The current state of mathematical psychology is characterized in terms of five paired contrasts: behavioral vs information-processing; linearity vs non-linearity; static vs dynamic; mathematical vs computational; and deterministic vs probabilistic. Each contrast is evaluated in terms of three basic facts of psychology: complexity, irreversibility of experience, and individual differences; and also in terms of three contemporary developments: computational power, brain imaging and recent mathematical developments. From these I draw some (low-confidence) conclusions about where I think the field is headed, and why.
Davison, M. , & McCarthy, D. (Eds.). (1988). The matching law: A research review. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
Edwards, W. (Ed.). (1990). Utility theories: Measurements and applications. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic.
3.
Estes, W.K. (1994). Classification and cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
Gigerenzer, G. , & Goldstein, D.G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103(4), 650-669.
5.
Gigerenzer, G. , Todd, P.M., & the ABC Group (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
Gonzalez, R. , & Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38(1), 129-166.
7.
Krantz, D.H. , Luce, R.D., Suppes, P., & Tversky, A. (1971). Foundations of measurement: Vol. I. Additive and polynomial representations. New York: Academic Press.
8.
LaBerge, D. (1995). Attentional processing: The brain's art of mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
Loewenstein, G. , & Elster, J. (Eds.). (1992). Choice over time. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
10.
Luce, R.D. (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
Luce, R.D. (in press). On Prelec's axiomatization of weighting functions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology.
12.
Luce, R.D. , Krantz, D.H., Suppes, P., & Tversky, A. (1990). Foundations of measurement: Vol. III. Representation, axiomatization, and invariance. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
13.
Marley, A.A.J. (Ed.). (1997). Choice, decision, and measurement: Essays in honor of R. Duncan Luce. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66(3), 497-527.
16.
Saari, D.G. (1994a). Dynamical chaos to explain voting and statistical paradoxes. In J.R. Dirge & K.G. Murty (Eds.), Mathematical programming: State of the art 1994 (pp. 259-275). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
17.
Saari, D.G. (1994b). Geometry of voting. Berlin: Springer.
18.
Saari, D.G. (1995). Basic geometry of voting. Berlin: Springer.
19.
Saari, D.G. (1996). The ease of generating chaos in economics. Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals, 7(12), 2267-2278.
20.
Suppes, P. , Krantz, D.H., Luce, R.D., & Tversky, A. (1989). Foundations of measurement: Vol. II. Geometrical, threshold, and probabilistic representations. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
21.
Townsend, J.T. , & Ashby, F.G. (1983). Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Wakker, P.P. (1989). Additive representations of preferences: A new foundation for decision analysis. Dordrecht/Boston, MA/London: Kluwer Academic.
23.
Wasserman, S. , & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
