Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-szhh2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T06:29:58.492Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

External Analyses of Preference Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Mark L. Davison
Mark L. Davison*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Mark L. Davison, Department of Social, Psychological, and Philosophical Foundations of Education, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using Carroll's external analysis, several studies have found that unfolding models account for more, although seldom significantly more, variance in preferences than Tucker's vector model. In studies of sociometric ratings and political preferences, the unfolding model again rarely outpredicted the vector model by a significant amount. Yet on cross-validation, the unfolding model consistently accounted for more variance. Results suggest that sometimes significance tests are less sensitive than cross-validation procedures to the small but consistent superiority of the unfolding model. Future researchers may wish to use significance tests and cross-validation techniques in comparing models.

Keywords

cross-validationmultiple regressionpolitical preferencessociometric choiceutility theory
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , December 1976 , pp. 557 - 558
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Reference Notes

Nygren, T. E. Individual differences in perceptions of political candidates. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1973.Google Scholar
Jones, L. E. and Wiggins, N. What's in a face: Individual differences in facial perception. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, September, 1975.Google Scholar
Browne, M. W. Precision of prediction, 1969, Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar

References

Carroll, J. D. Individual differences and multidimensional scaling. In Shepard, R. N., and Romney, A. K., Nerlove, S. B. (Eds.), Multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications in the behavioral sciences (Vol. 1), 1972, New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Cliff, N. Adjective check list responses and individual differences in perceived meaning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1968, 28, 1063–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cliff, N. Liking judgments and multidimensional scaling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1969, 29, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, C. H. A theory of data, 1964, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Davison, M. L. Fitting and testing Carroll's weighted unfolding model for preferences. Psychometrika, 1976, 41, 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, M. L. and Jones, L. E. A similarity-attraction model for predicting sociometric choice from perceived group structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, L. R. Intra-individual and inter-individual multidimensionality. In Gulliksen, H. and Messick, S. (Eds.), Psychological scaling: Theory and applications, 1960, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Wiggins, N. and Hoffman, P. J. Three models of clinical judgment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1968, 73, 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar