comparative judgment

comparative judgment

n
(Psychology) psychol any judgment about whether there is a difference between two or more stimuli. Compare absolute judgment
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
They just need to find an audience on their own without having comparative judgment made along with it.
AHP includes three phases, which are decomposition, comparative judgment and priority synthesis (Saaty, 1980).
It might be argued that the Court had good reason to shy away from such complex judgments of comparative health policy but, if so, the three judges would have been well advised not to base their decision on just such a comparative judgment.
analyze the 2004 US presidential campaign using the "Functional Theory of Political Campaign Discourse, which is founded upon the assumptions that voting involves a comparative judgment on candidates; that candidates must distinguish themselves from opponents; that they do this through the use of political campaign messages; that candidates establish preferability trough acclaiming, attacking, and defending; that campaign discourse occurs on the topics of policy and character; and that candidates structure their discourse in recognition of the fact that they need only win enough votes to win in the Electoral College.
4) This is not a trivial matter, since Mazon offers a comparative judgment that is simply false.
Instead, they are exposed to the risk of a comparative judgment that summons them to measure themselves not only against the best painters of the past, but also against the best sculptors, photographers, video makers, Conceptual artists, installation artists, multimedia artists, and so on, of the present.
If a comparative judgment is to be made, a common denominator has to be found; that denominator is itself going to be a product of judgment - whether one is comparing different architectural wonders or choosing between apples and bananas.
The comparative judgment is crucial especially if we acknowledge (as I think we should) the historical connections between the conceptual developments of different sorts of performance practice.
The preference scale was based on the Thurstone model of comparative judgments case V (Thurstone 1927; Bradley & Terry 1952), which is the most common way to generate a preference scale from a series of paired comparisons (David 1988).
However, an ordinary or commonplace understanding of impartiality has very little "argumentative punch" in making comparative judgments of justice.
Sen argues that the focus on identifying and justifying ideal principles of justice obstructs the more important (and practically pressing) task of making comparative judgments between the less than perfect arrangements that can be feasibly pursued.

Full browser ?