The Impact of Utility Balance and Endogeneity in Conjoint Analysis
Adaptive metric utility balance is at the heart of one of the most widely used and studied methods for conjoint analysis. We use formal models, simulations, and empirical data to suggest that adaptive metric utility balance leads to partworth estimates that are relatively biased—smaller partworths are upwardly biased relative to larger partworths. Such relative biases could lead to erroneous managerial decisions. Metric utility-balanced questions are also more likely to be inefficient and, in one empirical example, contrary to popular wisdom, lead to response errors that are at least as large as nonadaptive orthogonal questions. We demonstrate that this bias is because of endogeneity caused by a “winner’s curse.” Shrinkage estimates do not mitigate these biases. Combined with adaptive metric utility balance, shrinkage estimates of heterogeneous partworths are biased downward relative to homogeneous partworths. Although biases can affect managerial decisions, our data suggest that, empirically, biases and inefficiencies are of the order of response errors. We examine viable alternatives to metric utility balance that researchers can use without biases or inefficiencies to retain the desired properties of (1) individual-level adaptation and (2) challenging questions.
Volume (Year): 24 (2005)
Issue (Month): 3 (August)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 7240 Parkway Drive, Suite 300, Hanover, MD 21076 USA|
Web page: http://www.informs.org/
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.:
- Toubia, Olivier & Simester, Duncan & Hauser, John & Dahan, Ely, 2003.
"Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation,"
4279-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
- Zsolt Sándor & Michel Wedel, 2002. "Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 455-475, February.
- Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger, 1995. "Attribute Importance Weights Modification in Assessing a Brand's Competitive Potential," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 253-270.
- Arora, Neeraj & Huber, Joel, 2001. " Improving Parameter Estimates and Model Prediction by Aggregate Customization in Choice Experiments," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 273-83, September.
- Shugan, Steven M, 1980. " The Cost of Thinking," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 99-111, Se.
- Joffre Swait & Rick L. Andrews, 2003. "Enriching Scanner Panel Models with Choice Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 442-460, September.
- 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.
- Sándor, Z. & Wedel, M., 2003. "Differentiated Bayesian Conjoint Choice Designs," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2003-016-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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:24:y:2005:i:3:p:498-507. 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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.