Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 12, Issue 5, pp 385–388

Averaging: An empirical validity criterion for magnitude estimation

  • David J. Weiss
Article
  • 248 Downloads

Abstract

Ss judged grayness of neutral value Munsell chips under two response conditions: magnitude estimation and graphic rating. In addition, they judged average grayness of pairs of chips under the same two response modes. The averaging data were evaluated in terms of a simple model for subjective averaging. The graphic rating data fitted the model, but the magnitude estimates showed consistent discrepancy. It was concluded that the Ss were averaging, but that magnitude estimation distorted their judgments.

References

  1. ANDERSON, N. H. Application of a weighted average model to a psychophysical averaging task. Psychonomic Science, 1967, 8, 227–228.Google Scholar
  2. ANDERSON, N. H. Functional measurement and psychophysical judgment. Psychological Review, 1970, 77, 153–170.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. ANDERSON, N. H. Cross-task validation of functional measurement. Perception & Psychophysics, 1972, 12, 389–395.Google Scholar
  4. ANDERSON, N. H., & SHANTEAU, J. C. Information integration in risky decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 84, 441–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ANDERSON, N. H., & WEISS, D. J. Test of a multiplying model for estimated area of rectangles. American Journal of Psychology, 1971, 84, 543–548.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. BIRNBAUM, M. H., & VEIT, C. T. Information integration with difference, ratio, and averaging tasks. Paper presented at the Western Psychological Association, Portland, Oregon, April 1972.Google Scholar
  7. CURTIS, D. W. Magnitude estimations and category judgments of brightness and brightness intervals: A two-stage interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 83, 201–208.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. CURTIS, D. W., ATTNEAVE, F., & HARRINGTON, T. L. A test of a two-stage model for magnitude estimation. Perception & Psychophysics, 1968, 3, 25–31.Google Scholar
  9. CURTIS, D. W., & FOX, B. E. Direct quantitative judgments of sums and a two-stage model for psychophysical judgments. Perception & Psychophysics, 1969, 5, 89–93.Google Scholar
  10. DAWSON, W. E. Magnitude estimation of apparent sums and differences. Perception & Psychophysics, 1971, 9, 368–374.Google Scholar
  11. GALANTER, E., & MESSICK, S. The relation between category and magnitude scales of loudness. Psychological Review, 1961, 68, 363–372.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. MILLER, A. L., & SHELDON, R. Magnitude estimation of average length and average inclination. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 81, 16–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. POULTON, E. C. The new psychophysics: Six models for magnitude estimation. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 69, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. SCHNEIDER, B., & LANE, H. Ratio scales, category scales, and variability in the production of loudness and softness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1963, 35, 1953–1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. STEVENS, S. S., & GALANTER, E. H. Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1957, 54, 377–411.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. TORGERSON, W. S. Quantitative judgment scales. In H. Gulliksen and S. Messick (Eds.), Psychological scaling. New York: Wiley, 1960.Google Scholar
  17. WEISS, D. J., & ANDERSON, N. H. Subjective averaging of length with serial presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 82, 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. WEISS, D. J., & ANDERSON, N. H. Use of rank order data in functional measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 1972, 78, 64–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Weiss
    • 1
  1. 1.California State UniversityLos Angeles

Personalised recommendations