Abstract
Two hypotheses about the effects of familiar size on judgments of size and distance, the cue-conflict hypothesis and the viewing-attitude hypothesis, were examined. In Experiment 1, observers estimated the size and distance of familiar targets with apparent or assumptive instructions under three different spatial cue conditions. In Experiment 2, observers performed tasks similar to those of Experiment 1 with no specific instructions. The main results were: (1) Assumptive instructions facilitate the effects of familiar size in both size and distance judgments, but reducing spatial cues does not, and (2) viewing attitude changes from the apparent to the assumptive when available spatial cues are reduced. Thus, it was concluded that the viewing-attitude hypothesis gives a better account of the effects of familiar size, but that the cue-conflict hypothesis cannot be abandoned, because the number of conflicting cues contributes to the formation of viewing attitude.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Baird, J. C. (1963). Relative and assumed size cues as determinants of size and distance perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology,66, 155–162.
Benson, C., &Yonas, A. (1973). Development of sensitivity to static pictorial depth information.Perception & psychophysics,13, 361–366.
Carlson, V. R. (1962). Size-constancy judgments and perceptual compromise.Journal of Experimental Psychology,63, 68–73.
Carlson, V. R., &Tassone, E. P. (1971). Familiar versus unfamiliar size: A theoretical derivation and test.Journal of Experimental Psychology,87, 109–115.
Coltheart, M. (1969). The influence of haptic size information upon visual judgments of absolute distance.Perception & Psychophysics,5, 143–144.
Coltheart, M. (1970). The effect of verbal size information upon visual judgments of absolute distance.Perception & Psychophysics,9, 222–223.
Epstein, W. (1963). Attitude of judgment and the size-distance invariance hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Psychology,66, 78–83.
Fitzpatrick, V., Pasnak, B., &Tyer, Z. E. (1982). The effect of familiar size at familiar distance.Perception,11, 85–91.
Gogel, W. C. (1969). The effect of object familiarity on the perception of size and distance.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,21, 239–247.
Gogel, W. C. (1976). An indirect method of measuring perceived distance from familiar size.Perception & Psychophysics,20, 419–429.
Gogel, W. C. (1977). An indirect measure of perceived distance from oculomotor cues.Perception & Psychophysics,21, 3–11.
Gogel, W. C. (1981). The role of suggested size in distance perception.Perception & Psychophysics,30, 149–155.
Gogel, W. C., &Newton, R. E. (1969). Perception of off-sized objects.Perception & Psychophysics,5, 7–9.
Hastorf, A. H. (1950). The influence of suggestion on the relationship between stimulus size and perceived distance.Journal of Psychology,29, 195–217.
Higashiyama, A. (1982). [The effects of familiar-size cue on children’s judgments of size and distance] (in Japanese).Japanese Journal of Psychology,53, 259–265.
Mershon, D. H., &Gogel, W. C. (1975). Failure of familiar size to determine a metric for visually perceived distance.Perception & Psychophysics,17, 101–106.
Olson, R. K. (1975). Children’s sensitivity to pictorial depth perception.Perception & Psychophysics,17, 59–64.
Olsos, R. K., &Boswell, S. L. (1976). Pictorial depth sensitivity in two-year-old children.Child Development,47, 1175–1178.
Ono, H. (1969). Apparent distance as a function of familiar size.Journal of Experimental Psychology,79, 109–115.
Oyama, T. (1974). Perceived size and perceived distance in stereoscopic vision and an analysis of their causal relations.Perception & Psychophysics,16, 175–181.
Park, J. N., &Michaelson, G. J. (1974). Distance judgments under different size-information conditions.Perception & Psychophysics,15, 57–60.
Predebon, G. M., Wenderoth, P. M., &Curthoys, I. S. (1974). The effects of instructions and distance on judgments of off-size familiar objects under natural viewing condition.American Journal of Psychology,84, 425–439.
Schiffman, H. R. (1967). Size-estimation of familiar objects under informative and reduced conditions of viewing.American Journal of Psychology,80, 229–235.
Wilcox, L., &Teghtsoonian, M. (1971). The control of relative size by pictorial depth cues in children and adults.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,11, 413–429.
Yonas, A., &Hagen, H. (1973). Effects of static and motion parallax depth information on perception of size in children and adults.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,15, 254–265.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Higashiyama, A. The effects of familiar size on judgments of size and distance: An interaction of viewing attitude with spatial cues. Perception & Psychophysics 35, 305–312 (1984). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206333
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206333