Table Of ContentA SAGTORIAL investigation
OF SPEED OF PERCEPTION OF STUDIOS DIFFERENCES
by
Charles Alan Boswell \ ^ -
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Department of Psychology in the
Graduate College of the State
University of Iowa
August 1950
State University of Iowa
LIBRARY
ProQuest Number: 10598584
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
uest
ProQuest 10598584
Published by ProQuest LLC (2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346
T ^ b O °
.6THT
CO jG» dL»
ACiaJa^DG^KTS
The author Is indebted, first of all, to
Professor Harold P* Bechtoldt, whose careful
supervision during all phases of the investiga
tion is considered invaluable* Grateful acknow
ledgment is also made to Dr* W« Grant Dahlstrom
for assistance during the preparation of the
manuscript, to the College of liberal Arts of
the State University of Iowa for financial as
sistance and to my wife, hois B* Boswell, for
constant encouragement and help*
TABLE OF COWENTS
Chapter Page
I* Introduction ..................... 1
Utilization of Response Consistencies
and Inconsistencies ......................*......... 2
Use of Factor Analysis in Studying Trait
Uniformities .............................. 4
Results of Factor Analysis Studies 6
The Perceptual Speed Domain . . . .................... 8
The Factor .................................. 11
Statement of the Problem ......... 17
II. She Investigation.................. 25
The Subjects........................ 23
The Testing Procedure ........... 23
The Tests ........... 24
The Factor Analysis ........... 36
III* Results and Discussion .................... 40
The Factors ............. * 40
Discussion ......... 61
Problems for Further Investigation....................64
I?. Summary and Conclusions ...................... 67
Bibliography ......... 71
Appendix A ...................... 75
Appendix B ........... 84
iii
ThBlE OF TABIE3
Table Page
X. Uae Test Battery................... £1
II* Simplified Rotated Factorial Pattern ........... 39
III# Data on the Subjects . . . .. . ........................ *......... 74
I?* Produet-Moment Correlations Between the
Variables ......... . .......................................... 75
V# Arbitrary Orthogonal Factor M atrix ............. 78
VI. The Transformation Matrix ............ 79
?II. Cosines of the Angles Between the Reference
Vectors .......................... 80
rax. The Rotated Factor Matrix ................................. 81
IX. Distribution of Hath Factor Residuals . . . . ............. 82
X. Correlations Between the Primary Vectors ......... 85
iv
1
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
During the last half century of the history of psychol
ogy a considerable amount of psychological endeavor has been di
rected toward the study of Individual differences. The mental test
movement and the personnel, educational, and olinical psychological
investigations are well known examples of the types of activities
dealing in large part with individual differences. As a result of
the research in these areas, a number of er^irical consistencies
have been achieved together with some useful or pragmatic relations
between response attributes and sensory thresholds, rates of acqui
sition of new habits, the effects of different classes of incentives,
and the changes in the stimulus dimensions.
The empirical consistencies, in turn, have presented a
challenge to some psychologists to formulate constructs which would
account for the relations among the observations. Differences in
absolute or difference limens, in asymptotic as well as initial per
formance levels, in incentives or in experiences, have been proposed
by many experimental psychologists as accounting for the observed
differences in performances. Other investigators, primarily those
in the "testing" fields, have tended to express the observed response
consietencies in terms of constructs defined by the responses ob
tained under specific stimulus conditions.
2
Utilization of Besoonse Consistencies
and Inconsistencies
Studies of the relations between performance measures and
variations in the stimulus conditions have shown that individuals
who perform in some specified way (say, most rapidly) in one activity
may not do nearly so well in some other task, even when the two tasks
appear superficially to be quite similar* For other types of active
ities, individuals tend to maintain the same rank orders for the set
of tasks, those who perform rapidly or accurately in one situation
demonstrating similar relative performances on a number of other
tasks*
The contrast between the invariance of the rank ordering
of individuals by one class of operations and the absence of such
stability when some relevant or significant change is introduced into
the defining operations raises the possibility of describing behavior
in terms of these changes in the stimulus situations or in terms of
constructs defined by such stimulus variations* The factor analysts
and personnel psychologists have tended to express these systematic
shifts in the rank orders in terms of response inferred constructs,
such as traits, abilities, Interests, etc*, rather than in the form
of stimulus variables per se. The implications of these constructs
is that the traits or noperational or functional unities," as they
are sometimes called, represent stimulus-response mechanisms, the
3
operation of which Is reflected in the performance of individuals
on a variety of tasks. The constructs themselves are defined by
the specification of the operations and stimulus conditions which
can be shown to be influential or relevant* !*©♦, those procedures
and conditions which make significant contributions to the variance
of the behavior evaluations*
The several individuals are considered as having different
mounts of skill in these different response mechanisms* The formu
lation in terms of traits or functional unities rather than stimulus
dimensions alone seems justified at the present state of knowledge
by the existence of the conspicuous differences in performance asso
ciated with even "slight* changes in the stimulus variables* The
stimulus dimensions for many tasks my not be amenable at present to
systematic experimental variation. Furthermore, the relevant experi
mental conditions and the effects attributable to changes in the
stimulus dimensions are nearly all unknown at present* The eventual
resolution of the observed differences in performance in specific
trait In terns of the experimental conditions associated with the de
velopment of the trait or with the physiological characteristics of
the organism can be considered goals of soma psychologists interested
in individual differences* The trait or functional unity approach
may provide, however, a basis for the prediction and control of human
behavior in a number of activities prior to the reduction of trait
1
concepts to other perhaps more basic terms*
Guilford (8) and Thurston© (IS) have pointed out how a
rational approach to test construction and differential prediction
can be made through the use of trait constructs* They suggest that
by isolating the common traits or abilities which are called upon
in educational and employment situations, mare effective job analy
ses and differential predictions may be made. The trait constructs
should lead to a more nearly logical or systematic preparation of
the selection tests rather than the present largely en$>irical one
based on trial and error methods. Guilford even suggests in a per
haps unduly enthusiastic passage, that statements of the factorial
con$>osition of a test are of greater significance in applied psy
chology than those describing its reliability or empirical validity
(8, page 457 }*
Use of Factor Analysis in Studying
aaaae tans ssskcsesssbs rTBC.TsstrrrBrja apes
TTait Uniformities
The search for, and operational definition of, tar aits
having some degree of generality (i.e., a common ordering of per
formance evaluations obtained from two or more situations) are char
acteristic of the factor analysis method of investigating the uni
formities In behavior* The psychologist using these methods of
analysis will formulate his hypotheses in terms of skills, habits,
5
or abilities which will either augment, reduce, or be associated
with performances In some class of stimulus situations defined, say,
by the type of instructions, the method of presentation of the stim
uli, the method of response, the arrangement of the materials, the
number of repetitions, the "content" or nature of the stimuli, etc,
the factor analysis approach constitutes a basic explora
tory tool} the results of the investigation are considered as pro
viding indications of the relevant sources of variance common to a
variety of tasks* These methods of investigation emphasise the de
termination of the traits possessing the greatest stability (invari
ance} and generality (scope of a common factor)} such traits should
provide the greatest number of significant relations#
The definition of a functional unity by the procedure of
factor analysis involves no assumption as to the origin of the trait}
the source of the response consistencies may lie in the cultural or
physical environment or in the physiological structure of the indi
vidual# The trait may be acquired or inherited, easily modified or
resistant to change, specific to a restricted class of situations or
possessing considerable generality# They may represent differential
rates of acquisition of habits, differential asynspbotic levels of
performance or differences in the amount or conditions of training#
