IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article

Efficient Choice Designs for a Consider-Then-Choose Model

  • Qing Liu

    ()

    (Department of Marketing, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706)

  • Neeraj Arora

    ()

    (Department of Marketing, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706)

Registered author(s):

    Existing research on choice designs focuses exclusively on compensatory models that assume that all available alternatives are considered in the choice process. In this paper, we develop a method to construct efficient designs for a two-stage, consider-then-choose model that involves a noncompensatory screening process at the first stage and a compensatory choice process at the second stage. The method applies to both conjunctive and disjunctive screening rules. Under certain conditions, the method also applies to the subset conjunctive and disjunctions of conjunctions screening rules. Based on the local design criterion, we conduct a comparative study of compensatory and conjunctive designs--the former are optimized for a compensatory model and the latter for a two-stage model that uses conjunctive screening in its first stage. We find that conjunctive designs have higher level overlap than compensatory designs. This occurs because level overlap helps pinpoint screening behavior. Higher overlap of conjunctive designs is also accompanied by lower orthogonality, less level balance, and more utility balance. We find that compensatory designs have a significant loss of design efficiency when the true model involves conjunctive screening at the consideration stage. These designs also have much less power than conjunctive designs in identifying a true consider-then-choose process with conjunctive screening. In contrast, when the true model is compensatory, the efficiency loss from using a conjunctive design is lower. Also, conjunctive designs have about the same power as compensatory designs in identifying a true compensatory choice process. Our findings make a strong case for the use of conjunctive designs when there is prior evidence to support respondent screening.

    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: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1100.0629
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by INFORMS in its journal Marketing Science.

    Volume (Year): 30 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 2 (03-04)
    Pages: 321-338

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:30:y:2011:i:2:p:321-338
    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: http://www.informs.org/
    Email:


    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.:

    as in new window
    1. Timothy J. Gilbride & Greg M. Allenby, 2006. "Estimating Heterogeneous EBA and Economic Screening Rule Choice Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 494-509, September.
    2. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J. & Hanemann, Michael W., 2008. "Emotions and decision rules in discrete choice experiments for valuing health care programmes for the elderly," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 753-769, May.
    3. David J. Spiegelhalter & Nicola G. Best & Bradley P. Carlin & Angelika van der Linde, 2002. "Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 64(4), pages 583-639.
    4. C. Devon Lin & Rahul Mukerjee & Boxin Tang, 2009. "Construction of orthogonal and nearly orthogonal Latin hypercubes," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 96(1), pages 243-247.
    5. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth E. & Polak, John W., 2006. "On the use of a Modified Latin Hypercube Sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a Mixed Logit Model for vehicle choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 147-163, February.
    6. Jie Yu & Peter Goos & Martina Vandebroek, 2009. "Efficient Conjoint Choice Designs in the Presence of Respondent Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 122-135, 01-02.
    7. Swait, Joffre, 2001. "A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cutoffs," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 903-928, November.
    8. 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.
    9. Olivier Toubia & John R. Hauser, 2007. "—On Managerially Efficient Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 851-858, 11-12.
    10. Kessels, Roselinde & Jones, Bradley & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2009. "An Efficient Algorithm for Constructing Bayesian Optimal Choice Designs," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 27(2), pages 279-291.
    11. Lussier, Denis A & Olshavsky, Richard W, 1979. " Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Brand Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 154-65, Se.
    12. 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.
    13. Fasheng Sun & Min-Qian Liu & Dennis K. J. Lin, 2009. "Construction of orthogonal Latin hypercube designs," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 96(4), pages 971-974.
    14. Rajeev Kohli & Kamel Jedidi, 2007. "Representation and Inference of Lexicographic Preference Models and Their Variants," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 380-399, 05-06.
    15. Timothy J. Gilbride & Greg M. Allenby, 2004. "A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Rules," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 391-406, October.
    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:30:y:2011:i:2:p:321-338. 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.