Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Archivio istituziona...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
versions View all 3 versions
addClaim

Are Opposites Unidimensional?

Authors: BURRO, Roberto; SAVARDI, Ugo; BIANCHI, Ivana;

Are Opposites Unidimensional?

Abstract

Many areas of research in Psychology are based on the implicit assumption that opposites lie at 2 extremes of the same continuum—e.g. semantic differential scales (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957; Heise, 1970) and Likert scales (1932); just think, for example, of the use of “long” and “short” as parts of the same dimension ‘length’. The question of unidimensionality represents an interesting issue not only for methodology, but also, and mostly, represents a point of interest in the Psychology of Perception or Cognition. From the 1970’s onward, the study of opposites in Experimental Psychology has coincided, in particular, with the analysis of antonyms, shifting attention thereby from the empirical-perceptual foundations of this relation to linguistic rules. Savardi & Bianchi (1997, 2000, 2003, 2004a) have recently proposed an investigation on the perception of opposites that focuses on the phenomenal structures of experience, by starting from Gestalt assumptions concerning the direct perception of relations. Hence, it is within this frame of reference that the present study examined whether pairs of opposite properties do or do not lie on the same dimension. In 1967, Mosconi raised the issue of the fundamental difference that exists between phenomenal opposites (high and low, near and far, etc...) and the unidimensional structures that are used in their place in certain contexts (e.g., height and distance, with respect to the above examples). He maintained that these properties are not actually unidimensional in everyday language and phenomenal use. In a similar vein, Kennedy (2001) analyzed and interpreted the distribution of antonym adjectives in comparative linguistic constructions and proposed a model in which degrees of a property are considered scale intervals. There has long been a need (Campbell, 1920; Wright & Masters, 1982) to use psychometric instruments to validate the true dimensionality of a given construct. In the present work, we used a metrical measurement method, based on concrete objects, to examine whether the opposites of high-low, wide-narrow, long-short, and large-small would emerge as unidimensional scales (Luce, Krantz, Suppes, & Tversky, 1990).

Country
Italy
Related Organizations
Keywords

Psychophysics; perception, Spatial opposites, spatial perception, unidimensionality polar properties.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Green