I may state here, briefly, the results of several sets of judgments on lines of the same length as the first but wider, and on other lines of the same width but shorter.  There were not enough judgments in either case to make an exact comparison of averages valuable, but in three successively shorter lines, only one subject out of eight varied in a constant direction, making his divisions, as the line grew shorter, absolutely nearer the ends.  He himself felt, in fact, that he kept about the same absolute position on the line, regardless of the successive shortenings, made by covering up the ends.  This I found to be practically true, and it accounts for the increasing variation toward the ends.  Further, with all the subjects but one, two out of three pairs of averages (one pair for each length of line) bore the same relative positions to the center as in the normal line.  That is, if the average was nearer the center on the left than on the right, then the same held true for the smaller lines.  Not only this.  With one exception, the positions of the averages of the various subjects, when considered relatively to one another, stood the same in the shorter lines, in two cases out of three.  In short, not only did the pair of averages of each subject on each of the shorter lines retain the same relative positions as in the normal line, but the zone of preference of any subject bore the same relation to that of any other.  Such approximations are near enough, perhaps, to warrant the statement that the absolute length of line makes no appreciable difference in the aesthetic judgment.  In the wider lines the agreement of the judgments with those of the normal line was, as might be expected, still closer.  In these tests only six subjects were used.  As in the former case, however, E was here the exception, his averages being appreciably nearer the center than in the original line.  But his judgments of this line, taken during the same period, were so much on the central tack that a comparison of them with those of the wider lines shows very close similarity.  The following table will show how E’s judgments varied constantly towards the center: 

AVERAGE. 
L. R.
1.  Twenty-one judgments (11 on L. and 10 on R.) during
experimentation on I¹, I squared, etc., but not on same days. 64 65

2.  Twenty at different times, but immediately before
judging on I¹, I squared, etc. 69 71

3.  Eighteen similar judgments, but immediately after
judging on I¹, I squared, etc. 72 71

4.  Twelve taken after all experimentation with I¹,
I squared, etc., had ceased. 71 69

The measurements are always from the ends of the line.  It looks as if the judgments in (3) were pushed further to the center by being immediately preceded by those on the shorter and the wider lines, but those in (1) and (2) differ markedly, and yet were under no such influences.