Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:13:44.000Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pairwise Partitioning: A Nonmetric Algorithm for Identifying Feature-Based Similarity Structures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

J. Wesley Hutchinson  and
Amitabh Mungale
J. Wesley Hutchinson*
Affiliation:
University of Florida University of Pennsylvania
Amitabh Mungale
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Wes Hutchinson, Marketing Department, 1457 SHDH, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pairwise partitioning is a nonmetric, divisive algorithm, for identifying feature structures based on pairwise similarities. For errorless data, this algorithm is shown to identify only (and sometimes all) valid features for certain hierarchical and multidimensional feature structures. Unfortunately, the algorithm is also extremely sensitive to error in the data. Fortunately, several modifications of the algorithm are shown to compensate significantly for this deficiency. The algorithm is illustrated with simulations and analyses of three sets of similarity data. The results suggest that this algorithm will be most useful (a) as an exploratory tool for generating a relatively large set of potential features that can be reduced using other criteria (either statistical or substantive) and (b) as a source of confirmatory or disconfirmatory evidence.

Keywords

additive treescluster analysisfeature structureslinear arraysoverlapping clusteringpartitioningsimilarity
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , March 1997 , pp. 85 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

This research has been partially supported by funding from the College of Business and the Center for Retailing Education and Research at the University of Florida. We are also grateful for the helpful comments of Phipps Arabie, two anonymous reviewers, the associate editor, and editor on earlier versions of the manuscript.

References

Arabie, P., Caroll, J. D. (1980). MAPCLUS: A mathematical programming approach to fitting the ADCLUS model. Psychometrika, 45, 211–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arabie, P., Carroll, J. D., DeSarbo, W., Jerry, Wind (1981). Overlapping clustering: A new method for product positioning. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 310–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arabie, P., Hubert, L. J. (1992). Combinatorial data analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 169–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arabie, P., Hubert, L. J. (1994). Cluster analysis in marketing research. In Bagozzi, R. P. (Eds.), Advanced methods in marketing research (pp. 160–189). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business.Google Scholar
Belbin, L. (1987). The use of non-hierarchical allocation methods for clustering large sets of data. The Australian Computer Journal, 19, 32–41.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D., Arabie, P. (1980). Multidimensional scaling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 607–649.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corter, J. E., Tversky, A. (1986). Extended similarity trees. Psychometrika, 51, 429–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, J. P. (1978). Free trees and bidirectional trees as representations of psychological distance. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 17, 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, G. A. (1954). A direct method for multidimensional ratio scaling. Psychometrika, 28, 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, P. E., Rao, V. R. (1972). Applied multidimensional scaling: A comparison of approaches and algorithms, New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Helsen, K., Green, P. E. (1991). A computational study of replicated clustering with an application to market segmentation. Decision Sciences, 22, 1124–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubert, L. J. (1973). Monotone invariant clustering procedures. Psychometrika, 38, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, J. W. (1989). NETSCAL: A network scaling algorithm for nonsymmetric proximity data. Psychometrika, 54, 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, J. W., Lockhead, G. R. (1975). Categorization of semantically related words. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 6, 427–427.Google Scholar
Johnson, S. C. (1967). Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika, 32, 241–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klauer, K. C., Carroll, J. D (1989). A mathematical programming approach to fitting general graphs. Journal of Classification, 6, 247–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klauer, K. C., Carroll, J. D. (1991). A comparison of two approaches to fitting general graphs to nonsymmetric proximity measures. Journal of Classification, 8, 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B., Shepard, R. N. (1974). A nonmetric variety of linear factor analysis. Psychometrika, 39, 123–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacQueen, J. B. (1967). Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 1, 281–297.Google Scholar
Milligan, G. W. (1980). An examination of the effect of six types of error perturbation on fifteen clustering algorithms. Psychometrika, 45, 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pruzansky, S., Tversky, A., Carroll, J. D. (1982). Spatial versus tree representations of proximity data. Psychometrika, 47, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Punj, G., Stewart, D. W. (1983). Cluster analysis in marketing research: Review and suggestions for application. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 134–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Restle, F. (1959). A metric and an ordering on sets. Psychometrika, 24, 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute. (1990a). SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, Vol. 1. Cary, NC: •••.Google Scholar
SAS Institute. (1990b). SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, Vol. 2. Cary, NC: •••.Google Scholar
Sattath, S., Tversky, A. (1977). Additive similarity trees. Psychometrika, 42, 319–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sattath, S., Tversky, A. (1987). On the relation between common and distinctive feature models. Psychological Review, 94, 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. (1962). The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function, I. Psychometrika, 27, 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N., Arabie, P. (1979). Additive clustering: Representation of similarities as combinations of discrete overlapping properties. Psychological Review, 86, 87–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneath, P. H. A., Sokal, R. R. (1973). Numerical taxonomy, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., Gati, I. (1982). Similarity, separability, and the triangle inequality. Psychological Review, 89, 123–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A., Hutchinson, J. W. (1986). Nearest neighbor analysis of psychological spaces. Psychological Review, 93, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar