MetadataShow full item record
Comparing apples and pears in studies on magnitude estimations
The present article is concerned with studies on magnitude estimations that strived to uncover the underlying mental representation(s) of magnitudes. We point out a number of methodological differences and shortcomings that make it difficult drawing general conclusions. To solve this problem, we propose a taxonomy by which those studies could be classified, taking into account central methodological aspects of magnitude estimation tasks. Finally, we suggest perspectives for future research on magnitude estimations, which might abandon the hunt for the mathematical model that explains estimations best and turn, instead, to investigate the underlying principles of estimations (e.g., strategies) and ways of their improvement.
CitationIn: Frontiers in Psychology Volume 4 (2013-06-18) EISSN: 1664-1078
The following license files are associated with this item: