Erasmus School of Economics

Modern Multidimensional Scaling

Logo Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
 

laatste wijziging: 7-3-2007

Data sets for Chapter 16

  1. Automobiles
  2. Family Composition
  3. Presidential Candidates

1. Automobiles

Description file, Raw data, Excel file, SPSS data file.

Title: Automobiles

Source: SAS (1999)

Description: Ratings by 25 judges of their preference for each of 17
automobiles. The ratings are made on a 0 to 9 scale, with 0 meaning
very weak preference and 9 meaning very strong preference for the
automobile.

The columns are the 25 judges.

The rows correspond to these automobiles:

No. Manufacturer Type

1 Cadillac Eldorado
2 Chevrolet Chevette
3 Chevrolet Citation
4 Chevrolet Malibu
5 Ford Fairmont
6 Ford Mustang
7 Ford Pinto
8 Honda Accord
9 Honda Civic
10 Lincoln Continental
11 Plymouth Gran Fury
12 Plymouth Horizon
13 Plymouth Volare
14 Pontiac Firebird
15 Volkswagen Dasher
16 Volkswagen Rabbit
17 Volvo DL

2. Family Composition

Description file, Raw data, Excel file, SPSS data file.

Title: Family Composition

Source: Borg and Groenen (2005)

Description: Contrived preferences (in decreasing order) of six
different persons for the composition of an ideal family in terms of
how many children a person wants, and whether these children should be
girls or boys. The rows have the following interpretations:

Number of
Row Girls Boys
1 0 0
2 0 1
3 0 2
4 1 0
5 1 1
6 1 2
7 2 0
8 2 1
9 2 2

3. Presidential Candidates

Description file, Raw data, Excel file, SPSS data file.

Title: Presidential Candidates

Source: Rabinowitz (1975)

Description: Least-squares BTL scale values of 12 candidates for the
presidency on a rating scale from 0 (=very cold or unfavorable
feeling for the candidate) to 100 (=very warm or favorable feeling
toward the candidate). The data were collected in 1968 from 1178
persons. The respondents were classified into 21 groups according to
their race, party preference, geographical region, and education.

The columns correspond to these politicians:

1. Wallace (Wal)
2. McCarthy (McC)
3. Johnson (Joh)
4. Muskie (Mus)
5. Humphrey (Hum)
6. Reagan (Rea)
7. Romney (Rom)
8. Agnew (Agn)
9. Nixon (Nix)
10. Rockefeller (Roc)
11. R. Kennedy (Ken)
12. LeMay (LeM)

The rows have followings interpretations, where Ni is the number of respondents
in each group.

Interviewee group Code Ni
1. Black, South BS 88
2. Black, Non-South BN 77
3. White, strong Democrat, South, high ed. SDSH 17
4. White, strong Democrat, South, low education SDSL 43
5. White, weak Democrat, South, high education WDSH 27
6. White, weak Democrat, South, low education WDSL 79
7. White, strong Democrat, Non-South, high ed. SDNH 21
8. White, strong Democrat, Non-South, low ed. SDNL 85
9. White, weak Democrat, Non-South, high ed. WDNH 65
10. White, weak Democrat, Non-South, low ed. WDNL 180
11. White, Independent, South, high education ISH 8
12. White, Independent, South, low education ISL 27
13. White, Independent, Non-South, high ed. INH 25
14. White, Independent, Non-South, low ed. INL 46
15. White, strong Republican, South, low ed. SRSL 13
16. White, strong Republican, Non-South, high ed. SRNH 40
17. White, strong Republican, Non-South, low ed. SRNL 60
18. White, weak Republican, South, high ed. WRSH 34
19. White, weak Republican, South, low ed. WRSL 36
20. White, weak Republican, Non-South, high ed. WRNH 90
21. White, weak Republican, Non-South, low ed. WRNL 117