Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-01T08:25:50.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 22 - Modeling Individual Differences in Beliefs and Opinions Using Thurstonian Models

from Individual Differences in Beliefs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2022

By
Michael D. Lee  and
Michelle Y. Ke
Edited by
Julien Musolino ,
Joseph Sommer  and
Pernille Hemmer
Julien Musolino
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, New Jersey
Joseph Sommer
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, New Jersey
Pernille Hemmer
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, New Jersey
Get access

Summary

One common and informative way that people express their beliefs, preferences, and opinions is by providing rankings. We use Thurstonian cognitive models to explore individual differences in naturally occurring ranking data for a variety of political, lifestyle, and sporting topics. After demonstrating that the standard Thurstonian model does not capture individual differences, we develop two extended models. The first allows for subgroups of people with different beliefs and opinions about all of the stimuli. The second allows for just a subset of polarized stimuli for which some people have different beliefs or opinions. We apply these two models, using Bayesian methods of inference, and demonstrate how they provide intuitive and useful accounts of the individual differences. We discuss the benefits of incorporating theory about individual differences into the processing assumptions of cognitive models, rather than through the statistical extensions that are currently often used in cognitive modeling.

Keywords

Thurstonian modelranking dataindividual differencesnaturally-occurring databeliefs and opinions
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cognitive Science of Belief
A Multidisciplinary Approach
 , pp. 488 - 512
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

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.)

References

Adomavicius, G., Bockstedt, J., & Curley, S. P. (2015) Bundling effects on variety seeking for digital information goods. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31 (4), 182–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlema, A., Lee, M. D., Wetzels, R., & Vanpaemel, W. (2014) A Bayesian hierarchical mixture approach to individual differences: case studies in selective attention and representation in category learning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 59, 132–150.Google Scholar
Batchelder, W. H. & Anders, R. (2012) Cultural consensus theory: comparing different concepts of cultural truth. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56(5), 316–332.Google Scholar
Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. J., Meade, A. W., & Wiebe, E. N. (2011) The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 800–813.Google Scholar
Böckenholt, U. (1992) Thurstonian representation for partial ranking data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45(1), 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böckenholt, U. (1993) Applications of Thurstonian models to ranking data. In Probability Models and Statistical Analyses for Ranking Data (pp. 157–172). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böckenholt, U. (2006) Thurstonian-based analyses: past, present, and future utilities. Psychometrika, 71(4), 615–629.Google Scholar
Brady, H. E. (1990) Dimensional analysis of ranking data. American Journal of Political Science, 34(4), 1017–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, S. P. & Gelman, A. (1997) General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 7(4), 434–455.Google Scholar
Carey, S. (2004) Bootstrapping & the origin of concepts. Daedalus, 133(1), 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coaley, K. (2014) An introduction to psychological assessment and psychometrics. Sage.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1957) The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12(11), 671–684.Google Scholar
Duncan, O. D. (1984) Notes on social measurement: historical and critical. Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Farrell, S. & Lewandowsky, S. (2018) Computational modeling of cognition and behavior. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florig, H. K., Morgan, M., Morgan, K. M., et al. (2001) A deliberative method for ranking risks (i): overview and test bed development. Risk Analysis, 21(5), 913–913.Google Scholar
Geiger, D., Seedorf, S., Schulze, T., Nickerson, R. C., & Schader, M. (2011) Managing the crowd: towards a taxonomy of crowdsourcing Processes. In AMCIS Proceedings, 430.Google Scholar
Giles, O., Richards, R., & Markkula, G. (2018) Bayesian analysis of subjective ranking data using Thurstonian models: tutorial, novel methods, and an open-source library. PsyArXiv, https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/t7szv.Google Scholar
Healey, M. K. & Kahana, M. J. (2014) Is memory search governed by universal principles or idiosyncratic strategies? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 575–596.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemmer, P., Steyvers, M., & Miller, B. (2010) The wisdom of crowds with informative priors. In Ohlsson, S., & Catrambone, R. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1130–1135). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Hult, G. T. M., Neese, W. T., & Bashaw, R. E. (1997) Faculty perceptions of marketing journals. Journal of Marketing Education, 19(1), 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, T. R. & Kuhn, K. M. (2013) Bayesian Thurstonian models for ranking data using JAGS. Behavior Research Methods, 45(3), 857–872.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kass, R. E. & Raftery, A. E. (1995) Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 377–395.Google Scholar
Katsikatsou, M. & Yang-Wallentin, F. (2011) On the dentification of the unrestricted Thurstonian model for ranking data. In Working Paper, Department of Statistics (p. 32). Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Kemp, C. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2008) The discovery of structural form. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(31), 10687–10692.Google Scholar
Krabbe, P. F. (2008) Thurstone scaling as a measurement method to quantify subjective health outcomes. Medical Are, 46(4), 357–365.Google ScholarPubMed
Lee, M. D. (2011) How cognitive modeling can benefit from hierarchical Bayesian models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 55(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
Lee, M. D. (2006) A hierarchical Bayesian model of human decision making on an optimal stopping problem. Cognitive Science, 30(3), 555–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, M. D., Bock, J. R., Cushman, I., & Shankle, W. R. (2020) An application of multinomial processing tree models and Bayesian methods to understanding memory impairment. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 95, 102328.Google Scholar
Lee, M. D., Liu, E. C., & Steyvers, M. (2015) The roles of knowledge and memory in generating top-10 lists. In Noelle, D. C., & Dale, R. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1267–1272). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Lee, M. D., Steyvers, M., de Young, M., & Miller, B. J. (2012) Inferring expertise in knowledge and prediction ranking tasks. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(1), 151–163.Google Scholar
Lee, M. D., Steyvers, M., & Miller, B. J. (2014) A cognitive model for aggregating people’s rankings. PLoS ONE, 9(5), 1–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Lee, M. D. & Vanpaemel, W. (2008). Exemplars, prototypes, similarities and rules in category representation: an example of hierarchical Bayesian analysis. Cognitive Science, 32(8), 1403–1424.Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, S., Fischoff, B., & Phillips, L. D. (1982) Calibration of probabilities: the state of the art to 1980. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (pp. 306–334). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maydeu-Olivares, A. (1999) Thurstonian modeling of ranking data via mean and covariance structure analysis. Psychometrika, 64(3), 325–340.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.Google Scholar
Milosavljevic, M., Navalpakkam, V., Koch, C., & Rangel, A. (2012) Relative visual saliency differences induce sizable bias in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, K. M., DeKay, M. L., Fischbeck, P. S., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., & Florig, H. K. (2001) A deliberative method for ranking risks (ii): evaluation of validity and agreement among risk managers. Risk Analysis, 21(5), 923–923.Google Scholar
Oakes, M. E. & Slotterback, C. S. (2002) The good, the bad, and the ugly: characteristics used by young, middle-aged, and older men and women, dieters and non-dieters to judge healthfulness of foods. Appetite, 38(2), 91–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orne, M. T. (1962) On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: with particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776–783.Google Scholar
Pearson, R. G. & Byars, G. E. (1956) The development and validation of a checklist for measuring subjective fatigue. Technical report, School of Aviation Medicine, Randolph AFB TX.Google Scholar
Pew, R. W. (1969) The speed-accuracy operating characteristic. Acta Psychologica, 30, 16–26.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (2003). Part I: cognitive development in children–Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 8–18.Google Scholar
Plummer, M. (2003) JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In K. Hornik, F. Leisch, & A. Zeileis (Eds.). Proceedings of the 3rdInternational Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing (DSC 2003).Google Scholar
Romney, A. K., Batchelder, W. H., & Weller, S. C. (1987) Recent applications of cultural consensus theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 31(2), 163–177.Google Scholar
Selker, R., Lee, M. D., & Iyer, R. (2017) Thurstonian cognitive models for aggregating top-n lists. Decision, 4(2), 87–101.Google Scholar
Shafir, E. (1993) Choosing versus rejecting: why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition, 21(4), 546–556.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, R. M., Lee, M. D., Kim, W.-J., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2008) A survey of model evaluation approaches with a tutorial on hierarchical Bayesian methods. Cognitive Science, 32(8), 1248–1284.Google Scholar
Siena College Research Institute (2018) US presidents study historical rankings. https://scri.siena.edu/us-presidents-study-historical-rankings/Google Scholar
Surowiecki, J. (2004) The wisdom of crowds. Random House.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. (2006) The rivalry: Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and the golden age of basketball. Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. (1927a) A law of comparative judgement. Psychological Review, 34(4), 273–286.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. (1927b) The method of paired comparisons for social values. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 21(4), 384–400.Google Scholar
Van Vaerenbergh, Y., & Thomas, T. D. (2013) Response styles in survey research: a literature review of antecedents, consequences, and remedies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(2), 195–217.Google Scholar
Villarreal, M., Velázquez, C., Baroja, J. L., Segura, A., Bouzas, A., & Lee, M. D. (2019) Bayesian methods applied to the generalized matching law. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 111(2), 252–273.Google Scholar
Weber, S. J. & Cook, T. D. (1972) Subject effects in laboratory research: an examination of subject roles, demand characteristics, and valid inference. Psychological Bulletin, 77(4), 273–295.Google Scholar
Wetzels, R., Grasman, R. P. P. P., & Wagenmakers, E. (2010) An encompassing prior generalization of the Savage-Dickey density ratio test. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 54(9), 2094–2102.Google Scholar
Wine, B., Gilroy, S., & Hantula, D. A. (2012) Temporal (in) stability of employee preferences for rewards. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 32(1), 58–64.Google Scholar
Yao, G. & Böckenholt, U. (1999) Bayesian estimation of Thurstonian ranking models based on the Gibbs sampler. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 52(1), 79–92.Google Scholar
Zhang, H. & Maloney, L. T. (2012) Ubiquitous log odds: a common representation of probability and frequency distortion in perception, action and cognition. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 6(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zizzo, D. J. (2010) Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 13(1), 75–98.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×