Detection of intraword and interword letter repetition: A test of the word unitization hypothesis

Do words, as familiar units or gestalts, tend to swallow up and conceal their letter components (Pillsbury, 1897)? Letters typically are detected faster and more accurately in words than in nonwords (i.e., scrambled collections of letters), and in more frequent words than in less frequent words. However, a word advantage at encoding, where the representation of the string is formed, might compensate for, and thus mask, a word disadvantage at decoding and comparison, where the component letters of the representation are accessed and compared with the target letter. To better reveal any such word disadvantage, a task was used in this study that increased the amount of letter processing. Subjects judged whether a letter was repeated within a six-letter word or a nonword (Experiment 1; intraword letter repetition) or was repeated between two adjacent unrelated six-letter words or nonwords (Experiment 2; interword letter repetition). Contrary to Pillsbury's word unitization hypothesis, both types of letter repetition (intraword and interword) were detected faster and just as accurately with words as with nonwords. In Experiment 2, however, interword letter repetition was detected less accurately on common words (but not on rare words or third-order pseudowords) than on the corresponding nonwords. Thus, although the familiar word does not deny access to its own component letters, it does make their comparison with letters from other words more difficult.