Abstract
It has been suggested that the power law J = an, describing the relationship between numerical magnitude judgments and physical magnitudes, confounds a sensory or input function with an output function flawing to do with O’s use of numbers. Judged magnitudes of differences between stimuli offer some opportunity for separating these functions. We obtained magnitude judgments of differences between paired weights, as well as magnitude judgments of the weights making up the pairs. From the former we calculated simultaneously an input exponent and an output exponent, working upon Attneave’s assumption that both transformations are describable as power functions. The inferred input and output functions, in combination, closely predict the judgments of individual weights by the same Os. Although pooled data (geometric means of judgments) conform fairly well to a linear output function, individual data do not; i.e., individual Os deviate quite significantly fromlinearity and from one another in their use of numbers. Individual values of the inferred sensory exponent, k, show significantly better uniformity over Os than do values of the phenotypica! magnitude exponent previously found to describe interval judgments of weight.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Attneave, F. Perception and related areas. In S. Koch (Ed.),Psychology: A study of a science. Vol. 4, New York, 1962.
Beck, J., &Shaw, W. A. The scaling of pitch.Amer. J. Psychol., 1961, 74, 242–251.
Beck, J., & Shaw, W. A. Ratio estimations of loudness intervals.Amer. J. Psychol., 1966, in press.
Ekman, G. Some aspects of psychophysical research. In W. A. Rosenblith (Ed.),Sensory communication: Contributions to the Symposium on Principles of Sensory Communication. M.I.T., Wiley, 1961.
Ekman, G. Is the power law a special case of Fechner’s Law?Percept, mot. Skills, 1964, 19, 730.
Fagot, R. On the psychophysical law and estimation procedures in psychophysical scaling.Psychometrika, 1963, 28, 145–160.
Garner, W. R. Context effects and the validity of loudness scales.J. exp. Psychol, 1954, 48, 218–224.
Gamer, W. R. A technique and a scale for loudness measurement.J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., 1954, 26, 73–88.
McGill, W. The slope of the loudness function. In H. Gullieksem & S. Messick (Eds.),Psychological scaling: Theory and applications. Hew York: Wiley, 1960.
McNemar, Q.Psychological statistics. New York: Wiley, 1962. P. 246.
Pradhan, P. L., &Hoffman, P. J. Effects of spacing and range of stimuli in magnitude estimation judgments.J. exp. Psychol, 1963, 66, 533–541.
Stevens, S. S. On the psychophysical law.Psychol Rev., 1957, 64, 153–181.
Stevens, S. S. The psychophysics of sensory function. In W. S. Rosenblith (Ed.),Sensory communication: Contributions, to the Symposium on Principles of Sensory Communication. M.I.T., Wiley, 1961.
Stevens, S. S., &Galanter, E. H. Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua.J. exp. Psychol, 1957, 54, 377–411.
Torgerson, W. S. Distances and ratios in psychophysical scaling.Acta Psychol, 1961, 19, 201–205.
Treisman, M. Sensory scaling and the psychophysical law.Quart. J. Psychol, 1964, 16, 11–22.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported in part by NIH grant MH 14116 and in part by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Grant No. 973-66.
An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03212747.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Curtis, D.W., Attmeave, F. & Harrington, T.L. A test of a two-stage model of magnitude judgment. Perception & Psychophysics 3, 25–31 (1968). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212707
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212707