IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v31y2012i1p138-156.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Consumer Preferences Using Conjoint Poker

Author

Listed:
  • Olivier Toubia

    (Columbia Business School, New York, New York 10027)

  • Martijn G. de Jong

    (Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Daniel Stieger

    (Department of Strategic Management, Marketing and Tourism, University of Innsbruck, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria)

  • Johann Füller

    (Department of Strategic Management, Marketing and Tourism, University of Innsbruck, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria)

Abstract

We develop and test an incentive-compatible Conjoint Poker (CP) game. The preference data collected in the context of this game are comparable to incentive-compatible choice-based conjoint (CBC) analysis data. We develop a statistical efficiency measure and an algorithm to construct efficient CP designs. We compare incentive-compatible CP to incentive-compatible CBC in a series of three experiments (one online study and two eye-tracking studies). Our results suggest that CP induces respondents to consider more of the profile-related information presented to them compared with CBC.

Suggested Citation

  • Olivier Toubia & Martijn G. de Jong & Daniel Stieger & Johann Füller, 2012. "Measuring Consumer Preferences Using Conjoint Poker," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 138-156, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:31:y:2012:i:1:p:138-156
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1110.0672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1110.0672
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.1110.0672?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. Michel Wedel & Rik Pieters, 2000. "Eye Fixations on Advertisements and Memory for Brands: A Model and Findings," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 297-312, October.
    2. Dong, Songting & Ding, Min & Huber, Joel, 2010. "A simple mechanism to incentive-align conjoint experiments," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 25-32.
    3. Peter E. Rossi & Greg M. Allenby, 2003. "Bayesian Statistics and Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 304-328, July.
    4. Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1991. "Does the Random-Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(4), pages 971-978, September.
    5. Oded Netzer & Olivier Toubia & Eric Bradlow & Ely Dahan & Theodoros Evgeniou & Fred Feinberg & Eleanor Feit & Sam Hui & Joseph Johnson & John Liechty & James Orlin & Vithala Rao, 2008. "Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 337-354, December.
    6. Rajeev Kohli & R. Sukumar, 1990. "Heuristics for Product-Line Design Using Conjoint Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(12), pages 1464-1478, December.
    7. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    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. Min Ding & Young-Hoon Park & Eric T. Bradlow, 2009. "Barter Markets for Conjoint Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(6), pages 1003-1017, June.
    10. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    11. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jonas Jasper, 2019. "A Var Analysis of the Connection between FDI and Economic Growth: A Case Study from Vietnam after 30 Years Reforms," International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, Inovatus Services Ltd., vol. 4(6), pages 51-67, Februaury.
    2. 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.
    3. Meißner, Martin & Oppewal, Harmen & Huber, Joel, 2020. "Surprising adaptivity to set size changes in multi-attribute repeated choice tasks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 163-175.
    4. Menon, R.G. Vishnu & Sigurdsson, Valdimar & Larsen, Nils Magne & Fagerstrøm, Asle & Foxall, Gordon R., 2016. "Consumer attention to price in social commerce: Eye tracking patterns in retail clothing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 5008-5013.
    5. Qing Liu & Yihui (Elina) Tang, 2015. "Construction of Heterogeneous Conjoint Choice Designs: A New Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 346-366, May.
    6. Yegoryan, Narine & Guhl, Daniel & Klapper, Daniel, 2018. "Inferring Attribute Non-Attendance Using Eye Tracking in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 111, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:6:p:700-716 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Xinyu Cao & Juanjuan Zhang, 2021. "Preference Learning and Demand Forecast," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(1), pages 62-79, January.
    9. Yegoryan, Narine & Guhl, Daniel & Klapper, Daniel, 2020. "Inferring attribute non-attendance using eye tracking in choice-based conjoint analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 290-304.
    10. Hein, Maren & Goeken, Nils & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2022. "Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 630-651.
    11. Scharwenka, Nina & Mattes, Martin & Kröll, Markus & Giese, Moritz, 2018. "Mehrwert durch nutzenbasierte Preissetzung bei Konsumgütern," Marketing Review St.Gallen, Universität St.Gallen, Institut für Marketing und Customer Insight, vol. 35(5), pages 46-53.
    12. Jacob L. Orquin & Martin P. Bagger & Simone Mueller Loose, 2013. "Learning affects top down and bottom up modulation of eye movements in decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(6), pages 700-716, November.
    13. Geoffrey Fisher, 2023. "Measuring the Factors Influencing Purchasing Decisions: Evidence From Cursor Tracking and Cognitive Modeling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4558-4578, August.
    14. Zuschke, Nick, 2020. "The impact of task complexity and task motivation on in-store marketing effectiveness: An eye tracking analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 337-350.

    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. 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.
    2. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    3. Qing Liu & Yihui (Elina) Tang, 2015. "Construction of Heterogeneous Conjoint Choice Designs: A New Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 346-366, May.
    4. Oded Netzer & Olivier Toubia & Eric Bradlow & Ely Dahan & Theodoros Evgeniou & Fred Feinberg & Eleanor Feit & Sam Hui & Joseph Johnson & John Liechty & James Orlin & Vithala Rao, 2008. "Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 337-354, December.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Lüthi, Sonja & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2012. "The price of policy risk — Empirical insights from choice experiments with European photovoltaic project developers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 1001-1011.
    8. Zuschke, Nick, 2020. "The impact of task complexity and task motivation on in-store marketing effectiveness: An eye tracking analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 337-350.
    9. Braun, Alexander & Schmeiser, Hato & Schreiber, Florian, 2016. "On consumer preferences and the willingness to pay for term life insurance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 761-776.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Geoffrey Fisher, 2023. "Measuring the Factors Influencing Purchasing Decisions: Evidence From Cursor Tracking and Cognitive Modeling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4558-4578, August.
    13. Daria Dzyabura & Srikanth Jagabathula & Eitan Muller, 2019. "Accounting for Discrepancies Between Online and Offline Product Evaluations," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 88-106, January.
    14. Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.
    15. Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.
    16. Ailawadi, Kusum L. & Gedenk, Karen & Langer, Tobias & Ma, Yu & Neslin, Scott A., 2014. "Consumer response to uncertain promotions: An empirical analysis of conditional rebates," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 94-106.
    17. Botta, Enrico, 2019. "An experimental approach to climate finance: the impact of auction design and policy uncertainty on renewable energy equity costs in Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    18. Wang, Xinfang (Jocelyn) & Curry, David J., 2012. "A robust approach to the share-of-choice product design problem," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 818-826.
    19. Lüthi, Sonja & Prässler, Thomas, 2011. "Analyzing policy support instruments and regulatory risk factors for wind energy deployment--A developers' perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 4876-4892, September.
    20. 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).

    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:31:y:2012:i:1:p:138-156. 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.