Abstract
Ten human vs. nonhuman ambiguous-figure stimuli were presented to a sample of 520 subjects for identification. Using an individual differences analysis, four stimulus factors were identified and homogeneous subgroups of like-perceiving subjects were isolated. Possible cues utilized in judgments of stimulus factors were described. Homogeneous subgroups of subjects were differentially characterized on the basis of age and clinical diagnostic classification. The study illustrates the usefulness of the individual differences approach to the study of ambiguous-figure stimuli.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Reference Note
Forsyth, G. A. Individual differences in information processing: A comparison of paradigms. Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Victoria, British Columbia, June 1973.
References
Attneave, F. Dimensions of similarity. American Journal of Psychology, 1950, 63, 516–556.
Boring, E. G. A new ambiguous figure. American Journal of Psychology, 1930, 42, 444–445.
Broadbent, D. E. Stimulus set and response set: Two kinds of selective attention. In D. I. Mostofsky (Ed.), Attention: Contemporary theory and analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970. Pp. 51–60.
Bugelski, B. R., & Alampay, D. A. The role of frequency in developing perceptual sets. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1961, 15, 205–211.
Eagle, M., Wolitzky, D. L., & Klein, G. S. Imagery: Effect of a concealed figure in a stimulus. Science, 1966, 151, 837–839.
Forsyth, G. A. Effects of training in selective attention on perceptual discrimination. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1974, 38, 935–944.
Forsyth, G. A., & Shor, R. E. An individual differences analysis of interdimensional additivity in multidimensional scaling. Perception & Psychophysics, 1974, 15, 563–567.
Garner, W. R. Attention: The processing of multiple sources of information. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of perception. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, 1974. Pp. 23–59.
Huber, R. J., & Forsyth, G. A. Selective attention and social interest. Journal of Individual Psychology, 1972, 28, 51–59.
Leeper, R. W. A study of a neglected portion of the field of learning: The development of sensory organization. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1935, 46, 41–75.
Rubin, E. Synsoplevede figurer. Copenhagen: Glydenalski, 1915.
Tucker, L. R., & Messick, S. An individual differences model for multidimensional scaling. Psychometrika, 1963, 28, 333–367.
Wallach, H., & Austin, P. A. Recognition and the localization of visual traces. American Journal of Psychology, 1954, 67, 338–340.
Ward, J. H. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. American Statistical Association Journal, 1963, 58, 236–244.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Figure construction, analysis of data, and manuscript preparation were supported by the Research Office of the University of New Hampshire.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Forsyth, G.A., Huber, R.J. Selective attention in ambiguous-figure perception: An individual differences analysis. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 7, 498–500 (1976). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03337262
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03337262