Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-hj587 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T06:46:03.063Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Choice Theory Analysis of Similarity Judgments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

R. Duncan Luce
R. Duncan Luce*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The selection of one of several stimuli as most similar to a reference stimulus is assumed to satisfy a choice axiom that permits assigning ratio scale values to each variable-reference stimuli pair. The logarithm of this scale is treated as a distance measure, leading to the following testable conclusions about the pairwise choice probabilities as the reference stimulus is varied. First, the plot is a symmetrically truncated ogive with horizontal tails. Second, if two pairs of choice stimuli have the same midpoint, the ogive of one pair is part of the ogive of the other. In terms of this model, the hysteresis and midpoint displacement effects in the method of bisection are discussed, and relations with Coombs' unfolding techniques are explored.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , June 1961 , pp. 151 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © 1961 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This work was supported in part by grant G-8864 from the National Science Foundation to the University of Pennsylvania. I wish to express my appreciation to Professors Robert R. Bush and Eugene Galanter, with whom I have had a number of very helpful discussions of these ideas.

References

Coombs, C. H. On the use of inconsistency of preferences in psychological measurement. J. exp. Psychol., 1958, 55, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coombs, C. H. Inconsistency of preference as a measure of psychological distance. In Churchman, C. W. and Ratoosh, P. (Eds.), Measurement: definitions and theories. New York: Wiley, 1959, 221–232..Google Scholar
Galanter, E. H. An axiomatic and experimental study of sensory order and measure. Psychol. Rev., 1956, 63, 16–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luce, R. D. On the possible psychophysical laws. Psychol. Rev., 1959, 66, 81–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luce, R. D. Individual choice behavior: a theoretical analysis, New York: Wiley, 1959.Google Scholar
Restle, F. A metric and an ordering on sets. Psychometrika, 1959, 24, 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenblith, W. A. and Stevens, K. N. On theDL for frequency. J. acoust. Soc. Amer., 1953, 25, 980–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, S. S. On the psychophysical law. Psychol. Rev., 1957, 64, 153–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevens, S. S. and Galanter, E. H. Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua. J. exp. Psychol., 1957, 54, 377–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torgerson, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling, New York: Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar