Abstract
The hypothesis that size estimates could be systematically made when subjects were provided an assumed or perceived distance was tested. Forty subjects, each under one of four experimental conditions, were told the distance of a stimulus in a demonstratively cue-free situation. Their estimates of the size of the test objects constituted an increasing monotonic function of the size of the retinal image. Consistent overestimates of size suggest that the effect was primarily cognitive rather than perceptual.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Carlson, V. R. Overestimation in size-constancy judgments. American Journal of Psychology, 1960, 73, 199–213.
Epstein, W. Attitudes of judgment and the size-distance invariance hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 66, 78–83.
Epstein, W. Varieties of perceptual learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Gogel, W. C. An indirect method of measuring perceived distance from familiar size. Perception & Psychophysics, 1976, 20, 419–429.
Gogel, W. C. The role of suggested size in distance responses. Perception & Psychophysics, 1981, 30, 149–155.
Gogel, W. C., & Tietz, J. D. Absolute motion parallax and the specific distance tendency. Perception & Psychophysics, 1973, 13, 284–292.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported in part by PHS Grant MH 1730901.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Singer, F.A., Tyer, Z.E. & Pasnak, R. Assumed distance as a determinant of apparent size. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 19, 267–268 (1982). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330253
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330253