The Use of Iambic Pentameter in the

Results and discussion
Sixteen females volunteered to participate in Experiment 2A. In this experiment, I
omitted the data from one participant because she did not accurately group over 10% of
the unambiguous targets. The 15 remaining participants ranged in age from 18 to 31 with
a mean age of 21.6. Nine females volunteered to participate in Experiment 2B. I omitted
the data from one participant because she needed glasses to see the computer screen but
did not have them with her during the experiment. The eight remaining participants
ranged in age from 18 to 27 with a mean age of 21.3. Note that data from 15 participants
was analyzed in Experiment 2A. After conducting this experiment and consulting with
my dissertation advisor, I decided that 15 participants per experiment would not be
necessary because of the large effect sizes. For this reason, Experiment 2B, which was
conducted after Experiment 2A, included only eight participants.
For each experiment, reaction times to correct responses were compared by a
within-subjects ANOVA. Responses were judged correct if the participant grouped the
central pushbutton in the unambiguous stimulus by common region (Experiment 2A) or
connectedness (Experiment 2B). Both experiments tested which type of grouping
information was most readily processed and effectively utilized in speeded computerized
tasks, as measured by reaction time. Figures 40A and 40B depict the results. In
Experiment 2A, depicted in Figure 30A, grouping by global common region (M = 447
ms, SD = 83.4ms) was significantly faster than grouping by the local common region (M
= 461 ms, SD = 82.4), F (1, 14) = 74.87, p < .001. In Experiment 2B, depicted in Figure
30B, grouping by global connectedness (M = 442 ms, SD = 114.0) was significantly
87