Visualizing Data in Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Application of PARAMAP on Judicial Statistics

  • Ulas Akkucuk
  • J. Douglas Carroll
  • Stephen L. France
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization book series (STUDIES CLASS)

Abstract

In this paper, we describe a technique called PARAMAP for the visualization, scaling, and dimensionality reduction of data in the social and behavioral sciences. PARAMAP uses a criterion of maximizing continuity between higher dimensional data and lower dimensional derived data, rather than the distance based criterion used by standard distance based multidimensional scaling (MDS). We introduce PARAMAP using the example of scaling and visualizing the voting patterns of Justices in the US Supreme Court. We use data on the agreement rates between individual Justices in the US Supreme Court and on the percentage swing votes for Justices over time. We use PARAMAP, metric MDS, and nonmetric MDS approaches to create a voting space representation of the Justices in one and two dimensions. We test the results using a metric that measures neighborhood agreement of points between higher and lower dimensional solutions. PARAMAP produces smooth, easily interpretable, solutions, with no clumping together of points.

References

  1. Akkucuk, U. (2004). Nonlinear mapping: approaches based on optimizing an index of continuity and applying classical metric MDS on revised distances. Doctoral Dissertation. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University. (UMI No. 3148774)Google Scholar
  2. Akkucuk, U., & Carroll, J.D. (2006). PARAMAP vs. Isomap: a comparison of two nonlinear mapping algorithms. Journal of Classification, 23(2), 221–254.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brazill, T. J., & Grofman, B. (2002). Factor analysis versus multi-dimensional scaling: Binary choice roll-call voting and the US supreme court. Social Networks, 24(3), 201–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byrd, R. H., Nocedal, J., & Waltz, R. A. (2006). KNITRO: An integrated package for nonlinear optimization. In Large-scale nonlinear optimization (nonconvex optimization and its applications) (pp. 35–59). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hubert, L. J., & Arabie, P. (1985). Comparing partitions. Journal of Classification, 2(1), 193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hubert, L. J., Arabie, P., & Meulman, J. J. (1997). Linear and circular unidimensional scaling for symmetric proximity matrices. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 50(2), 253–284.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kruskal, J. B., Young, F. W., & Seery, J. B. (1977). How to use KYST a very flexible program to do multidimensional scaling and unfolding. Murray Hill: ATT Bell Labs.Google Scholar
  8. MacDonald, S. E., Listhaug, O., & Rabinowitz, G. (1991). Issues and party support in multiparty systems. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1107–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Shepard, R. N., & Carroll, J. D. (1966). Parametric representation of nonlinear data structures. In Multivariate Analysis (pp. 561–592). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  10. Stevenson, R. W. (2005, July 2). Court in transition: The overview: O’Connor to retire, touching off battle over court. The New York Times.Google Scholar
  11. Stevenson, R. W., Greenhouse, L., Kirkpatrick, D. D., Lewis, N. A., & Stolberg, S. G. (2005 July 2). Changes at the U.S. supreme court. The New York Times.Google Scholar
  12. von Neumann, J. (1941). Distribution of the ratio of the mean square successive difference to the variance. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 12(4), 367–395.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulas Akkucuk
    • 1
  • J. Douglas Carroll
    • 2
  • Stephen L. France
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of ManagementBogazici UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Rutgers Business School, Newark and New BrunswickNewarkUSA
  3. 3.Lubar School of BusinessUniversity of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations