Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-tvc9f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T05:48:38.995Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simple Additivity of Stochastic Psychological Processes: Tests and Measures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

J. D. Balakrishnan
J. D. Balakrishnan*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to J. D. Balakrishnan, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, some additive models of behavioral measures are defined, and distributional tests of them are proposed. Major theoretical results include (a) conditions for additivity of components to predict the highest level of dominance in a model-free stochastic dominance hierarchy, (b) methods of identifying the shape of the hazard rate function of an added component from certain relationships among the observable density and distribution functions, and (c) effects of stochastic dependence between components on the distributional tests. Feasibility and usefulness of the methods are demonstrated by application to choice RT and ratings experiments.

Keywords

context independenceDonderian additive modelsFourier deconvolutionhazard rate functionpure insertionresponse time modelsserial discrete stage modelsstochastic dominancesurvivor function
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 217 - 240
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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

The author was supported by grants MH44640 to Roger Ratcliff and AFOSR 90-0246 (jointly funded by NSF) to Gail McCoon. Parts of this work were presented at the European Mathematical Psychology meetings of 1991. My thanks to F. Gregory Ashby, Bruce Bloxom, Roger Ratcliff, W. Schwarz, Jim Townsend, and an anonymous reviewer for their many helpful suggestions.

References

Ashby, F. G. (1982). Testing the assumptions of exponential, additive reaction time models. Memory & Cognition, 10, 125–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashby, F. G., Tein, J. Y., Balakrishnan, J. D. (1993). Response time distributions in memory scanning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 37, 526–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashby, F. G., Townsend, J. T. (1980). Decomposing the reaction time distribution: Pure insertion and selective influence revisited. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 37, 1574–1592.Google Scholar
Ashby, F. G., Townsend, J. T. (1986). Varieties of perceptual independence. Psychological Review, 93, 154–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balakrishnan, J. D., Ashby, F. G. (1992). Subitizing: Magical numbers or mere superstition?. Psychological Research, 54, 80–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barlow, R. E., Proschan, F. (1975). Statistical theory of reliability and life testing: Probability models, New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Bloxom, B. (1984). Estimating response time hazard functions: An exposition and extension. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 28, 401–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloxom, B. (1985). A constrained spline estimator of a hazard function. Psychometrika, 50, 301–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burbeck, S. L., Luce, R. D. (1982). Evidence from auditory simple reaction times for both change and level detectors. Perception & Psychophysics, 32, 117–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colonius, H. (1990). Possibly dependent summation of reaction time. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 34, 253–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzhafarov, E. N. (1992). The structure of simple reaction time to step-function signals. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 36, 235–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, R. E. (1980). Bathtub and related failure rate characterizations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75, 667–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. M., Luce, R. D. (1971). Detection of auditory signals presented at random times: III. Perception & Psychophysics, 9, 257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gronlund, S. D., Ratcliff, R. (1991). Analysis of the Hockley and Murdock decision model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 35, 319–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaernbach, C. (1991). Poisson signal-detection theory: Link between threshold models and the Gaussian assumption. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 498–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kohfeld, D. L., Santee, J. L., Wallace, N. D. (1981). Loudness and reaction time: II. Identification of detection components at different intensities and frequencies. Perception & Psychophysics, 29, 550–562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laming, D. (1973). Mathematical Psychology, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Luce, R. D. (1986). Response Times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lukacs, E. (1960). Characteristic Functions, New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
Miller, J. (1982). Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 247–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratcliff, R. (1988). A note on mimicking additive reaction time models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 32, 192–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, W. (1988). Die methode der reinen einfügung: Ein überblick und einige neue resultate (The method of pure insertion: An overview and some new results). Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 196, 247–263.Google Scholar
Silverman, B. W. (1986). Density estimation for statistics and data analysis, London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Smith, P. L. (1990). Obtaining meaningful results from Fourier deconvolution of reaction time data. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 533–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, E. A. C. (1971). Sufficient conditions for monotone hazard rate and application to latency-probability curves. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 8, 303–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, E. A. C. (1974). The selectivity of preparation. Psychological Review, 81, 442–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, J. T. (1990). Truth and consequences of ordinal differences in statistical distributions: Toward a theory of hierarchical inference. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 551–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, J. T., Ashby, F. G. (1978). Methods of modeling capacity in simple processing systems. In Castellan, J., Restle, F. (Eds.), Cognitive theory (Vol. 3), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Townsend, J. T., Ashby, F. G. (1983). Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Townsend, J. T., Schweickert, R. (1989). Toward the trichotomy method of reaction times: Laying the foundation of stochastic mental networks. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 33, 309–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar