Mental comparison of size and magnitude: size congruity effects.
Paivio (1975) found that the latency to choose the larger of two named objects does not depend on congruity between the object sizes and the sizes of the object names. Because size congruity does affect latencies for pictorially presented objects, Paivio interpreted this result as support for the dual coding hypothesis. However, Experiment 1 demonstrated that Paivio's results were an artifact of his experimental design. Size congruity does affect latencies to choose the larger of two named objects when object pairs are not repeated. When the same object pairs are used repeatedly, as in Paivio's experiment, the effect disappears. In this case the response is probably remembered, so that the objects need not be compared. To determine the processing stages affected by size congruity, both the distance between stimulus sizes and the size congruity were manipulated in Experiment 2. Three groups of subjects chose either the greater Arabic digit, the greater named digit, or the larger named object. Size congruity interacted with distance only for Arabic digits. For both Arabic digits and named digits, the interference caused by size incongruity was greater than the facilitation caused by size congruity, whereas for object names, the facilitation was greater than the interference. A model of the interaction between physical size comparisons and conceptual size comparisons is proposed to account for these results.
D003210:Concept Formation; D004192:Discrimination, Psychological; D005556:Form Perception; D006801:Humans; D007092:Imagination; D011930:Reaction Time; D012660:Semantics; D012858:Size Perception