Abstract
The cyclical power model accounts for multi-cycle patterns of bias commonly observed in proportion judgments by proposing the use of intermediate reference points (Hollands & Dyre, 2000). We were interested in the effect of response method on the choice of reference points (fewer points lead to greater judgment error). Participants made estimates of proportions displayed in pie charts using one of three response methods: rotation of a dial, marker placement on a horizontal line, or a numerical estimate. Fitting the model indicated a two-cycle pattern for line and numeric conditions, but a four-cycle pattern for the dial, leading to reduced error. Response method did not affect the estimated value of the Stevens exponent (0.83 on average). Competing explanations of stimulus-response compatibility and response method are considered. Implications for the design of display and control systems are discussed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
