Harvard Psychological Studies Part 60

From a.n.a.lysis of the pictures, the simplest suggestion of balance appeared in the setting off against each other of objects of different sizes;--an apparent equivalence of a large object near the center with a small object far from the center; thus inevitably suggesting the relations of the mechanical balance, or lever, in which the heavy short arm balances the light long arm. This was also the result of Dr. Pierce's experiments for one position of his fixed line. The experiments which follow, however, differ in some significant points from this result. The instrument used was the one described in the preceding section. On one side, in the middle of the vertical strip, was placed the 'fixed' line, denoted by F., and the subject moved the 'variable' line, denoted by V., until he found the arrangement aesthetically pleasing. The experimenter alone placed F. at the given reading, and read off the position of V. After the choice F. was placed at the next interval, V. was again tried in different positions, and so on. In the following tables the successive positions of F. are given in the left column, reading downward, and the corresponding positions of V. in the right column. The different choices are placed together, but in case of any preference the second choice is indicated. The measurements are always in millimeters. Thus, F. 40, V. 60, means that F. is 40 mm. to one side of the center, and V. 60 mm. to the opposite side. F. 8010, V. 16010, means that the white cardboard strips 80 mm.10 mm., etc., are used. The minus sign prefixed to a reading means that the variable was placed on the side of the fixed line. An X indicates aesthetic dislike--refusal to choose.

An asterisk (*) indicates a second choice.

The following tables are specimen sets made by the subjects _C, O_, and _D_.

I. (a) F. 8010, V. 16010.

F. V.

C. O. D.

40 62, 120 166, 130 28, 24 80 70, 110 104, 102 80, 126 120 46, X 70, 46 68,--44, 128*

160 26, 96 50, 25 85, 196,--88*

200 20, X 55, X --46, 230,* 220,--110*

I. (b) F. 16010, V. 8010.

F. V.

C. O. D.

40 74, 64 60, 96 27, 34 80 76, 65 72, 87 55, 138 120 60, 56 48, 82 70, 174 160 29, 74 16, 77 --114, 140, 138, 200 200 96, 36 25, 36 177,--146,--148, 230

Now, on Dr. Pierce's theory, the variable in the first set should be nearer the center, since it is twice the size of the fixed line;--but the choices V. 120, 166, 130 for F. 40; V. 110, 104, 102, 126 for F.

80; V. 128 for F. 120; V. 196 for F. 160; V. 230, 220 for F. 200, show that other forces are at work. If these variations from the expected were slight, or if the presence of second choices did not show a certain opposition or contrast between the two positions, they might disappear in an average. But the position of F. 40, over against V.

120, 166, 130, is evidently not a chance variation. Still more striking are the variations for I. (_b_). Here we should expect the variable, being smaller, to be farther from the center. But for F. 40, we have V. 27, 34; for F. 80, all nearer but two; for F. 120, V. 60, 56, 48, 82, 70; for F. 160, V. 29, 74, 16, 77, 138, and for F. 200, V.

96, 36, 25, 36, 177--while several positions on the same side of the center as the constant show a point of view quite irreconcilable with mechanical balance.

II. (a) F. 2 LINES 8010. V. SINGLE LINK 8010.

F. V.

C. O. P.

40- 60 58, 114* 138, 20 96, 84 166 60- 80 48 40, 138* 100, 56 150 80-100 64 70, 162* 47, 87 128 100-120 70 to 80 60 53, 53 X 120-140 58 82 50, 48 35 140-160 74 95 to 100 22, 32 37 160-180 72 102 X, X 42 180-200 90 X X, X 50

Here the variable should supposedly be the farther out; but we have V.

58, 20 for F. 40-60; V. 48, 40, 56 for F. 60; V. 64, 70, 87 for F. 80; no larger choice for F. 100-120; indeed, from this point on everything nearer, and very much nearer. We can trace in these cases, more clearly perhaps than in the preceding, the presence of definite tendencies. _O_ and _P_, from positions in accord with the mechanical theory, approach the center rapidly; while _C_ is seldom 'mechanical,'

but very slowly recedes from the center. The large number of refusals to choose a.s.sures us that the subjects demand a definitely pleasant arrangement--in other words, that every choice is the expression of a deliberate judgment.

Taking again the experiments 1. (a) and 1. (b), and grouping the results for nine subjects, _C_, _O_, _A_, _S_, _H_, _G_, _D_, and _P_, we obtain the following general types of choice. The experiments were repeated by each subject, so that we have eighteen records for each position. I should note here that preliminary experiments showed that near the frame the threshold of difference of position was 10 mm., or more, while near the center it was 4 or 5 mm.; that is, arrangements were often judged symmetrically equal which really differed by from 4 to 10 mm., according as they were near to or far from the center. In grouping types of choice, therefore, choices lying within these limits will be taken as belonging to the same type.

EXP. 1. (a) F.(80 X 10). V.(160 X 10).

1. F. 40. V. 40.

Types of Choice for V.

(1) 24 24 25 28 (2) 40 42 45 45 40 40 40 (3) 62 65 (4) 100 105 1O9 120 130 136 120 (5) 166 180 200 200 200 200 160 160

This table is obtained by taking from the full list, not given here, of 1. (b) F. (l60 X 10), V. (80 X 10), those positions of 160 X 10 where the variable 80 X 10 has been placed at or near 40, thus giving the same arrangement as for 1. (a).

It might be objected that a group 40-65 (2-3) would not be larger than one of 100-136 (4), but the break between 45 and 62 shows the zones not continuous. Moreover, as said above, the positions far from the center have a very large difference threshold.

I. (a) 2. F. 80:--(1) 24, (2) 50, (3) 68 70, (4) 80 85 94 95 85, (5) 102 104 110 120 124 126 125* 132, (6) 187; also V.

80:--(2) 40 40, (4) 80, (5) 120 120, (6) 160 160.

I. (a) 3. F. 120:--(1) 44 46, (2) 64 48 70 70, (3) 85 95 97 91, (4) 113 113 118, (5) 168 169 178;--44, X; also V.

120:--(1) 40 40, (3) 80 80 80, (4) 120 120, (5) 160 160.

I. (a) 4. F. 160:--(1) 25 26, (2) 40 50 57, (3) 82 85 95 100*, (4) 114 115 130, (5) 145 145 156 162, (6) 196, (7)--88*--150*--105.

I. (a) 5. F. 200:--(1) 20 23 28 36, (2) 55, (3) 108 124 130*, (4) 171 189 199 195, (5) 220 230*, (6)--46--90--110*.

On comparing the different groups, we find that in 1 and 2 there is a decided preference for a position somewhat less than half way between center and frame--more sharply marked for 1 than for 2. From 3 onward there is a decided preference for the mechanical arrangement, which would bring the larger strip nearer. Besides this, however, there are groups of variations, some very near the center, others approaching to symmetry. The maintenance of geometrical symmetry at a pretty constant ratio is to be noted; as also the presence of positions on the same side of the center as the fixed line. Before discussing the significance of these groups we may consider the results of Experiment II. (F. double line 8010, V. single line 8010) without giving complete lists.

We notice therein, first of all, the practical disappearance of the symmetrical choice; for F. 40-60, 60-80, 80-100, a tendency, decreasing, however, with distance from the center, to the mechanical arrangement; for F. 100-120, and all the rest, not one mechanical choice, and the positions confined almost entirely to the region 35-75. In some cases, however, the mechanical choice for (1) 40-80, (2) 60-80, was one of two, _e.g._, we have for (1) 20 and 138, for (3) 70 and 162; in the last two cases the mechanical being the second choice.

Now the reversals of the mechanical choice occur for Exp. I. in 1 and 2 (F. 40 and F. 80); that is, when the small fixed line is near the center, the larger variable is distant. For Exp. II. the reversals, which are much more marked, occur in all cases _beyond_ F. 40, F. 60 and F. 80; that is, when the double constant line is far from the center, the single variable approaches. If the mechanical theory prevailed, we should have in Exp. I. the lines together in the center, and in Exp. II. both near the fringe.

From the individual testimony, based both on I. (_a_) and I. (_b_), it appears that subject _M_ is perfectly uniform in mechanical choice when the fixed line is the small line--_i.e._ when it moves out, the larger is placed near the center; but when the conditions of mechanical choice would demand that, as the larger fixed line moves out, the small variable one should move out farther, he regularly chooses the reverse. Nevertheless, he insists that in just these cases he has a feeling of equilibrium.

_A_ also takes the mechanical choice as the small fixed line goes farther from the center; but when the fixed line is large and leaves the center, he reverses the mechanical choice--evidently because it would take the small line too far out. As he says, 'he is always disturbed by too large a black s.p.a.ce in the center.'

_G_ almost always takes the mechanical choice;--in one whole set of experiments, in which the fixed line is the large line, he reverses regularly.

_H_ takes for F. (8010) the mechanical choice only for the positions F. 160 and F. 200--_i.e._, only when F. is very far from the center and he wishes V. (16010) nearer. For F. (16010) he makes six such choices out of ten, but for positions F. 160 and F. 200 he has V. 44, 65 and 20.

_S_ takes for F. (16010) at F. 120, V. 185 and-70; says of V. 185, which is also his choice for F. (16010) at F. 80, 'I cannot go out further, because it is so hard to take in the whole field.' For F.

(16010) at F. 200, he has V. 130 and 60; says of V. 60, 'Very agreeable elements in connection with the relation of the two lines.'

_C_ takes for F. (8010) only one mechanical choice until it is at F.

120. Then always mechanical, _i.e._, nearer center; for F. (16010) makes after the position F. 40 no mechanical choice, _i.e._, V. is nearer center.

It is evident from the above tables and individual cases that the reversals from the mechanical choice occur only when the mechanical choice would bring both lines in the center, or both near the edges, and the subjective testimony shows from what point of view this appears desirable. The subjects wish 'to take in the whole field,'

they wish 'not to be disturbed by too large a black s.p.a.ce in the center'; and when, in order to cover in some way the whole s.p.a.ce, the small line is drawn in or the large one pushed out, they have, nevertheless, a feeling of equilibrium in spite of the reversal of mechanical balance.

Accepting for the present, without seeking a further psychological explanation, the type of 'mechanical balance,' in which amount of s.p.a.ce is a subst.i.tute for weight, as the one most often observed, we have to seek some point of view from which this entire reversal is intelligible. For even the feeling that 'the whole field must be covered' would hardly account for an exact interchanging of positions.

If size gives 'weight,' why does it not always do so? A simple answer would seem to be given by the consideration that we tend to give most attention to the center of a circ.u.mscribed s.p.a.ce, and that any object in that center will get proportionately more attention than on the outskirts. The small line near the center, therefore, would attract attention by virtue of its centrality, and thus balance the large line, intrinsically more noticeable but farther away. Moreover, all the other moments of aesthetic pleasure, derived from the even filling of the s.p.a.ce, would work in favor of this arrangement and against the mechanical arrangement, which would leave a large black s.p.a.ce in the middle.

The hypothesis, then, that the demand for the filling of the whole s.p.a.ce without large gaps anywhere enters into compet.i.tion with the tendency to mechanical balance, and that this tendency is, nevertheless, reconciled with that demand through the power of a central position to confer importance, would seem to fit the facts. It is, of course, clear that neither 'mechanical balance' nor the balance of 'central' with 'intrinsic' importance have been yet accounted for on psychological grounds; it is sufficient at this point to have established the fact of some kind of balance between elements of different qualities, and to have demonstrated that this balance is at least not always to be translated into the 'mechanical' metaphor.

_C. Experiments on Movement._

In the preceding experiments the element of size was isolated, and it was sought to discover, in pleasing combinations of objects of different sizes, the presence of some kind of balance and the meaning of different tendencies of arrangement. The relative value of the two objects was taken as determined on the a.s.sumption, supported by common sense, that under like conditions a large object is given more attention than a small one. If the unequal objects seem to balance each other, then the only other condition in which they differ, their distance from the center, must be the cause of their balancing. Thus the influence of relative position, being the only unknown quant.i.ty in this balance-equation, is easily made out.