Some physical determinants of viewing time under three instructional sets

Brown, Larry T.; Farha, William

doi:10.3758/bf03207812

Cited by 41 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A growing number of studies indicate that the duration of attenrion is dependent upon subject, environmental, and stimulus variables (e.g., Bakan & Leckart, 1966;Berlyne, 1957Berlyne, , 1958Brown & Farha, 1966;Christiansen, 1961;Leckart, 1966;Leckart & Bakan, 1965;Leckart, Keeling, 8: Bakan, 1966a, 1966bMarcin, 1964;McReynolds, 1963;Zamansky, 1956Zamansky, ,1958.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Duration of Attention and Need for Affiliation

1967

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ss classified as having a low or high need for affiliation by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule viewed photographs rated as low affiliative, high affiliative, or neutral for as long as they wished. It was predicted that there would be a tendency for Ss to look longer at pictures congruent with their personality scores. N o support was found; however, the resulcs indicated that Ss with a high need for affiliation looked longer at all stimuli than Ss with a low need for affiliation. This finding was explained in terms of the highaffiliation Ss attempting to "please" E by looking longer at all stimuli. Evidence was also found suggesting that ( a ) the degree to which S believes E's instructions that the experiment is not a memory test and ( b ) Ss' self-ratings of nervousness are not related to looking time or the need for a€filiation. Interest racings and their relation to looking time may depend on Ss' personaliry.One crucial problem in the area of attentional behavior is to determine the factors influencing the duration of attention. A growing number of studies indicate that the duration of attenrion is dependent upon subject, environmental, and stimulus variables (e.g., Bakan

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Duration of Attention and Need for Affiliation

1967

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In these studies free looking time is defined as the amount of time S spends looking at a stimulus when he is free to look at it for as long as he wishes. And, despite the fact that these studies have been conceived of as investigations of orienting behavior, exploratory behavior, attention, and perceptual development they indicate that looking time is a function of stimulus as well as subject variables (e.g., Bakan & Leckart, 1966; Berlyne, 1958;Brown & Farha, 1966;Day, 1966;Leckart, 1966;McReynolds, 1963; Nunnally&Faw, 1968;andZamansky, 1958).…”

Section: Twenty-eight College Students Viewed Two Sets Of 30 Color Phmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of looking time

Leckart

Bakan

1969

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twenty-eight college students viewed two sets of 30 color photographs each under instructions to look at each picture for as long as they wished. Equal thirds of the stimuli in eachset were selected from high, middle, and low complexity levels. The sets were presented 7-10 weeks apart. The results indicated significant between-and within-session correlations that were not dependent on stimulus complexity. It was suggested that the findings were indicative of a consistency in either the rate at which Ss process information or the amount of information they process or both.A recently published bibliography (Leckart & Faw, 1968) indicates that in the last 10 years over 100 studies have appeared in the literature which have used free looking time as the dependent variable. In these studies free looking time is defined as the amount of time S spends looking at a stimulus when he is free to look at it for as long as he wishes. And, despite the fact that these studies have been conceived of as investigations of orienting behavior, exploratory behavior, attention, and perceptual development they indicate that looking time is a function of stimulus as well as subject variables (e.g., Bakan & Leckart, 1966; Berlyne, 1958;Brown & Farha, 1966;Day, 1966;Leckart, 1966;McReynolds, 1963; Nunnally&Faw, 1968;andZamansky, 1958).The purpose of the present study was to determine the reliability of the looking time measure. Accordingly, it was decided to give Ss two similar looking time tests separated by a few weeks and note any consistency in looking times between and within sessions. METHOD SubjectsThe Ss were 30 undergraduate volunteers of both sexes selected from an introductory psychology course. The data from two Ss was incomplete because of their unavailability for the second session. ApparatusThe stimuli were 60 color slides of landscapes, single objects, and arrays of objects which were rated on a 7-point complexity scale and used in previous experiments (e.g., Leckart, 1966;Leckart, 1967). On the basis of the mean complexity ratings the stimuli were divided into two sets of 30 each. Within each set of 30 there were 10 stimuli selected from the high, middle, and low complexity range. The means for these stimuli were: Set I-high =2.60, middle =4.12, and low = 6.09; and Set 2-high = 2.62, middle = 4.12, and low =6.11.The stimuli in Set I were used for the first free looking session and the stimuli in Set 2 were used for the second free looking session.The stimuli were projected on a white screen by a Kodak Carousel 700 projector placed 8 ft from the screen. Ss sat in a chair placed 5 ft from and facing the screen on which a 20 x 30 in. image was projected.The stimuli were changed with a manual switch provided the Ss. Looking times were automatically recorded to the nearest .1 sec with an Esterline-Angus event recorder. Neither the recorder nor the supporting electronics could be seen or heard by S. ProcedureSubjects were instructed to view the stimuli one at a time, looking at each for as long as they wished. Finger electrod...

show abstract

“…Although the results from the majority of those earlier experiments are in keeping with the hypothesis that more complex stimuli are looked at longer than their less complex counterparts, the magnitude of the effect typically has been small. Also, it is evident from the reports of Brown and Farah (1966) and Faw and Nunnally (1967) that complexity is not always an effective determinant of looking behavior. Those experiments report that variations in the instructions given to Ss can markedly alter the effects of complexity on looking behavior.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%