IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Utility Covariances and Context Effects in Conjoint MNP Models

Listed author(s):
  • Rinus Haaijer

    (University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics, Department of Marketing and Marketing Research, PO Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands)

  • Michel Wedel

    (University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands)

  • Marco Vriens

    (Research International U.S.A., San Francisco, California)

  • Tom Wansbeek

    (University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands)

Experimental conjoint choice analysis is among the most frequently used methods for measuring and analyzing consumer preferences. The data from such experiments have been typically analyzed with the Multinomial Logit (MNL) model. However, there are several problems associated with the standard MNL model because it is based on the assumption that the error terms of the underlying random utilities are independent across alternatives, choice sets, and subjects. The Multinomial Probit model (MNP) is well known to alleviate this assumption of independence of the error terms. Accounting for covariances in utilities in modeling choice experiments with the MNP is important because variation of the coefficients in the choice model may occur due to context effects. Previous research has shown that subjects' utilities for alternatives depend on the choice context, that is, the particular set of alternatives evaluated. Simonson and Tversky's tradeoff contrast principle describes the effect of the choice context on attribute importance and patterns of choice. They distinguish , which are caused by the alternatives in the offered set only, and , which are due to the influence of alternatives previously considered in choice experiments. These effects are hypothesized to cause correlations in the utilities of alternatives within and across choice sets, respectively. The purpose of this study is to develop an MNP model for conjoint choice experiments. This model is important for a more detailed study of choice patterns in those experiments. In developing the MNP model for conjoint choice experiments, several hurdles need to be taken related to the identification of the model and to the prediction of holdout profiles. To overcome those problems, we propose a random coefficients (RC) model that assumes a multivariate normal distribution of the regression coefficients with a rank one factor structure on the covariance matrix of these regression coefficients. The parameters in this covariance matrix can be used to identify which attributes and levels of attributes are potentional sources of dependencies between the alternatives and choice sets in a conjoint choice experiment. We present several versions of this model. Moreover, for each of these models we allow utilities to be either correlated or independent across choice sets. The Independent Probit (IP) model is used as a benchmark. Given the dimensionality of the integrations involved in computing the choice probabilities, the models are estimated with simulated likelihood, where simulations are used to approximate the integrals involved in the choice probabilities. We apply and compare the models in two conjoint choice experiments. In both applications, the random coefficients MNP model that allows choices in different choice sets to be correlated (RC) displays superior fit and predictive validity compared with all other models. We hypothesize that the difference in fit occurs because the RC model accommodates correlations among choice sets that are caused by background contrast effects, whereas the model that treats choice sets as independent (iRC) accounts for local contrast effects only. The iRC model shows superior model fit compared with the IP model, but its predictions are worse than those of the IP model. We find differences in the importance of local and background contrast effects for choice sets containing different numbers of alternatives: The background contrast effect may be stronger for smaller choice sets, whereas the local contrast effect may be stronger for bigger choice sets. We illustrate the differences in simulated market shares that are obtained from the RC, iRC, and IP models in three hypothetical situations: product modification, product line extension, and the introduction of a me-too brand. In all of those situations, substantially different market shares are predicted by the three models, which illustrates the extent to which erroneous predictions may be obtained from the misspecified iRC and IP models.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by INFORMS in its journal Marketing Science.

Volume (Year): 17 (1998)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Pages: 236-252

in new window

Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:17:y:1998:i:3:p:236-252
Contact details of provider: Postal:
7240 Parkway Drive, Suite 300, Hanover, MD 21076 USA

Phone: +1-443-757-3500
Fax: 443-757-3515
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. Axel Borsch-Supan & Vassilis Hajivassiliou & Laurence J. Kotlikoff, 1992. "Health, Children, and Elderly Living Arrangements: A Multiperiod-Multinomial Probit Model with Unobserved Heterogeneity and Autocorrelated Errors," NBER Chapters,in: Topics in the Economics of Aging, pages 79-108 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. " Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 158-174, September.
  3. Lee, Lung-Fei, 1992. "On Efficiency of Methods of Simulated Moments and Maximum Simulated Likelihood Estimation of Discrete Response Models," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(04), pages 518-552, December.
  4. Hausman, Jerry A & Wise, David A, 1978. "A Conditional Probit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(2), pages 403-426, March.
  5. Geweke, John & Keane, Michael P & Runkle, David, 1994. "Alternative Computational Approaches to Inference in the Multinomial Probit Model," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(4), pages 609-632, November.
  6. McFadden, Daniel, 1989. "A Method of Simulated Moments for Estimation of Discrete Response Models without Numerical Integration," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(5), pages 995-1026, September.
  7. Borsch-Supan, Axel & Hajivassiliou, Vassilis A., 1993. "Smooth unbiased multivariate probability simulators for maximum likelihood estimation of limited dependent variable models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 347-368, August.
  8. Keane, Michael, 1997. "Current Issues in Discrete Choice Modeling," MPRA Paper 52515, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  9. Purushottam Papatla, 1996. "A Multiplicative Fixed-Effects Model of Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 243-261.
  10. Huber, Joel & Puto, Christopher, 1983. " Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 31-44, June.
  11. Amemiya, Takeshi, 1981. "Qualitative Response Models: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 1483-1536, December.
  12. Daniel L. McFadden, 1976. "Quantal Choice Analaysis: A Survey," NBER Chapters,in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 363-390 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  13. Hajivassiliou, Vassilis & McFadden, Daniel & Ruud, Paul, 1996. "Simulation of multivariate normal rectangle probabilities and their derivatives theoretical and computational results," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1-2), pages 85-134.
  14. Bunch, David S., 1991. "Estimability in the Multinomial Probit Model," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt1gf1t128, University of California Transportation Center.
  15. Peter E. Rossi & Robert E. McCulloch & Greg M. Allenby, 1996. "The Value of Purchase History Data in Target Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 321-340.
  16. Füsun Gönül & Kannan Srinivasan, 1993. "Modeling Multiple Sources of Heterogeneity in Multinomial Logit Models: Methodological and Managerial Issues," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 213-229.
  17. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. " Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
  18. Keane, Michael P, 1992. "A Note on Identification in the Multinomial Probit Model," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 10(2), pages 193-200, April.
  19. McCulloch, Robert & Rossi, Peter E., 1994. "An exact likelihood analysis of the multinomial probit model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-2), pages 207-240.
  20. Huber, Joel & Payne, John W & Puto, Christopher, 1982. " Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 90-98, June.
  21. Elrod, Terry & Keane, Michael, 1995. "A Factor-Analytic Probit Model for Representing the Market Structure in Panel Data," MPRA Paper 52434, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  22. Heckman, James J & Sedlacek, Guilherme, 1985. "Heterogeneity, Aggregation, and Market Wage Functions: An Empirical Model of Self-selection in the Labor Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(6), pages 1077-1125, December.
  23. Bunch, David S., 1991. "Estimability in the multinomial probit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-12, February.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:17:y:1998:i:3:p:236-252. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.