Comments on John B. Carroll's “how shall we study individual differences in cognitive abilities?—Methodological and theoretical perspectives”

A critique by Carroll (1978) of a study by Jarman and Das (1977) is discussed in terms of the methodology and theory of the Jarman and Das study. Additionally, two general issues concerned with individual differences in cognitive processes, and strategic behavior, are elaborated beyond Carroll's discussion. It is suggested that the Carroll critique of the Jarman and Das research is incorrect in several respects, and the theory on which this research was based may contribute some needed conceptual and operational distinctions to future individual differences investigations.     

Suprathreshold binocular interactions for grating patterns

Binocular interactions of suprathreshold grating patterns have been investigated using a reaction time measure of contrast detection. Simple reaction times were determined for monocular and binocular viewing conditions over a contrast range from .63 to near threshold. The results from all subjects showed binocular summation for contrast levels near threshold, but there was considerable variation across subjects for contrast levels above threshold. Some subjects showed summation over the entire contrast range, but other subjects showed either binocular inhibition or binocular facilitation for some range of contrast levels. The pattern of binocular interaction for a given subject was consistent for several spatial frequencies. The differences in types of interaction between subjects, the variation in magnitude of binocular interaction with contrast level for each subject, and the data from experiments involving stimulation of noncorresponding retinal areas show that the binocular interactions found for suprathreshold stimuli cannot be accounted for on the basis of probability, and must, therefore, result from physiological interactions between the two eyes. These interactions have been investigated further under conditions of (1) induced fixation disparity, (2) horizontal gratings, and (3) orthogonally oriented gratings.     

The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information

In a series of studies, subjects were asked to make predictions about target individuals. Some subjects were given information about the target which pretest subjects had judged to be “diagnostic”—that is, had judged to be usefully predictive of the outcome. Other subjects were given a mix of information judged to be diagnostic and information judged to be “nondiagnostic” by pretest subjects—that is, judged to be of little value for predicting the outcome. Subjects given mixed information made much less extreme predictions than did subjects given only diagnostic information. It was argued that this “dilution effect” occurs because people make predictions by making simple similarity judgments. That is, they compare the information they have about the target with their conception of outcome categories. The presence of individuating but nondiagnostic information about the target reduces the similarity between the target and those outcomes that are suggested by the diagnostic information. One of the major implications is that stereotypes and other “social knowledge structures” may be applied primarily to abstract, undifferentiated individuals and groups and may be largely set aside when judgments are made about concrete, individuated people.     

The effect of auditory input on cerebral laterality

Cerebral laterality was examined for third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade deaf and hearing subjects. The experimental task involved the processing of word and picture stimuli presented singly to the right and left visual hemifields. The analyses indicated the deaf children were faster than the hearing children in overall processing efficiency, and that they performed differently in regard to hemispheric lateralization. The deaf children processed the stimuli more efficiently in the right hemisphere, while the hearing children demonstrated a left-hemisphere proficiency. This finding is discussed in terms of the hypothesis that cerebral lateralization is influenced by auditory processing.     

Letter familiarity does not aid feature extraction

Summary Familiarity effects in visual letter processing were examined by means of a mutilation detection task. The uppercase E was used as the non-mutilated letter. One or two horizontal bars of the E were delected, to produce an upright or inverted F or L. These four mutilations of the E were assigned to the same response. In Experiment 1, brief exposure of the stimuli was followed by a backward mask. Experiment 2 was identical to Experiment 1, except that the display duration of the stimulus was increased and the backward mask was omitted. In Experiment 3, the overall luminance of the stimuli (luminance per point times length of the constituent line segments) was held constant. In Experiment 4, the upright and inverted non-E letter occurred in different blocks to encourage a normal (upright) letter processing strategy in the upright letter blocks. Accuracy (Experiment 1) and mean correct response times (all experiments) were not different for the upright and inverted F or for the upright and inverted L. These findings and converging results from other studies indicate that the higher familiarity of the upright letters did not aid feature extraction.