Haber and Levin (2001)

What was the conclusion of Haber and Levin: Experiment 2?

• The study suggests that when people are familiar with objects that vary little in size from they are able to accurately estimate the object's size.This suggests that our past experience of objects is important in judging the size of an object

• Haber & Levin concluded that it was easier to estimate the distance of familiar objects because the participants were relying on their past experiences.

• 109 male university students from Chicago were given a questionnaire to complete. The participants were asked to estimate the size of 50 familiar objects and 30 variant/invariant objects.

• They found the participant's estimates of distance were most accurate for the real-world objects, which were a standard size.

  However, their estimates for the other real-world objects and for the cut-out shapes were not so accurate.

What are the weaknesses of Haber and Levin (Experiment 2) ?

• The participants were given a screening test to check that they had good vision before participating.

• Haber & Levin concluded that it was easier to estimate the distance of familiar objects because the participants were relying on their past experiences.

• Participants found it easier to estimate size of objects with consistent size and harder to estimate size of objects inconsistent in size.

• One weakness of the study is that the sample used in is small, making generalisation difficult. They only used nine participants, and all of them were male

What were the results of Haber and Levin; Experiment 1?

• The participants were given a screening test to check that they had good vision before participating.

• Participants found it easier to estimate size of objects with consistent size and harder to estimate size of objects inconsistent in size.

• Haber & Levin concluded that it was easier to estimate the distance of familiar objects because the participants were relying on their past experiences.

• One weakness of the study is that the sample used in is small, making generalisation difficult. They only used nine participants, and all of them were male.

What was the procedure of Haber and Levin; Experiment 1?

• Haber & Levin concluded that it was easier to estimate the distance of familiar objects because the participants were relying on their past experiences.

• 109 male university students from Chicago were given a questionnaire to complete. The participants were asked to estimate the size of 50 familiar objects and 30 variant/invariant objects.

• Nine male college student were driven out to a large grassy field surrounded on three sides by trees. The field had been divided and prepared into four separate sections.

  They were asked to estimate the size of objects in the different sections.

  Section 1 was an arrival area.

• They found the participant's estimates of distance were most accurate for the real-world objects, which were a standard size.

  However, their estimates for the other real-world objects and for the cut-out shapes were

  not so accurate.

What was the conclusion of Haber and Levin; Experiment 2?

• 109 male university students from Chicago were given a questionnaire to complete. The participants were asked to estimate the size of 50 familiar objects and 30 variant/invariant objects.

• The study suggests that when people are familiar with objects that vary little in size from Othey are able to accurately estimate the object's size. This suggests that our past experience of objects is important in judging the size of an object

• Haber & Levin concluded that it was easier to estimate the distance of familiar objects because the participants were relying on their past experiences.

• - They found the participant's estimates of distance were most accurate for the real-world objects, which were a standard size.

  However, their estimates for the other real-world objects and for the cut-out shapes were not so accurate.

What are the strengths of Haber and Levin (Experiment 2) ?

• To investigate whether perception is the result of top down or bottom up processing.

• Participants found it easier to estimate size of objects with consistent size and harder to estimate size of objects inconsistent in size.

• The participants were given a screening test to check that they had good vision before participating.