Essay Psychological Research Report on Perception

In experiment 1, participants were instructed to press a key to determine if the stimulus was red, blue, yellow, or green. On the second half of the experiment, the stimulus appeared in grey with only one colored letter which was positioned randomly. Error rates for the experiment were below 2.5% for each condition, which is quite low. Experiment 2 was the same as experiment 1 except that there were 114 data collections instead of 288 and there were 36 practice trials instead of 72. According to experiment 1 and 2 it is suggested that the effect of

To improve your perception one should not rush to judgment based on a few bits of information alone, they must first check the accuracy of their perception. The fact that an action witnessed by 10 people would have 10 different reactions shows the different ways people respond to a behavior. the way we are raised in our families can shape our expectations of situations and how we handle them. Using perception checking, we can eliminate bias or inconsiderate thoughts in handling such situations. A perception check involves three parts to complete: the observation, interpretation, and request for clarification in order to understand the behavior. Being tactful in requesting for clarification in order to understand a behavior can influence how

It was therefore hypothesised that the reaction times for global judgments would be faster than the reaction times of local judgments. It was also hypothesised that consistent stimuli would be faster than conflicting stimuli in the local tasks.

Three hypotheses were being tested. The first hypotheses was whether global is faster than local. The second hypothesis was if letters are faster than shapes. Finally, the third hypotheses was based on ‘Interaction’ which investigates

Participants were shown each of the cards (a) to (d) in set 2, in order, for three seconds each. Participants were then asked to write down what they saw in each of the pictures, but their responses are not recorded by the experimenter. The purpose of this was to develop a perceptual set for faces based on the participant’s immediate past experience with the four pictures of faces.

In this experiment, toys such a small, solid, colorful block and an old flip cellular phone, are introduced to a baby, two to eight months old, to look at. First, experimenters present one toy, such as the solid colored block, in front of the infant and see how much information he absorbs while looking at the object- its’ shape, color, and texture. Then, they count how many seconds the baby stares at it without breaking eye contact. This step is repeated until the infant looks away from the toy again. Next, experimenters show the second toy, such as an old flip cellular phone, to the baby immediately after dropping the first object. They hold it up in front of the infant and count how many seconds the baby stares at it. This step is repeated until the baby looks away from the toy again. This

The experiment was to study color and orientation of encoding from different parts of objects. Color feature was altered in 50% of the trials and participants were asked to detect this change. The stimuli presented to each participant in on feature consisted visually a small circle with an oriented bar crossing in the middle of circle, forming a Saturn-like object. Each stimulus was displayed on a gray background and used black oriented bars with the small colored circles using 4 colors. Six display types were utilized: single-feature with 5 color, single-feature with 10 color displays, all contained the 5 and 10 circles with the colors being the main focus of this condition. The next two conditions were; single-feature with 5 orientation and single-feature with 10 orientation displays, however these features are focusing on the orientation of each of the bars that are being displayed. The final two displays are that of the

Shepard and Metzler (1971) investigated the use of spatial representations by determining whether mental manipulations were parallel to the manipulation of an actual physical object. In this experiment participants were asked to

While Klein (2000)'s research did aim to recreate this phenomenon clearly, the current study differentiated its self by introducing the letters L and T as cues to which provided no information about the location of the target as the presentation. As presentation of a single cue meant it was four times more likely for a cue and a target to appear on the same side. The purpose of this variation was that a majority of previous studies had presented the facilitation effect and the IOR effect in a scenario where the cues were equally as

Once we see the mean for ‘Gun’ after a ‘Black’ face was shown is less than that for ‘Tool’ after the ‘Black’ was shown. This shows that participants were more prompt to press button for Gun, then as a result of the mindset created by the black person’s picture. In fact, the reaction time for ‘Tool’ after ‘Black’ was largest in both experiments showing they were least expecting for the tool’s picture after a black person’s image. Therefore in experiment 2, the mean decreased as the participants had to press button as fast as possible, decreasing response times. Standard deviation shows the variability of reaction times within a given group. This also decreased in second experiment.

Participants were presented with a stimulus with two parts. Part A had two groupings of dots with a test length that represented the exterior distance of 40mm between the dots (With the interior distance being 10mm). As for the part B, there were again two groupings of dots, but with a representation of the interior distance of 40mm between the pair (With the exterior distance being 80mm). After being presented with the stimuli, the participants were instructed to observe it and report what they saw. Results found that from casual observation, the exterior distance of A was slightly larger than B. Coren and Girgis stated, by grouping via proximity not only results in conscious reorganization of the stimuli in the field but also in a slight distortion of the spaces in accord with the reorganization observed. According to the law of proximity, things grouped together tend to be due to being closer together. So since A’s interior was much closer than B’s, it made A’s exterior appear longer in distance even though they were the same

Perception is defined as how you look at others and the world around you. Being able to select, organize and intercept information starts the perceptual process. Perception affects the way people communicate with others. An individual’s pattern of thinking can affect their perception of others. Most people communicate best with people of similar cultures.

Similarly, both theories are supported by research. Lawson and Humphreys (1996), for example, showed that recognition is affected more by tilt of major axis (foreshortening) than any other rotation, which endorses Marr’s and Nishihara prediction that establishing a central axis is crucial to the process of recognition. Warrington and Taylor (1978) reported that brain damaged patients could recognize objects presented in a typical view only. These patients found difficult to say if two photographs presented simultaneously were the same object when one image was a typical view and the other an unusual view. Although this could be explained as the patient’s inability to transform a 2D version of the atypical view into a 3D model, it could also be due to difficulty in establishing the central axis or due to some features of the object being hidden. In a later study, Humphreys and Riddoch (1984) used images where either the axis had been foreshortened through rotation or a critical feature was hidden. They found that patients had more problems recognizing the images with a foreshortened axis than the ones where a critical feature was hidden. Their