In a three-variable study of Mueller-Lyer decrement, each of eight independent groups of 10 subjects responded 30 times to one of the two Mueller-Lyer components by the Method of Reproduction. The mean of the initial Out response was significantly greater absolutely than that of the In response. All three interactions were significant. The In figure demonstrated illusion decrement across the 30 trials, but the Out figure demonstrated illusion increment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamJBatemanL. (1983) A correlational analysis of symmetry between the arrow-head and featherhead Mueller-Lyer illusions. Perception, 12, 119–129.
2.
BrossM.BlairR.LongtinP. (1978) Assimilation theory, attentive fields, and the Mueller Lyer illusion. Perception, 7, 297–304.
3.
ChristieP. S. (1975) Asymmetry in the Mueller-Lyer illusion: Artifact or genuine effect?Perception, 4, 453–457.
4.
CorenS.GirgusJ. S. (1972) A comparison of five methods of illusion measurement. Behavioral Research Methods & Instrumentation, 4, 240–244.
5.
DevaneJ. R. (1990) Exemplar effect in Mueller-Lyer decrement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 15–18.
6.
ErlebacherA.SekulerR. (1974) Perceived length depends on exposure duration: Straight lines and Mueller-Lyer stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 724–728.
7.
Greist-BousquetS.SchiffmanH. R. (1981) The role of structural components in the Mueller-Lyer illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 30, 505–511.
8.
PresseyA. W.MoroT. L. (1971) An explanation of Cooper and Runyon's results on the Mueller-Lyer illusion. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 32, 564–566.
9.
SweeneyO. (1972) Successive trials effects in the two forms of the Mueller-Lyer illusion. Microfiche available from Micromedia Limited, Place du Portage, Hull, Québec J8X 3X2, $63 US.
