- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
An exchange on functional and conjoint measurement: Reply
Psychological Review 78 (5):457-458 (1971)
Abstract
This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)Links
PhilArchive
External links
(no proxy)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Through your library
- Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
- Configure custom resolver
My notes
Similar books and articles
An exchange on functional and conjoint measurement: Reply.Norman H. Anderson - 1971 - Psychological Review 78 (5):458-458.
An exchange on functional and conjoint measurement: Comment.Norman H. Anderson - 1971 - Psychological Review 78 (5):457-457.
D. H. Krantz, R. D. Luce, P. Suppes and A. Tversky, "Foundations of Measurement", Vol. I. [REVIEW]Karel Berka - 1974 - Theory and Decision 5 (4):461.
Random conjoint measurement and loudness summation.Jean-Claude Falmagne - 1976 - Psychological Review 83 (1):65-79.
On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky.Gerd Gigerenzer - 1996 - Psychological Review 103 (3):592-596.
Conjoint-measurement analysis of composition rules in psychology.David H. Krantz & Amos Tversky - 1971 - Psychological Review 78 (2):151-169.
Conjoint-measurement framework for the study of probabilistic information processing.Thomas S. Wallsten - 1972 - Psychological Review 79 (3):245-260.
The Contribution of Amos Tversky.Jonathan St B. T. Evans & De Over - 1997 - Thinking and Reasoning 3:1-8.
Whose is the fallacy? A rejoinder to Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.L. Jonathan Cohen - 1980 - Cognition 8 (March):89-92.
Analytics
Added to PP
2016-06-30
Downloads
37 (#601,284)
6 months
9 (#455,691)
2016-06-30
Downloads
37 (#601,284)
6 months
9 (#455,691)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-f8568656d-kkgnk uwo