1973
DOI: 10.1037/h0034281
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Criterial range as a frame of reference for stimulus judgment.

Abstract: A mathematical model which compares the process of stimulus discrimination to a signal measuring system is proposed and partially evaluated in four experiments. Within this system, response variability is partitioned into two parts, a stimulus component and a component due to variation in the psychological scale. The stimulus component depends on the particular stimulus but not on other stimuli in the set. The other component is shown to be directly proportional to the physical range over which criteria vary. … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

18
121
1

Year Published

1976
1976
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 152 publications
(140 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
18
121
1
Order By: Relevance
“…When attention must span further in similarity space, perhaps the task becomes more difficult (cf, Dixon & Just, 1978). This interpretation is consistent with findings in psychophysical tasks in which the discrimination between items, in unidimensional absolute-judgment situations, becomes more difficult as the range over which stimuli vary increases (Gravetter & Lockhead, 1973). Distance in similarity space between loudnesses and line lengths produces effects consistent with the range effect obtained when words are the stimuli; a large range results in poor performance.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 76%
“…When attention must span further in similarity space, perhaps the task becomes more difficult (cf, Dixon & Just, 1978). This interpretation is consistent with findings in psychophysical tasks in which the discrimination between items, in unidimensional absolute-judgment situations, becomes more difficult as the range over which stimuli vary increases (Gravetter & Lockhead, 1973). Distance in similarity space between loudnesses and line lengths produces effects consistent with the range effect obtained when words are the stimuli; a large range results in poor performance.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 76%
“…In the spirit of Pollack's (1952) study, Gravetter andLockhead (1973) asked subjects to identify members of various stimulus sets. Range was varied between sets by increasing the physical distance between some stimuli but not others, but the total number of stimuli was constant over conditions.…”
Section: Range Effectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We have verified that a power function growth does not predict the data either. To deal with this, they suggested, as did Gravetter and Lockhead (1973) independently, that the variance of the signal representation grows linearly with the square of the range in decibels. Although partially accounting for their results-it fails to explain why comparable magnitude estimation (ME) results lie systematically When 10 or more one-dimensional signals are spread over a sufficiently large range (e.g., 20 dB or more in auditory intensity), subjects in absolute identification (AI) experiments do not perform as well as one would anticipate from data on comparable pairs of signals.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The data can be represented in terms of Thurstonian discriminal dispersions in which the variance is proportional to the square of the signal range in decibels (Durlach & Braida, 1969;Gravetter & Lockhead, 1973). but it is by no means obvious what sorts of mechanisms would lead to this model.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%