IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sankhb/v80y2018i1d10.1007_s13571-017-0146-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Some Results on Pareto Optimal Choice Sets for Estimating Main Effects and Interactions in 2 n and 3 n Factorial Plans

Author

Listed:
  • Jing Xiao

    (Temple University)

  • Pallavi Chitturi

    (Temple University)

Abstract

Choice-based conjoint experiments are used when choice alternatives can be described in terms of attributes. The objective is to infer the value that respondents attach to attribute levels. This method involves the design of profiles on the basis of attributes specified at certain levels. Respondents are presented sets of profiles called choice sets, and asked to select the one they consider best. Information Per Profile (IPP) is used as an optimality criteria to compare designs with different numbers of profiles. The optimality of connected main effects plans based on two consecutive choice sets, S l and S l+ 1, has been examined in the literature. However, the optimality of non-consecutive choice sets has not been examined. In this paper we examine the IPP of non-consecutive choice sets and show that IPP can be maximized under certain conditions. Further, we show that non-consecutive choice sets have higher IPP than consecutive choice sets for n ≥ 4. In addition, we examine the optimality of connected first-order-interaction designs based on three choice sets and show that non-consecutive choice sets have higher IPP than consecutive choice sets under certain conditions. Further, we check the D-, A- and E-optimality of best consecutive and non-consecutive PO choice sets with maximum IPP. Finally, we consider 3 n choice experiments. We look for the optimal PO choice sets and examine their IPP, D-, A- and E-optimality, as well as comparing consecutive and non-consecutive choice sets.

Suggested Citation

  • Jing Xiao & Pallavi Chitturi, 2018. "Some Results on Pareto Optimal Choice Sets for Estimating Main Effects and Interactions in 2 n and 3 n Factorial Plans," Sankhya B: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Springer;Indian Statistical Institute, vol. 80(1), pages 37-59, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sankhb:v:80:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s13571-017-0146-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s13571-017-0146-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13571-017-0146-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13571-017-0146-x?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. Heiko Großmann & Heinz Holling & Ulrike Graßhoff & Rainer Schwabe, 2006. "Optimal Designs for Asymmetric Linear Paired Comparisons with a Profile Strength Constraint," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 64(1), pages 109-119, August.
    2. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Halme, Merja & Kallio, Markku, 2014. "Likelihood estimation of consumer preferences in choice-based conjoint analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 556-564.
    4. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294, April.
    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. Franziska Voelckner, 2006. "An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 137-149, April.
    2. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    3. Luttmer, Erzo F. P. & Zeckhauser, Richard & Kousky, Carolyn, 2006. "Permits to Elicit Information," Working Paper Series rwp06-049, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Marianne Bertrand & Dean S. Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Working Papers 918, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    5. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    7. Line Bjørnskov Pedersen & Julie Riise & Arne Risa Hole & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2014. "GPs' shifting agencies in choice of treatment," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(7), pages 750-761, March.
    8. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    9. Nikita Arora & Matthew Quaife & Kara Hanson & Mylene Lagarde & Dorka Woldesenbet & Abiy Seifu & Romain Crastes dit Sourd, 2022. "Discrete choice analysis of health worker job preferences in Ethiopia: Separating attribute non‐attendance from taste heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 806-819, May.
    10. Minhaj Mahmud & Italo A Gutierrez & Krishna B Kumar & Shanthi Nataraj, 2021. "What Aspects of Formality Do Workers Value? Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Bangladesh," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 35(2), pages 303-327.
    11. 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.
    12. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2011. "Do EPA Administrators Recommend Environmental Policies That Citizens Want?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(1), pages 60-74.
    13. Eggers, Felix & Sattler, Henrik, 2009. "Hybrid individualized two-level choice-based conjoint (HIT-CBC): A new method for measuring preference structures with many attribute levels," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 108-118.
    14. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo, 2011. "Incorrectly accounting for taste heterogeneity in choice experiments: Does it really matter for welfare measurement?," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2011/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    15. Dongling Huang & Lan Luo, 2016. "Consumer Preference Elicitation of Complex Products Using Fuzzy Support Vector Machine Active Learning," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 445-464, May.
    16. Torres, Cati & Hanley, Nick & Riera, Antoni, 2011. "How wrong can you be? Implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 111-121, July.
    17. Eggert, Håkan & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina, 2018. "Difference in Preferences or Multiple Preference Orderings? Comparing Choices of Environmental Bureaucrats, Recreational Anglers, and the Public," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 131-141.
    18. Kallio, Markku & Halme, Merja & Dehghan Hardoroudi, Nasim & Aspara, Jaakko, 2022. "Transparent structured products for retail investors," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 752-767.
    19. Huls, Samare P.I. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2022. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data? The role of model complexity in a discrete choice experiment about colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    20. Mastrobuoni, Giovanni & Peracchi, Franco & Tetenov, Aleksey, 2014. "Price as a Signal of Product Quality: Some Experimental Evidence," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 135-152, August.

    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:spr:sankhb:v:80:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s13571-017-0146-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.