Abstract
Krantz and Tversky (1975), Takane (1981), Wender (1971), and others have suggested that it is impossible to explain similarity judgments for rectangles by a simple dimensional model of the Minkowski distance type, because the psychologically compelling dimensions are not independent and interact. For reasons never made explicit, the relevant dimensions were assumed to be area and shape, rather than width and height. Reanalyses show, however, that the latter dimensions, appropriately scaled, eliminate interaction effects. To test these conclusions empirically, an experiment was carried out with two sets of rectangles. Each set was a complete 4×4 design, one in width × height coordinates, and one in area × shape coordinates. For each stimulus set, 21 subjects judged the dissimilarities of all pairs of rectangles twice. All subjects were reliable. Apart from one extreme subject in each group, all data lead to very similar MDS solutions. These solutions correspond closely to the predictions, that is, they can be well approximated with physical width and height coordinates rescaled such that the units decrease increasingly as one moves away from the origin. No interaction effects are found, but some indications for a more complicated composition rule are observed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference Notes
Coombs, C. H.General mathematical psychology: Scaling and data theory. Unpublished manuscript, The University of Michigan, 1966.
Kruskal, J. B., Young, F. W., & Seery, J. B.How to use KYST-2. Unpublished manuscript, Bell Laboratories, 1978.
Schonemann, P. H. Personal communication, 1981.
References
Beals, R., Krantz, D. H., &Tversky, A. Foundations of multidimensional scaling.Psychological Review, 1968,75, 127–143.
Borg, I.Anwendungsorientierte multidimensionale Skalierung, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 1981.
Borg, I. Scaling: A review of the German scaling literature of the last 15 years.German Journal of Psychology, 1983,7, 63–79.
Borg, I., &Lingoes, J. C. What weights should weights have in individual differences scaling?Quality and Quantity, 1978,12, 223–237. [Reprinted in P. M. Davies & A. P. M. Coxon (Eds.),Key texts in multidimensional scaling. London: Heinemann, 1982.]
Borg, I., &Lingoes, J. C. A model and algorithm for multidimensional scaling with external constraints on the distances.Psychometrika, 1980,45, 25–38.
Borg, I., Schonemann, P. H., &Leutner, D. Reizuberdeterrninierung und andere Artefakte bei der Wahrnehmung einfacher geometrischer Figuren.Zeitschrift fur experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 1982,14, 531–544.
Carroll, J. D., &Chang, J. J. Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an N-way generalization of Eckart-Young decomposition.Psychometrika, 1970,35, 283–320.
Coombs, C. H., Dawes, R. M., &Tversky, A.Mathematical psychology: An elementary introduction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall, 1970.
Cross, D. V.Metric properties of multidimensional stimulus control. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1965.
Eisler, H. Equivalence of psychological models: Time-order errors, similarities, subjective spaces. In E. D. Lantermann & H. Feger (Eds.),Similarity and choice. Bern, Switzerland: Huber, 1980.
Eisler, H., &Roskam, E. E. Multidimensional similarity: An experimental and theoretical comparison of vector, distance, and set theoretical models.Acta Psychologica, 1977,5, 1–46 and 335–363.
Guttman, L. A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points.Psychometrika, 1968,33, 469–506.
Guttman, L. What is not what in statistics. In I. Borg (Ed.),Multidimensional data representations: When and why. Ann Arbor, Mich: Mathesis Press, 1981.
Helm, C. E. Multidimensional ratio scaling analysis of perceived color relations.Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1964,54, 256–268.
Johnson, R. M. Pairwise nonmetric multidimensional scaling.Psychometrika, 1973,38, 11–18.
Krantz, D. H., &Tversky, A. Similarity of rectangles: An analysis of subjective dimensions.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1975,12, 4–34.
Kruska, J. B. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis.Psychometrika, 1964,29, 1–27.
Lingoes, J. C.The Guttman-Lingoes nonmetric program series. Ann Arbor, Mich: Mathesis Press, 1973.
Lingoes, J. C., &Borg, I. A direct solution to individual differences scaling using increasingly complex transformations.Psychometrika, 1978,43, 491–519.
Roskam, E. E. Multidimensional scaling by metric transformation of data.Nederlands Tijdschrift voorder Psychologie, 1972,27, 486–508. [Reprinted in J. C. Lingoes, E. E. Roskam, & I. Borg (Eds.),Geometric representations of relational data. Ann Arbor, Mich: Mathesis Press, 1979.]
Schönemann, P. H. Similarity of rectangles.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1977,16, 161–165.
Schönemann, P. H., &Borg, I. On the interaction between area and shape. In I. Borg (Ed.),Multidimensional data representations: When and why. Ann Arbor, Mich: Mathesis Press, 1981.
Shepard, R. N. Analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function.Psychometrika, 1962,27, 125–140.
Shepard, R. N. Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1964,1, 54–87.
Shepard, R. N. Representation of structure in similarity data: Problems and prospects.Psychometrika, 1974,39, 373–421.
Sixtl, F., &Wender, K. Der Zusammenhang zwischen multi-dimensionalem Skalieren und Faktorenanalyse,Biometrische Zeitschrift, 1964,6, 251–261.
Spence, I., &Ogilvie, J. C. A table of expected stress values for random rankings in nonmetric multidimensional scaling.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1973,8, 511–517.
Takane, Y. Multidimensional successive categories scaling: A maximum likelihood method.Psychometrika, 1981,046, 9–28.
Takane, Y., Young, F. W., &Deleeuw, J. Nonmetric individual differences scaling: An alternating least-squares method with optimal scaling features.Psychometrika, 1977,42, 7–67.
Torgerson, W. S.Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley, 1958.
Torgerson, W. S. Multidimensional scaling of similarity.Psychometrika, 1965, 30, 379–393.
Tversky, A., &Gati, I. Similarity, separability, and the triangle inequality.Psychological Review, 1982,89, 123–154.
Wender, K.Die psychologische Interpretation nichteuklidischer Metriken in der multidimensionalen Skalierung. Doctoral dissertation, TH Darmstadt, 1969.
Wender, K. A test of independence of dimensions in multidimensional scaling.Perception & Psychophysics, 1971,10, 30–32.
Wiener-Ehrlich, W. K. Dimensional and metric structures in multidimensional stimuli.Perception & Psychophysics, 1978,24, 399–414.
Wolfrum, C. Zum Auftreten quasiaquivalenter Lösungen bei der Verallgemeinerung des Skalierungsverfahrens von Kruskal auf metrische Räume mit der Minkowski-Metrik.Arehiv für Psychologie, 1976,128, 96–111. (a)
Wolfrum, C. Zur Bestimmung eines optimalen MetrikkoefrIzienten r mit dem Skalierungsverfahren von Kruskal.Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 1976,23, 339–350. (b)
Young, F. W. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: Recovery of metric information.Psychometrika, 1970,35, 455–473.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This work was supported by Grant Bo S97/S from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Borg, I., Leutner, D. Dimensional models for the perception of rectangles. Perception & Psychophysics 34, 257–267 (1983). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202954
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202954