Abstract
We examined how observers use one aspect of their own morphology, height, when judging the physical characteristics of other people. To address this, participants judged the heights of people as they walked past. We tested the hypothesis that differences between participant and target height account for systematic patterns of variability and bias in height estimation. Height estimate error and error variability increased as the difference between participant height and target height increased, suggesting that estimates are scaled to observers’ heights. Furthermore, participants’ height estimates were biased toward two standards, demonstrating classic category effects. First, estimates were biased toward participants’ own heights. Second, participants biased height estimates toward the average height of the target distribution. These results support past research on using both the body and categorical information to estimate target properties but extend to real-world situations involving interactions with moving people, such as height judgments provided during eyewitness testimony.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This result appears to be inconsistent with previous research, since a prior study demonstrated bias away from observers’ own heights (Twedt et al. 2012). These studies differed in many ways that could have led to disparate results. The present work relied on perceptual judgments, whereas the earlier work examined judgments from memory. In addition, the present study tested absolute judgments of height, whereas the earlier study tested relative judgments between two targets with a dichotomous shorter than or taller than judgment, and was not explicitly designed to measure bias. Finally, the present study used real people as targets rather than inanimate objects. Further research is needed to understand how different forms of bias arise from such differences in methodology. The social categorization literature provides many examples of how contrast and assimilation effects are dependent on a diverse set of factors, including context (Stapel & Suls, 2007).
References
Anastasi, J. S., & Rhodes, M. G. (2005). An own-age bias in face recognition for children and older adults. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 1043–1047.
Bertamini, M., Yang, T. L., & Proffitt, D. R. (1998). Relative size perception at a distance is best at eye level. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 673–682.
Biernat, M. (2005). Standards and expectancies: Contrast and assimilation in judgments of self and others. Essays in social psychology. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Duguid, M. M., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). Living large: The powerful overestimate their own height. Psychological Science, 23, 36–40.
Goldstein, H. (2005). Heteroscedasticity and complex variation. In B. S. Everitt & D. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (2000). Why do categories affect stimulus judgment? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 220–241.
Linkenauger, S. A., Witt, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2011). Taking a hands-on approach: Apparent grasping ability scales the perception of object size. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1432–1441.
Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 3–35.
Ogden, C. L., Fryar, C. D., Carroll, M. D., Flegal, K. M. (2004). Mean body weight, height, and body mass index, United States 1960-2002 (pp. 1-17). Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.
Pozzulo, J. D., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1998). Identification accuracy of children versus adults: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 549–570.
Proffitt, D. R., & Linkenauger, S. A. (2013). Perception viewed as a phenotypic expression. In W. Prinz, M. Beisert, & A. Herwig (Eds.), Action Science: Foundations of an Emerging Discipline (pp. 171–199). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Schwarz, Norbert and Herbert Bless (1992), “Constructing reality and its alternatives: An inclusion/exclusion model of assimilation and contrast effects in social judgment,” In L.L. Martin and A. Tesser (Eds.), The Construction of Social Judgments, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sedgwick, A. (1973). The visible horizon: A potential source of visual information for the perception of size and distance (Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 1301.
Stapel, D. A., & Suls, J. (Eds.). (2007). Assimilation and Contrast in Social Psychology. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Twedt, E., Crawford, L. E., & Proffitt, D. R. (2012). Memory for target height is scaled to observer height. Memory and Cognition, 40, 339–351.
Warren, W. H., Jr. (1984). Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 683–703.
Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W., & Fulero, S. M. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581–598.
Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277–295.
Wraga, M. (1999). The role of eye height in perceiving affordances and object dimensions. Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 490–507.
Wraga, M., & Proffitt, D. R. (2000). Mapping the sone of eye-height utility for seated and standing observers. Perception, 29, 1361–83.
Wright, D. B., & Stroud, J. N. (2002). Age differences in lineup identification accuracy: People are better with their own age. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 641–654.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Twedt, E., Crawford, L.E. & Proffitt, D.R. Judgments of others’ heights are biased toward the height of the perceiver. Psychon Bull Rev 22, 566–571 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0689-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0689-z