2o8 SECTIONAL ADDRESSES 



Expressing this in words, we may say that for any one individual under 

 uniform conditions of observation, the apparent linear dimensions of a 

 disc at different distances change as if they were made up of the sum of 

 two parts, one of which remains constant at all distances while the other 

 is inversely proportional to the distance.^ 



If this were true for all distances it would lead to the odd conclusion 

 that at no distance, however great, would the apparent size of an object 

 be reduced to less than a certain amount (that represented by a in the 

 above equation). This appears to contradict common experience, since 

 we know that if an object is far enough away its apparent size can be 

 reduced to zero. 



The above relationship was found for objects at distances ranging from 

 30 to 400 cm. from the observer. The next step was to investigate the 

 effect of still further increasing the distance. The law appeared to hold 

 up to a distance of 10 m. One subject was tested beyond this point, 

 and it was found that at greater distances than about 10 m., apparent 

 size decreased with distance more rapidly than the law would indicate. 

 No great reliance can be placed on this limit of 10 m., since it was 

 determined for one subject only, but accepting this provisionally as the 

 limit of operation of the law, we must restate it in the form that P^=a-\-b .S 

 for distances of an object not exceeding 10 m. 



There are, no doubt, other regularities of phenomenal regression which 

 it will be possible to express in the form of laws. I think it is encouraging 

 to discover that, in spite of individual differences, the relationships within 

 phenomenal space are not so chaotic as might at first sight appear. 



It seems most likely that the tendency to see the real characters of objects 

 is one that increases through life, being least with young children. That 

 seems to be indicated by common experience. Many of us may have 

 noticed that young children are disappointed in the size of large objects 

 when seen at a distance. I vividly remember my own disappointment 

 when about forty years ago I first saw lions and elephants going along the 

 street to a Barnum and Bailey's circus and found them contemptibly 

 small. I think now that this was because I was at such a distance that 

 their retinal images really were small. If I had seen them close up I 

 think they would have appeared satisfactorily large. Since then I have 

 noticed similar disappointments in other children. A small boy of about 

 six seeing wild red deer for the first time at a distance of about 400 yd. 

 said : ' Are those deer ? They only look as big as rabbits.' On another 

 occasion he was taken to see the Queen Mary at the other side of the Clyde, 

 He maintained that it was not big, not so big as a tug which was passing 

 near his side of the river. 



This is only anecdotal evidence of no scientific value. What experi- 

 mental evidence is there on the subject ? On the whole, the experimental 

 evidence seems to support the expectations aroused by common observa- 

 tion. Working with adult male subjects, I found a tendency for pheno- 

 menal regression to increase with age. The group used was small (36) 

 and the significance of the result was not sufficient for strong conviction 



1 An exception to this law is to be found in the rare cases of ' anomalous 

 phenomenal regression ' who, over a certain range of distances, see objects as 

 larger when their distance is increased. 



