Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-2pp2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-26T12:44:39.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indclus: An Individual differences Generalization of the Adclus Model and the Mapclus Algorithm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

J. Douglas Carroll  and
Phipps Arabie
J. Douglas Carroll*
Affiliation:
Bell Laboratories
Phipps Arabie
Affiliation:
Bell Laboratories University of Illinois at Champaign
*
Authors' addresses: J. Douglas Carroll, Room 2C-553, Bell Laboratories, 600 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, NJ 07974; Phipps Arabie, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, 603 East Daniel Street, Champaign, IL 61820.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present a new model and associated algorithm, INDCLUS, that generalizes the Shepard-Arabie ADCLUS (ADditive CLUStering) model and the MAPCLUS algorithm, so as to represent in a clustering solution individual differences among subjects or other sources of data. Like MAPCLUS, the INDCLUS generalization utilizes an alternating least squares method combined with a mathematical programming optimization procedure based on a penalty function approach to impose discrete (0,1) constraints on parameters defining cluster membership. All subjects in an INDCLUS analysis are assumed to have a common set of clusters, which are differentially weighted by subjects in order to portray individual differences. As such, INDCLUS provides a (discrete) clustering counterpart to the Carroll-Chang INDSCAL model for (continuous) spatial representations. Finally, we consider possible generalizations of the INDCLUS model and algorithm.

Keywords

additive clusteringnonhierarchical clusteringcombinatorial optimizationthree-way clusteringindividual differences clustering

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , June 1983 , pp. 157 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

We are indebted to Seymour Rosenberg for making available the data from Rosenberg and Kim [1975]. Also, this work has benefited from the observations of S. A. Boorman, W. S. DeSarbo, G. Furnas, P. E. Green, L. J. Hubert, L. E. Jones, J. B. Kruskal, S. Pruzansky, D. Schmittlein, E. J. Shoben, S. D. Soli, and anonymous referees.

This research was supported in part by NSF Grant SES82 00441, LEAA Grant 78-NI-AX-0142, and NSF Grant SES80 04815.

References

Reference Notes

Carroll, J. D. Handout for models for individual differences in similarities judgments. Paper presented at Mathematical Psychology Meetings, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, August 25–27, 1975.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D., & Arabie, P. INDCLUS: A three-way approach to clustering. Paper presented at meeting of Psychometric Society, Monterey, CA, 1979.Google Scholar
Kruskal, J. B., Young, F. W., & Seery, J. B. How to use KYST, a very flexible program to do multidimensional scaling and unfolding, Murray Hill, N. J.: Bell Telephone Laboratories, 1973.Google Scholar
Rabin, M. D., & Frank, M. Unpublished work, University of Connecticut Health Center, August, 1982.Google Scholar
Dawes, R. M., Brown, M. E., & Kaplan, N. The skewed hourglass: A configurational approach to constructing a Guttman scale when domination is unspecified. Paper presented at annual convention of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, April 1965.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D., & Pruzansky, S. Fitting of hierarchical tree structure (HTS) models, mixtures of HTS models, and hybrid models, via mathematical programming and alternating least squares, La Jolla, California: University of California at San Diego, 1975.Google Scholar
Furnas, G. Personal communication, June, 1982.Google Scholar

References

Arabie, P., & Carroll, J. D. MAPCLUS: A mathematical programming approach to fitting the ADCLUS model. Psychometrika, 1980, 45, 211–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arabie, P., & Carroll, J. D. Conceptions of overlap in social structure. In Freeman, L., Romney, A. K., & White, D. R. (Eds.), Methods of social network analysis, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Arabie, P., Carroll, J. D., DeSarbo, W., & Wind, J. Overlapping clustering: A new method for product positioning. Journal of Marketing Research, 1981, 18, 310–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boorman, S. A., & Olivier, D. C. Metrics on spaces of finite trees. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1973, 10, 26–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boorman, S. A., & White, H. C. Social structure from multiple networks. II. Role structures. American Journal of Sociology, 1976, 81, 1384–1446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. D., & Arabie, P. Multidimensional scaling. In Rosenzweig, M. R., Porter, L. W. (Eds.), Annual review of psychology, Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, 1980.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D., & Chang, J. J. Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an N-way generalization of Eckart-Young decomposition. Psychometrika, 1970, 35, 283–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. D., & Pruzansky, S. Discrete and hybrid scaling models. In Lantermann, E. D., Feger, H. (Eds.), Similarity and choice, Bern: Hans Huber, 1980.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D., & Wish, M. Models and methods for three-way multidimensional scaling. In Krantz, D. H., Atkinson, R. C., Luce, R. D. & Suppes, P. (Eds.), Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology (Vol. II), San Francisco: Freeman, 1974.Google Scholar
DeSarbo, W. S. GENNCLUS: New models for general nonhierarchical clustering analysis. Psychometrika, 1982, 47, 449–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drasgow, F., & Jones, L. E. Multidimensional scaling of derived dissimilarities. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1979, 14, 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckes, T. Formale Modelle zu Ähnlichkeitsstrukturen, Saarbrücken, West Germany: University of the Saar., 1981.Google Scholar
Harvard Law Review, 1976, 90, 277.Google Scholar
Harvard Law Review, 1977, 91, 296.Google Scholar
Harvard Law Review, 1978, 92, 328.Google Scholar
Harvard Law Review, 1979, 93, 276.Google Scholar
Harvard Law Review, 1980, 94, 288.Google Scholar
Knoke, D. Organization sponsorship and influence: Representation of social influence associations. Social Forces, 1983, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. Multidimensional scaling by optimizating goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 1964, 29, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method. Psychometrika, 1964, 29, 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B., & Carroll, J. D. Geometrical models and badness-of-fit functions. In Krishnaiah, P. R. (Eds.), Multivariate analysis II, New York: Academic Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Kruskal, W. Statistics in society: Problems unsolved and unformulated. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1981, 76, 505–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, C. L., & Hanson, R. J. Solving least squares problems, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1974.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. A psychological method to investigate verbal concepts. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1969, 6, 169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, K., & Gelman, R. The child's representation of number: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Child development, 1983, in press.Google Scholar
Provine, D. M. Case selection in the United States Supreme Court, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Pruzansky, S., Tversky, A., & Carroll, J. D. Spatial versus tree representations of proximity data. Psychometrika, 1982, 47, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romney, A. K., & D'Andrade, R. G. Cognitive aspects of English kin terms. Transcultural studies in cognition. American Anthropologist Special Issue, 1964, 66, 146–170.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, S. New approaches to the analysis of personal constructs in person perception. In Cole, J. K. (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 24), Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, S. The method of sorting in multivariate research with applications selected from cognitive psychology and person perception. In Hirschberg, N. & Humphreys, L. G. (Eds.), Multivariate methods in the social sciences: Applications, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1982.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, S., & Kim, M. P. The method of sorting as a data-gathering procedure in multivariate research. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1975, 10, 489–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenberg, S., & Sedlak, A. Structural representations of implicit personality theory. In Berkowitz, L. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6), New York: Academic Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N., & Arabie, P. Additive clustering: Representation of similarities as combinations of discrete overlapping properties. Psychological Review, 1979, 86, 87–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stookey, J. A., & Baer, M. A. A critique of Guttman scaling: With special attention to its application to the study of collegial bodies. Quality and Quantity, 1976, 10, 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takane, Y., Young, F. W., & de Leeuw, J. Nonmetric individual differences multidimensional scaling: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 1977, 42, 7–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling, New York: Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar
Tucker, L. R The extension of factor analysis to three-dimensional matrices. In Frederiksen, N., Gulliksen, H. (Eds.), Contributions to mathematical psychology, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964.Google Scholar
Tucker, L. R Relations between multidimensional scaling and three-mode factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1972, 32, 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wold, H. Estimation of principal components and related models by iterative least squares. In Krishnaiah, P. R. (Eds.), Multivariate analysis, New York: Academic Press, 1966.Google Scholar
Woodward, B., & Armstrong, S. The brethern, New York: Avon, 1981.Google Scholar