A Feature Model for Unfolding and Experimental Results

  • Math J. Cande
Part of the Recent Research in Psychology book series (PSYCHOLOGY)


A feature model for unfolding and several experimental tests of this model are presented. Though an unfolding model allows more detailed predictions concerning choices as compared to models for stimulus comparison data, such as Restie’s (1961) model and Tversky’s (1972) Elimination By Aspects model, this is the only feature model for unfolding. Empirical studies in which the model is tested, uncover several properties of choices not predicted by conventional geometric models of unfolding.


Feature Model Feature Representation Choice Probability Mathematical Psychology Contrast Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrich, D. (1989). A probabilistic IRT model for unfolding preference data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechtel, G.G. (1968). Folded and unfolded scaling from preferential paired comparisons. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 5, 333–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bossuyt, P. (1990). A comparison of probabilistic unfolding theories for paired comparisons data. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Bossuyt, P.M., & Roskam, Edw. E. (1989). Maximum likelihood unidimensional unfolding for a probabilistic model without distributional assumptions. In G. de Soete, H. Feger, & K.C. Klauer (Eds.), New developments in psychological choice modelling (pp. 77–98). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Candel, M.J. (1990a). An additive random feature model for unfolding: Predictions for linear and quasi-linear trees. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  6. Candel, M.J. (1990b). The additive random feature model for unfolding: A critical test for linear and quasi-linear trees. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  7. Coombs, C.H. (1958). On the use of inconsistency of preferences in psychological measurement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 1–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coombs, C.H. (1964). A theory of data. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Edgell, S.E., & Geisler, W.S. (1980). A set-theoretic random utility model for choice behavior. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 21, 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Marshall, C.W. (1971). Applied graph theory. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Ramsay, J.O. (1980). The joint analysis of direct ratings, pairwise preferences and dissimilarities. Psychometrika, 45, 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Restle, F. (1961). The psychology of judgement and choice: A theoretical essay. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Robertson, T., Wright, F.T., & Dykstra, R.L. (1988). Order restricted statistical inference. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Schönemann, P.H., & Wang, W.M. (1972). An individual difference mode! for the multidimensional analysis of preference data. Psychometrika, 37, 275–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sixtl, F. (1973). Probabilistic unfolding. Psychometrika, 38, 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tversty, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zinnes, J.L., & Griggs, R.A. (1974). Probabilistic multidimensional unfolding analysis. Psychometrika, 39, 327–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Math J. Cande
    • 1
  1. 1.Mathematical Psychology Group, Nijmegen Institute for Cognition research and Information technology (NICI)University of NijmegenHE NijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations