A Law of Comparative Preference: Distinctions Between Models of Personal Preference and Impersonal Judgment in Pair Comparison Designs.
Law of Comparative Judgment
pair comparisons
preference and choice
single-peaked response function
unfolding
Journal
Applied psychological measurement
ISSN: 1552-3497
Titre abrégé: Appl Psychol Meas
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7905715
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2019
May 2019
Historique:
entrez:
26
4
2019
pubmed:
26
4
2019
medline:
26
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The pair comparison design for distinguishing between stimuli located on the same natural or hypothesized linear continuum is used both when the response is a personal preference and when it is an impersonal judgment. Appropriate models which complement the different responses have been proposed. However, the models most appropriate for impersonal judgments have also been described as modeling choice, which may imply personal preference. This leads to potential confusion in interpretation of scale estimates of the stimuli, in particular whether they reflect a substantive order on the variable or reflect a characteristic of the sample which is different from the substantive order on the variable. Using Thurstone's concept of a discriminal response when a person engages with each stimulus, this article explains the overlapping and distinctive relationships between models for pair comparison designs when used for preference and judgment. In doing so, it exploits the properties of the relatively new hyperbolic cosine model which is not only appropriate for modeling personal preferences but has an explicit mathematical relationship with models for impersonal judgments. The hyperbolic cosine model is shown to be a special case of a more general form, referred to in parallel with Thurstone's Law of Comparative Judgment, as a specific
Identifiants
pubmed: 31019355
doi: 10.1177/0146621617738014
pii: 10.1177_0146621617738014
pmc: PMC6463346
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
181-194Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Références
J Math Psychol. 2001 Apr;45(2):224-248
pubmed: 11302711
J Appl Meas. 2016;17(3):262-282
pubmed: 28027051
Biometrics. 1976 Jun;32(2):213-39
pubmed: 953129
J Math Psychol. 1998 Dec;42(4):400-417
pubmed: 9917423