Slides

PsychExchange.co.uk Shared Resource

Description
1. Perception<br /> 2. Gestalt laws of organisation<br />Navon (1977)<br />Research to find out if the whole is seen before the sum of its parts in…
Categories
Published
of 19
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  • 1. Perception<br />
  • 2. Gestalt laws of organisation<br />Navon (1977)<br />Research to find out if the whole is seen before the sum of its parts in order to support the gestalt assumption “the whole is more than the sum of its parts”. Participants had to identify a single large letter or the smaller letters that made up the large letter. IV = if small letters were the same or conflicted with the large letter. DV = time to identify small and large letters.<br />Findings were that there was no time difference in identifying the large letter whether the letters that made it up were the same or different. There was a greater time difference when identifying the smaller letters and large letters if they were different, than when they were the same. Therefore this theory supports the gestalt view that the whole is available before the sum of its parts.<br />
  • 3. Gestalt laws of organisation<br />
  • 4. Form Constancy<br />Helmholtz (1910) <br />Explains unconscious inference as we make a mental judgement, which is done without us being aware of it, based on only the information that we have.<br />
  • 5. The Muller-Lyer illusion (also look at Gregory’s theory of perception)<br />Segall et al. (1963)<br />Found that people westernised people who lived in buildings where the materials were straight with right angle joints were more susceptible to this illusion. This demonstrates that experience determines how we perceive illusions. However, they were criticised that the reason for this could have been due to the fact that the materials were drawings on paper and the differences could have just been due to peoples different experiences of 2D drawings.<br />
  • 6. The Muller-Lyerillusion (2)<br />
  • 7. The Necker cube and Rubin’s vase<br />The necker cube results in us flipping between the two perceptions of the cube the longer we look at it.<br />Rubin’s vase – we either see the two faces or the vase first, our perceptual system cannot reject either.<br />
  • 8. Necker cube<br />
  • 9. Rubin’s vase<br />
  • 10. Gibson’s theory of visual perception<br />Gibson (1966) Direct approach to perception<br />His theory is known as bottom-up processing as information comes in from the environment through our senses to the retina, and after this the higher levels of perceptual analysis begin in the brain. His theory contains 3 important aspects:<br />Optic flow patterns – Lee and Lishman (1975)<br />The role of invariants in perception (cue to distance and depth)<br />Affordances (pattern of stimulation tells us if we can eat, sit on object etc. Based on its properties)<br />
  • 11. Gregory’s theory of visual perception (1)<br />Gregory (1972)<br />He believes that we need to take into account stored knowledge of objects, as perception is an active and constructive process, unlike Gibson. Therefore his theory is known as top-down processing. The reason for this is that he states that we perceive objects based on our previous experiences of them or expectations of them from our previously stored knowledge.<br />Sometimes when words are written with spelling errors we are still able to read and understand what the writer intended us to read, this would demonstrate this process due to our previous knowledge of how the word is spelt and therefore we can recognise it.<br />MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMP. SHE ALSO HAD A BEAR. I’VE OFTEN SEEN HER LITTLE LAMP. BUT I HAVE NEVER SEEN HER BARE.<br />
  • 12. Gregory’s theory of visual perception (2)<br />Perceptions as a hypothesis<br />Gregory compares perception to hypothesis formulation. Sensory receptors pick up signals which then trigger neural events. These draw on previously saved knowledge in the brain and help us to understand the world.<br />His evidence comes from the Necker cube and when we only have partial sensory information. His theory can be applied to the Muller-Lyer illusion with depth cues. (page 204)<br />
  • 13. Perceptual set – expectation (1)<br />Bruner and Minturn (1955)<br />Demonstrated expectation by showing an ambiguous figure 13 which could be perceived as a B in a set of letters or numbers. The context influences us as to what we see. Sometimes we miss printing errors because we see what we expect rather than what is actually printed.<br />
  • 14. Perceptual set – expectation (2)<br />Bugelski and Alampay (1961)<br />Used a rat man figure, if participants had seen loads of animals prior to the figure they would perceive it as a rat due to expectations whereas if they had seen unrelated pictures beforehand they were less likely to see the rat.<br />
  • 15. Motivation<br />Gilchrist and Nesberg (1952)<br />Used food deprivation to get participants to rate how bright a picture of food was. They found that those who had been deprived of food had a heightened sensitivity because they were motivated by their hunger or thirst and therefore saw the food pictures as brighter than those who had not been deprived of food. Wording can also be misperceived if you are hungry or sex starved and interpreted accordingly. Eg: In psychology we refer to a theorist called Funk which could be interpreted as something sexual or Skinner for someone dieting could be thinner or skinnier etc.<br />
  • 16. Emotion (1)<br />Perceptual sensitisation – we are more likely to recognise something unconsciously because our recognition threshold for a stimulus is lowered.<br />Lazarus and McCleary (1951)<br />Gave participants electric shocks when showing them nonsense syllables and measuring their anxiety levels through the galvanic skin response. When they were later exposed to those syllables as well as others so quickly they were not consciously perceiving them their anxiety levels were raised with the nonsense syllables that they were shocked with.<br />
  • 17. Emotion (2)<br />Perceptual defence – a stimulus is harder to recognise because our recognition threshold is raised.<br />Malim (1994)<br />Introduced anxiety provoking stimuli which could be repressed and are therefore more difficult to recognise on a conscious level.<br />McGinnies (1949)<br />Presented participants with some neutral words eg: apple and emotionally arousing words eg: whore. It was found that the participants took longer to name the emotionally arousing words than the neutral ones and they experienced higher anxiety levels with the emotionally arousing words.<br />
  • 18. Culture<br />There could be cultural differences in perception as shown with the Muller-Lyer illusion where non-Europeans did not make the error whereas European adults and children did.<br />Deregowski (1972)<br />Performed a cross-cultural study. Presented participants with a top view perspective of a picture or a split view of a picture (elephant) and they were asked which one was preferred. It was found that quite a few cultures preferred the split picture because they could see both sides of the picture. African children and adults preferred split. This demonstrates that environment and culture shape and determine our perception of the world.<br />
  • 19. Deregowski<br />
  • We Need Your Support
    Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

    Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

    No, Thanks