The repetition effect in time judgments is not a function of the intensity of the stimulus defining the interval: implications for an arousal theory

College students (N = 17 per group) estimated the durations of time intervals ranging from 8 to 20 sec. Intervals were defined by tones of 35, 55, and 75 db for each of three groups. The estimates of all groups declined across trials, but the degree of decline did not differ as a function of stimulus intensity. These data call into question the view that the repetition effect is attributable to a decrement in general arousal.     

Is there a disposition to avoid the fundamental attribution error?

Two studies investigated the possibility that personality variables might relate to the magnitude of the cognitive attributional error. In the first, participants received either a pronuclear or anti-nuclear weapons essay, and were asked to rate the writer's personal beliefs (attitude attribution). As expected, certain Myers-Briggs Type Indicator indices of cognitive processing preferences did not predict variations in attribution in the Choice condition, but did so in the Constraint condition. In the Constraint condition, subjects expressing the Intuitive Thinking preference showed no significant attributional error (i.e., no tendency to rate in line with essay content). Other subjects in this condition showed the usual attributional error. These findings were generally replicated in the second study, which used the Constraint condition only. The Self-Monitoring scale was added as a predictor; it did not relate to the attributional error. It was suggested that measures of cognitive processing style may be more relevant to attribution than the various measures of sensitivity to environmental variation.     

Lexical discrimination and letter-string identification in the two visual fields.

Right-handed subjects were tachistoscopically presented three-letter words and nonword permutations in a single visual field for 20 msec. Although the subjects were unable to identify the stimuli at this exposure duration, their lexical decisions were better than chance, and were superior in the left visual field. When the exposure duration was increased, subjects demonstrated superior identification of the words in the right visual field. Results are discussed within an information processing framework.