Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,499

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Uncertainty and Structure as Psychological Concepts

Open access
Broadbent, D. E., Garner, Wendell R.·1964·The American Journal of Psychology
DOI 10.2307/1419296
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

It was a misfortune of psychology that it lacked a tradition of dealing with rigorous mathematical theories when psychologists were first attracted by information theory. Applications were made with simple-minded identification of psychological concepts with communication terms, without really paying attention to the meaning of the terms in the respective areas. Quite a few experiments were reported measuring human channel capacity under various experimental conditions without asking the basic question: Does the human being comply with the definition of channel in communication engineering? It is true that, in spite of this carelessness, the bulk of experiments re~ ported demonstrated some systematic results as summarized by G. A. Miller in his concept of The Magical Number Seven. However, these experiments also led to various riddles and confusions as illustrated by Garner in Chapter 2 of this book. And this is undoubtedly the reason that many frustrated psychologists finally gave up information theory as useless to psychology. Still, after the waxing and waning of information theory in psychology, an important recognition remained: Information processing is one of the most significant functions of man. The recognition must eventually revive the application of information theory to psychology as a sheer necessity. Probably " application" is not a proper word. A kind of information theory must be developed which is suitable to describe as complicated aa information processing mechanism as man. A first step toward such a theory was taken by McGill in his paper published in Psychometrika in 1954. What I call a misfortune of psychology is this: Instead of taking McGill's mathematical system (called symmetric uncerlainty analysis by Garner and abbreviated here as SUA) as a conceptual tool iu analyzing psychological problems, the tradition of psychology almost forced us to see it as another statistical testing technique analogous to the analysis of variance. As such, SUA was not so handy as the analysis of variance because of the lack of known distributions, and thus SUA failed to acquire popularity. What we needed then, and need now, is a conceptual means which logically bridges information theory to psychology. So the author could not do better in entirely leaving out of the book the significance testing aspect of SUA. I t must be pointed out that SUA is not a model of human behavior. I t is a system of mathematics (or, I would rather say, of logics) so that it is infallible as far as it goes. This aspect of SUA must be clearly remembered. Information theory, developed in communication engineering, is a normative theory. It is

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1419296

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Broadbent, D. E., & Garner, W. R.
Venue
The American Journal of Psychology
Publisher
University of Illinois Press
Published
1964-03
Volume
77
Issue
1
Pages
157
ISSN
0002-9556 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/1419296
OpenAlex
W1994063459
Cited by
1,499
References
0
FWCI
134.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.