A test of the perceptual defense hypothesis1

Perceptual defense or set: A re-examination

“…Support for perceptual defense was provided in that the avoidance reaction was generalized to words which Ss would normally have no reluctance to report. Similar results were found in studies by Walters, Banks, & Ryder (1959) and Walters& Pilipec(1964). Forest, Gordon, & Taylor (1965) performed a study similar to McGinnies & Sherman (1952) and found concurring results.…”

Two Types of Set and the Generalization of Perceptual Defence

“…Furthermore, their evidence was not susceptible to an interpretation in terms of response readiness as the task words themselves are not systematically different in this respect. The finding has been corroborated by other experimenters using subliminal presentation of the pretask words (Walters, Banks & Ryder, 1959). Forrest, Gordon & Taylor (1965) have shown that the 'generalization of perceptual defence ' can be produced when the emotional pretask words are replaced by nonsense words; they have also shown that when subjects are given practice pairs which include both neutral and emotional pretask material the effect does not occur.…”

“…As the generalization of perceptual defence has so far been demonstrated within groups of American men college students (McGinnies & Sherman, 1952; Walters et al 1959) and British women undergraduates from a college for women (Forrest et al 1965), it was thought advisable to replicate the original procedure using subjects from the present population. Expt I of the present study is this repli cation.…”

Generalization of perceptual defense: An interpretation in terms of set.

“…Although criticism of this explanation appeared soon after (Postman,Bronson,& Cropper,19S3) on the grounds that it was premature to hypothesize the generalization of an effect before that effect had been definitely demonstrated, no alternative explanation was offered, and further research appeared to lend support to McGinnies and Sherman's position. Walters, Banks, and Ryder (1959) obtained similar results when the pretask words were presented three times in succession and subliminally. Although they request replication of their experiment in view of an uncertainty in their timing procedure, this deficiency does not seem likely to be a potent source of error, and their results can be taken to support the findings of McGinnies and Sherman.…”

“…Thus, our data indicate that an adequate explanation of the generalization effect can be made in terms of set. The findings of Walters et al (1959) present no additional difficulties for this explanation since there is no reason to suppose, and indeed good reason to deny, that a set must be consciously established in order to be effective (Luchins, 1942).…”