This comment reviews the original Gestalt literature which introduced the concept of ‘closure’. It is argued that the meaning of ‘closure’ was confounded in the source literature and, thus, the term connotes more than it denotes. Research based on different measures of this ambiguous construct inevitably may not always converge.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Frederick-RECASCINOC. M.WisherJ. K. (2002) Closure principle: relations across do-mains. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 896–898.
2.
KoffkaK. (1928) Growth of the mind.New York: Harcourt, Brace.
3.
KohlerW. (1920) Physical Gestalten, Erlangen. In EllisW. D. (Ed.), A source book of Ce-stalt psychology.New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1938. Chap. 5.
4.
LevineJ. M. (1999) Solomon Asch's legacy for group research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 358–364.
5.
LeyensJ-R.CorneilleO. (1999) Arch's social psychology: not as social as you maythink. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 345–357.
6.
WassersteinJ.ZappullaR.RosenJ.GerstmanL.RockD. (1987) In search of closure: subjective contour illusions, Gestalt completion tests and implications. Brain and Cognition, 6, 1–14.
7.
WebsterD. M.HcruglanskiA. W. (1994) Individual differences in need for cognitiveclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062.
8.
WertheimerM. (1923) Laws of organization in perceptual forms. Psychologishe Forschung, 4, 301–350.
