Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T19:19:19.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linear Programming Techniques for Multidimensional Analysis of Preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

V. Srinivasan  and
Allan D. Shocker
V. Srinivasan
Affiliation:
The University of Rochester
Allan D. Shocker
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper offers a new methodology for analyzing individual differences in preference judgments with regard to a set of stimuli prespecified in a multidimensional attribute space. The individual is modelled as possessing an “ideal point” denoting his most preferred stimulus location in this space and a set of weights which reveal the relative saliences of the attributes. He prefers those stimuli which are “closer” to his ideal point (in terms of a weighted Euclidean distance measure). A linear programming model is proposed for “external analysis” i.e., estimation of the coordinates of his ideal point and the weights (involved in the Euclidean distance measure) by analyzing his paired comparison preference judgments on a set of stimuli, prespecified by their coordinate locations in the multidimensional space. A measure of “poorness of fit” is developed and the linear programming model minimizes this measure over all possible solutions. The approach is fully nonmetric, extremely flexible, and uses paired comparison judgments directly. The weights can either be constrained nonnegative or left unconstrained. Generalizations of the model to consider ordinal or interval preference data and to allow an orthogonal transformation of the attribute space are discussed. The methodology is extended to perform “internal analysis,”i.e., to determine the stimuli locations in addition to weights and ideal points by analyzing the preference judgments of all subjects simultaneously. Computational results show that the methodology for external analysis is “unbiased”—i.e., on an average it recovers the “true” ideal point and weights. These studies also indicate that the technique performs satisfactorily even when about 20 percent of the paired comparison judgments are incorrectly specified.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , September 1973 , pp. 337 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © 1973 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.)

Footnotes

*

The authors wish to express their deep appreciation to J. Douglas Carroll and Joseph B. Kruskal for their most valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

Bennett, J. F. and Hays, W. L. Multidimensional unfolding: Determining the dimensionality of ranked preference data. Psychometrika, 1960, 25, 27–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. D. Polynomial factor analysis. Proceedings of the 77th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, 1969, 4, 103–104Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D. Individual differences and multidimensional scaling. In Shepard, R. N., Romney, A. K. and Nerlove, S. (Eds.), Multidimensional scaling: theory and applications in the behavioral sciences. Vol. I: Theory, 1972, New York: Seminar PressGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. D., and Chang, J. J. Nonparametric multidimensional analysis of paired-comparisons data. Paper presented at the joint meeting of the Psychometric and Psychonomic Societies in Niagara Falls, October, 1964Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D., and Chang, J. J. Relating preference data to multidimensional scaling solutions via a generalization of Coomb's unfolding model. Paper presented at meeting of Psychometric Society, Madison, Wisconsin, April, 1967.Google Scholar
Charnes, A., and Cooper, W. W. Management models and industrial applications of linear programming, (Vol. I), 1961, New York: John WileyGoogle Scholar
Coombs, C. H. Psychological scaling without a unit of measurement. Psychological Review, 1950, 57, 148–158CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dantzig, G. B. Linear programming and extensions, 1963, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
Garvin, W. W. Introduction to linear programming, 1960, New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Book CompanyGoogle Scholar
Gass, W. I. Linear programming: methods and applications, 1958, New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Book CompanyGoogle Scholar
Gleason, T. C. Multidimensional scaling of sociometric data, 1969, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, The University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
Hadley, G. Nonlinear and dynamic programming, 1964, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
Klahr, D. A Monte Carlo investigation of the statistical significance of Kruskal's nonmetric scaling procedure. Psychometrika, 1969, 34, 319–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klahr, D. A study of consumers' cognitive structure for cigarette brands. The Journal of Business of the University of Chicago, 1970, 43, 190–204Google Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 1964, 29, 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. How to use MDSCAL, a program to do multidimensional scaling and multidimensional unfolding, 1968, Murray Hill, New Jersey: Bell Telephone LaboratoriesGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. and Carroll, J. D. Geometric models and badness-of-fit functions. In Krishniah, P. R. (Eds.), Multivariate analysis II. New York: Academic Press. 1969, 639–670Google Scholar
Lingoes, J. C. An IBM 7090 program for Guttmann-Lingoes smallest space analysis-RI. Behavioral Science, 1966, 11, 332–332Google Scholar
MacCrimmon, K. R. Decision making among multiple-attribute alternatives: A survey and consolidated approach. Memorandum RM-4823-ARPA, 1968, Santa Monica, California: The RAND CorporationGoogle Scholar
Roskam, E. I. Metric analysis of ordinal data in psychology: Models and numerical methods for metric analysis of conjoint ordinal data in psychology. Ph.D. thesis, Katholieke Universiteit te Nijmegen, 1968.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N. Metric structures in ordinal data. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1966, 3, 287–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shocker, A. D., and Srinivasan, V. A consumer-based methodology for the identification of new product ideas. Management Science, (in press), 1973.Google Scholar
Simmonard, M. Linear programming, 1966, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
Slater, P.. The analysis of personal preferences. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 1960, 13, 119–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srinivasan, V. Linear programming computational procedures for ordinal regression, 1973, Rochester, New York: The University of Rochester, The Graduate School of Management (forthcoming)Google Scholar
Srinivasan, V., and Shocker, A. D. Estimating the weights for multiple attributes in a composite criterion using pairwise judgements. Psychometrika, 1973, (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srinivasan, V., Shocker, A. D., and Weinstein, A. G. Measurement of a composite criterion of managerial success. Organizational behavior and human performance, 1973, 9, 147–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, L. R Intra-individual and inter-individual multidimensionality. In Gulliksen, H., Messick, S. (Eds.), Psychological scaling: theory and applications. New York: John Wiley. 1960, 155–167Google Scholar
Wagner, H. M. Linear programming techniques for regression analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1959, 54, 206–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, F. W., and Torgerson, W. S. TORSCA, A FORTRAN IV program for Shepard-Kruskal multidimensional scaling analysis. Behavioral Science, 1967, 12, 498–498Google Scholar
Zangwill, W. I. Nonlinear programming: a unified approach, 1969, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar