Subjective ratios and differences in perceived heaviness.

Rule, Stanley J.; Curtis, Dwight W.; Mullin, Lois C.

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.7.2.459

Cited by 16 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It might be argued that Rule et al (1981) were correct in their domain (heaviness) when they assumed that J* was the same for all groups of subjects. However, it seems likely that if our Experiment 1 was replicated with lifted weights, similar contextual effects would occur in which the curves could be either made to fit the ratio model, give the same order as the subtractive model, or violate the ratio model depending on the response range and standard.…”

Section: Contextual Effects In Between-subject Versus Within-subject mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a recent paper that examined "ratio" and "difference" judgments, different groups of subjects used different standards for the "ratio" task (Rule, Curtis, & Mullin, 1981). They assumed that such "ratio" judgments can be described by the following ratio model:…”

Section: Contextual Effects In Between-subject Versus Within-subject mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If variations of standards and examples in between-subjects designs produce different J* functions, the conclusion of Rule et al (1981) that subjects use two operations when judging "differences" and "ratios" of heaviness of lifted weights should be questioned and reexamined. This conclusion rests entirely on the assumption that J* in Equation 16 is the same for different groups of subjects who received different standards in their experiments.…”

Section: Contextual Effects In Between-subject Versus Within-subject mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Loci of contextual effects in judgment.

Mellers¹,

Birnbaum²

1982

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments investigated the loci of contextual effects in judgment, Experiment 1 demonstrated the effect of stimulus spacing on category ratings and magnitude estimations of the darkness of dot patterns. Variations in the stimulus spacing were shown to affect both category ratings and magnitude estimations in a similar fashion. Experiment 2 was designed to determine whether contextual effects due to stimulus spacing influence the scale values or the judgment function. Subjects judged "differences" and "ratios" of the subjective darkness of dot patterns. Differences in mean judgments of single stimuli from Experiment 1 did not predict the rank order of judged "differences" and "ratios" from Experiment 2. The estimated scale values of the stimuli appeared to be independent of stimulus spacing. These findings suggest that contextual effects due to the stimulus spacing occur in the judgment function for within-modality judgments. Experiment 3 examined contextual effects in cross-modality judgments. Stimulus spacing and stimulus range were manipulated for "difference" and "total" judgments. Unlike the within-modality results, the stimulus range and spacing influenced the scale values. A contextual theory of within-and cross-modality judgment is presented.It is now well established that judgments are relative. That is, the response to a stimulus depends not only on the stimulus to be judged, but also on other stimuli that form a context, or frame of reference for judgment (

show abstract

Section: Contextual Effects In Between-subject Versus Within-subject mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Contextual Effects In Between-subject Versus Within-subject mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Contextual Effects In Between-subject Versus Within-subject mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Loci of contextual effects in judgment.

Mellers¹,

Birnbaum²

1982

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rule, Curtis, and their colleagues (e.g., Rule & Curtis, 1980, 1982Rule, Curtis, & Mullin, 1981) argued that subjects are able to judge either differences or ratios when instructed to do so. According to these authors, category ratings are linear with subjective intensity, and magnitude-estimation instructions induce a response output function that has the form of a power function.…”

Section: -10 Omentioning

confidence: 99%

“Ratios” and “differences” in perceived sweetness intensity

Graaf

Frijters

1988

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For a number of perceptual continua, it has been shown in previous studies that subjects use only one quantitative comparison between two sensory impressions of a pair of stimuli, irrespective of whether they are instructed to judge "ratios" or "differences." This comparison can be described by algebraic subtraction. The present study was designed to investigate whether this one-operation theory for psychophysical judgment also applied to the sensory continuum of sweetness. Subjects were presented with pairs of fructose solutions, and judged "ratios" of, or "differences" in, perceived sweetness intensities. The pairs were constructed on the basis of a factorial judgment design. The results showed that the reported "differences" could be adequately described by a difference response model, and that the reported "ratios" could be adequately described by a ratio response model. However, the reported "ratios" and reported "differences" were monotonically related, and the marginal means of the log-transformed response matrix of "ratios" were a linear function of the marginal means ofthe response matrix of "differences." These results are incompatible with the notion that subjects judged differences when instructed to judge "differences," but ratios when instructed to judge "ratios." The consistency of the ratio response model with "ratio" judgments is probably caused by a comparative operation based on "differences" in combination with an exponential response output function. It may be concluded that subjects judge only "differences," and not "ratios," between perceived sweetness intensities.

show abstract

“…If the subtractive model is assumed, then Figure 6 indicates that pitch is a log function of frequency. Figure 6 provides a direct test of an idea suggested by Rule, Curtis, and Mullin (1981) as an explanation of the monotonic relationship between "ratios" and "differences." Rule et al suggested that "ratio" scale values for the first stimulus (standard) would show regression to the mean, but "difference" scale values would not.…”

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A harmonious note on pitch: Scales of pitch derived from subtractive model of comparison agree with the musical scale

Elmasian

Birnbaum

1984

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subjects judged "ratios" and "differences" in pitch between pairs of tones that varied in frequency. Half of the subjects listened to stimuli that ranged from 191 to 844 Hz; the other half received a range that varied from 191 to 3740 Hz. For both ranges, the rank orders ofjudgments in the two tasks were essentially the same. If subjects actually use ratio and difference operations on the same scale values, the factorial design should yield different rank orders for each task. Instead, it was concluded that subjects use the same comparison operation for both tasks but map the subjective comparisons to overt responses differently for each dependent variable. If the comparison operation is subtraction, the data are consistent with the hypothesis that subjective pitch is a log function of frequency; that is, differences on the musical scale predict both the "ratio" and "difference" judgments. This result may resolve the previous discord between musicians and psychophysical psychologists on the subjective scaling of pitch. 531

show abstract

Subjective ratios and differences in perceived heaviness.

Cited by 16 publications

References 11 publications

Loci of contextual effects in judgment.

Loci of contextual effects in judgment.

“Ratios” and “differences” in perceived sweetness intensity

A harmonious note on pitch: Scales of pitch derived from subtractive model of comparison agree with the musical scale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About