Advertisement

Analysis of Similarity and Preference Data

  • Hubert Gatignon
Chapter
  • 3.3k Downloads

Abstract

Similarity data in management research are typically collected in order to understand the underlying dimensions determining perceptions of stimuli such as brands or companies. One advantage of such data is that it is cognitively easier for respondents to provide subjective assessments of the similarity between objects than to rate these objects on a number of attributes that they may not even be aware of. Furthermore, when asking respondents to rate objects on attributes, the selection of the attributes proposed may influence the results while, in fact, it is not clear that these attributes are the relevant ones. In multidimensional scaling, the methodology allows you to infer the structure of perceptions. In particular, the researcher is able to make inferences regarding the number of dimensions that are necessary to fit the similarity data. In this chapter, we first describe the type of data collected to perform multidimensional scaling and we then present metric and nonmetric methods of multidimensional scaling. Multidimensional scaling explains the similarity of objects such as brands. We then turn to the analysis of preference data, where the objective is to model and explain preferences for objects. These explanations are based on the underlying dimensions of preferences that are discovered through the methodology.

Keywords

Preference Data Nonmetric Methods Ideal Point Model Dissimilarity Data Stimulus Points 
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.

Bibliography

Basic Technical Readings

  1. Carroll, J. D., & Arabie, P. (1980). Multidimensional scaling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 607–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Shepard, R. N. (1980). Multidimensional scaling, tree-fitting, and clustering. Science, 210(24), 390–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Application Readings

  1. Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Wedel, M. (1999). A comparison of multidimensional scaling methods for perceptual mapping. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cooper, L. G. (1983). A review of multidimensional scaling in marketing research. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7(4), 427–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. DeSarbo, W. S., Young, M. R., & Rangaswamy, A. (1997). A parametric multidimensional unfolding procedure for incomplete nonmetric preference/choice set data in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(4), 499–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DeSarbo, W. S., & De Soete, G. (1984). On the use of hierarchical clustering for the analysis of nonsymmetric proximities. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 601–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Green, P. E. (1975). Marketing applications of MDS: Assessment and outlook. Journal of Marketing, 39, 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Green, P. E., & Carmone, F. J. (1989). Multidimensional scaling: An introduction and comparison of nonmetric unfolding techniques. Journal of Marketing Research, 6, 330–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Johnson, R. M. (1971). Market segmentation: A strategic management tool. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Malhotra, N. K., Jain, A. K., Patil, A., Pinson, C., & Lan, W. (2010). Consumer cognitive complexity and the dimensionality of multidimensional scaling configurations. Review of Marketing Research, 7, 199–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Neidell, L. A. (1969). The use of nonmetric multidimensional scaling in marketing analysis. Journal of Marketing, 33, 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sexton, D. E., Jr. (1974). A cluster analytic approach to market response functions. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 109–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Srivatsava, R. K., Leone, R. P., & Shocker, A. D. (1981). Market structure analysis: Hierarchical clustering of products based on substitution in use. Journal of Marketing, 45(Summer), 38–48.Google Scholar
  13. Stuart, T. E., & Podolny, J. M. (1996). Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hubert Gatignon
    • 1
  1. 1.INSEADFontainebleau CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations