Citation

Agostinelli G, Sherman SJ, Fazio RH, Hearst ES. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1986; 12(4): 445-454.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1986, American Psychological Association)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

2946801

Abstract

The recognition of changes in the features of objects was examined as a function of the nature of the change (additions, deletions, no change). In two experiments we assessed both detection (noticing whether the stimulus had changed) and identification (specifying the exact nature of the change). Both detection and identification were expected to depend upon the subject's awareness of the subsequent recognition tasks while the original stimuli were encoded. In Experiment 1, subjects were not aware of subsequent detection and identification tasks while they initially viewed study slides of the to-be-changed stimuli. During the subsequent presentation of the test stimuli, detection and identification were superior for additions. On the other hand, in Experiment 2 when subjects were aware of the subsequent recognition tasks while viewing each study slide, a detection advantage for deletions obtained. Identification performance depended upon a further factor, whether the features of a stimulus were codable. Only in codable stimuli were deletions easier to identify than additions. The differences between the two experiments in detecting and identifying additions versus deletions are consistent with Tversky's (1977) research that stresses the importance of specifying which representation (the study stimulus or the test stimulus) is the subject of comparison in the comparative judgment.

Language: en