IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ijrema/v25y2008i2p94-103.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Models and optimal designs for conjoint choice experiments including a no-choice option

Author

Listed:
  • Vermeulen, Bart
  • Goos, Peter
  • Vandebroek, Martina

Abstract

In a classical conjoint choice experiment, respondents choose one profile from each choice set that has to be evaluated. However, in real life, the respondent does not always make a choice: often he/she does not prefer any of the options offered. Therefore, including a no-choice option in a choice set makes a conjoint choice experiment more realistic. In the literature, three different models are used to analyze the results of a conjoint choice experiment with a no-choice option: the no-choice multinomial logit model, the extended no-choice multinomial logit model, and the nested no-choice multinomial logit model. We develop optimal designs for the two most appealing of these models using the D-optimality criterion and the modified Fedorov algorithm and compare these optimal designs with a reference design, which is constructed while ignoring the no-choice option, in terms of estimation and prediction accuracy. We conclude that taking into account the no-choice option when designing a no-choice experiment only has a marginal effect on the estimation and prediction accuracy as long as the model used for estimation matches the data-generating model.

Suggested Citation

  • Vermeulen, Bart & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2008. "Models and optimal designs for conjoint choice experiments including a no-choice option," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 94-103.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ijrema:v:25:y:2008:i:2:p:94-103
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.12.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016781160800013X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.12.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. "Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(2), pages 215-231, September.
    2. Arora, Neeraj & Huber, Joel, 2001. "Improving Parameter Estimates and Model Prediction by Aggregate Customization in Choice Experiments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(2), pages 273-283, September.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    4. GOOS, Peter & VERMEULEN, Bart & VANDEBROEK, Martina, 2008. "D-optimal conjoint choice designs with no-choice options for a nested logit model," Working Papers 2008020, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    5. Theodoros Evgeniou & Constantinos Boussios & Giorgos Zacharia, 2005. "Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 415-429, May.
    6. Baron, Jonathan & Ritov, Ilana, 1994. "Reference Points and Omission Bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 475-498, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xi Chen & Zachary Owen & Clark Pixton & David Simchi-Levi, 2022. "A Statistical Learning Approach to Personalization in Revenue Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(3), pages 1923-1937, March.
    2. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    3. Yu, Jie & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2011. "Individually adapted sequential Bayesian conjoint-choice designs in the presence of consumer heterogeneity," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 378-388.
    4. Ding, Ye & Nayga Jr, Rodolfo M. & Zeng, Yinchu & Yang, Wei & Arielle Snell, Heather, 2022. "Consumers’ valuation of a live video feed in restaurant kitchens for online food delivery service," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    5. Maria Espinosa‐Goded & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Eric Ruto, 2010. "What Do Farmers Want From Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 259-273, June.
    6. Olivier Toubia & John R. Hauser, 2007. "—On Managerially Efficient Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 851-858, 11-12.
    7. John R. Hauser & Felix Eggers & Matthew Selove, 2019. "The Strategic Implications of Scale in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(6), pages 1059-1081, November.
    8. Mark Heitmann & Andreas Herrmann & Christian Kaiser, 2007. "The effect of product variety on purchase probability," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 111-131, August.
    9. von Haefen, Roger H. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2003. "Not Playing The Game: Non-Particpation In Repeated Discrete Choice Models," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22037, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Crabbe, M. & Vandebroek, M., 2012. "Improving the efficiency of individualized designs for the mixed logit choice model by including covariates," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(6), pages 2059-2072.
    11. Karlson Pfannschmidt & Pritha Gupta & Bjorn Haddenhorst & Eyke Hullermeier, 2019. "Learning Context-Dependent Choice Functions," Papers 1901.10860, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    12. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    13. Hu, Wuyang, 2006. "Effects of Endogenous Task Complexity and the Endowed Bundle on Stated Choice," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21437, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Abebe, Gumataw K. & Bijman, Jos & Kemp, Ron & Omta, Onno & Tsegaye, Admasu, 2013. "Contract farming configuration: Smallholders’ preferences for contract design attributes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 14-24.
    15. Theodoros Evgeniou & Massimiliano Pontil & Olivier Toubia, 2007. "A Convex Optimization Approach to Modeling Consumer Heterogeneity in Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 805-818, 11-12.
    16. Gensler, Sonja & Hinz, Oliver & Skiera, Bernd & Theysohn, Sven, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 368-378.
    17. Ida, Takanori & Takemura, Kosuke & Sato, Masayuki, 2015. "Inner conflict between nuclear power generation and electricity rates: A Japanese case study," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 61-69.
    18. Halme, Merja & Kallio, Markku, 2011. "Estimation methods for choice-based conjoint analysis of consumer preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(1), pages 160-167, October.
    19. Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Mariel, Petr & Weller, Priska, 2017. "Uncovering context-induced status quo effects in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 59-73.
    20. James Cochran & David Curry & Rajesh Radhakrishnan & Jon Pinnell, 2014. "Political engineering: optimizing a U.S. Presidential candidate’s platform," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 215(1), pages 63-87, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ijrema:v:25:y:2008:i:2:p:94-103. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-research-in-marketing/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.