'Vexierversuch' revisited: a reexamination of Goldiamond and Hawkin's experiment.

L. Richards

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1422078

1973-12-01

Abstract:Goldiamond and Hawkins' experiment was repeated with the dual-modality design of Postman and Rosenzweig. A postexperimental interview assessed the subjects' perceptions of and reactions to the task. Goldiamond and Hawkins' results were replicated and extended to auditory training and test conditions, but the results of the postexperimental interview call into question the relevance of this type of study to the debate about the source of the standard word-frequency effect. The effect of word frequency on recognition thresholds has been repeatedly demonstrated. The initial report of the word-frequency effect (Howes and Solomon, 1951) used naturally occurring English words. Solomon and Postman soon (1952) developed an experimental technique involving pretraining with artificial (nonsense) words, in an attempt to better control the frequency of the subject's experience with the experimental material, and since then most studies on the word-frequency effect have used the Solomon and Postman paradigm or a variation of it. The classic study of Goldiamond and Hawkins (1958) indicated the possible contributions of the response system ('response bias') to the wordfrequency effect in the Solomon and Postman design. In a training session, these investigators exposed their subjects to nonsense words at varying frequencies. The subjects then underwent a recognition session in which they were to respond to words flashed subliminally on a screen. In a procedure mimicking the ascending method of limits, subjects guessed until they emitted the word the experimenter considered 'correct.' In point of fact, all trials were blank. No stimulus words were ever presented. 'Accuracy' was defined as a subject's response matching the entry on the experimenter's score sheet. The familiar logarithmic function relating frequency of prior exposure to recognition threshold emerged from the data - a finding that cannot be attributed to perception, since nothing relevant could have been perceived - and hence we must assume that the training session set up a response bias that led to the observed relationship.