1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Science
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 檢驗以比較為基礎的決策理論-Decision by sampling theory之適切性
Examination of the comparison-based decision making theory: The boundary of the decision by sampling theory
作者 李孟潔
貢獻者 楊立行
李孟潔
關鍵詞 評價與決策
範圍頻次理論
抽樣決策理論
選擇理論
judgment and decision making
range frequency theory
decision by sampling
decision theory
日期 2011
上傳時間 30-Oct-2012 11:27:25 (UTC+8)
摘要 　　Vlaev等人（2011）提出大部分決策理論可分為「數值優先（第一類）」、「計算數值並以比較為基礎（第二類）」及「純粹比較（第三類）」三種觀點。在純粹比較觀點中，Stewart等人（2006）提出的抽樣決策理論認為個人的決策歷程只有形成決策樣本，並將目標物與決策樣本中其他選項進行兩兩次序比較就能產生對該目標物的評價，不需要真正計算選項的數值。然而很少研究檢驗決策是否確實不牽涉刺激數值的計算，以及第三類觀點是否優於第一及第二類觀點的理論。
　　本研究的目的為檢驗抽樣決策理論的適切性，並進行資料庫分析及四類實驗。資料庫分析以代表三種觀點的薪資、薪資相對位置及薪資相對排名為預測變項，工作滿意度為依變項進行階層回歸，結果支持相對排名最能預測工作滿意度。
　　實驗部分則以Brown 等人（2008）的實驗設計為基礎，展開四類實驗檢驗排名對滿意度評價的影響是否存在且強勢。結果發現排名對滿意度評價的影響雖穩定存在，但影響強度會隨著實驗程序是否暗示受試者進行比較而改變，且相對位置亦會影響評價結果，因此本研究的結果支持第二類觀點的範圍頻次理論。
　　然而抽樣決策理論並非錯誤。藉由比較四個實驗間的差異，本研究認為抽樣決策理論若將記憶或抽樣歷程可能發生的偏誤納入考量，應能增加對實證資料之解釋力。無論是範圍頻次理論或抽樣決策理論，由於未考量個人對物理刺激的感受性及物理空間與心理空間的對應關係，可能導致部分受試者的反應不適合用此類模型解釋，亦是未來可以進一步探討的方向。
　　雖然受限於實驗設計無法檢驗受試者對於刺激材料的記憶程度，且實驗設計相較於真實決策情境簡單許多，外推性受到限制，但在相對簡單，比較細微實驗程序差異的本研究中，仍能看到個人隨著作業環境不同而改變行為模式的彈性，無疑是對傳統經濟學家的理性人假設的一個挑戰。
參考文獻 Baumgartner, H., & J. E. M. Steenkamp. (2001). Response Styles in Marketing Research: A Cross-National Ｉnvestigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 143-56.
Bernoulli, D. (1738). Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk, (in Latin), English translation in Econometrica, 22, (1954), 23-36.
Birnbaum, M. H. (1974). Using contextual effects to derive psychophysical scales. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 15(1), 89-96.
Borowiak, D. S. (1989). Model Discrimination for Nonlinear Regression Models. New York,NY: Marcel Dekker.
Boyce, C. J., Brown, G. D. A., & Moore, S. C. (2010). Money and Happiness: Rank of Income, Not Income, Affects Life Satisfaction. Psychological Science, 21(4), 471-475. doi: 10.1177/0956797610362671
Brandstätter, E., Gigerenzer, G., & Hertwig, R. (2006). The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psychological review, 113(2), 409.
Brown, G. D. A., Gardner, J., Oswald, A. J., & Qian, J. (2008). Does Wage Rank Affect Employees’Well-being? Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 47(3), 355-389. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-232X.2008.00525.x
Clark, A. E., Westergård‐Nielsen, N., & Kristensen, N. (2009). Economic satisfaction and income rank in small neighbourhoods. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(2‐3), 519-527.
Della Bitta, A. J., & Monroe, K. B. (1974). The influence of adaptation levels on subjective price perceptions. In S. Ward & P. Wright (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 359-369). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Friedman, M., & Savage, L. J. (1948). The utility analysis of choices involving risk. The journal of political economy, 56, 279-304.
Gigerenzer, G. (2004) Fast and frugal heuristics: The tools of bounded rationality. In Koehler, D. & Harvey, N (Eds.), Handbook of judgment and decision making ( pp. 62–88), Blackwell.
Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of applied psychology, 55(3), 259.
Hagerty, M. R. (2000). Social comparisons of income in one`s community: Evidence from national surveys of income and happiness. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 78(4), 764. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.4.764
Hamilton, D. L. (1968). Personality attributes associated with extreme response style. Psychological Bulletin, 69 (3), 192-203.
Hammond, K. R., McClelland, G. H., & Mumpower, J. (1980) Human Judgment and Decision Making: Theories, Methods, and Procedures. New York,NY: Praeger.
Helson, H. (1947). Adaptation-Level as frame of reference for prediction of psychophysical data. The American Journal of Psychology, 60(1), 1-29.
Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation-Level Theory, New York: Harper and Row.
Janiszewski, C., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (1999). A range theory account of price perception. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(4), 353-368.
Johnson, E. J., Häubl, G., & Keinan, A. (2007). Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 461
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
Kalyanaram, G., & Little, J. D. C. (1994). An empirical analysis of latitude of price acceptance in consumer package goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 408-418.
Kirby, K. N. (2011). An empirical assessment of the form of utility functions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(2), 461-461-476. doi: 10.1037/a0021968
Lévy-Garboua, L., & Montmarquette, C. (2007, May). A Theory of Satisfaction and Utility with Empirical and Experimental Evidences. Paper presented at the Behavioral and Experimental Economics Conference on the French Economic Association, Lyon, France. Paper retrieved from http://www.gate.cnrs.fr/
afse-jee/Papiers/37.pdf
Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J.S. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. In Davidson R.J. et al. (Ed.), Handbook of Affective Sciences (pp. 619-642). Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.
Mellers, B. A. (1982). Equity judgment: A revision of Aristotelian views. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(2), 242.
Mellers, B. A. (1986). " Fair" allocations of salaries and taxes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12(1), 80.
Mellers, B. A., & Birnbaum, M. H. (1983). Contextual effects in social judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(2), 157-171.
Monroe, K. B. (1971). Measuring Price Thresholds by Psychophysics and Latitudes of Acceptance. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 460–464.
Monroe, K. B. (1973). Buyers` subjective perceptions of price. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(1), 70-80.
Niedrich, R. W., Sharma, S., & Wedell, D. H. (2001). Reference price and price perceptions: A comparison of alternative models. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 339-354.
Parducci, A., Calfee, R. C., Marshall, L. M., & Davidson, L. P. (1960). Context effects in judgment: Adaptation level as a function of the mean, midpoint, and median of the stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(2), 65.
Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological review, 72(6), 407-418. doi: 10.1037/h0022602
Parducci, A., & Perrett, L. F. (1971). Category rating scales: Effects of relative spacing and frequency of stimulus values. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89(2), 427.
Parducci, A. (1983). Category ratings and the relational character of judgment. In H. G. Geissler, H. F. J. M. Buffort, E. L. J. Leeuwenberg, & V. Sarris (Eds.), Modern issues in perception (pp. 89-105). Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Vissenschaffen.
Parducci, A. (1995). Happiness, pleasure, and judgment: The contextual theory and its applications: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Smith, R. H., Diener, E., & Wedell, D. H. (1989). Intrapersonal and social comparison determinants of happiness: A range-frequency analysis. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 56(3), 317-317-325. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.317
Stewart, N., Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (2006). Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psychology, 53(1), 1-26. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.003
Tversky, A., & Kahnaman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.
Vlaev, I., Chater, N., Stewart, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (2011). Does the brain calculate value? Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
Volkmann, J. (1951). Scales of judgment and their implications for social psychology. In J. H. Rohrer & M. Sherif (Eds.), Social Psychology at the Crossroads (pp. 273-296). New York, NY: Harper Press.
von Neumann, J., & O. Morgenstern. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wedell, D. H., Parducci, A., & Geiselman, R. E. (1987). A formal analysis of ratings of physical attractiveness: Successive contrast and simultaneous assimilation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23(3), 230-249.
Wedell, D. H., & Parducci, A. (1988). The category effect in social judgment: Experimental ratings of happiness. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 55(3), 341.
Wedell, D. H., Parducci, A., & Roman, D. (1989). Student perceptions of fair grading: A range-frequency analysis. The American Journal of Psychology, 233-248.
Wedell, D. H., Parducci, A., & Lane, M. (1990). Reducing the Dependence of Clinical Judgment of the Immediate Context: Effects of Number of Categories and Type of Anchors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 319–329.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
心理學研究所
99752005
100
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0997520051
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 楊立行zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 李孟潔zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) 李孟潔zh_TW
dc.date (日期) 2011en_US
dc.date.accessioned 30-Oct-2012 11:27:25 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 30-Oct-2012 11:27:25 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 30-Oct-2012 11:27:25 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0997520051en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/54643-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 心理學研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 99752005zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 100zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 　　Vlaev等人（2011）提出大部分決策理論可分為「數值優先（第一類）」、「計算數值並以比較為基礎（第二類）」及「純粹比較（第三類）」三種觀點。在純粹比較觀點中，Stewart等人（2006）提出的抽樣決策理論認為個人的決策歷程只有形成決策樣本，並將目標物與決策樣本中其他選項進行兩兩次序比較就能產生對該目標物的評價，不需要真正計算選項的數值。然而很少研究檢驗決策是否確實不牽涉刺激數值的計算，以及第三類觀點是否優於第一及第二類觀點的理論。
　　本研究的目的為檢驗抽樣決策理論的適切性，並進行資料庫分析及四類實驗。資料庫分析以代表三種觀點的薪資、薪資相對位置及薪資相對排名為預測變項，工作滿意度為依變項進行階層回歸，結果支持相對排名最能預測工作滿意度。
　　實驗部分則以Brown 等人（2008）的實驗設計為基礎，展開四類實驗檢驗排名對滿意度評價的影響是否存在且強勢。結果發現排名對滿意度評價的影響雖穩定存在，但影響強度會隨著實驗程序是否暗示受試者進行比較而改變，且相對位置亦會影響評價結果，因此本研究的結果支持第二類觀點的範圍頻次理論。
　　然而抽樣決策理論並非錯誤。藉由比較四個實驗間的差異，本研究認為抽樣決策理論若將記憶或抽樣歷程可能發生的偏誤納入考量，應能增加對實證資料之解釋力。無論是範圍頻次理論或抽樣決策理論，由於未考量個人對物理刺激的感受性及物理空間與心理空間的對應關係，可能導致部分受試者的反應不適合用此類模型解釋，亦是未來可以進一步探討的方向。
　　雖然受限於實驗設計無法檢驗受試者對於刺激材料的記憶程度，且實驗設計相較於真實決策情境簡單許多，外推性受到限制，但在相對簡單，比較細微實驗程序差異的本研究中，仍能看到個人隨著作業環境不同而改變行為模式的彈性，無疑是對傳統經濟學家的理性人假設的一個挑戰。		zh_TW
dc.description.tableofcontents 目錄...............................I
表目錄............................IV
圖目錄.............................V

緒論................................1
文獻回顧.............................3
　第一類理論：數值優先觀點..3
　　期望值理論....................3
　　期望效用理論................4
　　展望理論........................5
　第二類理論：計算數值並以比較為基礎觀點............7
　　適應水準理論................8
　　範圍理論........................9
　　範圍頻次理論..............10
　第三類理論：純粹比較觀點..........................13
　　抽樣決策理論..............13
　研究目的..............................18

資料庫分析..................................23
　題材背景..............................23
　資料來源..............................24
　主要變項介紹......................25
　　依變項：工作狀況滿意度..........................25
　　預測變項：薪資、薪資相對位置、薪資相對排名................ 26
　　人口變項：性別、年齡、教育程度、婚姻狀態及居住區域........31
　資料分析..............................32
　分析結果與討論..................33

實驗一A......................................39
　受試者..................................39
　實驗材料..............................39
　　薪資分配......................39
　　薪資標籤、滿意度量尺、記錄尺............42
　實驗程序..............................43
　資料分析..............................44
　　平均滿意度差異檢驗..44
　　模型適配......................45
　結果......................................47
　　平均滿意度差異檢驗..47
　　模型適配......................50
　討論......................................51

實驗一B......................................55
　受試者..................................55
　實驗材料..............................55
　　正確率分配..................55
　　正確率標籤、滿意度量尺、記錄尺..........57
　實驗程序..............................57
　資料分析..............................58
　　平均滿意度差異檢驗..58
　　模型適配......................59
　結果......................................59
　　平均滿意度差異檢驗..59
　　模型適配......................62
　討論................................63

實驗二.......................65
　受試者..................................65
　實驗材料..............................65
　　正確率分配..................65
　實驗程序..............................65
　資料分析與結果..................67
　　平均滿意度差異檢驗..67
　　模型適配......................68
　討論......................................69

實驗三A......................................71
　受試者..................................71
　實驗材料..............................71
　　薪資分配......................71
　　施測問卷......................72
　資料分析與結果..................73
　　平均滿意度差異檢驗..73
　　模型適配......................74
　討論......................................75

實驗三B........................................79
　受試者..................................79
　實驗材料..............................79
　　薪資分配......................79
　　施測問卷......................80
　資料分析與結果..................80
　　平均滿意度差異檢驗..80
　　模型適配......................81
　討論......................................82

實驗四……………………………87
　受試者..................................87
　實驗材料..............................87
　　薪資分配......................87
　　施測問卷與量尺..........88
　資料分析與結果..................88
　　平均滿意度差異檢驗..89
　　模型適配......................90　
　討論......................................92

綜合討論......................................93
　實驗一至四綜合討論..........93
　資料庫與實驗之綜合討論..99
　效用、滿意度與決策........101
　結論....................................103

參考文獻....................................105

附錄....110
附錄一資料庫分析中三種參照團體分析下預測變項間的相關矩陣........110
附錄二實驗一A指導語........................ 111
附錄三實驗三A正偏版本問卷.............112
附錄四實驗三B負偏分配問卷.............115
附錄五實驗四第三頁指導語（前兩頁與實驗三相同）...........118		zh_TW
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0997520051en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 評價與決策zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 範圍頻次理論zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 抽樣決策理論zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 選擇理論zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) judgment and decision makingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) range frequency theoryen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) decision by samplingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) decision theoryen_US
dc.title (題名) 檢驗以比較為基礎的決策理論-Decision by sampling theory之適切性zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Examination of the comparison-based decision making theory: The boundary of the decision by sampling theoryen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Baumgartner, H., & J. E. M. Steenkamp. (2001). Response Styles in Marketing Research: A Cross-National Ｉnvestigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 143-56.
Bernoulli, D. (1738). Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk, (in Latin), English translation in Econometrica, 22, (1954), 23-36.
Birnbaum, M. H. (1974). Using contextual effects to derive psychophysical scales. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 15(1), 89-96.
Borowiak, D. S. (1989). Model Discrimination for Nonlinear Regression Models. New York,NY: Marcel Dekker.
Boyce, C. J., Brown, G. D. A., & Moore, S. C. (2010). Money and Happiness: Rank of Income, Not Income, Affects Life Satisfaction. Psychological Science, 21(4), 471-475. doi: 10.1177/0956797610362671
Brandstätter, E., Gigerenzer, G., & Hertwig, R. (2006). The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psychological review, 113(2), 409.
Brown, G. D. A., Gardner, J., Oswald, A. J., & Qian, J. (2008). Does Wage Rank Affect Employees’Well-being? Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 47(3), 355-389. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-232X.2008.00525.x
Clark, A. E., Westergård‐Nielsen, N., & Kristensen, N. (2009). Economic satisfaction and income rank in small neighbourhoods. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(2‐3), 519-527.
Della Bitta, A. J., & Monroe, K. B. (1974). The influence of adaptation levels on subjective price perceptions. In S. Ward & P. Wright (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 359-369). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Friedman, M., & Savage, L. J. (1948). The utility analysis of choices involving risk. The journal of political economy, 56, 279-304.
Gigerenzer, G. (2004) Fast and frugal heuristics: The tools of bounded rationality. In Koehler, D. & Harvey, N (Eds.), Handbook of judgment and decision making ( pp. 62–88), Blackwell.
Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of applied psychology, 55(3), 259.
Hagerty, M. R. (2000). Social comparisons of income in one`s community: Evidence from national surveys of income and happiness. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 78(4), 764. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.4.764
Hamilton, D. L. (1968). Personality attributes associated with extreme response style. Psychological Bulletin, 69 (3), 192-203.
Hammond, K. R., McClelland, G. H., & Mumpower, J. (1980) Human Judgment and Decision Making: Theories, Methods, and Procedures. New York,NY: Praeger.
Helson, H. (1947). Adaptation-Level as frame of reference for prediction of psychophysical data. The American Journal of Psychology, 60(1), 1-29.
Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation-Level Theory, New York: Harper and Row.
Janiszewski, C., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (1999). A range theory account of price perception. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(4), 353-368.
Johnson, E. J., Häubl, G., & Keinan, A. (2007). Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 461
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
Kalyanaram, G., & Little, J. D. C. (1994). An empirical analysis of latitude of price acceptance in consumer package goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 408-418.
Kirby, K. N. (2011). An empirical assessment of the form of utility functions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(2), 461-461-476. doi: 10.1037/a0021968
Lévy-Garboua, L., & Montmarquette, C. (2007, May). A Theory of Satisfaction and Utility with Empirical and Experimental Evidences. Paper presented at the Behavioral and Experimental Economics Conference on the French Economic Association, Lyon, France. Paper retrieved from http://www.gate.cnrs.fr/
afse-jee/Papiers/37.pdf
Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J.S. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. In Davidson R.J. et al. (Ed.), Handbook of Affective Sciences (pp. 619-642). Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.
Mellers, B. A. (1982). Equity judgment: A revision of Aristotelian views. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(2), 242.
Mellers, B. A. (1986). " Fair" allocations of salaries and taxes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12(1), 80.
Mellers, B. A., & Birnbaum, M. H. (1983). Contextual effects in social judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(2), 157-171.
Monroe, K. B. (1971). Measuring Price Thresholds by Psychophysics and Latitudes of Acceptance. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 460–464.
Monroe, K. B. (1973). Buyers` subjective perceptions of price. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(1), 70-80.
Niedrich, R. W., Sharma, S., & Wedell, D. H. (2001). Reference price and price perceptions: A comparison of alternative models. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 339-354.
Parducci, A., Calfee, R. C., Marshall, L. M., & Davidson, L. P. (1960). Context effects in judgment: Adaptation level as a function of the mean, midpoint, and median of the stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(2), 65.
Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological review, 72(6), 407-418. doi: 10.1037/h0022602
Parducci, A., & Perrett, L. F. (1971). Category rating scales: Effects of relative spacing and frequency of stimulus values. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89(2), 427.
Parducci, A. (1983). Category ratings and the relational character of judgment. In H. G. Geissler, H. F. J. M. Buffort, E. L. J. Leeuwenberg, & V. Sarris (Eds.), Modern issues in perception (pp. 89-105). Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Vissenschaffen.
Parducci, A. (1995). Happiness, pleasure, and judgment: The contextual theory and its applications: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Smith, R. H., Diener, E., & Wedell, D. H. (1989). Intrapersonal and social comparison determinants of happiness: A range-frequency analysis. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 56(3), 317-317-325. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.317
Stewart, N., Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (2006). Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psychology, 53(1), 1-26. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.003
Tversky, A., & Kahnaman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.
Vlaev, I., Chater, N., Stewart, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (2011). Does the brain calculate value? Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
Volkmann, J. (1951). Scales of judgment and their implications for social psychology. In J. H. Rohrer & M. Sherif (Eds.), Social Psychology at the Crossroads (pp. 273-296). New York, NY: Harper Press.
von Neumann, J., & O. Morgenstern. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wedell, D. H., Parducci, A., & Geiselman, R. E. (1987). A formal analysis of ratings of physical attractiveness: Successive contrast and simultaneous assimilation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23(3), 230-249.
Wedell, D. H., & Parducci, A. (1988). The category effect in social judgment: Experimental ratings of happiness. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 55(3), 341.
Wedell, D. H., Parducci, A., & Roman, D. (1989). Student perceptions of fair grading: A range-frequency analysis. The American Journal of Psychology, 233-248.
Wedell, D. H., Parducci, A., & Lane, M. (1990). Reducing the Dependence of Clinical Judgment of the Immediate Context: Effects of Number of Categories and Type of Anchors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 319–329.		zh_TW