Recently interest has centered on extending decompositional methods for modeling consumer preferences to include group-level effects. The motivation for this effort is the general belief that respondent background characteristics and situation variables frequently interact with product attributes in jointly influencing preferences over a set of multiattribute alternatives. In much the same way, respondent and situation factors can interact with product attribute perceptions in perceptual mapping applications to influence the respondent's ratings of the brands. The authors describe how respondent background characteristics and situation variables can be accounted for as sources of variation which can potentially influence the reduced space configuration of brands. Essentially the approach can be viewed as chaining multivariate analysis of variance and standard perceptual mapping techniques. Two illustrative examples are provided. In one example the results show that the uncovered spatial configuration of brands was influenced not only by the perceptual differences between the brands, but also by a respondent-related factor.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhmavaaraY. (1954a), “The Mathematical Theory of Factorial Invariance Under Selection,”Psychometrika, 19(March), 27–38.
2.
AhmavaaraY. (1954b), “Transformation Analysis of Factorial Data,”Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, 88, 1–150.
3.
CarrollJ. D., and ChangJ. J. (1964), “A General Index of Nonlinear Correlation and Its Application to the Interpretation of Multidimensional Scaling Solutions,”American Psychologist, 19.
4.
CarrollJ. D., and ChangJ. J. (1970), “Analysis of Individual Differences in Multidimensional Scaling Via an N-Way Generalization of ‘Eckart-Young’ Decomposition,”Psychometrika, 35, 283–320.
5.
CattellR. B., and BaggaleyA. R. (1960), “The Salient Variable Similarity Index for Factor Matching,”British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 13(May), 33–46.
6.
CliffN. (1966), “Orthogonal Rotation to Congruence,”Psychometrika, 31, 33–42.
7.
DigmanJ. M. (1967), “The Procrustes Class of Factor-Analytic Transformation,”Multivariate Behavioral Research, 2(1), 89.
8.
DillonW. R., and FrederickD. G., and TangpanichdeeV. (1981), “Issues in Perceptual Mapping Applications: Relations Between Alternative Techniques,” working paper, University of Massachusetts.
9.
EckartC., and YoungG. (1936), “The Approximation of One Matrix by Another of Lower Rank,”Psychometrika, 1, 211–18.
10.
GowerJ. C. (1966), “Some Distance Properties of Latent Root and Vector Methods Used in Multivariate Analysis,”Biometrika, 53, 325–38.
11.
GreenB. F. (1952), “The Orthogonal Approximation of an Oblique Structure in Factor Analysis,”Psychometrika, 17, 429–40.
12.
GreenP. E., and CarmoneF. J. (1977), “Design Considerations in Attitude Measurement,” in Moving Ahead with Attitude Research, WindY., and GreenbergM. G., eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association,9–18.
13.
GreenP. E., and DeSarboW. S. (1979), “Componential Segmenting in the Analysis of Consumer Trade-Offs,”Journal of Marketing, 43(Fall), 83–91.
14.
GreenP. E., and RaoV. R. (1972), Applied Multidimensional Scaling: A Comparison of Approaches and Algorithms.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
15.
HarmanH. H. (1967), Modern Factor Analysis.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
HorstP. (1965), Factor Analysis of Data Matrices.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
17.
JöreskogK. G. (1971a), “Simultaneous Factor Analysis in Several Populations,”Psychometrika, 36, 409–26.
18.
JöreskogK. G. (1971b), “Statistical Analysis of Sets of Congeneric Texts,”Psychometrika, 36, 109–33.
19.
JöreskogK. G., and SörbomD. (1981), LISREL V: Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by the Method of Maximum Likelihood.Chicago: National Educational Resources, Inc.
20.
KlahrD. (1969), “A Monte Carlo Investigation of the Statistical Significance of Kruskal's Non-metric Scaling Procedure,”Psychometrika, 34(September), 319–30.
21.
KruskalJ. B., and WishM. (1978), Multidimensional Scaling, Sage University Papers on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07–011. Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications.
22.
KrzanowskiW. J. (1976), “Canonical Representation of the Location Model for Discrimination or Classification,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, 21(December), 845–8.
23.
LevineM. S. (1977), Canonical Analysis and Factor Comparison, Sage University Papers on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07–006. Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications.
24.
NieN. H., and HullC. H., and JenkinsJ. G., and SteinbrennerK., and BentD. H. (1975), Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
25.
PrzeworskiA., and TeuneH. (1970), The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
26.
RummelR. J. (1970), Applied Factor Analysis.Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
27.
SchönemannP. H. (1966), “A Generalized Solution of the Orthogonal Procrustes Problem,”Psychometrika, 31(March), 1–10.
28.
SchönemannP. H., and CarrollR. M. (1970), “Fitting One Matrix to Another Under Choice of a Central Dilation and a Rigid Motion,”Psychometrika, 35(June), 245–55.
29.
SilkA. J., and UrbanG. L. (1978), “Pretest Market Evaluation of New Packaged Goods: A Model and Measurement Methodology,”Journal of Marketing Research, 15(May), 171–91.
30.
SörbomD., and JöreskogK. G. (1976), COFAMM: Confirmatory Factor Analysis with Model Modification User's Guide.Chicago: National Educational Resources, Inc.
31.
TorgersonW. S. (1958), Theory and Methods of Scaling.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
32.
WeinbergerM. G., and AllenC. T., and DillonW. R. (1981), “The Impact of Negative Marketing Communications: The Consumers Union/Chrysler Controversy,”Journal of Advertising, 10(4), 20–8.
33.
WestinS., and DillonW. R. (1979), “CANDI: A Program to Provide a Canonical Representation of Distance Scores,”Journal of Marketing Research, 16(November), 559–60.
34.
WilksS. S. (1932), “Certain Generalizations in the Analysis of Variance,”Biometrika, 24, 471–94.
