↓ Skip to main content

Affective stimulus properties influence size perception and the Ebbinghaus illusion

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, April 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
wikipedia
8 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
Title
Affective stimulus properties influence size perception and the Ebbinghaus illusion
Published in
Psychological Research, April 2007
DOI 10.1007/s00426-007-0114-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Niek R. van Ulzen, Gün R. Semin, Raôul R. D. Oudejans, Peter J. Beek

Abstract

In the New Look literature of the 1950s, it has been suggested that size judgments are dependent on the affective content of stimuli. This suggestion, however, has been 'discredited' due to contradictory findings and methodological problems. In the present study, we revisited this forgotten issue in two experiments. The first experiment investigated the influence of affective content on size perception by examining judgments of the size of target circles with and without affectively loaded (i.e., positive, neutral, and negative) pictures. Circles with a picture were estimated to be smaller than circles without a picture, and circles with a negative picture were estimated to be larger than circles with a positive or a neutral picture confirming the suggestion from the 1950s that size perception is influenced by affective content, an effect notably confined to negatively loaded stimuli. In a second experiment, we examined whether affective content influenced the Ebbinghaus illusion. Participants judged the size of a target circle whereby target and flanker circles differed in affective loading. The results replicated the first experiment. Additionally, the Ebbinghaus illusion was shown to be weakest for a negatively loaded target with positively loaded and blank flankers. A plausible explanation for both sets of experimental findings is that negatively loaded stimuli are more attention demanding than positively loaded or neutral stimuli.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
France 2 2%
Portugal 1 1%
Austria 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Unknown 88 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 18%
Researcher 17 17%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 10%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 11 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 65 66%
Neuroscience 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Philosophy 3 3%
Linguistics 1 1%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 14 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 April 2022.
All research outputs
#2,574,151
of 23,570,677 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#99
of 982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,158
of 77,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,570,677 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 982 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 77,241 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them