THEORIES OF PERCEPTION

PERCEPTION

INTRODUCTION

Perception of coherence in the pattern of motion on the retina suggests the motion of objects, instead of (or as well as) motion of the observer. Think back to what happened as you were walking past your neighbour’s garden. The patterns of movement in the retinal images caused by the movements of your body and your eyes were mostly coherent. The exceptions were caused by the movements of the long grasses in the breeze and the tiny movements of the cat as it stalked a bird, which were superimposed on the coherent movements caused by your own motion. The visual system needs to detect discrepancies in the pattern of retinal motion and alert its owner to them, because these discrepancies may signal vital information such as the presence of potential mates, prey or predators (as in the case of the cat and the bird). Indeed, when the discrepancies are small, the visual system exaggerates them to reflect their relative importance.

DEFINITION OF PERCEPTION:

 Like most concepts within the social science disciplines, perception (or what other scholars refer to as social perception) has been defined in a variety of ways since its first usage. From the lay man’s perspective, perception is defined as an act of being aware of “one’s environment through physical sensation, which denotes an individual’s ability to understand” (Chambers Dictionary). However, many social psychologists have tended to develop the concept around one of its most essential characteristics that the world around us is not psychologically uniform to all individuals. This is the fact, in all probability, that accounts for the difference in the opinions and actions of individuals/groups that are exposed to the same social phenomenon. At this point, it is important for you to take a look at some of these definitions in order to better appreciate the point being made here:

 According to Nelson and Quick (1997: 83-84) “social perception is the process of interpreting information about another person.” What this definition has clearly highlighted for your attention is that the opinions you form about another person depends on the amount of information available to you and the extent to which you are able to correctly interpret the information you have acquired. In other words, you may be in possession of the same set of information that other people have on a particular situation, person or group but still arrive at different conclusions due to individual differences in the capacity to interpret the information that you all have.

PERCEPTION

Perception is closely related to attitudes. Perception is the process by which organisms interpret and organize sensation to produce a meaningful experience of the world (Lindsay & Norman, 1977). In other words, a person is confronted with a situation or stimuli. The person interprets the stimuli into something meaningful to him or her based on prior experiences. However, what an individual interprets or perceives may be substantially different from reality.

self-perception theory indicates that people may guess their own attitude from their behaviour towards the attitude object, particularly when they can see no external reasons for the behavior.

CHACTERISTICS OF PERCEPTION: This section is drawn from Nelson and Quick’s (op cit: 84-87) concise description of the three major characteristics that influence our perception of other people:

Perceivers-Specific Characteristics: One of the perceivers-specific factors that influence perception is familiarity with the object of perception. Familiarity implies that, compared to others, we are better positioned to make observations leading to better relative ability to arrive at superior decisions about a particular situation. However, you must note that for you to perceive someone accurately you must have generated accurate data on that person during the stage of observation. This is because the relationship between familiarity and accuracy is not always direct. “Sometimes when we know a person well, we tend to screen out information that is inconsistent with what we believe the person is like” (Nelson and Quick, op cit: 85), which constitutes a major danger in performance appraisals. Another factor that influences social perception is the perceiver’s attitude. For instance, since no woman has ruled Nigeria since its independence in 1960, you are likely to develop the attitude that women are incapable of handling the challenges of leading this country, which has no empirical foundation. Our mood is another important factor that affects the way we perceive others. Generally, the difference in our reaction to situations is a function of the state of happiness or sadness in which we find ourselves, (i.e. our moods). Thus, we tend to more easily remember information that identify with our moods than those that do not. Accordingly, whenever we are in negative moods we generally tend to form negative impressions of others.

The self-concept of the perceiver is also a critical determinant of perception. Basically, people that possess positive self-concepts tend to perceive positive attributes in other people, while, those with negative self-concepts tend to perceive negative attributes in others. Therefore, greater understanding of self allows us to have more accurate perception of others.

 The cognitive structure, that is, a person’s thought pattern of thinking equally determines his/her perception in significant ways. While some individuals are inclined to perceiving physical characteristics such as height, weight, and appearance others pay more attention to central traits or personality dispositions. However, there are people that are capable of perceiving all these traits at the same time instead of focussing on only one aspect.

Target-Specific Characteristics: Social perception is also influenced by certain characteristics that are specific to the person being perceived (i.e. the target). One of the most important target-specific characteristics is the physical appearance of the perceived. Some of these characteristics include height, weight, estimated age, race and gender. In addition, the way you dress speaks volume about the way you are perceived. More importantly, perceivers find it easier to pick out those appearance traits that are unusual or new. Common examples of unusual personality traits include a very tall person, an energetic child as well as newcomers within a community. Verbal communications out of which perceivers assess a target’s voice tone, accent and related factors also affect his/her perception. Furthermore, the nonverbal Communication contains a lot of information through which an individual is perceived. Eye contact, facial expressions, body movements and posture are features that guide the perceiver’s impression of the target. But, while facial impressions tend to convey general meanings, nonverbal communication poses a challenge of having different meanings in different cultures.

Mention must also be made of the role of the intentions of the target as inferred by the perceiver. More often than not, we quickly infer that our creditors have come to demand payment for debts we owe to them whenever they appear at our doorsteps. However, this

is not always the case as he has come ask you to render him an advice in your area of professional competence.

Situation-Specific Characteristics: This is a very significant factor that affects the impression that is formed about someone by an individual. In other words, the Social context of the interaction is a major influence. For instance, anybody that interacts with the Chief executive of a bank in a political rally would certainly go away with a different impression of him/her compared to meeting him in his/her bank office. “In Japan, social context is very important. Business discussions after working hours are or at lunch are taboos. If you try to talk business during these times, you may be perceived as rude.” The strength of situational cues often provides clear indications of behaviour that are acceptable within certain environmental contexts. Thus, there are particular situations that influence the behaviour of an individual, which do not necessarily affect the disposition of that individual. This is what is referred to as the discounting principle in social perception. An illustration of this principle is when you come in contact with a sociable bank marketing officer that goes ahead to find out about your pastime, and knowledge of service delivery in the Nigerian banking industry. Would then be correct to attribute this behaviour to the marketing officer’s personality? You may not attribute this to his/her personality “because of the influence of the situation.” Basically, in this context, this person is prospecting for customers to whom he intends to introduce the services of his/her bank.

FACTORS AFFECTING PERCEPTION The perceptual mechanism is basically affected by two factors, namely the internal and external.

I. Internal factors: Amongst the internal factors are:

a. Needs and Desires: Basically the perception of relatively satisfied people differs significantly form those of frustrated individuals. In the words Rao and Narayana (op cit: 341) “People at different levels of needs and desires perceive the same thing differently.” Furthermore, the expectations, motivations and desires of people also shape their perception of other and situations around them.

b. Personality: Individual characteristic behaviour is another strong influence on what you perceive about that individual. “It is a trite say that optimistic people perceive the things in favourable terms, pessimistic beings in negative terms.” According to Maslow (1972:41-53, in Rao and Narayana, op cit: 341), between the optimist and the pessimist exist a category of people who are capable of perceiving others “accurately and objectively.” They sum this issue this issue in the following outline:

- Secure individuals tend to perceive others as warm, not cold.

- Thoughtful individuals do not expose by expressing extreme judgement of others.

- Persons who accept themselves and have faith their individuality perceives things favourably. - Self-accepting individuals perceive themselves as liked, wanted and accepted by others.

c. Experience: Combined with knowledge, experience has a perpetual impact on the perception of an individual. “Successful experiences enhance and boost the perception ability and lead to accuracy in perception of a person where as failure erodes self-confidence.”

II. External Factors: Listed under this sub-head are:

a. Size: Perceptual stimulus of larger sizes has higher chances of being perceived. This is due to the fact that the factor of size is commonly associated with dominance and others to standing out for selection. A straight-forward example is that a full. Page advert catches more attention than those less than a page.

b. Intensity: This factor has to do with promoting the chances of a stimuli being selected. For example, some of the strategies that foster intensity are underlining or bolding or italicising words in a written text. “The greater the intensity of a stimulus, the more likely it will be noticed.”

c. Frequency: Addresses the attention that accrues from the steady repetition of a particular stimulus. That is, the art of repetition simply attracts our alertness and provost our sensitivity to the message being sent across. The stimulus that is repeated with greater intensity is more likely to qualify for selection as it were.

d. Status: The status of a person being perceived exerts a lot of influences on a perception. Within an organization, highly placed officers expectedly influence employees than persons who occupy lower rings of the organizations hierarchy.

e. Contrast: Stimulus that share common features with the environment are less likely to quality for selection by the perceiver compared to those that contrast sharply with the environment. For example, a person that spots riotous colours or dress like father Christmas in June would certainly attract more attention that those that put up normal appearance.

perception Processing System

whether the person had the power to exert control over the events of the situation. Finally, stability of the cause relates to whether the behavior is consistent over time because of the individual’s values and beliefs or because of outside elements such as rules or laws that would govern a person’s behavior in the various situations.

Attribution theory is a concept from social psychology that allows people to offer explanations for why things happen and is more concerned with the individual’s cognitive perceptions than the underlying reality of events (Daley 1996). As such, fundamental attribution error occurs when the influence of external factors is underestimated and the influence of internal factors is overestimated in regard to making judgments about behavior. Self-serving bias is the tendency for individuals to attribute their own successes to internal factors while putting the blame for failures on external factors. When employees make attributions about a negative event that happened at work, they tend to underemphasize internal (dispositional) factors such as ability, motivation, or personality traits and overemphasize (external) situational factors. For example, some workers are “high achievers” because of their attributions. They approach rather than avoid tasks because they are confident of success due to their ability and effort. These “high achievers” persist when the work gets more difficult rather than giving up because achieving their goals is self-rewarding and they will attribute their success to their personal drive and efforts. In contrast, the unmotivated “external” person will avoid or quit difficult tasks because he or she tends to doubt his or her ability and attributes success to luck or other factors out of his or her control. Such “external” persons have little drive or enthusiasm for work because positive outcomes are not thought to be related to their direct effort.

Managers are often in a position where they make causal attributions regarding an employee’s behavior or work pattern. Kelley’s (1967, 1973) model of attribution theory incorporates three attributions: consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness Consensus relates to whether an employee’s performance is the same as or different from other employees. Consistency refers to whether the employee’s behavior is the same in most situations. Whereas distinctiveness asks the question, “Does the employee act differently in other situations?”

Managers will attribute an employee’s behavior to external causes such as task difficulty, if there is high consensus, low consistency, and high distinctiveness.

Social Perception

Social perception is how an individual “sees” others and how others perceive an individual. This is accomplished through various means such as classifying an individual based on a single characteristic (halo effect), evaluating a person’s characteristics by comparison to others (contrast effect), perceiving others in ways that really reflect a perceiver’s own attitudes and beliefs (projection), judging someone on the basis of one’s perception of the group to which that person belongs (stereotyping), causing a person to act erroneously based on another person’s perception (pygmalion effect), or controlling another person’s perception of oneself (impression management).

Halo Effect

The halo effect occurs when an individual draws a general impression about another person based on a single characteristic, such as intelligence, sociability, or appearance. The perceiver may evaluate the other individual high on many traits because of his or her belief that the individual is high in one trait. For example, if an employee performs a difficult accounting task well due to the manager’s belief of the employee’s high intelligence, then the manager may also erroneously perceive the employee as having competencies in other areas such as management or technology. The halo effect is applicable to individuals’ perceptions of others and of organizations. For example, a hospital that is well known for its open heart and cardiac programs may be perceived in the community as excellent in other departments such as obstetrics or orthopedics whether proven to be true or not. Opposite to the halo effect is the horn effect, whereby a person evaluates another as low on many traits because of a belief that the individual is low on one trait that is assumed to be critical (Thorndike, 1920). A study on obesity conducted with health professionals and researchers reflects the horn effect concept. Study participants were asked to complete an Implicit Associations Test to assess overall implicit weight bias (associating “obese people” and “thin people” with “good” vs “bad”) and three ranges of stereotypes: lazy–motivated, smart–stupid, and valuable– worthless. The study respondents were much quicker to pair “fat’’ with “lazy’’ and other negative traits and/or stereotypes (Schwartz, Chambliss, Brownell, Blair & Billington, 2003).

_{THEORIES OF PERCEPTION}

_{In order to receive information from the environment we are equipped with sense organs example; eye, ear, nose. Each sense organ is part of a sensory system which receives sensory inputs and transmits sensory information to the brain. A particular problem for psychologists is to explain the process by which the physical energy received by sense organs forms the basis of perceptual experience. Sensory inputs are somehow converted into perceptions of desks and computers, flowers and buildings, cars and planes; into sights, sounds, smells, taste and touch experiences.  A major theoretical issue on which psychologists are divided is the extent to which perception relies directly on the information present in the stimulus. Some argue that perceptual processes are not direct, but depend on the perceiver's expectations and previous knowledge as well as the information available in the stimulus itself. This controversy is discussed with respect to Gibson(1966) who has proposed a direct theory of perception which is a 'bottom-up' theory, and Gregory(1970) who has proposed a constructivist (indirect) theory of perception which is a 'topdown' theory.}

_{EXPLAINING PERCEPTION - A TOP-DOWN APPROACH}

_{Helmholtz (1821-1894) is considered one of the founders of perceptual research. He argued that between sensations and our conscious perception of the real world there must be intermediate processes. Such processes would be, for example, 'inferential thinking' - which allows us to go beyond the evidence of the senses (these inferences are at an unconscious level). Thus Helmholtz was an early Constructivist who believed perception is more than direct registration of sensations, but that other events intervene between stimulation and experience. An early illustration that supports the idea of perceptions as modifiable constructions rather than the direct responses to pattern of stimulation is the 'Ames Room'. This room is of an irregular shape with a receding rear wall and decorated in a special manner.}

_{One explanation for the Ames Room illusion is that the perceiver is in a situation of having to choose between two beliefs built up through experience - (a) rooms that look rectangular and normal, usually are just that, (b) people are usually of 'average' size. Most observers choose (a) and therefore consider the people to be 'odd'. The interesting thing about the Ames Room illusion is that it does not disappear when you learn the true shape of the room. The true wall, AC on the diagram, is decorated so as to appear to be in the position AB. Viewed from the front peephole with one eye the room appears to be rectangular but a person moving from A to C will appear to shrink. Viewing Point}

_{PERCEPTIONS AS HYPOTHESES - R L GREGORY (B 1923)}

_{Gregory proposes that perceiving is an activity resembling hypothesis formation and testing. He says that signals received by the sensory receptors trigger neural events, and appropriate knowledge interacts with these inputs to enable us to makes sense of the world.}

_{Gregory has presented evidence in support of his theory, some of which is outlined below:}

_{1. 'Perception allows behaviour to be generally appropriate to non-sensed object characteristics'. For example, we respond to certain objects as though they are doors even though we can only see a long narrow rectangle as the door is ajar.}

_{2. 'Perceptions can be ambiguous'}

_{The Necker cube is a good example of this. When you stare at the crosses on the cube the orientation can suddenly change, or flip'. It becomes unstable and a single physical pattern can produce two perceptions. Gregory argues that surely to do this we must be using more than just sensory inputs. How do we know from this stimulus alone that this is a door?}

_{3. 'Highly unlikely objects tend to be mistaken for likely objects'.}

_{Gregory has demonstrated this with a hollow mask of a face. Such a mask is generally seen as  normal, even when one knows and feels the real mask. There seems to be an overwhelming need to reconstruct the face, similar to Helmholtz's description of 'unconscious inference'. What we have seen so far would seem to confirm that indeed we do interpret the information that we receive, in other words, perception is a top down process. However:….}

 _{EVALUATION OF THE TOP-DOWN APPROACH TO PERCEPTION}

_{1. The Nature of Perceptual Hypotheses}

_{If perceptions make use of hypothesis testing the question can be asked 'what kind of hypotheses are they?' Scientists modify a hypothesis according to the support they find for it so are we as perceivers also able to modify our hypotheses? In some cases it would seem the answer is yes. For example, look at the figure below:}

_{This probably looks like a random arrangement of black shapes. In fact there is a hidden face in there, can you see it? The face is looking straight ahead and is in the top half of the picture in the centre. Now can you see it? The figure is strongly lit from the side and has long hair and a beard.}

_{Once the face is discovered, very rapid perceptual learning takes place and the ambiguous picture now obviously contains a face each time we look at it. We have learned to perceive the stimulus in a different way.}

_{Although in some cases, as in the ambiguous face picture, there is a direct relationship between modifying hypotheses and perception, in other cases this is not so evident. For example, illusions persist even when we have full knowledge of them (e.g. the inverted face, Gregory 1974). One would expect that the knowledge we have learned (from, say, touching the face and confirming that it is not 'normal') would modify our hypotheses in an adaptive manner. The current hypothesis testing theories cannot explain this lack of a relationship between learning and perception.}

_{2. Perceptual Development}

_{A perplexing question for the constructivists who propose perception is essentially top-down in nature is 'how can the neonate ever perceive?' If we all have to construct our own worlds based on past experiences why are our perceptions so similar, even across cultures? Relying on individual constructs for making sense of the world makes perception a very individual and chancy process. The constructivist approach stresses the role of knowledge in perception and therefore is against the nativist approach to perceptual development. However, a substantial body of evidence has been accrued favouring the nativist approach, for example: Newborn infants show shape constancy (Slater & Morison, 1985); they prefer their mother's voice to other voices (De Casper & Fifer, 1980); and it has been established that they prefer normal features to scrambled features as early as 5 minutes after birth.}

_{3.Sensory Evidence}

_{Perhaps the major criticism of the constructivists is that they have underestimated the richness of sensory evidence available to perceivers in the real world (as opposed to the laboratory where much of the constructivists' evidence has come from). Constructivists like Gregory frequently use the example of size constancy to support their explanations. That is, we correctly perceive the size of an object even though the retinal image of an object shrinks as the object recedes. They propose that sensory evidence from other sources must be available for us to be able to do this. However, in the real world, retinal images are rarely seen in isolation (as is possible in the laboratory). There is a rich array of sensory information including other objects, background, the distant horizon and movement. This rich source of sensory information is important to the second approach to explaining perception that we will examine, namely the direct approach to perception as proposed by Gibson.}

_{A DIRECT APPROACH TO PERCEPTION - GIBSON 1966}

_{Gibson claimed that perception is, in an important sense, direct. He worked during World War II on problems of pilot selection and testing and came to realise: In his early work on aviation he discovered what he called 'optic flow patterns'. When pilots approach a landing strip the point towards which the pilot is moving appears motionless, with the rest of the visual environment apparently moving away from that point. The outflow of the optic array in a landing glide. According to Gibson such optic flow patterns can provide pilots with unambiguous information about their direction, speed and altitude. Three important components of Gibson's Theory are 1. Optic Flow Patterns; 2. Invariant Features; and 3. Affordances. These are now discussed.}

_{1. Light and the Environment - Optic Flow Patterns}

_{Changes in the flow of the optic array contain important information about what type of movement is taking place. For example: 2 Any flow in the optic array means that the perceiver is moving, if there is no flow the perceiver is static. 3 The flow of the optic array will either be coming from a particular point or moving towards one. The centre of that movement indicates the direction in which the perceiver is moving. If a flow seems to be coming out from a particular point, this means the perceiver is moving towards that point; but if the flow seems to be moving towards that point, then the perceiver is moving away. See above for moving towards an object, below is moving away: The Optic Flow pattern for a person looking out of the back of a train.}

_{2. The role of Invariants in perception}

_{We rarely see a static view of an object or scene. When we move our head and eyes or walk around our environment, things move in and out of our viewing fields. Textures expand as you approach an object and contract as you move away. There is a pattern or structure available in such texture gradients which provides a source of information about the environment. This flow of texture is INVARIANT, ie it always occurs in the same way as we move around our environment and, according to Gibson, is an important direct cue to depth. Two good examples of invariants are texture and linear perspective.}

_{3. Affordances}

_{Are, in short, cues in the environment that aid perception. Important cues in the environment include:}

_{OPTICAL ARRAY The patterns of light that reach the eye from the environment. RELATIVE Objects with brighter, clearer BRIGHTNESS images are perceived as closer. TEXTURE The grain of texture gets GRADIENT smaller as the object recedes. Gives the impression of surfaces receding into the distance. RELATIVE SIZE When an object moves further away from the eye the image gets smaller. Objects with smaller images are seen as more distant. SUPERIMPOSITION If the image of one object blocks the image of another, the first object is seen as closer. HEIGHT IN THE Objects further away are VISUAL FIELD generally higher in the visual field. Texture Gradient giving the appearance of depth Linear Perspective Parallel lines, eg railway tracks, appear to converge as they recede into the distance.}

_{EVALUATION OF GIBSON'S DIRECT APPROACH TO PERCEPTION}

_{Visual Illusions}

_{Gibson's emphasis on DIRECT perception provides an explanation for the (generally) fast and accurate perception of the environment. However, his theory cannot explain why perceptions are sometimes inaccurate, eg in illusions. He claimed the illusions used in experimental work constituted extremely artificial perceptual situations unlikely to be encountered in the real world, however this dismissal cannot realistically be applied to all illusions. For example, Gibson's theory cannot account for perceptual errors like the general tendency for people to overestimate vertical extents relative to horizontal ones. Neither can Gibson's theory explain naturally occurring illusions. For example if you stare for some time at a waterfall and then transfer your gaze to a stationary object, the object appears to move in the opposite direction .}

_{Bottom-up or Top-down Processing?}

_{Neither direct nor constructivist theories of perception seem capable of explaining all perception all of the time. Gibson's theory appears to be based on perceivers operating under ideal viewing conditions, where stimulus information is plentiful and is available for a suitable length of time. Constructivist theories, like Gregory's, have typically involved viewing under less than ideal conditions. Research by Tulving et al manipulated both the clarity of the stimulus input and the impact of the perceptual context in a word identification task. As clarity of the stimulus (through exposure duration) and the amount of context increased, so did the likelihood of correct identification. However, as the exposure duration increased, so the impact of context was reduced, suggesting that if stimulus information is high, then the need to use other sources of information is reduced. One theory that explains how top-down and bottom-up processes may be seen as interacting with each other to produce the best interpretation of the stimulus was proposed by Neisser (1976) - known as the 'Perceptual Cycle'.}

_{PERCEPTUAL SET}

_{The concept of perceptual set is important to the active process of perception. Allport, 1955 defined perceptual set as:}

_{"a perceptual bias or predisposition or readiness to perceive particular features of a stimulus".}

_{Perceptual set is a tendency to perceive or notice some aspects of the available sensory data and ignore others. According to Vernon, 1955 set works in two ways: (1) The perceiver has certain expectations and focuses attention on particular aspects of the sensory data: This he calls a 'Selector'. (2) The perceiver knows how to classify, understand and name selected data and what inferences to draw from it. This he calls an 'Interpreter'. It has been found that a number of variables, or factors, influence set, and set in turn influences perception.}   

_{The factors include:}

_{• Expectations}

_{• Emotion}

_{• Motivation}

_{• Culture}

_{1. EXPECTATION}

_{(a) Bruner & Minturn, 1955 illustrated how expectation could influence set by showing participants an ambiguous figure '13' set in the context of letters or numbers e.g. The physical stimulus '13' is the same in each case but is perceived differently because of the influence of the context in which it appears. We EXPECT to see a letter in the context of other letters of the alphabet, whereas we EXPECT to see numbers in the context of other numbers.}

_{(b) We may fail to notice printing/writing errors for the same reason. For example:}

_{1. 'The Cat Sat on the Map and Licked its Whiskers'.}

_{2. (a) and (b) are examples of interaction between expectation and past experience. (c) A study by Bugelski and Alampay, 1961 using the 'rat-man' ambiguous figure also demonstrated the importance of expectation in inducing set. Participants were shown either a series of animal pictures or neutral pictures prior to exposure to the ambiguous picture. They found participants were significantly more likely to perceive the ambiguous picture as a rat if they had had prior exposure to animal pictures. Once in a lifetime.}

_{2. MOT1VATION AND EMOTION}

_{Allport, 1955 has distinguished 6 types of motivational-emotional influence on perception:}

_{(i) bodily needs (eg physiological needs)}

_{(ii) reward and punishment}

_{(iii) emotional connotation}

_{(iv) individual values}

_{(v) personality}

_{(vi) the value of objects.}

_{(a) Sandford, 1936 deprived participants of food for varying lengths of time, up to 4 hours, and then showed them ambiguous pictures. Participants were more likely to interpret the pictures as something to do with food if they had been deprived of food for a longer period of time. Similarly Gilchrist & Nesberg, 1952, found participants who had gone without food for the longest periods were more likely to rate pictures of food as brighter. This effect did not occur with non-food pictures.}

_{(b) A more recent study into the effect of emotion on perception was carried out by Kunst- Wilson & Zajonc, 1980. Participants were repeatedly presented with geometric figures, but at levels of exposure too brief to permit recognition. Then, on each of a series of test trials, participants were presented a pair of geometric forms, one of which had previously been presented and one of which was brand new. For each pair, participants had to answer two questions: (a) Which of the 2 had previously been presented? ( A recognition test); and (b)  Which of the two was most attractive? (A feeling test). The hypothesis for this study was based on a well-known finding that the more we are exposed to a stimulus, the more familiar we become with it and the more we like it. Results showed no discrimination on the recognition test they were completely unable to tell old forms from new ones, but participants could discriminate on the feeling test, as they consistently favoured old forms over new ones. Thus information that is unavailable for conscious recognition seems to be available to an unconscious system that is linked to affect and emotion.}

_{3. CULTURE}

_{(a) Deregowski, 1972 investigated whether pictures are seen and understood in the same way in different cultures. His findings suggest that perceiving perspective in drawings is in fact a specific cultural skill, which is learned rather than automatic. He found people from several cultures prefer drawings which don't show perspective, but instead are split so as to show both sides of an object at the same time. In one study he found a fairly consistent preference among African children and adults for split-type drawings over perspective-drawings. Splittype drawings show all the important features of an object which could not normally be seen at once from that perspective. Perspective drawings give just one view of an object. Deregowski argued that this split-style representation is universal and is found in European children before they are taught differently. Elephant drawing split-view and top-view perspective. The split elephant drawing was generally preferred by African children and adults.}

_{(b) Hudson, 1960 noted difficulties among South African Bantu workers in interpreting depth cues in pictures. Such cues are important because they convey information about the spatial relationships among the objects in pictures. A person using depth cues will extract a different meaning from a picture than a person not using such cues. Hudson tested pictorial depth perception by showing participants a picture like the one below. A correct interpretation is that the hunter is trying to spear the antelope, which is nearer to him than the elephant. An incorrect interpretation is that the elephant is nearer and about to be speared. The picture contains two depth cues: overlapping objects and known size of objects. Questions were asked in the participants native language such as:}

_{‘What do you see?’}

_{‘Which is nearer, the antelope or the elephant?’}

_{‘What is the man doing?’'}

_{The results indicted that both children and adults found it difficult to perceive depth in the pictures .The cross-cultural studies seem to indicate that history and culture play an important part in how we perceive our environment. Perceptual set is concerned with the active nature of perceptual processes and clearly there may be a difference cross-culturally in the kinds of factors that affect perceptual set and the nature of the effect.}