Advertisement

Stimuli, the Perceiver, and Perception

  • William Bevan
  • Susan Gaylord
Part of the Perception and Perceptual Development book series (PPD, volume 1)

Abstract

Virtually every boy who has grown up in a cold climate has had the experience of warming his hands after making snowballs by holding them in water from the cold water tap. Nearly everyone who has been ill with a high fever has noted how cool the hand of the examining physician or nurse feels. And certainly everybody has observed that a flashlight which shines brightly at night will appear dim during daylight, if indeed it is seen at all. These experiences are examples of successive thermal contrast and simultaneous brightness contrast, two of the phenomena with which this chapter is concerned. They illustrate the very important fact that the appearance of a stimulus (the water, the hand, the light) depends not only on its physical intensity but also on the intensity of its immediately surrounding area as well as on that of stimuli immediately previously experienced. As the cold hand approaches the temperature of the tap water, the tap water will cease to feel warm. When it equals that of the tap water no temperature sensation will be experienced at all. And if the hand is further warmed by being placed in water from the hot water tap, water from the cold water tap will then feel cold. These changes in experience illustrate two important psychological principles, namely that perception is relative and depends on some psychological referent or base line and that these psychological base lines change with experience over time.

Keywords

Experimental Psychology Adaptation Level Training Stimulus Anchor Effect Series Stimulus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adamson, R., and Everett, K. Response modification by “irrelevant” stimulus attributes. Psychonomic Science, 1969, 74, 81, 83.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, B. F. Cognitive psychology. New York: Academic Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  3. Avant, L. L. Contrast and assimilation effects in judgments of line configurations containing theGoogle Scholar
  4. Mueller-Lyer figure. Perception and Psychophysics 197la, 10 437–440.Google Scholar
  5. Avant, L. L., and Helson, H. Theories of perception. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of general psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973, pp. 419–448.Google Scholar
  6. Avant, L. L., and Kent, M. Anchoring lines and the Mueller-Lyer illusion. U.S. Army Human Engineering Laboratories Technical Note No. 6–70, 1970.Google Scholar
  7. Behar, I., and Bevan, W. The perceived duration of auditory and visual intervals: Cross-modal comparison and interaction American Journal of Psychology, 1961, 74, 17–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bell, R. A., and Bevan, W. Influence of anchors upon the operation of certain gestalt organizing principles. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 78, 670–678.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berkeley, G. Three dialogues between Hylas and Philonous. London: 1713. Reprint ed. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company, 1927.Google Scholar
  10. Bevan, W. An adaptation-level interpretation of reinforcement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, Monograph Supplement 3–23, 1966.Google Scholar
  11. Bevan, W., and Adamson, R. Reinforcers and reinforcement: Their relation to maze performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1960, 59, 226–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bevan, W., and Adamson, R. E. Internal referents and the concept of reinforcement. In N. F. Washburne (Ed.), Decisions, values, and groups. Vol. 2. New York: Pergamon Press, 1962, pp. 453–472.Google Scholar
  13. Bevan, W., and Darby, C. L. Patterns of experience and the constancy of an indifference point for perceived weight. American Journal of Psychology, 1955, 68, 575–584.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bevan, W., and Pritchard, J. F. Effect of “subliminal” tones upon the judgment of loudness. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 66, 23 - 29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bevan, W., and Pritchard, J. F. The anchor effect and the problem of relevance in the judgment of shape. Journal of General Psychology, 1963b, 69, 147–161.Google Scholar
  16. Bevan, W., and Saugstad, P. Experience, discrimination, and generalization efficiency, British Journal of Psychology, 1955, 46, 13–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Beven, W., Barker, H., and Pritchard, J. F. The Newhall scaling method, psychophysical bowing, and adaptation level. Journal of General Psychology, 1963a, 69, 95–111.Google Scholar
  18. Bevan, W., Maier, R. A., and Helson, H. The influence of context upon the estimation of number. American Journal of Psychology, 1963b, 78, 464–469.Google Scholar
  19. Bevan, W., Bell, R. A., and Taylor, C. Changes in response latency following shifts in the pitch of a signal. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 72, 864–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bevan, W., Avant, L. L., and Lankford, H. G. Influence of interpolated periods of activity and inactivity upon the vigilance decrement. Journal of Applied Psychology 1967, 51 352– 356.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Black, R. W., and Bevan, W. The effect of subliminal shock upon the judged intensity of weak shock American Journal of Psychology, 1960, 73, 262–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Black, R., Adamson, R., and Bevan, W. Runway behavior as a function of apparent intensity of shock. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1961, 54, 270–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Boardman, W. K., and Goldstone, S. Effects of subliminal anchors upon judgments of size. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1962, 14, 475–482.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Broadbent, D. E. Decision and stress. London: Academic Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  25. Brown, D. R. Stimulus-similarity and the anchoring of subjective scales. American Journal of Psychology, 1953, 66, 199–214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Brown, D. R., and Reich, C. M. Individual differences and adaptation-level theory. In M. H. Appley (Ed.)Adaptation-level theory. New York: Academic Press, 1971, pp. 215–231.Google Scholar
  27. Calfee, R. C. Human experimental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1975.Google Scholar
  28. Campbell, D. T., and Krai, T. P. Transposition away from a rewarded stimulus card to a nonrewarded one as a function of a shift in background. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1958, 57, 592–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Capehart, J., Tempone, V. J., and Hébert, J. A theory of stimulus equivalence. Psychological Review, 1969, 76, 405–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Di Lollo, V. Contrast effects in judgment of lifted weights. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964, 68, 383–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dinnerstein, D. Intermanual effects of anchors on zones of maximal sensitivity in weight discrimination. American Journal of Psychology, 1965, 78, 66–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dinnerstein, D. Adaptation level and structural interaction: Alternative or complementary concepts? In M. H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory. New York: Academic Press, 1971, pp. 81–93.Google Scholar
  33. Dixon, N. F. Subliminal perception: The nature of a controversy. London: McGraw-Hill, 1971.Google Scholar
  34. Durlach, N. I., and Braida, L. D. Intensity perception. I. Preliminary theory of intensity resolution. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1969, 46, 372–383.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Egeth, H., Avant, L. L., and Bevan, W. Does context influence the shape of a perceptual scale? Perception and Psychophysics, 1968, 4, 54 - 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ellis, H. D. Adaptation level theory and context effects on sensory judgments: Perception or response? Perception, 1972, 1, 101–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gilinsky, A. S. Comment: Adaptation level, contrast, and the moon illusion. In M. H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory. New York: Academic Press, 1971, pp. 71–79.Google Scholar
  38. Goldstone, S., and Goldfarb, J. L. Adaptation level, personality theory, and psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 61, 176–187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Goldstone, S., Goldfarb, J., Strong, J., and Russell, J. Replication: Effect of subliminal shock upon judged intensity of weak shock. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1962, 14, 222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Greeno, J. G. A survey of mathematical models in experimental psychology. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of general psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973, pp. 123–162.Google Scholar
  41. Haertzen, C. A., and Hooks, N. T. Contrast effects from simulation of subjective experiences: A possible standard for behavioral modification. British Journal of Addiction, 1971, 66, 225–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hardesty, D., and Bevan, W. Response latency as a function of the temporal pattern of stimulation. Psychological Record, 1965, 15, 385 - 392.Google Scholar
  43. Harvey, O. J., and Campbell, D. T. Judgments of weight as affected by adaptation range, adaptation duration, magnitude of unlabeled anchor, and judgmental language. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 65, 12–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hébert, J. A., Bullock, M., Levitt, L., Woodward, K. G., and McGuirk, F. D. Context and frequency effects in the generalization of a human voluntary response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 102, 456–462.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Helson, H. Fundamental problems in color vision. I. The principle governing changes in hue, saturation, and lightness of non-selective samples in chromatic illumination. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1938, 23, 439–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Helson, H. Adaptation-level as a frame of reference for prediction of psychophysical data. American Journal of Psychology, 1947, 60, 1–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Helson, H. Adaptation-level as a basis for a quantitative theory of frames of reference. Psychological Review, 1948, 55, 297–313.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Helson, H. Adaptation level theory. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science. Vol. 1. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1957, pp. 565–621.Google Scholar
  49. Helson, H. Studies of anomalous contrast and assimilation. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1963, 53, 179–184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Helson, H. Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper and Row, 1964.Google Scholar
  51. Helson, H. Current trends and issues in adaptation-level theory. American Psychologist, 1964b, 19, 26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Helson, H. Adaptation-level theory: 1970 and after. In M. H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory. New York: Academic Press, 1971, pp. 5–17.Google Scholar
  53. Helson, H. Some highlights of an intellectual journey. In T. S. Krawiec (Ed.), The psychologists. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press, 1972, pp. 91–111.Google Scholar
  54. Helson, H., and Joy, V. L. Domains of lightness assimilation and contrast. Psychologische Beiträge, 1962, 6, 405–415.Google Scholar
  55. Helson, H., and Kaplan, S. Effects of background reflectance on transposition of lightness discrimination. Unpublished study, 1950. Cited in H. Helson, Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper and Row, 1964, pp. 413–414.Google Scholar
  56. Helson, H., and Kozaki, A. Anchor effects using numerical estimates of simple dot patterns. Perception and Psychophysics 1968 4 163–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Helson, H., and Kozaki, T. Effects of duration of series and anchor-stimuli on judgments of perceived size. American Journal of Psychology, 1968b, 81, 291–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Helson, H., and Michels, W. C. The effect of adaptation on achromaticity. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1948, 38, 1025–1032.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Helson, H., and Nash, M. C. Anchor, contrast, and paradoxical distance effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1960, 59, 113–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Helson, H., and Rohles, F. H., Jr. A quantitative study of reversal of classical lightness-contrast. American Journal of Psychology, 1959, 72, 530–538.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Helson, H., Bevan, W., and Masters, H. G. A quantitative study of relevance in the formation of adaptation levels. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1966, 22, 743–749.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Hinckley, E. D., and Rethlingshafer, D. Value judgments of heights of men by college students. Journal of Psychology, 1951, 31, 257–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hurwitz, H. M. B. The effect of illumination conditions on the effectiveness of light-onset as a reinforcer: A test of the Bevan-Adamson reinforcement theory. British Journal of Psychology, 1960, 51, 341–346.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. James, H. An application of Helson’s theory of adaptation level to the problem of transposition. Psychological Review, 1953, 60, 345 - 352.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kakizaki, S. Semantic effects in perceptual judgments. Psychologia, 1967, 10, 187–196.Google Scholar
  66. Koffka, K. Principles of gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1935.Google Scholar
  67. Kiinnapas, T. M. Influence of frame size on apparent length of a line. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1955, 50, 168–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Locke, J. An essay concerning human understanding. Book 2, Sect. 21. London: 1690. A later edition, New York: Valentine Seaman, 1824.Google Scholar
  69. MacDougall, J., and Bevan, W. Influence of pretest shock upon rate of electrical self-stimulation of the brain. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1968, 65, 261–264.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., and Lowell, E. L. The achievement motive. New York: Appleton Century, 1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Michels, W. C., and Helson, H. A reformulation of the Fechner law in terms of adaptation-level applied to rating-scale data. American Journal of Psychology, 1949, 62, 355–368.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Mikkonen, V. On the retention of perceptual quantities. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum, Societas Scientiarum Fennica 1969, 44(3) 92.Google Scholar
  73. Morikiyo, Y. Time-order error in the successive comparison of tones: An examination of adaptation-level theory. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 1959, 30, 198–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Mowrer, O. H., Rayman, N., and Bliss, E. L. Preparatory set (expectancy): An experimental demonstration of its central locus. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1940, 26, 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Murray, H. G. Stimulus intensity and reaction time: Evaluation of a decision-theory model. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 84, 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Parducci, A., and Marshall, L. M. Assimilation vs. contrast in the anchoring of perceptual judgments of weight. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 63, 426–437.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Parducci, A., and Sandusky, A. J. Limits and the applicability of signal detection theories. Perception and Psychophysics, 1970, 7, 63–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Parducci, A., Calfee, R. C., Marshall, L. M., and Davidson, L. P. Context effects in judgment: Adaptation level as a function of mean, midpoint, and median of the stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1960, 60, 65–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Podell, J. E. A comparison of generalization and adaptation-level as theories of connotation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62, 593–597.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pratt, C. C. Time-errors in the method of single stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1933, 16, 798–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pritchard, J. F., and Bevan, W. Anchor effectiveness as a function of stimulus variation on an incidental dimension. Journal of General Psychology, 1966, 74, 245–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Restle, F., and Merryman, C. Distance and an illusion of length of line. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 87, 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rethlingshafer, D., and Hinckley, E. D. Influence of judges’ characteristics upon adaptation level. American Journal of Psychology, 1963, 76, 116 - 119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rock, I., and Brosgole, L. Grouping based on phenomenal proximity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964, 57, 531–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Ross, M., and Thibaut, J. Determinants of standards of judgment. Journal of Personality, 1974, 42, 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sarris, V. Adaptation-level theory: Two critical experiments on Helson’s weighted-average model. American Journal of Psychology, 1967, 80, 331–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sherif, M., Taub, D., and Hovland, C. I. Assimilation and contrast effects of anchoring stimuli on judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 55, 150–155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Steger, J. A. Reversal of simultaneous lightness-contrast. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 70, 774–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Steger, J. A. Visual lightness assimilation and contrast as a function of differential stimulation. American Journal of Psychology, 1969, 82, 56–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Steger, J. A., and O’Reilly, E. Simultaneously contrasting anchors. Perception and Psychophysics, 1970, 7, 281–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Stevens, S. S. Adaptation-level vs. the relativity of judgment. American Journal of Psychology, 1958, 71, 633–646.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Stevens, S. S. To honor Fechner and to repeal his law. Science, 1961, 133, 80–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Swets, J. A. Central factors in auditory frequency selectivity. Psychological Bulletin, 1963, 60, 429–440.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Swets, J. A. Comment: Adaptation-level theory and signal-detection theory and their relation to vigilance experiments. In M. H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory. New York: Academic Press, 1971, pp. 49–53.Google Scholar
  95. Thomas, D. R., and Jones, C. G. Stimulus generalization as a function of the frame of reference. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 64, 77 - 80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Thomas, D. R., Strub, H., and Dickson, J. F., Jr. Adaptation level and the central tendency effect in stimulus generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 103, 466–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Turner, E. D., and Bevan, W. Simultaneous induction of multiple anchor effects in the judgment of form. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 64, 589–592.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Turner, E. D., and Bevan, W. Patterns of experience and the perceived rotation of the Necker cube. Journal of General Psychology, 1964, 70, 345–352.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Turner, E. D., and Bevan, W. The perception of auditory patterns as a function of incidental visual stimulation. Psychonomic Science 1964b, 1 135–136.Google Scholar
  100. von Wright, J. M., and Mikkonen, V. Changes in repeated reproduction of weight as a function of adaptation level. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1964, 5, 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Vourinen, R. Effects of series and anchor weights on adaptation-level. Reports from the Institute of Psychology, University of Helsinki, No. 2, 1970.Google Scholar
  102. Vourinen, R. The concept of adaptation-level in psychological research. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1973, 14, 228–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wagner, K., and Avant, L. L. Anchoring stimuli and Titchener’s illusion. U.S. Army Human Engineering Laboratories Technical Note No. 7–70, 1970.Google Scholar
  104. Wilson, W. A., Jr., and Wilson, M. Physiological psychology: Neuropsychology. In H. Helson and W. Bevan (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to psychology. Princeton, N. J.: Van Nostrand, 1967, pp. 35–89.Google Scholar
  105. Zeiler, M. D. The ratio theory of intermediate size discrimination. Psychological Review, 1963a, 70, 516–533.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Zeiler, M. D. New dimensions of the intermediate size problem: Neither absolute nor relational response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963b, 66, 588–595.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Bevan
    • 1
  • Susan Gaylord
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations