Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The connection between magnitude and discrimination scales and direct and indirect scaling methods

  • Published:
Psychometrika Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

(1) An analysis of the method of paired comparisons shows that Case V and Case VI, the latter characterized by log-normal distributions and Weber's law for subjective continua, are fundamentally indistinguishable. Case VI produces a log-arithmetic interval scale of subjective magnitude. (2) It is demonstrated that the difference between discrimination scales according to Case V and from category rating is due to the difference between intra- and interindividual variability yielding different Weber functions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adams, E. and Messick, S. An axiomatic formulation and generalization of successive intervals scaling.Psychometrika, 1958,23, 355–368.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aitchison, J. and Brown, J.The lognormal distribution. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Björkman, M. Variability data and direct quantitative judgment for scaling subjective magnitude. Rep. Psychol. Lab., Univ. Stockholm, 1960, No. 78.

  4. Bradley, R. A. Some statistical methods in taste testing and quality evaluation.Biometrics, 1953,9, 22–38.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bradley, R. A. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs. III. Some large-sample results on estimation and power for a method of paired comparisons.Biometrika, 1955,42, 450–470.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cramér, H.Mathematical methods of statistics. Uppsala: Gebers, 1945.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Eisler, H. Empirical test of a model relating magnitude and category scales.Scand. J. Psychol., 1962,3, 88–96.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Eisler, H. On the problem of category scales in psychophysics.Scand. J. Psychol., 1962,3, 81–87.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Eisler, H. How prothetic is the continuum of smell?Scand. J. Psychol., 1963,4, 29–32.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Eisler, H. Magnitude scales, category scales, and Fechnerian integration.Psychol. Rev., 1963,70, 243–253.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Eisler, H. A general differential equation in psychophysics: Derivation and empirical test.Scand. J. Psychol., 1963,4, 265–272.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Eisler, H. and Ottander, C. On the problem of hysteresis in psychophysics.J. exp. Psychol., 1963,65, 530–536.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ekman, G. Discriminal sensitivity on the subjective continuum.Acta Psychol., 1956,12, 233–243.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ekman, G. Three methods of estimating discriminal dispersion. Rep. Psychol. Lab., Univ. Stockholm, 1957, No. 50.

  15. Ekman, G. Weber's law and related functions.J. Psychol., 1959,47, 343–352.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ekman, G. Some aspects of psychophysical research. In W. A. Rosenblith, (Ed.),Sensory communication. New York: Wiley, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ekman, G. Measurement of moral judgment: A comparison of scaling methods.Percept. mot. Skills, 1962,15, 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ekman, G. and Dahlbäck, B. A subjective scale of velocity. Rep. Psychol. Lab., Univ. Stockholm, 1956, No. 31.

  19. Ekman, G. and Künnapas, T. Subjective dispersion and the Weber function. Rep. Psychol. Lab., Univ. Stockholm, 1957, No. 41.

  20. Ekman, G. and Künnapas, T. Measurement of aesthetic value by “direct” and “indirect” methods.Scand. J. Psychol., 1962,3, 33–39.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ekman, G. and Künnapas, T. Scales of aesthetic value.Percept. mot. Skills, 1962,14, 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ekman, G. and Künnapas, T. Scales of conservatism.Percept. mot. Skills, 1963,16, 329–334.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ekman, G. and Künnapas, T. A further study of direct and indirect scaling methods.Scand. J. Psychol., 1963,4, 77–80.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Engen, T. and Lindström, C. O. Psychophysical scales of the odor intensity of amyl acetate.Scand. J. Psychol., 1963,4, 23–28.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Finnie, B. and Luce, R. D. Magnitude-estimation, pair-comparison and successive intervals scales of attitude items. Mem. MP-9, U. Pennsylvania. Not dated.

  26. Galanter, E. and Messick, S. The relation between category and magnitude scales of loudness.Psychol. Rev., 1961,68, 363–372.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Garner, W. R. An equal discriminability scale for loudness judgments.J. exp. Psychol., 1952,43, 232–238.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Garner, W. R. and Hake, H. W. The amount of information in absolute judgments.Psychol. Rev., 1951,58, 446–459.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Goude, G.On fundamental measurement in psychology. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gridgeman, N. T. The Bradley-Terry probability model and preference tasting.Biometrics, 1955,11, 335–343.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gulliksen, H. Introduction and historical background. In H. Gulliksen and S. Messick, (Eds.),Psychological scaling: Theory and applications. New York: Wiley, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hald, A.Statistical theory with engineering applications. New York: Wiley, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Helm, C. E., Messick, S., and Tucker, L. R. Psychological models for relating discrimination and magnitude estimation scales.Psychol. Rev., 1961,68, 167–177.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kendall, M. G.The advanced theory of statistics. Vol. I. London: Griffin, 1945.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Luce, R. D.Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley, 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Mosteller, F. The mystery of the missing corpus.Psychometrika, 1958,23, 279–289.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sjöberg, L. An empirical application of a new case of the law of comparative judgment.Scand. J. Psychol., 1963,4, 97–107.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Stevens, S. S. On the psychophysical law.Psychol. Rev., 1957,64, 153–181.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Stevens, S. S. Measurement, psychophysics, and utility. In C. W. Churchman, and P. Ratoosh (Eds.),Measurement: Definitions and theories. New York: Wiley, 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Stevens, S. S. Sic transit gloria varietatis?Contemp. Psychol., 1959,4, 388–389.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Stevens, S. S. Ratio scales, partition scales, and confusion scales. In H. Gulliksen and S. Messick (Eds.),Psychological scaling: Theory and applications. New York: Wiley, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Stevens, S. S. The surprising simplicity of sensory metrics.Amer. Psychologist, 1962,17, 29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Stevens, S. S. and Guirao, M. Loudness, reciprocality, and partition scales.J. acoust. Soc. Amer., 1962,34, 1466–1471.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Suppes, P. and Zinnes, J. L. Basic measurement theory. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, and E. Galanter (Eds.),Handbook of mathematical psychology. Vol. I. New York: Wiley, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Thurstone, L. L. A law of comparative judgment.Psychol. Rev., 1927,34, 273–286.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Torgerson, W. S.Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Torgerson, W. S. Distances and ratios in psychophysical scaling.Acta Psychol., 1961,19, 201–205.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Stockholm, Sweden

    Hannes Eisler

Authors
  1. Hannes Eisler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This research was supported by the Humanistic Faculty of the University of Stockholm and by the Swedish Social Science Research Council. I am indebted to Mr. U. Forsberg for computational assistance.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eisler, H. The connection between magnitude and discrimination scales and direct and indirect scaling methods. Psychometrika 30, 271–289 (1965). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289491

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289491

Keywords

Search

Navigation