Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 64–73 | Cite as

Magnitude scaling of the dependent variable in decompositional multiattribute preference models

  • R. Kenneth Teas


The results of this study produced strong support for the validity magnitude scaling procedures when aggregate data are analyzed. For example, the cross modality matching procedures indicated the geometric means of the preference responses to the CMA stimuli were characterized by power functions with estimated exponents similar to the theoretically derived exponents. When the data were analyzed at the individual level, however, considerable heterogeneity across individuals was found--the power function exponents vary considerably from individual to individual. This heterogeneity across subjects is similar to the findings of previous research on magnitude scaling (Dawson 1982). This may, therefore be a major limitation of this scaling procedure in conjoint analysis applications because of the widespread use of conjoint analysis for the examination of individual respondent utility functions.


Line Length Conjoint Analysis Fractional Factorial Design Preference Rating Magnitude Scale 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Addelman, Sidney. 1962. “Orthogonal Main-Effect Plans for Asymmetrical Factorial Experiments”.Technometrics 4 (February): 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carmone, F. J., P. E. Green, and A. K. Jain. 1978. “The Robustness of Conjoint Analysis: Some Monte Carlo Results”.Journal of Marketing Research 15 (May): 300–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chow, Gregory C. 1960. “Tests of Equality Between Sets of Coefficients in Two Linear Regressions”.Econometrica 28 (July): 591–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corson, W.H. 1970.Conflict and Cooperation in East-West Crises: Dynamics of Crisis Intervention. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  5. Davidson, J. D. 1973. “Forecasting Traffic on STOL”.Operations Research Quarterly 24 (December): 561–9.Google Scholar
  6. Dawson, William E. 1982. “On the Parallel Between Direct Ratio Scaling of Social Opinion and of Sensory Magnitude” InSocial Attitudes and Psychophysical Measurement. Ed. Bernd Wegener Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. — and R. P. Brinker. 1971 “Validation of Ratio Scales of Opinion by Multimodality Matching”.Perception and Psychophysics 9: 413–417.Google Scholar
  8. Ekman, G. 1962. “Measurement of Moral Judgment: A Comparison of Scaling Methods”.Perceptual and Motor Skills 15:3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Finnie, B., and R. D. Luce. 1960.Magnitude Estimation, Pair Comparison and Successive Interval Scales of Attitude Items. Monograph, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  10. Green, Paul E., J. D. Carroll, and F. J. Carmone 1978. “Some New Types of Fractional Factorial Designs for Marketing Experiments”. InResearch in Marketing, Vol. 1 Ed. J. N. Sheth. Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  11. — and V. R. Rao. 1971. “Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data”.Journal of Marketing Research 8 (August): 355–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. —, and V. Srinivasan. 1978. “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook”.Journal of Consumer Research 5 (September): 103–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamblin, R. L. 1971. “Mathematical Experimentation and Sociological Theory: A Critical Analysis”.Sociometry 34:423–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. —, D. Bridger, R. Day, and W. Yancey 1963. “The Interferenceaggression Law”.Sociometry 26: 190–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jain, A. K., Franklin Acito, Naresh K. Malhotra, and Vijay Mahajan. 1979. “A Comparison of the Internal Validity of Alternative Parameter Estimation Methods in Decompositional Multiattribute Preference Models”.Journal of Marketing Research 16 (August): 313–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson, R. M. 1974. “Trade-Off Analysis of Consumer Values”.Journal of Marketing Research 11 (May): 121–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. — 1975. “A Simple Method for Pairwise Monotone Regression”.Psychometrika 40 (June): 163–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kerlinger, Fred N., and Elazar J. Pedhazur 1973.Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Kruskal, J. B. 1965. “Analysis of Factorial Experiments by Estimating Monotone Transformation of the Data”.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 27: 251–63.Google Scholar
  20. Kuennapas, T., and M. Sillen. 1964.Measurement of ‘Political’ Preferences: A Comparison of Scaling Methods. Report No. 172. Psychological Laboratory of Stockholm.Google Scholar
  21. — and I. Wikstroem. 1963. “Measurement of Occupational Preferences: A Comparison of Scaling Methods”.Perceptual and Motor Skills 17:611–624.Google Scholar
  22. Lodge, Milton. 1981.Magnitude Scaling Quantitative Measurement of Opinions, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  23. —, D. Cross, B. Tursky, and J. Tanenhaus. 1974. “The Development and Validation of Political Attitude Scales: A Psychophysical Approach”. InThe Shaping of Scientific Research on Politics, Epistema Series. Ed. D. Leege. Holland: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  24. McCullough, James, and Roger Best 1979. “Conjoint Measurement: Temporal Stability and Structural Reliability”.Journal of Marketing Research 16 (February): 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Neibecker, Bruno. 1984. “The Validity of Computer-Controlled Magnitude Scaling to Measure Emotional Impact of Stimuli”.Journal of Marketing Research 21 (August): 325–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parker, B. R., and V. Srinivasan. 1976. “A Consumer Preference Approach to the Planning of Rural Health Care Facilities”.Operations Research 24 (September–October): 991–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rainwater, L. 1971.The Measurement of Social Status. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Sociology, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  28. Sellin, J. T., and M. E. Wolfgang. 1964.The Measurement of Delinquency. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  29. Shinn, A., Jr. 1969.The Application of Psychophysical Scaling Techniques to Measurement of Political Variables. Institute for Research in Social Science, University of North Carolina: Chapel-Hill Press.Google Scholar
  30. Srinivasan, V., and A. D. Shocker. 1973a. “Estimating the Weights for Multiple Attributes in a Composite Criterion Using Pairwise Judgments”.Psychometrika 38 (December): 473–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. — 1973b. “Linear Programming Techniques for Multidimensional Analysis of Preferences”.Psychometrika 38 (September): 337–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stevens, S. S. 1966. “Operations of Words”.Psychological Monographs 80:33–38.Google Scholar
  33. — 1972.Psychophysics and Social Scaling. Morristown: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  34. — 1975.Psychophysics: Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural, and Social Prospects. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Teas, R. K. 1985. “Analysis of the Temporal Stability and Structural Reliability of Metric Conjoint Analysis Procedures”.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 13 (Winter): 122–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Welch, R. 1974. “The Use of Magnitude Estimation in Attitude Scaling: Constructing a Measure of Political Dissatisfaction.” InPolitical Attitudes and Public Opinion. Eds. D. Nimmo and C. Bonjean. New York: David McKay Co.Google Scholar
  37. Wittink, Dick R., and Philippe Cattin. 1981. “Alternative Estimation Methods for Conjoint Analysis: A Monte Carlo Study”.Journal of Marketing Research 18 (February): 101–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wyler, A. R., M. Masuda, and T. Holmes 1971. “Magnitude of Life Events and Seriousness of Illness”.Psychosomatic Medicine 33: 115–122.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Kenneth Teas
    • 1
  1. 1.Iowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations