Article2001

Factors Affecting Subjective Estimates of Magnitude: When is 9 > 221?

4 citations0/0 files storedPerceptual and Motor Skills

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics Psychometric Methodologies and Testing Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Abstract

112 undergraduates separately judged the size of the numbers 9 then 221 or 221 then 9 on a 10-point scale or on a continuous line that were both anchored only at the extremes by "very, very small" and "very, very large." Replicating the 1999 Birnbaum study, 9 was given a higher rating than 221 when the numbers were judged first by different people on the numerical scale. However, 9 was given a similar or smaller rating than 221 in the other conditions. The results are discussed in terms of context effects.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 4 citations exist upstream.

References

1999How to show that 9 > 221: Collect judgments in a between-subjects design.

Cited by

2013Comparing the Perceived Size of 9 with 221 and with 2143: Biasing Effects of Inferred Context in a Between-Subjects Design 2012Exploring a Counterintuitive Finding with Methodological Implications Why is 9 > 221 in a Between-subjects Design?2019Illusory inconsistencies in judgment: Stimulus-evoked reference sets and between-subjects designs

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.