Abstract

Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) is a method to extract homogeneous clusters characterized by a common response profile. Previous works employing LPA to human value segmentation tend to select a small number of moderately homogeneous clusters based on model selection criteria such as Akaike information criterion, Bayesian information criterion and Entropy. The question is whether a small number of clusters is all that can be gleaned from the data. While some studies have carefully compared different statistical model selection criteria, there is currently no established criteria to assess if an increased number of clusters generates meaningful theoretical insights. This article examines the content and meaningfulness of the clusters extracted using two algorithms: Variational Bayesian LPA and Maximum Likelihood LPA. For both methods, our results point towards eight as the optimal number of clusters for characterizing distinctive Schwartz value typologies that generate meaningful insights and predict several external variables.

Highlights

  • Previous works employing Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) to human value segmentation tend to select a small number of moderately homogeneous clusters based on model selection criteria such as Akaike information criterion, Bayesian information criterion and Entropy

  • For comparing qualities of the clusters extracted by variational Bayesian (VB)-LPA and ML-LPA, we demonstrate how to identify an optimal number of clusters extracted by the two approaches

  • To demonstrate the usability of the VB-LPA and the cluster evaluation metrics, we statistically evaluate typologies of the European population based on the 21 PVQ items (Schwartz, 2012) included in the 8th round of the European Social Survey (ESS8) dataset (Jowell, Roberts, Fitzgerald, & Eva, 2007)

Read more

Summary

METHODOLOGY

Latent Profile Analysis of Human Values: What is the Optimal Number of Clusters?. Schmidt 1, Daniel Seddig 2, Eldad Davidov 2,3, Morten Mørup 1, Kristoffer Jon Albers 1, Jan Michael Bauer 4, Fumiko Kano Glückstad 4. [1] Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark. [2] Institute of Sociology and Social Psychology (ISS), Faculty of Management, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. [3] Department of Sociology, and URPP Social Networks, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. [4] Department of Management, Society and Communication, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark. Received: 2020-12-24 Accepted: 2021-05-27 Published (VoR): 2021-06-30 Corresponding Author: Fumiko Kano Glückstad, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Management, Society and Communication, Dalgas Have 15, DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark.

Method
Results
Discussion and Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call