Sixty Ss judged the relative sizes of a set of line-drawn squares, using an 11-category response scale. Four groups were formed. All had stimulus series containing the first seven squares and the eleventh square of a geometrically ordered set of 11 squares. They differed in whether their series contained none of the remaining 3 of the set of 11 or only the 8 or both the eighth and ninth or all three. The results indicated that the stimulus value of the “average” category of judgment was significantly higher when all 11 squares were judged than when any degree of asymmetry was introduced into the series. However, the three asymmetric series had no differential effect on the judged “average” stimulus.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EriksenC. W.HakeH. W.Absolute judgments as a function of stimulus range and number of stimulus and response categories. J. exp. Psychol., 1955, 49, 323–332.
2.
FillenbaumS.The effect of distributional skewing upon judgment with free choice of scale. Amer. J. Psychol., 1960, 73, 132–136.
3.
GarnerW. R.HakeH. W.The amount of information in absolute judgments. Psychol. Rev., 1951, 58, 446–459.
4.
HelsonH.Adaptation-level as a frame of reference for prediction of psychophysical data. Amer. J. Psychol., 1947, 60, 1–29.
5.
HelsonH.Adaptation-level as a basis for a quantitative theory of frames of reference. Psychol. Rev., 1948, 55, 297–313.
6.
HelsonH.Adaptation level theory. In KochS. (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science. Vol. I. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959. Pp. 565–621.
7.
JohnsonD. M.Generalization of a scale of values by the averaging of practice effects. J. exp. Psychol., 1944, 34, 425–436.
8.
McGarveyH. R.Anchoring effects in the absolute judgment of verbal materials. Arch. Psychol., N. Y., 1943, 39, No. 281.
9.
ParducciA.Direction of shift in the judgment of single stimuli. J. exp. Psychol., 1956, 51, 169–178.
10.
ParducciA.CalfeeR. C.MarshallL. M.DavidsonL. P.Context effects in judgment: Adaptation level as a function of the mean, midpoint, and median of the stimuli. J. exp. Psychol., 1960, 60, 65–77.
11.
ParducciA.MarshallL. M.Context-effects in judgments of length. Amer. J. Psychol., 1961, 74, 576–583.
12.
RogersS.The anchoring of absolute judgment. Arch. Psychol., N. Y., 1941, 37, No. 261.
13.
TorgersonW. S.Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley, 1958.
14.
VolkmannJ.Scales of judgment and their implications for social psychology. In RohrerJ. H.SherifM. (Eds.), Social psychology at the crossroads. New York: Ronald, 1951. Pp. 273–294.
15.
VolkmannJ.HuntW. A.McGourtyM.Variability of judgment as a function of stimulus-density. Amer. J. Psychol., 1940, 53, 277–284.
16.
WeissW.Effects of unbalanced response scales on judgments of social stimuli. Psychol. Rep., 1963, 12, 403–414.
17.
WeissW.HodgsonD. A.The influence of unbalanced response scales on size judgments. J. exp. Psychol., 1963, in press.
