Context effects in judgment: Adaptation level as a function of the mean, midpoint, and median of the stimuli.

Parducci, Allen; Calfee, Robert C.; Marshall, Louise M.; Davidson, Linda P.

doi:10.1037/h0044449

Cited by 62 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first of these factors, emphasized in range theories (e.g., Gravetter & Lockhead, 1973;Upshaw, 1969;Volkmann, 1951), is well substantiated by research in which the physical values of the extreme stimuli were varied independently of other features of the stimulus distribution (Parducci, 1963;Parducci, Calfee, Marshall, & Davidson, 1960;Parducci & Perrett, 1971). It can also be inferred from the present data.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Independent contexts for category ratings: A range-frequency analysis

Parducci

Knobel

Thomas

1976

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subjects were instructed to rate with a single set of categories an intermingled series of smaller squares and larger circles, establishing a separate scale of size for each domain. The major finding was that the scale established for one domain was independent of the skewing of sizes in the other domain. However, subjects were also able to combine the two domains into a single context when instructed to do so, particularly when the smallest circle was only slightly larger than the largest square. A range-frequency analysis of the rating suggests that under certain conditions the endpoints defining the subjective range depend upon the stimulus frequencies: the subjective endpoint is more extreme when the closest stimuli are presented with greater relative frequency.A special attraction of using psychophysical stimuli in studies of category ratings is that the particular stimulus values selected for presentation constitute the primary context for judgment. For example, the same physical size is rated "small" when presented in a series of larger sizes, "large" when the other sizes are smaller. This suggests that the experimental context is isolated from preexperimental experienceswith smaller or larger sizes.Although the range-frequency theory of judgment (Parducci, 1965(Parducci, , 1974 was developed to explain judgments in these isolated contexts, the theory should also be useful for analyzing situations in which subjects must deal with more than one context at a time. To explore the problem of multiple contexts, the present research encourages subjects to establish separate scales for different sets of stimuli presented in the same experimental series. A pilot study used two different sets of squares, each covering the same range of sizes but with the smaller sizes presented more often in one set and the larger sizes more often in the other. The sets also differed in color and in whether they were presented on even or odd trials. Although both sets had to be rated using the same set of response categories, subjects were able to establish two different scales. However, the difference between the scales was only about half as great as when each set was presented separately. It was unclear whether this smaller difference simply reflected the difficulty of isolating the two sets of stimuli or whether confusion between the responses was also a contributing factor.The present experiment was designed to facilitate isolation of the two sets of stimuli. Circles were subInquiries concerning this article should be addressed to Allen Parducci,

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Independent contexts for category ratings: A range-frequency analysis

Parducci

Knobel

Thomas

1976

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From these principles, the models predict the effects of manipulating relative frequencies and spacing of the stimuli presented for judgment. Previous tests have employed groups of naive Ss, each group judging a different set of stimuli (Parducci, 1963(Parducci, , 1965Parducci, Calfee, Marshall, & Davidson, 1960). The present study tests the theory on individual Ss, each of whom judges all of the sets.…”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

“…The 0.6 value is close to the weighting fitted for naive Ss (Parducci, 1965;Parducci et al, 1960). Figure 1a and 1b show the predicted and obtained judgments for one of the present contextual Ss.…”

Section: Stimuli (Thurstone Spacing)mentioning

confidence: 90%

Contextual effects for category judgments by practiced subjects

Parducci

Perrett

1967

Psychon Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…People will tend to use all response categories, no matter which range of physical stimulus values is presented. According to early papers of Parducci and his colleagues (e.g., Parducci, Calfee, Marshall, & Davidson, 1960), this effect depends only on the highest and the lowest physical stimulus values. In more recent work (Parducci, 1983;Parducci, Knobel, & Thomas, 1976), the subjective character of the range is emphasized and the relation with the physical range is assumed to be less direct.…”

Section: Danckerd L Daamen and Steven E De Biementioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, in Parducci's experiments, subjects are confronted with perceptible objects, whereas in surveys, respondents generally are asked beliefs or opinions not linked dircctly to perceptibleobjects, Second, although items in surveys may vary on more than one dimension, stimuli in nearly all range-frequency experiments differed on only one dimension. This dimension mostly was psychophysical-for example, numerical magnitude (Parducci et al, 1960;Parducci& Marshall, 1961), sweetness-of taste (Riskey, Parducci, & Beauchamp, 1979), and sizes of geometrical figures (Haubensak, 1981;Parducci, 1982;Parducci & Perrett, 1971;Parducci & Wedell, 1986). Recently"social" stimuli have been used-for example,physical attractiveness of faces shown on photographs (Wedell, Parducci, & Geiselman, 1987), happiness expressed by schematic drawings of faces (differing in the shape of the mouth only) and ratings of happiness of life events expressed by short verbal descriptions (Wedell & Parducci, 1988), satisfaction with test scores and wages (R. H. Smith, Diener, & Wedell, 1989), and "fair" allocationsof salaries given merit ratings and "fair" assignments of taxes givensalaries (Mellers, 1986;Mellers & Birnbaum, 1983).…”

Section: Previous Research On Range and Frequency Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research

Schwarz¹,

Sudman²

1992

205

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, etc., in this publication, even if the former are not especially identified, is not to be taken as a sign that such names, as understood by the Trade Marks and Merchandise Marks Act, may accordingly be used freely by anyone.Camera-ready copy supplied by the authors. Printed and bound by Braun-Brumfield, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI. Bibb Latane and Deborah Richardson hosted the conference at the Nags Head Conference Center in Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina. Their hospitality, the joys of southern cooking, and the outer banks of North Carolina greatly contributed to an enjoyable and productive meeting. Special thanks are due to Mary A. Spaeth, who edited all contributions to this volume and turned a pile of manuscripts into a readable book. Finally, we thank all conference participants for lively and controversial discussions from breakfast to midnight and for the fine chapters that they contributed.

show abstract

Context effects in judgment: Adaptation level as a function of the mean, midpoint, and median of the stimuli.

Cited by 62 publications

References 10 publications

Independent contexts for category ratings: A range-frequency analysis

Independent contexts for category ratings: A range-frequency analysis

Contextual effects for category judgments by practiced subjects

Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About