Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38504004›Full record

SynthesisPsychonomic bulletin & review2024

Order effects in stimulus discrimination challenge established models of comparative judgement: A meta-analytic review of the Type B effect.

Ruben Ellinghaus, Karin M Bausenhart, Dilara Koc, Rolf Ulrich, Roman Liepelt

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Ensemble perception of duration and size.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025
    Article
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.

Ruben EllinghausDepartment of General Psychology: Judgment, Decision Making, Action, Faculty of Psychology, University of Hagen (FernUniversität in Hagen), Hagen, Germany. ruben.ellinghaus@fernuni-hagen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4361-8324
Karin M BausenhartDepartment of Psychology, Cognition and Perception, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5511-2590
Dilara KocDepartment of General Psychology: Judgment, Decision Making, Action, Faculty of Psychology, University of Hagen (FernUniversität in Hagen), Hagen, Germany.
Rolf UlrichDepartment of Psychology, Cognition and Perception, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8443-2705
Roman LiepeltDepartment of General Psychology: Judgment, Decision Making, Action, Faculty of Psychology, University of Hagen (FernUniversität in Hagen), Hagen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4656-6267

Funding

Einstein Center hronic Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper provides a comprehensive review of the Type B effect (TBE), a phenomenon reflected in the observation that discrimination sensitivity varies with the order of stimuli in comparative judgment tasks, such as the two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) paradigm. Specifically, when the difference threshold is lower (higher) with the constant standard preceding rather than following the variable comparison, one speaks of a negative (positive) TBE. Importantly, prominent psychophysical difference models such as signal detection theory (Green & Swets, 1966) cannot easily account for the TBE, and are hence challenged by it. The present meta-analysis provides substantial evidence for the TBE across various stimulus attributes, suggesting that the TBE is a general feature of discrimination experiments when standard and comparison are presented successively. Thus, inconsistent with psychophysical difference models, subjective differences between stimuli are not merely a function of their physical differences but rather also depend on their temporal order. From the literature, we identify four classes of potential candidate theories explaining the origin of the TBE, namely (1) differential weighting of the stimulus magnitudes at the two positions (e.g., Hellström, Psychological Research, 39, 345-388 1977), (2) internal reference formation (e.g., Dyjas, Bausenhart, & Ulrich, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 1819-1841 2012), (3) Bayesian updating (e.g., de Jong, Akyürek, & van Rijn, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 28, 1183-1190 2021), and (4) biased threshold estimation (García-Pérez & Alcalá-Quintana, Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 72, 1155-1178 2010). As these models, to some extent, make differential predictions about the direction of the TBE, investigating the respective boundary conditions of positive and negative TBEs might be a valuable perspective for diagnostic future research.

Indexed as

JudgmentDiscrimination, PsychologicalHumansModels, PsychologicalPsychophysicsComparative judgmentPsychophysicsSignal detection theoryStimulus discriminationStimulus historyTime order errorType B effect

Identifiers

PMID38504004
PMCPMC11543757

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.