IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/psycho/v25y1960i4p343-356.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A rational origin obtained by the method of contingent paired comparisons

Author

Listed:
  • Emir Shuford
  • Lyle Jones
  • R. Bock

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Emir Shuford & Lyle Jones & R. Bock, 1960. "A rational origin obtained by the method of contingent paired comparisons," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 25(4), pages 343-356, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:psycho:v:25:y:1960:i:4:p:343-356
    DOI: 10.1007/BF02289752
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF02289752
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF02289752?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frederick Mosteller & Philip Nogee, 1951. "An Experimental Measurement of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(5), pages 371-371.
    2. L. Thurstone, 1945. "The prediction of choice," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 10(4), pages 237-253, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rung-Ching Tsai, 2003. "Remarks on the identifiability of thurstonian paired comparison models under multiple judgment," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 68(3), pages 361-372, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tian, Guoqiang, 1991. "Implementation of the Walrasian Correspondence without Continuous, Convex, and Ordered Preferences," MPRA Paper 41298, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Latifa Ghalayini & Dana Deeb, 2021. "Utility Measurement in Integrative Negotiation," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15.
    3. Elrod, Terry & Johnson, Richard D. & White, Joan, 2004. "A new integrated model of noncompensatory and compensatory decision strategies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 1-19, September.
    4. Krahnen, Jan Pieter & Rieck, Christian & Theissen, Erik, 1997. "Messung individueller Risikoeinstellungen," CFS Working Paper Series 1997/03, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).
    5. Melvin Novick, 1980. "Statistics as psychometrics," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 45(4), pages 411-424, December.
    6. Ryan O. Murphy & Robert H. W. ten Brincke, 2018. "Hierarchical Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimation for Cumulative Prospect Theory: Improving the Reliability of Individual Risk Parameter Estimates," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 308-328, January.
    7. Marie-Louise Leroux & Gregory Ponthiere, 2009. "Optimal tax policy and expected longevity: a mean and variance utility approach," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 16(4), pages 514-537, August.
    8. Ola Andersson & Håkan J. Holm & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2016. "Risk Aversion Relates to Cognitive Ability: Preferences Or Noise?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(5), pages 1129-1154.
    9. Vesna Prasnikar, 1993. "Binary Lottery Payoffs: Do They Control Risk Aversion?," Discussion Papers 1059, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    10. Dickhaut, John & Smith, Vernon & Xin, Baohua & Rustichini, Aldo, 2013. "Human economic choice as costly information processing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 206-221.
    11. Liu Shi & Jianying Qiu & Jiangyan Li & Frank Bohn, 2024. "Consciously stochastic in preference reversals," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 255-297, June.
    12. S. Cerreia-Vioglio & F. Maccheroni & M. Marinacci & A. Rustichini, 2017. "Multinomial logit processes and preference discovery: inside and outside the black box," Working Papers 615, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    13. Rosen Valchev & Cosmin Ilut, 2017. "Economic Agents as Imperfect Problem Solvers," 2017 Meeting Papers 1285, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    14. Knowles, Glenn J., 1980. "Estimating Utility Functions," Risk Analysis in Agriculture: Research and Educational Developments, January 16-18, 1980, Tucson, Arizona 271570, Regional Research Projects > W-149: An Economic Evaluation of Managing Market Risks in Agriculture.
    15. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier, 2021. "Cognitive sophistication and deliberation times," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 558-592, June.
    16. Anna Conte & Gianmarco Santis & John D. Hey & Ivan Soraperra, 2023. "The determinants of decision time in an ambiguous context," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 271-297, December.
    17. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
    18. Paul Koster & Erik T. Verhoef, 2012. "A Rank-dependent Scheduling Model," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 46(1), pages 123-138, January.
    19. Graham Loomes & Ganna Pogrebna, 2014. "Testing for independence while allowing for probabilistic choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 189-211, December.
    20. Harrison, Glenn W, 1994. "Expected Utility Theory and the Experimentalists," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 223-253.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:psycho:v:25:y:1960:i:4:p:343-356. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.