Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35294471›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Self-selected interval judgments compared to point judgments: A weight judgment experiment in the presence of the size-weight illusion.

Nichel Gonzalez, Ola Svenson, Magnus Ekström, Bengt Kriström, Mats E Nilsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nichel GonzalezDepartment of Psychology, Gösta Ekman Laboratory, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-2675-6044
Ola SvensonDepartment of Psychology, Gösta Ekman Laboratory, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Magnus EkströmDepartment of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden.
Bengt KriströmDepartment of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and CERE, Umeå, Sweden.
Mats E NilssonDepartment of Psychology, Gösta Ekman Laboratory, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Measurements of human attitudes and perceptions have traditionally used numerical point judgments. In the present study, we compared conventional point estimates of weight with an interval judgment method. Participants were allowed to make step by step judgments, successively converging towards their best estimate. Participants estimated, in grams, the weight of differently sized boxes, estimates thus susceptible to the size-weight illusion. The illusion makes the smaller of two objects of the same weight, differing only in size, to be perceived as heavier. The self-selected interval method entails participants judging a highest and lowest reasonable value for the true weight. This is followed by a splitting procedure, consecutive choices of selecting the upper or lower half of the interval the individual estimates most likely to include the true value. Compared to point estimates, interval midpoints showed less variability and reduced the size-weight illusion, but only to a limited extent. Accuracy improvements from the interval method were limited, but the between participant variation suggests that the method has merit.

Indexed as

IllusionsWeight PerceptionData CollectionHumansJudgmentSize Perception

Identifiers

PMID35294471
PMCPMC8926213

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.