IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v24y2005i2p285-293.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic Models Incorporating Individual Heterogeneity: Utility Evolution in Conjoint Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • John C. Liechty

    (Marketing Department of Statistics Department, Smeal College of Business, 701 M BAB, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802)

  • Duncan K. H. Fong

    (Marketing Department and Statistics Department, Smeal College of Business, 707 G BAB, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802)

  • Wayne S. DeSarbo

    (Marketing Department, Smeal College of Business, 701 D BAB, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802)

Abstract

It has been shown in the behavioral decision making, marketing research, and psychometric literature that the structure underlying preferences can change during the administration of repeated measurements (e.g., conjoint analysis) and data collection because of effects from learning, fatigue, boredom, and so on. In this research note, we propose a new class of hierarchical dynamic Bayesian models for capturing such dynamic effects in conjoint applications, which extend the standard hierarchical Bayesian random effects and existing dynamic Bayesian models by allowing for individual-level heterogeneity around an aggregate dynamic trend. Using simulated conjoint data, we explore the performance of these new dynamic models, incorporating individual-level heterogeneity across a number of possible types of dynamic effects, and demonstrate the derived benefits versus static models. In addition, we introduce the idea of an unbiased dynamic estimate, and demonstrate that using a counterbalanced design is important from an estimation perspective when parameter dynamics are present.

Suggested Citation

  • John C. Liechty & Duncan K. H. Fong & Wayne S. DeSarbo, 2005. "Dynamic Models Incorporating Individual Heterogeneity: Utility Evolution in Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 285-293, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:24:y:2005:i:2:p:285-293
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1040.0088
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1040.0088
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.1040.0088?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter M. Guadagni & John D. C. Little, 1983. "A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 203-238.
    2. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    3. Richard Paap & Philip Hans Franses, 2000. "A dynamic multinomial probit model for brand choice with different long-run and short-run effects of marketing-mix variables," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 717-744.
    4. Demetrios Vakratsas & Fred M. Feinberg & Frank M. Bass & Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, 2004. "The Shape of Advertising Response Functions Revisited: A Model of Dynamic Probabilistic Thresholds," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 109-119, April.
    5. Robert J. Meyer & Arvind Sathi, 1985. "A Multiattribute Model of Consumer Choice During Product Learning," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(1), pages 41-61.
    6. Muthukrishnan, A V & Kardes, Frank R, 2001. "Persistent Preferences for Product Attributes: The Effects of the Initial Choice Context and Uninformative Experience," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(1), pages 89-104, June.
    7. Tülin Erdem, 1996. "A Dynamic Analysis of Market Structure Based on Panel Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 359-378.
    8. Peter J. Lenk & Wayne S. DeSarbo & Paul E. Green & Martin R. Young, 1996. "Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 173-191.
    9. Wayne DeSarbo & Duncan Fong & John Liechty & Jennifer Coupland, 2005. "Evolutionary preference/utility functions: A dynamic perspective," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 179-202, March.
    10. Marnik G. Dekimpe & Dominique M. Hanssens, 1995. "The Persistence of Marketing Effects on Sales," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 1-21.
    11. Wildt, Albert R & Winer, Russell S, 1983. "Modeling and Estimation in Changing Market Environments," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(3), pages 365-388, July.
    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. Song, Lianlian & Shi, Yang & Tso, Geoffrey Kwok Fai & Lo, Hing Po, 2021. "Forecasting week-to-week television ratings using reduced-form and structural dynamic models," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 302-321.
    2. Kiygi Calli, M. & Weverbergh, M. & Franses, Ph.H.B.F., 2008. "Modeling the Effectiveness of Hourly Direct-Response Radio Commercials," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-019-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    3. Richard Paap & Philip Hans Franses, 2000. "A dynamic multinomial probit model for brand choice with different long-run and short-run effects of marketing-mix variables," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 717-744.
    4. Nobuhiko Terui & Masataka Ban & Greg M. Allenby, 2011. "The Effect of Media Advertising on Brand Consideration and Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 74-91, 01-02.
    5. Mohamed Lachaab & Asim Ansari & Kamel Jedidi & Abdelwahed Trabelsi, 2006. "Modeling preference evolution in discrete choice models: A Bayesian state-space approach," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 57-81, March.
    6. Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Harikesh S. Nair, 2011. "Structural Workshop Paper --Discrete-Choice Models of Consumer Demand in Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 977-996, November.
    7. 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.
    8. Dan Horsky & Sanjog Misra & Paul Nelson, 2006. "Observed and Unobserved Preference Heterogeneity in Brand-Choice Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 322-335, 07-08.
    9. Theodoros Evgeniou & Constantinos Boussios & Giorgos Zacharia, 2005. "Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 415-429, May.
    10. Martijn G. de Jong & Donald R. Lehmann & Oded Netzer, 2012. "State-Dependence Effects in Surveys," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 838-854, September.
    11. Xiao Liu & Timothy Derdenger & Baohong Sun, 2018. "An Empirical Analysis of Consumer Purchase Behavior of Base Products and Add-ons Given Compatibility Constraints," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(4), pages 569-591, August.
    12. Xinfang (Jocelyn) Wang & Jeffrey D. Camm & David J. Curry, 2009. "A Branch-and-Price Approach to the Share-of-Choice Product Line Design Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(10), pages 1718-1728, October.
    13. Kamel Jedidi & Carl F. Mela & Sunil Gupta, 1999. "Managing Advertising and Promotion for Long-Run Profitability," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 1-22.
    14. B. P. S. Murthi & Sumit Sarkar, 2003. "The Role of the Management Sciences in Research on Personalization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(10), pages 1344-1362, October.
    15. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    16. Steven M. Shugan, 2004. "Endogeneity in Marketing Decision Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 1-3.
    17. Olivier Toubia & Eric Johnson & Theodoros Evgeniou & Philippe Delquié, 2013. "Dynamic Experiments for Estimating Preferences: An Adaptive Method of Eliciting Time and Risk Parameters," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(3), pages 613-640, June.
    18. Jeffrey D. Camm & James J. Cochran & David J. Curry & Sriram Kannan, 2006. "Conjoint Optimization: An Exact Branch-and-Bound Algorithm for the Share-of-Choice Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 435-447, March.
    19. Ehrenberg, Andrew S. C. & Uncles, Mark D. & Goodhardt, Gerald J., 2004. "Understanding brand performance measures: using Dirichlet benchmarks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(12), pages 1307-1325, December.
    20. Baltas, George & Doyle, Peter, 2001. "Random utility models in marketing research: a survey," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 115-125, February.

    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:inm:ormksc:v:24:y:2005:i:2:p:285-293. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.