Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-sbzbt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T07:14:16.914Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Group Differences in Size Estimation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

H. L. Ansbacher  and
K. Mather
H. L. Ansbacher
Affiliation:
Brown University, Providence, R. I.
K. Mather
Affiliation:
John Innes Horticultural Institution, Merton, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fifty-two subjects differing in sex, age, education and domicile (rural or urban) were given the problem of judging the height of an upright board in a natural setting. A preliminary analysis was made on the basis of the simple initial ratio method, both for the original data in feet and for original data converted to log units. Because the effects of interaction of the several variables made the results of this method inconclusive, the analysis of variance technique, as described by Yates (11) for data where the classes are not equally represented, was applied. This technique showed that, while together the four factors markedly affected judgment, sex had no significant individual effect, age had the biggest individual effect but possibly a spurious one, education and domicile had suspiciously large individual effects, and the effect of the four factors may be regarded as simply additive. The relation of the findings to those of previous investigators is discussed. The authors regard as an important result of the analysis the guidance it offers in the design of further experiments, since it demonstrates the value of equal representation for all classes into which data are to be segregated.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 1945 , pp. 37 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © 1945 Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Responsible for the experiment and general interpretation.

†

Responsible for the statistical analysis.

References

Beveridge, W. M. Racial differences in phenomenal regression. Brit. J. Psychol., 1935, 26, 59–62.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. Statistical methods for research workers 6th ed.,, Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1936.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. and Yates, F. Statistical tables for biological, agricultural and medical research 2nd ed.,, Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1943.Google Scholar
Holaday, B. E.Die Grossenkonstanz der Sehdinge. Arch. ges. Psychol., 1933, 88, 419–486.Google Scholar
Klimpfinger, S.Die Entwicklung der Gestaltkonstanz vom Kind zum Erwachsenen. Arch. ges. Psychol., 1933, 88, 599–628.Google Scholar
Locke, N. M. Perception and intelligence: their phylogenetic relation. Psychol. Rev., 1938, 45, 335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mather, K. Statistical analysis in biology, London: Methuen, 1943.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. R.A study of individual consistency in phenomenal constancy. Arch. Psychol., N. Y., 1938, No. 222.Google Scholar
Thouless, R. H. Individual differences in phenomenal regression. Brit. J. Psychol., 1932, 22, 216–241.Google Scholar
Thouless, R. H. A racial difference in perception. J. soc. Psychol., 1933, 4, 330–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. The principles of orthogonality and confounding in replicated experiments. J. agric. Sci., 1933, 23, 108–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar