hochberg’s (1968) experiments, in terms of matching stimuli on the basis of physical equivalence, and on the basis of nominal equivalence properties.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Hochberg, J. E. In the mind’s eye. In R. N. Haber (Ed.), Contemporary theory and research in visual perception. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1968.
Posner, M. I. Abstraction and the process of recognition. In J. T. Spence & G. Bower (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol.3). New York: Academic Press, 1969.
Posner, M. I., Boies, S. J., Eichelman, W. H., & Taylor, R. L. Retention of visual and name codes of single letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 79, No. 1, Part 2.
Posner, M. I., & Mitchell, R. F. Chronometric analysis of classification. Psychological Review, 1967, 74, 392–409.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant 95/75 from Victoria University of Wellington. The authors are grateful to Dr. Geoff White for helpful advice.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
White, M.J., Green, D.E. Effects of spacing on same-different judgments to simple outline forms. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 9, 70–72 (1977). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03336933
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03336933