Analysis of Individual Differences in Multidimensional Scaling Via an N-way Generalization of “Eckart-Young” Decomposition | Psychometrika | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

An individual differences model for multidimensional scaling is outlined in which individuals are assumed differentially to weight the several dimensions of a common “psychological space”. A corresponding method of analyzing similarities data is proposed, involving a generalization of “Eckart-Young analysis” to decomposition of three-way (or higher-way) tables. In the present case this decomposition is applied to a derived three-way table of scalar products between stimuli for individuals. This analysis yields a stimulus by dimensions coordinate matrix and a subjects by dimensions matrix of weights. This method is illustrated with data on auditory stimuli and on perception of nations.

References

Bloxom, B. Individual differences in multidimensional scaling, 1968, Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service.10.1002/j.2333-8504.1968.tb00567.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bricker, P. D. & Pruzansky, S. A comparison of sorting and pair-wise similarity judgment techniques for scaling auditory stimuli. Unpublished manuscript, Bell Telephone Laboratories, 1970.10.1121/1.1974822CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bricker, P. D., Pruzansky, S., & McDermott, B. J. Recovering spatial information from subjects' clusterings of auditory stimuli. Paper presented at the meeting of The Psychonomic Society, St. Louis, October–November 1968.. In King, C. W. & Tigert, D. (Eds). Attitude research reaches new heights. American Marketing Association, 1971, in press.Google Scholar

Green, P. E. & Morris, T. W. Individual difference models in multidimensional scaling: an empirical comparison. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania, 1969.Google Scholar

Green, P. E. & Rao, V. R. Dissimilarities data-disaggregate analysis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania (Chapter 3 of monograph, in preparation, entitled: User's guide to multidimensional scaling: A comparison of approaches and algorithms), 1970.Google Scholar

Horan, C. B. Multidimensional scaling: combining observations when individuals have different perceptual structures. Psychometrika, 1969, 34, 139–165.10.1007/BF02289341CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kruskal, J. B. How to use MDSCAL, a program to do multidimensional scaling and multidimensional unfolding. Unpublished report, Bell Telephone Laboratories, 1968.Google Scholar

Lyttkens, E. On the fix-point property of Wold's iterative estimation method for principal components. In Krishnaiah, P. R. (Eds.), Multivariate analysis. New York: Academic Press. 1966, 335–350.Google Scholar

McGee, V. E. Multidimensional scaling of N sets of similarity measures: A nonmetric individual differences approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1968, 3, 233–248.10.1207/s15327906mbr0302_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rao, V. R. The salience of price in the perception and evaluation of product quality: A multidimensional measurement model and experimental test. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1970.Google Scholar

Ross, J. A remark on Tucker and Messick's “points of view” analysis. Psychometrika, 1966, 31, 27–31.10.1007/BF02289454CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shepard, R. N. Metric structures in ordinal data. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1966, 3, 287–315.10.1016/0022-2496(66)90017-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Torgerson, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling, 1958, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Tucker, L. The extension of factor analysis to three-dimensional matrices. In Frederiksen, N. and Gulliksen, H. (Eds.), Contributions to mathematical psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1964, 109–127.Google Scholar

Tucker, L. R. Some mathematical notes on three-mode factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1966, 31, 279–311.10.1007/BF02289464CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tucker, L. R. and Messick, S. An individual difference model for multidimensional scaling. Psychometrika, 1963, 28, 333–367.10.1007/BF02289557CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wish, M. Comparisons among multidimensional structures of nations based on different measures of subjective similarity. In Rapoport, A. (Ed.), General Systems, Vol. 15, 1970, in press (a).Google Scholar

Wish, M. Individual differences in perceived similarity and friendship of nations. Submitted to Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (b).Google Scholar

Wish, M. Individual differences in perceptions and preferences among nations. In King, C. W. & Tigert, D. (Eds). Attitude research reaches new heights, American Marketing Association, 1971, in press.Google Scholar

Wish, M., Deutsch, M. & Biener, L. Differences in perceived similarity of nations. In Shepard, R. N., Romney, A. K. & Nerlove, S. (Eds). Multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications in the behavioral sciences, 1971, in press.Google Scholar

Wold, H. Estimation of principal components and related models by iterative least squares. In Krishnaiah, P. R. (Eds.), Multivariate analysis. New York: Academic Press. 1966, 391–420.Google Scholar

Young, F. W. and Torgerson, W. S. TORSCA, a FORTRAN IV program for Shepard-Kruskal multidimensional scaling analysis. Behavioral Science, 1967, 12, 498–498.Google Scholar