Journal of Classification

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 25–74 | Cite as

The representation of three-way proximity data by single and multiple tree structure models

  • J. Douglas Carroll
  • Linda A. Clark
  • Wayne S. DeSarbo
Authors Of Articles


Models for the representation of proximity data (similarities/dissimilarities) can be categorized into one of three groups of models: continuous spatial models, discrete nonspatial models, and hybrid models (which combine aspects of both spatial and discrete models). Multidimensional scaling models and associated methods, used for thespatial representation of such proximity data, have been devised to accommodate two, three, and higher-way arrays. At least one model/method for overlapping (but generally non-hierarchical) clustering called INDCLUS (Carroll and Arabie 1983) has been devised for the case of three-way arrays of proximity data. Tree-fitting methods, used for thediscrete network representation of such proximity data, have only thus far been devised to handle two-way arrays. This paper develops a new methodology called INDTREES (for INdividual Differences in TREE Structures) for fitting various(discrete) tree structures to three-way proximity data. This individual differences generalization is one in which different individuals, for example, are assumed to base their judgments on the same family of trees, but are allowed to have different node heights and/or branch lengths.

We initially present an introductory overview focussing on existing two-way models. The INDTREES model and algorithm are then described in detail. Monte Carlo results for the INDTREES fitting of four different three-way data sets are presented. In the application, a single ultrametric tree is fitted to three-way proximity data derived from intention-to-buy-data for various brands of over-the-counter pain relievers for relieving three common types of maladies. Finally, we briefly describe how the INDTREES procedure can be extended to accommodate hybrid modelling, as well as to handle other types of applications.


Clustering Alternating least squares Discrete optimization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ARABIE, P., and CARROLL, J.D. (1980), “MAPCLUS: A Mathematical Programming Approach to Fitting the ADCLUS Model,”Psychometrika, 45, 211–235.Google Scholar
  2. BUNEMANN, P.A. (1974) “A Note on the Metric Properties of Trees,”Journal of Combinatorial Theory, 17, 48–50.Google Scholar
  3. CARROLL, J.D. (1975), “Handout for Models for Individual Differences in Similarities Judgments.” (Paper presented at Mathematical Psychology Meetings, 25–27 August Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.)Google Scholar
  4. CARROLL, J.D. (1976), “Spatial, Non-Spatial and Hybrid Models for Scaling,”Psychometrika, 41, 439–463.Google Scholar
  5. CARROLL, J.D., and ARABIE, P. (1979), “INDCLUS: A Three-Way Approach to Clustering.” (Paper presented at meeting of Psychometric Society, Monterey, California.)Google Scholar
  6. CARROLL, J.D., and ARABIE, P. (1983), “INDCLUS: An Individual Differences Generalization of the ADCLUS Model and the MAPCLUS Algorithm,”Psychometrika, 48, 157–169.Google Scholar
  7. CARROLL, J.D., and CHANG, J.J. (1970), “Analysis of Individual Differences in Multidimensional Scaling via an N-Way Generalization of Eckart-Young Decomposition,”Psychometrika, 35, 283–319.Google Scholar
  8. CARROLL, J.D., and CHANG, J.J. (1973), “A Method for Fitting a Class of Hierarchical Tree Structure Models to Dissimilarities Data, and its Application to Some Body Parts Data of Miller's,”Proceedings of the 81st Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 8, 1097–1098.Google Scholar
  9. CARROLL, J.D., and PRUZANSKY, S. (1975), “Fitting of Hierarchical Tree Structure (HTS) Models, Mixtures of HTS Models, and Hybrid Models, via Mathematical Programming and Alternating Least Squares.” (Paper presented at U.S.-Japan Seminar of Multidimensional Scaling, 20–24 August, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California.)Google Scholar
  10. CARROLL, J.D., and PRUZANSKY, S. (1980), “Discrete and Hybrid Scaling Models,” inSimilarity and Choice, eds. E.D. Lantermann and H. Feger, Bern: Hans Huber.Google Scholar
  11. CARROLL, J.D., and WISH, M. (1974), “Models and Methods for Three-Way Multidimensional Scaling,” inContemporary Developments in Mathematical Psychology (Vol. II), eds. D.H. Krantz, R.C. Atkinson, R.D. Luce, and P. Suppes, San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  12. COOPER, L., and STEINBERG, D. (1970),Introduction to Methods of Optimization, Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.Google Scholar
  13. CRAIN, R., (ed.) (1982),Advertising Age, Chicago: Crain Communications.Google Scholar
  14. CUNNINGHAM, J.P. (1974), “Finding the Optimal Tree Realization of a Proximity Matrix.” (Paper presented at the Mathematical Psychology Meetings, August, Ann Arbor, Michigan.)Google Scholar
  15. CUNNINGHAM, J.P. (1978), “Free Trees and Bidirectional Trees as a Representation of Psychological Distance,”Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 17, 165–188.Google Scholar
  16. DeSARBO, W.S. (1982), “GENNCLUS: New Models for General Nonhierarchical Clustering Analysis,”Psychometrika, 47, 449–475.Google Scholar
  17. DeSARBO, W.S., and RAO, V.R. (1983), “A Constrained Unfolding Model for Product Positioning and Market Segmentation,” unpublished paper, Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ.Google Scholar
  18. DeSOETE, G. (1983a), “Algorithms for Constructing Least-Squares Ultrametric and Additive Tree Representations of Dissimilarities Data,” unpublished dissertation (in Dutch), University of Ghent, Belgium.Google Scholar
  19. DeSOETE, G. (1983b), “A Least-Squares Algorithm for Fitting Trees to Proximity Data,”Psychometrika, 48, 621–626.Google Scholar
  20. DeSOETE, G., DeSARBO, W.S., FURNAS, G.W., and CARROLL, J.D. (1983), “The Estimation of Ultrametric and Path Length Trees from Rectangular Proximity Data,” unpublished paper, Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ.Google Scholar
  21. FARRIS, J.S. (1972), “Estimating Phylogenetic Trees from Distance Matrices,”American Naturalist, 106, 645–668.Google Scholar
  22. FLETCHER, R., and REEVES, C.M. (1964), “Function Minimization by Conjugate Gradients,”Computer Journal, 7, 149–154.Google Scholar
  23. GILL, P.E., MURRAY, W., and WRIGHT, M.H. (1981),Practical Optimization, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. HARSHMAN, R.A. (1972), “PARAFAC2: Mathematical and Technical Notes,”Working Papers in Phonetics, UCLA, 22, 30–47.Google Scholar
  25. HARTIGAN, J.A. (1967), “Representation of Similarity Matrices by Trees,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62, 1140–1158.Google Scholar
  26. HARTIGAN, J.A. (1975),Clustering Algorithms, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. HIMMELBLAU, D.M. (1972),Applied Nonlinear Programming, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  28. JOHNSON, S.C. (1967), “Hierarchical Clustering Schemes,”Psychometrika, 32, 241–254.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. PRUZANSKY, S., TVERSKY, A., and CARROLL, J.D. (1982), “Spatial Versus Tree Representations of Proximity Data,”Psychometrika, 47, 3–24.Google Scholar
  30. RAO, S.S. (1979),Optimization: Theory and Applications, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  31. SATTATH, S., and TVERSKY, A. (1977), “Additive Similarity Trees,”Psychometrika, 42, 319–345.Google Scholar
  32. SHEPARD, R.N. (1972), “A Taxonomy of Some Principal Types of Data and of Multidimensional Methods for Their Analysis,” inMultidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications in the Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 1:Theory, eds. R.N. Shepard, A.K. Romney and S. Nerlove, New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
  33. SHEPARD, R.N., and ARABIE, P. (1979), “Additive Clustering: Representation of Similarities as Combination of Discrete Overlapping Properties,”Psychological Review, 86, 87–123.Google Scholar
  34. TAKANE, Y., YOUNG, F.W., and DeLEEUW, J. (1977), “Nonmetric Individual Differences Multidimensional Scaling: An Alternating Least-Squares Method with Optimal Scaling Features,”Psychometrika, 42, 7–67.Google Scholar
  35. TUCKER, L.R. (1964), “The Extension of Factor Analysis to Three-Dimensional Matrices,” inContributions to Mathematical Psychology, eds. N. Frederiksen and H. Gulliksen, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  36. TUCKER, L.R. (1972), “Relations Between Multidimensional Scaling and Three-Mode Factor Analysis,”Psychometrika, 32, 3–27.Google Scholar
  37. WINSBERG, S., and RAMSAY, J.O. (1983), “Monotone Spline Transformations for Dimension Reduction,”Psychometrika, 48, 575–596.Google Scholar
  38. WOLD, H. (1966), “Estimation of Principal Components and Related Models by Iterative Least Squares,” inMultivariate Analysis, ed. P.R. Krishnaiah, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Douglas Carroll
    • 1
  • Linda A. Clark
    • 1
  • Wayne S. DeSarbo
    • 1
  1. 1.AT&T Bell LaboratoriesMurray Hill

Personalised recommendations