Scale Imposition as Quantitative Alchemy: Studies on the Transitivity of Neuroticism Ratings

References

• Ace, M. E., & Dawis, R. V. (1974). Type of content, type of score, and response inconsistency in comparison measures of preference. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 221–230. doi:10.1177/001316447403400202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badzinski, S. I. (2012). Transitivity and inter-definition consistency of NEO neuroticism-domain ratings. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11244/10947
   Google Scholar
• Barrett, P. T. (2003). Beyond psychometrics: Measurement, non-quantitative structure, and applied numerics. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 3(18), 421–439. doi:10.1108/02683940310484026
   Google Scholar
• Barrett, P. (2008). The consequence of sustaining a pathology: Scientific stagnation. A commentary on the target article ‘Is psychometrics a pathological science?’ by Joel Michell. Measurement, 6, 78–123. doi:10.1080/15366360802035521
   Google Scholar
• Bouyssou, D., & Pirlot, M. (2002). Nontransitive decomposable conjoint measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 46(6), 677–702. doi:10.1006/jmps.2002.1419
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cloninger, C. R. (2000). A practical way to diagnose personality disorder: A proposal. Journal of Personality Disorders, 14, 98–108. doi:10.1521/pedi.2000.14.2.99
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cloninger, C. R., Przybeck, R., & Svrakic, D. (1991). The tridimensional personality questionnaire: U.S. normative data. Psychological Reports, 69, 1047–1057. doi:10.2466/pr0.1991.69.3.1047
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., Pryzbeck, T. R., & Wetzel, T. R. (1994). The temperament and character inventory (TCI): A guide to its development and use. St. Louis, MO: Center for Psychobiology of Personality.
   Google Scholar
• Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
   Google Scholar
• Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Delia, J. G., & Crockett, W. H. (1973). Social schemas, cognitive complexity and the learning of social structures. Journal of Personality, 41(3), 413–429. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1973.tb00103.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–470. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eysenck, H. J., & Wilson, G. (1991). The Eysenck personality profiler (1st ed.). Guilford, CT: Psi-Press.
   Google Scholar
• Falmagne, J. C. (1979). On a class of probabilistic conjoint measurement models: Some diagnostic properties. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 19(2), 73–88. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(79)90013-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, A., Myers, C. S., Bartlett, R. J., Banister, H., Bartlett, F. C., Brown, W., … Tucker, W. S. (1940). Quantitative estimates of sensory events: Final report of the committee appointed to consider and report upon the possibility of quantitative estimates of sensory events. Advancement of Science, 1, 331–349.
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson, E. D. (1962). Ego involvement: A critical examination of some methodological issues. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64(6), 407–417. doi:10.1037/h0046041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, E. D. (1971). Role of individual differences in measures of ego-involvement. Psychological Reports, 29, 569–570. doi:10.2466/pr0.1971.29.2.569
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishburn, P. C. (1991). Nontransitive additive conjoint measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 35(1), 1–40. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(91)90032-o
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fointiat, V., Somat, A., & Grosbras, J. (2011). Saying, but not doing: Induced hypocrisy, trivialization, and misattribution. Social Behavior and Personality, 39(4), 465–476. doi:10.2224/sbp.2011.39.4.465
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedman, D. A. (1991). Statistical models and shoe leather. Sociological Methodology, 21, 291–313. doi:10.2307/270939
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzales, C. (2000). Two factor additive conjoint measurement with one solvable component. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44(2), 285–309. doi:10.1006/jmps.1998.1248
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guest, D. J., Dell, G. S., & Cole, J. S. (2000). Violable constraints in language production: Testing the transitivity assumption of optimal theory. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 272–299. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2679
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guilford, J. P. (1975). Factors and factors of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 802–814. doi:apa.org/journals/bul/82/5/802.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Harman, H. H. (1967). Modern factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hölder, O. (1901). Die Axiome der Quantität und die Lehre vom Mass [The axioms of quantity and the theory of measurement]. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig [Reports on the negotiations of the Saxon Society of Sciences in Leipzig]. Mathematisch-Physische Classe, 53, 1–64. doi:10.1007/bf03017642
   Google Scholar
• Krantz, D. H. (1964). Conjoint measurement: The Luce-Tukey axiomatization and some extensions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(2), 248–277. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(64)90003-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamiell, J. T. (2013). Statisticism in personality psychologists’ use of trait constructs; What is it? How was it contracted? Is there a cure? New Ideas in Psychology, 31, 65–71. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.02.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lord, F. M. (1953). On the statistical treatment of football numbers. American Psychologist, 8, 750–751. doi:10.1037/h0063675
   Google Scholar
• Luce, D. (1966). Two extensions of conjoint measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 3(2), 348–370. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(66)90019-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce, D., & Narens, L. (1985). Classification of concatenation measurement structures according to scale type. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29(1), 1–72. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(85)90018-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce, D. & Steingrimsson. (2011). Theory and tests of the conjoint commutativity axiom for additive conjoint measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 55(5), 379–385. doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2011.05.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce, R. D., & Tukey, J. W. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 1–27. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(64)90015-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood: a five-factor theory perspective. New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (1988). Some problems in testing the double cancellation condition in conjoint measurement theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 32(4), 466–473. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(88)90024-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (1997). Quantitative science and the definition of measurement in psychology. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 355–383. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1997.tb02641.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (2000). Normal science, pathological science and psychometrics. Theory and Psychology, 10, 639–667. doi:10.1177/0959354300105004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (2008a). Is psychometrics pathological science? Measurement, 6, 7–24. doi:10.1080/15366360802035489
   Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (2008b). Rejoinder. Measurement, 6, 125–133. doi:10.1080/15366360802121917
   Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (2011). Qualitative research meets the ghost of Pythagoras. Theory & Psychology, 21(2), 241–259. doi:10.1177/0959354310391351
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mill, J. S. (1974). A system of logic: Ratiocinative and inductive. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. (Original work published 1843).
   Google Scholar
• Pfleiderer, P. (2014, March 25). Chameleons: The misuse of theoretical models in finance and economics. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1–36. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2414731
   Google Scholar
• Rader, T. (1963). The existence of a utility function to represent preferences. The Review of Economic Studies, 30(3), 229–232. doi:10.2307/2296323
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sher, G. (1999). Is there a place for philosophy in Quine’s theory? The Journal of Philosophy, 96, 491–524. doi:10.2307/2564611
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677–680. doi:10.1126/science.103.2684.677
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, S. S. (1951). Mathematics, measurement, and psychophysics. In S. S. Stevens (Ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology (pp. 1–49). New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (2008). Exploring personality through test construction: development of the multidimensional personality questionnaire. In G. J. Boyle G. Matthews & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. II. Personality measurement and testing (pp. 261–292). London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Trendler, G. (2009). Measurement theory, psychology and the revolution that cannot happen. Theory & Psychology, 19(5), 579–599. doi:10.1177/0959354309341926
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A. (1969). Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 76(1), 31–48. doi:10.1037/h0026750
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule: Expanded form. Iowa City: University of Iowa.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Towards a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219–235. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.98.2.219
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yule, G. U. (1921). Critical notice: Review of the essentials of mental measurement by W. Brown and G. H. Thomson. British Journal of Psychology, 12, 100–107. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1921.tb00040.x
   Google Scholar
• Zand Scholten, A., & Borsboom, D. (2009). A reanalysis of Lord’s statistical treatment of football numbers. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(2), 69–75. doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2009.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar