Advertisement

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 300–313 | Cite as

A prediction study in perceptual and evaluative mapping

  • Arun K. Jain
Article
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

The study tests the ability of MDS model to predict individual preferences for new items introduced into a calibration-type similarities space. Towards this a small scale experiment involving various types of similarities and preference judgments was conducted. The results of the study show that the ideal point model fails to account for subjects' preference rankings of test items. The report discusses the study results and offers directions for future research.

Keywords

Test Item Multidimensional Scaling Ideal Point Preference Ranking Rank Position 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Carroll, J. D. and Chang, J. J. 1967. “Relating Preference Data to Multidimensional Scaling Solution via A Generalization of Coombs' Unfolding Model.” Murray Hill: New Jersey: Bell Telephone Laboratories (mimeographed).Google Scholar
  2. — 1970. “An Analysis of Individual Differences in Multidimensional Scaling via an N-Way Generalization of Eckart-Young Decomposition.” Psychometrica 35 283–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. — 1972. “Individual Differences in Multidimensional Scaling.” In Sheppard, R. N., Romney, A. K. and Nerlove, S., Eds. Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications in Behavioral Sciences. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Coombs, H. C. 1964. A Theory of Data. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  5. Green, P. E., Wind, Y. and Jain, A. K. “Preference Measurement of Item Collections.” Journal of Marketing Research 9 371–7.Google Scholar
  6. — 1975. “Marketing Applications of MDS: Assessment and Outlook.” Journal of Marketing 39 (January) 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Huber, J. 1975. “Predicting Preferences on Experimental Bundles of Attributes: A Comparison of Models.” Journal of Marketing Research 12 (August) 290–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Johnson, S. C. 1967. “Hierarchical Clustering Schemes.” Psychometrika 32 241–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kruskal, J. B. 1965. “Analysis of Factorial Experiments by Estimating Monotone Transformations of the Data.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 27 251–63.Google Scholar
  10. Nevin, John R. 1974. “Laboratory Experiments for Estimating Consumer Demand: A Validation Study.” Journal of Marketing Research 11 (August) 261–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pekelman, D. and Sen, S. K. 1971. “Mathematical Programming Models for the Determination of Attribute Weights.” Management Science 17 (February) B-271.Google Scholar
  12. Ryans, A. R. 1976. “Evaluating Aggregated Predictions from Models of Consumer Choice Behavior.” Journal of Marketing Research 13 (November 333–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Stefflre Associates, Inc. 1968. “Some Materials Describing Market Structure Studies.” Laguana Beach, California: Stefflre Associates, Inc. (brochure).Google Scholar
  14. Turner, R. E. 1971. “Market Measures from Salesmen: A Multidimensional Scaling Approach.” Journal of Marketing Research 8 (May) 165–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Young, F. W. and Torgerson, W. S. 1967. “TORSCA, a FORTRAN IV Program for Shepark-Kruskal Multidimensional Scaling Analysis.” Behavioral Science 12 498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arun K. Jain
    • 1
  1. 1.State University of New York at BuffaloBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations