Observing Behavior in Preschool Children as a Function of Stimulus Complexity

The influence of stimulus uncertainty and experimental instructions on visual selection

“…Results of the two aforementioned studies emphasize the need, expressed by Cantor et al (1963), for a systematic examination and description of the conditions under which various stimulus characteristics do and do not affect looking behavior. The present investigation is based on the hypothesis that, with relatively nonmeaningful stimuli, stimulus uncertainty is effective in directing looking behavior only to the extent that Ss are motivated to identify, attribute meaning to, remember, or in some other way encode the potential information in the stimuli.…”

“…A host of experiments have been designed to examine the influence of stimulus complexity on looking behavior (e.g., Berlyne, 1958;Cantor, Cantor, & Ditrichs, 1963;Faw & Nunnally, 1967Leckart & Bakan, 1965). The concept of stimulus complexity has a broad connotation and in those experiments numerous definitions of complexity have been employed (e.g., the number of elements in a display or the number of sides of a random polygon).…”

Children’s stimulus selection as a function of auditory stimulus complexity

“…In addition, the stimuli in previous research studies (e.g., Cantor et al, 1963: Hershenson, 1964 are visual. This study extends the complexity manipulations to auditory stimuli and provides evidence that the variables relaling to stimulus complexity can be c1early defined for such stimuli.…”

Sex differences in the duration of visual attention

“…Recent research has demonstrated that the duration of visual attention depends upon stimulus, environmental, and subject variables. It has, for example, been shown that free looking time (the time S spends viewing a stimulus when he can look at it for as long as he wishes) depends upon stimulus complexity (Berlyne, 1957(Berlyne, , 1958aCantor, Cantor, & Ditrichs, 1963;Leckart & Bakan, 1965), stimulus novelty (Berlyne, 1958a; Cantor & Cantor, 1964a, b;Leckart, 1966), the instructions given S (Brown & Farha, 1966), E's behavior (Martin, 1964), E controlled stimulus presentations (Leckart, Keeling, & Bakan, 1966), and degree of schizophrenic withdrawal (McReynolds, 1963).Other studies indicate that at least some individual differences in attention are due to the interaction between subject and stimulus variables. Interaction effects have, for example, been demonstrated with subject variables of "spontaneous sexual behavior" (Rosenzweig, 1942), sex (Brandt, 1945), homosexuality (Zamansky, 1956), paranoia (Zamansky, 1958), heterosexual interpersonal contact (Christiansen, 1961), and extraversion .…”

“…Recent research has demonstrated that the duration of visual attention depends upon stimulus, environmental, and subject variables. It has, for example, been shown that free looking time (the time S spends viewing a stimulus when he can look at it for as long as he wishes) depends upon stimulus complexity (Berlyne, 1957(Berlyne, , 1958aCantor, Cantor, & Ditrichs, 1963;Leckart & Bakan, 1965), stimulus novelty (Berlyne, 1958a; Cantor & Cantor, 1964a, b;Leckart, 1966), the instructions given S (Brown & Farha, 1966), E's behavior (Martin, 1964), E controlled stimulus presentations (Leckart, Keeling, & Bakan, 1966), and degree of schizophrenic withdrawal (McReynolds, 1963).…”