Abstract
Exemplars of a diamond dot prototype and exemplars of an irregular dot prototype were formed by displacing dots according to the same probabilistic rule. The diamond exemplars were rated as much more similar to each other than were the irregular exemplars, even though the average dot displacement was equal for the two prototypes. The exemplars of each prototype may have formed a whole that corresponded to their prototype. Phenomenally, the diamond prototype forms a stronger whole than does the irregular prototype. Therefore, the whole formed by the exemplars of the diamond prototype should have been stronger. Consequently, the obtained result (along with other results) supports unit-similarity theory, which states that the perceived similarity among the components of a psychological unit, either a category or a perceptual whole (gestalt), is positively associated with the strength of the unit.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bevan, W., & Pritchard, J. F. (1963). The anchor effect and the problem of relevance in the judgment of shape. Journal of General Psychology, 69, 147–161.
Coren, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1980). Principles of perceptual organization and spatial distortion: The gestalt illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 6, 404–412.
Day, R. H. (1983). Neon color spreading, partially delineated contours, and the formation of illusory contours. Perception & Psychophysics, 34, 488–490.
Dilollo, V., & Kirkham, R. (1969). Judgmental contrast effects in relation to range of stimulus values. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 421–27.
Gravetter, F., & Lockhead, G. R. (1973). Criterial range as a frame of reference for stimulus judgment. Psychological Review, 80, 203–216.
Homa, D., Rhoads, D., & Chambliss, D. (1979). Evolution of conceptual structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 5, 11–23.
King, D. L. (1983). Anchor research: Evidence for an increase in the perceived similarity of stimuli obtained with a speeded response paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 9, 474–486.
King, D. L. (1986). Similar as well as dissimilar stimuli increase rated similarity. Manuscript submitted for publication.
King, D. L., & Atef-Vahid, M. (1986). Two extensions of the anchor-range effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 39, 96–104.
Krumhansl, C. L. (1978). Concerning the applicability of geometric models to similarity data: The interrelationship between similarity and spatial density. Psychological Review, 85, 445–463.
Pollack, I. (1952). The information of elementary auditory displays. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24, 745–749.
Pomerantz, J. R., & Schwaitzberg, S. D. (1975). Grouping by proximity: Selective attention measures. Perception & Psychophysics, 18, 355–361.
Posner, M. I., Goldsmith, R., & Welton, K. E., Jr. (1967). Perceived distance and the classification of distorted patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73, 28–38.
Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. (1970). Retention of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83, 304–308.
Prinzmetal, W., & Banks, W. P. (1977). Good continuation affects visual detection. Perception & Psychophysics, 21, 389–395.
Rock, I., & Brosgole, L. (1964). Grouping based on phenomenal proximity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 531–538.
Sjoberg, L. (1972). A cognitive theory of similarity. Goteborg Psychological Reports, 2(No. 10).
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant 5-T-34-MH16580-03. The experiment was reported at the Eastern Psychological Association meeting in Baltimore, April 1982.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
King, D.L. The exemplars of a strong whole were rated as more similar than were the exemplars of a weak whole. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 25, 51–53 (1987). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330075
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330075