![]() ![]() The mean percentages of errors (PEs) for compatible trials were significantly lower than PEs for incompatible trials, t(23) = 4.40, p < .001, 95% CI = , d = 1.08. The data were analysed by a paired samples t-test using the factor of compatibility (compatible or incompatible). Therefore, if the compatibility effect were observed in the present study, it would indicate the size-value compatibility effect, not the size-size compatibility effect. Importantly, these coins have different values, but are similar in actual size, as the diameter of the 10-yen coin (23.5 mm) is only slightly larger than the 100-yen coin (22.6 mm). For compatible trials, an image of a 100-yen coin was presented as larger than an image of a 10-yen coin, and for incompatible trials, the sizes of the coin images were reversed. In the present study, two images of Japanese-yen coins with different values but similar actual sizes (10-yen and 100-yen) were manipulated for size and presented side-by-side on a computer screen (Fig. This showed the size-size compatibility effect between objects’ actual sizes and their ‘visual’ sizes, as presented under experimental conditions. As a result, participants’ reaction times were longer and their responses were less accurate for incompatible compared to compatible trials. ![]() mouse) for ‘incompatible’ trials, the sizes of the images were reversed. elephant) was presented as larger than an image of a small object (e.g. In the original size-based Stroop task, in trials evaluating images ‘compatible’ with the size-value notion, an image of a large object (e.g. In the experiments, two images were presented, and participants were asked to judge which image was larger or smaller on the screen. The present study identified a new phenomenon around unintentional size-based value judgements using a modified version of the visual size-based Stroop task 8. Therefore, there was still uncertainty whether the tendency of thinking ‘bigger is better/better is bigger’ is intentional or unintentional. Thus, the possibility remained that participants’ responses in the previous studies were made reflectively. However, these previous studies depended on subjective reports regarding the size-value relationship. These findings suggest that people may tend to think that ‘bigger is better/better is bigger’. Following this concept, empirical evidence has demonstrated the relationship between physical size and value in terms of consumers’ perceptions of price information 5, positive connotation of words 6, and aesthetic preferences 7. Later, the process of the unintentional (intuitive) judgement was called System-1, and was differentiated from the process of controlled (reflective) judgement, or System-2 4. ![]() Further, Kahneman and Tversky reported on the heuristics people often use to make unintentional judgements based on simple information, such as physical size, especially when they are uncertain 2, 3. ![]() Specifically, compared to rich children, poor children tended to overestimate the size of higher-value coins. In a classic experiment, ten-year-old children were asked to judge the size of coins, and their assessments were shown to be dependent on the participant’s economic status 1. For over a half of century, research has indicated that individual perception and cognition of an object may be affected by its value. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |