Size Weight Illusion

Sahil Kumar Sahu

School of Social Sciences/Department of Psychology

CHRIST (Deemed to be University)

PSY 451: Psychological Experiments and Statistics

Ms Ayatakshee Sarkar

April 10, 2022

 Introduction

The Charpentier illusion is another name for the size-weight illusion (or Charpentier-
Koseleff illusion). Augustin Charpentier, a French physician, was the founder of this
phenomenon. The illusion presents itself in the tendency to underestimate the weight of a
larger object when compared to a smaller object of equivalent physical mass, and vice versa.
Also, when two identically sized items of different masses are present, the heavier one
appears smaller. The illusion is generated by the misalignment of visual and proprioceptive
information, which causes the illusion. One theory for how the size-weight illusion works is
that when individuals look at a larger thing, they expect it to be heavier, therefore they lift it
with more force.

The size-weight illusion is a well-known phenomenon in which huge objects appear to be

lighter than small objects of equal weight. Although this illusion was first found as a
multisensory phenomenon in which an object's visually perceived size effects its perceived
weight, it can also happen without vision if haptic size cues are present. This demonstrates
that the illusion isn't multi-sensory in the first place. It is based on the fact that perceived
size has a general effect on perceived weight. The illusion is already triggered by viewing
an object before lifting but not while lifting.

Prior information about the broad relationship between object attributes and weight appears
to influence our perception of how heavy an object feels. This shows that the size–weight
illusion emerges as a result of our knowledge of the relationship between size and weight.
This theory is confirmed by a study that demonstrated that the illusion may be reversed:
repeatedly lifting a set of objects made with the smaller objects having greater mass than the
bigger objects for several days reduced and eventually reversed the illusion.

Because the illusion is known as the size-weight illusion, one might assume it has something
to do with the weight of an object. It's worth noting that weight refers to the gravitational
force exerted on an object, which is proportional to the object's (gravitational) mass.
Without the use of weight, an object's mass can be felt by inertial forces proportionate to the
(inertial) mass acting during acceleration. This is why, in the absence of gravity, such as in
deep space, an object's mass can be determined. Because an object's gravitational and
inertial masses are the same (Einstein's equivalence principle), the two types of mass should
appear to be the same to the perceptual system.

Method
Aim
To study the effect of perception of size on judgments of weights.

Plan
To compare the extent of error committed in the three series while judging the weight.

Hypotheses
1. The size of the blocks influences the judgments of weight of the block.
2. The bigger sized blocked is judged to be lighter,
3. The smaller sized block is judged to be heavier.

Variables
Independent variable. The size of the standard block
Relevant variables controlled. The progressive increase in the weight of the variable
blocks and their identical physical appearance.
Dependent variable. The judgment of weight given by the subject or point of
subjective equality.

Materials
1. Three standard blocks of different sizes weighing 55 grams each. One block is
bigger and another is smaller and the third one is equal in size to the variable
blocks.
2. Eleven comparison blocks ranging in weight from 30 grams to 80 grams with
a progressive increase of 5 grams, but all are equal in size.
3. A black cloth
4. Writing materials

Procedure
The following subject details are recorded: name (initials), age, sex and education.
The table is arranged at such a height, that the subject’s forearm will be parallel to the floor
while lifting the weights. In order to mute the sound of the blocks being placed, spread a
thick black cloth on the table. The eleven variable blocks are arranged in a semicircle
formation, equidistant from each other, in such a manner that the subject should be able to
reach any of the blocks without feeling the effort on their arm. The variable blocks are kept in
a random order of weight (the standard block is kept at the centre (as shown in the following
diagram).

Figure
Arrangement of blocks

The experiment is conducted in three series with two trials in each series
Series one - Same sized standard block. Place the same sized standard block at the
centre. The subject is asked to stand and use the preferred hand to lift the weights. Subject
lifts the standard block to a height of approximately 8 cms. After placing it back, he/she has
to lift the first comparison block to their left with the same force and to the same height.
Then the subject lifts the standard block and then the second comparison block. In this
manner, all the comparison blocks are compared with the standard block. The same
procedure is followed with the variable blocks from the left to the variable blocks to the
right, following the constant stimulus difference method. The subject is then asked to
indicate one variable block that is equal in weight to the standard block. The weight of this
block is noted. This is the point of subjective equality.
In the second trial the position of the comparison blocks are interchanged without the
knowledge of the subject and the same procedure is repeated. The weight of the block
adjudged equal to the standard block is noted in each trial separately and the average is
calculated.
Series two- Bigger sized standard block. Keeping this block at the centre, the same
procedure is followed as in series one. Two trials are given.
Series three - Smaller sized standard block. Keeping this block at the centre, the same
procedure is followed as in series one and two. Two trials are given here also.

Instructions (For all the three series)

Ask the subject which his/her preferred hand is.
“Here is the standard block (indicate the standard block) at the centre and also there
are 11 blocks for comparison (indicate the variable blocks) .Lift the standard block to a
height of 8 cms and place it back. In a similar manner, lift the first variable block to your
extreme left with the same force and to the same height. Then lift the block at all the centre
and then the second comparison block at your left. Thus lift all the eleven blocks
comparing each time with the block at the centre. While lifting the blocks, keep your sight
fixed on the block. You have to indicate one block out of the 11 blocks which is equal in
weight to the block at the center after lifting all the blocks”.

Precautions
1. The subject is given no clue about the weight of the standard blocks.
2. The random arrangement of the blocks should be done without the knowledge
of the subject.
3. Each block is lifted with the preferred hand, with the same force and to the
same height.
4. The subject is required to keep his sight on the block, being lifted.

Analysis of results
1. The average weight as judged by the subject on the two trials is referred to as
the point of subjective equality (PSE)
PSE = Trial 1 + Trial 2
2
2. In the first series, the difference between the weight of the standard block and PSE
constitutes the constant error (Constant error occurs due to innate inaccuracy in
the individual’s judgement).
Constant Error = PSE – Standard (55 grams)
 3. In the second and third series, the difference between the weight of the standard block
and PSE constitutes the gross error. (Gross error is a combination of innate
inaccuracy in the subject and inaccuracy in the judgment because of size)
Gross Error = PSE – Standard (55 grams)
4. In the second and third series the algebraic difference between gross error and
constant error yields the Net Error (Net error is the error that occurs solely due to
size) Net Error = Gross Error – Constant Error

Table 1
Subject’s PSE results on the experiment
Series 1 Series 2 Series 3
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1 Trial 2
60 45 30 35 55 65
Mean 52.5 32.5 60

Table 2
Subject’s errors on the experiment
Name Constant error Gross error Net error
MS Series 1 Series 2 Series 3 Series 2 Series 3
-2.5 -22.5 5 -20 7.5

Discussion
The goal of the experiment was to see how size perception affects weight judgments. The
participant's vulnerability to the size-weight illusion is tested in this experiment. The size
weight illusion is a psychological phenomenon in which people perceive the smaller of two
objects to be heavier than the larger, despite the fact that both are the same weight. This is
mostly caused by a deviation or imbalance of proprioceptive and visual information.
Essentially, it is determined by our sense of the link between item size and weight. Weight
discrimination deteriorates when items are lighter or heavier than predicted density,
according to recent research.
The subject's PSE findings on the experiment are shown in Table 1. The PSE, or point of
subjective equality, is the average weight of the two trials as judged by the subject. It's
calculated by averaging the measurements from Trial 1 and Trial 2 in each series. The
standard block was 55 grams in weight. Series 1 has a PSE value of 52.5, Series 2 has a PSE
value of 32.5, and for Series 3 it was 60. According to this data, the PSE in series 1 was the
closest to the actual weight of the standard block, followed by series 3.
The subject's errors on the experiment are shown in Table 2. Here, three types of errors are
investigated: the constant error, the gross error, and the net error. Constant error is a type of
series 1 error that happens when an individual's judgment is inherently inaccurate. Gross
error is a combination of natural subject inaccuracy and judgment inaccuracy due to size,
and it is used in both series 2 and series 3. The net error is the error that happens simply as a
result of size, and it is also taken into account for the last two series. The subject makes a
consistent inaccuracy of -2.5. Series 2 has a gross error of -22.5, whereas series 3 has a gross
error of 5. Series 2 has a net error of -20 and series 3 has a net error of 7.5.
The experiment's first hypothesis (H1) indicates that the size of the blocks effects weight
judgments. Table 2 shows that the net error is between -20 and 7.5. The hypothesis is
supported by the data if the value. As a result, the subject's weight judgments were
influenced by the size of the blocks. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 (H1) is accepted. The
experiment's Hypothesis 2 (H2) indicates that the larger sized block is judged lighter,
whereas Hypothesis 3 (H3) states that the smaller sized block is judged heavier. The two
hypotheses appear to be supported by the value of the data, which is shown in table 2 as
gross and net errors, both of which are negative and positive values. As a result, the larger
block is considered lighter, while the smaller block is considered heavier. As a result,
Hypotheses 2 (H2) and 3 (H3) are accepted. Even in the introspective report it is mentioned
that the subject had confusion and considered the larger block lighter and smaller block
heavier.

Introspective Report
The subject of the experiment found the test to be very nice and interesting. He felt that he
could have performed better while dealing with the bigger and the smaller weights. He was a
bit anxious at the beginning of the experiment but eventually got in terms with it. He had a
lot of confusion with the weights and its shape. He felt the bigger weight to be lighter and
the smaller weight to be heavier. The experiment kept him on his toes because he thought
that all the three were three different weights altogether.

Conclusion
So, the first hypotheses that the size of the blocks influences the judgments of weight of the
block was correct and the hypotheses was accepted. The second and third hypotheses were
accepted as well.

References
 Size-weight illusion | Psychology Wiki | Fandom. (n.d.). Psychology
Wiki. https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Size-weight_illusion
 Pant, R. (2021, March 23). The size-weight illusion is unimpaired in individuals with
a history of congenital visual deprivation. Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-86227- w?
error=cookies_not_supported&code=5c5a166f-4fd5-40ff-8bf5-5a8b7fa76385
 Saccone, E. J. (2018, September 4). The influence of size in weight illusions is
unique relative to other object features. SpringerLink.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-018-1519- 5?
error=cookies_not_supported&code=c76c8640-b206-45d7-b76d-d2c2b6648bd7
 Bhatia Test for Performance Intelligence

Sahil Kumar Sahu

School of Social Sciences/Department of Psychology

CHRIST (Deemed to be University)

PSY 451: Psychological Experiments and Statistics

Ms Ayatakshee Sarkar

April 12, 2022

 Introduction

CM Bhatia created Bhatia's Battery of Performance Tests of Intelligence in 1955. The

purpose of this test was to measure the intelligence of the Indian population. It consists of
the five subtests listed below:

(i) Koh's Block Design Test: This battery has 10 of the original 17 Koh's Block
Design Test designs. The first five designs take two minutes to complete, while
the remaining five take three minutes. The test subject is presented cards with a
range of colourful designs and asked to copy them using a set of coloured
blocks. The examiner's observation of conduct during the test, which includes
such aspects as attention level, self-criticism, and adaptive behaviour, is used to
determine performance (such as self-help, communication, and social skills).
(ii) Alexander Pass-along: This battery contains all of the designs from the initial
test. The subject moves coloured pieces around in an open box, arranging them
in a similar pattern. The first four must be done in two minutes, while the next
four must be finished in three minutes.
(iii) Bhatia's Pattern Drawing Test: Bhatia constructed this test. There are eight
cards in this test. Every card has a pattern on it, and the subject must draw all of
the designs in one sitting without lifting the pencil.
(iv) Immediate Memory: This test is divided into two sections: forward digit span
and backward digit span. The examiner asks the test taker to repeat the numbers
he or she says. Every trail increases the number of digits. The test is repeated
until the participant successfully completes it in the same order. This is a forward
digit span. The numbers are repeated in reverse order, from the last to the first, in
the backward recall. This process is repeated until the patient is able to
successfully repeat the sequence.
(v) Picture Construction Test: In this test, the subject must put together a picture
that is broken down into sections. To make the picture, the elements must be
meaningfully integrated. The first two pictures take 2 minutes, while the next
three pictures take 3 minutes.

Method

Aim
To assess the intelligence of the subject by administering Bhatia’s Battery of Performance
Test of Intelligence.

Plan
To administer each sub-test according to the instructions, to score the performance and to
convert the raw score into I.Q

Materials
1. Bhatia’s Battery of Performance Test of Intelligence
2. Answer Sheet/Data Sheet
3. Instruction Manual with Norms
4. Stop Clock
5. Writing Materials

Procedure
Subject details
Name: P.S
Age: 16
Gender: Female
Education: BA in Communication, English and Psychology
Setting up and arrangement
The participant is seated comfortably and rapport is established. Before conducting,
the assessment kindly checks the tools that are arranged in the correct sequence. All tests
should follow the same pattern as instructed in the manual. It is ensured that the testing
environment is free from distractions and adequate lighting is provided. After the detailed
instructions and queries, if any, the participant is asked to start the test. Kindly check with the
participant the instructions are clear about the tests.

Process
1. Koh’s Block Design Test
Make the subject sit comfortably and build a rapport. From the ten different designs,
the first card and four cubes are placed before the subject. The subject is given a chance to
touch and examine the cubes. All the cubes are alike, with four sides having single colours –
blue, yellow, red, and white. The fifth side is painted half blue and half yellow and the sixth
side, with half red and half white. Demonstrate how the first design is made. Once the
instructions are clear, jumble the blocks to begin the test. Give the ‘start’ signal to the subject
as you start the stopwatch to monitor the time. Within the allotted two minutes, note down
the total time taken by the subject to complete the task. Continue with the rest of the designs
in a similar way and note down the time for each task.
Design Number: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
Number of Cubes given: 04 04 04 04 04 09 09 16 16 16
Time Allotted (in minutes): 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 03
If the subject fails to complete a particular task, the experimenter demonstrates it. The subject
cannot make another attempt at the failed task but can go to the next task. The test is stopped
once the subject fails twice in succession.
2. Alexander’s Pass along Test
With different patterns of blue and red blocks there are eight cards in this test. The
experimenter demonstrates with the first design. He shows how to bring the blue blocks to
the blue end and red blocks to the red end by sliding them and not lifting any of the block.
After the demonstration, the blue blocks are placed at the red end and red blocks at the blue
end. The subject is given a ‘start’ signal and the stop clock is started simultaneously. A total
of 2 minutes is allotted to complete the task; if the subject completes the task within two
minutes, note down the exact time taken to complete the task. Same procedure is followed for
each of the designs. The exact time allotted for each task is given in the below table.
Design Number 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
Time Allotted (in minutes) 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 03
If the subject fails in any particular task, demonstrate the correct way of sliding the blocks but
the subject cannot make another attempt. When the subject score records tally to two
consecutive failures, stop the experiment.
3. Pattern Drawing Test
There are eight geometrical patterns of increasing difficulty. The first card is given to
the subject and he is asked to draw the geometrical pattern without lifting the pencil or over-
drawing. After the first design is demonstrated with clear instructions, the ‘start’ signal is
given to the subject to complete the task within two minutes. Similarly the subject expected
to complete the remaining tasks. The total time allotted for each task is mentioned in the
table.
Pattern Number 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
Time Allotted (in minutes) 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 03
Like in the previous tests, if the subject fails, the experimenter demonstrates the solution but
the subject is not allowed to retry. Stop the experiment after two continuous failures.
4. Immediate Memory Test
There are two sub-tests.
a). Direct Order. Here, the experimenter reads units of three digits and the subject is
asked to repeat the digits orally in the same order. The digits range from three to nine with
each span consisting of three units. Stop the test if the subject fails in all the three units of a
span. Consider the successful recall of units by the subject as a score.
b). Reverse Order. The same procedure like in the previous task is followed. But the
subject has to recall the digits in reverse order here. There, the span of digits vary from three
to six with three units in each of them. If the subject fails in all three units of a particular
span, the subtest is stopped.
5. Picture Construction Test
There are five subtests here. Each sub-test has different cut parts of a picture placed in front
of the subject. He has to rearrange to form a complete picture. The first task is demonstrated
by the experimenter. Once the instructions are clear, the subject starts with a ‘start’ signal.
The time is checked simultaneously with the help of a stopwatch. The exact time taken is
noted down if the subject completes the task within two minutes. The time for each subtest is
given in the table below.
Pattern Number 01 02 03 04 05
Number of Parts (bits) 02 04 06 08 12
Time Allotted (in minutes) 02 02 02 03 03

Instructions
Koh’s Block Design Test
“With these given identical blocks, make the same design as shown in the card. Start when I
give you the start signal and work as fast as possible”.
Alexander’s Pass-along Test
“In this box you can notice the blue blocks placed near the red end and red blocks near the
blue end. When I give you the start signal, you have to bring the blue blocks to the blue end
and red blocks to the red end. You have to slide the blocks to complete the task, and cannot
lift any of the blocks. Work as quickly as possible”.
Pattern Drawing Test
“Carefully look at this pattern. You are expected to draw this pattern without lifting the pen
from the paper or retracing. Work quickly. You can make any number of attempts within the
allotted time”.
Immediate Memory Test
Direct. “I will read out a set of three digits. Reproduce it orally in the same order,
immediately. For example, if I say 7-2-5, you have to repeat 7-2-5”.
Reverse. “Again I will read out a set of three digits. Reproduce it orally in the reverse
order. For example, if I say 4-9-7, you have to say 7-9-4”.

Debriefing

Thank you for your participation in this experiment. Your data will be kept
confidential and will only be used for academic purposes. If you have any further queries
regarding the experiment, you can ask.

Controls/Precautions & Ethical Considerations

● To ensure that the subject has a clear understanding of the instructions.

● The environment is to be kept calm, quiet, and conducive to the experiment.
● The participant is debriefed after the experiment.

Result and Discussion

Table 1

Test 1: Koh’s Block Design Test

Maximum Time taken by

Marks based
Trials No. of Blocks Time limit the subject
on time
(Mins.) (Mins.)

1 4 2 6 sec 2

2 4 2 5 sec 2

3 4 2 13 sec 2

4 4 2 20 sec 2

5 9 2 58 sec 2
 6 9 3 1 min 58 sec 2

7 9 3 1 min 46 sec 2

8 16 3 1 min 32 sec 2

9 16 3 1 min 38 sec 2

10 16 3 1 min 50 sec 2

Table 2

Test 2: Pass-A-Long test

Design Blocks Maximum Time taken by Marks based

No. Time limit the subject on time
(Mins.) (Mins.)

1 As per design 2 19 sec 2

2 As per design 2 52 sec 2

3 As per design 2 9 sec 2

4 As per design 2 2 min 15 sec 0

5 As per design 3 2 min 19 sec 1

6 As per design 3 45 sec 3

7 As per design 4 57 sec 3

8 As per design 4 3 min 14 sec 0

Table 3

Test 3: Pattern Drawing Test

 Maximum Time taken by
Design Marks based
Blocks Time limit the subject
No. on time
(Mins.) (Mins.)

1 As per design 2 3 sec 2

2 As per design 2 6 sec 2

3 As per design 2 8 sec 2

4 As per design 2 20 sec 2

5 As per design 2 38 sec 3

6 As per design 3 1 min 12 sec 2

7 As per design 3 49 sec 3

8 As per design 3 57 sec 3

Table 4

Test 4: Immediate Memory Test

Digits Marks based

on correct
response

Direct 1 1

2 1

3 1

4 1

5 1

6 1

7 1

8 1

9 1

Total Score 9
 Reverse Digits Marks based
on correct
response

1 1

2 1

3 1

4 1

5 1

6 -

7 -

8 -

9 -

Total Score 5

Table 5

Test 5: Picture completion Test

Design Parts Maximum Time taken by Marks based

No. Time limit the subject on time
(Mins.) (Mins.)

1 2 2 3 sec 2

2 4 2 6 sec 2

3 6 2 18 sec 2

4 8 3 57 sec 3

5 12 3 59 sec 3

Table 6: Total score (All five tests)

Tests Raw Score

 1 20

2 13

3 19

4 14

5 12

Total Row score 78

Table 7

IQ Calculation using the table

Subject Raw Score IQ Level

NLC 78 130

Discussion

The Koh's block test is the first subtest of Bhatia's experiment. The time it took for the
subject to complete the first three designs varied between 5 to 13 seconds respectively. The
fourth design was a little more difficult, therefore it took the subject 20 seconds to complete
it. The fifth design took only 58 seconds to complete. The sixth design took 1 minute and 58
seconds to complete, the seventh design took 1 minute and 46 seconds to complete, the
eighth design took 1 minute and 32 seconds to complete, the ninth design took 1 minute and
38 seconds to complete, and the subject took 1 minutes and 50 seconds to complete the last
design because it was tricky for the subject.

The pass along test is the second subtest in Bhatia's experiment. The time it took the subject
to finish the first three designs varied from 9 to 52 seconds. The subject was quite confused
with the fourth design and could complete it. She came to a halt after 2 minutes and 15
seconds. The fifth design took 2 minutes and 19 seconds to complete, the sixth took 45
seconds, and the seventh took 57 seconds. The topic was unable to finish the final design
due to its difficulty and failed in completing it in the required time period.
The pattern drawing test is the third subtest of Bhatia's experiment. The subject took 3
seconds to finish the first and 6 seconds to create the second design, respectively. The third
design took only 8 seconds to complete. The fourth design was finished in 20 seconds, the
fifth design in 38 seconds, the sixth design in 1 minute and 12 seconds, the seventh design in
49 seconds, and the final design in 57 seconds, all within the time limit.

The Immediate memory test is the fourth subtest of Bhatia's experiment. For this test,
there was no set time limit. The subject, on the other hand, was quick and remembered all
of the numerals and reversed digits was a bit confusing for her and she went till 5.

The Picture Construction test is the experiment's final subtest. The following is the time it
took the subject to complete each design: The first design took 3 seconds to create, the
second took 6 seconds, the third took 18 seconds, the fourth took 57 seconds because it was
difficult, and the final design took 59 seconds.

In the Block design test, the subject received an overall score of 20 out of 25; in the Pass
along test, she received a score of 13 out of 20; in the Pattern drawing test, she received a
score of 19 out of 20; in the Immediate memory test, she received a score of 14 out of 15;
and in the Picture construction test, she received an overall score of 12 out of 15. We can
deduce from the above raw scores that the subject received a 78 out of 95 overall and has
an IQ level of 130 on the David Weschler IQ scale.

The subject's overall raw score is 78, which means she has an IQ level of 130 on the David
Weschler IQ scale, which is rated very superior by the classification.

Conclusion

According to the classification, the person has an IQ of 130 which is regarded to be very
superior. This indicates that the person has excellent problem-solving ability and very
superior reasoning abilities, which could indicate intellectual potential.

Introspective Report

My subject had a fascinating experience while doing the experiment. She was a bit anxious
at the beginning but eventually she started enjoying the experiment. She was worried
about
the time limited experiments but she was confident enough and was successful in
completing all the tests in the given stipulated time period.

References

Vasan, P. (n.d.). BHATIA Battery of Performance Test of Intelligence. Scribd.

https://www.scribd.com/presentation/409658767/BHATIA-Battery-of-Performance-Test-of-
Intelligence

G. (n.d.). Bhatia's - PDFCOFFEE.COM. Pdfcoffee.Com. https://pdfcoffee.com/bhatiax27s-

pdf-free.html

https://rkdf.ac.in/Eresources/9%20Bhatia%20Battery%20Performance%20Test.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350678999_Bhatia's_Battery_of_Performance_Tes
ts_of_Intelligence_A_Critical_Appraisal
 Eysenck’s Personality Inventory

Sahil Kumar Sahu

School of Social Sciences/Department of Psychology

CHRIST (Deemed to be University)

PSY 451: Psychological Experiments and Statistics

Ms Ayatakshee Sarkar

April 25, 2022

 Introduction

The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) is a three-dimensional personality evaluation

tool that was preceded by the Eysenck Personality Inventory, a two-dimensional
overlapping measure (EPI). Hans and Sybil Eysenck created the EPI to assess the two major
aspects of Extraversion-Introversion and Neuroticism-Stability. In order to defend against
various concerns concerning answer style, these two 24-item measures were augmented by a
9-item Lie scale.

Both of these personality traits (Extraversion and Neuroticism) were first introduced (and
have since been emphasised) as temperamental qualities that are inherited and visible at
birth (i.e., not learned). In 1975, the EPQ was presented as a significant revision to the EPI,
and in 1985, a new iteration (containing the items) was published. The EPQ was created in
accordance with Hans Eysenck's theoretical model, which is today known as the P-E-N
model. The EPQ introduced a third dimension, Psychoticism, as suggested by its acronym.
Aggressiveness, assertiveness, and being egocentric, manipulative, and unsympathetic are
all traits addressed on the Psychoticism scale.

According to the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI), Extraversion-Introversion and

Neuroticism-Stability are two prominent, independent dimensions of personality that
account for the majority of the variance in the personality domain. There are 57 "Yes-No"
items on each form, with no repeats. The inclusion of a falsification scale allows answer
distortion to be detected. Extraversion-Introversion and Neuroticism are the qualities that are
measured. You will receive three scores after completing Eysenck's Personality Inventory
(EPI).

The 'lie score' is a nine-point scale. In your responses, it assesses how socially desirable you
are attempting to be. Those who get a 5 or higher on this scale are generally attempting to
look good and aren't being completely honest with their answers. The 'E score' is a scale of
one to twenty-four that determines how much of an extrovert you are. The 'N score' is a
scale of one to twenty-four that determines how neurotic you are. Your E and N scores are
put on a graph from which you can read your personality characteristics to comprehend the
results. The closer you get out from the centre of the circle, the more distinct the personality
traits become.

Method
Aim
 To assess the personality dimensions of the subject using Eysenck’s Personality
Inventory.

Subject details
Name: SKS
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Education: BA in Communication, English and Psychology

Materials
1. Eysenck’s Personality Inventory
2. Manual, Key, Norms
3. Writing materials

Procedure
The subject is seated comfortably. Rapport has to be established. The subject is given
the Eysenck’s Personality Inventory and he is asked to write the personal data such as name,
age sex etc. in the space provided. The subject is asked to answer the questions in the
inventory. The responses of the subject have to be scored with the help of the key.

Instructions
“Here are some questions regarding the way you behave, feel and act. After each
question there is space for your response in the form of ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ “. Try to decide
whether ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ represents your usual way of acting or feeling. Then put a ‘X’ mark in
the circle under the column headed ’Yes’ or ‘No’. Work quickly and do not spend too much
time over any question. There is no right or wrong answer. This is not a test of intelligence
or ability but simply a measure of the way you behave.

Controls/Precautions
1. Every effort should be made to secure the true answer from the subject.
2. The subject should interpret the questions by himself. The experimenter may
give meaning of the questions.

Scoring
 1. The number of extroverted answers is noted
2. The number of neurotic answers is noted.
3. A location chart has to be drawn on a graph sheet.
To interpret the scores, the E score and N score are plotted on a graph from which one
can read the personality characteristics. The nearer the outside of the circle you are, the
more marked are the personality

Results and Discussion

Table 1

Dimension Score Interpretation

Extroversion/Introversion 17 Extravert

Neuroticism/Emotional stability 6 Emotionally well balanced

Lie Score 4

Discussion
The Eysenck personality test is used to determine a person's type of personality. It is made up
of a set of standards by which the individual is judged. The Extroversion/Introversion (E/I),
Neuroticism (N), and Lie (L) scales are the three primary components in this test. This
questionnaire consists of approximately 57 questions that must be completed with a yes or no
answer.
A 19-year-old male college student obtaining a BA is the subject. The test was explained to
him, and he completed it in less than 30 minutes.
The subject scored a 17 on the extroversion/introversion dimension, a 6 on the Neuroticism
dimension, and a 4 on the lie score dimension, according to the above table.
We can deduce from these findings that the subject is an extravert and he is emotionally
well balanced. This indicates that the subject prefers to be carefree, optimistic, outgoing and
people-oriented rather than being alone and quiet. The subject is also even-tempered, calm
and lively.
Introspective Report
The personality test was exciting, and it helped me think about the decisions I was about to
make when filling out the questionnaire. Analysing yourself is the most difficult task, and
I was able to figure out my personality and I was quite happy seeing the results of the test.
It was an amazing experience and I had a good time examining myself.

Conclusion
Based on the given findings, we can deduce that the individual is an extrovert with well-
balanced emotions, as determined by the personality test.

References
Bodling, A. M. (2011). Eysenck Personality Inventory. SpringerLink.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-387-79948-
3_2025?error=cookies_not_supported&code=848c5213-a936-4c42-8dd3-
548545d7d57a#:%7E:text=Definition,(e.g.%2C%20Lie%20Scale).
Wikipedia contributors. (2022, February 21). Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eysenck_Personality_Questionnaire
Retearn. (2020, March 5). Eysenck’s Personality Inventory (EPI) - Extroversion/Introversion.
Retearn | Transformation, Procurement & Cost Reduction.
https://retearn.co.uk/test/eysencks- personality-inventory-epi-extroversionintroversion/
The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ). (n.d.).
Trans4mind.Com. https://trans4mind.com/personality/EPQ.html
 Oxford Happiness Questionnaire

Sahil Kumar Sahu

School of Social Sciences/Department of Psychology

CHRIST (Deemed to be University)

PSY 451: Psychological Experiments and Statistics

Ms Ayatakshee Sarkar

April 25, 2022

 Introduction

The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire has been developed by Oxford University psychologists
Michael Argyle and Peter Hills. The Oxford family of psychometric tools for assessing
individual differences in happiness has its origins in the broader field of social psychology
pioneered by Michael Argyle and others. The Oxford Happiness Inventory (OHI) is the
family's parent instrument, which gave rise to the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (OHQ)
and the Oxford Happiness Measure (OHM). This entry aims to examine the conceptualization
and operationalization of happiness as stated by the OHI in depth, as well as the relationship
between the OHI and a broader theory of personality and the situations in which the OHI has
been used. Against this context, the OHQ and the OHM will be highlighted for their unique
contributions.
The scientific study of happiness needs precise measurement of the construct that meets
parametric statistics' assumptions, allowing researchers and physicians to conduct trustworthy
and valid comparisons with relevant data sources. The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire
(OHQ), which has 29 items, is a commonly used measure for assessing personal happiness.
While its psychometric qualities are regarded to be good, it uses an ordinal scale to convey
results and hence may not be able to distinguish precisely between different levels of
happiness.
The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (OHQ), an upgraded version of the Oxford Happiness
Inventory, is an improved instrument. The OHI consists of 29 items, each of which requires
the selection of one of four different possibilities. The OHQ contains items that are
comparable to those in the OHI, but each is given as a single statement that can be supported
on a six-point Likert scale. The new instrument is smaller, easier to use, and allows for a
wider range of endorsements.

Method
Aim
To measure the level of happiness by using the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire by Peter
Hills and Michael Argyle (2001).
Plan
Oxford Happiness Questionnaire has to be administered to the subject, the responses have to
be scored and interpreted.
Materials
1. Oxford Happiness Questionnaire by Hills & Argyle
2. Scoring key and norms for interpretation
3. Writing Materials
Instructions
“Below are a number of statements about happiness. Please indicate how much you agree or
disagree with each by entering a number in the blank after each statement, according to the
following scale:
 1- Strongly Disagree
 2- Moderately Disagree
 3- Slightly Disagree
 4- Slightly Agree
 5- Moderately Agree
 6- Strongly Agree
Read the statements carefully and do not take too much time to complete it. There is no right
or wrong answer. Please indicate your response that is true for you in general.”

Procedure
The subject is seated comfortably and after building rapport, the questionnaire is
administered to the subject. It comprises of 29 items that is framed on a six-point Likert
scale. The subject is asked to fill in his/her personal details and read each statement
carefully. The responses are given by writing the number of any one of the alternatives that
is, 1- strongly disagree, 2- moderately disagree, 3- slightly disagree, 4- slightly agree, 5-
moderately agree and 6- strongly agree. This questionnaire takes ten minutes to complete
and the experimenter should clarify all doubts and assure confidentiality of results to the
subject. The responses are calculated and with the help of norms the current level of
happiness is found out.

Precautions
1. Make sure that the subject has understood the instructions properly.
2. The subject must interpret the questions for himself/herself. However, if the subject
has problems in understanding the meaning of certain words, the experimenter has to
help out.
3. The experimenter must make every effort to secure complete cooperation of the subject.
He should indicate the importance of the answers, assuring the subject of
confidentiality of the same.
4. All statements should be answered and there has to be only one answer for each
statement.
5. There is no time limit but this questionnaire takes ten minutes to complete. Instruct
the subject to answer the questionnaire as fast as possible.
6. Reverse scoring is to be maintained.

Scoring and Analysis

1. The responses are scored with the help of a five point Likert scale:
a. 1- Strongly Disagree 2- Moderately Disagree
b. 3- Slightly Disagree 4- Slightly Agree
c. 5- Moderately Agree 6- Strongly Agree
2. Reverse scoring to be followed for 12 items where the responses are scored as follows:
a. 6- Strongly Disagree 5- Moderately Disagree
b. 4- Slightly Disagree 3- Slightly Agree
c. 2- Moderately Agree 1- Strongly Agree
3. The following number of items will follow reverse
scoring: Items 1,5,6,10,13,14,19,23,27,28 and 29.
4. The responses are then added for all the 29 statements.
5. The total raw score is then divided by 29.
6. Thus happiness score is noted down and with the help of norms the interpretation
is found.
Table.1. Individual table showing the results of the subject for Oxford Happiness
Questionnaire.
Name Total Raw Score Happiness Score Interpretation
(Total Raw Score / 29)
SKS 131 4.51 Rather Happy
Result and Discussion
The Oxford happiness questionnaire, designed by Peter Hills and Michael Argyle, was
designed to measure happiness in a variety of people. There are 29 questions in this survey,
all of which are framed both positively and negatively. It uses a 6-point grade scale for
scoring and answering rather than a simple yes or no response.
After a detailed description of the test and scoring scheme, the subject was given the test.
We can deduce from the above table that the subject scored a raw score of 131. The
happiness score is calculated by dividing the total raw score by the number of questions in
the survey, which is 29. The subject's happiness score is 4.51. The happiness score can help
us interpret that is the subject is rather happy.

Introspective Report
This questionnaire included questions that were both practical and challenging for me. I had
no choice but to respond promptly and without hesitation. Most of the questions were
familiar to me, and I could tell they were leading to something I already knew. Overall, the
test was fascinating because it assisted me in analysing my own happiness and it even helped
me recognize my own true self.

Conclusion
The experiment was conducted on a subject with initials SKS and he had a raw score of 131
and a happiness score of 4.51. This states that he is rather happy with his life.

References
Reporter, G. S. (2015, March 2). Take the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire. The
Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/03/take-the-oxford-
happiness- questionnaire
Meaning and Happiness.com » Blog Archive » Oxford Happiness Questionnaire. (n.d.).
Meaningandhappiness.Com. http://www.new.meaningandhappiness.com/oxford-happiness-
questionnaire/214/
Show, O. (2021, February 10). The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire. The Dr. Oz
Show. https://www.drozshow.com/article/oxford-happiness-questionnaire
Medvedev, O. N. (2016, August 1). The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire:
Transformation from an Ordinal to an Interval Measure Using Rasch Analysis.
SpringerLink. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-016-9784- 3?
error=cookies_not_supported&code=02563458-4e32-4268-aaa3-c7afaed2f63a
 Concept Formation

Sahil Kumar Sahu

School of Social Sciences/Department of Psychology

CHRIST (Deemed to be University)

PSY 451: Psychological Experiments and Statistics

Ms Ayatakshee Sarkar

April 25, 2022

 Introduction

The process of sorting out provided samples into meaningful classes is known as concept
creation. The foundation of the inductive reasoning model is concept formation. Students
in the inductive reasoning model link examples together based on some criterion and
establish as many groups as they can, each group illustrating a different notion.
Four components are included in the concept formation process: Abstraction, generalization,
and analysis are all steps in the exploration process. The process of direct engagement in an
action is known as experience. After encountering a variety of scenarios, abstraction is the
process of uncovering the common elements. Two or more objects are observed to be alike or
similar in some ways yet different in others.
The process of generalization is a concept to include objects that share a quality with other
objects but have not been experienced as any of the objects in the abstracting process is
known as generalization. An idea is evidently taught by trial and error responses to objects,
situations, or occurrences. The quantity and variety of trial and error reactions of experiences
involved in the creation of a concept determines its refinement and elaboration. Analysis is a
systematic approach for examining academic content using procedures that are similar in
intent to those used in task analysis when creating job sequences.
The topic of concept formation in experimental psychology has yet to reach the
methodological and conceptual unity that characterises disciplines like sensation, perception,
learning, and motivation. In the past, psychologists did not consider conceptual behaviour to
be a distinct or fundamental psychological activity. Instead, the widely held belief has been
that conceptual activity is a result of the interaction of fundamental psychological processes.
As a result, rather than formulating hypotheses focused solely on the facts of concept
formation, psychologists have tended to extend theories from other fields (e.g., learning,
perception) to conceptual activity.
Prototypes, or extremely typical samples of a category, are frequently used to teach natural
concepts. The trial-and-error method of testing hypotheses is the other fundamental method
of concept learning. People will guess or think that a given thing is an example of a certain
concept, and then they will learn more about the concept once they see whether or not their
hypothesis is correct.

Method
Aim

To study the process of concept formation using a test based on Haufmann and
Kassanin test.

Plan

The experiment is conducted on the subject. The time taken and errors committed in the
process of forming concepts are noted. Verbal reports made by the subject are analyzed

Subject details

Name: J.A

Age: 19

Gender: Male

Education: BA in Communication, English and Psychology

Hypotheses

1. Time taken in sorting the blocks progressively decreases as the combined concept of
size and height is formed.

2. Number of errors committed in sorting the blocks progressively decrease as

the combined concept of size and height is formed.

Variables

Independent
 1. Size of blocks

2. Height of blocks.

Dependent

1. Time taken in sorting the blocks.

2. Errors committed in sorting the blocks

Extraneous Variables:

1. Colour of Blocks

2. Shape of Blocks.

Materials

1. The concept formation test kit (based on Hanfmann & Kasanin test).The test consists
of 22 blocks differing in color, height, size & shape. Each block has a number below it
which tells us which set it belongs to.

[ NOTE: The 22 blocks can be divided in to 4 sets. Sets 1 & 2 consisting of 5 blocks each
& sets 3 & 4 of 6 blocks each ]

2. Data sheet.

3. Stop Clock.

4. Writing materials
Experimental Controls

1. The blocks are shuffled thoroughly before starting the test.

2. The blocks are so kept that the subject is not able to see the number written below it.

3. The order of presentation is changed for each trial systematically.

4. There should be no disturbance when the subject takes the test.

Procedure

The subject is seated comfortably. The experimenter takes out all the twenty two blocks
from the box and keeps them on the table in a random order in front of the subject.

The experimenter should take care to see that the numbers printed below each clock is
not visible to the subject. He should have a stopwatch and a pencil to note time and errors on
the data sheet. Instructions are given to the subject to select the blocks which form a set with the
sample block shown by the experimenter.

The subject selects a block and the experimenter sees the number written below. If it is
the right block, he allows the subject to select the next block, but if it is a wrong block, the
experimenter indicates the error & allows the subject to go on with the experiment. If the subject
selects the wrong block, it is an error and the experimenter notes it down. The subject is thus
prompted whenever he/she makes a mistake. This procedure is followed in an effort to get the
subject to learn the proper grouping of each block. The time taken to complete the set & the
errors committed are noted down.

When the subject succeeds in selecting all the blocks of a group (for eg., all blocks of set
1 group), the experimenter mixes these blocks with the remaining blocks & shows a sample
block of another group say set 3 and asks the subject to find those which fall in this group, using
the same procedure as the last set. The same procedure is followed by the experimenter for the
remaining two groups ie; set 2 and set 4.
Successful sorting of all the four groups constitutes one trial. In the second trial, the order of
presentation of the set is changed. The following counter balancing order is adopted

Trials

1. Set 1,3,2,4

2. Set 3,2,4,1

3. Set 2,4,1,3

4. Set 4,1,3,2

5. Set 1,4,3,2

Note: If the subject is able to sort the blocks correctly without error in two consecutive
trials, the experiment is stopped for that particular set. A maximum of five trials are given
for each set.

The subject’s introspective report is taken and his verbal reports may be noted.
His/her introspective report should contain information regarding the basis he/she used to
classify the blocks.

Instructions

“This is a block. You have to select from among all the blocks the ones which go
with the sample block shown to you. They are categorized on the basis of some criteria”

Analysis of Results

1. Note down the time taken & errors committed in each set for trial.
 2. Analyze the introspective report to find out the strategies & process used in
concept formation.

Data Sheet

Trial No. Group Time in Seconds Errors Subject’s Verbal

1 1 34 sec
3 39 sec
2 26 sec
4 10 sec
Report
0 Size
0 Height
0 Size
0 Size

2 3 27 sec 0 Height
2 22 sec 0 Size
4 19 sec 0 Size
1 10 sec 0 Height

3 2
4
1
3

4 4
1
3
2

5 1
4
3
2
Discussion
The Hanfmann and Kassanin concept formation test was created to assess people' abstract
conceptualization abilities.
We can deduce from the given table that the individual made zero errors in all the four groups
of trail 1 and that they were sorted according to size and height. Group 1 took 34 seconds,
group 3 took 39 seconds, group 2 took 26 seconds and group 4 took 10 seconds.
In trial 2, the subjects did not make any errors. Group 3 took 27 seconds, group 2 took 22
seconds, group 4 took 19 seconds, and group 1 took 10 seconds. They were divided into
groups based on their height and size.
After the second trial the experiment was stopped because the subject had completed the both
the trials completely without a single error. From this we can interpret that the subject was
quite bright with his concept formation and he was very sharp in forming the particular
concepts.

Conclusion
The subject was very bright with his concept formation and he completed the experimented
without making a single error in the first two trials itself.

Introspective Report
The subject found the test to be very interesting and fascinating. He was first confused with
the shapes a bit but then he eventually figured out the way of sorting out the different groups
and was quick in the particular process. He was happy and proud that he was very fast in
completing the test without making a single error.

References
Concept Formation. (2016, April 3). B.Ed Psychology.
https://bedpsychology.wordpress.com/cognitive-development/concept- formation/#:
%7E:text=Psychologists%20use%20the%20term%20concept,a%20common%20 set%20of
%20features.
concept formation. (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/concept-formation
D, S. (2017, March 11). Formation of Concepts: 4 Main Steps | Concepts | Thinking |
Psychology. Psychology Discussion - Discuss Anything About Psychology.
https://www.psychologydiscussion.net/thinking/formation-of-concepts-4-main-steps-
concepts-thinking-psychology/3131
T. (2021, December 29). What Is Concept Formation? – Amazing Steps and Definition 2021.
Lisbdnet.Com. https://lisbdnet.com/what-is-concept-formation-steps-and-definition/