Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman (1949) completed one of the first experiments on selective perception. In their experiment, subjects reviewed a set of playing cards and were asked to distinguish betweem normal and ‘trick’ cards. A black three of hearts, For most of us, perception is reality. Yet, our perceptions do not always mirror reality, they are heavily influenced by our expectations, and prior experiences. We observe stimulus with a preconceived notion of how it should appear and find it difficult replacing that notion with the facts. Instead of reality, we "selectively perceive what we expect and hope to see"(Plous, 1993). This biased phenomenon is defined as selective perception.

Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman (1949) completed one of the first experiments on selective perception. In their experiment, subjects reviewed a set of playing cards and were asked to distinguish between normal and `trick' cards. A black three of hearts, for example, was a `trick' card since it was not displayed in its traditional form. Bruner and Postman "found that it took people more than four times longer to recognize a trick card than a normal card"(Plous, 1993). Since the trick cards were unfamiliar, subjects responded in a state of `perceptual denial' in which they saw the cards as they expected to see them. In the case of the black three of hearts, subjects perceived the trick card as either a normal three of spades or a normal three of hearts. Bruner and Postman contended that previous experiences and familiarity drove the respondents to draw erroneous conclusions.

This paper is a small empirical study in the area of selective perception. The hypothesis is that people will selectively perceive a given stimulus and respond to that stimulus based on previous expectations and familiarity instead of reality.

Method

Materials.
A standard Air Force officer uniform (light blue shirt with Captain's rank and nametag/dark blue pants) was worn by the experimenter. For Group 1, the experimenter wore the official blue nametag in appropriate position. For Group 2, the experimenter wore an unofficial green nametag in the appropriate position. Both nametags were identical except for the color. Please note, a green nametag is a violation of uniform regulations.

Design and Procedure.
The experiment was conducted at a military installation. The experimenter interacted with 30 military personnel individually, each for approximately 5 minutes. These interactions took place in variety of settings including offices, customer service counters and waiting areas. The subjects were exposed to one of two stimuli. Group 1, the control group consisting of 15 people, was exposed to the experimenter in the Air Force blue uniform with the blue nametag (the familiar stimulus). After the brief interaction, the experimenter covered her nametag and asked a question: Do you know what color my nametag is? Without verifying their response, the experimenter asked another question: Did you notice anything about my nametag?

Group 2, the experimental group consisting of 15 people, was exposed to the experimenter in the Air Force blue uniform with the green nametag (the unfamiliar stimulus). Subjects were asked the same questions as Group 1.

The experimenter used the two-question format to give the subjects ample opportunity to respond with the correct answer.

The 5 minute interaction period served two purposes: 1) it gave respondents an opportunity to make eye contact with the experimenter and 2) it gave subjects an opportunity to make a spontaneous correction. In this study, a spontaneous correction is defined as a subject's attempt to notify the experimenter of a uniform error (i.e, green nametag) before prompting (i.e, two questions) from the experimenter.

This design was used to test the hypothesis of selective perception, postulating that the subjects would respond with the familiar color of the nametag rather than the actual color of the nametag.

Results

Table 1: Identified Correct Color of Nametag

					  Color
				Correct		Incorrect

Group 1 (Familiar stimulus)	  15		     0
Group 2 (Unfamiliar stimulus)	   2		    13

					Correction
				Spontaneous  	Not spontaneous
Group 1 (Familiar Stimulus)		0		15
Group 2 (Unfamiliar Stimulus)		2		13

Discussion

Could there be another explanation for these findings? A larger sample size might have yielded different results. Lower ranking subjects may have been `afraid' to correct an officer. Subjects may have been less willing to point out a uniform violation to a female experimenter. The `correct' individuals may have had more experience observing uniform discrepancies (i.e. drill sergeant) or maybe they valued a `good' uniform more than the average military member.

All of these confounding variables could be used as targets for future research. What part does gender, status, age and individual differences play in selective perception? It was interesting that the correct responses were accomplished spontaneously and that both respondents were male officers. Are males better at avoiding the selective perception bias or were these individuals just more observant than the average person. If an individual is rated as being `very observant', are they less susceptible to selective perception? Does expertise prevent you from falling prey to expectations in the face of reality? And when does reality take over? The results may have been different if the nametag was on an inappropriate side or crooked. These errors may have drawn more attention to the nametag, and the color would have been more visible. At what point, do we stop selectively perceiving? Future studies may want to focus not only on the role of individual differences in our perception biases, but on how long we cling to these biases in the face of contrary evidence.