% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Heim:874603,
author = {Heim, Stefan and Peiseler, N. and Bekemeier, N.},
title = {“{F}ew” or “{M}any”? {A}n {A}daptation {L}evel
{T}heory account for flexibility in quantifier processing},
journal = {Frontiers in psychology},
volume = {11},
issn = {1664-1078},
address = {Lausanne},
publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
reportid = {FZJ-2020-01531},
pages = {382},
year = {2020},
abstract = {Quantifiers (e.g., “many,” “some,” “at least
seven,” “more than half”) are words characterizing
amounts or numerosities by reference to an internal
threshold, or degree. For some quantifiers, this degree is
not uniquely defined: It varies for external contexts
(“many lions”/“many flies”) but may also be shifted
within an individual (“many fries” for a hungry/full
person). Previous studies showed that manipulation of the
degree for one quantifier can impact that of other
quantifiers. In this study, we tested whether such changes
can occur by mere habituation, as formalized in the
Adaptation Level Theory by Helson (1948) for sensory stimuli
such as brightness or weight. To this end, participants read
a quantifier statement and then judged whether a visual
display with varying amounts $(20–80\%)$ of blue and
yellow circles matched that statement. In Block 1, we
identified which proportion of circles of a given color was
judged by participants as “many” or “few.” In Block
2, we modified the presentation of stimuli such that (1)
only the quantifier “many” was used and (2) only low
proportions of circles of a given color were presented, thus
changing the base rate at which proportions were encountered
together with “many.” The hypothesis was that the
internal degree of what is interpreted as “many” would
be shifted downward and that this shift would also affect
judgments of “few.” Block 3 was identical to Block 1,
serving as a test for the expected effect on the
degree/threshold for/across all proportions. The findings
were as expected: The probability of accepting $40\%$ as
“many” was increased during Block 2, indicating
adaptation. Likewise, the probability function for “few”
was shifted in a parallel fashion around the proportion
$40\%.$ These findings complemented earlier studies
demonstrating intra-individual flexibility in quantifier
processing. They show that this flexibility can even be
observed in the absence of explicitly stated verbal contexts
or reinforcements, in line with the Adaptation Level Theory
formulated originally for magnitudes, i.e., non-linguistic
representations of quantities.},
cin = {INM-1},
ddc = {150},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-1-20090406},
pnm = {571 - Connectivity and Activity (POF3-571)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-571},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:32265772},
UT = {WOS:000525580300001},
doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00382},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/874603},
}