Abstract
To test the assertion that absolute magnitude estimation serves to minimize context effects, two experiments were conducted in which area stimuli were judged under differing conditions. In Experiment 1, four groups of subjects made magnitude estimations of triangles ranging in area from 1.5 to 3,072 cm2. No standard or modulus was used, and instructions were similar to those used in absolute magnitude estimation experiments. Each group first judged a different subrange of the stimuli (1.5–24; 48–768; 6–96; or 192-3,072 cm2). before making judgments of the remaining stimuli. In Experiment 2, two groups of subjects made magnitude estimations of triangles ranging in area from 1.5 to 12,288 cm2, with each group first judging a different subrange of stimuli (1.5–24 cm2 or 768-12,288 cm2). The design and instructions were virtually identical to those used in absolute magnitude estimation experiments. Our results indicate that the wording of the instructions is not crucial and that judgments are influenced in two ways that are not predicted by proponents of absolute magnitude estimation. First, the power functions fit to the initially presented subranges (e.g., 1.5–24 cm2), which were judged without contextual effects produced by previously presented stimuli, were inconsistent with one another. Second, judgments of the remaining stimuli were influenced by the subrange of stimuli judged initially. The prevalence of context effects in both experiments, in spite of instructional differences, suggests that although one should avoid using a standard and modulus, there is little else to be gained by adopting the absolute magnitude estimation procedure.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, N. H. (1975). On the role of context effects in psychophysical judgment.Psychological Review,82, 462–482.
Baird, J. C., Kreindler, M., &Jones, K. (1971). Generation of multiple ratio scales with a fixed stimulus attribute.Perception & Psychophysics,9, 399–403.
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.
Foley, H. J., Cross, D. V., Foley, M. A. &Reeder, R. (1983). Stimulus range, number of categories, and the “virtual” exponent.Perception & Psychophysics,34, 505–512.
Gescheider, G. A. (1988). Psychophysical scalingAnnual Review of Psychology,39, 169–200.
Hellman, R. P., &Meiselman, C. H. (1988). Prediction of individual loudness exponents from cross-modality matching.Journal of Speech & Hearing Research,31, 605–615.
Hellman, R. P., &Zwislocki, J. J. (1961). Monaural loudness function at 1000 cps and interaural summationJournal of the Acoustical Society of America,35, 856–865.
Helson, H. (1964).Adaptation level theory: An experimental and systematic approach to behavior. New York: Harper & Row.
Lockhead, G. R., &King, M. C. (1983). A memory model of sequential effects in scaling tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception &. Performance,9, 461–473.
Marks, L. E. (1988). Magnitude estimation and sensory matching.Perception & Psychophysics,43, 511–525.
Marks, L. E., Szczesuil, 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.
Mellers, B. A., &Birnbaum, M. H. (1982). Loci of contextual effects in judgment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,8, 582–601.
Parker, S., Casey, J., Ziriax, J. M.,&Silberberg, A. (1988). Random monotone data fit simple algebraic models: Correlation is not confirmation.Psychological Bulletin,104, 417–423.
Prytulak, L. S. (1975). Critique of S. S. Stevens’ theory of measurement scale classification.Perceptual & Motor Skills,41, 3–28.
Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement.Science,103, 677–680.
Stevens, S. S. (1951). Mathematics, measurement, and psychophysics In S. S Stevens (Ed.),Handbook of experimental psychology (pp. 1–49). New York: Wiley.
Stevens, S. S. (1956). The direct estimation of sensory magnitudes — loudness.American Journal of Psychology,69, 1–25.
Stevens, S. S. (1959). Measurement, psychophysics and utility. In C. W. Churchman & P. Ratoosh (Eds.),Measurement: Definitions and theories (pp. 18–63). New York: Wiley.
Stevens, S. S. (1975).Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural and social prospects. New York: Wiley.
Verillo, R. T. (1983). Stability of line-length estimates using the method of absolute magnitude estimation.Perception & Psychophysics,33, 261–265.
Ward, L. M. (1973). Repeated magnitude estimations with a variable standard: Sequential effects and other properties.Perception & Psychophysics,13, 193–200.
Ward, L. M. (1987). Remembrance of sounds past: Memory and psychophysical scaling.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,13, 216–227.
Zwislocki, J. J. (1983a). Absolute and other scales: Question of validity.Perception & Psychophysics,33, 593–594.
Zwislocki, J. J. (1983b). Group and individual relations between sensation magnitudes and their numerical estimates.Perception & Psychophysics,33, 460–468.
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
Portions of the research were supported by a Faculty Research Grant from Union College. Some of these results were reported at the 1989 Eastern Psychological Association conference.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Foley, H.J., Cross, D.V. & O’reilly, J.A. Pervasiveness and magnitude of context effects: Evidence for the relativity of absolute magnitude estimation. Perception & Psychophysics 48, 551–558 (1990). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211601
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211601