Abstract
The concept of “absolute scaling” (Zwislocki & Goodman, 1980) implies that direct judgments of sensory magnitude not only reflect the relative positions of the stimuli being judged, but also permit us to assess level differences in sensation. In order to explore this notion for different scaling methods, in the present investigation we compared magnitude estimation with category partitioning, a verbally anchored categorization procedure, in scaling painful pressure stimuli covering different intensity ranges. The results indicate that when the same stimulus range was presented after 1 week, both methods appeared to be highly reliable, with category partitioning faring somewhat better than magnitude estimation. When the stimulus range was unobtrusively changed between sessions, both methods reflected the within-subjects shift in absolute level. When two different sets of subjects judged the slightly different stimulus ranges, both methods resulted in scale values consistent with absolute scaling, though only category partitioning was sensitive enough to differentiate the two stimulus ranges. The results are discussed in the context of different possibilities of anchoring direct scaling methods in order to obtain “absolute” level information.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Borg, G. (1962).Physical performance and perceived exertion, Lund, Sweden: Gleerup.
Borg, G. (1982). A category scale with ratio properties for intermodal and interindividual comparisons. In H.-G. Geissler & P. Petzold (Eds.),Psychophysical judgment and the process of perception (pp. 25–34). Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.
Collins.A. A., &Gescheider, G. A. (1989). The measurement of loudness in individual children and adults by absolute magnitude estimation and cross-modality matching.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,85, 2012–2021.
Duncan, G. H., Feine, J. S., Bushnell, M. C., &Boyer, M. (1988). Use of magnitude matching for measuring group differences in pain perception. In R. Dubner, G. F. Gebhart, & M. R. Bond (Eds.),Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Pain (pp. 383–390). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Gescheider, G. A. (1988). Psychophysical scaling.Annual Review of Psychology,39, 169–200.
Göbel, H., Heller, O., Nowak, T., &Westphal, W. (1988). Zur Korrespondenz von Schmerzreiz und Schmerzerleben.Der Schmerz,2, 205–211.
Göbel, H., &Westphal, W. (1987). Die laterale Asymmetrie der menschlichen Schmerzempfindlichkeit.Der Schmerz,1, 114–121.
Gracely, R. H., Mcgrath, P., &Dubner, R. (1978). Validity and sensitivity of ratio scales of sensory and affective verbal pain descriptors: Manipulation of affect by diazepam.Pain,5, 19–29.
Hellman, R., &Zwislocki, J. J. (1963). Monaural loudness function at 1000 cps and interaural summation.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,35, 856–865.
Heller, O. (1980). Orientierung innerhalb phänomenaler Steigerungsreihen. In V. Sarris & W. Lauterbach (Eds.),Beitrăge zur psychologischen Bezugssystemforschung (pp. 107–136). Bern: Huber.
Heller, O. (1985). Hörfeldaudiometrie mit dem Verfahren der Kategorienunterteilung (KU).Psychologische Beitrăge,27, 478–493.
Helson.H. (1964).Adaptation-level theory: An experimental and systematic approach to behavior. New York: Harper & Row.
Marks, L. E. (1974).Sensory processes: The new psychophysics. New York: Academic Press.
Marks, L. E. (1988). Magnitude estimation and sensory matching.Perception & Psychophysics,43, 511–525.
Marks, L. E., Stevens, J. C., Bartoshuk, L. M., Gent, J. F., Rifkin, B., &Stone,V. K. (1988). Magnitude matching: The measurement of taste and smell.Chemical Senses,13, 63–87.
Marks, L. E., Szczesiul, R., &Ohlott.P. (1986). On the crossmodal perception of intensity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,12, 517–534.
Mellers, B. A. (1983a). Evidence against “absolute” scaling.Perception & Psychophysics,33, 523–526.
Mellers, B. A. (1983b). Reply to Zwislocki’s views on “absolute” scaling.Perception & Psychophysics,34, 405–408.
Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgment: A range-frequency model.Psychological Review,72, 407–418.
Parducci, A., &Perrett, L. F. (1971). Category rating scales: Effects of relative spacing and frequency of stimulus values.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs,89, 427–452.
Stevens, J. C., &Marks, L. E. (1980). Cross-modality matching functions generated by magnitude estimation.Perception & Psychophysics,27, 379–389.
Stevens, S. S. (1956). The direct estimation of sensory magnitudes-loudness.American Journal of Psychology,69, 1–25.
Stevens, S. S. (1975).Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. New York: Wiley.
Ward, L. M. (1987). Remembrance of sounds past: Memory and psychophysical scaling.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,13, 216–227.
Witte, W. (1966). Das Problem der Bezugssysteme. In W. Metzger (Ed.),Handbuch der Psychologie 1 (pp. 1003–1027). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Zoeke, B., &Sarris, V. (1983). A comparison of “frame of reference” paradigms in human and animal psychophysics. In H.-G. Geissler, H. F. J. M. Buffart, E. L. J. Leeuwenberg, & V. Sarris (Eds.),Modem issues in perception (pp. 283–317). Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.
Zwislocki, J. J. (1983). Absolute and other scales: Question of validity.Perception & Psychophysics,33, 593–594.
Zwislocki, J. J., &Goodman, D. A. (1980). Absolute scaling of sensory magnitudes: A validation.Perception & Psychophysics,28, 28–38.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by grants from the Wilhelm Sander Stiftung (No. 84.013.2) and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (WE 213/7-3). Portions of the data were presented at the fourth annual meeting of the International Society for Psychophysics, held at Stirling, Scotland, on July 1–5, 1988.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ellermeier, W., Westphal, W. & Heidenfelder, M. On the “absoluteness” of category and magnitude scales of pain. Perception & Psychophysics 49, 159–166 (1991). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205035
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205035