Quality and Quantity

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 271–283 | Cite as

Assessing individual differences in psychophysical functions

  • Maria-Teresa Coello
  • Ana Garriga
Article

Abstract

Individual differences in psychophysical data are examined in an olfactory experiment using a group of sixteen children (9 year olds) and three different techniques: magnitude estimation (ME), reglets or sticks (RE) and finger span (FS). From the responses given in the three techniques Steven's functions were calculated. Group and individual fits to the power law are analyzed. Comparisons of all individual curves were also done and consistency of the subjects responses across techniques was examined. Results show that: (1) while group data fit to the power law, individual data, in general, do not; (2) individual differences are found in both slopes and intercepts and (3) subjects are consistent in their judgments across techniques. These results might be interpreted in a sensory and cognitive context. Further research is needed to identify the specific contribution of sensory and cognitive sources to the individual differences in the psychophysical function.

Keywords

Individual Difference Individual Data Group Data Magnitude Estimation Specific Contribution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AlgomD. and MarksL.E. (1984). “Individual differences in loudness processing and loudness scales”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, General 113: 571–593.Google Scholar
  2. BairdJ.C. and NomaE. (1978). Fundamentals of Scaling and Psychophysics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. BatistaJ.M. and SarisW. (1988). “Reduction in response function for social science variables: job satisfaction”, in W.Saris (ed.), Variation in Response Function: A Source of Measurement Error in Attitude Research. Amsterdam: Sociometric Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  4. CoelloT. and GarrigaA. (1989). “Funciones psicofísicas: un estudio con niños”, Revista de Psicología General y Aplicada 42(4): 445–461.Google Scholar
  5. DudaP.D. (1967). “Effects of psychological meaning of power law”, Journal of Experimental Psychology 104: 188–194.Google Scholar
  6. EkmanG., HosmanB., LindmanR., LjungbergL., and AkessonC.A. (1968). “Interindi-vidual differences in scaling performance”, Perceptual & Motor Skills 26: 815–823.Google Scholar
  7. FriedsD. and PhillipsP. (1966). “Power law fits to magnitude estimates of groups and individuals”, Psychonomic Science 5: 367–368.Google Scholar
  8. Garriga, A. (1985). Función Psicofísica y medida de la sensibilidad olfativa, unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
  9. GescheiderG.A. (1985). Psychophysics: Method, Theory and Application. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 2nd Ed.Google Scholar
  10. GescheiderG.A. (1988). “Psychophysical scaling”, Annual Review of Psychology 39: 169–200.Google Scholar
  11. JamiesonD.G. (1981). “Visual influence on taste sensitivity”, Perception & Psychophysics 29: 11–14.Google Scholar
  12. KrantzD.H.A. (1972). “A theory of magnitude estimation and cross-modality matching”, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 9: 168–199.Google Scholar
  13. LodgeM. (1981). Magnitude Scaling: Quantitative Measurement of Opinions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. LodgeM., CrossD., TurskyB. and TanenhausJ. (1975). “The psychophysical scaling and validation of political support scale”, American Journal of Political Sciences, XIX 41: 611–649.Google Scholar
  15. LogueA. W. (1976). “Individual differences in magnitude estimation of loudness”, Perception & Psychophysics 19: 279–280.Google Scholar
  16. MarksL.E. (1982). “Psychophysical measurement: procedures, tasks and scales”, in B.Wegener (ed.), Social Attitudes and Psychophysical Measurement. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. McGillW. (1960). “The slope of loudness function: a puzzle”, in H.Gulliksen and MessickS. (eds.), Psychological Scaling: Theory and Applications. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. McKennaF.P. (1985). “Another look at the new psychophysics”, British Journal of Psychology 76, 97–109.Google Scholar
  19. PiagetJ. and SzeminskaA. (1941). La génese du nombre chez l'enfant, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestlé.Google Scholar
  20. PoultonE.C. (1979). “Models for biases in judging sensory magnitude”, Psychological Bulletin 86: 777–803.Google Scholar
  21. PradhamP.L. & HoffmanP.J. (1963). “Effect of spacing and range of stimuli on magnitude estimation judgments”, Journal of Experimental Psychology 66: 533–541.Google Scholar
  22. RuleS.J. (1966). “Subjects differences in exponents of psychophysical power functions”, Perceptual & Motor Skills 23: 1125–1126.Google Scholar
  23. RuleS.J. and CurtisD.W. (1982). “Levels of sensory and judgmental processing; strategies for evaluation of a model”, (ed.), Social Attitudes and Psychophysical Measurement, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. SarisW. (1988). “Conclusions and formalization”, in W.Saris (ed.), Variation in Response Function: A Source of Measurement Error in Attitude Research. Amsterdam: Sociometric Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  25. SarisW., van derPutteB., MassK. and SeipH. (1988). “Can variation in response function be prevented?”, in W.Saris (ed.), Variation in Response Function: A Source of Measurement Error in Attitude Research. Amsterdam: Sociometric Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  26. SeberG.A.F. (1977). Linear Regression Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  27. StevensJ.C. and GuiraoM. (1964). “Individual loudness function”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 36: 2210–2213.Google Scholar
  28. StevensS.S. (1957). “On the psychophysical law”, Psychological Review 64: 530–541.Google Scholar
  29. StevensS.S. (1975). Psychophysics: Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural and Social Prospects. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. TeghtsoonianM. and TeghtsoonianR. (1971). “How repeatable are Steven's power law exponents for individual subjects?”, Perception & Psychophysics 10: 147–149.Google Scholar
  31. WanschuraR. G. and DawsonW. E. (1974). “Regression effects and individual power functions over sessions”, Journal of Experimental Psychology 102: 806–812.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria-Teresa Coello
    • 1
  • Ana Garriga
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Metodología, Facultad de PsicologíaUniversidad ComplutenseMadridSpain
  2. 2.Facultad de PsicologíaUniversidad Nacional de Educación a DistanciaMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations