Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T11:06:53.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Axiomatic and Numerical Conjoint Measurement: An Evaluation of Diagnostic Efficacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Douglas R. Emery  and
F. Hutton Barron
Douglas R. Emery
Affiliation:
The University of Calgary
F. Hutton Barron*
Affiliation:
The University of Kansas
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to F. H. Barron, School of Business, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 66045.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Synthetic data are used to examine how well axiomatic and numerical conjoint measurement methods, individually and comparatively, recover simple polynomial generators in three dimensions. The study illustrates extensions of numerical conjoint measurement (NCM) to identify and model distributive and dual-distributive, in addition to the usual additive, data structures. It was found that while minimum STRESS was the criterion of fit, another statistic, predictive capability, provided a better diagnosis of the known generating model. That NCM methods were able to better identify generating models conflicts with Krantz and Tversky's assertion that, in general, the direct axiom tests provide a more powerful diagnostic test between alternative composition rules than does evaluation of numerical correspondence. For all methods, dual-distributive models are most difficult to recover, while consistent with past studies, the additive model is the most robust of the fitted models.

Keywords

conjoint measurementscalingsimple polynomialsmodel diagnosisordinal data
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , June 1979 , pp. 195 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Douglas Emery is now at the Krannert Graduate School of Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, on leave from the University of Calgary.

References

Reference Note

Cattin, P. & Wittink, D. R. A Monte Carlo study of metric and nonmetric estimation methods for multiattribute models, 1976, Stanford University: Graduate School of Business.Google Scholar

References

Arbuckle, J. & Larimer, J. The number of two-way tables satisfying certain additivity axioms. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1976, 13, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cliff, N. Scaling. Annual Review of Psychology, 1973, 29, 473–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, H. S. & Jones, L. E. The effects of random error and subsampling of dimensions on recovery of configurations by nonmetric multidimensional scaling. Psychometrika, 1974, 39, 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, C. H. & Bowen, J. N. A test of VE-theories of risk and the effect of the central limit theorem. Acta Psychologica, 1971, 35, 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, C. H. & Huang, L. C. Polynomial psychophysics of risk. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1970, 7, 317–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emery, D. R. DIST: A numerical conjoint measurement program designed to scale data to a distributive model in three dimensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 1977, XIV, 413–414. (a)Google Scholar
Emery, D. R. DULDST: A numerical conjoint measurement program designed to scale data to a dualdistributive model in three dimensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 1977, XIV, 558–559. (b)Google Scholar
Emery, D. R. The diagnostic role of error analysis in discriminating among algebraic models of choice, 1977, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation: The University of Kansas. (c)Google Scholar
Fischer, G. W. Multidimensional utility models for risky and riskless choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1976, 17, 127–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, P. E. On the robustness of multidimensional scaling techniques. Journal of Marketing Research, 1975, 12, 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, P. E. & Rao, V. R. Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. Journal of Marketing Research, 1971, 8, 355–363.Google Scholar
Green, P. E. & Srinivasan, V. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 1978, 5, 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, P. E. & Wind, Y. Multi-attribute decisions in marketing: A measurement approach, 1973, Hinsdale, Illinois: The Dryden Press.Google Scholar
Green, P. E., Wind, Y., & Jain, A. K. Preference measurement of item collections. Journal of Marketing Research, 1972, 9, 371–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaac, P. D. & Poor, D. D. S. On the determination of appropriate dimensionality in data with error. Psychometrika, 1974, 39, 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krantz, D. H. & Tversky, A. Conjoint measurement analysis of composition rules in psychology. Psychological Review, 1971, 78, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P., & Tversky, A. Foundations of Measurement, 1971, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. Analysis of factorial experiments by estimating monotone transformations of the data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 1965, 27, 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, G. A note on Arbuckle and Larimer, “The number of two-way tables satisfying certain additivity axioms.”. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1977, 15, 292–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the social sciences, 1956, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N. Metric structures in ordinal data. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1966, 3, 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, C. R. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A Monte Carlo study of the basic parameters. Psychometrika, 1972, 37, 323–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullrich, J. R. & Cummins, D. E. PCJM: A program for conjoint measurement analysis of polynomial composition rules. Behavioral Science, 1973, 18, 226–227.Google Scholar
Ullrich, J. R. & Painter, J. R. A conjoint measurement analysis of human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1974, 12, 50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagenaar, W. A. & Padmos, P. Quantitative interpretation of stress in Kruskal's multidimensional scaling technique. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1971, 24, 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallsten, T. S. Conjoint measurement framework for the study of probabilistic informative processing. Psychological Review, 1972, 79, 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, F. W. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: Recovery of metric information. Psychometrika, 1970, 35, 455–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yntema, D. B. & Torgerson, W. S. Man-computer cooperation in decisions requiring common sense. IRE Transactions of the Professional Group on Human Factors in Electronics, 1961, HFE-2(1), 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar