Comment on Anderson and Cuneo's "The height + width rule in children's judgments of quantity."
The validity of the height + width rule for judgment of area, as proposed by N. H. Anderson and D. O. Cuneo , is questioned on statistical-methodological grounds. A detailed consideration of rating scale methodology as employed in functional measurement indicates that there are intimate relationship...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of experimental psychology. General 1978-12, Vol.107 (4), p.379-387 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 387 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 379 |
| container_title | Journal of experimental psychology. General |
| container_volume | 107 |
| creator | Bogartz, Richard S |
| description | The validity of the height + width rule for judgment of area, as proposed by N. H. Anderson and D. O. Cuneo , is questioned on statistical-methodological grounds. A detailed consideration of rating scale methodology as employed in functional measurement indicates that there are intimate relationships among the stimulus set, rating scale, stimulus end anchors, rating-scale-response variability, and sample size that determine the sensitivity or power of a particular factorial design to reveal the form of the integration rule. Anderson and Cueno's positions on the concepts of conservation, centration, and compensation are also considered. (6 ref) |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1037/0096-3445.107.4.379 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_614315415</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1297418174</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a247t-5d01e26e8c2d9625de25d0f1523d883029afedf0432a5bdc0677dce914b3d1593</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1LAzEQhoMoWKu_wEuoiAfZmq_dbI5l8QsKXuo5pJvZ7pY22ya7aG_iT_WXmFIRLw4MMwPP-w68CF1SMqaEyztCVJZwIdJ4yrEYc6mO0IAqrhIW6xgNfolTdBbCksTieTZA86Jdr8F1uHV44iz4EBfjLC56B-1NwKNZDbiGZlF3Xx-ft7HfGtvV2PcrwI3DZd2srAcX0WVvF3uvgNsKb3vjuqbbjUfn6KQyqwAXP3OIXh_uZ8VTMn15fC4m08QwIbsktYQCyyAvmVUZSy3EJhVNGbd5zglTpgJbEcGZSee2JJmUtgRFxZxbmio-RKOD78a32x5Cp5dt7118qTMqOE0FTSN09R9EmZKC5lSKSPEDVfo2BA-V3vhmbfxOU6L3iet9nnqfZzylFjomHlXXB5XZGL0Ju9L4rilXEPT7Av5w3-RpgHI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>614315415</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comment on Anderson and Cuneo's "The height + width rule in children's judgments of quantity."</title><source>EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><creator>Bogartz, Richard S</creator><creatorcontrib>Bogartz, Richard S</creatorcontrib><description>The validity of the height + width rule for judgment of area, as proposed by N. H. Anderson and D. O. Cuneo , is questioned on statistical-methodological grounds. A detailed consideration of rating scale methodology as employed in functional measurement indicates that there are intimate relationships among the stimulus set, rating scale, stimulus end anchors, rating-scale-response variability, and sample size that determine the sensitivity or power of a particular factorial design to reveal the form of the integration rule. Anderson and Cueno's positions on the concepts of conservation, centration, and compensation are also considered. (6 ref)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0096-3445</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-2222</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.107.4.379</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, etc: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Age Differences ; Cognitive Development ; Concept Formation ; Conservation (Concept) ; Form and Shape Perception ; Human ; Size Discrimination ; Stimulus Parameters</subject><ispartof>Journal of experimental psychology. General, 1978-12, Vol.107 (4), p.379-387</ispartof><rights>1978 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>1978, American Psychological Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a247t-5d01e26e8c2d9625de25d0f1523d883029afedf0432a5bdc0677dce914b3d1593</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27856,27911,27912</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bogartz, Richard S</creatorcontrib><title>Comment on Anderson and Cuneo's "The height + width rule in children's judgments of quantity."</title><title>Journal of experimental psychology. General</title><description>The validity of the height + width rule for judgment of area, as proposed by N. H. Anderson and D. O. Cuneo , is questioned on statistical-methodological grounds. A detailed consideration of rating scale methodology as employed in functional measurement indicates that there are intimate relationships among the stimulus set, rating scale, stimulus end anchors, rating-scale-response variability, and sample size that determine the sensitivity or power of a particular factorial design to reveal the form of the integration rule. Anderson and Cueno's positions on the concepts of conservation, centration, and compensation are also considered. (6 ref)</description><subject>Age Differences</subject><subject>Cognitive Development</subject><subject>Concept Formation</subject><subject>Conservation (Concept)</subject><subject>Form and Shape Perception</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Size Discrimination</subject><subject>Stimulus Parameters</subject><issn>0096-3445</issn><issn>1939-2222</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1978</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1LAzEQhoMoWKu_wEuoiAfZmq_dbI5l8QsKXuo5pJvZ7pY22ya7aG_iT_WXmFIRLw4MMwPP-w68CF1SMqaEyztCVJZwIdJ4yrEYc6mO0IAqrhIW6xgNfolTdBbCksTieTZA86Jdr8F1uHV44iz4EBfjLC56B-1NwKNZDbiGZlF3Xx-ft7HfGtvV2PcrwI3DZd2srAcX0WVvF3uvgNsKb3vjuqbbjUfn6KQyqwAXP3OIXh_uZ8VTMn15fC4m08QwIbsktYQCyyAvmVUZSy3EJhVNGbd5zglTpgJbEcGZSee2JJmUtgRFxZxbmio-RKOD78a32x5Cp5dt7118qTMqOE0FTSN09R9EmZKC5lSKSPEDVfo2BA-V3vhmbfxOU6L3iet9nnqfZzylFjomHlXXB5XZGL0Ju9L4rilXEPT7Av5w3-RpgHI</recordid><startdate>197812</startdate><enddate>197812</enddate><creator>Bogartz, Richard S</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>FUVTR</scope><scope>IZSXY</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>197812</creationdate><title>Comment on Anderson and Cuneo's "The height + width rule in children's judgments of quantity."</title><author>Bogartz, Richard S</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a247t-5d01e26e8c2d9625de25d0f1523d883029afedf0432a5bdc0677dce914b3d1593</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1978</creationdate><topic>Age Differences</topic><topic>Cognitive Development</topic><topic>Concept Formation</topic><topic>Conservation (Concept)</topic><topic>Form and Shape Perception</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Size Discrimination</topic><topic>Stimulus Parameters</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bogartz, Richard S</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 06</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 30</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><jtitle>Journal of experimental psychology. General</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bogartz, Richard S</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comment on Anderson and Cuneo's "The height + width rule in children's judgments of quantity."</atitle><jtitle>Journal of experimental psychology. General</jtitle><date>1978-12</date><risdate>1978</risdate><volume>107</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>379</spage><epage>387</epage><pages>379-387</pages><issn>0096-3445</issn><eissn>1939-2222</eissn><abstract>The validity of the height + width rule for judgment of area, as proposed by N. H. Anderson and D. O. Cuneo , is questioned on statistical-methodological grounds. A detailed consideration of rating scale methodology as employed in functional measurement indicates that there are intimate relationships among the stimulus set, rating scale, stimulus end anchors, rating-scale-response variability, and sample size that determine the sensitivity or power of a particular factorial design to reveal the form of the integration rule. Anderson and Cueno's positions on the concepts of conservation, centration, and compensation are also considered. (6 ref)</abstract><cop>Washington, etc</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><doi>10.1037/0096-3445.107.4.379</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0096-3445 |
| ispartof | Journal of experimental psychology. General, 1978-12, Vol.107 (4), p.379-387 |
| issn | 0096-3445 1939-2222 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_614315415 |
| source | EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES; Periodicals Index Online |
| subjects | Age Differences Cognitive Development Concept Formation Conservation (Concept) Form and Shape Perception Human Size Discrimination Stimulus Parameters |
| title | Comment on Anderson and Cuneo's "The height + width rule in children's judgments of quantity." |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T11%3A59%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comment%20on%20Anderson%20and%20Cuneo's%20%22The%20height%E2%80%82+%E2%80%82width%20rule%20in%20children's%20judgments%20of%20quantity.%22&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20experimental%20psychology.%20General&rft.au=Bogartz,%20Richard%20S&rft.date=1978-12&rft.volume=107&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=379&rft.epage=387&rft.pages=379-387&rft.issn=0096-3445&rft.eissn=1939-2222&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/0096-3445.107.4.379&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1297418174%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=614315415&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |