Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T11:52:02.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of Limit Theorems in Paired Comparison Model Building

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

W. A. Thompson Jr.  and
Jagbir Singh
W. A. Thompson Jr.
Affiliation:
The Florida State University
Jagbir Singh
Affiliation:
The Florida State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Thurstone and the Bradley-Terry models, both initially advanced on intuitive grounds, have proved useful in the analysis of paired comparisons. The psychological meaning of these models and their relation to one another is unclear, but they fit data. Stevens has observed that there may be two basic mechanisms of discrimination 1) additive and 2) substitutive. We advance two corresponding mathematical models: that experienced sensation is 1) the sum of a large number of independent signals and 2) the maximum of a large number of independent signals. These assumptions yield 1) Thurstone's model and 2) the model of Bradley-Terry. Psychological interpretations of the various parameters, in terms of sensation, present themselves in a natural manner. Thus this paper presents a theory which unifies and interprets two paired comparison models that have proved useful in fitting experimental data.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , September 1967 , pp. 255 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © 1967 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 in part by a National Science Foundation Grant GP 3807 and by the Army, Navy, and Air Force under ONR Contract # NONR-988(08), Task Order NR 042-004 with the Florida State University.

References

Audley, R. J. A stochastic model for individual choice behavior. Psychological Review, 1960, 67, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Block, H. D., and Marshak, J. Random orderings and stochastic theories of responses. Contributions to probability and statistics, easays in honor of Harold Hotelling. Edited by Olkin and others. Stanford University Press, 1960.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. A., and Terry, M. E. The rank analysis of incomplete block designs I. The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 1952, 39, 324–345.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. A. Some statistical methods in taste testing and quality evaluation. Biometrics, 1953, 9, 22–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. A. Another interpretation of a model for paired comparisons. Psychometrika, 1966, 30, 315–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunk, H. D. Mathematical models for ranking from paired comparisons. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1960, 55, 503–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramér, H. Mathematical methods of statistics. Princeton University Press, 1946.Google Scholar
David, H. A. The method of paired comparisons, New York: Hafner, 1963.Google Scholar
Drever, J. A dictionary of psychology, Baltimore, Md.: Penguin books, 1963.Google Scholar
Fechner, G. T. Elemente der Psychophysik, Leipzig: Breitkopf and Härtel, 1960.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A., and Tippett, L. H. C. Limiting forms of the frequency distribution of the largest or smallest member of a sample. Proceedings Cambridge Philosophical Society, 1928, 24, 180–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gnedenko, B. V. Sur la distribution limite du terme maximum d'une série aléatoire. Ann. Math., 1943, 44, 423–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumbel, E. G. Statistics of extremes, New York: Columbia University Press, 1958.Google Scholar
Luce, R. D. Individual choice behavior, New York: Wiley, 1959.Google Scholar
Mises, R. von La distribution de la plus grande de n valeurs. Revue mathématique de l'union Interbalkanique t. I, f. 1, 1939, 141–160.Google Scholar
Pfanzagl, J.Über die stochastische fundierung des psychophysischen gesetzes. Biometrische Zeitschrift, 1962, 4, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, S. S. On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review, 1957, 64, 153–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevens, S. S. A metric for the social consensus. Science, 1966, 151, 530–541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thurstone, L. L. Psychophysical analysis. American Journal of Psychology, 1927, 38, 368–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar