Stimulus variables in the block design task revisited: A reply to Royer.

Abstract

Royer (1984) criticizes our analysis of Block Design Test (Schorr, Bower, & Kiernan, 1982) more for form than substance. We prefer an interpretation in terms of individual difference variables rather than stimulus characteristics. In addition, Royer's variables do not appear to have general application that he claims for them. Royer (1984) has written an extended commentary of our recent article (Schorr, Bower, & Kiernan, 1982). The series of experiments described in our article investigated important stimulus variables in block design tasks. He points out correctly essential agreement between our results and his own (Royer, 1977; Royer & Weitzel, 1977), but he criticizes our article on two points: (a) general issue of quantification of stimulus variables and (b) issue of analytic versus synthetic strategies in block design task. After describing his five-step model of block design task, he focuses on two variables, task uncertainty and-perceptual cohesiveness. Task uncertainty is measure of decisions imposed by blockface alternatives (Royer, 1984, p. 700). It is equal to twice number of blocks minus number of solid blocks needed to construct a given design. Perceptual cohesiveness reflects amount of mental segmenting that must be done. It is equal to the number of block edges of same color that are adjacent to one another in construction (Royer, 1984, p. 701). Royer (1984) states that we (Schorr, Bower, & Kiernan, 1982) renamed these variables without explanation. Our studies were completed during winter and spring of 1977 and written initially as an honors undergraduate project (Schorr, 1977, June). The Royer articles (Royer, 1977; Royer & Weitzel, 1977) appeared while we were rewriting manuscript, and problem of how best to reference and include these presented itself. The stimulus names he used were embedded in a perceptual model (Garner, 1962) unfamiliar to us. In addition, model placed primary emphasis on