Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Three hypotheses were tested. (1) Response-produced visual stimuli (RPVS) would yield smaller errors of distance judgments of arm length, a natural unit, than non-RPVS. (2) Errors of judgments of distance in a natural unit would be smaller than those in arbitrary units. (3) Effects of development, if any, would be greatest for judgments of distance in an unnatural unit and judgments based on non-RPVS. The first two hypotheses remained tenable while the third did not.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Gibson

J. J.

The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1950.

Gogel

W. C.

The visual perception of size and distance. Vis. Res., 1963, 3, 101–120.

Gogel

W. C.

Size cue to visually perceived distance. Psychol. Bull., 1964, 62, 217–235.

Gogel

W. C.

Hartman

B. O.

Harker

G. S.

The retinal size of a familiar object as a determiner of apparent distance. Psychol. Monogr., 1957, 71, No. 13 (Whole No. 442).

Guion

R. M.

Personnel testing. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.

Ittelson

W. H.

Visual space perception. New York: Springer, 1960.

Koffka

Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1935.

Miller

N. E.

Analytical studies of drive and reward. Amer. Psychologist, 1961, 16, 739–754.

Ryan

T. A.

Smith

P. C.

Principles of industrial psychology. New York: Ronald, 1954.

10.

Smith

O. W.

Smith

P. C.

Developmental studies of spatial judgments by children and adults. Percept. mot. Skills, 1966, 22, 3–77. (Monogr. Suppl. 1-V22).

11.

Wallace

S. R.

Criteria for what?

Amer. Psychologist, 1965, 20, 411–417.

12.

Weitz

Criteria for criteria. Amer. Psychologist, 1961, 16, 228–231.

Response-Produced vs Non-Response-Produced Visual Stimuli for Distance Judgments in Natural and Unnatural Units by Children and Adults

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References