26.5, condition two 37.5, condition three 31.1, condition four 31.7 and condition five 28.8. The high variation for condition two may be explained by the fact that it is the first introduction of an additional stimulus over and above the simple response. Fig 2. Average responses of subjects and the standard deviation.DiscussionThe results show that an initial increase in the complexity of a task increases the reaction time. According to Donders' Theory (Gottsdanker, R & Shraap, P., 1985) results for Condition Five (Discrimination + Decoding + Response Selection) should be greater than condition four (Discrimination + Response Selection) and condition three (Discrimination and Decoding). Condition five, however, was faster in reaction time that condition four and three (Fig 1). Shown only these results the conclusion may be drawn that Donders theory is not entirely correct until the source, method and type of experiment is examined. The biggest factor in the reduction of response time between experiments three and four to experiment five was the error ratio. It was clear in the experiment that the subjects were pre-guessing the experimenter. This was providing the subject with a better result than if the subject was legitimately waiting for instructions, as there was no penalty for incorrect responses. Nine out of the ten subjects saw the experiment as a competition and therefore concentrated more on speed that correctness. As in the case when the subject drops the ruler himself or herself or when pre-advised of the requirement, the results are shorter as the processing time is shorter when the subject has pre-ordained the response they will make. This limitation was due mainly to the type of experiment conducted. Given the materials and the situation it was not an accurate measure of response times as some subjects had thirty or forty attempts before ten correct responses could be obtained. Although the logic of Donders' ...
