Part 2 — THE ESTIMATION OF NUMBER

BY C. T. BURNETT

I. There are situations not a few in life in which we find ourselves estimating the number of objects in some group. Sometimes we desire to know merely whether the group is large or small. Sometimes we try to reach an absolute number that shall approximate roughly to the real number. Sometimes, again, we only care to know whether the group in question is more or less numerous than some other group that we have before us or perhaps recall in memory. The public speaker finds himself wondering whether this present scattering audience is larger than the one that last night crowded into the front seats. The farmer riding between adjoining orchards judges roughly the prospective yield by a comparative estimate of the fruit in sight. The politician too has an interest that is very notable indeed in such rough numerical estimates. He asks himself, for example, whether the voters will be more influenced by reports favorable to his party sent in from numerous small towns or by such reports from a few large centres. Or perhaps he is planning a demonstration in favor of his candidate. His problem then is so to arrange his procession that five hundred men will look like five thousand. Turning to another field, how is it that the enrolment in some institutions of learning seems larger and the size of the faculty more portentous than in other similar institutions that are really of about the same size?

These examples bring to mind our interest in rough numerical estimates and at the same time suggest the probability that we are swayed back and forth in these estimations without ever a numerical difference occurring in the objects of our judgment. These considerations lead us on, then, to an enquiry about the factors that can thus influence our estimation of number.

II. INFLUENCE OF FACTORS IN THE SAME SENSE-FIELD AS THE OBJECTS WHOSE RELATIVE NUMEROUSNESS IS IN QUESTION.

The experiments described in the following pages are concerned with the influence exerted on the judgment of a given factor by other factors presented at the same time. The object of judgment in these studies is visual number, which is to be submitted under varying conditions of the objects whose number is in question, for example, varying conditions of form, size, distribution, with the intent to discover whether this judgment is a function of these other factors as well as of the numerical. The scope of the enquiry includes both relative and absolute number.

The objects chosen as a basis for the number-judgment were bits of paper pasted in two well-defined groups side by side upon a background of black cardboard. This card fitted into an upright frame where it was held in place by a pivoted spring, which allowed easy adjustment and removal of the card. The opening of the frame, 15×20 cm. was concealed at will from the observer by a black wooden screen that played up and down on guiding posts, when released by a cord and lever from the catch that held it in place before the card. It fell by gravity upon a cushion that deadened the sound; and it was restored to its position by the operator's thrusting his fingers beneath and lifting it till the catch above caught and held. The entire apparatus, as well as the operator's movements, was concealed from the observer by a large black cardboard screen resting upon a black-covered table. The one opening in this screen was just large enough to allow a full view of the card when the inner wooden screen fell from sight.

This apparatus which we will call the Two-Group Apparatus, admitted of simultaneous exposure of the two groups of objects, and that only. At first, to make successive exposure possible, a light wooden frame was constructed in whose grooves two leaves of black cardboard ran like sliding doors. By means of rods fastened to their outer edges these leaves could be pulled apart or thrust together till their inner edges met. When this apparatus was placed between the outer screen and the frame bearing the card, and the inner wooden screen had been dropped out of the way, this substitute divided screen was sufficient roughly to accomplish the end in view.

With this apparatus the illumination was daylight, coming through a very large window at the back of the observers. By means of a curtain, marked variations in the light could be prevented.

For the length of simultaneous exposure of the groups the following rule was adopted: Each observer was to be allowed time enough to get a satisfactory feeling of relative number, but not time enough to admit of counting. This time was kept constant during the work of any one sitting. As the weeks went on, it was found possible, under the rule laid down above, to shorten the time for some of the observers, and to use with all the same length of exposure that had sufficed for the speediest. The range of variation was from 1.2 sec. to 1.6 sec. Time was measured by the ticks of a watch. Later tests showed for the time studied that, where effective at all, the longer exposure diminished a given tendency. Often it had no apparent effect.

The method of control already described is not only rather rough but does not exclude the possibility of a space error. This possibility proved actual by experiment. So an apparatus was contrived that should present the groups in succession at approximately the same place and should shorten the exposure, if desirable, to a small fraction of a second.

This new apparatus, which we will call the One-Group Apparatus, required artificial light and a dark room. By means of a 125 cp. incandescent electric lamp, images of the groups of objects were reflected through the lens of a camera and came to a focus upon its ground-glass screen. A second screen of ground glass was placed in front of the first and as close to it as possible, that an even distribution of light might be obtained. The cards containing the objects were of the same general character as in the earlier experiments. They were held in a moveable slide whereby each group in succession could be brought before the lens. When the slide was drawn to the limit in one direction a single circle appeared in a black field. This circle was used as a signal and a means for directing the eye in the dark to that region where the groups were to appear. The exposures were made with a camera bulb, the shutter being set for instantaneous movement, with diaphragm 22 and length of exposure 126 sec. A shorter time was thought on trial to make perception too difficult. The apparatus rested upon a table of special construction and was enclosed as far as the glass screen with a wooden frame covered with denim. Double curtains of this material formed this enclosure on one side and made possible an easy adjustment of the cards between exposures, as well as the admission of the operator's hand during a given experiment for the adjustment of the shutter. This had to be set, of course, before each of the three exposures constituting one experiment. During its progress the hand was not removed at all, the curtains falling about the arm in such a way that little light escaped. The other hand managed the moveable slide from behind the enclosure.

Time was measured by watch-ticks. The three exposures—dot-signal, Group 1, Group 2—were separated from each other by intervals of 1.6 sec. This was fixed upon as the minimum for convenient operation of the apparatus.

In much of the experimentation on relative number two observers were employed at once. Their chairs were placed closely side by side on a line about 150 cm. from the plane in which the groups appeared. These groups were not very far from being on a level with the eye. Each observer recorded his own judgment, against the number of that experiment. There were three possible kinds of judgments,—equality or either group larger. If the judgment was of difference it was recorded in terms of the larger.

When the dark room was used, special arrangements were required, for convenience of the observers in making their record. After several schemes were tested the following was adopted as least trying to their eyes: A large, black-topped table was placed before them, bearing an electric lamp enclosed in a black box with a small aperture that could be closed at pleasure; or, if left open, did not let enough light escape to disturb the perception of the groups.

The absolute number of objects in the groups was determined, first, by the character of the problem, and then by convenience. If we are to learn anything about the influence exerted upon the number-judgment by other factors than the numerical, we must eliminate all influence of the latter. Correct judgments may be determined by this factor alone; erroneous judgments must have been otherwise conditioned; and these conditions it is the task of our method to isolate and study, as modifying factors. From correct judgments we learn nothing definite about our problem, but from erroneous everything. Other things being equal, it is preferable to eliminate from the results the influence of this numerical factor, just as one handles any other disturbing, unavoidable element, by equalizing the numbers in the two groups.

What may be called the standard number of objects in each is twenty. This choice was governed by the purpose of using a number large enough to make counting impossible in a brief time and yet not so large as unnecessarily to increase the labor of preparation and the difficulty, for the observer, of getting an idea of the groups as a whole. To the cards containing equal groups, 20 to 20, were added others, 20 to 19, 19 to 20, for the purpose of easy variation in arrangement, by omitting one object from a group, without making the actual numerical difference easily perceivable. In later work these small objective differences were dropped. Yet other cards, 23 to 17, 17 to 23, were added, to the end that the observers might find unmistakeable number-differences, and so not be bothered by the suspicion that the groups were all equal. The reversal of the number-relations, as indicated above, was in the interest of equalizing the influence of the actual numerical factor in the two groups.

The following proportion was kept among the numbers of observations made upon each kind of card: 12 upon groups objectively equal; 512 upon those differing by one from each other, where half each went to (20 to 19) and (19 to 20); 112 to those showing the maximum objective difference of six, where again half went to (17 to 23) and half to (23 to 17). Of course the observations upon cards of this last sort are excluded from the tables.

As to the number of cards employed for each series of experiments, it was found at first convenient to use seven,—3 (20 to 20), 1 (20 to 19), 1 (19 to 20), 1 (17 to 23), 1 (23 to 17). In each group the arrangement of objects was irregular. The use of three of the first sort was to encourage freshness of judgment, each having its particular irregularity. Cards were but rarely remembered, practically never except in the case of groups differing widely in number. So far as the observers could tell, judgment was formed afresh in all these cases. In later experiments eight cards were used. This number was in the interest of avoiding the distribution-error. At first it was thought sufficient that all the groups should be merely irregular. Later it became evident that discrimination was very fine here and so that this factor must be eliminated by the usual precise method.

The space- and time-errors, where likely to be present, were eliminated in the usual way by performing an equal number of experiments with the groups in reversed arrangement. Several methods of doing this were at first tried; but these were all abandoned in favor of the following: The experiments were arranged in sets of 24, in each of which the proportion of kinds of cards was kept as indicated above. Each set with one space- or time-order of the groups was repeated with that arrangement reversed.

A word must be added as to the arrangement of results in the tables. Judgments of equality upon objectively unequal groups are entered as overestimations of the smaller groups. The per cent of correct judgments is equally divided between the two other classes, and for this reason that interest centres, not in correctness at all, but in the difference between the tendency of error in one direction and that in the other direction. No doubtful judgments were admitted, but in such cases another trial was allowed later, usually when the observer was not aware that he was being given a new chance. The subjects are divided into three classes according as the results show a tendency to favor one or the other group or no tendency either way. A difference of 10% is arbitrarily taken as significant.

1. The Influence of Group-Area. The Two-Group Apparatus was employed. The four sets of experiments carried out with this factor differed primarily in the material upon which the observer's judgment was based, and secondarily in certain matters of method. The attempt in them all was to approximate more completely to the isolation of the factor under investigation. They are numbered in the order of approximation. As marked results were obtained from each, they have all been offered for consideration in the four parts of Table I. A description of the material used in each case follows.

A. Squares (1 cm.) Neutral Gray no. 1. (Bradley), arranged irregularly in two groups with irregular outlines on a background of black cardboard. One group was large in area, the other small, the attempt being made to fill each space homogeneously. Groups were not proportional in shape of area.

B. As above, save that circles (11 mm. approx. in diameter) were substituted for squares, in the interest of distinctness for the several objects.

C. The area of the groups was oblong and regular, and the sides were proportional. (Compact 72.5 mm.: 58 mm.; scattered 110 mm.: 88 mm. These relations were determined by the size of the frame that had already been used and by the desire to make the difference in area as marked as other necessary conditions would admit.) Each area was marked by a circle in each corner. The color of the compact group was the deepest shade of normal gray (Prang Normal Gray Darker); of scattered group the next higher shade (Normal Gray Dark). These dark grays were used in order to reduce to a minimum the tendency to produce after-images. The difference in the shades of the two groups was in the interest of avoiding the greater brightness due to the mass-effect of the compact group.

D. As in C, except that India ink outline circles ( 13 to 12 mm. line) were used on a background of granite cardboard. This change was made to avoid, as far as possible, the greater mass-stimulation due to the reënforcing effect of the compact arrangement. The size of circles remained as before.

TABLE I

A B C D

274 experiments with each subject 248 experiments with each subject 120 experiments with each subject 132 experiments with each subject

Number of Subjects Av. % of difference in favor of Number of Subjects Av. % of difference in favor of Number of Subjects Av. % of difference in favor of Number of Subjects Av. % of difference in favor of

Small 5 31.5 10 34.6 7 44.1 10 46

Large 3 35.1 4 44.1 5 41.5 3 26.3

No tendency 1 8.8 2 4.2 4 5.7 3 6.6

The per cent recorded in the no-tendency class is an average of all per cents below 10, whether in favor of the one or the other of the two remaining classes. This is true for all the following tables.

The following facts are presented by the several parts of Table I: (1) The large per cents of difference show that area is to a large extent a determinant of the judgment of relative number. (2) Different subjects show opposite tendencies. (3) A comparison of the results of individual subjects through the four series shows that this opposition in tendency occurs in the same subject at different times. The introspective notes of one of these subjects show the internal process of change from one tendency to the other. It consists in a gradual increase of analytic activity toward the compact group. At first glance the composition of the scattered group was more evident; but when attention was fairly turned toward the compact, the inability to isolate objects made them seem very numerous. The importance of a coöperating subjective factor is here evident. (4) Out of a possible 57 cases there are but 10 showing no tendency.

2. The Influence of the Internal Arrangement. As before, the Two-Group Apparatus was employed; and the factor was studied in three aspects.

A. The material consisted of two groups of gray circles (Normal Gray Darker, Prang) covering equal areas. In one group this area was filled homogeneously, in the other the circles were gathered into nuclei. In order that there might be exactly the same relation of parts when the cards were reversed, each group was so arranged on a diagonal axis of symmetry from upper left to lower right corner that each half repeated the other in reverse order. Otherwise the arrangement of circles was irregular.

Six cards only were used,—four (20 to 20), one (17 to 23), and one (23 to 17). Slight differences among them occurred in the arrangement of the equality-cards, which might help to counteract any incipient reasoning from sameness of appearance to sameness of number. The large increase in the difference-values is accounted for in part by the fact that the cards (19 to 20) and (20 to 19) were omitted, and for this reason: that when an observer tended largely to favor a particular group, the introduction of a card in which that group was objectively greater would mean an increase in the number of correct judgments; whereas the introduction of two objectively equal groups for the others would increase considerably the number of erroneous judgments.

B. The numerical character of the cards here used shows a return to the usual. The material was like that of A, except for a new internal arrangement. Here the area of one group was filled homogeneously, while that of the other contained a pattern of this sort: An ellipse just contained within the boundaries of the normal area; a circle in each of the four corners of that area; and in the centre a diamond formed of four circles. Numerical changes were always confined to the ellipse, as less open to counting than the rest of the figure.

C. Material and method repeat B but with another internal arrangement. One group, as before, showed an area homogeneously filled, and irregularly, as usual. The other group carries to an extreme the distinction of open and filled space made prominent in the other groups of this table by massing the circles in an outline completely enclosing the area and in a diagonal from upper left to lower right corner. The outline did not show even spacing; more circles were crowded in one part than in others, that counting might be more difficult.

That there might be no attempt to remember cards, in all cases where there were twenty objects in the homogeneous group the same kind of irregular arrangement was repeated. This is a different method from that employed in A. Since the length of exposure was so short and the arrangement in the group irregular, either one is probably as good as the other.

D. The material used for B and C had a kind of regularity, since definite patterns were used. The introspection of the observers showed, however, that the patterns as such were not in question in the judgment, but rather the vacancies and the crowding. With the Two-Group Apparatus an arrangement in parallel lines could rather easily be counted, but with the One-Group Apparatus and its means for instantaneous exposure this difficulty was to some extent overcome. The arrangement of the objects in parallel lines was therefore adopted and matched against the irregularity of an accompanying group. The same size of group-area was kept, but the small difference-cards were omitted. There was no other change beyond those made necessary by the apparatus and already indicated on an earlier page. The length of exposure was 125 sec. The bearing of this time-factor on the results will be considered in a later section.

TABLE II

A B C D

132 Experiments with each subject 132 Experiments with each subject 132 Experiments with each subject 88 Experiments with each subject

Homogeneous Nucleated No tendency Homogeneous Pattern No tendency Homogeneous Outlined No tendency Regular Irregular No tendency

Number of subjects 10 2 2 10 1 3 7 5 2 2 1

Av. % of difference in favor of 53.23 1.5 6.1 35.7 52.8 5.3 42.7 34.8 7.9 40.3 1.2

The several parts of Table II give us the following facts: (1) The judgment of relative number is very markedly a function of the internal arrangement. (2) The marked tendency among the observers to favor the homogeneous in A and B meets a check in C. Recalling the direction of difference between C and the other sets, that in C the gradually increasing contrast between the inner vacancies and the filling reaches a maximum, we may suspect that these vacancies begin to seem no longer a part of the group-situation, while the compactness of the filling, where it does occur, is thrust prominently forward. The notes of the observers confirm this suspicion. (3) The results of the different subjects show that the shifting of tendencies occurs as before. (4) As to the way in which regularity functions in the judgment, the notes of one observer are very clear. The blank spaces in the irregular are noticeable, he says, which is not true of the regular, where, on the contrary, one has a feeling of compactness of figure. I am able to confirm this character of the spaces by my experience outside this experiment. A simple pattern is very easily apprehended and irrelevancies of the background dismissed. Increase its complexity to a maximum, as in the case of an irregular group, and I am almost at a halt to isolate objects from their fellows and maintain them apart, yet together. The background is hardly to be shut out. This is probably due to the absence of a centrally excited image of the group. The object and the not-object run together. (5) The position of the single observer in the no-tendency class of D was marked subjectively by great difficulty in forming a judgment. The groups seemed incomparable, the vividness of form excluding the perception of number.

3. The Influence of Complexity in Group-Composition.

Complexity of group-content was attained by introducing objects of different colors; so there was not a clean isolation of factors. By comparing these results with those recorded in Table IV, A, we shall be able somewhat roughly to make allowance for the factor of mere color.

Sets of 132 experiments each from sixteen observers were obtained for each of these factors. Unfortunately the distribution-error was not eliminated. Later experiments showed the importance of this factor, and, in consequence, the impossibility of interpreting the results under consideration. So new experiments were performed under the proper conditions, but at a time when only a few of the first observers could be used. Their results from the earlier series are given in Table III, A. The exclusion of the small-difference cards from the later series (Table III, B) and the consequent increase of the number of experiments on objective equality prevent comparison.

The material in A consisted of two groups of circles of the usual size, one Normal Gray (Prang), the other of three colors—Red, Yellow Orange Shade 2 (Bradley), Light Blue Blue Green (Prang). The intent was to equalize the two groups in brightness. When the observers were questioned about the relative brightness, supporters were found for all three possible opinions. So it seems probable that the groups did not differ widely in this respect. As nearly as the number-condition would allow, the three colors were represented equally in the group; and they were distributed so as to make the whole as homogeneous as possible.

In B the changes were the correction for distribution as described in the introduction to this section, and the substitution of equality-cards for those of slight numerical difference. In addition, three other colors replaced those of A, in the interest of regulated brightness and more pleasing æsthetic effect. These were, in the Bradley system of broken spectrum scales, A-Red, medium; A-Yellow Orange, dark; A-Blue Green, dark. With these exceptions B was like A. The observers were all inclined to consider the gray brighter than the mixed. The Two-Group Apparatus was used.

TABLE III

A B

132 experiments with each subject 132 experiments with each subject

Gray Mixed Colors No Tendency Gray Mixed Colors No Tendency

Number of subjects 3 1 3 1

Av. % of difference in favor of 17.7 2.2 19.9 6.8

The following facts may be gathered from Table III: (1) The tendency to overestimate the gray is due in part at least to the additional factor of complexity in the other group, as is shown by the markedly changed tendencies in Table IV, A, where a solid color takes the place of the mixed colors. The actual colors involved in the two cases are different, to be sure, and necessarily so, and this difference may of course be invoked as the cause, as well as a possible difference in brightness between the gray and mixed in III, B. The introspective notes help us here. One observer felt that he favored the gray primarily because there was a tendency to consider but one color in the mixed. Another was drawn toward the gray because it seemed definite and consistent. For both of these observers æsthetic elements were involved in favor of the gray. The latter found also that the greater brightness of the gray gave it a larger area. With a third subject the fact of variety was felt as decidedly important; but his notes show a conflict between this factor and that of distribution which was the conscious basis for his normal judgment.

4. The Influence of Differences in the Kind of Objects.

A. The Factor of Color. The material in A 1 consisted of two groups of circles of the usual size, one Normal Gray (Prang), the other Red (Bradley). The attempt was made by this choice to equalize the brightness. The size and shape of the group-area were those of the smaller area of Table I, C and D. In A 2 the only changes were the correction for distribution, as described in the introduction to this section, and the substitution of equality-cards for those of slight numerical difference. The Two-Group Apparatus was used.

The following results appear in Table IV, A 1 and A 2: (1) While complexity seemed on the whole to diminish apparent number, red noticeably increases it. Some of the observers report that group as more vivid and interesting. One observer compensated by emphasizing the gray in attention, as his results showed. (2) If one ask how the color red functioned in the judgment, the reply must apparently be, by its brightness and vividness. The mixed group functioned in a double way, as vivid and so more numerous, as fragmentary and so fewer.

TABLE IV

A1 A2 B C D1 D2 E

132 experiments with each subject 132 experiments with each subject 132 experiments with each subject 132 experiments with each subject 88 experiments with two subjects 132 experiments each 88 experiments with each subject

44 experiments with two subjects

exposure = 125 sec. exposure = 14 sec. exposure = 125 sec.

Gray Red No tendency Gray Red No tendency Large Small No tendency Circles Squares No tendency Simple Complex No tendency Simple Complex No tendency Bright Dark No tendency

Number of subjects 3 1 3 1 8 3 5 8 4 4 3 1 2 3

Av.% of difference in favor of 18.3 5.4 30.3 9 33.6 27.5 6 28.4 18.8 3.5 30.7 5.6 21.2 47.4

B. The Factor of Size. The Two-Group Apparatus was used, the material consisting of India ink circles (13 to 12 mm. line) on a background of granite paper. This paper was chosen here and for the experiments of Table I, D, to get a suitable mean between too sharp contrast and sufficient distinctness. The circles in the one group were ten mm. in diameter; in the other seven mm. The two areas were approximately equal, and of the same size as that of the more compact group in Table I. This is in fact the standard size throughout these studies in Relative Number, wherever area is not in question. The small-difference cards were included.

Two sources of possible complication must be considered. It is unavoidable that the factor of differences in compactness should enter and that clean results on the basis of object-size be denied. Our interpretation must not fail to consider this fact. Because of this, it seems unlikely that a distribution-error should arise; so the usual precaution to eliminate it was omitted both here and in the study of area (Table I). Distribution affects the appearance of the vacant spaces. When differences in the amount are by the conditions inevitably prominent, differences in the conformation may be safely regarded as of minimal vividness.

The following results appear in Table IV, B: (1) The illusion of numerical inequality is marked for many subjects. (2) The judgment is quite possibly a function of the two factors—object-size and group-vacancies. If we recall the fact that the small-object group is more scattered than the other, we shall note that the leading class here is like the leading class in Table I, and we may fairly reckon this factor as of importance in the issue. Of the incomplete introspective notes on this question, those of only one observer speak clearly for the size. He says: "There is an overpowering feeling of predominance in case of the large and I must judge for them. The large space covered seems an important factor. The longer I reflect upon the relative numbers the more numerous seem the larger, that is, they appear to increase over the small after the exposure. It is hard to give judgments of equal in most cases."

C. The Factor of Form. The material consisted of a group of circles, each of the same size as in former material; and a group of squares, each approximately equal to a circle of the other group. These were made of Prang's gray paper (Normal Gray Darker) and pasted upon a black background. The areas of the two groups were approximately equal. The squares were set irregularly except for those in the corners, where the edges were placed parallel to the edges of the card. The Two-Group Apparatus was used and the small-difference cards included.

In this material, again, the formal elimination of the distribution-error was not attempted. The striking difference in the conformation of the vacancies through the form-differences of the objects probably makes the repetition of the exact positions insignificant. Still the fact must be noted.

The results appear in Table IV, C. (1) The illusion of numerical inequality is here again marked for many observers. (2) The introspective notes are not on the whole very illuminating as to the basis of judgment. One observer, who favored circles, found that the appearance of more orderly arrangement in squares made them seem few. Another, who favored squares, found, on the contrary, the more regular the more numerous, and thought that the squares may have seemed more regular. A third, who favored circles, found the squares better individualized, with whom a fourth agreed in both respects, who also was influenced by the apparently greater bulkiness of the squares. Fewer could go into a given area. A fifth, on the other hand, who found the circles better individualized, still favored them. So we have these observers apparently doing the same thing under opposite conditions, and the opposite thing under the same conditions. Here indeed is a situation for any theory. So far as we can learn from the foregoing, the form may influence the judgment merely through its space-characteristics, but possibly also through the vividness of intrinsic interest.

D. The Factor of Complexity. The One-Group Apparatus was used in this work and results were obtained for two different lengths of exposure, 125 sec. and 14 sec. The material differed, in that to the centres of the circles of one group were added small Red (Bradley) circles (6 mm.). With the apparatus used, the color was not very effective, the brightness contrast between dark centres and white periphery being chiefly prominent. The total group-brightness was of course diminished by those centres. The small-difference cards were omitted.

The results are recorded in Table IV, D 1 and D 2. (1) The illusion is apparently strong. (2) The amounts of the difference-values show that the shorter exposure is more favorable to the illusion. (3) The introspective notes indicate that both brightness and complexity functioned in the judgment. Two observers, both of whom show large tendencies, were not conscious of any influence of complexity. One of these did find differences in brightness important; and in favoring the darker group his results exactly coincide with those of Table IV, E, where this factor is under direct consideration. A third found the complex group interesting. With a fourth the complex group developed in number amazingly during the few moments after exposure and had an appearance of great intricacy, often seeming to be in active movement. A fifth observer too felt that its numerical character depended on its complexity.

E. The Factor of Brightness. Hitherto the absolute arrangement of the objects in any two groups compared, where this factor has not been the object of enquiry, has been in the two cases different, though with respect to irregularity alike. This course was governed by a desire to avoid the substitution of a form-judgment for one on number, through recognition of the fact that both groups had identical forms. The resulting distribution-error I tried to eliminate in the usual way. Tests toward the end of these studies showed that there was no danger from this source. Errors seemed about as frequent as before. No observer made any comment on the fact, except one who through his official connection with the laboratory work knew that the test would be made sometime, but not exactly when. During many of the experiments he did not perceive the likeness of form; and when he did the numerical judgment arose without connection with that factor, as was shown by the feeling that the two groups were unequal in number. He called the relative fewness of the first group a case of "perspective effect." This must have significance for any account of the time-error; but by no means carries with it its own interpretation.

One welcome result of these tests was their assurance that I might without fear further simplify the experimental conditions by avoiding the possibility of a distribution-error. The material for these experiments on brightness therefore profited by this possibility. Each card had a different specific irregularity, but always in duplicate. In choosing the degree of brightness-difference Prang's brightest shade of normal gray was found as dark as could be conveniently perceived with the artificial light of the One-Group Apparatus. The contrast between this shade and white was quite evident enough for the purpose. The small-difference cards were omitted.

Table IV, E, shows the decisive character of the results. The observers fall all into one class in favoring the darker group, and by a large difference-value. The following introspection of one observer shows the extent to which the factors of brightness and number fuse: "I frequently lose sight of time-order. It is a question of number and not one of light-intensity, and if called upon to state which group came first I might not be able to answer. In equality-judgments the difference of light comes out distinctly."

5. The Influence of Complexity of Environment.

The material prepared for these experiments certainly lays stress upon relative, not absolute, complexity; for the conditions were satisfied by placing 5 mm. strips of white paper, equal in length to the width of a group, a few millimetres off at the top and the bottom of the groups that were on one side of the cards. The One-Group Apparatus was used and the small-difference cards omitted.

TABLE V

44 experiments with two subjects. 88 experiments with two subjects.

Exposure = 125 sec.

Simple environment Complex environment No tendency

Number of subjects 2 2

Av. % of difference in favor of 15.9 8.5

The results are recorded in Table V. (1) The drift of tendency is toward the group with the more complex environment. No one markedly favors the other group. (2) The notes of the observers indicate that the added strips functioned through their effect upon the apparent area of their group. The observers all found the dimensions increased; but with some, apparently by contrast, the added height brought out sharply the narrowness. One observer found this true in general; another, when the barred group came first. The latter says: "The unbarred group, coming first, appears to reflect its compact character on the barred one, when it comes, so that it does not look so attenuated and strange." Here the image brought over to the second took the width of the second somewhat out of relation to its illusory height, whereas in the reverse order the contrast relation was fully maintained.

III. THE INFLUENCE OF FACTORS PRESENTED IN OTHER SENSE-FIELDS BY THE OBJECTS WHOSE NUMBER IS IN QUESTION

A very simple apparatus was employed. The objects whose number was in question were bright steel balls (3/8 inch) thrown loosely into square black frames, 13 cm. inside, placed side by side on a black-topped table. The experiments were performed in series of 30. The groups were kept equal numerically, with this exception, that into each series were introduced four experiments where the groups were so unequal that the observer could have no question as to the correctness of his judgment and the existence of objective differences. This numerical superiority was given to each group alternately, and judgments on it were, of course, excluded from the results. The actual numbers employed in a series varied between 35 and 60 in accordance with the following scheme:

1. 50 each 2. 45 " 3. 50 " 4. 55 " 5. 60 to 40 6. 50 each 7. 45 " 8. 40 " 9. 45 " 10. 50 " 11. 55 " 12. 60 " 13. 40 to 60 14. 50 each 15. 45 " 16. 40 " 17. 35 " 18. 40 " 19. 45 " 20. 50 " 21. 55 " 22. 60 " 23. 60 to 45 24. 50 each 25. 45 " 26. 50 " 27. 60 " 28. 55 " 29. 50 " 30. 45 to 60

The time of a single exposure—in this case two groups at once—was 3 sec. measured by a stop-watch. As to the arrangement of the balls, care was taken that they should not be massed in one place, but scattered somewhat homogeneously over the space within the frames. The illumination was daylight, so managed that shadows cast by the balls were reduced to a minimum. The observer sat close to the table with the groups directly in front of him. He either kept his eyes closed between experiments or held a small screen before them. Sometimes he merely turned away. The operator worked from the opposite side of the table, taking care to make the necessary noises as little suggestive as possible. The observers agreed that they were not consciously influenced by the manipulation.

The progress of these experiments disclosed an astonishing space-error. So far as was conveniently possible the usual technique of elimination was employed.

1. The Influence of Active Pressure.

In this study the groups were differentiated in this way: With one hand the observer rolled the balls of one group under his fingers, while the other group was presented to vision only. The method of observation consisted in rapidly and lightly rolling the balls under the fingers a few times and then surveying both groups visually for the remainder of the exposure, judgment being given on the visual number.

Evidently there is much that is rough about this procedure. Pressure and kinæsthetic factors are lumped off together; the length of the touch-stimulus was not exactly determined; and there is the possibility that the visual stimulation from the group touched is weakened. To be sure the method prevents any great difference in the latter respect; and if we are guarded in our interpretation, something of interest may be learned.

There appeared to be no convenient way to eliminate the space-error. The right hand was used with the right group and the left with the left. So here again interpretation must be circumspect.

TABLE VI

A B C

52 experiments with each subject 260 experiments with one and 208 with the other subject 145 experiments with one and 260 with the other subject

Touch No touch No tendency Uneven Even No tendency Weight No weight No tendency

Subjects 2 1 1 2

Av. % of difference in favor of 7.6 10 1 2.4

SPACE-ERROR

Right Left No tendency Right Left No tendency Right Left No tendency

Subjects 1 1 1 1 1 1

Av. % of difference in favor of 69.2 23 30.8 20.2 32 4.4

Turning to the results in Table VI, A, we find the following: (1) The influence of the pressure-kinæsthetic complex practically does not appear; while the space-error shows a marked tendency that, for the two observers, is in opposite directions. (2) On the other hand, the notes of one observer show that in his case at least the face value of the table is erroneous. To this effect he says in substance that he can make a more accurate estimate of the number in the group touched. He tries to ignore these sensations of touch, but with ill success in the case of the left hand, where clumsiness not only makes it difficult to touch the balls gently but also to keep them under the fingers, which often feel the ground-space. For this cause the group seems small in number. Clearly enough, then, it is the space-error that tells the story of the effect of the added stimuli on this observer, only it must not be interpreted as space-error. The pressure functioned in the judgment through its numerical aspect. But the positive effect with the right hand was turned to a negative with the left through its emphasis of vacancies. The high difference-value in the space-column becomes thus a striking evidence of the effect of pressure, and the results are accounted for without reference to the kinæsthetic factor. The other observer felt that the active pressure was relatively indifferent. (3) The entire absence of correct judgments on the objectively equal groups shows to what a surprising extent other factors have modified the numerical.

2. The Influence of Unevenness in Active Pressure-Feeling.

In the experiments of this section the groups differed in this way, that one rested on the smooth table-top while the other had for its bottom a coarse wire mesh covered with black cloth. The balls of the one rolled smoothly beneath the fingers while the other balls moved lumpily over their mesh. Both hands were used—each for the group on its side; and the method of observation and length of exposure agreed with those conditions in the preceding section, except that the balls were rolled a little more vigorously that the factor studied might come clearly into consciousness. The groups were interchanged for half the number of series. This could not of course completely eliminate the space-error, since kinæsthetic differences in the limbs remained uncompensated. In general the criticism in the preceding section is again applicable.

The results appear in Table VI, B. (1) One observer shows a tendency to favor the smoothly rolling group, while the other again shows no tendency. Both have large space-errors of the same character as in A of this table. (2) The introspection of the observer showing no tendency is to the effect that touch plays little or no conscious part in the situation. The other's notes give no hint that the factor studied here was influential; but to the effect on the judgment of touch in general, especially with the right hand, they give clear witness. The touch-sensations, he says, were difficult to ignore. Those from the right hand were more vivid than those from the left; and the right hand seemed more sensitive. Judgment was based on a general feeling of "moreishness" which came promptly. There is nothing to contradict the evidence of the earlier experiments that touch is again influential through its numerical character. (3) Both observers regard factors of distribution as of fundamental importance, though one was inclined at first to insist that there was nothing but number in his judgment. The significance of this unanalyzed feeling will appear in a later section. (4) These results agree with the preceding in the approximate exclusion of correct judgments.

3. The Influence of Active Weight.

The variation here in question consisted in lifting one of the groups during judgment of the relative number in the two groups. The apparatus was made by transforming into trays the frames containing the balls, by putting into these frames wire-mesh bottoms covered with black cloth. They were set each upon four small wooden pillars so that the hand could be easily thrust under the tray. At the signal a given tray was several times raised a little way and lowered, and the judgment formed on the same factor as before. Here again the space-error was not entirely eliminated. Each hand was used with the group on its side, but kinæsthetic differences peculiar to each of the limbs remained. There was always some motion among the balls in the lifted tray, though the gentleness of the lifting prevented the existence of much. This is a radical defect, but one not easily avoided with maintenance of other desirable conditions. Even more serious, as the issue proved, was the failure to control the lifting impulse; yet, as it happens, we are not prevented from getting an experimental answer to our question.

The results are recorded in Table VI, C. (1) They show no apparent effect of the weight, and with one observer the further unusual fact of no space-error. This error is marked enough in the case of the other, and, conforming in direction to that of the preceding sections of this table, allows us in so far to adopt the same interpretation of his results. (2) The introspection of one observer was to the effect that he felt a tendency toward a modification of the number-judgment by weight. It was especially strong when the group was lighter or heavier than was anticipated, the light group seeming less numerous, and the heavy group more. Occasionally he caught himself weighing the second group mentally; and sometimes he had to recover himself from a tendency to make judgments on a wrong basis, presumably that of mere weight. With such a conflict of tendencies the character of the results is not surprising. Particularly important are the opposing tendencies lying in the factor of weight itself. The other observer reported that a very heavy weight exerted an influence that it was hard but not impossible to ignore, while a lighter weight did not effectively enter the situation at all. His earlier inclination to say that there was nothing but number in his judgment inclines one to believe that fusion of factors may have passed beyond the stage of ready analysis. (3) Our analysis has given us reason to believe that active weight has a definite tendency to modify the judgment of relative number.

4. The Influence of Muscular Strain in Observation.

The study was made from the point of view of more than one set of experimental conditions, viz.:

(1) Equal strain (minimum). (a) Right—left. (b) Up—down. (2) Equal strain (maximum) eyes turned. (3) Strain vs. ease. (a) Head and eyes turned. (b) Eyes turned.

The conditions of (1) (a) were exactly those of the earlier experiments with the exception that the groups were undistinguished save by position. In (1) (b) one group was so placed between the other and the observer that there might be as little increased effort as possible in viewing the farther. In the up-down movement more muscles are involved in the lift than in the fall of the eye. So really we have here a case of (3) but not so marked. In (2) the groups were put to the right and left at such distances that, when sitting between, the observer could just take each one in without turning his head. This brought a decided strain upon the eye-muscles. In (3) (a) the groups were separated by the length of the table—a distance of 90 cm.; and the observer placed in alternate series before each; as he was in (3) (b) where the farther group was carried to the limit of vision to be reached without turning the head. Here the strain was like that in (2), but for one group only.

An incompleteness in experimental analysis lies in the impossibility of separating the factors of distance and strain.

TABLE VII

A B C D E

Baldwin 46 experiments Hutchinson 78 experiments Equal strain (minimum) 52 experiments with each subject Equal strain (minimum) 52 experiments Equal strain (maximum) Eyes Turned 104 experiments with each subject Head and eyes turned 52 experiments

Right Left Lower Upper Right Left Ease Strain Ease Strain

Subjects Baldwin Hutchison 2 Baldwin 2 Baldwin

Av.% of

difference

in favor of 30.4 28.2 68.3 71.2 52.4 80.8

Here are the facts of chief interest: (1) The following tabulation gives us a ready view of the character of the results in Table VII; and shows the extent to which they are consistent:

A B C D E

Baldwin favors right {upper left {farther {nearer

{strain {strain {no-strain

left left

Hutchison favors left {upper {farther

{strain {strain

left

(2) The only inconsistency in the strain-distance complex is with Baldwin in E. He reported that the more distant group appeared rather as an undifferentiated mass whose number was not so well obtained, while in the near the individuals were significant. He seemed to be in the midst of these. The case seems analogous to that of the observer whose introspection was reported under Table I, and who at first accepted what we may call the objective analysis, by which the scattered group gave up more distinct objects than the compact; but later attempting voluntarily to disintegrate the compact, found a bewildering confusion in the task that made this group seem very numerous, and brought about in the end an exact reversal of tendency. (3) Can we now separate in the results between the influences of strain and of distance? So far we have regarded them as one complex. But the introspections speak merely of the space-characters of the objects, Hutchison agreeing with Baldwin that the more remote group is judged as an area rather than as a collection of definite objects. (4) The almost entire absence of correct judgments in these experiments adds new evidence to that of the immediately preceding experiments in proof of the insignificance of the actual numerical relation for the judgment of relative number.

IV. THE INFLUENCE OF FACTORS OUTSIDE OF THE OBJECTS AND IN OTHER SENSE-FIELDS

The One-Group Apparatus was employed, and cards in general corresponding to those where area was not in question,—white-circle groups equal in size and irregular in inner distribution, which was not duplicated on the same card, though the resulting distribution-error was formally eliminated in the usual way. The usual care was taken to fill the group-area homogeneously. The small-difference cards were retained at first; but on later discovering the possibility of duplication a few supplementary experiments were added.

1. The Influence of Touch.

The apparatus employed to give the touch-stimulus consisted in a long lever attached to the armature of a small electro-magnet. In the end of the lever was inserted at right angles a wooden peg, cork-tipped. In view of the other conditions of the experiment a convenient spot for the application of the stimulus was found to be the forehead where it curves backward above the right eye. The apparatus was supported by rods and clamps upon a long upright steel rod set in an iron base and placed behind the chairs of the observers. The same rod carried a head-rest, designed not as a support but merely to show the observer that he had returned to the original position after he had bent forward to record judgment. Where two observers were used at once two sets of this apparatus were employed, with the magnets in a single circuit governed by a floor-button. The touch-stimulus was made to coincide as closely as possible with the appearance of a given group.

In view of the practical remoteness of this factor from the object of judgment the experimentation here took two forms,—one in which the observer was passive toward the touch-stimulus; the other in which the effort was made closely to associate the touch with the visual group by imagining the group to be responsible for the touch. For the passive method the touch was given irregularly now on the first and now on the last, but as many times on one as on the other.

For the active method, it was given always on the last group. This constancy was held to favor the active association of touch and particular group. The constant time-error was guarded against by experiments in which no modifying factor was introduced. A and B of Table VIII present the results of the passive and active methods respectively. C and D repeat A with duplication of groups,—C with the usual (1/25 sec.), D with a longer, exposure. These last sets were taken that the factor of touch might be studied when the objective conditions of the strong distribution influence should have been removed. It might prove that a factor swamped in the former situation might emerge into effectiveness.

The following summary gathers the chief facts of Table VIII: (1) Touch appears practically without effect in A. (2) In B, the results for touch seem again insignificant; but comparison with the control-results, to isolate touch from time-order, while it shows no marked change for Angier, does show for the others that touch was effective in determining the direction of error by difference-values, in the two cases of 10.2 and 14 per cent. The active method seems to be slightly more favorable to the influence of touch. (3) The duplication of the groups in C gives a large increase to the apparent effectiveness of touch, which is considerably diminished but not destroyed by the lengthening of the exposure in D. (4) The introspection for A indicates that touch under these experimental conditions has little subjective importance for the judgment of number. It is sometimes quite unnoticed. Angier made a possible exception in its favor in cases of great hesitancy where it added "importance" to the group with which it occurred. Usually he felt little doubt. With Shaw the touch was at first distracting but later indifferent. Johnston's notes indicate rather more effect. The touch prevented strict attention to the figure impression whereby the space-intervals in that group lost in value. Later it lost its confusing effect. Here seems to be subjective tendency, but not enough to predominate in results.

TABLE VIII

A B C D

88 experiments with each of two subjects. 132 experiments with one subject. 198 experiments with each of two subjects. 110 experiments with one subject. 44 experiments with each subject. 88 experiments with one subject and 44 with the other Exposure = 1/4 sec.

Touch No touch No tendency Touch No touch No tendency Touch No touch No tendency Touch No touch No tendency

Subjects Av.% of difference 3 3 2 2

in favor of 3.2 5.7 26.1 13.7

Results in B for the subjects separately were as follows: Angier 4%, Johnston 8.2%, Shaw 5%, all, so far as they went, in favor of the touch-group. Control experiments to determine the time-error gave the following results: Angier 6.8% in favor of the group last seen, Johnston 2.2%, and Shaw 9% in favor of the first group.

Some further introspective evidence appears in connection with the active method of B. Angier confirms his earlier account exactly. Usually the factors of distribution practically associated with number determine the judgment promptly; but in cases of doubt the touch is felt to add to its group something that appears as number-value. Johnston's subjective situation seems a little complicated. I may summarize thus: (a) The connection between the touch and its group being established, that group seems smaller, as being, together with the touch, somewhere nearly equal to the first. (b) The connection established and touch failing to come, that group seems smaller. (c) The connection not established and attention being concentrated on the visual impression, the touch-group feels much larger. The curious attitude in (a) results in a discounting in advance of the actual number. This done, the touch adds numerical value to its group. In (c) the effort at abstraction appears to emphasize the second (touch) group. Later, he reported similarly that the touch-stimulus seemed to add to the number of circles in its group even when the judgment favored the other group; and that "any outside stimulus connected with the one of two exposures tends to lose its own significance and be translated into number of dots to help the accompanying exposure to equal or exceed the first." The touch-group is felt to have more significance through association with an idea of superior energy or greater motor impulse.

Of the character of the influence exerted by the touch, Shaw reported that there seemed to be a diminution in the size of the first group and something extra in the second. More specifically, this effect appeared at times as an added circle at the right of the second (touch) group. He thought that this effect was overruled by the real bases of number-judgment which he summarized as "size, regularity, density, etc."

These notes show a definite tendency on the part of the touch-stimulus to break in upon the course of the number-judgment ordinarily determined by the practical association of a specific group of factors with number. That this result gets no more marked registration in the percentages is apparently due to the strength of these customary associations.

(5) The extent to which the distribution-error complicates the present study is shown by the prompt increase in effectiveness of the touch-stimulus when the groups were duplicated, as in C and D.

2. The Influence of Hearing.

The scheme of the experimentation upon this factor conformed in general to that of Section IV, 1. But a new sort of differentiation was possible in the auditory field, and one more readily suggestive of numerousness, perhaps, in that by use of an electric bell a rapid succession of sounds could be given with one group while with the other a single sound could be produced. An actual numerical difference in the auditory field might fuse with the factor of relative visual number and determine the judgment to its direction. These results are set down in B of Table IX. The same set of cards was used in the One-Group Apparatus for these experiments as for those of Section IV, 1. In these two sections of Table IX the observers did not know on which group the sound or the particular sound would be given; but any possible disturbing effect of this irregularity was formally eliminated as in Section IV, 1. The experiments of Table IX, C, repeat those of A with duplication of groups; and D repeats those of C with longer exposure.

The sound for A was that of a small organ-pipe (Ut 4) blown by mouth. As in A of the preceding table the observers did not know in a given experiment with which group the sound would be given, but, as before, it was given the same number of times with the first as with the last. For B the multiplied sound was produced by an electric bell with a wooden gong. This was adopted in preference to metal because of the prompt ceasing of the sound after the stroke,—a very necessary condition when this sound accompanied the first group, that it might be clearly connected with its own group. A metal gong was used for the single sound, that the two might not be too unequal in loudness. Its vibrations were deadened by a rubber band, and each bell was controlled by a floor-button. For C and D a higher sound, from the same pipe unstopped, was used in preference to the former, for the reason that in certain experiments performed just previously the lower sound had been used and was presumably very familiar. So in order that the sound might be brought, if possible, afresh to the attention, the change was made.

TABLE IX

A B C D

132 experiments each with 3 subjects. 180 with 1 subject 44 experiments each with 2 subjects. 88 with 1 subject 44 experiments each 88 experiments each

Exposure = 125 sec. Exposure = 125 sec. Exposure = 125 sec. Exposure = 14 sec.

Sound No Sound No tendency Many Sounds One Sound No tendency Sound No Sound No tendency Sound No Sound No tendency

Subjects 4 1 2 1 1 2

Av.% of difference in favor of 5.4 18.2 2.2 20.4 4.6 2.2

The results of these experiments may be summarized as follows: (1) The figures give evidence of but two cases out of eleven where sound was influential. (2) Duplication of groups is not effective in developing evidence of the influence of sound. (3) Increased length of exposure works, as in former cases, to lessen the influence of the modifying factor. (4) The introspections are to the effect that the sound seems to be entirely without influence upon the judgment, beyond the distraction it brings in the earlier stages of work. Sometimes it dropped wholly out of consciousness. Sometimes the distraction seemed to last longer. One observer reported, when D was taken, that he felt as if the sound sometimes increased and sometimes decreased the apparent numerousness. In some other experiments not directly upon this point, but later to be reported, a sound was used; and one observer reported that it seemed to become functionally connected with certain gaps in the groups, as though the puff had blown a hole in the group. Here its effect was of course to emphasize negative factors. It appears thus that the sound might function in opposite directions at different times, somewhat in accord with the particular character of the visual presentation. We should expect, then, to have percentages that look insignificant. (5) We shall not have failed to notice the difference between touch and auditory stimuli in the feeling of influence upon the number-judgment. If we seek a cause for the superior influence of touch, we may perhaps find it in the fact that practical experience has trained us to disregard in any case of judgment such simultaneous presentations as were employed for auditory stimuli; while a definite tap upon the brow is a rather unusual experience likely to attract notice to itself in spite of attempts at abstraction. As one observer said, who took part in both kinds of experiments, the touch seemed more "intimate."

3. The Influence of Kinæsthetic Impression.

The method consisted in the employment of active effort upon a fist dynamometer or a wooden handle during the appearance of one of the groups. The handle was preferable because noiseless. The effort was made with the left hand because the right was used in recording. The amount of it was left to the observer's regulation, with the one instruction that its presence be made decidedly evident but without too great fatigue. The cards of Section IV 1 and 2 were used in the One-Group Apparatus. Similarly again the experiments were repeated with the duplicate-group cards. I present no table here because the figures show practically no influence of the effort. On one subject 176 experiments were made; on a second 132; on a third 88.

It is interesting to note here certain results obtained from one observer when he was in what he described as an active attitude toward the groups, in which he seemed to rouse himself to an unusual pitch of concentration upon the visual situation. This was evidently a condition of increased effort to abstract. Without abstraction he gave 26 to 6 in favor of the effort while with abstraction this tendency had fallen off to 30 to 17. The strength of the tendency is thus strongly indicated. Another observer felt a kind of motor difference between the groups; he expected the effort-group to look larger and felt additionally excited, a scattered activity, while he was passive toward the other group. Perhaps this account puts a little meaning into his small per cent. That his power of abstraction was effective here is hinted by his remark that he felt a difference in the groups even when he judged them equal. The third observer found no subjective evidence that effort modified his judgment.

V. THE "ERRORS" OF EXPERIMENTATION

Throughout the foregoing experiments has been involved the possibility of some one of the three "errors" of experimentation, those of time, space, and distribution, and sometimes all three. Their effect on the results, if it existed, was, to be sure, eliminated in the well-known way, but their existence, if actual, would raise an interesting problem. It was possible, in the case of every group of experiments, to rearrange the tables in such a way as to bring out the evidence for any tendency to overestimate, for instance, the first group as against the second, the right as against the left, or one kind of irregular distribution as against another.

The distribution-error must have a word of explanation. It refers to a tendency to give more wrong judgments in favor of one kind of irregular distribution than of the other kind with which, in a given card, it is mated. In the construction of a set of cards several forms of irregular internal arrangement were used, in order that the judgment might not be one merely of form, and of course on any given card the forms were not the same. Elimination of the effect of these form-differences from the results involved the appearance of any given one as many times in connection with one of the two contrasting factors studied in a given experiment as with the other. Thus two sets of forms were carried through an experimental series—a source of error indeed, but avoidable only by such means as were used to escape the effects of the space-error. Analysis would show which, if either, of the two sets received more judgments in its favor, resulting in further evidence as to the extent to which the judgment of relative number is a function of distribution, and as to the fineness of discrimination for such differences.

Now the tables, when thus rearranged, show that these errors exist to a surprisingly large extent. In many cases their causes, whatever they are, seem to be the controlling factors in the judgment of relative number.

Barring the experiments of Section III, in which the space-error has largely been accounted for, I now propose to gather in one survey all the results of those analyses that have given us the information of the existence of these errors, and all the material of later tables that bears on this point, and to test them by further experimentation. I will begin with the space-error.

TABLE X

Av. % of difference in favor of Av. % of difference in favor of Av. % of difference in favor of

Cases Right Cases Left Cases No tendency

Angier 1 25 6 17.9 9 5.7

Davison 5 26.4 1 10.8 6 6.2

Dunlap 7 18.3 4 4.4

Holt 2 13.6 7 17.6 4 3.2

Hylan 8 23.6 7 6.7

Meakin 2 19.2 1 29.6 8 5.5

Meriam 2 16.5 2 12.9 7 6.8

Moore 2 11 3 16.6 7 3.1

Peterson 1 13.6 1 12.2 9 4.3

Rogers 4 21.9 2 15.9 6 4.5

Rouse 3 15.5 8 5.1

Shaw 3 20.9 5 18 7 6.1

Windate 1 22.8 4 19.5 7 4.5

Yerkes 6 26.6 8 5.2

Henry 1 10 2 16.6 3 8.1

Woods 3 19.3 3 4.8

1. The Space-Error.

Table X presents to us a summary of the values of the space-error tendency. (1) Taken as a whole they fall into all the three classes that are possible; (a) favoring right; (b) favoring left; (c) no marked tendency. (2) There is no observer that does not at some time show a fairly marked tendency. (3) All the observers fall into (c) and all but five into both (a) and (b). (4) More favor the left than the right,—50 to 35. (5) This survey makes it clear that the observers agree neither with themselves nor with each other in the direction of influence exerted by the causes underlying the space-error.

a. Special Experiments to establish the Facts. It might be suspected that irregularities would be more apparent where other factors such as we have been studying enter to complicate the situation from the point of view of pure relative position of the two groups. Table XI presents the answer to this query. The cards used contained groups of gray circles (Gray Darker, Prang) arranged in equal areas of the usual size and shape. The distribution-error was eliminated, though not by duplication, and the small-difference cards were retained. The Two-Group Apparatus was used, with an exposure of 65 sec.

TABLE XI

88 experiments with each

Right Left No tendency

Subjects 4 7 3

Av. % of difference in favor of 25.6 23.1 3.4

The results give us again our inevitable three classes, and in many cases a difference-value surprisingly large when we reflect on the simplicity of the conditions. That the omission of complicating features was of importance is shown by the fact that more of the observers (11 out of 14) show a marked error than in any other case. Clearly enough the various factors introduced tend to eliminate the space-error, but when in any case it does enter, it is even then capable of rising to as high a degree on the whole as in the uncomplicated series, as is shown by the fact that in but four cases does the new value surpass the best of the old, and in three of these by a trifling amount.

It is interesting to note that the three cases of minimum space-error show a well-defined tendency to be determined by distribution.

b. Possible Bases of this Error. The outcome of these special experiments is that the factors found in the groups are at least not directly responsible for the situation that we are considering. The divergence among the observers shows this. In hunting after the cause for this apparent influence of side, we look first for changes in the peripheral, and then in the central, processes that precede the judgment. The material used for the experiments of Table XI seems approximately to have equalized all the objective factors in the two groups. How could there be anything further in the peripheral process whereby group could be differentiated from group? The most evident thing is that the visual stimulus is received in a different way from the two groups. There is a definite peripheral mechanism whose factors seem essentially to be two, however variously they may be combined: (a) The relative amount of time given to each group; (b) the order in which the groups are viewed.

The observers were instructed and continually reminded to equalize the amount of attention devoted to the group; but as this is not wholly a voluntary matter, the possibility of failure to conform has to be reckoned with. Experiment must therefore be employed to test the influence of these factors before one can fall back upon a central process as the cause for this tendency to favor a side.

c. Its Relation to Differences between the Groups in Length of Look. The material was the same used for the experiments of Table XI. The method was the same with the following necessary exceptions: The longer exposure was double the shorter (4/5 sec. to 2/5 sec.), and 2/5 sec. elapsed between the two. Further, the experiments were so arranged as to equalize the influence of the order of exposure with respect to both side and relative length. The means for effecting successive exposure took the earlier form described in the introduction to Section II.

TABLE XII

88 experiments with each

Longer Shorter No tendency

Subjects 6 7

Av. % of difference in favor of 18 6.5

These facts are yielded by Table XII: (1) There are but two classes of observers, as no tendency exists to favor the group of longer exposure. (2) The time-error shows a considerably more marked tendency than the length of look, which is indeed somewhat surpassed by the space-error. (3) The persistence of the space-error, even among those that reveal a tendency in length of exposure, shows that the factor of relative difference in length of look cannot account for it. The persistence of it, too, when the order of exposure is controlled, even though the conditions are not wholly adapted to the study of this latter factor, suggest at least that the space-error is independent of even that order; but into this we shall make special enquiry. (4) The judgment of number is independent of the amount of eye-movement devoted to the fixation of the objects in a group. This conclusion, so far as the actual movement is concerned, is established by the fact that so many observers favor the shorter look; and by all the experiments with the One-Group Apparatus where an exposure of 1/25 sec. was used, since that time was too short to admit of movement. That ideated movement is likewise insignificant appears from the fact of marked error arising in the material where the groups were duplicates. Here no motives to different movements could lie in the material.

d. Its Relation to the Order in which the Groups are viewed. Table XIII gives us the results of the enquiry. The experimental conditions were not changed except as to the length of exposure. Each group was given 3/5 sec.; and half the experiments were performed in the order right-left and half in the reverse order.

TABLE XIII

88 experiments with each

First Last No tendency

Subjects 3 9 2

Av. % of difference in favor of 17.5 28.3 1.7

The results may be thus summarized: (1) The order of exposure is notably influential upon the judgment of relative number, giving the usual three classes, with the tendency to overestimate the last group well in the lead. (2) The persistence of the space-error under these relatively simple conditions shows conclusively that it is not a function of the order of exposure. The two are independent variables.

2. The Time-Error.

In pursuit of our enquiry we must survey the facts as they are given in the various experiments already reported and later to be reported. These facts are gathered into Table XIV, which furnishes the following items of significance: (1) All the observers, with the exception of Rouse, show at some time a definite tendency. One case only is given for him in this table, but other experiments not included in the tables from which the present is drawn confirm this fact by the ratio 29 to 30. (2) There is a rather striking consistency in the several observers. (3) The predominance of the last group is marked.

TABLE XIV

Av. % of difference in favor of Av. % of difference in favor of Av. % of difference in favor of

Cases First Cases Last Cases No tendency

Angier 7 19.1 4 4.9

Baldwin 4 20.5 1 3.4

Bell 1 18.2 4 6.3

Davison 2 31.2

Dunlap 1 11.4 1 2.2

Holt 10 19 2 6

Hylan 2 16 5 25.4 5 4.9

Johnston 2 25.2 4 35.5 4 4.2

Meakin 2 39.7

Meriam 1 29.6 1 2.2

Miller 3 17.1 4 5.5

Moore 1 11.4 1 2.2

Olmsted 1 15.2

Peterson 1 17 1 9

Rogers 1 10.2 1 5.6

Rouse 1 1.2

Shaw 6 16.7 5 7

Windate 1 11.4 1 1.2

Yerkes 2 42.7

a. Relation of the Error to the Absolute Length of the Total Exposure. Table XV is set to answer this question. It is unsatisfactory in that but two observers took part in both XIII and XV. The material used for judgment consisted of the same cards used in the earlier experiment, but presented now in the One-Group Apparatus. The time of exposure was changed from 3/5 sec. to 1/25 sec. for each group. As the space-error was eliminated, the tendency to a time-error, if present at all, would presumably have freer play.

But the difference-values of the new table are for the most part very small. We have thus the further fact about the time-error that, under the conditions studied, it appears to be independent of the absolute length of exposure, when the groups are equal in this respect. To this we may add another fact drawn from Table XIV, that with the One-Group Apparatus the time-error is greater on the whole where the groups are differentiated by other factors. Thirdly, the values for Table XIII show that with all complicating factors withdrawn, except the differences in position, the error is at a maximum. This may be significant of the effect of space-differences upon that error, or, more probably, be due to the general difference between work by daylight and work in a dark room by artificial light. We shall be better able to consider this later.

TABLE XV

88 experiments with each of two subjects.

176 experiments with one subject.

154 experiments with one subject.

66 experiments with one subject.

Exposure = 125 sec.

First Last No tendency

Subjects 1 4

Av. % of difference in favor of 15.2 6.8

3. The Distribution-Error.

The last of our three "errors" of experimentation is now before us. We may recall once more the meaning the term has had for us in these studies. It points to a tendency discovered by the use of those cards where all objective factors were in the course of a series equalized,—a tendency to mass one's judgments in favor of a particular arrangement of the circles; though each group had been constructed with a view to filling the given area as homogeneously as an irregular arrangement would allow.

As in the two "errors" preceding, so here we must get possession of the facts that gave rise to the present enquiry. Table XVI presents them to us, gathered out of all the tables wherein such a tendency has been technically reckoned with. But first a few words of explanation are needed to make the new table intelligible. Two sets of results are found in its two parts. In each set the particular group-arrangements employed and the frequency of their appearance are exactly the same. The two sets differ, as their headings suggest, in that the material for the second set was formed out of the first by replacing the small-difference cards by those having equal groups. Such a change as this might affect the proportion of judgments given in favor of the two sets of arrangements in a particular series, and these new results are, therefore, no longer fully comparable with the earlier ones. In presenting the directions of tendency in the results, it is impossible here, as in all the similar cases throughout the tables, to name a factor as a standard in whose favor all the judgments in the plus column should be understood as given,—impossible for this reason that, because the very method by which the circles were distributed in the groups, the experimenter was unable to satisfy himself as to the significant differences in the arrangements. All the results, however, when analyzed on this basis, were recorded consistently, so that consistencies and agreements among the observers might be readily apparent. We can now understand in part what Table XVI has to say to us.

TABLE XVI

A B

Cases Class 1 Cases Class 2 Cases No tendency Cases Class 1 Cases Class 2 Cases No tendency

Angier 4 19.1 2 6.3 3 2.9

Davison 3 23.1

Dunlap 2 13.7 1 2.2

Holt 3 15.5 1 25 2 4.5 1 22 1 21.6 2 3.1

Hylan 1 11.4 2 14 3 6.7 2 50.8 1 11.4 1 8.4

Johnston 5 30.4

Meakin 3 34.9

Meriam 1 16 2 6.8

Miller 5 32.1

Moore 1 39.8 2 5.7

Olmsted 1 27.2

Peterson 3 42.1

Rogers 1 11.4 2 5.7

Rouse 2 14.2

Shaw 6 29.1 2 26 1 0

Windate 3 30

Yerkes 3 17.8

Here as elsewhere the per cents recorded indicate the average per cent of difference in favor of a given class.

Here are the facts, first of A: (1) The only lapses from consistency are confined to two observers; and in both these cases there is but a single break in a uniform trend. (2) With three exceptions all agree in the trend of their difference-values. Of these three—Holt, Hylan, and Moore—the last furnishes but one significant value, and so must be left out of the reckoning on this point. (3) Of the 64 cases, 50 rise above 10%, some far beyond, showing the importance for the judgment of relative number of this factor of distribution. (4) Of the 50 cases, 45 agree in tendency. (5) That with this surprising agreement we have still a few exceptions, adds another item to the growing array of evidence on behalf of the importance of some subjective factor for the number-judgment. As to the nature of this factor we are yet in the dark. (6) To these facts B of this same table adds the further information that the observers inconsistent in the old are not consistent in the new, while the consistent still maintain their record.

a. Analysis of the Experimental Conditions of Distribution. At once we are interested to enquire for the factors underlying these results. To put ourselves upon the right track we must first consider what factors are involved in any such arrangement of objects as we have used in the material for these studies, and then, more precisely, we may ask in what way such arrangements could differ significantly. Finally, by an experimental trial-and-error process, we may solve our problem.

The groups of objects in our material were arranged in an area marked out in each corner by a circle. Within this area the circles were set irregularly, with the result that the group, as a mass of objects distinguished from a homogeneous background, had a more or less irregular outline whose irregularity varied with different internal arrangements. Within its outlines this area presented a mixed pattern of bright and dark. While the total enclosure marked off by the corner circles was always the same and theoretically the relative amounts of brightness and darkness in equal groups was likewise the same, yet practically differences, more or less slight, might enter through the changing character of the rude outlines whose ideal completeness could scarcely be brought out of a black background by the uninitiated. The amount of this difference is sometimes surprising to one whose chief thought of the group has been as vignetted in process of construction. As the objects are pushed toward the edges the central spaces open out; as they are withdrawn toward the interior gaps appear in the margin.

It is not a very easy task to fill an area with objects in irregular arrangement in such a way that no sections of vacancy or filling stand out by contrast against the remainder of the same element. To succeed in this is to fill the area homogeneously. But the chances are good that some vacant patch will get slightly the better of its neighbors or some section of circles will gather a little more closely than the surrounding circles; or perhaps a gap in the outline will be unexpectedly intrusive. Now in a given area the circles of one part cannot become more thickly massed without a corresponding enlargement of the vacancies of the other parts, and of course the converse is as true; but this theoretical situation may be quite out of ken at the moment when the group is seen. Either member of this pair of complements may stand out vividly in the field and its fellow quite escape perception. The very nicety with which in practical affairs we have to make a reliable comparison of this sort shows what suspicion of accuracy the off-hand judgment has bred. And further, the widening of a gap or thickening of the filling in one small part of a group may give a complementary loss to the rest of the group small enough to be unperceived when distributed throughout the larger section.

Two factors must therefore be considered as possibly significant in moving the judgment,—vacancies and filling; and with the former must be reckoned indrawing of the outline. Psychologically, increase in the prominence of either of these factors would be all one with their objective increase. With respect to the direction of their influence upon the judgment of number the increase of vacancies must signify the waning, and the increase of filling the waxing, of the objective number in the group.

It is in advance altogether probable that the results gathered into Table XVI were brought about by these two factors, at least in large part. And we have also in these factors the possibility of two types; for as we saw above, increased vacancies in one part involves increase of filling in another, and conversely. So the interesting question turns upon the altogether disproportional representation of types. Which is the type of the majority?

b. Experimental Test of Hypotheses. The question was put to the test of experiment. This was done by using groups in which now vacancies and now filling were objectively emphasized in contrast with the usual homogeneous group. First the vacancies. A set of cards was prepared after the method previously used to eliminate the distribution-error without duplication of groups on any one card. (See Section II.) In the present case, however, the two sets of arrangements were definitely differentiated as already indicated. One set had a homogeneously filled area, the other a prominent vacancy within or gap in the edge. The size of these variations was kept pretty close to the limit of noticeableness, that the increase in compactness of the other portions might be as slight as possible. It was experimentally necessary to free the material as far as might be from ambiguity, and practically important to avoid rousing the suspicions of the observers and the resulting reflections. It seemed very likely that the strength of the tendency shown by the distribution-error was due to its appearance in situations where the observers knew that other factors were being tested.

The general method already described was used in preparing the groups that gave objective prominence to compacted parts of the filling. To fulfil the conditions outlined above was here even more difficult than in the first set; and the cause will appear in the sequel. The small-difference cards were omitted and the One-Group Apparatus used.

A further attempt was made to head off reflection by a subterfuge. It had been found that, among the factors whose influence on the judgment had been studied, hearing had been as little effective as any. So the small stopped pipe used for those experiments was again brought into service and the error resulting eliminated in the usual way. Incidentally our new tables will thus give us further information about the effect of this factor, though of course under conditions that are theoretically highly unfavorable, since we are forcing upon the attention of the observers other factors that experience has shown them only too ready to seize upon. So if a tendency traceable to the factor of hearing should appear, we ought perhaps to give it somewhat more than its face value.

TABLE XVII

A. B. C. 88 experiments each

Exposure = 125 sec. Exposure = 14 sec. Exposure = 125 sec.

Homogeneous Vacant No tendency Homogeneous Vacant No tendency Homogeneous Vacant No tendency

Angier [1]50 [2]51.2 39.6

Baldwin [2]53.4 [2]55.6 35.2

Bell [1]52.2 3.4

Holt [2]44.4 [1]13.6 27.2

Hylan [2]51.2 [1]52.2 39.6

Johnston [1]56.8 [2]62.6 44.4

Miller [2]4.2 [1]25 16

Shaw [1]29.6 [2]14.8 2.2

[1] 44 Experiments. [2] 88 Experiments.

The per cents recorded indicate the average per cent of difference in favor of a given factor.

Now we are ready to inspect the results. Table XVII, A is the outcome of the attempt to emphasize vacancies. Its experiments with 125 sec. exposure were repeated with one of 14 sec. as Table XVII, B, shows. In Table XVII, C, the emphasis of compactness is concerned.

For convenience we may again resort to a summary outline in extracting the meaning from these tables. First Table XVII, A. (1) All the observers but one agree in favoring the homogeneous, most of them with very high difference-values. (2) Miller alone gives no tendency, and his notes show a conflict between the increased vacancy and the increased compactness. In other words, his discrimination was too keen for the material. Under the circumstances he constitutes no exception to the conclusion that the vacancy objectively emphasized was the cause for an underestimation of its group.

From Table XVII, B, we learn the following: (1) All the observers save one favor the homogeneous group, in most cases by large values. (2) The difference in the length of exposure seems to have no significance for this tendency, since, while Holt and Shaw decline, Miller rises in the scale.

Table XVII, C, gives us these facts: (1) The difference-values have noticeably fallen off. (2) We have again the customary three classes, but with homogeneous leading as in the earlier tables. (3) By his present favoring of the compact, Miller has now appeared in all three classes, while Holt has developed the preference for the compact that was budding in XVII, B. (4) The presence of four well-marked preferences for the homogeneous shows that the vacancies in the compact group were more significant for the number-judgment than was the increased compactness of the filling, and that in spite of the experimental effort to the contrary. (5) The decrease of this tendency and the growth of the opposing, indicates that the judgment is determined in either case by the more vivid factor.

The conclusions to be drawn from these facts lie close at hand. (a) The results in Table XVI, with their disproportionate division into classes, were evidently due to the tendency of three observers to note the filling and of the rest to be concerned with the vacancies. (b) The judgment of relative number under these conditions is primarily a judgment of vacancies. (c) The subjective factor of vividness determines the direction of error, and may attach to either vacancies or filling, though it usually attaches to the former.

It may not be out of place here to speculate a bit as to the probable cause for so close a dependence of the number-judgment upon what has no number, so to say; upon an object that has no standing in the official conclusion. The situation seems to be fundamentally based upon the conditions that determine contrast. In a homogeneous field no part stands out. Introduce a small object quite different in brightness or complementary in color and the attention is drawn instantly to it, but internal differences in its content are quite lost in the common quality by which it differs from the ground. A case somewhat analogous is furnished by our material, particularly in the One- and Two-Group Apparatus. The small group is so unified by its contrast with the field that internal differences must be made out with relative effort. Now internal differences are necessary to the numerical character demanded of it, and they can be brought out in no way save by attending to the vacancies and so isolating parts in the threatening unity, each in a kind of space-matrix. The most careful observer could not do better on his way to truth; and that is why the error was so much larger when the factor of space-differences was studied.

That group is normally the more numerous in which the vacancies are less completely developed under observation. We say "normally" here by virtue of the speculation just completed as to the best method of attaining a judgment objectively true. For a man thus proceeding, our proposition is a sound statement of fact, to which the following results of our experiments bear witness. (a) The experiments recorded in Table XII on Relative Difference in Length of Look shows no exception of a value equal to 10% to the general statement that all tendencies, when any existed, were in the direction of favoring the shorter group. The shorter the time of exposure the less completely would the vacancies develop. (b) Table IV, E, shows that without exception the darker group tends to be judged the more numerous. (c) Table XXI shows for each subject that in a shorter exposure the absolute number seems considerably greater than in a longer exposure.

No comment seems necessary to concentrate the force of such evidence. If we carry our proposition to the detailed results of our separate studies in factors of distribution, we shall find that it helps us to understand those few exceptions to the general trend of observers as they appear in Tables II and XVII. The exceptions there favored the groups in which compactness of parts went along with certain large vacancies. Possibly enough they refused to fall in with the objective analysis, and, disregarding the prominent vacancies, devoted themselves to a development of the vacancies within the compacted parts.

c. The Factor of Hearing. The time-error analyses of the experiments of Table XVII have already contributed their facts to the special section dealing with that error. But one or two interesting facts have remained unnoticed in the sound-analysis. In the experiments of Table XVII, A, there is a single case of marked tendency to favor the sound group. With the lengthened exposure of B, this tendency, as usual, disappears; but returns in C to some extent and two other observers share it. A fourth markedly favors the group without sound. So the experiments of this last table present as marked external evidence as we have for the influence of hearing upon the judgment. These facts are presented in Table XVIII.

TABLE XVIII