Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-2kk5n Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T07:20:48.506Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comments on the “Lens Model” Equation and Analysis of Multiple-Cue Judgment Tasks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

N. John Castellan Jr.
N. John Castellan Jr.*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
*
†Requests for reprints should be addressed to the author at the Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47401.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is the purpose of this paper to discuss the ‘Lens Mode’ approach to the analysis of subject performance in multiple-cue judgment tasks embedded in probabilistic environments. Various characteristics of the linear lens model are presented in matrix notation and are formulated without reference to standardized variables in order to facilitate analysis and subsequent generalization. Some new results on ‘matching’ behavior are presented. A brief outline of current problems and related work is presented.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , March 1973 , pp. 87 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © 1973 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 research was supported by National Institute of Health grant No. MH-16817.

References

Anderson, N. H. Comment on “An analysis-of-variance model for the assessment of configural cue utilization in clinical judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 72, 63–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, N. H. Functional measurement and psychophysical judgment. Psychological Review, 1970, 77, 153–170CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, T. W. An introduction to multivariate statistical analysis, 1958, New York: John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar
Anderson, T. W. Least squares and best unbiased estimates. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1962, 33, 266–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beach, L. R. Multiple regression as a model for human information utilization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1967, 2, 276–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Björkman, M. Stimulus-event learning and event learning as concurrent processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1967, 2, 219–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgartz, R. S., & Wackwitz, J. H. Polynomial response scaling and functional measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1971, 8, 418–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brehmer, B. Inference behavior in a situation where the cues are not reliably perceived. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1970, 5, 330–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brehmer, B., & Lindberg, L. The relations between cue dependency and cue validity in single-cue probability learning with scaled cue and criterion variables. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1970, 5, 542–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castellan, N. J. Jr.. The analysis of multiple criteria in multiple-cue judgment tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, 8, 242–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castellan, N. J. Jr.. Determination of joint distributions from marginal distributions in dichotomous systems. Psychometrika, 1970, 35, 439–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudycha, L. W., & Naylor, J. C. Characteristics of the human inference process in complex choice behavior situations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1966, 1, 110–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einhorn, H. J. Use of non-linear, noncompensatory models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 73, 221–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einhorn, H. J. Use of non-linear, non-compensatory models as a function of task and amount of information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1971, 6, 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, K. R., Hursch, C. J., & Todd, F. J. Analyzing the components of clinical inference. Psychological Review, 1964, 71, 438–456CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammond, K. R., & Summers, D. A. Cognitive dependence on linear and non-linear cues. Psychological Review, 1965, 72, 215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, P. J. The paramorphic representation of clinical judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 1960, 57, 116–131CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffman, P. J. Cue consistency and configurality in human judgment. In Kleinmuntz, B. (Eds.), Formal representation of human judgment, 1968, New York: John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, P. J., Slovic, P., & Rorer, L. G. An analysis-of-variance model for the assessment of configural cue utilization in clinical judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 69, 338–349CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hursch, C. J., Hammond, K. R., & Hursch, J. L. Some methodological considerations in multiple cue probability studies. Psychological Review, 1964, 71, 42–60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendall, D. G., & Stuart, A. Advanced theory of statistics, Vol. 2, 2nd edition, London: C. Griffin and Co., 1967Google Scholar
Naylor, J. C., & Carroll, R. M. A test of the progression-regression hypotheses in a cognitive inference task. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1969, 4, 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naylor, J. C., & Clark, R. D. Intuitive inference strategies in interval learning tasks as a function of validity magnitude and sign. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1968, 3, 378–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naylor, J. C., & Schenck, E. A. The influence of cue redundancy upon the human inference process for tasks of varying degrees of predictability. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1968, 3, 47–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, C. R. Linear statistical inference and its applications, 1965, New York: John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar
Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1971, 6, 649–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, F. J., & Hammond, K. R. Differential feedback in two multiple-cue learning tasks. Behavioral Science, 1965, 10, 429–435CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tucker, L. R. A suggested alternative formulation in the developments by Hursch, Hammond, and Hursch, and by Hammond, Hursch, and Todd. Psychological Review, 1964, 71, 528–530CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yntema, D. B., & Torgerson, W. J. Man-computer cooperation in decisions requiring common sense. IRE Transactions of the Professional Group on Human Factors in Electronics, 1961, 2, 20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar