Size estimation may be influenced by characteristics recalled about the object viewed. This study evaluated the influence of object familiarity on estimation of size. We compared size estimates of several familiar objects with size estimates of undefined objects matched for dimensions of pattern and color. Those estimating the size of the familiar objects made significantly larger errors than those estimating the size of the undefined objects. In a second study size estimation errors from memory were larger than when objects were directly viewed. Experience with the objects appears to decrease accuracy of estimates of size but errors may be reduced by directly observing the object.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BiedermanI.CooperE. (1992) Size invariance in visual object priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 121–133.
2.
BollesR.BaileyD. (1956) Importance of object recognition in size constancy. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51, 222–225.
3.
BrunerJ.GoodmanC. (1947) Value and need as organizing factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 33–44.
4.
CavalierR.WespR. (1997) The garbage can illusion as a teaching demonstration. Teaching of Psychology, 24, 125–127.
5.
GregoryR. L. (1966) Eye and brain. New York: McGraw-Hill.
6.
IachiniS.GiusbertiF. (1996) Metric aspects of mental images. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, 1243–1250.
7.
KolersP.DuchnickyR.SundstroemG. (1985) Size in the visual processing of faces and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 726–751.
8.
LeeM. (1989) When is an object not an object? The effect of ‘meaning’ upon the copying of line drawings. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 15–37.
9.
McKeeS.SmallmanH. (1998) Size and speed constancy. In WalshV.KulikowskiJ. (Eds.), Perceptual constancy: Why things look as they do. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer. Press. Pp. 373–408.
10.
McKennellA. (1960) Visual size and familiar size: Individual differences. British Journal of Psychology, 51, 27–35.
11.
PastoreN. (1949) Need as a determinant of perception. Journal of Psychology, 28, 457–475.
12.
PredebonJ. (1991) Memory size estimates of playing cards: The effect of manipulative familiarity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 739–741.
13.
RachmanS.CukM. (1992) Fearful distortions. Behavior Research and Therapy, 30, 583–589.
14.
RossH.PlugC. (1998) The history of size constancy and size illusions. In WalshV.KulikowskiJ. (Eds.), Perceptual constancy: Why things look as they do. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer. Press. Pp. 373–408.
15.
ShiffrarM.FreydI. (1993) Timing and apparent motion path choice with human body photographs. Psychological Science, 4, 379–384.
16.
WespR.CavalierR.CloughM.RancourtJ. (1996) Function as a determinant of perception of size. [Abstract]Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, 67, 67.
