The ARiely experiments

[From Dick Robertson,2009.11.09.10.17CDT]

I’ve been trying to think about this situation from the student-subjects’ point of view, guessing what are most likely CVs in this class project.
Start with the 11th level, I would think the self system is controlling a self-image of: “i’m an ambitious student,” plus “I cooperate on class projects,” or something like that. If so, then control of that self image CV(s) would produce a Principle level CV something like, “Do what the instructor is asking me to do,” plus “identify type of task involved,” (something like that). This principle, would then turn up an either/or program like: If CV is amount of bid, then calculate by comparing with past experience with buying novel objects (novel in the sense of not previously bought); or If program is: implement what I think teacher wants, then act according to what teacher has approved of before."
Or something like that.

Now comes an observation that is not explicitly covered in PCT, as far as I know, but not contrary to it either: data in short term memory is associated with other data in short term memory. Thus, if the Subject has just been calculating what is a sensible bid – in the “atmosphere”
of another number (i.e. the two digits taken from Soc Sec. #, then give large or small bid according to associate in memory.

Leaving the other program aside for the time being, how would you disturb the CV {name my bid, going large, or going small} ? Would it do to interrupt the subject - about to write - by saying, “Wait, think if you’ve ever done this sort of thing before.” O K Now go ahead. My rationale here would be that a large or small two-digit number would no longer be the most recent associate for the bid.

Does this incite anybody to exploring Ariely’s findings in PCT terms?

Best,

Dick R

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
Date: Sunday, November 8, 2009 9:30 pm
Subject: Re: What happened to CSGnet?
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

[From Rick Marken (2009.11.08.1930)]

Dick Robertson (2009.11.08.1428CDT) –

If there is anybody left here what do you think about how PCT might approach this new “field” of behavioral economics, as exemplified in the study I post here?

I’d love to talk about this; indeed, I may be directing a student’s senior honors project on this topic (or something like it). I’ll read this over and try to come up with some comments ASAP.

Best

Rick

                                                 Behavioral Economics Study

A recent “New York Times Bestseller,” Predictably Irrational, by Dan Ariely, describes a host of experiments to establish all the ways that decision making displays “The hidden forces that shape our decisions.” Note that word, “forces.” Would those “forces” be examples of unconsciously identified (or selected-for-control”) controlled variables? “ Anyway, it seems like an interesting question—what is a person controlling that produces findings like Ariely got in experiments like the following?

On page 26 he introduces this experiment. “…if I asked you for the last two digits of your social security number…then asked you whether you would pay this number in dollars for a particular bottle of [1998 wine] would the mere suggestion of that number influence how much you would be willing to spend on wine? Sounds preposterous, doesn’t it? Well, wait until you see what happened to a group of MBA students at MIT …. “

Saying that he and a co-investigator were trying to prove “the existence of … “arbitrary coherence,” they asked 55 students to observe six objects (left list below) and fill out “… the last two digits of your social security number at the top of the [response sheet], and then write them again next to each of the items in the form of a price. [and then] When you are finished with that I want you to indicate on your sheets—with a simple yes or no—whether you would pay that amount for each of the products.” Next, they were to write down the minimum they would pay for each of the products. The last data were averaged for the five groups in the table.

(We assume that the SS-number groups were roughly even in terms of number of students in each, but we are not told that here.)

Results

“When I … analyzed the data… Did the digits from the SS numbers serve as anchors? Remarkably, they did.”

See the table. The consistency of increasing means in each field (with just two exceptions) seems rather impressive for soc. Sci. type of data, although the nudest correlations are typical, and suggest that a lot of subjects were far on each side of the mean.

But it raises what I think is an interesting question: What were the subjects controlling for that their so-called “bids” seemed influenced by the soc. Sec. numbers they wrote down just before making their “bids?”

                                                                 Range of last two digits of SS number

Products 00-19 20-39 40-59 60-79 80-99 Correlations

Cordless Trackball 8.64 11.82 13.45 21.18 26.18 0.42

Cordless Keyboard 16.09 26.82 29.27 34.55 55.64 0.52

Design Book 12.82 16.18 15.82 19.27 30.00 0.32

Chocolates 9.55 10.64 12.45 13.27 20.64 0.42

1998 Wine 8.64 14.45 12.55 15 45 27.91 0.33

1996 Wine 11.73 22.45 18.09 24.55 37.55 0.33

This work, along with the similar stuff for which Kahnemann and Tversky won the Nobel in economics is getting widespread attention, and apparently many people are found to follow the patterns determined for average persons in their various studies. How would a PCT study go about to identify the various CVs that different people might be controlling in these experiments (but also in real-life decisions they claim) that would produce the average results in these Casting Nets studies?

Best,

Dick R


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
> www.mindreadings.com

[From Rick Marken (2009.11.09.1130)]

Dick Robertson (2009.11.09.10.17CDT)–

I’ve been trying to think about this situation from the student-subjects’ point of view, guessing what are most likely CVs in this class project.
Start with the 11th level, I would think the self system is controlling a self-image of: “i’m an ambitious student,” plus “I cooperate on class projects,”

You start your search at the stop; I started mine at the bottom.

or something like that. If so, then control of that self image CV(s) would produce a Principle level CV something like, “Do what the instructor is asking me to do,” plus “identify type of task involved,” (something like that). This principle, would then turn up an either/or program like: If CV is amount of bid, then calculate by comparing with past experience with buying novel objects (novel in the sense of not previously bought); or If program is: implement what I think teacher wants, then act according to what teacher has approved of before."

Or something like that.

Similar; I think you have to assume that the higher level desire for cooperation leads some people to decide that they should control for an estimate that is proportional to the last two digits of the SS#. One CV is the amount of bid; but I think, for some subjects, that CV is controlled as a means of controlling for the bod being proportional to the last 2 digits of SS#.

Now comes an observation that is not explicitly covered in PCT, as far as I know, but not contrary to it either: data in short term memory is associated with other data in short term memory. Thus, if the Subject has just been calculating what is a sensible bid – in the “atmosphere”

of another number (i.e. the two digits taken from Soc Sec. #, then give large or small bid according to associate in memory.

Leaving the other program aside for the time being, how would you disturb the CV {name my bid, going large, or going small} ? Would it do to interrupt the subject - about to write - by saying, “Wait, think if you’ve ever done this sort of thing before.” O K Now go ahead. My rationale here would be that a large or small two-digit number would no longer be the most recent associate for the bid.

I think you’re trying to come up with a causal explanation of the CV. I think the results, for those subjects who make bids proportional to CV, just require that the subject be controlling (for whatever higher level reason) a perception of the ratio of bid to SS# and trying to keep that ratio at some fixed level by varying their bid appropriately.

Does this incite anybody to exploring Ariely’s findings in PCT terms?

It does incite me, but not so much to explore Ariely’s findings but to explore why in the world they would do this research and why anyone would publish it;-)

Best

Rick

···

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Dick Robertson, 2009,11.09.1735CST]

First, I have to say that I got Kahnemann and Tverski’s book a few months back when i had received an invitation to submit a paper for a behavior-economics conference here. (My proposal was rejected of course, coming from a PCT viewpoint.) Anyway, I tried the various demonstrations - experiments in K & T and was somewhat surprised to find that I generally did what the average of their subjects did. I found that interesting. What am I really controlling for when I seem to be influenced by some random, irrelevant situation to which my attention was invited in their experiment? I didn’t do the one in Ariely before I saw their results. It would have been difficult if not impossible to be my own investigator and shill.

However

[From Rick Marken (2009.11.09.1130)]

Similar; I think you have to assume that the higher level desire for cooperation leads some people to decide that they should control for an estimate that is proportional to the last two digits of the SS#. One CV is the amount of bid; but I think, for some subjects, that CV is controlled as a means of controlling for the bod being proportional to the last 2 digits of SS#.

this seems to me to beg the question. Where could it come from that someone would "decide that they should control… proportional to the last two digits of their SS#? I think you have to admit there is no logical connection between a person’s SS# and how much they might offer to pay for some given object. That is my question: How did the SS# get into their purchase decision?

I think you’re trying to come up with a causal explanation of the CV. I think the results, for those subjects who make bids proportional to CV, just require that the subject be controlling (for whatever higher level reason) a perception of the ratio of bid to SS# and trying to keep that ratio at some fixed level by varying their bid appropriately.

That is my question. How did they get to controlling for making their bids proportional to their SS# when there seems to be no earthly relevance of the one to the other?

Best,

Dick R

[Martin Taylor 2009.11.09.23.02]

[From
Dick Robertson, 2009,11.09.1735CST]

>

[From Rick Marken (2009.11.09.1130)]

I think you’re trying to come up with a causal explanation of
the CV. I think the results, for those subjects who make bids
proportional to CV, just require that the subject be controlling (for
whatever higher level reason) a perception of the ratio of bid to SS#
and trying to keep that ratio at some fixed level by varying their bid
appropriately.

That is my question. How did they get to controlling for making their
bids proportional to their SS# when there seems to be no earthly
relevance of the one to the other?

Is there anything about the experiment that suggests they (or any one
of them) did control for making their bid proportional to the SS
number? Isn’t it more probable that what changed was the perception of
the magnitude of the bid value number when juxtaposed with another
number? To me, it seems reasonable to suppose that they always
controlled for the same perceived bid value, but the perception of the
number matching that value changed.

Of course, the variation could have been happening at any point in any
of the many control loops involved in performing a judgment. It just
seems most parsimonious to take as a first assumption that all the
control loops are unaffected by the actual SS numbers, except that the
perceptual function that creates the perceived magnitude of a number is
influenced by thinking of a different number in close temporal
proximity.

Martin

[From Richard Pfau 2009.11.10. 09:55 EDT]

[Martin Taylor 2009.11.09.23.02]

[From Dick Robertson, 2009,11.09.1735CST]

[From Rick Marken (2009.11.09.1130)]

That is my question. How did they get to controlling for making their bids proportional to their SS# when there seems to be no earthly relevance of the one to the other?

… Isn’t it more probable that what changed was the perception of the magnitude of the bid value number when juxtaposed with another number? To me, it seems reasonable to suppose that they always controlled for the same perceived bid value, but the perception of the number matching that value changed.

… It just seems most parsimonious to take as a first assumption that all the control loops are unaffected by the actual SS numbers, except that the perceptual function that creates the perceived magnitude of a number is influenced by thinking of a different number in close temporal proximity.

Martin

Martin’s feedback above is in line with my suggestion that “priming” can be considered to be a major factor operating to affect the bids, since priming can affect both the perceptual Input Function as well as the Output Function. Focusing on the contolled variable and asking “How did they get to controlling for making their bid proportional to their SS# …” seems to be asking the wrong question in this case, since priming of the bids made and/or priming of perceptions of those bid values seems to account for the results very well.

Similar priming effects have been demonstrated many times. For example, playing slow music tends to make people stay longer in stores, supermarkets, and restaurants, whereas playing fast music tends to increase turnover rates (Milliman, 1982; North, Hargreaves & McKendrick, 1999, p. 272; Dijksterhuis and Smith, 2005, p. 198). Priming someone with the idea of “generous” can affect one’s impressions of another person, increase the likelihood of generous behavior (such as when asked to donate to a charitable organization), and trigger altruistic goals (Bargh, 2006, p. 152). Playing French folk music results in people buying more French wine whereas playing German fold music results in greater German wine sales in a liquor store (I’ve temporarily misplaced the reference on that study). And so on.

Whatever the controlled variable is (such as a desire to buy wine for dinner), subtle aspects of the environment (such as German folk music) can unconsciously affect what the person does (buying German versus French wine) to achieve the controlled variable perceptions desired (buying wine for dinner). In such cases (and I assume that the SS# and bids given is an example of such a case), PCT explains the general process of what is happening, but at the present time can not be used to explain details of how the functions it focuses upon (such as the perceptual Input Function and the Output Function) actually operate. Such details may sometimes be profitably provided by other thinking and research outside the PCT tradition, such as that concerning “priming” – as seems to be the case regarding the Ariely results being discussed.

With Regards,

Rich Pfau

[From Dick Robertson, 2009.11.10.0930CST]

→ [Martin Taylor 2009.11.09.23.02]

[From Dick Robertson, 2009,11.09.1735CST]

[From Rick Marken (2009.11.09.1130)]

I think you’re trying to come up with a causal explanation of the CV. I think the results, for those subjects who make bids proportional to CV, just require that the subject be controlling (for whatever higher level reason) a perception of the ratio of bid to SS# and trying to keep that ratio at some fixed level by varying their bid appropriately.

That is my question. How did they get to controlling for making their bids proportional to their SS# when there seems to be no earthly relevance of the one to the other?

Is there anything about the experiment that suggests they (or any one of them) did control for making their bid proportional to the SS number?

No, I didn’t see anything that would suggest that. Of course Ariely was no doubt coming from a S/R point of view, not aware of PCT at all.

Isn’t it more probable that what changed was the perception of the magnitude of the bid value number when juxtaposed with another number?

That was my guess too. The old “association of ideas” concept still seems valid, in a practical sense. I can’t recall any PCT type of investigation of how it works. Maybe it’s more of a neuropsych phenomenon anyway.

To me, it seems reasonable to suppose that they always controlled for the same perceived bid value, but the perception of the number matching that value changed.

Could you expand on that Martin, I don’t know what you mean.

Of course, the variation could have been happening at any point in any of the many control loops involved in performing a judgment. It just seems most parsimonious to take as a first assumption that all the control loops are unaffected by the actual SS numbers, except that the perceptual function that creates the perceived magnitude of a number is influenced by thinking of a different number in close temporal proximity.

Or would that say, in other words, that you suspect the reference signal value of the bid was determined by compound sources, including an imagination-arrow from the most recently stored sets of numbers?

Martin

Best,

Dick R

[From Dick Robertson, 2009.11.10.0945CST]

[From Richard Pfau 2009.11.10. 09:55 EDT]

[Martin Taylor 2009.11.09.23.02]

[From Dick Robertson, 2009,11.09.1735CST]

[From Rick Marken (2009.11.09.1130)]

That is my question. How did they get to controlling for making their bids proportional to their SS# when there seems to be no earthly relevance of the one to the other?

Martin’s feedback above is in line with my suggestion that “priming” can be considered to be a major factor operating to affect the bids, since priming can affect both the perceptual Input Function as well as the Output Function.

OK, what is “priming?” You can’t just cover an unknown process by giving it a name. If we believe that all behavior consists controlling perceptual variables, then what is controlled by “priming?” And how does that cover what the S is controlling in making a bid to purchase something?

Focusing on the contolled variable and asking “How did they get to controlling for making their bid proportional to their SS# …” seems to be asking the wrong question in this case, since priming of the bids made and/or priming of perceptions of those bid values seems to account for the results very well.

Similar priming effects have been demonstrated many times. For example, playing slow music tends to make people stay longer in stores, supermarkets, and restaurants, whereas playing fast music tends to increase turnover rates (Milliman, 1982; North, Hargreaves & McKendrick, 1999, p. 272; Dijksterhuis and Smith, 2005, p. 198). Priming someone with the idea of “generous” can affect one’s impressions of another person, increase the likelihood of generous behavior (such as when asked to donate to a charitable organization), and trigger altruistic goals (Bargh, 2006, p. 152). Playing French folk music results in people buying more French wine whereas playing German fold music results in greater German wine sales in a liquor store (I’ve temporarily misplaced the reference on that study). And so on.

Whatever the controlled variable is (such as a desire to buy wine for dinner), subtle aspects of the environment (such as German folk music) can unconsciously affect what the person does (buying German versus French wine) to achieve the controlled variable perceptions desired (buying wine for dinner). In such cases (and I assume that the SS# and bids given is an example of such a case), PCT explains the general process of what is happening, but at the present time can not be used to explain details of how the functions it focuses upon (such as the perceptual Input Function and the Output Function) actually operate. Such details may sometimes be profitably provided by other thinking and research outside the PCT tradition, such as that concerning “priming” – as seems to be the case regarding the Ariely results being discussed.

Well, you have added many more instances of an alleged phenomenon that you call “priming.” My question is still the same: How does it work? What is being controlled?

Best,

Dick R

[From Rick Marken (2009.11.10.0755)]

Dick Robertson (2009,11.09.1735CST) –

Well, you sure managed to get CSGNet back up on it’s feet;-)

Rick Marken (2009.11.09.1130)

Similar; I think you have to assume that the higher level desire for cooperation leads some people to decide that they should control for an estimate that is proportional to the last two digits of the SS#. One CV is the amount of bid; but I think, for some subjects, that CV is controlled as a means of controlling for the bod being proportional to the last 2 digits of SS#.

this seems to me to beg the question. Where could it come from that someone would "decide that they should control… proportional to the last two digits of their SS#?

I tried not to beg (avoid) that question; my suggestion was that the decision to control for bids being proportional to the last two digits of the SS# comes from the desire to cooperate with the experimenter. The subjects are in this peculiar situation where the are asked to give the last two digits of their SS# and then make a numerical bid on a product. If I were a subject I might think the experimenter wanted the bid to be associated with the SS# in some way. So I might be inclined to try to make my bid proportional to that number. That is, in order to be cooperative I would control for something like bid/SS#=k. I would guess that not all subjects came up with this idea about how to please the experimenter – the data shows only averages – but even if only some did it would show up in the averages.

I think you have to admit there is no logical connection between a person’s SS# and how much they might offer to pay for some given object. That is my question: How did the SS# get into their purchase decision?

Because the subjects are in this odd situation where they are first asked what the last two digits of their SS# are. That’s not something that ordinarily happens at auctions and it is certainly something that would be noticed by the sujects.

That is my question. How did they get to controlling for making their bids proportional to their SS# when there seems to be no earthly relevance of the one to the other?

I hope I answered the question. The relevance of the SS# was introduced by the experimenter by asking about it first thing.

Best

Rick

···


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Rick Marken (2009.11.10.0810)]

Richard Pfau (2009.11.10. 09:55 EDT)

Martin’s feedback above is in line with my suggestion that “priming” can be considered to be a major factor operating to affect the bids

It sure is, isn’t it.

Similar priming effects have been demonstrated many times. For example, playing slow music tends to make people stay longer in stores, supermarkets, and restaurants, whereas playing fast music tends to increase turnover rates (Milliman, 1982; North, Hargreaves & McKendrick, 1999, p. 272; Dijksterhuis and Smith, 2005, p. 198). Priming someone with the idea of “generous” can affect one’s impressions of another person, increase the likelihood of generous behavior (such as when asked to donate to a charitable organization), and trigger altruistic goals (Bargh, 2006, p. 152). Playing French folk music results in people buying more French wine whereas playing German fold music results in greater German wine sales in a liquor store (I’ve temporarily misplaced the reference on that study). And so on.

As an exercise, can you think
of what the controlled variable might be in each of these cases that
would explain the apparent “priming” effect?

Whatever the controlled variable is (such as a desire to buy wine for dinner), subtle aspects of the environment (such as German folk music) can unconsciously affect what the person does (buying German versus French wine) to achieve the controlled variable perceptions desired (buying wine for dinner).

So you want to have it both ways? People control but theor actions are also caused (primed) by environmental events? I think the simplest explanation is that every apparent effect of the environment on behavior is actually an example of behavior (action) compensating for the effect of the environmental on a controlled variable.

In such cases (and I assume that the SS# and bids given is an example of such a case), PCT explains the general process of what is happening, but at the present time can not be used to explain details of how the functions it focuses upon (such as the perceptual Input Function and the Output Function) actually operate. Such details may sometimes be profitably provided by other thinking and research outside the PCT tradition, such as that concerning “priming” – as seems to be the case regarding the Ariely results being discussed.

I disagree completely and enthusiastically. And I have the data to prove it;-)

Best

Rick

···


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

[Martin Taylor 2009.11.10.10.53]

[From
Dick Robertson, 2009.11.10.0930CST]

[Martin Taylor 2009.11.09.23.02]

To me, it seems reasonable to suppose that they always controlled
for the same perceived bid value, but the perception of the number
matching that value changed.

Could you expand on that Martin, I don’t know what you mean.

Let’s put it in another domain of experience, since we often think of
“magnitude” as being expressed by “number”, and I am arguing that the
perceived magnitude of a number can vary.

Where I live, in September or October, when the temperature outside is
in the single digits Celcius (below 50F but not freezing), I feel
cold". To control for feeling comfortably warm, I add layers of
clothing. In February or March, when the temperature is in the single
digits Celcius I feel warm enough to go out in shirtsleeves. Perceptual
warmth is decoupled from temperature because of the temperature
context, which in September-October is likely to be in the teens or
twenties Celscius, but in February-March in the minus single digits or
teens.

Now thinking of magnitude, is 10 a big number? Is a million? If someone
has been talking to you about tens of this and that, and in another
context talks about three or four something or others, does the three
or four seem as big as it would have if you had previously been talking
about tenths of this and that? I can’t answer that question for you,
but to ask the question supposes that the answer might be “No, it seems
bigger after we talked about tenths than after we talked about tens”.
That’s the “perceived magnitude” I’m thinking of. I suggest the
possibility that when someone has been thinking of a number in the
tens, the perceived magnitudes of other numbers are different from what
they would be after thinking about a number in the eighties.

>

Of course, the variation could have been happening at any
point in any of the many control loops involved in performing a
judgment. It just seems most parsimonious to take as a first assumption
that all the control loops are unaffected by the actual SS numbers,
except that the perceptual function that creates the perceived
magnitude of a number is influenced by thinking of a different number
in close temporal proximity.

Or would that say, in other words, that you suspect the reference
signal value of the bid was determined by compound sources, including
an imagination-arrow from the most recently stored sets of numbers?

I’m not thinking of anything so arcane. I’m thinking only of a context
effect in the perceptual input function that outputs a perception of
magnitude (or whatever is to be controlled as a match to the perceived
value of the target of the bid). I don’t see a need to invoke changes
in any reference levels, or any imagination connection (other than that
involved in thinking of the SS#).

I’m not arguing that this is really what happens in the experiment. I’m
only suggesting it as what seems to me to be a parsimonious explanation
of what might be happening. There are myriads of other possibilities,
of varying degrees of complexity, but I can think of none that are
simpler.

As Richard Pfau mentioned, there’s a long history of studies that
suggest quite unexpected influences on the perception of magnitude.
which people had to match a controlled variable disc to the sizes of
several small disks. If the small discs were blank, the matches had one
set of values. If they were coins of the same sizes as the blank ones,
the match sizes were different. The greater the value of the coin, the
larger the match size, as compared to the match to the same size blank.
For example, a cent and a dime are about the same diameter, but the
match size to a dime would have been larger than to a cent (in today’s
dollars, I guess a 1950’s dime would be worth around $1.50 or $2). The
same thing happened when judging the sizes of people. An anonymous
member of the public tends to be perceived as shorter than a prominent
person of the same height (if my memory serves me properly). Don’t ask
me for references to these studies. I might have known for an exam 50
years ago, but I don’t remember now, and it’s quite likely I have
forgotten some details. But what I wrote is what I remember, because it
stuck with me as one of those mysteries that some day might find a
resolution.

Martin

···

from my graduate student days half a century ago I remember one in

[From Richard Pfau, 2009.11.10.1341 DST)]

[From Dick Robertson, 2009.11.10.0945CST]

[From Richard Pfau 2009.11.10. 09:55 EDT]

Martin’s feedback above is in line with my suggestion that “priming” can be considered to be a major factor operating to affect the bids, since priming can affect both the perceptual Input Function as well as the Output Function.

OK, what is “priming?” You can’t just cover an unknown process by giving it a name. If we believe that all behavior consists controlling perceptual variables, then what is controlled by “priming?” And how does that cover what the S is controlling in making a bid to purchase something?

Well, you have added many more instances of an alleged phenomenon that you call “priming.” My question is still the same: How does it work? What is being controlled?

Priming (as I view it thinking of PCT) is a sensitization of a neural network linked to a PCT function (such as the perceptual Input Function or the Output Function) resulting from recent prior activation such that the output of that function is sometimes affected (sometimes, since outputs are affected by many other neural networks). For example, using more observable terms, as indicated before, unconsciously priming someone with the concept of “generous” can affect peceptions of other people such that they are judged to be more generous. Similarly, in the USA some white persons, seeing a black person on a dark street at night, are primed such that neutral actions of the black person are perceived to be threatening (since “black person” and “violence” are often associated together in such people and seeing a black face activates and primes concepts of threat and violence in such people).

Priming doesn’t directly control anything I can think of. It doesn’t control behavior or perceptions. However, as I see it, priming can influence the internal dynamics of the Input or Output function such that the signals they produce are different from what they would be if priming had not occurred. In other words, when priming occurs, PCT processes work as usual, but the priming that took place (the sensitization of some neural networks due to recent activation) may affect the output signals of the various PCT functions.

Perhaps someone else on CSGNET can better explain or further elaborate on priming effects. Please do so if you think your input may be helpful.

With Regards,

Rich Pfau

[From Dick Robertson, 2009.11.10.0930CST]

→ [Martin Taylor 2009.11.09.23.02]

To me, it seems reasonable to suppose that they always controlled for the same perceived bid value, but the perception of the number matching that value changed.

Could you expand on that Martin, I don’t know what you mean.

Of course, the variation could have been happening at any point in any of the many control loops involved in performing a judgment. It just seems most parsimonious to take as a first assumption that all the control loops are unaffected by the actual SS numbers, except that the perceptual function that creates the perceived magnitude of a number is influenced by thinking of a different number in close temporal proximity.

Or would that say, in other words, that you suspect the reference signal value of the bid was determined by compound sources, including an imagination-arrow from the most recently stored sets of numbers?

[From Dick Robertson, 2009.11.10.1420CST]

[Martin Taylor 2009.11.10.10.53]

Let’s put it in another domain of experience, since we often think of “magnitude” as being expressed by “number”, and I am arguing that the perceived magnitude of a number can vary.

Where I live, in September or October, when the temperature outside is in the single digits Celcius (below 50F but not freezing), I feel cold". To control for feeling comfortably warm, I add layers of clothing. In February or March, when the temperature is in the single digits Celcius I feel warm enough to go out in shirtsleeves. Perceptual warmth is decoupled from temperature because of the temperature context, which in September-October is likely to be in the teens or twenties Celscius, but in February-March in the minus single digits or teens.

Thank you. That checks with my experience too. I’m not sure, but I seem to recall that back when I studied psychophysics (a couple centuries ago) there was a discussion of relativity of judgments as in branding weights “light” or “heavy.” etc. I had forgotten that, but it seems to be in the same ball park.

Now thinking of magnitude, is 10 a big number? Is a million? If someone has been talking to you about tens of this and that, and in another context talks about three or four something or others, does the three or four seem as big as it would have if you had previously been talking about tenths of this and that? I can’t answer that question for you, but to ask the question supposes that the answer might be “No, it seems bigger after we talked about tenths than after we talked about tens”. That’s the “perceived magnitude” I’m thinking of. I suggest the possibility that when someone has been thinking of a number in the tens, the perceived magnitudes of other numbers are different from what they would be after thinking about a number in the eighties.

Good. I get it. It makes me all the more interested in finding out what is at work here–that could be measured by a study of CVs involved. I admit, our research methods might not be ready for that yet.

I’m not thinking of anything so arcane. I’m thinking only of a context effect in the perceptual input function that outputs a perception of magnitude (or whatever is to be controlled as a match to the perceived value of the target of the bid). I don’t see a need to invoke changes in any reference levels, or any imagination connection (other than that involved in thinking of the SS#).

I’m not arguing that this is really what happens in the experiment. I’m only suggesting it as what seems to me to be a parsimonious explanation of what might be happening. There are myriads of other possibilities, of varying degrees of complexity, but I can think of none that are simpler.

As Richard Pfau mentioned, there’s a long history of studies that suggest quite unexpected influences on the perception of magnitude. From my graduate student days half a century ago I remember one in which people had to match a controlled variable disc to the sizes of several small disks. If the small discs were blank, the matches had one set of values. If they were coins of the same sizes as the blank ones, the match sizes were different. The greater the value of the coin, the larger the match size, as compared to the match to the same size blank. For example, a cent and a dime are about the same diameter, but the match size to a dime would have been larger than to a cent (in today’s dollars, I guess a 1950’s dime would be worth around $1.50 or $2). The same thing happened when judging the sizes of people. An anonymous member of the public tends to be perceived as shorter than a prominent person of the same height (if my memory serves me properly). Don’t ask me for references to these studies. I might have known for an exam 50 years ago, but I don’t remember now, and it’s quite likely I have forgotten some details. But what I wrote is what I remember, because it stuck with me as one of those mysteries that some day might find a resolution.

Right. as in the psychophysics studies.

Best,

Dick R.