Practical Record

A Consolidated Report Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the

completion of the course

EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY (PSY361-3)

Bachelor of Arts
Psychology and Economics

By Prisha Dawani
2335240

Under the Supervision of

Dr. Soumya Jacob
Assistant Professor

School of Psychological Sciences

CHRIST (Deemed to be University)
Bangalore, India

22/10/2024
1
 2

Table of Contents
Two-Point Threshold_________________________________________________________3

Muller Lyer Illusion test ______________________________________________________8

Tower of Landon___________________________________________________________14

Size Weight Illusion________________________________________________________20

Verbal Creativity Test ______________________________________________________27

 3

Two- Point Threshold

Introduction

In psychology sensation is the process by which sensory organs convert physical energy into
neurological impulses that the brain interprets as the five senses of vision, taste, smell, touch
and hearing. It activates the sense organs to respond to physical energy. This process is also
referred to as transduction.

Perception- perception in psychology can be defined as the sensory information of the world
and how an individual understands and interprets the information. It also includes how one
responds to those stimuli. It is very important for survival and it allows individuals to take in
information from their environment, analyse, and respond to the environment accordingly.

Threshold- it refers to the minimum level of stimulus that is required for a person to detect
sensation.

Absolute threshold- it is the minimum stimulus that is required to produce sensation 50% of
the time

The two-point threshold test was first described by Ernst Heinrich Weber, a German
physician and anatomist, in the 19th century. Weber's work in the field of psychophysics laid
the foundation for the study of sensory perception and tactile sensitivity. The two point
threshold test is a psychological method used to measure the minimum distance at which a
person can perceive two distinct points when they are touched on the skin

Methodology

Aim- To determine the subjects Two- point threshold on the left ventral forearm using the
method of limits

Hypothesis- The subject’s absolute threshold will vary in ascending and descending series

Plan- A series of Stimuli ranging between 0.5c.m. to 5c.m. is presented to the subject over 5
trials in ascending series and 5 trials in descending series. The response of the subject is
recorded at each distance in every series which is further calculated to arrive at the point of
reiz limen.
 4

Materials

Writing materials, vernier calibres, blindfold, goggles, and a soft cloth or a soft tissue.

Variables

Independent variable- distance between the two points

Dependent variable- subjects perception pf the two point vernier calibre

Procedure

1. Seating the subject comfortably in a well-ventilated, well-lit room.

2. After establishing rapport with the subject and receiving the consent a line of 5c.m is
drawn on the subject’s left ventral forearm.
3. The subject is blindfolded and instructed to observe and report the number of points
felt every-time a stimulus is given.
4. The experimenter uses vernier calibres to create a stimulus by pricking two points at
varied distance ranging from 0.5- 5
5. The experiment is conducted in two phases,
ascending series- Ranging from 0.5- 5c.m over 5 trials
Descending series- ranging from 5c.m to 0.5c.m
The distance to provide the stimulus is varied at 0.5 for every increasing or decreasing
order.
6. The subject’s response are recorded at every distance over these 5 series in both the
phases.

Control

 To ensure similar pressure is given on both the points at every distance.

 To ensure the subject doesn’t see the stimulus given.

Instruction

“I will touch your ventral forearm with a stimulus and you have to report to me if you felt one
point or two points. I will give you a ready signal before each trial upon which you can report
 5

your perception. Do not overthink, just report the number of points you felt. At any point you
feel that this is painful you may tell us, you may stop the experiment.”

Table 1.0

Calibre T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Frequency Cumulativ Cumulative

Measure e Percentile
Frequency
0.5 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
1.0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
1.5 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 30%
2.0 2 2 2 1 2 4 7 70%
2.5 2 2 2 9 90%
3.0 2 1 10 10%
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Total 10 100%

Table 1.5

Calibre T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Frequency Cumulativ Cumulative

Measure e Percentile
Frequency
5 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 19.2%
4.5 2 2 2 2 2 5 10 38.46%
4.0 2 2 2 2 2 5 15 57.69%
3.5 2 2 2 2 2 5 20 76.92%
3.0 2 2 2 1 2 4 24 92.3%
2.5 1 2 1 1 1 1 25 96.1%
2.0 2 1 1 1 1 26 100%
1.5 1 1
1.0 1
0.5
 6

Total 26 100%
 7

Analysis Calculate

1. The frequency of 2 responses at every distance

2. Compute the cumulative frequency based on the frequency of 2’s recorded
3. Using the cumulative frequency compute CP using the formula
4.

cf

CP = --------------------- X 100

base number

5. Using the CP plot the graph for ascending and descending series separately
6. Graph- Plot distance on x axis and CP on y axis. Draw a horizontal line at 50 % which
will help determine riez limen
 8

Discussion

Demographic Details
Name- Prisha Dawani
Age- 19
Qualification- Higher Secondary Certificate
Place of Study – Christ (Deemed to be University) Yeshwanthpur campus

Aim of the experiment was to determine the two-point threshold of the left ventral
forearm using the method of limits.

Result
The subject Prisha Dawani has 1.75c.m and 3.75c.m in ascending and descending
series respectively

1.75c.m and 3.75c.m shows that the subject needs a minimum of the above-
mentioned distance to feel the two point at-least 50% of the time

Conclusion
Hence Conclusively it could be interpreted that the two-point threshold does explain
the minimum distance that is required for a person to conclude two different points on
the left ventral part of the arm are being touched. It also indicates tactile acuity for the
subject as the subject requires very less distance to be able to distinguish two points
that are very close together.
 9

Muller Lyer Illusion

Date:14.08.2024

Introduction

An illusion is a discrepancy between one’s perception of an object or event observed

under different conditions. Conditions may differ in terms of stimulus exposure, stimulus
context or experiential context. Visual Illusions are defined by the disassociation between the
physical reality and the subjective perception of an object or an event. Because of this
disconnect between perception and reality, visual illusions demonstrate the ways in which the
brain can fail to re-create the physical world. Geometrical optical illusions were given this
title by Oppel in 1885.
Explanations of Muller-Lyer Illusion

Brentano explained that the phenomenon is due to the well- known fact of
overestimation of acute angles and underestimation of obtuse angles. Lipps, Auerbach
criticized Brentano and said that one perceives the length of lines parallel to the shaft as the
length of the shaft. To these explanations, Muller- Lyer reacted and said that it is the space
enclosed by the lines that is considered involuntarily by the individual instead of the shaft
itself. Heymans (1895) proved that the illusionary character of the illusions persists even
when all crossings and angles are removed and the wings are replaced by parallel lines.

Eye movement theory. This theory states that we perceive one line as longer because
it takes more eye movements to view a line with inward pointing arrows than ut does a line
with outward pointing arrows. This explanation is largely dismissed, as the illusion persists
even when there is no eye movement at all. Gestalt principles of convergence and divergence
say that the lines at the sides seem to lead the eye of either inward or outward to create a false
impression of length.

The experiment calculates to find the point of subjective equality, constant error of
ascending and descending series and mean constant error to give it’s interpretation.

Methodology
 10

Aim

To determine the extent of average error by using the method of Muller-Lyer Illusion

Hypothesis

Illusion varies depending on the direction of movement (Ascending and Descending)

Plan

The plan is to conduct the experiment in two series-

1. matching the standard line from the variable line

2. calculate the mean error and point of subjective equality

Materials Required

a) Muller-Lyer Illusion board

b) Writing material

Variables

independent variable The direction in which the subject varies the length of the variable line

dependent variable The error committed by the subject

Experimental Controls or Precautions

1) The experimenter should make sure that the subject has understood the instructions
2) The distance between the subject and the apparatus is kept constant
 11

3) The variable line should be held definitely longer in the descending series and shorter
in the ascending series
4) The starting point of the variable line should vary from trial to avoid habituation

Procedure
The subject is made to sit comfortably. The apparatus is placed at a distance of two
feet from the subject and the Muller- Lyer Illusion Board is adjusted to the eye level of the
subject. The subject is shown the standard and variable lines.
Ascending series. The variable line is kept definitely shorter than the standard line in
the ascending series. The subject is instructed to slowly increase the length of the variable
line, till he/she feels it is equal to the standard line. When the subject stops moving the length
of the variable line adjusted as equal to the standard line is noted down with the help of the
scale provided behind the apparatus, by the experimenter. Ten trials were given.

Descending series. The length of the variable line is kept definitely longer than the
standard line in the descending series. The subject is instructed to slowly decrease the length
of the variable line till he/she feels it is equal to the standard line. The length of the variable
line adjusted as equal to the standard line is noted down with the help of the scale behind the
apparatus by the experimenter. Ten trials were given here also. Note. The ascending and
descending trials are given alternately to eliminate practice effect.

Instructions

Ascending Series. “The line between the two arrow heads is the standard line and its
length remains constant. The line between the two feather-heads is the variable line and its
length can be varied by manipulation. In this series the variable line is held shorter than the
standard line is held shorter than the standard line. Slowly increase the length of the variable
line till you feel it is equal to the standard line.”

Precautions. The distance between the subject and the apparatus should be two feet.
 12

Descending series. “Now the variable line is held longer than the standard. Decrease
the length of the variable line. Stop when you feel that the length of the variable line is equal
to the length of the standard line.”

Results and Discussions

In each trial, the subject’s judgement of the length of the variable line is noted by the
experimenter. This is the point of subjective equality (PSE). The mean PSE is calculated for
each series.

The constant error (CE) is calculated in each series.

CE (Asc.) = Mean PSE (Asc.) - Standard Line (16cms).
CE (Des.) = Mean PSE (Des.) - Standard Line (16cms)
Mean CE = CE (Asc.) + CE (Des.) /2
Movement Error = Mean PSE (ascending)-Mean PSE (descending)/2

S.no. observation
T1 11.4
T2 11.7
T3 10.4
T4 10.3
T5 10
T6 10
T7 9.5
T8 10
T9 10.2
T10 10.2
Table 1

Data Sheet (Ascending Series )

Table 2
 13

Data Sheet (Descending series)

S.no. observation
T1 9.7
T2 11
T3 10
T4 10.2
T5 10
T6 10.5
T7 9.7
T8 10.1
T9 10.6
T10 10

Table 3

Point of constant error constant error

Ascending Series 10.45 -5.55
Descending Series 9.28 -6.72
Mean constant error -6.135

Discussion

Discuss whether the method of presentation has affected the subject’s extent of illusion

Demographic Details
Name- Prisha Dawani
Age- 19
Qualification- Higher Secondary Certificate
Place of Study – Christ (Deemed to be University) Yeshwanthpur campus
 14

Aim of the experiment was to determine the extent of average error by using the method of
Muller-Lyer illusion

Result

From table 1 it can be observed the subject has a total of 10.45 point of subjective equality in
ascending series and from the table 2 it can be observed the subject has a total of 9.28 point
of subjective equality in descending series.

The constant error of -5.55 in the ascending series and the constant error of -6.72 in the
descending series indicating an underestimation of -6.135

Conclusion

The subject has -5.55 and -6.72 constant error indicating an average error of -6.135 indicating
an underestimation of the standard line
 15

Tower of London Date: 4.09.2024

Introduction

The test was developed by the psychologist Tim Shallice. The tower of London test is
neuropsychological test that assesses executive functions, including planning in adults and
children. Although it can be used to check the working memory of an individual along with
rule responding, the ability to inhibit responding, self- monitoring, and regulation, and
establishing and maintaining set. Shallice’s TOL task consists of two boards, each of which
contains three vertical pegs of increasing length and three different coloured (red, blue, and
green) beads or balls that are placed onto the pegs. The shortest peg only accommodates one
bead; the second, two; and the third, three. On the examiner’s board, the beads are arranged
on the pegs in a goal position, and on.

The planning of proficiency means the ability to plan ahead and show neuroplasticity in
thought with responsiveness to difficult visual and spatial learning. Context may differ in the
ability to analyse and time taken depending on the age of the participants and overall
psychological ability of problem solving.

Conventional planning suggest that effective planning is crucial for self- organization. It
involves formulating a checklist of tasks necessary to achieve and executing each one until
the goal is achieved. Old researches have proven that manipulation of objects helps
individuals to overcome obstacles using visible spatial solutions (Berg & Byrd, 2002).
Because each trial’s solution is visible, one critique of the task is that the goal does not have
to be internalized to succeed on a given problem (Purcell, Maruff, Kyrios, & Pantelis, 1998).
There have been many researches based on the tower of London experiment and many
controversies remain and yet to be discovered. Thus, controversy remains regarding planning
performance asymptotes, whether performance differences are evident between adolescence
and young adulthood, whether the nature of age trends varies for accuracy versus planning
times, how the task’s timing variables respond to performance, and how strongly the task is
impacted by other executive functions.
 16

Methodology

Aim

To study the problem- solving ability of your subject by using tower of London experiment

Plan

The test evaluates the subject’s ability to plan and anticipate the results of their action to
achieve a predetermined goal.

Materials Required

a) The test consists of two identical wooden boards. Each boards measures 38 cms long
and 13 cms wide. Each board is fitted with 3 round pegs of varying lengths. The first
is 18 cms in length, the second is 11 cms in height, and the third is 7 cms in height.
There are three wooden balls, painted red, green and blue respectively. Each ball has a
hole in the middle. The tallest peg can hold 3 balls. The second tallest can hold two
and the shortest can hold one.
b) Stop clock
c) Writing material

Variables

Independent variable. Task difficulty: This is the primary independent variable. Its
manipulated in the experiment, this could include the number of moves required to solve
the puzzle, or the complexity of the problem

Dependent variable. The time taken to complete the task. This is the primary dependent
variable. As the examiners measure how long it takes participants to solve each puzzle.
Faster completion times generally indicate better planning and problem-solving abilities.
 17

Experimental Controls or Precautions

1) The subject should make sure the participant has understood the experiment.
2) The distance between the subject and the board should remain constant.
3) The subject should be asked about their readiness before presenting the examiners
board (goal state).
4) The arrangement of the goal state to be presented to the subject by the examiner
should not be visible to the subject. This should be arranged secretly and then it
should be presented for solving.

Procedure

The tower of London test consists of 14 problems out of which the first two problems is
for the practice test. The subject is presented a goal by the examiner in one of the boards.
The arrangement of the balls in the board placed in front of the subject is the initial state.
The subject has to arrive at the goal state in the board placed in front of him. This can be
done with minimum of 2 moves ( 2 move problem), 3 moves ( 3 move problem) , 4
moves ( 4 moves problem) and 5 moves ( 5 move problem).

The test commences with two move problem, this will be followed by three move
problems, 4 move problem and so on. The subject instructed to move the balls in the
board from one peg to other and arrive at the arrangement as presented by the examiner in
his board. The balls cannot be held in the hand while thinking. The second constrain is
that, at once lifted the ball has to be placed on one of the pegs, not be placed on the table
or on the board or be kept in another hand. The third constrain is that only one ball can be
lifted at a time. Simultaneously more than one ball cannot be lifted. Another constraint is
that in the smallest peg the subject can put only one ball in the tallest peg he can put only
two balls. The subject is instructed to follow these constraints and then make the
minimum number of moves to achieve the final goal state. Every time the subject picks
up a ball it is defined as a move. It is emphasized that the subject should plan before
lifting the ball.
 18

There are 2 problems with two moves for demonstration. The test has a total of 12
problems. The first 2 problems can be solved in 2 moves, the second 4 problems will be
solved with 3 moves, the third 4 problems with 4 moves and finally the last 4 problems
with 5 moves.

Instructions

"You see here that there are two boards. They are identical. There are three sticks on each
board. There are 3 balls which are placed on the pegs. The balls are red, green and blue in
colour. Please observe that the arrangement of the balls is different between the two
boards. The board nearer to me is the goal. You have to arrange the balls on the board
near you in such a way that the pattern of the balls on the board near you is the same as
that on the board near me. While you are doing this, please observe the rules that I am
going to tell you. Think well and plan your moves before you lift the ball. You should not
hold the ball in your hand and then think where to place it. You can lift only one ball at a
time. Please do not lift more than one ball at a time. Once you lift the ball you should
place it on one of these pegs and not on the table or the board or keep in your hand. Have
you understood? If you have any questions please clarify now. Please start"

The practice trials are given, after ascertaining the subject has understood the procedure.
The actual experiment will start with the presentation of different goal status. The start
timing and the end timing should be noted down. Starting time is the time the subject start
touching the ball and the ending time is the end of the reaching the goal. The total number
of moves made by the subject to solve the problem is noted down. Number of moves
made by the subject is the number of times the subject shifting the wooden balls from one
peg to the other. The scoring is done as per the table provided.

Results and Discussion

 19

In each trial, the number of moves made by the participant to reach the goal state and the
time taken by the subject in noted in seconds. The calculations required for the
experiment include

MOM- Mean number of moves

MTT- Mean time taken to solve the problem

NPMM- Number of problems with the minimum number of moves

TNPMM- Total number of problems with the minimum number of moves.

Table 1

Tower of London Observation

II Moves Time No. Of Moves MTT MOM NPMM

A 5 2 18.5 7 1
B 32 12
III Moves
A 21 7 10.75 4 3
B 8 3
C 7 3
D 7 3
IV Moves
A 8 4 15.75 7 3
B 32 12
C 11 4
D 12 4
V Moves
A 13 6 19.5 8.5 1
B 32 12
C 22 11
D 11 5
TNMPP 8
 20

Discussion

Discuss whether the method of presentation has affected the subject’s extent of illusion

Demographic Details
Name- Prisha Dawani
Age- 19
Qualification- Higher Secondary Certificate
Place of Study – Christ (Deemed to be University) Yeshwanthpur campus

Aim of the experiment to study the problem-solving ability of the subject using the
tower of London experiment

Result
From the table it can be observed that the participant has a total number of 14 moves,
16 moves, 24 moves, 34 moves in II moves, III moves, IV moves and V moves
respectively. The time taken by the participant 37seconds, 43 seconds, 63 seconds and
78 seconds in II moves, III moves, IV moves and V moves respectively. The Mean of
Moves calculated was 7 moves, 4 moves, 7 moves and 8.5 moves in II moves, III
moves, IV moves and V moves respectively. The mean time taken calculated is 18.5
seconds, 10.75 seconds, 15.75 seconds, and 19.5 seconds in II moves, III moves, IV
moves, and V moves respectively. The number of problems with minimum number of
problems calculated is 1, 3 ,3 and 1 for II moves, III moves, IV moves and V moves
respectively.

Conclusion
The subject has a percentile of 70% with total number of 8 moves as the total number
of problems with minimum number of problems.
 21

Size- Weight Illusion Date-2. 10. 2024

Introduction

The size weight illusion is a well-known psychological phenomenon where objects of a

smaller size are assumed to have less weight as compared to object of larger size. It is a clear
demonstration about how our perception of an objects size can influence the perceived weight
of the object. It was first described in the 19th century by German physicist Gustav Fechner.

The size weight illusion has been studied extensively in psychology. The size–weight illusion
refers to the perceptual experience of object weight that occurs when a person lifts equally
The size–weight illusion refers to the perceptual experience of object weight that occurs
when a person lifts equally weighted objects that differ in size (Charpentier,
1886, Charpentier, 1891). Although this illusion has been studied for 100 years the
mechanism involved that cause this perception are not completely understood. Over the
years, researchers have proposed some very different and interesting explanation for the
same.

According to sensorimotor explanations, the illusion is driven by the misapplication of

fingertip forces during lifting (Dijker, 2014). The explanation for the same being that when a
subject is introduced to an object that looks proportionately bigger than they apply more force
to lift it, the same is not applicable for proportionately smaller appearing objects hence this
causes too much lift for the former as compared to the later. According to Bayesian
explanations one should expect the smaller object in the in the size weight illusion to weigh
less, which consequently makes the object feel lighter during lifting. Though recent studies
have found that just like muller lyre illusion the size weight illusion also loses its innate
illusion strength with the development of muscle among children and the development of the
pre frontal cortex with age. One good explanation given for the size weight illusion is that it
is a multisensory phenomenon as it depends on the perception of two sensory properties (size
and weight) each of which involves different sensory modalities, which could be an
explanation of the occurrence of the phenomenon. Though numerous experiments have been
conducted to explain the same, not enough variables and biological factors are taken into
considerations based on the size weight illusion. Hence, further research is needed.
 22

Methodology

Problem

To study experimentally the effect of perception size of judgment of weight.

Hypothesis

1. The size of the block influences the judgement of weight of the other blocks.
2. The bigger sized block is judged to be lighter and the smaller sized block is judged to
be heavier.

Plan

To compare the extent of error committed in the three series while judging the weight.

Variables

Independent variable- the size of the standard block.

Relevant Variables Controlled- the progressive increase in the weight of the variable block

Dependent Variable- the judgment of the weight given by the subject or point of subjective
equality (PSE).

Materials Required

a) Three standard blocks of standard sizes weighing 55 gms. each (One block is smaller
and another block is bigger and the third one is equal to the size of variable blocks)
b) Eleven variable or comparison blocks ranging in weight from to 30 gms. to 80 gms.
with a progressive increase of 5 gms. but all are equal in size.
c) Writing Materials
d) A plain cloth

Procedure

The table is arranged at such a height that the subjects fore arm will be parallel to the floor
while lifting the weights. In order to mute the sound of the block being placed, a thick black
 23

may be spread on the table. The 11 variable blocks are arranged in a semicircular formation
equidistant from each other, in such a manner that the subject should be able to reach those
blocks without feeling the strain or effort on the arms. The variable blocks are kept in a
random order of weight.

The experiment is conducted in three series with two trials in each.

First Series

Using same sized standard block - Place the same sized standard block at the centre. The
subject is asked to use the preferred hand to lift the weights. Subject lifts the standard block
to a height of approximately 8 cms. with the hook provided and hold it for few seconds. He
should estimate the weight in that position and place it back. After placing it back, he has to
lift the first comparison block (variable block-which is kept in the semi-circle pattern) from
his left with the same force and to the same height. Then the subject lifts the standard block
again and then the second comparison block. In this manner, all the comparison blocks, are
compared with the standard block, following constant stimulus difference method. The
subject is asked to indicate the one block that is equal in weight to the standard block. The
weight of this block is noted. This is the point of subjective equality (PSE).

In the second trial the position of the comparison blocks is interchanged without the
knowledge of the subject and the same procedure is repeated. The weight of the block
adjudged equal to the standard block is noted in each trial separately and the average is
calculated.

Second Series

Using the bigger sized standard block- Keeping this block at the centre same procedure is
followed as in I series. Two trials are given.

Third Series

Using smaller sized standard block- Keeping this block at the centre same procedure as in I
and II series is followed. Two trials are given here also.

Instruction: (For all the three series)

 24

"Here is a block (indicate the standard block) at the centre and also there are 11 blocks for
comparison (indicate the variable blocks), lift the standard block to a height of 8 cms and
place it back. In a similar manner, lift the first variable block to your extreme left with the
same force and to the same height. Then lift the block at the centre and then the second
comparison block at your left. Thus lift all the eleven blocks comparing each time with the
block at the centre. While lifting the blocks, keep your sight fixed on the block. You have to
indicate one block out of the 11 blocks which is equal in weight to the block at the centre
after lifting all the blocks".

Precautions

1. The subject is given no clue about the weight of the standard blocks.

2. The random arrangement of the blocks should be done without the knowledge the subject.

3. Each block is lifted with the preferred hand, with the same force and to the same height.

4. The subject is required to keep his sight on the block, being lifted.

5. If the subject is left-handed the subject is expected to analyse the weight clockwise and if
thee subject is right handed than anti clockwise.

Analysis of results:

1. The average of weights as judged by the subject on the 2 trials is point of subjective
equality (PSE)

PSE= Trial 1 + Trial2

2.In the first series, the difference between the weight of the standard block and PSE
constitutes the constant error.

Constant Error = Standard – PSE

(Constant error occurs due to innate inaccuracy in the individual's Judgement).

 25

3. In the second and third series, the difference between the weight of the standard block and
PSE constitutes the gross error.

Gross Error = Standard - PSE

(Gross error is a combination of innate inaccuracy in the subject and inaccuracy in the
judgment because of size)

4. In the second and third series the difference between gross error and constant error yields
the Net Error.

Net Error = Gross Error - Constant Error

(Net error is the error that occurs solely due to Size)

Calculate error separately for II and III series.

Results and Discussion

PSE= Point of Subjective Equality

CE- Constant Error

GE- Gross Error

NE- Net Error

Table 1

Series Observation

Size of No. of Weight PSE CE GE NE

Block Trial Perceived
Medium Trial 1 45 50 5
Trial 2 55
Large Trial 1 40 42.5 12.5 7.5
Trial 2 45
Small Trial 1 45 45 10 5
Trial 2 45
 26

Discussion

Demographic Details
Name- Prisha Dawani
Age- 19
Qualification- Higher Secondary Certificate
Place of Study – Christ (Deemed to be University) Yeshwanthpur campus

Aim of the experiment to study experimentally the effect of perception size of judgment of
weight.

Result

From the table it can be observed the point of subjective equality of the subject being 50 so
the constant error is assumed to be 5g for the subject. The gross error as mentioned is the
combination of innate inaccuracy in the subject and the inaccuracy caused because of
judgment and size perception. So, the Gross error for the subject is 10g and 12.5g for small
and large block respectively. The net error as mentioned before is the error that occurs solely
due to size which was calculate to be 5g for the small block size weight illusion and 7.5g for
the large block size.

Conclusion

The size weight illusion experiment shows that the subject has a net error of 5g for the
smaller appearing block and a net error of 7.5 for the larger appearing block , indicating that
the subject has underestimated the weight of the smaller and the larger appearing blocks.

These findings suggest that the size-weight illusion influences the subject's perception of
weight, with larger objects perceived as lighter than smaller ones of the same mass. This
highlights how perceptual cues such as size can significantly impact judgment in tasks
involving weight estimation.
 27

Further research could explore how different factors such as shape, texture, or even prior
knowledge about the objects might influence this illusion, and whether these results are
consistent across a larger, more diverse sample.
 28

Verbal Creativity test

Introduction

Creativity is the ability to create original work, thought, theories, or techniques. Creative
thinking refers to the mental processes leading to a new invention or solution to a problem.
Products of creative thinking include new machines, social ideas, scientific theories, artistic
works and more. A criterion developed by American Patent Office to define creativity has
been originality, usefulness, and surprise (the idea developed should be surprising). Creativity
is a dynamic cognitive ability that transcends traditional notions of artistic talent, playing a
pivotal role in problem-solving, innovation, and adaptation across multiple domains of
human life. In psychology, creativity is viewed not only as the generation of novel ideas but
also as the capacity for cognitive flexibility, allowing individuals to approach challenges from
different perspectives. Psychologists have long been interested in understanding how
creativity contributes to mental health, personal growth, and overall cognitive functioning.

In applied psychology, creativity is increasingly being recognized for its therapeutic value.
Techniques such as art therapy, music therapy, and narrative therapy harness creativity to help
individuals express emotions, resolve conflicts, and enhance self-awareness. In educational
psychology, fostering creativity is considered essential for promoting cognitive development,
encouraging divergent thinking, and preparing students to navigate complex, rapidly
changing environments.

To explore and measure creativity, psychologists have developed a range of standardized

tests. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) are among the most widely used,
assessing fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. The Remote Associates Test (RAT),
which requires individuals to find a common link between seemingly unrelated words,
measures associative creativity, while the Guilford Alternative Uses Task challenges
participants to think of multiple uses for a single object, emphasizing divergent thinking.
These tests allow for comparative analysis of creativity across individuals and groups,
providing insights into the factors that influence creative performance, such as age,
personality, and environment.

The Wallach-Kogan Creativity Test (WKCT) is a well-known instrument used in

psychological research to assess creative thinking, developed in 1965 by psychologists
 29

Michael Wallach and Nathan Kogan. The test was designed in response to the growing
interest in creativity during the mid-20th century, a time when researchers sought to explore
cognitive abilities beyond traditional IQ tests, which often failed to capture the full range of
human intelligence, particularly in relation to creative potential.

This report aims to administer the test on subjects and find the creativity level in respect to a
number of groups present in a geographically close environment. The tests create a method of
measuring creativity based on psychological method. The answers are subjective responses
that aim to measure creativity by awarding each relevant answer with one mark.

Methodology

Aim

To determine the level of verbal creativity using a creativity test, based on Wallach Kogan
Creativity test.

Materials Required

a) Creativity test (Based on Wallach – Kogan creativity test)

b) Writing Materials

c) Stop Clock

Hypothesis

Subjects vary in their creativity, as represented by their uniqueness score

Variables

Independent variable: Nature of the material- verbal

 30

Dependent variable: Creativity

Controls

Ensure that the subject works independently

Plan

Administer the test to the subject and determine the number of responses and uniqueness of
responses (Uniqueness of response analysis is to be restricted to the classroom)

Procedure

The subject is seated comfortably and is given the creativity test. The subject should be
informed that the booklet contains tasks under the headings of Instances, alternate uses,
similarities. The subject is asked to respond to the items with a limit of three minutes for each
sub-test. The experimenter collects the booklet after administering the test and the analysis of
responses in terms of number and uniqueness.

Instructions

“Here are a number of tasks under headings of instances, alternate uses and similarities.”

Instances: “When I ‘start’ write your responses to these items. There are all kinds of different
answers that are possible, write as many as you can. You will be allotted three minutes for
this sub-test. There are four items under this heading.”

Alternate uses; “Write all the things that the object given in the questionnaire under the
heading ‘Alternate uses’ can be used. Write as many uses you can think of. You will be
allotted 3 minutes for this sub test (This sub-test consists of six item).”

Similarities: “Write down all the possible ways the 2 objects named under the headings
‘Similarity’ are alike. You will be allotted 3 minutes for this sub- test. This sub test consists of
6 items.”
 31

Analysis of Result

1) One mark is given for each meaningful response given by the subject for each
stimulus item in each sub-test. The subjects total score for ‘number’ for a particular
sub-test consists of the sum of his/her responses of all items comprising that sub-test.

2) For obtaining ‘uniqueness’ score: Uniqueness is defined as that response to a given

item that is offered by only one or few subjects of the group. An individual’s total
score for uniqueness for a particular sub-test consists of the sum of his unique
responses to all the items comprising that sub-test. (Uniqueness to be restricted to the
classroom situation).

3) The average score for the 3 verbal tests is determined by adding the total scores of the
3 verbal tests and dividing it by 16.

Results and Discussion

Demographic Details

Name- Prisha Dawani

Age- 19

Qualification- Higher Secondary Certificate

Place of Study – Christ (Deemed to be University) Yeshwanthpur campus

Table 1.0

Sub-Test Category Score Uniqueness Score Total Score

Instances 31 10 31

Alternate Uses 17 6 17
 32

Similarities 19 7 19

Total Score 67 23

The Average Score for this test calculated out to be 4.1875.

Result

From the table it can be observed that the subject scored 31 for instance related questions, 17
for alternate uses related questions and 19 for similarities related questions. While the subject
scored a uniqueness score of 10 in instances related category questions, 6 in alternate uses
category questions, and 7 in similarities related questions. The average score of the subject
that was calculated by the adding the total number of relevant responses (67) and then
dividing it by the number of questions which is 16 turned about to be 4.1875. The total
uniqueness score turned out to be 23 which was then compared with other groups in the
classroom to define the level of uniqueness.

Conclusion

The uniqueness score came out to be 23 for the subject which ranges in a moderate creativity
category. Hence, the subject score indicates a moderate level of creativity.
 33

References

Carbon, C.-C. (2014). Understanding human perception by human-made illusions. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 8, 566. HYPERLINK "http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00566"
http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00566

Costandi, M. (2014, August 18). How goalkeepers can use an illusion to save penalty kicks.The
Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2014/aug/18/muller-lyer-illusion-
goalkeeping

Deferred compensation. (n.d.).Knowledge in perception and illusion. Retrieved from

http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/knowl_illusion/knowledge-in-perception.htm

Deferred compensation. (n.d.). Some Research on the Müller-Lyer Illusion. Retrieved from
http://ripplestat.com/dnlds/task_directions/ml_research_examples.pdf

Deferred compensation. (n.d.).The Muller-Lyer Illusion. Retrieved from

https://www.rit.edu/cla/gssp400/muller/muller.html

Douglas J. Gillan, W. S. (1998, March 18). The effect of the Müller-Lyer illusion on map reading.
Perception & Psychophysics Volume 61, Issue 6, pp. 1154–1167.

Gillan, D., & Schmidt, W. (1999). The effect of the Müller-Lyer illusion on map reading. Perception &
Psychophysics, 61 (6), 1154 - 1167.

Giovannella, C. (2010). Visual perception, awareness and self-control: The Brentano-Müller- lyer
illusion. ResearchGate.

Morikawa, K. (2003). An Application of the Muller Lyer Illusion. ResearchGate.

Muna, K. E. (2006). The amount of muller-lyer illusion when drawn in various colors (Order No.
1438954). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (304909890). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/304909890?accountid=38885

Plewan, T., Weidner, R., Eickhoff, S. B., & Fink, G. R. (2012). Ventral and Dorsal Stream Interactions
during the Perception of the Müller-Lyer Illusion: Evidence Derived from fMRI and Dynamic Causal
Modeling. Journal Of Cognitive Neuroscience,24(10), 2015-2029.Susana Martinez-Conde, S. L. (n.d.).
The Neuroscience of Illusion: How tricking the eye reveals the inner workings of the brain. Scientific
American.

Wade, N. J. (2014.). Geometrical Optical Illusionists. SAGE journals.

Woloszyn, M.R. (2010). Contrasting Three Popular Explanations for the Muller-Lyer Illusion. Current
Research in Psychology 1 (2): 102-107

References

Boldt, R., Gogulski, J., & Guzman-Lopez, J. (2014). Two-point tactile discrimination ability is
influenced by temporal features of stimulation. Experimental Brain Resarch , 2179–2185.

James, C. C., & Kenneth, J. O. (2000). The Two-Point Threshold. Association for psychological science ,
29-32.
 34

Lenzenweger, M. L. (2000). Two-point discrimination thresholds and schizotypy: illuminating a

somatosensory dysfunction. Schizophrenia research , 111-24.

Murray, M. A. (n.d.). Our sense of touch. Retrieved september 14, 2016, from Neuroscience for Kids
Staff Writer: https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/twopt.html

Schieber, F. (2006). Touch Acuity Experiment. Retrieved september 14, 2016, from The Two-Point
Threshold: http://usd-apps.usd.edu/coglab/2point.html

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Ernst Heinrich Weber. Retrieved september 14, 2016, from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Heinrich_Weber