Robert Gifford Victoria BC Canada E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Reviewing all the newsletters online, I see that our group has only contributed to it 3 times, the last time in 1999, but we have never stopped conducting lens model studies over the last 20 years.
In terms of a lens model paradigm, we appear to be fixed at the place where Brunswik (1945) left off (see the 1956 book, pages 26-29, Experiment D), but this simple paradigm has been employed in contexts ranging from personnel hiring to judged intelligence and personality, burglars' and police assessments of potential burglary targets, and human physical attractiveness.
Our last three published Brunswikian articles have concentrated on how different groups of key players judge building aesthetics. Studies in Environment and Behavior (2001) and Journal of Architectural and Planning Research (2002) examine how architects and laypersons use different objective building cues (fenestration, cladding, height, shape, etc.) to arrive at different aesthetic conclusions. It has long been known that architects judge buildings differently from the rest of us, but these studies begin to elucidate exactly how and why that happens, beginning with objective cues, and including the observer's intermediate-level assessments such as the building's judged complexity, coherence, friendliness, etc. A similar
student and professor judgements of university classrooms.
The architecture studies seemed to catch the media eye, and were summarized in the national Canadian university newspaper University Affairs, the UK popular science journal NewScientist, and a few other places.
Are all judgments equal?
Claudia Gonzalez Vallejo Ohio University E-mail: email@example.com
My Brunswikian research continues to look at the extent to which global judgments differ in
systematic piece by
ways from judgments performed in a
attribute levels are judged for their quality).
work we preference
that the relationship of objects evaluated via
between the global
method and choice preference orders than that of choice and disaggregated
was smaller orders. We
at whether irrelevant cues influence global judgments to a greater extent than do disaggregated ones in a job selection task.
Using Judgment Analysis to Predict the Targets of Crime
Louise Gunderson University of Virginia E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
I am using Judgment Analysis to create a model of target selection by criminals. Generally , (robbery, when a criminal commits a crime
burglary) the details of the crime are recorded in
This allows the investigator
location, time, date, and type the features of the target can
of offence. Many of be determined from
be found from
the US Census
information, the weather can be found date, and so on. I am using the lens
from the model to
construct data mining methodologies the preferences of the criminals.
One of the preliminary results was a methodology to predict the type of object stolen
from homes, from stolen together in
a set the
of objects period of
that were not
association were not
rules were used to stolen together.
find the objects that For the city of
Richmond, Virginia in 1996, bicycles, goods, firearms, livestock, and tools
consumable were never
of the crimes in which one stolen were selected.
classification tree was built using the 1996-1997, and the features derived
data from from the
1998. This method correctly predicted object 44.2 % of the time, as compared the time by random draw.
the stolen to 28% of
Further work is continuing on the discovery of target preferences by a clustering methodology based on the lens model. This methodology has been demonstrated to outperform other clustering methods on synthetic data sets. At this point, it is being modified to take into account the distribution of features in the natural environment.
This work has been presented at various engineering conferences, such as PerMIS 2002 and IEEE SMC, 2002. The work presented at last
year's Brunswik Society meeting published as a chapter in Advances in
has been Computers,
Vol 56, M. V. Zelkowitz. Ed.
Newsletter 2002 page 11 of 28