Whole and part comparisons of words and nonwords

Under conditions of sequential presentation, two words are matched more quickly than are a single letter and the first letter of a word. An exception to this whole-word advantage was reported in 1980 by Umansky and Chambers, who used word pairs as stimuli, and asked subjects to compare the entire words or the words’ first letters. Experiment 1 showed that the stimulus lists used by Umansky and Chambers may not have constrained subjects to process the displays differently for wholistic and component comparisons. In those studies, the two words were identical onsame trials for both wholistic and first-letter comparisons, so that first-letter decisions could have been based on wholistic information. In the present study, lists were constructed so that first-letter decisions could not be determined correctly by wholistic information (e.g., BLAME/BEACH), and the whole-word advantage was replicated. Experiment 2 tested whether wholistic comparisons are generally superior to component comparisons. For consonant strings, first-letter comparisons were made more quickly than were whole-string comparisons. These results are interpreted as support for hierarchical models of visual word processing.