Journal ol Experimental Psychology

1965, Vol. 70, No. 1, 18-26

ROUGHNESS, SMOOTHNESS, AND PREFERENCE: A STUDY

OF QUANTITATIVE RELATIONS IN
INDIVIDUAL SUBJECTS >
GOSTA EKMAN, JAN HOSMAN, AND BRITA LINDSTROM
University of Stockholm

A set of 7 surfaces were used as stimuli in a scaling experiment. For 10

Ss individual scales were obtained, by a method of ratio estimation, for
(a) roughness, (b) smoothness, and (c) preference. The main results
were: (a) For all Ss roughness was approximately a power function of
the physical stimulus variable denned as the coefficient of friction.
The exponent of the function varied greatly between Ss but exceeded 1
in almost all cases, (b) For nearly all Ss smoothness was approximately
the inverse of roughness, (c) For nearly all Ss preference was directly
proportional to smoothness.

It has been pointed out (e.g., smoothness in relation to each other

Ekman, 1961b) that psychological
mechanisms may sometimes turn out
to be rather simple when studied at
the proper level. The psychological
variable of similarity has, thus, been
demonstrated to be a simple function
of measurable psychological aspects
of the percepts entering into the
comparison (Eisler, 1960; Eisler &
Ekman, 1959; Ekman, Engen, Kiin-
napas, & Lindman, 1964; Ekman,
Goude, & Waern, 1961).
The present paper reports a study
in a new series of investigations of
psychological mechanisms, in which
a preference variable is studied as a
function of other psychological vari-
ables. This type of problem has been
rather neglected; one of the few in-
stances of a similar approach was a
color preference study by Guilford
(1939). The particular purposes of
the present investigation were: (a) to
investigate preference as a function of
the subjective variables roughness and
smoothness, (b) to investigate the
subjective variables roughness and
1
This investigation was supported by the
Swedish Council for Social Science Research.
The work was performed while Jan Hosman,
from the University of Leyden, held a scholar-
ship at the University of Stockholm.
18
and to the corresponding stimulus
variable, and (c) to study all these re-
lations on the level of the individual 5.
METHOD
Subjects.Ten 5s took part in the experi-
ment, eight females and two males. All 5s
were students of psychology with some pre-
vious experience of ratio estimation.
Stimulus materials.Seven stimulus sur-
faces were used. Five stimuli (No. 1-5) were
pieces of sandpaper, one (No. 6) was a piece
of cardboard, and one (No. 7) a piece of
ordinary writing paper. Several identical
stimulus sets were prepared and used suc-
cessively in order to avoid any noticeable
change in surface due to use.
Static coefficients of friction were experi-
mentally determined in relation to a sample
of finger tips under conditions similar to those
of the main experiment. From the number of
grits used in the production of the sandpapers
an alternative stimulus measure, I/(No.
of grits), was obtained which can be regarded
as proportional to the diameter of the grains.
The latter type of stimulus characteristic
was used by Stevens and Harris (1962) in
their scaling of roughness and smoothness.
The data of the present experiments (as well
as additional experiments covering a wider
stimulus range) indicate, however, that the
two sets of stimulus measures are not propor-
tional to each other. Under these circum-
stances the coefficient of friction was chosen
as stimulus measure.
However, the physical attributes determin-
ing the degree of perceived roughness are prob-
 SCALING ROUGHNESS, SMOOTHNESS, AND PREFERENCE
ably not described exhaustively by the coef-
ficient of friction. Since the sandpapers are
most similar to each other in other physical
respects, the relations between the stimulus
variable and the subjective variables may be
most adequately studied for Stimuli No. 1-5.
Experimental procedure.The stimuli were
presented in pairs of surfaces, each about
3 X 1 0 cm., covered by a screen in such a way
that S, without seeing the surfaces, could
comfortably stroke them with his two index
fingers.
There were three experimental conditions:
(a) roughness estimation, (b) smoothness
estimation, and (c) preference estimation.
Each S participated in all conditions, one
condition in each of three sessions on different
days. Right-left position was rotated for
each S, and the order of conditions was ro-
tated between 5s. In each condition S
judged two random orders of 42 pairs, i.e.,
each of the 21 different stimulus combinations
was judged four times by each S.
In the roughness-estimation sessions 5s
were instructed as follows:
You will be presented with pairs of sand-
papers. Your task is to give a judgment
about the roughness of the sandpapers.
Take your time just to get a good idea how
rough one paper is compared with the other.
Give the judgment in free numbers. For
instance, if the paper on the right seems
to be three times as rough as the paper on
the left, say: the ratio is three to one. You
may also use numbers like 300 to 100, or 45,
to 15, or 1 to 0.33.
In the smoothness-estimation sessions the
same instruction was used with the words
"smoothness" and "smooth" substituted for
"roughness" and "rough."
In the preference-estimation sessions 5s
were instructed in the same way to give "a
judgment about the character of the surface
in terms of pleasantness or preference."
The "free" form of the ratio-estimation
method used in these experiments is similar
to the form suggested by Mashhour (1964).
RESULTS
Experimental data.The pairs of
numbers reported by S were trans-
formed to ratios. Arithmetic means
were computed for the four ratios ob-
tained from each 5 for each stimulus
combination in each condition. In-
dividual scales were constructed from
19
the ratio matrices according to a
procedure described by one of the
present authors (Ekman, 1958, Equa-
tion 14).
The psychophysical function.The
subjective scales of roughness and
smoothness are plotted against the
stimulus variable, in log-log coor-
dinates, in Fig. 1, in which there is
one diagram for each 5. Straight
lines represent the general trend of all
data in first approximation. For
most 5s the fit would be considerably
better (and the slope of the lines a
little steeper) if only the sandpaper
stimuli were included. (A slightly
better fit may also be achieved by
introducing an additive constant [[Ek-
man, 1958, 1961a].) It can be
concluded that power functions de-
scribe the psychophysical relation in
reasonably good approximation, at
least for the sandpaper stimuli, for
all 5s. The actual fit is most ade-
quately judged in Fig. 2, where the
roughness functions are shown, for
all seven stimuli, in linear coordinates;
the goodness of fit of the smoothness
functions is much the same.
This result is of considerable inter-
est, for very little is known so far
about the psychophysical function
for individual 5s. Almost all previous
conclusions have been based on group
data. One investigation by Pradhan
and Hoffman (1963) was in part con-
cerned with this problem. According
to these authors, the power function
did not describe the majority of
individual data in experiments with
weight lifting, although it did repre-
sent the group data fairly well; hence,
it was concluded that the power
function might be an artifact of
grouping. On the other hand, recent
investigations have shown a very
satisfactory fit of power functions
to individual loudness data (Stevens
& Guirao, 1964) as well as to data
 Of

Oi

p
0.2

O.o 0.0 I 0.0

-0.2 -0-1 Oo O-i -02 -0.1 Oo -0.2 -0.1 0.0 -02 -0.1 0.0 O-i -02 -0.1 0.0 0.1

o
01
a
o
3 VI
en
VI O.e Vffl DC
O)
O
06 0.6

0.4 68
r
Oi 0.2

D
C/2
0.0
-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 -0.2 -01 OK 0.1 -0.2 -0.1 Oo 0.1 -02 -O.i Oo O.i -02 -0.1 00 0.1
I
Log stimulus variable
o - Smoothness - Roughness

FIG. 1. Subjective roughness (filled circles) and subjective smoothness (empty circles) plotted against the coefficient of friction,
in log-log coordinates. (Each graph represents an individual S.)
 C/)
n

o

o
X
0) 0.0 0.5 10 Oo 0.0 0.5 IJD O.o 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
2;
c

o
a:
VI
2!
M
C/3

2!
O
"0
5S
Oo 0.5 10 Oo Os 1o Oo 05 1.0 0.0 05 l.o 0.0 0.5 W

Stimulus variable W
2!
n
FIG. 2. Subjective roughness plotted against the coefficient of friction, in linear coordinates. M
(Each graph represents an individual S.)
 0.8 0.8 O.s IV
05 06 06
P
Ol 0.4 0.4

0.2 Oi 02
o
o
E Oo O.o O.o
in Oo 02 04 06 Oa 0-0 02 04 06 Os 00 0.2 Oi 0.6 09 00 02 0.6 08 0.0 0.2 0i 06 08

u
(V
in"
u
OB VI 0.8 vm 08 DC 0.8

in
06 06 0* z:
o>
o
0< Oi
a
CB

0.2 0.2 r
2
O.o Oo o
0.0 0.2 0-4 0.6 O.S 0.0 02 04 06 Oa Oo 02 0 0s 00 02 Oi 06 00 02 04 0.6 0-8

Log subjective roughness

FIG. 3. Subjective smoothness plotted against subjective roughness, in log-log coordinates.
(Each graph represents an individual S.)
 iy in

I
21
C 0 2 4 6 0 2 ( 6 0 2 1 6 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
Gl
C/)

VI VI DC 8
21

0 2 1 0 2 ( 6 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
w
jo
M
Subjective smoothness 21
n
FIG. 4. Preference plotted against subjective smoothness, in linear coordinates. (Each graph represents an individual S.)
24 G. EKMAN, J. HOSMAN, AND B. LINDSTROM
concerning saltness and sweetness (Ek-
man & Aakesson, 1964).
Whereas the individual power func-
tion may be considered as approxi-
mately verified in the present experi-
ment, it is seen from the graphs in
Fig. 1 that there is a considerable
variation with regard to the slope of
the straight lines fitted to the data.
In other words, the exponent of the
power function is a variable over
individuals. In the present sample
of 10 5s, the exponent of the functions
fitted to all seven stimuli varies
between .8 and 3.5 for roughness and
between .8 and 3.0 for smooth-
ness. Although part of this variation
may be due to unreliability of data,
it can be concluded from inspection
of the graphs in Fig. 1 and, particu-
larly, Fig. 2 that other sources of
variation are much more important.
Reciprocality of scales.It has been
shown in previous investigations by
Torgerson (1960, 1961), Eisler (1962),
Stevens and Harris (1962), and
Schneider and Lane (1963) that
magnitude scales tend to be inversely
related for continua defined by oppo-
site terms (e.g., loudness and soft-
ness). In some cases the inverse
relationship is not obtained in reason-
able approximation, unless a scale
0.6 K 0.6
01
01 c
f
I 0.4 O 0.4
O
in
io,
in
0.2
0)
01 o
o .
_j O.o O.o
-0.2 -0.1 O.o 0,1 0.0
Log stimulus variable
FIG. 5. Group data summarizing results. (Diagram A shows subjective roughness, filled
circles, and subjective smoothness, empty circles, plotted against the stimulus variable, in log-
log coordinates. Diagram B illustrates, in log-log coordinates, the reciprocality of roughnets
and smoothness. Diagram C shows preference as a function of smoothness, in linear coordinates.)
correction is performed (Eisler, 1962;
cf., Schneider & Lane, 1963).
Let roughness be denoted * and
smoothness y. If the relation is one
of simple reciprocality, then y = c/x,
or log y = log c log x. This hy-
pothesis has been tested by plotting
smoothness against roughness, in log-
log coordinates, in Fig. 3 where each 5
is represented by a separate graph.
It is seen that for most 5s the rela-
tion, log y = log c log x, describes
the data in fairly good approxima-
tion; the straight lines drawn in the
graphs all have a slope of 1. It may
thus be concluded that scales of
roughness and smoothness, when con-
structed by the method of free ratio
estimation used in this experiment,
tend to be inversely related for indi-
vidual 5s.
The preference function.One of
the main purposes of the present
investigation was to study preference
as a function of the subjective vari-
ables of roughness and smoothness.
In Fig. 4 the preference variable is
plotted against smoothness, in linear
coordinates. It is immediately seen
that the relation is one of direct
proportionality.
Letting p denote preference, the
relations between the three subjective
0.2 0.4 0.6 1 2 3
Log roughness Smoothness
 SCALING ROUGHNESS, SMOOTHNESS, AND PREFERENCE
variables can now be summarized
thus: p = by = a/x, where a and b
are constants related to the arbitrary
units of measurement.
Group data.Group scales have
been obtained by computing geo-
metric means of individual scale
values. The psychophysical function,
the reciprocality of smoothness and
roughness, and the preference func-
tion are illustrated by group data in
Fig. 5 A-C.
These graphs do not add anything
to the results we have already ob-
tained and illustrated. Insofar as
we are interested in the generality
over individualsof our results, the
group data convey less information.
They are presented here only as a
summary of results.
DISCUSSION
The conclusions of the present study
have all been based on individual data.
This was possible partly because of the
reasonably satisfactory regularity of
these data. It should be borne in mind
that each individual scale was con-
structed from a ratio matrix based on
4 X 21 or altogether 84 estimates, ob-
tained in the course of one session, lasting
about 1 hr. The complete method of
ratio estimationinvolving all different
combinations of stimuliappears ef-
ficient for the construction of reasonably
reliable individual scales.
The considerable interindividual varia-
tion with regard to the exponent of the
power function for roughness and smooth-
ness is reflected also in the scales of
preference. Basically it is a variation
with regard to the subjective range cor-
responding to the constant stimulus
range. A given set of stimuli elicits
subjective responses which cover a wide
range in some 5s (e.g., I, V, and VII)
and a narrow range in some other 5s
(e.g., Ill, VI, and VIII); these differ-
ences are conspicuous in Fig. 1-4. As
far as the interpretation of these findings
25
is concerned, there appear to exist two
main alternatives: (a) The differences
are "perceptually real," i.e., the differ-
ences reflect some kind of variation with
regard to sensitivity, (b) The differ-
ences reflect the different ways in which
5s handle the numbers, i.e., the differ-
ences represent systematic errors in the
scale construction, basically an inability
of some or all of the 5s to give ade-
quate quantitative reports.
It appears impossible to decide, on the
basis of present knowledge, between
these alternative interpretations of the
interindividual differences which have
been found. Similar alternative inter-
pretations have been suggested in an
interesting paper by Jones and Marcus
(1961), reporting a study of individual
power functions for three continua.
Positive correlations between exponents
were considered as supporting the view
that interindividual differences largely
reflect differences in handling numbers.
On the other hand, the present authors
and their co-workers, in unpublished
studies of a larger number of continua,
have found correlations which are low
or moderate as compared to remarkably
high reliability coefficients characteristic
of individual scales. A further clarifica-
tion of the issue is highly desirable.
Generally speaking, the problem of
individual number behavior is basic to
vast areas of current psychophysics
(cf., Ekman, 1964a, 1964b).
Finally, it is worthy of notice that
some of the generalities revealed by the
present study may be valid results
regardless of the answer to the questions
just discussed. The power function
might be the true individual psycho-
physical law, even if the exponents
should not be taken at their face values.
The reciprocality of smoothness and
roughness might be a genuine result,
which it was possible to demonstrate
because both scales were distorted in
the same way. For similar reasons, the
simple relation found between the prefer-
ence variable and the perceptual vari-
ables of smoothness and roughness might
probably be accepted as a valid result.
 G. EKMAN, j. HOSMAN, AND B.
REFERENCES
EISLER, H. Similarity in the continuum of
heaviness with some methodological and
theoretical considerations. Scand. J. Psy-
chol, 1960, 1, 69-81.
EISLER, H. Empirical test of a model relating
magnitude and category scales. Scand. J.
Psychol., 1962, 3, 88-96.
EISLER, H., & EKMAN, G. A mechanism of
subjective similarity. Ada psychol., Amster-
dam, 1959, 16, 1-10.
EKMAN, G. Two generalized ratio scaling
methods. J. Psychol., 1958, 45, 287-295.
EKMAN, G. A simple method for fitting psy-
chophysical power functions. /. Psychol.,
1961, 51, 343-350. (a)
EKMAN, G. Some aspects of psychophysical
research. In W. A. Rosenblith (Ed.),
Sensory communication. New York: Wiley,
1961. Pp. 35-47. (b)
EKMAN, G. Is the power law a special case of
Fechner's law? Percept, mot. Skills, 1964,
19, 730. (a)
EKMAN, G. A. A note on alternative psycho-
physical laws. Report No. 175, 1964,
University of Stockholm, Psychological
Laboratories, (b)
EKMAN, G., & AAKESSON, C. Saltness, sweet-
ness and preference; A study of quantitative
relations in individual subjects. Report
No. 177, 1964, University of Stockholm,
Psychological Laboratories.
EKMAN, G., ENGEN, T., K^NNAPAS, T.( &
LINDMAN, R. A quantitative principle of
qualitative similarity. /. exp. Psychol.,
1964, 68, 530-536.
EKMAN, G., GOUDE, G., & WAERN, Y.
Subjective similarity in two perceptual
continua. /. exp. Psychol., 1961, 61, 222-
227.
GUILFORD, J. P. A study in psychodynamics.
Psychometrika, 1939, 4, 1-23.
JONES, F. N., & MARCUS, M. J. The subject
effect in judgments of subjective magnitude.
/. exp. Psychol., 1961, 61, 40-44.
MASHHOUR, M. Psychophysical relations in
the perception of velocity. Stockholm:
Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964.
PRADHAN, P. L., & HOFFMAN, P. J. Effect
of spacing and range of stimuli on magni-
tude estimation judgments. /. exp. Psy-
chol., 1963, 66, 533-541.
SCHNEIDER, B., & LANE, H. Ratio scales,
category scales, and variability in the
production of loudness and softness. /.
Acoust. Soc. Amer., 1963, 35, 1953-1961.
STEVENS, J. C., & GUIRAO, M. Individual
loudness functions. /. Acoust. Soc. Amer.,
1964, 36, 2210-2213.
STEVENS, S. S., & HARRIS, J. R. The scaling
of subjective roughness and smoothness.
/. exp. Psychol., 1962, 64, 489-494.
TORGERSON, W. S. Quantitative judgment
scales. In H. Gulliksen & S. Messick
(Eds.), Psychological scaling: Theory and
applications. New York: Wiley, 1960.
Pp. 21-31.
TORGERSON, W. S. Distances and ratios in
psychophysical scaling. Acta psychol.,
Amsterdam, 1961, 19, 201-201.
(Early publication received October 13, 1964)