SELECTIVE PERCEPTION

← Back to document page

CHAPTER1SELECTIVEPERCEPTION"Wedonotfirst see,thendefine,wedefinefirstandthensee." -WalterLippmann(citedinSnyder&Uranowitz, 1978) , , ,butaswillbecomeclear, , (1949).BrunerandPostmanpresentedpeoplewi thaseriesoffiveplayingcardsonatachis-tos cope(amachinethatcandisplaypicturesforve rybriefintervals), !BrunerandPostmanfoundthatittookpeoplemo rethanfourtimeslongertorecognizeatrickca rdthananor-malcard,andtheyfoundthatmostr eactionstotheincongruitycouldbecategoriz edasoneoffourtypes:dominance,compromise, disrup-tion, "perceptualdenial."Forexample,facedwitha blackthreeofhearts, ,formisdominantandcolorisassimilatedtopr iorexpectations,andinthesecondcase,color 1516PERCEPTION,MEMORY, 'sexperi-ment,27of28subjects(or96percent ofthepeople) ,someofBrunerandPostman' "greyish"fourofspades,orthataredsixofclu bswas"thesixofclubsilluminatedbyredlight "(remember,experi-mentalsubjectswereshow nthecardsonatachistoscope).HalfofBrunera ndPostman'ssubjectsshowedcompromiserespo nsestoredcards, , ,butwhenithappened, ,oneexperimentalsubjectexclaimed:"Idon't knowwhatthehellitisnow, 'saplayingcard.

Bruner and Postman's subjects showed compromise responses to red cards, and 11 percent showed compromise responses to blackcards. A third way that people reacted to the incongruity was with disrup­ tion. When responses were disrupted, people had trouble forming a per­ ception of any sort. Disruption was rare, but when it happened, the

  Selective, Perceptions, Postman, Selective perception