Order of presentation of objects might influence the similarity judgments provided by respondents. If so, the results obtained by MDS techniques are likely to be biased. To examine this possibility, several hypotheses were developed, an experiment was designed, and data were analyzed by use of multivariate analysis of variance. No significant differences due to the order effect were found in similarity judgments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerdyDavid. “Order Effects in Taste Tests,” Journal of Marketing Research Society, 11 (October1969), 361–71.
2.
BloxomB. “Individual Differences in Multidimensional Scaling,” Research Bulletin 68–45, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 1968.
3.
CarrollJ. Douglas. “Individual Differences and Multidimensional Scaling,” in ShepardR. N., RomneyA. K., and NerloveS., eds., Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications in Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 1. New York: Seminar Press, 1972.
4.
CarrollJ. Douglas and ChangJie Jih. “Analysis of Individual Differences in Multidimensional Scaling via N-Way Generalization of ‘Eckart-Young’ Decomposition,” Psychometrika, 35 (September1970), 283–319.
5.
CooleyWilliam W. and LohnesPaul R.. Multivariate Data Analysis.New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1971.
6.
DanielsPeter and LawfordJohn. “The Effect of Order in the Presentation of Samples in Paired Comparison Product Tests,” Journal of Marketing Research Society, 16 (April1974), 127–33.
7.
FenkerRichard M. “Two Contemporary Problems in Multidimensional Scaling,” U.S. Army Human Engineering Laboratories Technical Memorandum No. 8–72, March1972, 20.
8.
FinnJeremy D.Multivariate: Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance, Covariance, and Regression—A Fortran IV Program.Ann Arbor: National Educational Resources, Inc., 1972.
9.
GreenPaul E. and JainArun K.. “A Note on the ‘Robustness’ of INDSCAL Individual Differences Scaling to Departure from Linearity,” Proceedings, Fall Conference, American Marketing Association, 1972.
10.
HoranC. B. “Multidimensional Scaling: Combining Observations When Individuals Have Different Perceptual Structures,” Psychometrika, 34 (1969), 139–65.
11.
JainArun K. “CANCOR: Program for Canonical Correlation of Three or More Sets of Variables,” Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (February1972), 69–70.
12.
JonesEdward E. and GoethalsGeorge R.. “Order Effects in Impression Formation: Attribution Context and the Nature of the Entity,” in JonesE. E. et al., eds., Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior.Morristown: General Seminar Press, 1972.
13.
KruskalJoseph B. “Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling: A Numerical Method,” Psychometrika, 29 (June1964), 115–29.
14.
KruskalJoseph B., YoungForrest W., and SeeryJudith B.. “How to Use KYST, A Very Flexible Program to Do Multidimensional Scaling and Unfolding,” Mimeographed, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey, 1973.
15.
RaoVithala R. and KatzRalph. “Alternative Multidimensional Scaling Methods for Large Stimulus Set,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (November1971), 488–94.
16.
ScowcroftG.Consumer Evaluation of Flavour: Some Approaches Used at Campbell Soup Company.New York: Reinhold, 1958.
17.
YoungForrest W. and TorgersonWarren S.. “A FORTRAN IV Program for Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling Analysis,” Behavioral Science, 12 (November1967), 498.
18.
WindYoram and DennyJoseph. “Multivariate Analysis of Variance in Research on the Effectiveness of T.V. Commercials,” Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (May1974), 136–42.
