Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T11:52:39.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weber Laws, the Weber Law, and Psychophysical Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Alston S. Householder  and
Gale Young
Alston S. Householder
Affiliation:
The University of Chicago
Gale Young
Affiliation:
The University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In failing to define the units in which the stimulus is to be measured, the Weber law might seem to make no definite assertion, and indeed, it is shown that any single empirical function, supposed to relate a given stimulus intensity with that intensity which is just noticeably greater, can be put into the Weber form by a suitable change of scale in which the stimulus intensity is to be measured. Nevertheless, it turns out that if different individuals have different Weber functions, when the intensities are measured on a given scale, then it is by no means always possible to transform the scale so that all of the functions can take on the Weber form. Some necessary conditions are given for the possibility of such a transformation when there is at hand a finite number of functions, and when the functions depend upon a single parameter the necessary and sufficient condition is easily derived. The same discussion leads to a generalization of Thurstone's psychophysical scale and shows that such a scale is always possible.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , September 1940 , pp. 183 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © 1940 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boring, E. G. Did Fechner measure sensation?. Psych. Rev., 1928, 35, 443–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, P. W. Weber's law and the Fechnerian muddle. Psych. Rev., 1932, 39, 533–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crozier, W. J. Déterminisme et variabilité dans le comportement des organismes. Actualités Scientifiques et Industrielles, Paris: Hermann et Cie, 1935.Google Scholar
Goursat-Hedrick, . A course in mathematical analysis, New York: Ginn and Co., 1917.Google Scholar
Householder, A. S. A neural mechanism for discrimination. Psychometrika, 1939, 4, 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Householder, A. S. A neural mechanism for discrimination. II. Discrimination of weights. Bull. Math. Biophysics, 1940, 2, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, H. M. Did Fechner measure “introspectional” sensations?. Psych. Rev., 1929, 36, 257–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landahl, H. D. A contribution to the mathematical biophysics of psychophysical discrimination. Psychometrika, 1938, 3, 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landahl, H. D. A contribution to the mathematical biophysics of psychophysical discrimination. II. Bull. Math. Biophysics, 1939, 1, 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. The law of comparative judgment. Psych. Rev., 1927, 34, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. Psychophysical analysis. Am. J. Psych., 1927, 38, 368–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar