EFFECTS OF RANGE AND PHYSICAL INTENSITY OF STIMULI ON CATEGORY JUDGMENT FUNCTION

SEIICHIRO NAMBA; TOSHIE YOSHIKAWA; SONOKO KUWANO

doi:10.4992/psycholres1954.10.95

SEIICHIRO NAMBA, TOSHIE YOSHIKAWA, SONOKO KUWANO

Author information

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

1968 Volume 10 Issue 2 Pages 95-103

DOI https://doi.org/10.4992/psycholres1954.10.95

Details

Published: 1968 Received: July 05, 1968 Available on J-STAGE: February 24, 2009 Accepted: - Advance online publication: - Revised: -
Correction information
Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : Exp. I was designed to investigate the effect which the stimulus range, the stimulus interval and the number of categories have on judgments. As the result it was made clear that the stimulus range has a regular effect on the slope of the judgment function and the stimulus interval and the number of categories seemed not to affect judgments. From this result the new judgment function was led, which fitted the data very well.
In Exp. II the physical absolute intensity of the stimulus was dealt with. In the low level the form of the judgment function was distorted.
Therefore, by these two experiments it was shown that the effects of the stimulus range and the physical intensity were significant and not to be disregarded.
Right : Exp. I was designed to investigate the effect which the stimulus range, the stimulus interval and the number of categories have on judgments. As the result it was made clear that the stimulus range has a regular effect on the slope of the judgment function and the stimulus interval and the number of categories seemed not to affect judgments. From this result the new judgment function was led, which fitted the data very well.
In Exp. II the physical absolute intensity of the stimulus was dealt with. In the low level the form of the judgment function was distorted.
Therefore, by these two experiments it was shown that the effects of the stimulus range and the physical intensity were significant and not to be disregarded.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : HARVEY, O. J., & CAMPBELL, D. T. 1963 Judgments of weight as affected by adaptation range, adaptation duration, magnitude of unlabelled anchor and judgmental language. J. exp. Psychol., 65, 12-21.
HELSON, H. 1964 Adaptationlevel theory. New York: Harper & Row.
MICHELS, W. C., & HELSON, H. 1949 A reformulation of the Fechner law in terms of adaptationlevel applied to ratingscale data. Amer., J. Psychol., 62, 355-368.
PARDUCCI, A. 1963 Rangefrequency compromise in judgment. Psychol. Monogr., 77, No. 2 (whole No. 565).
PARDUCCI, A. 1965 Category judgment: A rangefrequency model. Psychol. Rev., 72, 407-418.
STEVENS, S. S., & GREENBAUM, H. B. 1966 Regression effect in Psychophysical judgment. Percept. & Psychophys., 1, 439-445.

Right : HARVEY, O. J., & CAMPBELL, D. T. 1963 Judgments of weight as affected by adaptation range, adaptation duration, magnitude of unlabelled anchor and judgmental language. J. exp. Psychol., 65, 12-21.
HELSON, H. 1964 Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper & Row. MICHELS, W. C., & HELSON, H. 1949 A reformulation of the Fechner law in terms of adaptation-level applied to rating-scale data. Amer. J. Psychol., 62, 355-368.
PARDUCCI, A. 1963 Range-frequency compromise in judgment. Psychol. Monogr., 77, No.2 (whole No.565).
PARDUCCI, A. 1965 Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychol. Rev., 72, 407-418.
STEVENS, S. S., & GREENBAUM, H. B. 1966 Regression effect in Psychophysical judgment. Percept. Psychophys., 1, 439-445.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: PDF FILE Details: -

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : HARVEY, O. J., & CAMPBELL, D. T. 1963 Judgments of weight as affected by adaptation range, adaptation duration, magnitude of unlabelled anchor and judgmental language. J. exp. Psychol., 65, 12-21.
HELSON, H. 1964 Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper & Row. MICHELS, W. C., & HELSON, H. 1949 A reformulation of the Fechner law in terms of adaptation-level applied to rating-scale data. Amer. J. Psychol., 62, 355-368.
PARDUCCI, A. 1963 Range-frequency compromise in judgment. Psychol. Monogr., 77, No.2 (whole No.565).
PARDUCCI, A. 1965 Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychol. Rev., 72, 407-418.
STEVENS, S. S., & GREENBAUM, H. B. 1966 Regression effect in Psychophysical judgment. Percept. Psychophys., 1, 439-445.

Right : HARVEY, O. J., & CAMPBELL, D. T. 1963 Judgments of weight as affected by adaptation range, adaptation duration, magnitude of unlabelled anchor and judgmental language. J. exp. Psychol., 65, 12-21.
HELSON, H. 1964 Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper & Row.
MICHELS, W. C., & HELSON, H. 1949 A reformulation of the Fechner law in terms of adaptation-level applied to rating-scale data. Amer. J. Psychol., 62, 355-368.
PARDUCCI, A. 1963 Range-frequency compromise in judgment. Psychol. Monogr., 77, No.2 (whole No.565).
PARDUCCI, A. 1965 Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychol. Rev., 72, 407-418.
STEVENS, S. S., & GREENBAUM, H. B. 1966 Regression effect in Psychophysical judgment. Percept. & Psychophys., 1, 439-445.

Abstract

Exp. I was designed to investigate the effect which the stimulus range, the stimulus interval and the number of categories have on judgments. As the result it was made clear that the stimulus range has a regular effect on the slope of the judgment function and the stimulus interval and the number of categories seemed not to affect judgments. From this result the new judgment function was led, which fitted the data very well.
In Exp. II the physical absolute intensity of the stimulus was dealt with. In the low level the form of the judgment function was distorted.
Therefore, by these two experiments it was shown that the effects of the stimulus range and the physical intensity were significant and not to be disregarded.

Corresponding author

Correction information

Register with J-STAGE for free!