Literature DB >> 30891681

Illusory inconsistencies in judgment: Stimulus-evoked reference sets and between-subjects designs.

Lim M Leong1, Craig R M McKenzie2,3, Shlomi Sher4, Johannes Müller-Trede5.   

Abstract

Asked to judge the subjective size of numbers in a between-subjects design, participants rated 9 as larger than 221 (Birnbaum, 1999). The 9 > 221 effect seems to indicate that different stimuli evoke different contexts for comparison, and sounds a warning for the interpretation of between-subjects comparisons. We show that, contrary to appearances, the effect is not a result of stimulus-evoked reference sets. Instead, it is an artifact of the original 1-10 response scale and task instructions, which encourage a conflation of the response scale and the reference set. When ratings are expressed on a 1-1000 scale, or on a non-numerical slider scale, the effect reverses. However, we also show that stimuli can evoke their own comparative contexts, generating illusions of inconsistency in between-subjects designs. We report two novel findings - a 9 > 009 effect and a -2 > 2 effect - which are best explained by stimulus-evoked reference sets. Thus, while revealing that the 9 > 221 effect is an artifact of the original response scale, our study ultimately affirms Birnbaum's warning about the comparison of between-subjects ratings.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Between-subjects design; Context effect; Evoked reference set; Replication

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30891681     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-019-01585-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  9 in total

1.  Factors affecting subjective estimates of magnitude: when is 9 > 221?

Authors:  S J McKelvie
Journal:  Percept Mot Skills       Date:  2001-10

2.  Adaptation-level vs. the relativity of judgment.

Authors:  S S STEVENS
Journal:  Am J Psychol       Date:  1958-12

3.  Comparing gains and losses.

Authors:  A Peter McGraw; Jeff T Larsen; Daniel Kahneman; David Schkade
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2010-08-25

4.  Options as information: rational reversals of evaluation and preference.

Authors:  Shlomi Sher; Craig R M McKenzie
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2013-12-23

5.  Small telescopes: detectability and the evaluation of replication results.

Authors:  Uri Simonsohn
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2015-03-23

6.  Improving social and behavioral science by making replication mainstream: A response to commentaries.

Authors:  Rolf A Zwaan; Alexander Etz; Richard E Lucas; M Brent Donnellan
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 12.579

7.  Gamble evaluation and evoked reference sets: Why adding a small loss to a gamble increases its attractiveness.

Authors:  Craig R M McKenzie; Shlomi Sher
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2019-09-17

8.  Category judgment: a range-frequency model.

Authors:  A Parducci
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1965-11       Impact factor: 8.934

9.  Making sense of replications.

Authors:  Brian A Nosek; Timothy M Errington
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2017-01-19       Impact factor: 8.140

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.