The Role of Frequency in Developing Perceptual Sets

B. R. Bugelski, D. A. Alampay · Canadian Journal of Psychology · 1961 · cognitive-psychology · 10.1037/h0083443 · record bugelski-alampay1961-perceptual-set
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (corpus-body); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Claim type is null-result because the paper's own summary frames the tested frequency hypothesis as disconfirmed; the positive finding (sets are easily and quickly induced) is stated as a by-product ('Quotation withheld'). Replication status is untested: the paper says nothing about its own findings being replicated. It does say of OTHER work that 'While their experiment has not been successfully replicated' (Schafer and Murphy 1943), but that is a comment on prior work, not on this paper's result, so it is not recorded as a replication relation. The OCR of this scan renders 'the' as 'die' and drops some sentence-final periods; quotes preserve those errors exactly as required. 2026-08-15 and 2026-08-17 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
statistical-significance 2 fields · exposure 2 fields · frequency 2 fields · label 2 fields · set 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 13 concept tags on this paper, 10 are grounded in a quoted sentence. 10 carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

perceptual set expectation ambiguous figure past experience set frequency of experience strength of set perceptual sets one-trial learning label cognitive categories classes or objects animals and humans A PAPER DISOWNS THE TERM IN ITS OWN TITLE, AND SAYS WHICH TERM IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN: it appears appropriate to indicate that our findings MIGHT HAVE MORE BEARING ON WHAT MIGHT BE TERMED “cognitive” SETS RATHER THAN ON PERCEPTUAL SETS. The article is titled “The Role of Frequency in Developing Perceptual Sets”, and the correction is made in the paper's own voice rather than left to a reader AND THE DISOWNED WORD IS THEN RESERVED FOR A NARROWER CLASS, WITH AN EXAMPLE A READER CAN PICTURE: the term “perceptual” set MIGHT BETTER BE RESERVED FOR reference to those instances where a subject IS LOOKING FOR OR EXPECTING TO SEE A SPECIFIC STIMULUS, a friend's face in a crowd, for example. Having said the word does not fit their study, they say what it does fit - which is the harder half and the one usually skipped THE AMBIGUOUS STIMULUS IS DEFINED BY THE TWO CATEGORIES IT CAN FALL INTO, AND THE CATEGORIES ARE NAMED: Quotation withheld The figure's ambiguity is not a property of the drawing but of which of two named classes a viewer assigns it to A GAP IN THE PRIOR LITERATURE IS STATED AS A MISSING QUANTITY RATHER THAN A WRONG RESULT: Quotation withheld. The predecessor is credited with the effect and the paper claims the function relating it to dose THE INFERENCE FROM THE MEASUREMENT TO THE CONSTRUCT IS STATED AS A PRESUMPTION, IN THAT WORD: Quotation withheld. What the experiment observes is resistance to a second induction; what it reports is strength of set, and the bridge between them is named a presumption by the authors AND THE STRENGTH OF THE SET IS OPERATIONALISED BY BORROWING AN ASSUMPTION FROM A NAMED AUTHORITY: ASSUMING, WITH ALLPORT, that having different numbers of such experiences would result in different strengths of set, it was ALSO DECIDED TO TEST FOR SUCH STRENGTH BY ATTEMPTING TO INDUCE THE ALTERNATE SET. The premise is attributed rather than argued, and the test for the quantity is chosen after the premise is granted THE SCOPE OF THE WORD `PERCEPTION` IS LIMITED IN THE SAME BREATH AS THE METHOD IS DESCRIBED: although our experiment makes use of an ambiguous figure, IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE STUDY IS DIRECTLY CONCERNED WITH PERCEPTION EXCEPT IN THE LIMITED SENSE OF PERCEPTION OF DIAGRAMMATIC PICTURES. A disclaimer about what the central word covers, placed before the results rather than in a limitations section ambiguous frequency exposure figure interpretation stimulus statistical-significance behavioural-experiment

Legend

relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
concept	`concepts`	an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
control	`controls`	an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1037/h0083443. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 3 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 6 · concepts 10 · content_tags 1 · controls 1 · limitations 3 · mechanisms 7 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 5

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 6 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
claim_type	null-result Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	perceptual set induction with an ambiguous figure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioural-experiment	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THIS SPAN CARRIES THE FILE'S OCR DAMAGE, quoted verbatim because a quote is the staged file's bytes. The scan substitutes 'th' with 'di'/'ti' throughout - 'die' for “the”, 'diat'/'tibat' for “that”, 'tiian' for “than”, 'widi' for “with” - so the paper's own sentence reads correctly and this transcription does not. The damage is systematic and was read rather than detected; there is no general detector for it, because 'die' is also an English word. also in: A PAPER DISOWNS THE TERM IN ITS OWN TITLE, AND SAYS WHICH TERM IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN: it appears appropriate to indicate that our findings MIGHT HAVE MORE BEARING ON WHAT MIGHT BE TERMED “cognitive” SETS RATHER THAN ON PERCEPTUAL SETS. The article is titled “The Role of Frequency in Developing Perceptual Sets”, and the correction is made in the paper's own voice rather than left to a reader	`mechanisms[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: AND THE DISOWNED WORD IS THEN RESERVED FOR A NARROWER CLASS, WITH AN EXAMPLE A READER CAN PICTURE: the term “perceptual” set MIGHT BETTER BE RESERVED FOR reference to those instances where a subject IS LOOKING FOR OR EXPECTING TO SEE A SPECIFIC STIMULUS, a friend's face in a crowd, for example. Having said the word does not fit their study, they say what it does fit - which is the harder half and the one usually skipped	`mechanisms[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: THE AMBIGUOUS STIMULUS IS DEFINED BY THE TWO CATEGORIES IT CAN FALL INTO, AND THE CATEGORIES ARE NAMED: Quotation withheld The figure's ambiguity is not a property of the drawing but of which of two named classes a viewer assigns it to	`mechanisms[2]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: A GAP IN THE PRIOR LITERATURE IS STATED AS A MISSING QUANTITY RATHER THAN A WRONG RESULT: Quotation withheld. The predecessor is credited with the effect and the paper claims the function relating it to dose	`mechanisms[3]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: THE INFERENCE FROM THE MEASUREMENT TO THE CONSTRUCT IS STATED AS A PRESUMPTION, IN THAT WORD: Quotation withheld. What the experiment observes is resistance to a second induction; what it reports is strength of set, and the bridge between them is named a presumption by the authors	`mechanisms[4]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THIS SPAN CARRIES THE FILE'S OCR DAMAGE, quoted verbatim because a quote is the staged file's bytes. The scan substitutes 'th' with 'di'/'ti' throughout - 'die' for “the”, 'diat'/'tibat' for “that”, 'tiian' for “than”, 'widi' for “with” - so the paper's own sentence reads correctly and this transcription does not. The damage is systematic and was read rather than detected; there is no general detector for it, because 'die' is also an English word. also in: AND THE STRENGTH OF THE SET IS OPERATIONALISED BY BORROWING AN ASSUMPTION FROM A NAMED AUTHORITY: ASSUMING, WITH ALLPORT, that having different numbers of such experiences would result in different strengths of set, it was ALSO DECIDED TO TEST FOR SUCH STRENGTH BY ATTEMPTING TO INDUCE THE ALTERNATE SET. The premise is attributed rather than argued, and the test for the quantity is chosen after the premise is granted	`mechanisms[5]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THIS SPAN CARRIES THE FILE'S OCR DAMAGE, quoted verbatim because a quote is the staged file's bytes. The scan substitutes 'th' with 'di'/'ti' throughout - 'die' for “the”, 'diat'/'tibat' for “that”, 'tiian' for “than”, 'widi' for “with” - so the paper's own sentence reads correctly and this transcription does not. The damage is systematic and was read rather than detected; there is no general detector for it, because 'die' is also an English word. also in: THE SCOPE OF THE WORD `PERCEPTION` IS LIMITED IN THE SAME BREATH AS THE METHOD IS DESCRIBED: although our experiment makes use of an ambiguous figure, IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE STUDY IS DIRECTLY CONCERNED WITH PERCEPTION EXCEPT IN THE LIMITED SENSE OF PERCEPTION OF DIAGRAMMATIC PICTURES. A disclaimer about what the central word covers, placed before the results rather than in a limitations section	`mechanisms[6]`	0.95	the tagger's words
limitations	The authors concede the procedure does not isolate frequency from other variables. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Scope limit: the study bears on perception only in the narrow sense of perceiving diagrammatic pictures, not perception generally. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The null result may be specific to sets built on labels the subject already possesses; other kinds of set could still depend on frequency. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
controls	an additional group of 56 participants run specifically to test whether the two picture series had been shown in too rapid a sequence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: presentation rate as the explanation of the perceptual-set effect - a whole extra group, added to kill one named alternative · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.85	the tagger's words
concepts	past experience Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: past experience	`concepts[3]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	set Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: set	`concepts[4]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	frequency of experience Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: frequency of experience	`concepts[5]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	strength of set Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: strength of set	`concepts[6]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	perceptual sets Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: perceptual sets	`concepts[7]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	one-trial learning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: one-trial learning	`concepts[8]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	label Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: label	`concepts[9]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	cognitive categories Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cognitive categories	`concepts[10]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	classes or objects Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: classes or objects	`concepts[11]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	animals and humans Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: animals and humans	`concepts[12]`	0.95	the paper's words
senses	perceptual set - NARROWED BY THIS PAPER to looking for a SPECIFIC stimulus, with the example the authors chose to make it concrete: a friend's face in a crowd. The paper hands the term back with a smaller extension than its own title uses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	cognitive set - a set to perceive a CLASS rather than a particular visual stimulus, argued from a case where the stimulus itself was ambiguous: a subject set for a B still reads a distorted figure as a B Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	0.85	the tagger's words
senses	ambiguous figure - not a property of the drawing but of WHICH OF TWO NAMED CLASSES a viewer assigns it to, with both classes stated: animals and humans THIS SPAN CARRIES THE FILE'S OCR DAMAGE, quoted verbatim because a quote is the staged file's bytes. The scan substitutes `th` with `di`/`ti` throughout - `die` for “the”, `diat` for “that”, `dien` for “then”, `tiian` for “than” - so the paper's sentence reads correctly and this transcription does not. Read rather than detected: there is no general detector, because `die` is also an English word. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	0.85	the tagger's words
senses	strength of a set - defined here only by the relation it is to be observed in: strength AS A FUNCTION OF the frequency of set-inducing experiences Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	0.85	the tagger's words
senses	a set that is BROKEN versus one that is REPLACED - the distinction the discussion substitutes for its own procedure's term, available only where a delay was interposed. `replaced` is used nowhere else in the paper, so it is a sense and not a node Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[4]`	0.85	the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → Allport (1955), postulate that set strength increases with frequency of past experience Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE DISAGREEMENT IS SCOPED TO ONE KIND OF SET, BY THE AUTHORS. 'the present results offer ONLY LITTLE SUPPORT for the frequency proposition that Allport postulates, at least with respect to such cognitive SETS.' 'At least with respect to' is the authors bounding their own contradiction - it holds for cognitive sets and they decline to extend it. (Quote clipped before the paper's own quotation marks around 'cognitive', which are typographically irregular in the staged text - slice, do not retype.)	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → Leeper (1935) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[1]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → Bruner and Minturn (1955), interpretation of the B/13 result as a perceptual set Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: PERCEPTUAL SET AGAINST COGNITIVE SET. 'EVEN WHEN the subjects are shown a series of letters or numbers with one of these distorted ... as was done by Bruner and Minturn (1955), Quotation withheld; they were cognitively set to...' The disagreement with Bruner and Minturn turns on which kind of set the result demonstrates, not on the result.	`claim_relations[2]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	past experience —causes→ set Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: The paper's opening premise, and the half of it that its data confirm strongly: elsewhere the paper reports that 75% of subjects follow a single prior picture. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says set is used to show how perception follows past experience; causes is loose. also in: past experience · set	`concept_edges[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	frequency of experience —causes→ strength of set Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: no-change · strength of the relation: 0.15 — the record marks this weak · note: THE MEASURED ABSENCE OF THE RELATION THE EXPERIMENT WAS BUILT TO FIND, kept as an edge at weight 0.15 rather than omitted: an omitted edge records that the question was never asked. Pairs with 'past experience -> set' at 0.9 - same paper, same procedure, prior exposure decides the response and MORE of it does not strengthen the set. That contrast is the paper's contribution and it is why claim type is 'null-result'. also in: frequency of experience · strength of set	`concept_edges[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	one-trial learning —causes→ perceptual sets Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.8 · note: Offered by the authors as a suggestion - “perhaps in a one-trial learning operation” - and weighted for that hedge rather than against it. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the sets are imposed 'perhaps in a one-trial learning operation'; hedged. also in: one-trial learning · perceptual sets	`concept_edges[2]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	label —causes→ set Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.7 · note: The authors' alternative to the frequency account: later responders were not slowly acquiring a set, they had not yet labelled the series as a class. THIS SPAN CARRIES THE FILE'S OCR DAMAGE, quoted verbatim because a quote is the staged file's bytes. The scan substitutes 'th' with 'di'/'ti' throughout - 'die' for “the”, 'diat' for “that”, 'dien' for “then”, 'tiian' for “than” - so the paper's sentence reads correctly and this transcription does not. Read rather than detected: there is no general detector, because 'die' is also an English word. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span is speculative about when a label is applied; causes is loose. also in: label · set	`concept_edges[3]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	cognitive categories —same-as→ classes or objects Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: A terminological equation the paper makes inline - “either of two cognitive categories or classes or objects” - rather than a relation between two constructs. also in: cognitive categories · classes or objects	`concept_edges[4]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	animals and humans —is-a→ cognitive categories Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: Same span as the equation above, declared: the sentence both names the category pair and identifies its two members, which is what makes the figure's ambiguity checkable. also in: animals and humans · cognitive categories	`concept_edges[5]`	0.95	the tagger's words
content_tags	statistical-significance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: statistical-significance	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located in the text

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.