, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 337–369 | Cite as

Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences

  • V. Srinivasan
  • Allan D. Shocker


This paper offers a new methodology for analyzing individual differences in preference judgments with regard to a set of stimuli prespecified in a multidimensional attribute space. The individual is modelled as possessing an “ideal point” denoting his most preferred stimulus location in this space and a set of weights which reveal the relative saliences of the attributes. He prefers those stimuli which are “closer” to his ideal point (in terms of a weighted Euclidean distance measure). A linear programming model is proposed for “external analysis”i.e., estimation of the coordinates of his ideal point and the weights (involved in the Euclidean distance measure) by analyzing his paired comparison preference judgments on a set of stimuli, prespecified by their coordinate locations in the multidimensional space. A measure of “poorness of fit” is developed and the linear programming model minimizes this measure overall possible solutions. The approach is fully nonmetric, extremely flexible, and uses paired comparison judgments directly. The weights can either be constrained nonnegative or left unconstrained. Generalizations of the model to consider ordinal or interval preference data and to allow an orthogonal transformation of the attribute space are discussed. The methodology is extended to perform “internal analysis,”i.e., to determine the stimuli locations in addition to weights and ideal points by analyzing the preference judgments of all subjects simultaneously. Computational results show that the methodology for external analysis is “unbiased”—i.e., on an average it recovers the “true” ideal point and weights. These studies also indicate that the technique performs satisfactorily even when about 20 percent of the paired comparison judgments are incorrectly specified.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bennett, J. F., and Hays, W. L. Multidimensional unfolding: Determining the dimensionality of ranked preference data.Psychometrika, 1960,25, 27–43.Google Scholar
  2. Carroll, J. D. Polynomial factor analysis.Proceedings of the 77th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, 1969,4, 103–104.Google Scholar
  3. Carroll, J. D. Individual differences and multidimensional scaling. In Shepard, R. N., Romney, A. K., and Nerlove, S. (Eds.)Multidimensional scaling: theory and applications in the behavioral sciences. Vol. I: Theory. New York: Seminar Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  4. Carroll, J. D., and Chang, J. J. Nonparametric multidimensional analysis of paired-comparisons data. Paper presented at the joint meeting of the Psychometric and Psychonomic Societies in Niagara Falls, October, 1964Google Scholar
  5. Carroll, J. D., and Chang, J. J. Relating preference data to multidimensional scaling solutions via a generalization of Coomb's unfolding model. Paper presented at meeting of Psychometric Society, Madison, Wisconsin, April, 1967.Google Scholar
  6. Charnes, A., and Cooper, W. W.Management models and industrial applications of linear programming, (Vol. I). New York: John Wiley, 1961.Google Scholar
  7. Coombs, C. H. Psychological scaling without a unit of measurement.Psychological Review, 1950,57, 148–158.Google Scholar
  8. Dantzig, G. B.Linear programming and extensions, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1963.Google Scholar
  9. Garvin, W. W.Introduction to linear programming. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960.Google Scholar
  10. Gass, W. I.Linear programming: methods and applications. New York, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1958.Google Scholar
  11. Gleason, T. C. Multidimensional scaling of sociometric data. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, 1969.Google Scholar
  12. Hadley, G.Nonlinear and dynamic programming. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1964.Google Scholar
  13. Klahr, D. A Monte Carlo investigation of the statistical significance of Kruskal's nonmetric scaling procedure.Psychometrika, 1969,34, 319–330.Google Scholar
  14. Klahr, D. A study of consumers' cognitive structure for cigarette brands.The Journal of Business of the University of Chicago, 1970,43, 190–204.Google Scholar
  15. Kruskal, J. B. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis.Psychometrika, 1964,29, 1–27.Google Scholar
  16. Kruskal, J. B. How to use MDSCAL, a program to do multidimensional scaling and multidimensional unfolding. Unpublished report, Murray Hill, New Jersey: Bell Telephone Laboratories, 1968.Google Scholar
  17. Kruskal, J. B., and Carroll, J. D. Geometric models and badness-of-fit functions. In Krishniah, P. R. (Ed.)Multivariate analysis II, New York: Academic Press, 1969, 639–670.Google Scholar
  18. Lingoes, J. C. An IBM 7090 program for Guttmann-Lingoes smallest space analysis-RI.Behavioral Science, 1966,11, 332.Google Scholar
  19. MacCrimmon, K. R. Decision making among multiple-attribute alternatives: A survey and consolidated approach.Memorandum RM-4823-ARPA, Santa Monica, California: The RAND Corporation, 1968.Google Scholar
  20. Roskam, E. I. Metric analysis of ordinal data in psychology: Models and numerical methods for metric analysis of conjoint ordinal data in psychology. Ph.D. thesis, Katholieke Universiteit te Nijmegen, 1968.Google Scholar
  21. Shepard, R. N. Metric structures in ordinal data.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1966,3, 287–315.Google Scholar
  22. Shocker, A. D., and Srinivasan, V. A consumer-based methodology for the identification of new product ideas.Management Science, (in press), 1973.Google Scholar
  23. Simmonard, M.Linear programming. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1966.Google Scholar
  24. Slater, P. The analysis of personal preferences.British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 1960,13, 119–135.Google Scholar
  25. Srinivasan, V. Linear programming computational procedures for ordinal regression. Working paper (forthcoming), Rochester, New York; The University of Rochester, The Graduate School of Management, 1973.Google Scholar
  26. Srinivasan, V., and Shocker, A. D. Estimating the weights for multiple attributes in a composite criterion using pairwise judgements.Psychometrika, 1973, (in press).Google Scholar
  27. Srinivasan, V., Shocker, A. D., and Weinstein, A. G. Measurement of a composite criterion of managerial success.Organizational behavior and human performance, 1973,9, 147–167.Google Scholar
  28. Tucker, L. R Intra-individual and inter-individual multidimensionality. In Gulliksen, H., and Messick, S., (Eds.),Psychological scaling: theory and applications, New York: John Wiley, 1960, 155–167.Google Scholar
  29. Wagner, H. M. Linear programming techniques for regression analysis.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1959,54, 206–212.Google Scholar
  30. Young, F. W., and Torgerson, W. S. TORSCA, A FORTRAN IV program for Shepard-Kruskal multidimensional scaling analysis.Behavioral Science, 1967,12, 498.Google Scholar
  31. Zangwill, W. I.Nonlinear programming: a unified approach. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1969.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychometric Society 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Srinivasan
    • 1
  • Allan D. Shocker
    • 2
  1. 1.The University of RochesterUSA
  2. 2.University of PittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations