Abstract
AbstractIn two online experiments, we tested whether preference judgments can be used to derive a valid ratio-scale representation of subjective liking across different stimulus sets. Therefore, participants were asked to indicate their preferences for all possible pairwise comparisons of 20 paintings (Experiment 1) and 20 faces (Experiment 2). Probabilistic choice models were fit to the resulting preference probabilities (requiring different degrees of stochastic transitivity), demonstrating that a ratio-scale representation of the liking of both paintings and faces can be derived consistently from the preference judgments. While the preference judgments of paintings were consistent with the highly restrictive Bradley–Terry–Luce model (Bradley and Terry, Biometrika 39:324–345, 1952; Luce, 1959), the liking of faces could be represented on a ratio scale only when accounting for face gender as an additional aspect in an elimination-by-aspects model. These ratio-scaled liking scores were then related to direct evaluative ratings of the same stimuli on a 21-point Likert scale, given both before and after the pairwise comparisons. It was found in both studies that evaluative ratings can be described accurately as a logarithmic function of the indirectly derived liking scores for both types of stimuli. The results indicate that participants are able (a) to consistently judge preferences across two heterogeneous stimulus sets, and (b) to validly report their liking in direct evaluative ratings, although the numeric labels derived from direct evaluative ratings cannot be interpreted at face value for ratio-scaled liking scores.
Funder
HMU Health and Medical University GmbH
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology,General Medicine
Reference48 articles.
1. Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), A Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 798–844). Clark University Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1935-19907-010
2. Baeyens, F., Eelen, P., & Van Den Bergh, O. (1990). Contingency awareness in evaluative conditioning: A case for unaware affectiveevaluative learning. Cognition and Emotion, 4(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939008406760
3. Bäuml, K. H. (1994). Upright versus upside-down faces: How interface attractiveness varies with orientation. Perception & Psychophysics, 56(2), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213895
4. Bradley, R. A., & Terry, M. E. (1952). Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39, 324–345. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/42.3-4.450
5. Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1191–1205. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1191