Environmental researchers often use psychometric scaling and thus have an interest in issues relating to the selection of scaling methods. One such issue is whether normal response and angular response functions produce different results in experimental designs for comparative choice. Six data sets were analyzed with both response functions. The results indicate that the normal and angular response functions generate virtually identical results when scale values are reported in terms of standardized effect sizes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BairdJ. C.BerglundB. (1989) Thesis for environmental psychophysics. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 345–356.
2.
BerglundB.BerglundU.JonssonE.LindvallT. (1977) On the scaling of annoyance due to environmental factors. Experimental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 2, 83–92.
3.
BirnbaumM. H. (1973) The devil rides again: Correlation as an index of fit. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 239–242.
4.
BirnbaumM. H. (1974) Reply to the devil's advocates: Don't confound model testing and measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 854–859.
5.
BockR. D.JonesL. V. (1968) The measurement and prediction of judgment and choice. San Francisco, CA: Holden-Day.
6.
ChalmersD. J.KnightR. G. (1985) The reliability of ratings of the familiarity of environmental stimuli. Environment and Behavior, 17, 223–238.
7.
ClampP. (1981) The landscape evaluation controversy. Landscape Research, 6(2), 13–15.
8.
CohenJ. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
DanfordS.WillemsE. P. (1975) Subjective responses to architectural displays: A question of validity. Environment and Behavior, 7, 486–517.
10.
DearingerJ. A. (1979) Measuring preferences for natural landscapes. Journal of the Urban Planning and Development Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 105 (UP1), 63–80.
11.
GuilfordJ. P. (1954) Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.
GulliksenH. (1956) Measurement of subjective values. Psychometrika, 21, 229–244.
13.
MillerP. A. (1984) A comparative study of the BLM scenic quality rating procedure and landscape preference dimensions. Landscape Journal, 3, 123–135.
14.
SchroederH. W. (1984) Environmental perception rating scales: A case for simple methods of analysis. Environment and Behavior, 16, 573–598.
15.
StampsA. E. (1990) Perceptual and preferential effects of environmental representation with photomontage simulations: Some preliminary findings. In RobinsonJ. W.AndersonL.MailerA.SteinfeldE. (Eds.), Representation & simulation in architectural research & design. Report on the ARCC conference on representation and simulation. Minneapolis, MN: Department of Architecture, Univer. of Minnesota.
16.
StampsA. E. (1991a) Comparing preferences of neighbors and a neighborhood design review board. Environment and Behavior, 23, 616–629.
17.
StampsA. E. (1991b) Public preferences for high rise buildings: Stylistic and demographic effects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 839–844.
18.
StampsA. E. (in press) Use of comparative choice paradigm in governmental design review: A case study. Journal of Environmental Management.
19.
ThurstoneL. L. (1927) A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 278–286.
20.
ZubeE. H.SellJ. L.TaylorJ. G. (1982) Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 9, 1–33.
