Basic Search / Detailed Display

Author: 蔡昀泓
Tsai, Yun-hung
Thesis Title: 以量化建模詮釋維度範圍重疊模型
A Tentative Mathematical Interpretation of the Dimensional Range Overlap Modal
Advisor: 蕭中強
Hsiao, Chung-Chiang
Committee: 簡怡雯
Chien, Yi-Wen
練乃華
Lien, Nai-Hwa
蕭中強
Hsiao, Chung-Chiang
Approval Date: 2022/07/29
Degree: 碩士
Master
Department: 管理研究所
Graduate Institute of Management
Thesis Publication Year: 2022
Academic Year: 110
Language: 英文
Number of pages: 112
Keywords (in English): assimilation, contrast, context effects, the dimensional range overlap model
Research Methods: 數值模擬
DOI URL: http://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202201743
Thesis Type: Academic thesis/ dissertation
Reference times: Clicks: 271Downloads: 5
Share:
School Collection Retrieve National Library Collection Retrieve Error Report
  • The author proposes a set of mathematical equations attempting to simulate perceptual assimilation and contrast, which has rarely been quantitatively studied. The author bases the equations on the model of dimensional range overlap, which is the most integrative model available now. Underlying the model is the assumption of various concepts possibly describing a given object which is being evaluated, with differing salience on a dimension, which may be compared to the possible outcomes of a random variable. The author investigates the roles of the location (extremity), scale (ambiguity), skewness, peak and tail behaviour of the distribution of concepts in shifting the best representation of the given object. In addition to the distribution characteristics, the author introduces evaluative volatility, cognitive consumption, and attention to dissimilarities to the discussion.

    By means of the equations, the author is hoping to allow for clearer academic communication, and more accurate predictions of people’s perception after their exposure to contexts. The author urges future scholars to devise more sophisticated psychological measurement methods and tools, so as to empirically test the equations.

    Introduction 1 Literature Review - Biased Evaluation 2 - Set/Reset 2 - Ambiguity, Extremity, and Knowledge 3 - Dimensional Range Overlap 4 - Salience as Probability Density 5 - Reciprocity Hypothesis 6 Research Framework 6 Methods - Distribution Distortion 7 - Best Representation on a Measurement Scale 8 - Best Representation on the Latent Dimension 9 Results - Analytical Approach -- General Properties 11 -- Illustrative Examples --- Laplace Distribution 17 --- Logistic Distribution 31 --- Gaussian Distribution 34 - Numerical Simulations -- Skewed Generalised Student's t Distribution 36 -- Two Mixed Weibull Distribution 63 General Discussion - Advances in the Dimensional Range Overlap -- Distribution Characteristics 67 -- Additional Parametres 68 - Reciprocity Hypothesis 69 - Diminishment Hypothesis 70 - Research Limitations and Recommendations -- Psychological Measurement --- Mapping to a Bounded Measurement Scale 71 --- Inferring the Latent and Estimating the Parametres 78 -- Mathematical Analysis 92 -- Alternative Views 94 -- Subliminal Stimuli 103 -- Multiple Objects 103 -- Multiple Dimensions 108 -- Theory-Based Bias Correction 109 References 110

    Chiěn, Y.-W. & Hsiāo, C.-C. (2001). Dimensional range overlap model for explanation of contextual priming effects. In M. C. Gilly & J. Meyers-Levy (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 28, p. 136). Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research.
    Chiěn, Y.-W., Wegener, D. T., Hsiāo, C.-C., & Petty, R. E. (2010). Dimensional range overlap and context effects in consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 530–542. https://doi.org/10.1086/652415.
    Cooper, M. R., Runyon, R. P., Tatz, S. J., & Heimer, W. I. (1972). The Sander illusion as a function of relative space and component lines. Perception & Psychophysics, 11(1), 102–104. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03212695.
    Draine, S. C., & Greenwald, A. G. (1998). Replicable unconscious semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(3), 286–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.3.286.
    Givon, M. M., & Shapira, Z. (1984). Response to rating scales: A theoretical model and its application to the number of categories problem. Journal of Marketing Research, 21(4), 410–419. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151467.
    Herr, P. M. (1989). Priming price: Prior knowledge and context effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1086/209194.
    Hsiāo, C.-C. (2002). The Reciprocity Hypothesis as an Explanation of Perception Shifts in Consumer Judgments (AAI3099155) [doctoral dissertation]. Purdue University.
    Karremans, J. C., Stroebe, W., & Claus, J. (2006). Beyond Vicary’s fantasies: The impact of subliminal priming and brand choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(6), 792–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.002.
    Keelin, T. W. (2016). The metalog distributions. Decision Analysis, 13(4), 243–277. https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2016.0338.
    Kullback, S. & Leibler, R. A. (1951). On information and sufficiency. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729694.
    Li, R. & Nadarajah, S. (2018). A review of Student’s t distribution and its generalisations. Empirical Economics, 58(3), 1461–1490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-018-1570-0.
    Lin, J. (1991). Divergence measures based on the Shannon entropy. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 37(1), 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1109/18.61115.
    Luce, R. D. (1997). Several unresolved conceptual problems of mathematical psychology. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41(1), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmps.1997.1150.
    Martin, L. L. (1986). Set/reset: Use and disuse of concepts in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 493–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.493.
    Massaro, D. W. & Anderson, N. H. (1971). Judgmental model of the Ebbinghaus illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89(1), 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031158.
    Panaretos, V. M., & Zemel, Y. (2019). Statistical aspects of Wasserstein distances. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 6(1), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-030718-104938.
    Petty, R. E. & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology (pp. 41–72), New York: Guildford Press.
    Purves, D., Lotto B. R., & Nundy S. (2002) Why we see what we do: A probabilistic strategy based on past experience explains the remarkable difference between what we see and physical reality. American Scientist, 90(3), 236–243.
    Thurstone, L. L. (1927a). Psychophysical analysis. The American Journal of Psychology, 38(3), 368. https://doi.org/10.2307/1415006.
    Thurstone, L. L. (1927b). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34(4), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070288.
    Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00122574.
    Wegener, D. T. & Petty, R. E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naïve theories of bias in bias correction. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 141c208). San Diego: Academic Press.

    下載圖示
    QR CODE