California State University, Northridge
AGE, PREFERENCE, AND DISPLAY COMPLEXITYI <
FACTORS IN THE DESIGN OF
TELEVISION lviATERIALS FOR CJ-l:::ILDREN
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Psychology
by
Robert Steimnetz
Dcccrnber, 1972
The thesis of Robert Steinmetz is approved:
Com.mi?tee \thairrnan
California State University, Northridge
December, 1972
i
L.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This thesis is dedicated to the children:
Clay
Josh
Katie
Car a
Chris
Alec
Pieter
Nina
I
I
I
I
Ethan
Edward
David
Jeffrey
Michael
Matthew
Dennis
Beth Ann
Clancy
Jennifer
Charley
Hillary
Bradford
Logan
Daisy
I would like to acknowledge the unique contributions of several
ljindividuals to whom I am sincerely grateful.
Mr. 1v1ark Koenig
Ms. Suzanne Larson
Ms. Mackey Merker
Dr. Frederick M.uckler
Mrs. Francia Neiman
Mr. Robert Neinhuis
Mr. Williarn Roe
Ms. Judy Silver
Mr. Bern Wolf
lv1r. Kent Walcott
I
I
Dr. Barbara Tabachnik served as a member of the Thesis Com-
I!rnittee and assisted
greatly in the statistical analysis of the results.
Mr. Graham Slack contributed, more than generously, his time
Iland
skills to build the necessary instrumentation and create a praise-
!lwo:r:thy photographic record of the progress of this work.
!
Dr. Irving Streirner contributed his analytical talents and
!encouraged rne to use a critical eye in designing and evaluating my
J
I!own research.
!.l;
l
1v1r. Harry Neiman who, out of friendship, gave friendship.
.
He
I
lworked long and arduous hours
struggling along with n1.e to gain con-
j trol over a medium that was strange to both of us.
I
iii
Dr. William Knowles gave unselfishly of his time to read and
goals.
I
I!
I
t.~--------.--------"-··------------- ··--·--·---·-----·------..---··-·--· ---..--.. --..-~-- -- "" . . . . "-------- __,.___________,___________ "•· .......
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pagel
. ... ....... ...... . . .. .... ...
i
I A C KNO WLEDG.l\·1ENT S
I
LIST OF FIGURES
•
•
to
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(!
•
•
•
•
•
.. .... . .. .. .. .
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . .
.
~
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . .
2
•
•
•
•
iii
vii
viii
ix
. .. . ... . ...... .. ... . ..... . ....
Purpose •••
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION
"'
1
"
1
6
"'
Stimulu.s Materials.
Cl
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
6
•
Subjects . . . . . . . . .
.. . . .. ... . .. . . . ... .. . . . . .
6
Experim_enta1 De sign
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
11
Procedures
...
••••••••••e••••••••••••••8•••~•
11
RESUL'J.""'S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " • •
17
. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
17
Preferred Level of Cmnp1exity.
.,
:F'requency of Switching Between Levels . . . . . . . . . .
T:ime on Neither Display
IDISCUSSION
..
•
fl
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
~
. .
22
. . .. .. . . ... . . . ...... ...
22
•
•
"'
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
. . . . . .. .. ... . .... . . .... . .. ... ..
Interpretation of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Validity
""
Story Content
e<~••••••••o••••••••ao•••e••••••
27
27
28
29
hnplications for the Design of Te1evjsion }.,1aterjals
... .... .. . .
29
~REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
for Children
~
I
L.~~--~·....-,._•c~o.~-~---·~•• ~~>.~o•-~~--
•- .~ ---·---·~• •~ -·---•- ~-~~>r·o~-----~-~~-~~----·-•·~·-·-~~-·"- ~-~··~~~~··••••• ·---v~.-·~,_,_.,~,, •--·~-•¥•"•~• ~-• ~-.-~•••
v
"
<•» ••• • ,._., •-·• > -
•P--~ ••
_,'
..
------------------~--------- -----------·-·----~--~
Page!
I
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • .
331I
APPENDIX A·- LITERATURE REVIEW . .
34!
"Visual Complexity and Looking Time .•
351
Visual Processes, Perceptual Processes, and
I!
Chronological Age • . • . • • . . ·..•. • ••.••
371
APPENDIX B- CONTROL OF STIMULUS PARA1v1ETERS . .
38!
I
!
Contrast Ratios
391
39!
Dete eta bili ty • .
391
Spatial Characteristics .
Results
l
!
I
Subjects
39
Stilnulus materials.
40!
Apparatus.
40
Procedure
40'
!
i
!
l
i
I
40 l
••••••..
I
!
APPENDIX B. l - PILOT STUDY INSTRUCTIONS.
41 !
APPENDIX C- APPARATUS.
44!I
I
APPENDIX D-RAW SCORES FOR EACH SUBJECT
I
Number of Control Switches and the Time Spent
(Seconds) on the Complex, Simple, and Neither
Display During Each 15 -Second Interval . . . . • •
APPENDIX E --RAW SCORES FOR EACH SUBJECT -Proportion
~f
Time Spent on the Complex Display,
Simple Display, and Neither Display During
Each Segment .
. . .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .
.,
51 i
I
l
!
l
54 i
l
I
!
I'
I
L.---··---·---·-·······-·--·-········--··-~·---·---··-----·----······--------------·-·-------------···---------~------·----··---·-···--·-·--····-·--·J
vi
-------~------~·------------·--··-· ---------···---~---~···----------------------- ----~--1
LIST OF FIGURES
I
Page:
I
ll.
·Examples of Stilnulus Materials Used in
Previous Studies . • • • • . . • . • . • • •
1. A.
l. B.
l.
2.
c.
... . . ..
3
Examples of the materials used by Berlyne
(1958) . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • • . •
3
Examples of the materials used by Cantor,
Cantor, and Di trichs ( 196 3) • • • • • •
4
Random walks: five of the examples of
stimulus complexity used in the study
by Vi tz ( 1 9 6 6) • • • • • • • . • . • • • • . .
5
Scenes from the Segments used in the Present Study.
7
2. A.
Boy . .
7
2. B.
Ghost ••
8
c.
Trolls
9
2. D.
Spies .
2.
. .....
10
3.
Experimental De sign
12
4.
Photograph of Experimental Room- subject's
,position, television rnonitors and remotecontrol box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
Graph of Tin~e on Complex Displays During
Successive Intervals . • • . . . • • . • . . . . .
19
Graph of the Proportion of Time Spent on the
Complex, Simple, and Neither Display for
Each Video-taped Segment . • • • • . . • . . .
20
Graph of the Tilne Spent on the Complex Display
by Male versus Female Subjects. • . • . • . • •
23
Graph of Svritching Frequency During
Successive Intervals • . • . • . • • • • •
25
Photograph of Experimental Anteroom.
48
Floor Plan of Experimental Setting . • . . • • •
50
5.
6.
7.
8.
I 9.
I10.
I
t ·····--···-···------·-----·--·-------·---- ·-·-----.. ·--·----- -··----------·-·' --~------·---·-···· ....................................................- ........................... - " ..
vii
LIST OF TABLES
.Page.
I.
"Summary Table for the Groups by Trials Analysis
of Variance- Time on the complex display as
function of age group and time trials (ten
15-second intervals) • . . . • . . • . • • . • . • • • • •
18
Summary Table for the Groups by Trials Analysis
of Variance- Time on the complex display as
a function of age group and segment (four
different stories) . . • • . • . • • . • . • . . . • •
21
Summary Table for the Groups by Trials Analysis
of Variance- Nurnber of control changes as a.
function of age group and time trials (ten
15-second intervals) • . . . • . . • • • • • . • • .
24
Summary Table for the Groups by Trials Analysis
of Variance- Time on neither display as a
function of age group and time trials (ten
15-second intervals). . • • . • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • . •
26
a
II.
III.
IV.
viii
ABSTRACT
AGE, PREFERENCE, .AND DISPLAY COMPLEXITY
FACTORS IN THE DJ<:SIGN OF
TELEVISION MATERIALS FOR CHILDREN
by
Robert Steinmetz
I
Master of Arts in Psychology
I
December, 1972
i
I
This Btudy was conducted to gather in£orm.ation about the
I
!preferred level of display co1nplexity for two groups of preschool
I
lchildr en.
l
.
High and low- corr1plexity anin1ated displays, sim.ilar to
~those used in children's television p1·ograms, were presented simul-
ltaneously over two television1nonitors.
The subjects, 3 and 5-year-
1
lold children, were allo·wed to sarnple both levels of con1plexity at will.·
I
'
!The data indicate tr1at yc;u:nger children prefer to watch displays of
'
f
hower levels of c01nplexity a greater proportion of time than do older
ix
---------·-·----·----~·-····
... """ '""'"'-··--· -·-·-...
~---
-·- ... ·-----·-...--.- ---··- .... ---··- ---- '"'"······--·..···· ----·-······· ·····--·----··--- ......... ...,
..
INTRODUCTION
This study is concerned with display complexity as a 'parameter
lin the d2sign of television materials for preschool children.
Specifi-
lcally, this study investigated the relation between viewing preference
Ia.nd display c01nplexity as a function of chronological age. The chilIdren involved were 3 and 5 years old. Viewing preference was
defined in terms of the amount of time the children spent viewing
each o£ t\vo television displays.
DiBplay
con~plexity
was defined in
terrns of the nmnber of elements and anwunt of detail within dynam.ic
displa.ys involving rnea.ningful characters, such as rnight be found in
I
I •
,_
___ _
I
I educational
television prograrns.
i
I
..._
l Background
There are two opposing schools of thought regarding the rela-
1 tion
I
between age and preferred level of complexity.
One school
(Berlyne, 1958; Cantor, Cantor, and Ditl'ichs, 1963; 1\1urray and
Brown, 1967; Faw and Nunnally, 1967) claims that all individuals
Iwill prefer to watch the highest level of display corn.plexity available.
The other (Dember and Earl, 1957; Vitz, 1966) proposes that the pre·-:
I fer red
ability.
level is a function of the indivi.du.al' s inforn1ation processing
Since these abilities change with age (Piaget, 1930; Gibson;
11970; Travers, 1970), it follows that children of different ages vrill
I
prefer different levels of cornplexity.
A more thorough review of
I
i the literature will be fou.nd in Appendix A.
l\
l.- _~.,~,_ ..,~,---~•-~-'-~"-~~~---•~~·••·-~" ·~---~~·,.~-·~
•••••-><<
~-~~~-~-~--~ ~- ~·---~~~~~-~~ ''"·~~~··•.,-•~ .~.-~·~•~ ~-n~.M
...··•·•·· •
•
1
- ••
•··• ,,.,,,., "'
- ·~
•
•-·•«•o• ,, •• -.,,.,,.,"''
~-~-~-·•,-
- .. , -··••· .,,
,,
••~·,,
2
Previous research in this area lacks a universally acceptable
!definition for display complexity.
Complexity has variously been
!define.d as the number of elements, heterogeneity of elements, numlber of uninterrupted lines, amount of variety or diversity, angular
variance, number of turns, and amount of detail (Payne, 196 5).
For
the purposes of the present study, display complexity is shYlply
;postulated to be positively related to the number and variety of the
!details or elements comprising a stimulus array.
All of the previous studies in this area used abstract visual
sthnuli (see Figure 1).
However, television 1naterials, for the most
lpart, involve meaningful or realistic characters.
In this study, the
relation between preferred level of complexity and chronological age
was explored using experimental materials that involved meaningful
stimuli, on the assumption that the findings would apply more
Idirectly to
the design of television displays for children.
I
j
!
... .. ·- . - -- . """"""'. ·-·--'··-···-·--------·------------------------····----------·-----·-··-----·-···-·--···· --·--·------------·-·"··"-·· ··----·-· . --· -- ...... _,_ ....!
L .... -................
3
-------------·--·-----~-- ---~~~---------------··------ ~-----~----~------ ----·-----~-·--"'-·-··----
---------------·
i
ARRANGEMENT
AMOUNT
DO
DO
60
DO
HETEROGENEITY
SHAPE
I
I
l
I
Figure l. A.
Exarn.ples of the materials used by Berlyne
(1958).
I
l-~----- --~----~---~-~--- -------~------~----------~---~--------- ~~- --------~--- ~- ------~----~--~----~-~-~----_j
I
4
r·--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·
II
l!
''
I-
I
I
!
I
I
I
I!
0
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
0
Figure 1. B. Examples of the materials used by Cantor,
Cantor, and Ditrichs ( 196 3).
I
[______________ --------- ---- ---- ---------------------·------------------------ -------- -------------------------------------------------
5
~-----~---------------
------------------.
--------------------------~
I
I
i
!
:
r,·
-1
I
3
I
I
I
I
8
I
14
I
I
!
i
Figure 1. C. Rand01n walks: five of the examples of
stimulus complexity used in the study by
Vitz (1966).
I
l---------- - - - - - ------------ ------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------ - - -
I
I
------~~----------------->
r----
-~·--·-~-·---~-.-----·--· ~·----- ·~-~-~------
I
------------ -·-·---------------------------------
-------~
METHOD
;
!stimulus Materials
~--~he :~~:ulus 1naterials consisted of eight video-taped segments
of anim.agnetic puppets and accompanying sound tracks.
Anin1agnetic
!puppets are two-dilnensional characters that are n1oved across a
i
!plane or scene by rneans of n1agnets.
Four of the segrnents contained
!complex characters and scenes, and four segments contained simple
i
!characters and scenes {see Figure 2). Each complex segment had a
I
!simple counterpart that was identical with respect to the identity of
I
I
lthe characters, character size, field size, rate and direction of rnove-
i
!ment, placement of the elen1ents, visibility, and contrast ratios.
The
!characters portrayed in each of the segrnents were randornly selected
I
i
!from a list of characters com.piled from. a dictionary for children
l(Eashnan, 1964 ).
The methods ernployed to verify the equality of all
l
jof the above parameters between the two levels of complexity are
I
jdescribed in Appendix B.
The length of segment A, the Boy, vvas 48
i
(seconds; segment B, the Ghost, was 25 seconds; segment C, the
i
l
!Trolls, was 39 seconds; and segment D, the Spies, was 44 seconds.
!
!The total combined length of a set of four segments was 2 rrdnutes and·
I
i
j37
seconds.
~~E.Je~ts
l
I
Eight 3-year-old and eight 5-year-old children from three local
!preschools served as subjects. Group I, designated as 3 -year -olds,
ll
iconsisted of four n1ales and four fernales vvith a chronological age
I
i
!range of 3. 5 to 3. 8 years and a rnean of 3. 64 years.
i
Group II, the
L•._.. ··~-.--- ............ --~------- ... ·- ~·-·-······-- -- --~. ----···· -· ------ - ~ ......,...~~~--·-------------·---··-····-~·· -·-·~·-·· ... ·- --·-·--·---- ~-- ·--·--·· ........... ~ -- _. ........ .
6
7
Figure 2. A.
Complex and Simple Examples of the
Boy Scene Used in the Present Study.
8
Figure 2. B.
Complex and Simple Examples of the
Ghost Scene Used in the Present Study.
9
Figure 2. C.
Complex and Simple Examples of the
Trolls Scene Used in the Present Study.
10
Figure 2. D.
Complex and Simple Examples of the
Spies Scene Used in the Present Study.
11
[
.-~------------~----------~------
--·------·--·-----------------··"--•. ····---
-----~
I
15-year -olds, consisted of five males and three females with a
\
!chronological age range of 5. 08 to 5. 91 years and a mean of 5. 4
years.
All of the children who served as subjects were considered
by their parents and this experin}enter to be normal in regard to
visual acuity, emotional maturity, and intellectual development.
Experimental Design
1
I A graphic representation of the experimental design used to
Iinvestigate the relationship between display complexity and the two
1
!age groups is shown in Figure 3.
The four segments (A, B, C, and D)
!within each level of complexity were counterbalanced for sequence
land electronically spliced to form four complex and four simple tapes.
The video signals from a complex tape and its simple counterpart
were fed simultaneously into two television monitors.
I!control
The contrast
circuitry of each monitor was routed through a control box
i
!which was operated by the child and perm.itted viewing of only one
!level of con::tplexity at a tilne.
l
The two n1.onitors were placed side by
.
!side on a table in front of the child; position, whether the complex
!program appeared on the monitor to the left or right of the subject,
!was systernati.cally varied between subjects.
Each complex program
lwas fully synchronized with its simple counterpart.
I
It was therefore
!possible for the child to switch the control between the monitors withlout missing any of the action.
IiProcedures
I
Ii
The procedures involved three 1najor phases, the first being
ian attempt by the experim.enter to build a rapport with the child and
'
t.,...._,.,_..,_.,.. ~.... ...._~ ~-~----.,._..,.,. -.-.~N •·~"' •- --~---• ~-~---~·.<, ·~-..:·-·-~~"-• ••"• ~.-· ->-- -•• ·-~--~.-----~~·~·~--~~~-~---·~·- ·~·-··------~--~~-·-·~•••••• ... -~•~• . . -•~·~-. ----~--- '"-'" ~.-- •- ·•---·-
>'
12
r--·---·-------·------·---·-------·
Subject
Sex
..
~~-·-·~·~
Position
of Complex
Dispiay
Age
Order of
Presentati on
of Segmen ts
--
I
1
Male
3
Left
A B
c
D
2
Female
3
Left.
B D A
c
3
Male
3
Left
c
A D B
4
Male
3
Left
D
c
H
P-t
:::>
-
B A
5
Male
3
Right
A B
c
D
6
Female
3
Right
B D A
c
7
Female
3
Right
CA D B
8
Female
3
Right
D
II
9
Male
5
Left
A B
c
D
I
10
Male
5
Left
B D A
c
11
Female
5
Left
c
A D B
12
Female
5
Left
D
c
Male
5
Right
A B
c
D
14
Male
5
Right
B D A
c
15
Female
5
Right
CA D B
16
Male
5
Right
D
0
~
0
I
I
I P-i
c
BA
H
~-l
:::> 13
-
B A
0
~
I
I
0
Figure 3.
c
B A
Experimental De sign. Each video-taped segment
(A, BJ c, and D) always precedes and follows a
different segment.
13
the experilnental room, play with a set of toys provided by the experimenter, and make a variety of decisions regarding the pacing of the
~preliminary
procedures.
The second phase was a pretest period.
The purpose of this part of the experiment was to acquaint the child
with the operation of the control box, verify that he knew how and was
Iwilling to operate the
control, and acclimate hiln to the novelty ere-
'
lated by having two monitors portraying simultaneous and nearly iden-:
I!tlca
. 1 programs.
I
Specifically, the child was seated in front of the television mon-
itors (as shown in Figure 4) and shown a set of pretest materials
1which
consisted of the fourth simple and fourth complex segment
I
from the sequence of segments (Figure 3) to be shown him during the
!experiment.
When the pretest segments began, the experirnenter
explained and demonstrated the use of the remote control box to the
child and directed his attention to the fact that both displays con-
Itained the
same characters performing the same actions.
The child
was then given the control box and asked to demonstrate an ability to
switch between displays.
All of the children were able to accom-
plish this task on the first trial.
The third phase in the procedure involved the presentation of
Ithe stimulus 1nate:rials and recording of the data.
I
The switch on the
control box was put in a neutral position and the stim.ulus rnaterials
Iwere activated.
I
! watch
The child was given the control box and told to
whichever television he wished.
No further exchanges
l._~ -----~ -------·--·--· ·------·- ·- - - - - - - - · - - · . . . . . . . . . -------.. . . . . . . -------··- ---------------.. . . . . . -.-----· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -·- ·. . . . . ·- . . . . . --..
14
·--·---------·-------------·---------··---------·-·-·--~-·"""~·--·-··-------~·--···---·
'""'l
I
Figure 4.
Experimental Room- Subject 1 s position,
television monitors and remote- control box.
16
lI
(occurred between the subject and experimenter until the prograrns
I
lwere completed.
The length of tirYte spent on each level and the
l
i
'number of switches between levels was recorded on an event
l
)recorder connected directly to the control box.
A complete listing
\
i
jof this, and the other pieces of equipment enJ.ployed. during the course
!
:of the experiment, is given in Appendix C.
r
ll
'~----~---
---"-----··-·-
------------·--------·-------~
. ---· ---
-------~--· ~------·-
·- --1
l
I
RESULTS
I
!
i
The data obtained from the event recorder (Appendices D and
l!E) were exarn.ined to determine (a) the number of seconds
I
spent on the:
I
i
!con1plex display during each of ten 15-second intervals, (b) the pro-
'
iportion of time spent on the com.plex display during each of the four
j
istory segrnents, (c) the number of seconds spent on neither display
\
I
!during each of ten 15-second intervals, and (d) the number of control
i
!changes rnade by the subject during each of the 15-second intervals.
I!The Yalues
obtained for each of the dependent variables "V'.rere sub-
!
!
ljected to four groups by trials analyses of variance and a chi-square
I
!analysis to deterrnine the effects of age group mem.bership, segm.ent
I
l
!content, changes over time, and sex of the subject.
The surn.mary
r
!tables for these analyses are shown in T'ables I, II, Ill, and lV.
I
f
jPre_f~l·r~~).ev_~ __C?i_.Con2J>lexit_y
Th.e arnount of time spent looking at the cornplex display during
i
!the course of the programs (see Table I) ·was significantly a££ected
!
!(p < . 01) by age.
The younger children chose to view the simple dis-
I
~plays and the older children the complex displays.
The preferred
!
!level of cornplexity did not change significantly ove1· time (p > . 05) or
l
jbebveen the different segments (see Fi gure.s 5 and 6). Preference
t
rwa.s c.ffected significantly, however, (p
< . 05), by an interaction
lbetween age and ti1:nc intervals during the program (see Table II).
'
!As shown in Figure 5, during a few intervals both age groups dernon-·
l
i
jstrated equal preference for the cornplex display.
There was no
'
!
!
' ""·~~ ,~ ....·"-•·-~~L.
·~--~·--•·~• ••·•- ·-~·•••· •-·• -~~~----~·~ .----··•·
---•••·J-' ..,
~-·---··•. -~•-••--•-~···•·-~~----•~-·-~·--·•~·-v--.··-•••••--~-----•~• ••-~--•• •·-·'""~---•••·
17
•--•-·•••••'< "-•---•• ,.__
1
18
,.......,._---.;,....--.-.,.-~~-------~-·------ •••,r~-~--.....,.~-~-~u~---~~-·-~-r~-..-...-..._~_...,.._,__,.__.,--...,._
_ _..._..,....__.~.,.~--~-..,,_<.,._.•···~--·~•~-"-""""""'~~'•;
l
~
TABLE I.
Surmnary Table for the Groups by Trials
Analysis of Variance - Time on the complex
display as a function of age group and time
trials (ten 15- second intervals).
D. F.
s.s.
M.S.
159
5592.234
35.171
Between
15
1273.290
84.886
A (Age)
1
817.894
817.894
14
455.396
32.528
144
4318.944
29.993
T (Titne)
9
196.629
21. 848
0.728
AT (Age x Time)
9
339. 157
37.684
I. 2 5 5 ~:<>!<
126
3783. 159
30.025
SOURCE
Total
S/A
Within
ST/A
F
25.
144~!<
>!<Significant (.01)
>!<>!<Significant (. 05)
i
i
1
l
~
, ... .,
~-~· ..;-•·•-•·•••«~·---~----~~.,-~.-~'"•-'• -.-·--·~·-•"'-~--~--·-~---~---"·•--.--•-••~.---~·-· ~---·~
•
••• .... --••·•-•<•»•• ••
_..,..,r~~·-·~-·-·-·-~-·-,_._,,,,,~,-~-~-" -·~--•-- • .~, -~ ·---~---~·~-" •
19
---~-"·----------·-----------~----------·-----··-
··-· ---····--------·-·-·--·--"'······-·-"'·----··->]
I
I
3-year -olds
----
I
I
I
I
I
I
,/
I
I
I
5-year-olds
,,
\
\
\
\
\,---
1
Q.
~/~0
0 .._________
0
15
30
45
--------··-·-------60
75
90
105
120
135
150
Successive Intervals
(seconds)
Figure 5.
Time on Com.plex Displays Dv.ring Successive
Intervals.
20
--------·--·---·-.-------··-------~----··--·------~
~--
I
.
.I
I. 00
f:tl,
~
1-1
(;!ffi comPlex
E--1
Osimp/e
l!ml neitl'Jer
. 75
fx-1
0
~
1-1
•
E--1
50
p:;
0
f1!•
0
~
• 25
I
I
I
B
A
Segment
c
D
Ii
GROUP I
3-year -olds
I. 00
f:tl
~
H
E--1
•
75
~
0
z
0
H
......
.....
......
. 50
E--1
:::: =~­
;;;;;!
.....
·····
.....
.....
p:;
0
~
0
0
25
~
...
...
:!:I
._._.J '
Segment
A
B
D
GROUP n·
5-year -olds
I
I~I
c
Figure 6.
Proportion of Time Spent on Complex, Simple, and
Neither Display for Each of Four Segments.
.
i
1
Il
L.M- ~~··~-~~--~·~~-,.~~·-·-----·-~ -----·~·-e-•-·---····"~----~~·----·----·--· --~ ---•~• ·- ·~ __ ._. __ - ~~---•~- --~•~-~~"~ ---~·-~~-·~--~~·-• ••---·~•• -~ ~·-- ·~~~~- ,.,, •••"" '• J
21
TABLE II.
Sumrnary Table for the Groups by Trials
Analysis of Variance -Time on the complex
display as a function of age group and segInent (four different stories).
SOURCE
D. F.
s. s.
M.S.
F
Total
63
6. 161
0.098
Between
15
2.601
0. 173
A (Age)
1
1. 714
1. 714
S/A
14
0.887
0.063
Within
48
3.559
0.074
B (Story)
3
0.056
0.019
0.237
AB (Age x Story)
3
0.214
0.071
0.910
42
3.290
0.078
SB/A
>!<Significant (. 01)
27.
046>:~
22
.
..
r-·-~----~-~-------·----··- -~-----···------- --~-----------~~---··----------
l!
. ·-----·----···-------------··-----.. ·-·--·..
····-----~----·-··--·.
)
Isignificant
difference in the amount of time spent on the complex
Ijdisplay between rnales
and females (see Figure 7).
jFrequency of Sw~tching Between Level~
I
l
All of the children actively sampled both displays with no
I
!difference in the sampling frequency attributable to the differences in
i
I
!age (see Table III).
~
Switching was affected, however, by an inter-
i
!
1action
between age and time.
Figure 8 illustrates that the older
children switched frequently at the onset of the program.s and steadily .
reduced their rate of switching as time progressed.
The younger
children fluctuated in a cyclic fashion between few and rnany control
switches throughout the entire program.
Time on N_either pisplay
The a1nount of tilne spent in switching between displays or
holding the control in a neutral position during each segment is
illustrated in Figure 6.
Analysis of the total am.ount of time each
subject spent not viewing either level of complexity showed no signif:i.cant affect (p
> . 05) attributable to age
(see Table IV).
23
~--~-----·-
'10
81. 2
80
Ul
: 70
>.
ro
.-I
p_,
Ul
•rl
Q .-.. 60
~
Ul
<!)
.-I
•c:J
0
(j)
~
su
P..o
50
0~
!=1
." .•.•.:1
Pe..
... .. J
0
II
<!)
s
•rl
f-i
e
8 •••
t
" • • • $-.
fJ
t) . . . .
c~·
30
Females
Males
20
10
GROUP I
GROUP II
3-year-olds 5-year-olds
Figure 7.
Mean Tirne (seconds) Spent on the Complex
Display for Males and Females in Each
Age Group.
I
l
I
I
L_ --·····------------------ .......'" ___ ---~----.. ·-· ·---·----·--·------- ---------------------------·-------------··----- ---~--- ·-------·--·--·- ·-·· -- ·-- ........._
24
TABLE III.
Summary Table for the Groups by Trials
Analysis of Variance -Number of control
changes as a function of age group and time
(ten 15--second intervals).
D. F.
s. s.
M.S.
159
176.400
1. 109
15
26.200
1. 747
1
1. 600
1.600
14
24.600
1. 757
144
150.200
1. 043
T (Time)
9
14.650
1. 628
1. 729
AT (Age x Time)
9
16.900
1. 878
1. 994>:<>:<
126
118.650
0.942
SOURCE
Total
Between
A (Age)
S/A
Within
SB/A
:.:<>:<Significant (. 0 5)
F
0.911
25
3-year -olds
----
5-year-olds
•
--o
I
I
I
!\
\.
\.
I
\ I
\ I
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
"
120
135
\.
'-o
150
Successive Intervals
(seconds)
Figure 8.
Switching Frequency During Successive Intervals.
26
-'-------···-----·····-·-····---····-·---···--·--·--·-···-~----·--·-----1
I
I
*>:<Significant (. 05)
}'"·~·-'"'"''
,,...,.--~
·~··-··~.......----.,,
_
_.,_~.._
--~----
_._,,,,u .. ·''"- ._, _____ , _
_._~•-.
.,,.,_
~,-,.._,_.~,.,.,~-<·~·----~
...,.,.~_-·____.,.,,,~--~..-,-~.,_-_......_...,_~.~-~-··•...-•__..
...
.....,.~~~
~~--~·"'
--~·
~
......
~~•-~•'
i
DISCUSSION
!Validity
!
.
l
i
.The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a
l
!difference in the preferred level of display complexity for two groups
l
!of preschool-age children.
;
The method employed was to observe the
i
!an1ount of tirne each child switched on the more complex of the two
;displays. This approach assumes that (a) the selection of a display
'
iwa.s based on the characteristics of that display, not on the charac-.
1te:eistics of the control box or so1ne other extraneous variable, and
l
l(b) a dec.Tease in tirne on the complex display is equivalent to an
i
;p.ncrea
.
. t'
.
1e d'1sp1ay.
t::e 1.11.
·nne on t'..o.e sHnp.
In support of the latteT
1
iasBumption, the restl.lts of the analysis in Table IV de1nonstrate tha.t
ithe ti:m.e spent on neither disple1y did not differ sign.ificantly betwee!l
!age groups.
It follows that differences in time on the complex dis-
jplay reflect differences in preference for the complex versus the
;'
: s:i.rnple dh;plays.
lt f!een:ts reasonable to conclude that the a:rnour:t of
(tixne spent on each of the displays is attributable to the display's
i
characteristics rather than the cha1·acteristics of the remote contl·ol
on the following basis!
(a) there were no significant differences in
response to the renwte control attributable to age, (b) no child
fa.iled to utilize the control or m.ade more than 1. 7 switches during
the 2-J./2-rnin:u.te treatrnent, and (c) the relation between display
con-:tpl ex:i.ty and s·witc.h position was counterbalanced in the expe:d··
rnental design.
27
28
r-·---~--------------~------·--··-----·--------·-----------~-----·'-··----·- ·····-~'"·:
I
I'
jinterEretation of the Results
I
I
'
I
The results demonstrate that for the type of displays and for
!
i the
subjects studied, the preferred level of complexity is positively
Ii related to
!
ldisplays
age.
Younger children will spend more time on sim.pler
than will older children.
Whether this is due to a change
I
lin infonnation-proces sing capabilities, as proposed by Dmnber and
IEarl ( 1957) and Vitz ( 1966), or some other age-related factor
j
.
: re1nains to be demonstrated. However, the findings do demonstrate
i
'that the claims of Berlyne (1958), Faw and Nunnally (1967), Murray
and Brown ( 1967), and Cantor et al. (1963), that all individuals will
prefer the highest level, are not valid when applied to television
program.s which involve dynaJ.nic, meaningful characters like those
used in this study.
The failure of previous research to reveal differences in the
preferred level of complexity between subjects might be due to the
nature of the stilnuli and/or the experimental design used.
Vitz
( 1966) proposes that the stimuli used in earlier studies were low in
cornplexity and therefore failed to exceed the information-processing
capabilities of any of the subjects sampled.
Since the perceptual
system.s of children change considerably with age (Travers, 1970;
Gibson, 1970) and since the addition of stimulus dimensions such as
identity and rflove1nent logically extends the range of stimulus complexity values, it appears tenable that in the present study the complex displays exceeded the inforrnation-processing capabilities of
3-year-old children, and therefore were rejected in favor of the
29
rnore simple displays.
A second explanation is that the previous
30
~-------
. ---.-----·----------------·--·------·---·-------·------- ..~-------···-----~·-···------,
concisely defined and delineated in order to maximize the probability
'of success of visual materials.
I
Secondly, as shown in Figures 5 and
8, the likelihood that a child will attend to some specific information
1 within
a display may change rapidly over time.
A study defining this
Ichange, its rate and trend, might reveal a method for optimally
Icoordinating age levels, complexity, and points in tirne in order that
I
the important information will be attended to by the greatest number
l of viewers.
i
I.
I
!
i
!
!
!
I
l
!
l
I
'
l
'f
I
I
I
l!
l.
I
r-·-----------
i
I
---~----------·
------------··----------------------------- --
-----~--
·-·------·--------- ---·-·-----·----- -------- ---·---------------
REFERENCES
i
I
!Archer, James E.; Bourne, Lyle E., & Brown, Frederick G. Con-cept identification as a function of irrelevant information and
instruction. Journal of Experim_ental Psychology, 1955, 49(3),
153-164.
I
!
!
;Berlyne, D. E. Uncertainty and conflict; a point of contact between
infonnation theory and behavior theory concepts. Psychologii
cal Review_, 1957, 64, 329-339.
!
iBerlyne, D. E. The influence of complexity and change in visual
figures on orienting responses. Journal of Experi1nental Psx_!
~(wl~_gy, 1958, 55, 289-296.
i
;
!cantor, G. N.; Cantor, Joan H., & Ditrichs, R. Observing behavior.
in preschool children as a function of stimulus cmnplexity.
Child Development, 1963, 34, 683-689.
!Dawson, :tv'iarvin. The Role of Context i_n Lear!J.ing Pictorial Mater:ials. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University, School of Educatior1, 1964, Report No. NDEA VIIA-1020.
l
~Dernber, Willian1 N. , & Earl, Robert W.
i
i
Analysis of exploratory,
n1anipulatory, and curiosity behaviors. Psycho1ogica~_Revi~_w,
1957, 64, 91-96.
I
I
:Eastman, P. D., and the Cat him.self. The Cat in the H~!L__B~__ginner
Book Dictiona:t:.Y.• New York: Random House, 1964.
!Edwards, Allen L. Ex:eerj~J_Il_C::_~!_al ~es:UI!?- in ~~~:}1o~-~~ Re_scarch.
New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1950.
iEriksen, C. W. Object location in a complex percepted field.
~9-l of Experim.ental Psychology, 1953, 45, 1Z6-132.
Jour-
!
jFaw, Terry T., & Nunnally, J. C. The influence of stirnulus complexity, novelty, and affective value on children's visual fixations. Perc~!:.i<2n and__ ~ch_SJphysic:_~, 1967, 2(7}, 263-267.
!
'Gessell, Arnold. The First Five Years of Life.
and Row Pub:-;--I<r4o.
------
New York: Harper
!
jGibson, Eleanor J. P_E_in<;::iP)~~-of_Pc:.£~-~_ptual Learr~ing a!?-_9-.J2.evelopl
ment. New York: Appleton-CentuTy-Crofts, 1970.
i
i
:Gibson, Eleanor J., & Yonas, A. A developn1cntal study of visual
·
research behavior. Perc~_Eb~on_and__E~lophysics, 1966, 1,
169-171.
31
32
r---------------------------------------------------··-·-------------------~
I
.
I,I
I
I
I
Guba, Egon. Perception and television- physiological factors of
'
television
viewing.
Columbus:
Ohio
State
University
Research
1
I
Foundation, Report No. NDEA VIIA-875, 1964.
1
i
1Vfurray, Shawn K., & Brown, Larry T. Human exploratory behavior
!
in a 11natural" vs. a laboratory setting. Perception and Psycho~
physics, 1967, 2, 230-232.
jPayne, Donald T. A Lin~ited Logical Analysis of Pictures Applied to
a Study of ChiJ.d~en s_13.espo~ses to Pictures. Bloomington, Ind.:
Indiana University, Report No. CRP-S-058, 1965,
1
'!
i
\Piaget, J. The Child 1 s Conception of the World.
1
court Bruce, 1930.
New York: Har-
I
!Promisel, D. M. Visual target location as a function of the number
j
and kinds of competing signals. Journal of Applied Psych~,
l
1961, 45(6), 420-427.
I
I
iVitz, P. C. Preference for different amounts of visual complexity.
Behavioral Science, 1966, 11, 105-114.
!
I
!
iVurpillot, Elaine. The developn~ent of scanning strategies and their
relation to visual differentiation. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 1968, 6(4), 632-650.
!1
i
iL______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
.
.
_j
33
~--------·-·--·-----···------·-------------------·----------·-----------·-------~
I
!
I
I
I
APPENDICES
I
. !
I
I
I
I
I
IL-··-----··--·--····--- ··----··--·-·-----·-····-··- - - · ·
.
.-·--·-···-·-·-·-···--··-····--·-----·----- --···-------·-----------··-·_j
34
r-----··----·------------------------------------·-------------
1
APPENDIX A
Literature Review
I
I
I
l----------·---------------··-·----·--·-------·-···----·-------------·--·----·-------------------·-------·-------·----'
~-~---·--·--···-
---·-~---·
-----------------------------------------
-------
---------~---
1
LITERATURE REVIEW
i
!visual Complexity and Looking Time_
!
The majority of studies (Berlyne, 1958; Cantor, et al., 1963;
j
I
!Faw, et a1., 1967; Murray, et al., 1967) investigating co1r1p1exity and:
j
ivisua1 attention have considered complexity to be a multidin1ensional
1
construct, of which all dilnensions positively influence attention and
exploration.
The.se studies have sampled a wide variety of subject
populations and an equally wide variaty of stimulus materials.
.
··.(.·
In the study by Berlyne (1958), adult subjects were presented
pairs of stinmli representing different aspects of cOinplexity, these
being irregularity of arl'angement, amou11t of material, heterogeneity of elernents, a:nd irregularity of shape (see Figure 1).
UN;
The meas-·
of total tin:1e spent looking at each figure was consistently greater
for the more "corn.piex 11 member of each pair, with heterogeneity
showing the most pronounced e£fect.
Faw and Nunnally (1967) investigated the "fixation dominance"
of 9 -year-old boys to each of three levels of stimulus co1nplexity
represented by randomly generated geometric forms of 4, 12, and 24
sides.
Recording line-of-s:ight by corneal reflections, they found a
significantly higher .fixation dominance for the more complex member
of a pair of stimuli.
Cantor, Cantor, and Ditrichs (1963), basing their study on
Ber-lyne' s work, investigated the observing behavior of preschool
children as a function of stimulus com.plexity.
Stirnulus complexity
\vas defined as "the a1nount of variety or diversity in a stirnulus
35
36
~--··--···----------------·---·--
-·-----------------···--·-·-·------------·------·-·-------·--1
I
!
I
!pattern being positively related to the number of distinguishable ele1
:
:ments and to the extent of dissimilarity between elements [p. 68] 11 (see
i
.
.
)Figure 1 ).
Viewing time for the high-complexity member of a display·
I
Jtriad was significantly greater than for the medium.- and low-complex-
!
lity patterns.
I
1
Murray and Brown (1967) investigated three factors they
i
Jbelieved responsible for complexity in nonrepresentational patterns.
!These were the number of turns in a pattern 1 s contour, the angular
\variance of turns, and the number of components.
They found that,
!with college-age subjects, as the value of each factor increased the
I
!viewing time of subjects increased.
:
I
!
The opposing school of thought, represented by Den~ber and Earl:
I!(1957) and
Vitz ( 1966), suggests that the relationship between looking
'
itime and complexity is best described by an inverted
11
U,
11
Dember
I
land Earl ( 195 7) propose that each individual has a preferred or opti1
!mal amount of stirrmlus complexity.
This preferred amount, which
I
i
jthey call the
i
11
pacer stimulus,
/
11
is determined by the
11
complexity of
!the subject, 11 based on his past experience, and by the complexity of
I
i
ithe stimulus itself. They propose that a subject will attend most to
i
!the pacer stimulus, as compared with stimuli of lesser or greater
I
j com.plexity.
In a study by Vitz (1966), college students were exposed
I
Ito eight black line ·drawjngs, exa.m.ples of which are shown in Figure 1.
IComplexity was
Iconstructing
I!This
I
defined as the number of steps ( 1 to 1024) involved in
the random walks that made up each of the drawings.
definition for complexity was found to agree completely with
L___________ -·-·---·-------------·-·-·-···-----.... ------------ --·-----·- -------------..-- ......... ·- .. ..... ·-----··----·--
l
37
r---------j
I
I
I
I
Jsuhjective rankings of the same patterns.
An analysis of subject
;
f
!preferences supported the hypothesis of Dember and Earl (1957).
Vitz_
I
I
!proposes that the failure of other studies to reveal this inverted
11
U 11
l
:relationship between preference and complexity is due to the use of
i stimuli from the low end of a scale of complexity.
!
i
!Visual Processes, Perceptual Processes, and Chronological Age
I
I
It has been overwhelmingly demonstrated that, in normal chil-
l
!dren, perceptual and conceptual abilities, problem-solving strategies,
I
!and similar correlates of learning improve concomitantly with age
I
!(Travers, 1970; Piaget, 1930; Gibson, 1966, 1970; Gessell, 1940;
I
ietc. ).
In addition to irnproved cognitive functions, there is evidence
l
jthat certain visual processes improve with age.
Vurpillot (1968), by
I
!photographing corneal reflections, recorded retinal fixations of chil-
l
idren perfo:rrning a visual differentiation task.
The subjects were
i
/grouped into four age categories, ranging from 3 to 9 years.
The
I
\task consisted of looking at graphic representations of pairs of identi1
!
ical and nonidentical houses and identifying them as identical or non-
1
iidentical.
!
She found scanning efficiency, the number and appropriate-
'
!ness of visual cornparisons, increased as a function of age.
With bet ...
I
I
Iter scanning, children made more correct identifications.
I
I
i
j
;
I
L __________ ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ---- ----------------------------
38
r-----------
---------------------------
-----1
!
I
1
I
!
APPENDIX B
Control of Stimulus Parameters
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IL.---------··------------------------------------------·------------ --·-·-----------------------------------'I
--~--··.
·----------
-------·-----·---------------------~
i
rCONTROL OF STIMULUS PARAMETERS
l
!s atial Characteristics
The method employed to verify the equality of spatial charac.terist:ics between the "complex" and "simple" counterparts was as
I
-
!follows.
A clear acetate sheet was affixed to the screen of the tele-
I
/vision monitor portraying a "con1.plex" segment, the characters and
!
I
!backgrounds were traced onto the sheet.
The sheet was then re-
I
!moved, overlayed, and checked against the corresponding "simple"
I
!scene.
This procedure was performed at the onset of each segment,
i
I
;at the end, and at at least three points in time along the track of any
I
Jmoving character.
'
I
IContrast
I
Ratios
.
The equality of the contrast ratios between the ''con1.plex 11
iCharacters and their fields and the "simple" characters and their
I
!fields was controlled and verified using a Honeywell spot meter.
The
I
/contrast values between black and white areas introduced by the moni1
jtors during the experimental treatment were subjectively equated by
I
ithe
experimenter.
I
IDetectability
i
A pilot study was performed to verify that the characters in
I
jeach complex segment and its simple counterpart were equally detect-
lable.
I
Subjects.
Twenty students of the California State University at
Northridge served as subjects.
i
I
IL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------39
40
r-~-~----------------------------~-------------------------·------~-,
l'
I
I
Stimulus materials.
The stimulus materials consisted of eight
I
!videotaped examples of the scenes shown in Figure 2.
II
-Apparatus. The equipment used in the pilot study consisted of
ithe following.
I
j
1.
A Wollensak Alphax tachistoscope, which was calibrated and
lfixed at a shutter speed of 50 milliseconds.
i
I
2.
A 12-inch Cohu black and white television monitor.
I
3.
An Ampex 7000, l-inch, videotape recorder (VTR).
I
Procedure.
Each subject was seated at a desk in front of the
/television monitor and read the instructions contained in Appendix B.l..
IThe
subject was then positioned in front of the tachistascope, and
!given a short trial session with the television off.
I!the
After verifying that'
~
entire screen was visible, the television and VTR were switched on:
)and each of the scenes was presented four times in a counterbalanced
I
!order.
When the first scene appeared, the subject was told which
IIscene he was
about to see, asked the appropriate question about the
!character, and then the shutter was opened.
If the subject did not
I!answer within two
seconds, the shutter was opened again. This roul
\tine continued for 12 trials or until the subject answered the question.
I
JThe number of 50-millisecond exposures required to identify the
i
\direction of each of the characters was recorded by the experirnenter.
!Results
i
41
r-i
I
I
I
APPENDIX B. 1
Pilot Study Instructions
I
I
----~-·-------·---·---·--------------~--_..J
PILOT STUDY INSTRUCTIONS
The following instructions were read to all of the subjects
II serving in the pilot
I
study.
"This is a preliminary or pilot study for my Master's thesis
iwhich involves a study of some of the things that make up children 1 s
I
I
!television programs.
I,I
I
! some
I
"The pictures over here on the board are some scenes from
short television programs I made.
jtwo examples of each scene:
As you can see, there are
one is a complex or detailed version,
i
land the other is a simple version.
What I'm trying to do today is find
i
lout if the simple and complex examples are equally visible, so I'll be
I
i showing you a videotape on the monitor with examples of some of
I
l
ithem.
l
Your job is to look through this shutter, which I'll control, and
!answer some questions that I'll ask you.
Let me show you close up
I1the
characters you'll see so when they come on, you'll know what to
I
.
!look for. [A board was then brought out containing two examples of
!
!each character, as shown in Figure 2. Each of the characters then
i1was pointed to in turn.]
I
"This is the spy.
'is the spy.
I
When he comes on the screen, I'll say, 'This
Which direction is he facing?
lis facing left; this to the right.
I
right and your left.
1
As you can see, this one
To be consistent, we '11 use your
If he is facing your left, say, 'Left,
facing your right side, say, 'Right.
1
1
and if he's
[This was repeated for each of
I
lthe scenes.
The boy was then pointed to.]
I
lean see, one leg is longer than the other.
This is the boy.
As you
When he comes on, I'll
'
i
L----~--------------- ------·------------- ---··-·-----·-------------------·-----------------------------··--__1
42
43
-·-----!
I
I
lsay, 'This is the boy.
Tell me which leg is longer.
fuse your right and your left.
I
I
Again, we'll
[Pointing again to each in turn:] This is
!the spy, the ghost, the troll, and the boy.
!
1
Are there any questions?
Now, put one eye up close to the shutter and cover your
"0. K.
I
\other eye- you can use whichever eye you want.
If your eyes get
!tired, just say, 'Stop,' and you can take a short rest or switch eyes.
i
!Remember, I'll tell you what scene you're about to see, ask you which·
!
/way the character is facing, and then I'll open the shutter.
If you do
1
!not see it the first time, don't worry, I'll wait a second and open it
I
!again.
I
I'll continue to open it until you can answer the question.
!we'll begin.
Now
11
i
I
i
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j
[
II
44
l
APPENDIX C
Apparatus
I,
I
L------~--------~-----------------------.-----··~--~--J
----·-·--- ·---·----
--------l
APPARATUS
!
ll
----------------··~·-··-·------------~
The instrumentation employed in the experiment consisted of
1
!the following.
,II
,
1.
Two Cohu black-and-white 12-inch-diagonal closed-circuit
I
:television monitors were placed side by side in the center of a large
Ijround table,
at a height within the average normal line of sight of
lpreschool-age children (see Figure 4).
2.
One Ampex 7000 l-inch video-tape recorder-player was
\located beneath and behind the table (see Figure 4) and used consist-
!
jently to present the ''complex" tapes regardless of which 1nonitor
ireceived the signal.
l'
I'
3.
One Craig 1/2-inch video-tape recorder-player was located
ibeside the Ampex 7000.
This machine was used consistently to pre-
!
\sent the ''sirnple" tapes regardless of which monitor received the
I
!signal.
l
!
The lack of interchange between the Ainpex and Craig
I
I
IVTRs was dictated by a lack of signal compatability between the two
!machines.
This factor, though unavoidably confounded with "level of
!complexity," is believed to be of little or no import.
No differences
I
!
!between the displayed segments of each complexity group in regard
Ito signal quality were detectable by this experimenter or by six
I
I
pudges recruited by the experimenter.
I
f
i
4.
One four-position remote control box (see Figure 4) was
I!located on top of the
table containing the monitors, within easy reach
l
I
iof all subjects. ·Prior to this experiment it was determined that the
}
~·---~~
. . . . ·-~-·-··--- ..----~·-·-----~----·------·-~----···---~--·----------~-,..--....-~----•»d---~~--~---·~-~--·······"·----'"~--·
45
46
r1
Lontrol
device was rmderstandable andoperable -by the yormgest sub-l
ljects.
The remote control was wired into the contrast control cir-
I
lcuitry" of both monitors, permitting instant on-off capabilities.
Posi-
I'
1
tioning of the control indicator in the extreme left detent activated
the left-hand monitor and darkened the right._
Positioning the control
1.
I
indicator in the extreme right detent activated the monitor on the
right and darkened the monitor on the left.
Positioning of the control
I'
in either of the two central positions caused both monitors to remain
'dark.
5.
One Esterline Angus event recorder was wired to the con-
trol box and placed in a cupboard out of sight of all subjects.
The
I
I
I
:::r::::.:~ ::~::::e:~~c~:f;::r:~:::e:n::::~d:n:fe:h:f ::::::ent ~·
menter's chair.
The data record from the event recorder consisted
of two continuous channels that diverted from a base line depending
upon which monitor was activated.
I,·
Such a readout provided informa-
tion on the number, direction, and duration of control movements.
I
6.
The experimental anteroom consisted of asmall area semi- l
1
partitioned from the television monitors and control box (see Figures
l9
and 10).
I
The purpose of this area was to provide a positive induce- j
ment to enter the experimental room and in addition serve as a waiting area.
I
I
Includeq in this part of the room was a bookshelf containing j
various brightly colored toys and books, a corrugated cardboard chair!
in the caricature of a boy*, a carpet, and a ceiling-to -floor
j >'<Courtesy of Audrey Roon1mates @
C
___________________________---- -------------------------·-·-'i
47
painting of a pastoral scene that served as the semipartition between
the anteroom and the area containing the experimental materials.
I
I
I·
I
I
L ......~---...-..~~....-...--..._.....-·~~---------·--=~-~·~__,..,.-~---~·-··~·-~--·~~----...-~-~----··-~--~------·-~~----~~---~-~~-~~--~-~-~----~--
!
. . _.:
48
Figure 9.
Experimental Anteroom.
l
I
·L
I
I
--~~-~-·----~-"---·--~·--~-~~~v-----·-----·~-·---•- ---~---------·---------·••• ~~-.~-:.-~l
50
•
D
h~
I
~
'
0
''
'
Anteroom
r--
~~-
-,Experi-ment aI
room
--- -I
Figure 10.
l
Floor Plan of the Experiinental Setting.
51
r---------··-~---·--------------------------------------------------------------1
I
I
.
I
I
!
I
·!I
APPENDIX D
Raw Scores for Each SubjectNumber of Control Switches and
the Time Spent (seconds) on the
Complex, Simple, and Neither
Display During Each 15- second
Interval.
I
I
f
Il
'"···-··-····-···-----------------------····---~---------·---------~------·-··--------·--·--·-------·~
r••• -~--~·
···-~-
.._,., .•• ~--
0
~--~·-~T~~--·-•••• -~- ·--,~~~-~~--- ----~~----~---~--·~-~--~--~--A" --~--~-~--V-'-~""
·-
~- ~~~~--->+
0
~~•o'<•~- -
--~~ ~----·-·
0
._~-~--~---~
. . -.. .
____
-··-···~-~---.~- ~-~-·-'<•P•_,
--~~·-·••
· ""';
; Table D. 1. Raw Scores for Each 3-year-old Subject- Time (seconds)i
spent on the Complex (C), Simple (S), and Neither (N) display, and
l
the number
of
control
switches
(F)
for
each
15-second
interval.
INTERVALS
(15)
(30)
c
c
N
F
N
s
s
F
-,.-1 --~oo--13.5o--1~o--1-- ~-------------------.00
15.00
.oo
0
. 00
2
2
7.50
7.50
13.00
1
.00
2.00
15.00
1
3
. 00
.oo
.00
15.00
0
.00
1
4
4.00
2.00
9.00
.00
15.00
.oo
0
5
. 00
11. 00
4.00
1
7.25
7.00
.75
0
6
. 00
8.00
7.00
1
.00
15.00
.oo
0
7.75
6.50
.75
2
0
7
• 00
15.00
.oo
10.00
3.50
1. 50
2
15.00
0
8
.00
. 00
(45)
(60)
c
c
S
N
F
S
N
F
1 --~oo--15.oo---~o--o-- 1---------------------5.00
3.00
7~00
3
2.00
11.25
1. 75
1
.00
15.00
2
.00
0
3
6.75
8.00
• 25
1
15.00
.00
.oo
0
15.00
4
• 00
0
11.50
. 00
2.00
1. 50
0
5
15.00
. 00
2
. 00
0
4.50
1. 50
9.00
15.00
6
. 00
.oo
0
15.00
0
.oo
.oo
4.50
1.
50
7
9.00
2
.00
15.00
.00
0
3.00
11. 50
.50
2
15.00
0
. 00
8
.oo
(75)
(90)
f./)
c
S
N
F
C
S
N
F
E-l 1--,.--1 -15.oo---~oo---~o--o-- ~-------------------4.25
10.00
.75
1
u 2
. 00
15.00
• 00
0
• 00
15.00
.00
0
r:Ll 3
13.50
. 00
1. 50
1
14.75
.25
1
. 00
1-:l
4
7.00
5.75
2.25
2
7.75
4
3.25
4.00
r:Q 5
15.00
• 00
. 00
0
2.25
12.00
1
.75
1. 25
4.25
2
. 00
15.00
0
9.50
.00
0 6
f./)
. 00
15.00
4.50
4
7
.oo
0
7.50
3.00
. 00
0
15. 00
15.00
8
. 00
. 00
• 00
0
( 105)
(120)
c
S
N
F
C
S
N
F
-r- --~oo--T5.oo---~o--o-.00
15.00
.oo
0
14.25
2
• 00
• 75
1
11.55
.00
3.50
1
• 00
15.00
.00
0
15.00
3
.00
• 00
0
4
. 00
15. 00
. 00
0
15.00
.00
.oo
0
15.00
5
• 00
. 00
0
.25
14.25
.50
0
15.00
6
• 00
• 00
0
. 00
15.00
.oo
0
7
. 00
15.00
.00
0
.00
15.00
0
.00
11.
00
4.00
.00
1
8
13.00
1. 50
.50
2
(135)
(150)
c
S
N
F
c
S
N
F
-,...-1 --3.00--11.75---~5--1-2.00
12.75
.25
1
15.00
2
• 00
. 00
0
4.00
8.00
3.00
1
15.00
• 00
.00
0
.00
14.00
1
3
l. 00
4
5.00
1
9.25
. 75
8.00
4.50
2.50
1
5.50
8.50
1. 00
2
5
1. 50
13.00
.50
1
4.50
1
8.00
2.50
15.00
.00
0
6
.00
2.75
12. 00
2
7
.25
1. 25
12.75
2
1. 00
12.50
2.25
.
25
1
.00
8.
13.25
1 I
1. 75
_______ _,_.
1---:--
1----------------------
1----------------------
,._.,_
----~
--····--·--------·-·--·--~~
-----------------·-----·---··---------·---------------·-··--·----------------··--··--···--J
53
r----·-·-·-~~~~~-,~-=~~:::~~::-~~~~:~~;;:~:~:.--------1
INTERVALS
I
I
I
I
C
2.50
5.00
.00
13.50
13.50
.oo
.oo
.oo
S
N
4.00
8.50
9.25
.75
15.00
.00
.oo
1.50
.00
1.50
1s.oo
.oo
1o.oo
s.oo
14.50
.50
(45)
F
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
C
15.00
6.00
2.00
13.25
7.00
1o.oo
3.so
7.75
(30)
S
.00
8.75
13.00
1.50
4.00
4.75
11.00
7.00
(60)
N
F
--------------------------------------------9
.oo
0
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
I
I
·..
(15)
.25
.• 00
.25
4.00
.2s
1.so
.25
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
-l
-9 f--Ts:oo----~ oo----:6o--~----8:75---4~ 50---1~75--r
1Q
11
12
13
14
15
16
15,QQ
7,QQ
11.oo
15.00
4.25
12.00
9.00
fil 10
f-) 11
r:Q 12
~ 13
U) 14
15
16
1.00
8.50
15. 00
.oo
15.00
15.00
1.25
I
II
I
I
I U)
,QQ
6,50
2.oo
.oo
9.75
2,25
5.75
,00
1.50
2.oo
.00
1.00
,75
.25
Q
5
4
0
1
1
1
15,QQ
6.50
11.so
7.75
8.00
4,00
.00
,QQ
7,75
1.2s
4.50
6.00
10,75
15.00
,QQ
,75
2.25
2.75
1.00
,25
,00
Q
3
3
1
1
0
13.00
1.00
5.50
1.00
. 00
. 00
1s.oo
.oo
.00
.00
.oo
.00
13.75
.00
(105)
1
2
0
o
0
0
0
.00
15.00
1. 00
15.00
.oo
14. 00
6.oo
.00
.00
.00
(120)
.oo
.oo
. 00
2.oo
.00
.oo
.00
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
I
l
I
1
;
I~ -9 ---4~50---4~~:~-6.~0--~----I ~oo---i.' ~:~-Tloo-- r_I
1.oo
15.00
15.00
15.00
I
-crr--3~o---8~25--3~s--f---Ts~o----~oo----~~o--~-l
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
12.50
12.00
12.25
15.00
10.00
.oo
12.00
2.00
2.00
2.75
.oo
5.00
14 •. 00
.00
(135)
S
10.00
4.00
.00
11.00
.oo
15.00
9.00
.so
1.00
.00
.00
.00
1.00
3.00
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
13.25
15.00
15.00
15.00
.00
.00
.00
1.00
.oo
.00
.oo
15.00
15.00
15.00
(150)
S
.00
.oo
.00
.50
1.50
15.00
.00
.75
.oo
.oo
.00
.00
.oo
.00
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
l
1
C
N
F
C
N
F
--------------------------------------------9
4.50
.50
2
15.00
.• 00
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
10.00
15.00
4.00
15.00
.oo
5.75
1.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.25
1
0
1
0
0
1
15.00
15.00
14.25
12.00
.00
15.00
.00
.oo
.25
1.50
.oo
.oo
0
0
1
1
!'
0
0
L~-~!_Q~n---~~_,~QQ_~-!~?-~J2Q___•~H-_!_Q.Q_. ~-,-Q. ___ - · - - !__Q1t __,~!_L__~~----~-7_~~ft~-~L-~---'
54
I
I
I!
I
APPENDIX E
Proportion of Time Spent on the
Complex Display, Simple Display, and Neither Display
During Each Segment
I
L. --·~-----------·--------------·------·--------·-----·-------------------_1
------~~------
·---------·------··-------··----------·----·---·····--- ----------·-·-······-·-------·-··-------------·------···-----·········- -·····-··------·--------------------TABLE E.l.
c
Ss
s
I
I
1
o
0306
I
o
2
, 2653
I
, 6530
3
, 1326
H
4
, 1224
0-i
5
o
p
0
~
0
2142
9138
, 8265
I
I
I
, 7448
I
• 7448
I
6
, 5186
7
, 0000
8
• 0000 :
1
I
I
o
3775
1. 0000
, 9897
9
H
H
p
0
,5612
11
, 6122
~
0
13
I
o
I,
I
I
, 7812
I
I
I
o
I
0
I
• 6738
o 8267
3877
,
I
, 6530
0816
o
0408
, 0000 I 1, 0000
o
OOQO
,
0408
o
0000 I 1, 0000
0408
o
,
0000
, 1836
I
,
0102
, 0000
049 7
1632
15
o
7346
16
, 3061
1. 0000
, 2653
I
I
I
0
7040
0712
, 1508
t
, 5485
I
o
.
I
I
I
, 6938
,
0000
, 1939
I
,
0000
,1032
I
o
I
I
o
0408
o
I
o
0000
I
I
,
0204
1. 0000
0
0000
, 0000
o
8979
9795
0
0000
• 9387
,
0612
, 1839
0
5803
I
,
7255
,8516
o
0867
I
•
I
0
5486
1578
I
I
o
1578
I
,
8026
o
I
o
• 06121 • 0408
,3125
, 0000
o
o
0204
, 4875
o
2756
I
o
0000
I
I
o
0204
o
7307
0000
o
2933
• 85711 • 1428
I
I
I
, 36471
0586
0632
• 0930
I
,0451
, 4066
, 4621
----··~·.....,.,.~~.·--•-,..•--,.-·--··-~--- •·•~~---~··-----~-------·--.~·~~~"~~··~-~~·-·--·---·-r•--••••--·~-··-·~"·"'~"'••- ••~·~·-o'-• ·-··--··~ -·-• ~ ...
o
I
•
I
,
0833
0394
o
6705
I
o
1445
I
I
I
, 4186
I
I
,
2390
o
I
,
0131
, 8255
5697
,6687
I
I
,0187
, 8390
I
o
I
,
0705
, 7754
5733
1
1 o
··~··-••
<
0346
,
5348
I
,
0466
I,
I
I
o
1466
o
I
,
0200
, 3255
,
3313
1686
I
I
o
0988
I
,
0058
1
I
I
I
I
•
5116
I
I
,
0747
I
o
0941
I
,
0697
I
I
,
0863
I
,
1294
I
0977
I
I
o
8793
I
,
6046
I
•••
i
I
• 3373 1 • 6265 1 , 0361
I
I
·-~··
o
0256
4375 1 o 1001
--·- --·---···-
8208
I
I
,
o
I
I
o
0057
7383 1 • 2325 1 o 0290
8488 1 o 1149 I , 0348
I
I
I
,
I
o
• 4186
5600
I
I
I
, 3537 1 , 5946 1 , 0514 .
0512
o
3236
I
o
I
I
0290
• 0000 1 • 8139 1 , 1860
I
2435
,
1153
0512
•
N
I
I
I
I
1 •
I
8864 1 o 0054
8779
o
1
1 o
•
0125
6538
I
I
I
I
,
I
o
,
1081
I
I
I
1 o
I
I
2937 1 o 2500 1 , 4562
8974
I
o
I
5000
I
0163
, 3303 1 , 5894 1 , 0768
,
0000
,
I
I
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7755 1 , 2040
I
I
I
I
, 2371 1 , 6538
I
I
8182
I
, 6028
, 76271
I
I
• 3611
, 8026
1224
I
o
s
I
I
I
I
I
c
N
I
I
o
I
I
1583
I
I
I
I
0102
4107 1 , 0535
I
I
I
0000 I 1. 0000
I
X
o
, 4183 1 , 38771 o 2040
, 5 714 I • 4081 1 • 0408
,
I
2857
I
I
0408
,
0000 1 1. 00001 , 0000
I
I
,
I
l
SPIES
I
s
I
I
.40811.2244
I
1 •
I
I
I
c
N
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
I
3673
,
I
1
I
o
I
I
14
0000 I 1, 0000
1326
3573
3265
, 0612
0510
I
TROLLS
I
I
,
,
o
s
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, 6734 1 ,08161,2446
10
12
0-i
, 1604
c
N
I
I
I
X
GHOSTS
I
I
I
l
PROPORTION OF TIME SPENT ON "COMPLEX" (C), "SIMPLE" (S),
AND "NEITHER 11 (N) DISPLAY DURING EACH SEGMENT.
BOY
I
-
, 54 75
·~·-··~·----~~-·-•· ... -~.-----
1 ,
I
I
o
0229
I
,
0697
I
'
l
l
!
!
I
3922 1 , 0597
-··-~---- ~•-• ••-~ - · - - -·~'--
•- - · · -
i'
!
-~--
!
J
U1
\)"1