Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 68, Issue 8, pp 1372–1381 | Cite as

Development of size constancy in children: A test of the proximal mode sensitivity hypothesis



In two experiments, we attempted to replicate Shallo and Rock’s (1988) finding that 5- and 6-yearold children exhibit size constancy for a distant object when tested with comparison objects that are matched for visual angle. Experiment 1 (N = 80) included four age groups: 5-, 6-, and 9-year-olds and adults. Participants viewed one standard object from 61 m and indicated which of nine nearby comparison objects matched the standard object in size. The comparison objects subtended equal visual angles in one condition and different visual angles in another. In both conditions, the 5- and 6-year-old children underestimated the size of the standard object, whereas the 9-year-old children and adults made nearly accurate size estimates. In Experiment 2 (N = 32), we replicated the finding that 6-yearold children underestimate size when tested with comparison objects that subtend equal visual angles. Our results conflict with those of Shallo and Rock and support earlier findings that young children do not exhibit size constancy for distant objects.


  1. Brislin, R. W., &Leibowitz, H. W. (1970). The effect of separation between test and comparison objects on size constancy at various age-levels.American Journal of Psychology,83, 372–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carlson, V. R. (1960). Overestimation in size-constancy judgments.American Journal of Psychology,73, 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Epstein, W. (1963). Attitudes of judgment and the size-distance invariance hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Psychology,66, 78–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gilinsky, A. S. (1955). The effect of attitude upon the perception of size.American Journal of Psychology,68, 173–192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Granrud, C. E. (2004). Visual metacognition and the development of size constancy. In D. T. Levin (Ed.),Thinking and seeing: Visual metacognition in adults and children (pp. 75–95). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Granrud, C. E., & Morreale, M. A. (2001, April).The role of perceptual knowledge in the development of size constancy. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  7. Leibowitz, H. W. (1974). Multiple mechanisms of size perception and size constancy.Hiroshima Forum for Psychology,1, 47–53.Google Scholar
  8. Leibowitz, H. W., Pollard, S. W., &Dickson, D. (1967). Monocular and binocular size-matching as a function of distance at various agelevels.American Journal of Psychology,80, 263–268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rapoport, J. L. (1967). Attitude and size judgment in school age children.Child Development,38, 1187–1192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rapoport, J. L. (1969). Size-constancy in children measured by a functional size-discrimination task.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,7, 366–373.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rock, I. (1983).The logic of perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Shallo, J. (1984).Size perception in children: Evidence for dual mode processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ.Google Scholar
  13. Shallo, J., &Rock, I. (1988). Size constancy in children: A new interpretation.Perception,17, 803–813.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Zeigler, H. P., &Leibowitz, H. [W.] (1957). Apparent visual size as a function of distance for children and adults.American Journal of Psychology,70, 106–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Psychological SciencesUniversity of Northern ColoradoGreeley

Personalised recommendations