Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T12:04:19.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

J Scale Models for Preference Behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Marshall G. Greenberg
Marshall G. Greenberg*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three models for preference behavior are developed within the framework of Coombs' theory of data, an absolute difference model, a ratio model, and a two-stage model. Each of these models describes a mechanism by which unilateral preferences may be determined on a unidimensional J scale. Differential implications of the models for response latencies are derived, and some early data employing an application of the unfolding technique are presented in support of the two-stage model.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , September 1963 , pp. 265 - 271
Copyright
Copyright © 1963 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

*

Based upon portions of the author's doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1962. This research was supported in part by NSF Grant No. G5820 to Professor C. H. Coombs. The writer also wishes to thank Professor William Hays, who served as committee chairman and offered considerable support and assistance.

References

Bennett, J. F. and Hays, W. L. Multidimensional unfolding: determining the dimensionality of ranked preference data. Psychometrika, 1960, 25, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, C. H. The theory and methods of social measurement. In Festinger, L. and Katz, D. (Eds.), Research methods in the behavioral sciences. New York: Dryden, 1953, 471–535.Google Scholar
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. A theory of data. Psychol. Rev., 1960, 67, 143–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coombs, C. H., Greenberg, M. G., and Zinnes, J. A double law of comparative judgment for the analysis of preferential choice and similarities data. Psychometrika, 1961, 26, 165–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, C. H. and Kao, R. C. On a connection between factor analysis and multi-dimensional unfolding. Psychometrika, 1960, 25, 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.Google Scholar
Hays, W. L. and Bennett, J. F. Multidimensional unfolding: determining configuration from complete rank preference data. Psychometrika, 1961, 26, 221–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helson, H. Adaptation-level as a frame of reference for prediction of psychophysical data. Amer. J. Psychol., 1947, 60, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Helson, H. Adaptation-level as a basis for a qualitative theory of frames of reference. Psychol. Rev., 1948, 55, 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helson, H. Adaptation-level theory. In Koch, S. (Eds.), Psychology: a study of a science. Vol. 1. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959, 565–621.Google Scholar
Hovland, C. I. and Sherif, M. Judgmental phenomena and scales of attitude measurement: Item displacement in Thurstone scales. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1952, 47, 822–832.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelley, H. H., Hovland, C. I., Schwartz, M., and Abelson, R. P. The influence of judges' attitudes in three methods of attitude scaling. J. soc. Psychol., 1955, 42, 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segall, M. H. The effect of attitude and experience on judgments of controversial statements. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1959, 58, 61–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed