Loci of contextual effects in judgment.

Mellers, Barbara A.; Birnbaum, Michael H.

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.8.4.582

Cited by 85 publications

(139 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

126

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, if the elaborated model set w at .5, as in Experiment 1, it would overestimate the effects of skewing shown in Figure 15. In previous re- In a recent study using simultaneous presentations (Mellers & Birnbaum, 1982), subjects rated dot patterns presented on a single page in either a positively or negatively skewed set. The effects of skewing did not differ much between 5-and 100-point scales; for both, the range-frequency weighting (w) was close to .5.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The category effect with rating scales: Number of categories, number of stimuli, and method of presentation.

Parducci¹,

Wedell²

1986

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

132

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Squares receive higher category ratings when the smaller sizes are presented more frequently than the larger sizes. This shift in the rating scale is greater when there are either fewer categories (the Category Effect) or more stimuli. Similar shifts were obtained whether the stimuli were presented successively for judgment or simultaneously. The Category Effect also occurred when subjects were not told how many categories to use until after the contextual stimuli had been presented. A simple range-frequency model describes most of the shifts in scale by variations in a single weighting parameter. However, these shifts are predicted by an elaborated model in which the number of representations of any stimulus in working memory is limited by a principle of consistent assignment of each stimulus to a single category. This elaborated model correctly predicts the disapearance of the Category Effect when contexts are manipulated by varying the spacing of stimulus values rather than by varying their relative frequencies. Category ratings are probably the most frequently used of dependent variables in psychological research, perhaps because they reflect the way people ordinarily express value judgments.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The category effect with rating scales: Number of categories, number of stimuli, and method of presentation.

Parducci¹,

Wedell²

1986

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

132

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…How a person ranks relative to others is clearly an important factor in how people evaluate that person's test score (Mellers & Birnbaum, 1982;Wedell et al, 1989), income (Mellers, 1983(Mellers, , 1986Smith et al, 1989), and attractiveness , to name just a few dimensions. The principle of using ranks to value stimuli is the frequency principle, and it appears to have wide generality.…”

Section: Using Range-frequency Theory To Understand Social Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextual contrast in evaluative judgments: A test of pre- versus postintegration models of contrast.

Wedell¹

1994

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments examined at what stage contrast effects occur within the impression-formation process. University students rated the likability of persons described by 5 trait adjectives, with the distribution of trait adjectives manipulated between Ss. Theoretically, contextual stimuli may affect the valuation of component traits before integration, a preintegration model, or they may affect the valuation of the composite impression after the components have been integrated, a postintegration model. Context was manipulated so that the preintegration model predicted an interaction between context and target, but the postintegration model did not. The predicted interaction was replicated several times, supporting preintegration processing of contextual information. However, when subjects were divided into fast and slow judges (on the basis of judgment latencies), the pattern of results supported preintegration contrast for fast judges and postintegration contrast for slow judges. These results support the conclusion that contrast effects may operate at different levels in impression formation.

show abstract

“…This outcome indicates a substantial relativistic component to cross-modal matching. Several investigators have argued that cross-modal matches are not absolute but relative, that they depend primarily on context (Cohen, 1934;Mellers & Birnbaum, 1982; see also K. Smith & Hardy, 1961). Moreover, the large relativistic component to the judgment of duration as well as intensity suggests that such phenomena may be widespread.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%