The technique of the Rod-and-frame Test as used by most psychologists is criticized for difficulties in control of head position, starting position effects, control readings, and the effect of instructions. Differences in results reported with Witkin's method and with other methods are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdevaiG.SilvermanA. J., & McGoughW. E.MMPI findings in field-dependent and field-independent subjects. Percept. mot. Skills, 1968, 26, 3–8.
2.
AschS. E., & WitkinH. A.Studies in space orientation: I. Perception of the upright with displaced visual fields. J. exp. Psychol., 1948, 38, 325–337. (a)
3.
AschS. E., & WitkinH. A.Studies in space orientation: II. Perception of the upright with displaced visual fields and with body tilted. J. exp. Psychol., 1948, 38, 455–477. (b)
4.
BarrettG. V., & ThorntonC. L.Two methods of determining body sensitivity: A comparison and evaluation. Percept. mot. Skills, 1967, 25, 374–376. (a)
5.
BarrettG. V., & ThorntonC. L.Cognitive style differences between engineers and college students. Percept. mot. Skills, 1967, 25, 789–793. (b)
6.
BenfariR., & VitaleP.Relationship between vertical orientation in the Rod-and-frame Test and in a compensatory tracking task. Percept. mot. Skills, 1965, 20, 1078–1080.
7.
BlockJ.A study of affective responsiveness in a lie-detection situation. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957, 55, 11–15.
8.
CabeP.Note on response sets on the Rod-and-frame Test. Percept. mot. Skills, 1968, 26, 94.
9.
CohenW., & TepasD.Temporal factors in the perception of verticality. Amer. J. Psychol., 1958, 71, 760–763.
10.
CulverC. M.Anisometropia and the Rod-and-frame Test. Percept. mot. Skills, 1967, 25, 377–384.
11.
ElliotR.Interrelationships among measures of field dependence, ability, and personality traits. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1961, 63, 27–36.
12.
GoldsteinG., & ChotlosJ. W.Stability of field dependence in chronic alcoholic patients. J. abnorm. Psychol., 1966, 71, 420.
13.
GrossF.The role of set in perception of the upright. J. Pers., 1959, 27, 95–103.
JacobsonG. R.Effect of brief sensory deprivation on field dependence. J. abnorm. Psychol., 1966, 71, 115–118.
18.
KarpS. A.WitkinH. A., & GoodenoughD. R.Alcoholism and psychological differentiation: Effect of alcohol on field dependence. J. abnorm. Psychol., 1965, 70, 262–265.
19.
MannC. W.Visual factors in the perception of verticality. J. exp. Psychol., 1952, 44, 460–464.
20.
MannC. W.Berthelot-BerryN., & DauteriveH. J.The perception of the vertical: I. Visual and non-labyrinthine cues. J. exp. Psychol., 1949, 39, 538–547.
21.
MannC. W., & BoringR. O.The role of instruction in experimental space perception. J. exp. Psychol., 1953, 45, 44–48
22.
MinardJ. G.Frame disappearance and Rod-and-frame Test performance. Percept. mot. Skills, 1967, 24, 616.
23.
MorantR. B., & AronoffJ.Starting position, adaptation, and visual framework as influencing the perception of verticality. J. exp. Psychol., 1966, 71, 684–686.
24.
MorrisJ. B.The rod-and-frame box: A portable version of the Rod-and-frame Test. Percept. mot. Skills, 1967, 25, 152.
25.
OrneM. T.On the social psychology of the psychology experiment. Amer. Psychologist, 1962, 17, 778–783.
26.
PedersenD. M.Ego strength and discrepancy between conscious and unconscious self-concepts. Percept. mot. Skills, 1965, 20, 691–692.
27.
du PreezP.Field dependence and accuracy of comparison of time intervals. Percept., mot. Skills, 1967, 24, 467–472.
28.
PresseyA. W.Field dependence and susceptibility to the Poggendorff illusion. Percept. mot. Skills, 1967, 24, 309–310.
29.
SchwartzD. S., & KarpS. A.Field dependence in a geriatric population. Percept. mot. Skills, 1967, 24, 495–504.
30.
TaftR., & CoventryJ.Neuroticism, extraversion, and the perception of the vertical. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1958, 56, 139–142.
31.
VaughtG. M.The relationship of role identification and ego strength to sex differences in the rod-and-frame test. J. Pers., 1965, 33, 271–283.
32.
WeinerM.The effects of differently structured visual fields on the perception of verticality. Amer. J. Psychol., 1955, 68, 291–293. (a)
33.
WeinerM.Effects of training in space orientation on perception of the upright. J. exp. Psychol., 1955, 49, 367–373. (b)
34.
WernerH., & WapnerS.Experiments on sensory tonic field theory of perception: IV. Effect of initial position of a rod on apparent verticality. J. exp. Psychol., 1952, 43, 68–74.
35.
WitkinH. A.The effect of training and of structural aids on performance in three tests of space orientation. Washington, D. C.: C. A. A., Division of Research, October, 1948. (Rep. No. 80)
36.
WitkinH. A.Perception of the upright when the direction of the force acting on the body is changed. J. exp. Psychol., 1950, 40, 93–106.
37.
WitkinH. A.Comment on “The role of instruction in experimental space orientation.”J. exp. Psychol., 1953, 46, 135.
38.
WitkinH. A., & AschS. E.Studies in space orientation: III. Perception of the upright in the absence of a visual field. J. exp. Psychol., 1948, 38, 603–614. (a)
39.
WitkinH. A., & AschS. E.Studies in space orientation: IV. Further experiments on perception of the upright with displaced visual fields. J. exp. Psychol., 1948, 38, 762–782. (b)
40.
WitkinH. A.LewisH. B.HertzmanM.MachoverK.MeissnerP. B., & WapnerS.Personality through perception. New York: Harper, 1954.
41.
WolfA.Body rotation and the stability of field dependence. J. Psychol., 1965, 59, 211–217.
42.
YoungH. H.A test of Witkin's field-dependence hypothesis. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1959, 59, 188–192.
43.
ZiglerE.A measure in search of a theory?Contemp. Psychol., 1963, 8, 133–135.
