Abstract
In previous studies, subjects generally underestimated the number of elements present in a display. To eliminate the range and intertrial effects that arise when several displays are judged in succession and that might have produced the underestimation, subjects in the present study judged only a single display. The single judgments fitted a power function having an exponent of .83, which is consistent with previous data. Single judgments of loudness, area, and duration, by contrast, have produced abnormally low exponents apparently because the built-in scale unit, or modulus, available on numerosity is lacking for other modalities. The tendency to underestimate numerosity was much stronger for female than for male subjects.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference Notes
Miller, M. E., & Dawson, W. E.Repeated-measures designs, the range effect, and relativity in psychophysical scaling. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, St. Louis, May 1980.
Miller, M. E.Relational judgment vs. stimulus mapping in direct ratio scaling. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis, November 1980.
Shepard, R. N.What does a psychophysicist measure? Unpublished paper, Harvard University, 1966.
Dawson, W. E. Personal communication, November 1980.
References
Abbey, D. S. Cross-modality matching of numerosity and pitch.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1962,16, 283–290.
Baird, J. C., Green, D. M., &Luce, R. D. Variability and sequential effects in cross-modality matching of area and loudness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1980,6, 277–289.
Baird, J. C., &Noma, E.Fundamentals of scaling andpsychophysics. New York: Wiley, 1978.
Bevan, W., &Turner, E. D. Assimilation and contrast in the estimation of number.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964,67, 458–462.
Burg, A. Visual acuity as measured by dynamic and static tests: A comparative evaluation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966,50, 460–466.
Cross, D. V. Sequential dependencies and regression in psychophysical judgments.Perception & Psychophysics, 1973,14, 547–552.
Greenwald, A. G. Within-subjects designs: To use or not to use?Psychological Bulletin, 1976,83, 314–320.
Indow, T., &Ida, M. Scaling of dot numerosity.Perception & Psychophysics, 1977,22, 265–276.
Kaufman, E. L., Lord, M. W., Reese, T. W., &Volkmann, J. The discrimination of visual number.American Journal of Psychology, 1949,62, 498–525.
Krantz, D. H. A theory of magnitude estimation and crossmodality matching.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1972,9, 168–199.
Krantz, D. H. Measurement theory and quantitative laws in psychophysics. In D. H. Krantz, R. C. Atkinson, R. D. Luce, & P. Suppes (Eds.),Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology (Vol. 2):Measurement, psychophysics, and neural information processing. San Francisco: Freeman, 1974.
Krueger, L. E. Perceived numerosity.Perception & Psychophysics, 1972,11, 5–9.
Lockhead, G. R. Choosing a response. In S. Kornblum (Ed.),A ttention and performance IV. New York: Academic Press, 1973.
Maccoby, E. E., &Jacklin, C. N.The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1974.
Minturn, A. L., &Reese, T. W. The effect of differential reinforcement on the discrimination of visual number.Journal of Psychology, 1951,31, 201–231.
Nelson, T. M., &Lechelt, E. C. Socioeconomic status, value, and response to number.Perception & Psychophysics, 1970,8, 76–80.
Poulton, E. C. The new psychophysics: Six models for magnitude estimation.Psychological Bulletin, 1968,69, 1–19.
Poulton, E. C. Range effects in experiments on people.American Journal of Psychology, 1975,88, 3–32.
Poulton, E. C. Models for biases in judging sensory magnitudes.Psychological Bulletin, 1979,86, 777–803.
Roberts, J.Binocular visual acuity of adults. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1964.
Rule, S. J. Subject differences in exponents of psychophysical power functions.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1966,23, 1125–1126.
Shepard, R. N. On the status of “direct” psychophysical measurement. In C. W. Savage (Ed.),Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 9):Perception and cognition issues in the foundations of psychology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1978.
Siegel, S.Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.
Stevens, J. C.A comparison of ratio scales for the loudness of white noise and the brightness of white light. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1957.
Stevens, S. S. On the psychophysical law.Psychological Review, 1957,64, 153–181.
Stevens, S. S. Issues in psychophysical measurement.Psychological Review, 1971,78, 426–450.
Stevens, S. S. (G. Stevens, Ed.).Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. New York: Wiley, 1975.
Taves, E. H. Two mechanisms for the perception of visual numerousness. InArchives of Psychology (No. 265). New York: 1941.
Teghtsoonian, M. The judgment of size.American Journal of Psychology, 1965,711, 392–402.
Teghtsoonian, R. Range effects in psychophysical scaling and a revision of Stevens’ law.American Journal of Psychology, 1973,86, 3–27.
Teghtsoonian, R., &Teghtsoonian, M. Range and regression effects in magnitude scaling.Perception & Psychophysics, 1978,24, 305–314.
Wanschura, R. G., &Dawson, W. E. Regression effect and individual power functions over sessions.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974,102, 806–812.
Ward, L. M. Stimulus information and sequential dependencies in magnitude estimation and cross-modality matching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1979,5, 444–459.
Zwislocki, J. J., &Goodman, D. A. Absolute scaling of sensory magnitudes: A validation.Perception & Psychophysics, 1980,28, 28–38.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This study was supported in part by National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH32295.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Krueger, L.E. Single judgments of numerosity. Perception & Psychophysics 31, 175–182 (1982). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206218
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206218