Interest in cognitive approaches has led to a need for means of ascertaining individual perceptions with a view to relating these to spatial behaviour. Yet such methods as the repertory grid, although invaluable for investigating individuals, make comparisons across a wider group difficult. The multidimensional scaling program PREFMAP possesses this facility through its assumption of a group cognitive space whose dimensions, while common to all, have different saliences for different individuals. This study tests the feasibility of using PREFMAP to study perceived attributes of shopping centres. A broad, though not exact, commonality of dimensions appears to exist. Values of subjects' saliences on PREFMAP dimensions are further shown to be related to variations in shopping behaviour, but until multidimensional scaling can be related to a theory of cognition it will not realise its potential for behavioural studies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BannisterDMairJ M M, 1968The Evaluation of Personal Constructs (Academic Press, London)
2.
BouldingK E, 1956The linage (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor)
3.
BradfordM G, 1974Spatial Aspects of Urban Consumer Behaviour PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, England
4.
British Market Research Bureau Ltd, 1970Shopping in the Seventies: Highlights of a Survey of Housewives (IPC, Guildford, Surrey)
5.
BurnettP, 1973“The dimensions of alternatives in spatial choice processes”Geographical Analysis5181–204
6.
CarrollJ D, 1972“Individual differences and multidimensional scaling” in Multidimensional Scaling Theory and Applications in the Behavioural Sciences Eds ShepardR NRomneyA KNerloveS B, (Seminar Press, New York) volume 1, pp 105–155
7.
CarrollJ DChangJ J, 1970“Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an N-way generalisation of ‘Eckart-Young’ decomposition”Psychometrika35283–319
8.
CoombsC H, 1964A Theory of Data (John Wiley, New York)
9.
DaviesR L, 1973“Patterns and profiles of consumer behaviour” research series 10, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, England
10.
DownsR M, 1970“The cognitive structure of an urban shopping centre”Environment and Behavior213–39
11.
GärlingT, 1976“A multidimensional scaling and semantic differential study of the perception of environmental settings”Scandinavian Journal of Psychology17323–332
12.
GouldP R, 1966“On mental maps” DP-9, Michigan Inter-University Community of Mathematical Geographers, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
13.
HarrisonJSarreP, 1975“Personal Construct Theory in the measurement of environmental images”Environment and Behavior73–58
14.
HartR AMooreG T, 1973“The development of spatial cognition: A review” in Image and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behaviour Eds DownsR MSteaD, (Aldine, Chicago, Ill.) pp 246–288
15.
HarveyD, 1969“Conceptual and measurement problems in the cognitive–behavioural approach to location theory” in Studies in Geography 17. Behavioural Problems in Geography Eds CoxK RGolledgeR G, (Northwestern University Studies Press, Evanston, Ill.) pp 35–68
16.
HoustonJ M, 1978“The concepts of ‘place’ and ‘land’ in the Judaeo-Christian tradition” in Humanistic Geography: Prospects and Problems Eds LeyDSamuelsM S, (Maaroufa Press, Chicago, Ill.; also Croom Helm, London) pp 224–237
17.
HudsonR, 1976a“Linking studies of the individual with models of aggregate behaviour: An empirical example”Transactions, Institute of British Geographers (New Series)1159–174
18.
HudsonR, 1976b“Environmental images, spatial choice and consumer behaviour” occasional publications (new series) 9, Department of Geography, University of Durham, Durham, England
19.
HuffD L, 1960“A topographical model of consumer space preferences”Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association6159–173
20.
KellyG A, 1955The Psychology of Personal Constructs (W W Norton, New York)
21.
KleckaW R, 1975“Discriminant analysis” in SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Eds NieN HHullC HJenkinsJSteinbrennerKBrentD H, (McGraw-Hill, New York) pp 434–467
22.
Lancashire County Council, 1972The North-East Lancashire Plan Survey Report—Shopping (Lancashire County Council, Preston)
23.
LeyD, 1977“Social Geography and the taken-for-granted world”Transactions, Institute of British Geographers (New Series)2498–512
24.
LloydR E, 1976“Cognition, preference and behaviour in space: An explanation of the structural linkages”Economic Geography52241–253
25.
MorrisonD G, 1969“On the interpretation of discriminant analysis”Journal of Marketing Research6156–163
26.
NicolaidisG C, 1975“Quantification of the comfort variable”Transportation Research955–66
27.
NicolaidisG CDobsonR, 1975“Disaggregated perceptions and preferences in transportation planning”Transportation Research9279–295
28.
OsgoodC ESuciG JTannenbaumP H, 1957The Measurement of Meaning (University of Illinois Press, Urbana)
29.
PalmerC J, 1978“Understanding unbiased dimensions: The use of repertory-grid methodology”Environment and Planning A101137–1150
30.
QuarmbyD A, 1967“Choice of travel mode for the journey to work: Some findings”Journal of Transport Economics and Policy1273–314
31.
RushtonG, 1969“Analysis of spatial behaviour by revealed space preference”Annals, Association of American Geographers59391–400
32.
SpencerA H, 1978“Deriving measures of attractiveness for shopping centres”Regional Studies12713–726
33.
SpencerA H, 1979Customer Behaviour and Perception of Shopping Centres PhD thesis, University of Reading, Reading, England
34.
StoneG P, 1954“City shoppers and urban identification: Observations on the social psychology of city life”American Journal of Sociology6036–45
35.
TolmanE C, 1948“Cognitive maps in rats and men”Psychological Review55189–208
36.
WishMCarrollJ D, 1971“Multidimensional scaling with differential weighting of dimensions” in Mathematics in the Archaeological and Historical Sciences Eds HudsonF RKendallD GTăutuP, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh) pp 150–167
