Complexity Judgments of Photographs and Looking Time

Leckart, Bruce T.; Bakan, Paul

doi:10.2466/pms.1965.21.1.16

Cited by 42 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The stimuli were 129 color slides of landscapes, single objects, and arrays of objects photographed by E. The stimuli were rated ana 7-pointcomplexity scale in an earlier experiment (Leckart & Bakan , 1965). On the basis of these ratings, two sets of 30 pictures each were selected.…”

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Looking time: The effects of stimulus complexity and familiarity

Leckart

1966

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One measure of visual exploration is free looking time: the time S spends looking at a stimulus when he can look at it for as long as he wishes. A number of studies indicate that novel stimuli elicit longer looking responses than familiar stimuli (Berlyne, 1958; MeReynolds, 1963). In these studies, it has been shown that familiarizing S with a stimulus results in a loss in the capacity of that stimulus to elicit a looking response, as indicated by a decrease in free looking time. Welker (1954) and Butler (1957), working wtth chtmpanzees and monkeys, respectively, have shown that after the passage of time, a familiarized stimulus can recover at least some of the lost capacity to elicit a looking response. However, two recent experiments have failed to demonstrate a similar effect in humans (Cantor & Cantor, 1964 a, b). Since, in these studies, relatively large amounts of familiarization, on simple line drawings or cartoons, were administered to preschool children, it is possible that with less familiarization and greater stimulus complexity, a recovery effect in adult humans can be demonstrated. The present study investigated the effects of three variables on free looking time: (1) stimulus complexity, (2) stimulus familiarity, and, (3) the delay between familiarization and free looking. METHOD SubjectsThe Ss were 90 males and 90 females selected from the introductory psychology course at Michigan State University. The Ss were randomly assigned to six groups; 15 males and 15 females in each group. 142

show abstract

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Looking time: The effects of stimulus complexity and familiarity

Leckart

1966

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using a 7-point rating scale with the low points defined as degrees of complexity and the high points defined as degrees of simplicity, the mean ratings obtained for the familiar and unfamiliar slides were 3.99 and 3.84, respectively (t=.778, df=39, p>.05). Considering the relationship between complexity ratings of photographs and looking time (Bakan & Leckart, 1965), it seems unlikely that the difference in looking times between the novel and familiar stimuli in the present study is due to the novel stimuli being more complex.…”

Section: Resul Tsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…One possible explanation of the longer looking times elicited by the novel stimuli is that despite the Es' attempt to control complexity the novel stimuli were more complex than the familiar stimuli. In order to evaluate this possibility, complexity ratings of the 30 stimuli were obtained from a group of 15 males and 25 females following the rationale and procedures used by Leckart and Bakan (1965). Using a 7-point rating scale with the low points defined as degrees of complexity and the high points defined as degrees of simplicity, the mean ratings obtained for the familiar and unfamiliar slides were 3.99 and 3.84, respectively (t=.778, df=39, p>.05).…”

Section: Resul Tsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus familiarity, dogmatism, and the duration of attention

Leckart¹,

Wagner

1967

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…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 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex differences in the duration of visual attention

Leckart

Keeling

Bakan

1966

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attentional behavior has been a topic of interest to psychology since the last half of the nineteenth century. 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 . Brandt (1945) had male and female Ss view a single visual target, containing three separate pictures of men and three separate pictures of women. The time spent looking at each picture was recorded with an eye movement camera. The results indicated that male Ss looked longer at pictures of women than at pictures of men, but that female Ss did not differentially attend to the stimuli. However, because only six pictures were used, the possibility exists that sex of the picture was confounded with one or more other stimulus variables.In a similar study, Zamansky (1956) found that overt male homosexuals showed a stronger preference for male pictures and a stronger avoidance' of female pictures than normal males. But, no conclusions were drawn about the normal males per se , although there was a tendency for these Ss to look longer at female than male pictures. This study was designed to further investigate sex differences in the duration of visual attention by presenting a large sample of male and female pictures to normal male and female Ss in a situation where they could look at the pictures one at a time. By presenting the stimuli successively, instead of simultaneously as had previously been done, the tendency to attend to one stimulus would not be confounded with the tendency to avoid a second stimulus. Assuming that normal Ss are attracted to the opposite sex, and that attending to the opposite sex is socially, if not biologically reinforced, it was expected that Ss would spend relatively more time attending to pictures of members of the opposite sex than to pictures of their own sex. METHOD SubjectsThe Ss were 25 females and 27 males selected from the introductory psychology course at Michigan state University. ApparatusThe stimuli consisted of 40 black and white photographs selected from national magazines. Ea...

show abstract

Complexity Judgments of Photographs and Looking Time

Cited by 42 publications

References 8 publications

Looking time: The effects of stimulus complexity and familiarity

Looking time: The effects of stimulus complexity and familiarity

Stimulus familiarity, dogmatism, and the duration of attention

Sex differences in the duration of visual attention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About