Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Higher order sequential effects in psychophysical judgments
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Giessen, J. Van Der |
| Copyright Year | 2010 |
| Abstract | When a series of stimuli is presented and a particular attribute is to be judged, responses depend not only on the current stimulus but also on which stimulus–response pairs occurred on earlier trials. In general, the current response is negativelycorrelated with the immediately preceding stimuli and positively correlated with the immediatelypreceding responses (e.g., Jesteadt, Luce, & Green, 1977;Petzold, 1981;Schifferstein & Frijters, 1992). Some earlier findings suggest that sequential effects extendover more than one trial. For instance, the analysis of response errors in absolute judgmentsby Ward and Lockhead (1971) suggests that the depth of sequential effects extends to at least five trials back. However, the effect of remote events could be due to response propagation from trial to trial. For instance, the response on trial t affects the response on trial t+1, which, in turn, affects the response on trial t+ 2, and so on. Jesteadt et al. (1977) attempted to explore the depth of sequential effects by using a linear regression model. Analyzing multiple correlations, they found that adding the immediately preceding stimulus– responsepair to the regression equationproducedan increment in the multiple correlation, but adding events more than one trial back did not significantly increase the correlation coefficient. From this finding they concludedthat sequential effects are limited to the stimulus–response event of the immediately preceding trial. Staddon, King, and Lockhead (1980), however, argued that at least the preceding two trials back are involved. Their arguments are based on the finding that the response error in absolute judgments is positivelycorrelated with the stimuliof lag 1, but negatively correlated with the stimuli of lag 2. Such a crossover cannot be accounted for by a model that incorporates only events one trial back. Similarly, in mixedmodalitypsychophysicalscaling,Ward (1985, 1986) found sequential effects for lags up to four trials. Possibly, the depth of sequential effects depends on the nature of the judgment task. Staddon et al. referred to studies on absolute judgments,whereas Jesteadt et al. focused on three experiments on magnitude estimation. If events more than one trial back affect the judgment of the current stimulus, what is the nature of such higher order sequential effects? More specifically, are effects of different order mediated by different processes? Ward and Lockhead (1970) argued that the immediately preceding event serves as a comparative standard, whereas the effect of events more than one trial back is mediated by other processes. Alternatively, one could argue that events further back can also function as standards in the same way as the immediately preceding event (Haubensak, 1992a). The present study was designed to investigate higher order sequential effects, especially concerning two questions. First, is the depth of sequential effects dependent on the task? Judgment processes in magnitude estimation and in category judgment might be different and cause different depths. Second, if events further back are incorporated into the judgment process, do they meet the same function as the immediately preceding event? The article begins with a discussion of models that allow one to derive more specific hypotheses concerning higher order sequential effects, especially interactions of prior events. |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://rd.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/BF03194516.pdf |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
