Skip to main content
Log in

Group differences in size estimation

  • Published:
Psychometrika Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fifty-two subjects differing in sex, age, education and domicile (rural or urban) were given the problem of judging the height of an upright board in a natural setting. A preliminary analysis was made on the basis of the simple initial ratio method, both for the original data in feet and for original data converted to log units. Because the effects of interaction of the several variables made the results of this method inconclusive, the analysis of variance technique, as described by Yates (11) for data where the classes are not equally represented, was applied. This technique showed that, while together the four factors markedly affected judgment, sex had no significant individual effect, age had the biggest individual effect but possibly a spurious one, education and domicile had suspiciously large individual effects, and the effect of the four factors may be regarded as simply additive. The relation of the findings to those of previous investigators is discussed. The authors regard as an important result of the analysis the guidance it offers in the design of further experiments, since it demonstrates the value of equal representation for all classes into which data are to be segregated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beveridge, W. M. Racial differences in phenomenal regression.Brit. J. Psychol., 1935,26, 59–62.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fisher, R. A. Statistical methods for research workers. 6th ed. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. 1936.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fisher, R. A. and Yates, F. Statistical tables for biological, agricultural and medical research. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. 1943.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Holaday, B. E. Die Grossenkonstanz der Sehdinge.Arch. ges. Psychol., 1933,88, 419–486.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Klimpfinger, S. Die Entwicklung der Gestaltkonstanz vom Kind zum Erwachsenen.Arch. ges. Psychol., 1933,88, 599–628.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Locke, N. M. Perception and intelligence: their phylogenetic relation.Psychol. Rev., 1938,45, 335–345.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mather, K. Statistical analysis in biology. London: Methuen. 1943.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sheehan, M. R. A study of individual consistency in phenomenal constancy.Arch. Psychol., N. Y., 1938, No. 222.

  9. Thouless, R. H. Individual differences in phenomenal regression.Brit. J. Psychol., 1932,22, 216–241.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Thouless, R. H. A racial difference in perception.J. soc. Psychol., 1933,4, 330–339.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Yates, F. The principles of orthogonality and confounding in replicated experiments.J. agric. Sci., 1933,23, 108–145.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Responsible for the experiment and general interpretation.

Responsible for the statistical analysis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ansbacher, H.L., Mather, K. Group differences in size estimation. Psychometrika 10, 37–56 (1945). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289792

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289792

Keywords

Navigation