Hi We can conclude absolutely nothing from the fact that one participant in an experiment showed a pattern opposite to the expected effect, other than that humans (especially those named Michael involved in counseling in Arkansas) are variable in their behavior.
There is one wrinkle on your test (i.e., gradually revealing the horse). Mary Potter and others demonstrated a number of years ago that under these conditions people sometimes generate incorrect hypotheses about the picture, which in fact delays their eventual recognition. But this should affect the two conditions equally, unless they generate an incorrect animal name in the animal prime condition more than in the neutral prime condition. Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 27-Sep-07 2:24 PM >>> Michael, I would say (with tongue-in-cheek) that the experiment worked perfectly: your subconscious mind had to time to mull over the images of the animals and by the second time through the experiment when you saw the horse your brain had it all figured out. I don't know how to explain it. That's not what's supposed to happen according to what I know about perceptual set research. Maybe someone else has an explanation. Someone already suggested to me that I need a picture of a horse among the animal pictures. Maybe the experiment would have worked as expected if I did that. Guess I have to find myself a picture of a horse. Michael Michael Britt Host of The Psych Files www.thepsychfiles.com > I didn't read your description, but just clicked on the link. My attempt > at clicking on condition 1 didn't work at first, so I chose condition 2. > After seeing all of the animals, I couldn't see the horse. Then, I went > through condition 1 (no animals), and saw the horse and rider clearly! > How do you explain that? > > > Michael T. Scoles, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Psychology & Counseling > University of Central Arkansas > Conway, AR 72035 > 501-450-5418 > > > --- --- ---
