Cross-task validation of functional measurement

Anderson, Norman H.

doi:10.3758/bf03205848

Cited by 159 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One problem with subjective estimates is uncertainty about their relationship with underlying psychological structures. Although Anderson (1972) and others have presented persuasive arguments challenging the validity of magnitude estimation and other forms of cross-modality matching as measures of true sensation, other work in our laboratory (Walker, 1974) and elsewhere (Curtis, Attneave, & Harrington, 1968;Marks, 1974;Ward, 1972) has shown that similar power functions obtain with the use of category rating scales as with magnitude estimation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Cross-modality matches suggest anticipated stage fright a multiplicative power function of audience size and status

Latané

Harkins

1976

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Cross-modality matches suggest anticipated stage fright a multiplicative power function of audience size and status

Latané

Harkins

1976

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Support for this alternative interpretation was suggested by the observation (Anderson, 1972(Anderson, , p. 393, 1974cMarks, 1978) that the curves in Stevens' Figure 4 were roughly parallel-on a log response scale. By virtue of the parallelism theorem, that suggests that the difference model was correct, that magnitude estimation is biased, and that an approximate log transformation is needed to eliminate the bias.…”

Section: Related Workon Loudness Differencingmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…However, it has long been recognized (Attneave, 1962;Ekman & Sjoberg, 1965;Treisman, 1964;Zinnes, 1969; see also Anderson, 1972Anderson, , 1974aKrantz, 1972) that scales from crossmodality matching are, at best, unique only up to a power transformation. Even if it is assumed that cross-modality matching is empirically true, therefore, that still leaves magnitude estimation without a validational base.…”

Section: Magnitude Estimationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bisection of loudness

Carterette

Anderson

1979

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a loudness bisection task, subjects varied one sound to lie halfway between two given sounds in terms of loudness. The two given sounds were varied from 30 to 90 dB in a 4 by 9 factorial design. Functional measurement methods based on monotone analysis provided good support for the bisection model, and yielded a loudness scale with an exponent of about .3, except for a falloff at lower intensities. Two other tasks, judging average loudness and difference in loudness of the two given sounds, yielded mixed results. In Experiment 2, in particular, the differencing judgments were not additive, even under monotone transformation. These analyses also indicated that previous applications of monotone analysis have typically lacked adequate power to allow any conclusion about the operative model. Overall, the present bisection scale agrees with Garner's lambda scale, and the present theoretical approach agrees with that of Garner in its emphasis on algebraic models as a foundation for psychological measurement.The quality of loudness has good reasons for being a primary focus of psychophysical measurement. It has enormous dynamic range, in contrast to skin temperature or pressure. It is an energetic, sensory dimension, in contrast to length. It has nearly the ecological importance of brightness, but not nearly the complications from adaptation. And it is experimentally flexible and easy to control. For these and other reasons, loudness has become a primary test case for theories of psychophysical measurement.The method of bisection is attractive because it rests on sensory comparison and avoids artificial response language. If the subject's bisection response was indeed at the sensory midpoint, then a simple procedure of successive bisection would yield a linear (equal-interval) scale of sensation. Two arbitrary initial stimuli would be called 0 and 100. Their bisector would then have the value 50, two further bisections would yield the 25 and 75 points, four further bisections would yield the 12.5, 37.5, 62.5, This work was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH-07809 to the first author, and by National Science Foundation Grant BMS 74-19124 to the second author. A preliminary report of this work was presented at the XXI International Congress of Psychology, Paris, July 1976. We wish to thank Alan Barnebey for help with apparatus and computing, Cheryl Smart for programming and managing the experiments, Clifford Butzin and Anthony Harris for advice and assistance in data analysis, and Edward Alf for developing the HP-67 program used for fitting power functions. Requests for reprints may be sent to Edward Carterette, Psychology, University of California. Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024, or to Norman Anderson, Psychology C-009, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093. and 87.5 points, and so on, to as fine a division as desired. Granted that the bisection response is at the sensory midpoint, these numbers would constitute a linear scale of loudness.But the method of ...

show abstract

“…Also, the response variability of the category ratings in Figures 2-5 is approximately constant irrespective of subjective magnitude, consistent with Fechner's assumption. On the validity question, it should be mentioned that there is now substantial support for category rating as a linear response measure from studies in functional measurement analysis (Anderson, 1970(Anderson, , 1972(Anderson, , 1974(Anderson, , 1981. This provides further support, albeit indirect, for the equal-interval properties of the JND scale.…”

Section: Jndscalesmentioning

confidence: 99%