Abstract
Lasko & Lindauer (1968) concluded from their study that recognition thresholds for perception of a trick card were higher than that for normal cards. It is suggested that their conclusion is inappropriate in the absence of basic control measures.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
BRUNER, J. S., & POSTMAN, L. On the perception of incongruity: A paradigm. Journal of Personality, 1949, 18, 206–223.
ERIKSEN, C. W. Unconscious processes. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln, Nebr.: University of Nebraska Press, 1958. Pp. 169–227.
ERIKSEN, C. W. Discrimination and learning without awareness: A methodological survey and evaluation. Psychological Review, 1960, 67, 279–300.
ERIKSEN, C. W. (Ed.), Behavior and awareness. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1962.
FREEMAN, J. T. Set or perceptual defense? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1954, 48, 283–288.
FREEMAN, J. T. Set vs perceptual defense: A confirmation. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 710–712.
HABER, R. N. Effect of prior knowledge of the stimulus on word-recognition processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1965, 69, 282–286.
LACEY, O. W., LEVINGER, N., & ADAMSON. J. F. Foreknowledge as a factor affecting perceptual defense and alertness. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953, 45, 169–174.
LASKO, W. J., & LINDAUER, M. S. Experience with congruity in the perception of incongruity. Psychonomic Science, 1968, 12, 59.
NEISSER, U. Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1967.
POSTMAN, L., BRONSON, W. C, & GROPPER, G. L. Is there a mechanism of perceptual defense? Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 1953, 48, 215–224.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Harris, L. Comments on “Experience with congruity in the perception of incongruity’. Psychon Sci 15, 78–79 (1969). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03336207
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03336207