Amity Business School

Report

On

Research Methodology
Multidimensional Scaling & Perceptual Mapping


In partial fulfilment of the requirement of the degree
Of
BTech Mechanical and Automation Engineering + Masters in Business
Administration
(2010 2015)



Under the Supervision of
Ms. Tavishi
Asst. Professor
Department of Economics and Entrepreneurship
Amity Business School
Amity University, Noida
Prepared and Submitted by
Arnab Goswami A2325010014
Dheeraj Mugrai A2324710016


Acknowledgement
As a part of the Research Methodology curriculum at Amity
Business School, the Project Work enables the students to
enhance their skills, expand their craniums by applying various
theories, concepts and laws to real life scenario which would
further prepare the students to face in the near future.
The project is the outcome and result of extensive work in the area
of Research Methodology studied while understanding the
concepts of Multidimensional Scaling and its use in SPSS
software.
We would like to acknowledge our faculty, Ms. Tavishi, Assistant
Professor, Department of Economics and Entrepreneurship for
her continuous support and guidance.
A well combination of theory and practice helped us in compiling
this report on Multidimensional Scaling & Perceptual
Mapping













Introduction
Multidimensional scaling (MDS) is a series of techniques that
helps the analyst to identify key dimensions underlying
respondents evaluations of objects. It is often used in Marketing to
identify key dimensions underlying customer evaluations of
products, services or companies.

Once the data is in hand, multidimensional scaling can
help determine:
what dimensions respondents use when evaluating objects
how many dimensions they may use in a particular situation
the relative importance of each dimension, and
how the objects are related perceptually

The purpose of MDS is to transform consumer judgments of
similarity or preference (eg. preference for stores or brands) into
distances represented in multidimensional space. The resulting
perceptual maps show the relative positioning of all objects.

Multidimensional scaling is based on the comparison of objects.
Any object (product, service, image, etc.) can be thought of as
having both perceived and objective dimensions. For example, a
firm may see their new model of lawnmower as having two
color options (red versus green) and a 24-inch blade. These are
the objective dimensions. Customers may or may not see these
attributes. Customers may also perceive the lawnmower as
expensive-looking or fragile, and these are the perceived
dimensions.

The dimensions perceived by customers may not coincide with
(or even include) the objective dimensions assumed by the
researcher.





The evaluations of the dimensions may not be independent and
may not agree. For example, one soft drink may be judged
sweeter than another because the first has a fruitier aroma,
although both contain the same amount of sugar.

Scenario Example

We are interested in understanding consumers perceptions of
six candy bars on the market. Instead of trying to gather
information about consumers evaluation of the candy bars on a
number of attributes, the researcher will instead gather only
perceptions of overall similarities or dissimilarities. The data are
typically gathered by having respondents give simple global
responses to statements such as these:

- Rate the similarity of products A and B on a 10-point scale
- Product A is more similar to B than to C
- I like product A better than product C

From these simple responses, a perceptual map can be drawn that
best portrays the overall pattern of similarities among the six candy
bars. The data are gathered by first creating a set of 15 unique pairs
of the six candy bars (
6
C
2
). Respondents are then asked to rank the
following 15 candy bar pairs, where a rank of 1 is assigned to the
pair of candy bars that is most similar and a rank of 15 indicates
the pair is least alike. The results for all pairs of candy bars for one
respondent are shown below:

Candy Bar A B C D E F
A _ 2 13 4 3 8
B _ 12 6 5 7
C _ 9 10 11
D _ 1 14
E _ 15
F _



The respondent represented above thought that candy bars D and E
were most similar, then A and B, with E and F the least similar. If
we want to illustrate the similarity among candy bars graphically, a
first attempt would be to draw a single similarity scale. We can do
this for bars A, B and C as shown











Although a one-dimensional map can be accomplished with three
objects, the task becomes increasingly difficult as the number of
objects increases. Because one-dimensional scaling does not fit the
data well, a two-dimensional solution should be attempted. This
would allow for another scale (dimension) to be used in
configuring the six candy bars, as shown:
































The conjecture that at least two attributes (dimensions) were
considered is based on the inability to represent the respondents
perceptions in one dimension. However, we are still not aware of
what attributes the respondent used in the evaluation.

Multidimensional scaling differs from the other interdependence
techniques we have considered in two key aspects:

Each respondent provides evaluations of all objects
being considered, so that a solution can be obtained for
each individual that is not possible in cluster analysis or
factor analysis.
Multidimensional scaling does not use a variate.

Step 1: Objectives Of Multidimensional Scaling

Perceptual mapping, and multidimensional scaling in particular,
is most appropriate for achieving two objectives:

1. As an exploratory technique to identify
unrecognized dimensions affecting behavior
2. As a means of obtaining comparative evaluations of
objects when the specific bases of comparison are
unknown or undefinable

The strength of perceptual mapping is its ability to infer
dimensions without the need for defined attributes. In a simple
analogy, it is like providing the dependent variable (similarity
among objects) and figuring out what the independent variables
(perceptual dimension) must be.

The researcher must define a multidimensional scaling analysis
through three key decisions: selecting the objects that will be
evaluated, deciding whether similarities or preference is to be




analyzed and choosing whether the analysis will be performed at
the group or individual level.

Identification Of All Relevant Objects To Be Evaluated

The most basic, but important, issue in perceptual mapping is the
definition of the objects to be evaluated. The researcher must
ensure that all relevant firms, products/services or other objects
be included, and that no irrelevant objects are included,
because perceptual mapping is a technique of relative positioning.

Similarity versus Preference Data

To this point we have discussed perceptual mapping and MDS
mainly in terms of similarity data. In providing preference data,
the respondent applies good-bad assessments, where we assume
that differing combinations of perceived attributes are valued
more highly than others. Both bases of comparison can be used to
develop perceptual maps, but with differing interpretations.

Aggregate versus Disaggregate Analysis

In considering similarities or preference data, we are taking
respondents perceptions of different stimuli / treatments and
creating outputs of the proximity of these treatments in t-
dimensional space. The researcher can generate this output on a
subject-by-subject basis (producing as many maps as subjects),
known as disaggregate analysis. However, multidimensional
scaling techniques can also combine respondents and create fewer
perceptual maps by some process of aggregate analysis.

If the focus is on an understanding of the overall evaluations of
objects and the dimensions employed in those evaluations, an
aggregate analysis is the most appropriate. But if the objective is to




understand variation among individuals, then a disaggregate
approach is the most helpful.

Step 2: Research Design of MDS

Perceptual mapping techniques can be classified by the nature of
the responses obtained from the individual concerning the object.
One type, the decompositional method, measures only the overall
impression or evaluation of an object and then attempts to derive
spatial positions in multidimensional space reflecting these
perceptions. The compositional method is an alternative method in
which a defined set of attributes is considered in developing the
similarity between objects.

Decompositional techniques are typically associated with
multidimensional scaling and so our focus will be primarily on
these methods.

Objects: Their Number and Selection

An implicit assumption in perceptual mapping is that there are
common characteristics, either objective or perceived, that the
respondent could use for evaluations. Therefore it is vital that the
objects be comparable.

A second question deals with the number of objects to be
evaluated. The researcher must balance two desires: a smaller
number of objects to ease the effort on the part of the respondent
versus the required number of objects to obtain a stable
multidimensional solution. A suggested guideline for stable
solutions is to have more than four times as many objects as
dimensions desired.





The primary distinction among multidimensional scaling
programs is the type of data (qualitative or quantitative) used to
represent similarity and preferences. For many of the data
collection methods, either quantitative (ratings) or qualitative
(rankings) data may be collected.

Similarities Data

When collecting similarities data, the researcher is trying to
determine which items are the most similar to each other and which
are the most dissimilar. Three procedures commonly used to obtain
respondents perceptions of similarities are outlined below:

Comparison Of Paired Objects: By far the most widely
used method of obtaining similarity judgments, the
respondent is asked simply to rank or rate the similarity of
all pairs of objects.

Confusion Data: The pairing (or confusing) of stimulus I
with stimulus J is taken to indicate similarity. Also known as
subjective clustering, the typical procedure for gathering
these data is to place the objects whose similarity is to be
measured (eg. ten candy bars) on small cards, either
descriptively or with pictures. The respondent is asked to sort
the cards into stacks so that all the cards in a stack represent
similar candy bars. The data result in an aggregate
similarities matrix similar to a cross-tabulation table.

Derived Measures: These measures of similarity are
typically based on scores given to stimuli by respondents. For
example, subjects are asked to evaluate 3 stimuli (Pepsi,
Coke and Allsport) on 2 semantic differential scales (Sweet
to Tart, Light Tasting to Heavy). The 2 3 matrix could be
evaluated for each respondent to create similarity measures.



There are several assumptions made with derived measures that
make it the least desirable in meeting the spirit of MDS that
the evaluation of objects be made with minimal influence by the
researcher.

Preference Data

Preference implies that stimuli should be judged in terms of dominance
relationships that is, stimuli are ordered in terms of the preference for
some property. The two most common procedures for obtaining
preference data are outlined below:

Direct Ranking: Each respondent ranks the objects from most
preferred to least preferred, as in the following example:

Rank from most preferred (1) to least preferred (4)
_____ Candy Bar A
_____ Candy Bar B
_____ Candy Bar C
_____ Candy Bar D

Paired Comparisons: A respondent is presented with all possible
pairs and asked to indicate which member of each pair is
preferred, as in this example:

Please circle the preferred candy bar in each pair: A B
A C
A D
B C
B D
C D

Preference data allows the researcher to view the location of objects in a
perceptual map where difference implies differences in preference.
Conclusion
Potential customers are asked to compare pairs of products and make
judgments about their similarity. Whereas other techniques (such
as factor analysis, discriminant analysis, and conjoint analysis) obtain
underlying dimensions from responses to product attributes identified by
the researcher, MDS obtains the underlying dimensions from
respondents judgments about the similarity of products. This is an
important advantage. It does not depend on researchers judgments. It
does not require a list of attributes to be shown to the respondents. The
underlying dimensions come from respondents judgments about pairs
of products. Because of these advantages, MDS is the most common
technique used in perceptual mapping