An experimental group (n = 20) permitted to discuss their responses to the Poggendorff Illusion showed significantly less illusion than two other groups (ns = 20) not afforded this opportunity. Results were discussed in relation to perceptual developmental models.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BayerC. A.An explanation of developmental differences in the successive trials effect of the Poggendorff illusion. Psychonomic Science, 1972, 26, 85–86.
2.
JuddC. H.Practice and its effects on the perception of illusions. Psychological Review, 1902, 9, 27–39.
3.
KoehlerW.WallachH.Figure after-effects: An investigation of visual process. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 1944, 88, 263–357.
4.
LangerJ.The representation of perceptual phenomena: A comparison of nonverbal (linear) representation with linguistic coding. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Clark Univer., Worcester, Mass., 1962.
5.
LeibowitzH. W.GwozdeckiJ.The magnitude of the Poggendorff illusion as a function of age. Child Development, 1967, 38, 573–580.
6.
MillerA.An experimental study of the role of sensory-motor activity in the retention of verbal meaning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Clark Univer., Worcester, Mass., 1959.
7.
PresseyA. W.SweeneyO.A variation of the Poggendorff illusion. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1969, 28, 883–886.
8.
PresseyA. W.SweeneyO.Age changes in the Poggendorff illusion as measured by a method of production. Psychonomic Science, 1970, 19, 100.
9.
WapnerS.WernerH.Perceptual development: An investigation within the framework of sensory-tonic field theory.Worcester: Clark Univer. Press, 1957.
10.
WernerH.Comparative psychology of mental development.Chicago: Follett, 1957.
