IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jbecon/v94y2024i1d10.1007_s11573-023-01156-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multimodal preference heterogeneity in choice-based conjoint analysis: a simulation study

Author

Listed:
  • Nils Goeken

    (Clausthal University of Technology)

  • Peter Kurz

    (Bms Marketing Research + Strategy)

  • Winfried J. Steiner

    (Clausthal University of Technology)

Abstract

The most commonly used variant of conjoint analysis is choice-based conjoint (CBC). Here, hierarchical Bayesian (HB) multinomial logit (MNL) models are widely used for preference estimation at the individual respondent level. A new and very flexible approach to address multimodal and skewed preference heterogeneity in the context of CBC is the Dirichlet Process Mixture (DPM) MNL model. The number and masses of components do not have to be predisposed like in the latent class (LC) MNL model or in the mixture-of-normals (MoN) MNL model. The aim of this Monte Carlo study is to evaluate the performance of Bayesian choice models (basic MNL, HB-MNL, MoN-MNL, LC-MNL and DPM-MNL models) under varying data conditions (especially under multimodal heterogeneity structures) using statistical criteria for parameter recovery, goodness-of-fit and predictive accuracy. The core finding from this Monte Carlo study is that the standard HB-MNL model appears to be highly robust in multimodal preference settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Nils Goeken & Peter Kurz & Winfried J. Steiner, 2024. "Multimodal preference heterogeneity in choice-based conjoint analysis: a simulation study," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 137-185, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jbecon:v:94:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11573-023-01156-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11573-023-01156-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11573-023-01156-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11573-023-01156-6?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kohsuke Ogawa, 1987. "An Approach to Simultaneous Estimation and Segmentation in Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 66-81.
    2. Conley, Timothy G. & Hansen, Christian B. & McCulloch, Robert E. & Rossi, Peter E., 2008. "A semi-parametric Bayesian approach to the instrumental variable problem," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 276-305, May.
    3. Keane, Michael & Ketcham, Jonathan & Kuminoff, Nicolai & Neal, Timothy, 2021. "Evaluating consumers’ choices of Medicare Part D plans: A study in behavioral welfare economics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 107-140.
    4. Voleti, Sudhir & Srinivasan, V. & Ghosh, Pulak, 2017. "An approach to improve the predictive power of choice-based conjoint analysis," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 325-335.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, December.
    6. Horowitz, Joel L. & Nesheim, Lars, 2021. "Using penalized likelihood to select parameters in a random coefficients multinomial logit model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 44-55.
    7. Peter Lenk & Wayne DeSarbo, 2000. "Bayesian inference for finite mixtures of generalized linear models with random effects," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 65(1), pages 93-119, March.
    8. Maren Hein & Peter Kurz & Winfried J. Steiner, 2020. "Analyzing the capabilities of the HB logit model for choice-based conjoint analysis: a simulation study," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(1), pages 1-36, February.
    9. Friederike Paetz & Winfried J. Steiner, 2017. "The benefits of incorporating utility dependencies in finite mixture probit models," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 39(3), pages 793-819, July.
    10. Peter E. Rossi, 2014. "Bayesian Non- and Semi-parametric Methods and Applications," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10259.
    11. Webb, Ryan & Mehta, Nitin & Levy, Ifat, 2021. "Assessing consumer demand with noisy neural measurements," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 89-106.
    12. Kim, Jaehwan & Allenby, Greg M. & Rossi, Peter E., 2007. "Product attributes and models of multiple discreteness," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 208-230, May.
    13. Allenby, Greg M. & Rossi, Peter E., 1998. "Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 57-78, November.
    14. Hein, Maren & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2019. "On the effect of HB covariance matrix prior settings: A simulation study," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 51-72.
    15. Fruhwirth-Schnatter, Sylvia & Tuchler, Regina & Otter, Thomas, 2004. "Bayesian Analysis of the Heterogeneity Model," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 22(1), pages 2-15, January.
    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. Weber, Anett & Steiner, Winfried J., 2021. "Modeling price response from retail sales: An empirical comparison of models with different representations of heterogeneity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(3), pages 843-859.
    2. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
    3. Narine Yegoryan & Daniel Guhl & Friederike Paetz, 2023. "When Zeros Count: Confounding in Preference Heterogeneity and Attribute Non-attendance," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 482, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    4. Lynd Bacon & Peter Lenk, 2012. "Augmenting discrete-choice data to identify common preference scales for inter-subject analyses," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 453-474, December.
    5. Max J. Pachali & Peter Kurz & Thomas Otter, 2020. "How to generalize from a hierarchical model?," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 343-380, December.
    6. Max J. Pachali & Peter Kurz & Thomas Otter, 0. "How to generalize from a hierarchical model?," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-38.
    7. Robert Zeithammer & Peter Lenk, 2006. "Bayesian estimation of multivariate-normal models when dimensions are absent," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 241-265, September.
    8. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    9. Loaiza-Maya, Rubén & Smith, Michael Stanley & Nott, David J. & Danaher, Peter J., 2022. "Fast and accurate variational inference for models with many latent variables," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 230(2), pages 339-362.
    10. Kappe, Eelco & Stadler Blank, Ashley & DeSarbo, Wayne S., 2018. "A random coefficients mixture hidden Markov model for marketing research," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 415-431.
    11. Isabel Kaluza & Guido Voigt & Friederike Paetz, 2024. "Empirical studies on the impact of booking status on customers’ choice behavior in online appointment systems," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 94(2), pages 187-224, February.
    12. Woo, JongRoul & Moon, Sungho & Choi, Hyunhong, 2022. "Economic value and acceptability of advanced solar power systems for multi-unit residential buildings: The case of South Korea," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    13. Byun, Hyunsuk & Shin, Jungwoo & Lee, Chul-Yong, 2018. "Using a discrete choice experiment to predict the penetration possibility of environmentally friendly vehicles," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 312-321.
    14. Woo, JongRoul & Choi, Jae Young & Shin, Jungwoo & Lee, Jongsu, 2014. "The effect of new media on consumer media usage: An empirical study in South Korea," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 3-11.
    15. Xiong, Yingge & Tobias, Justin L. & Mannering, Fred L., 2014. "The analysis of vehicle crash injury-severity data: A Markov switching approach with road-segment heterogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 109-128.
    16. 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.
    17. Michael P. Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "The Structure of Consumer Taste Heterogeneity in Revealed vs. Stated Preference Data," Economics Papers 2013-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    18. Lee, Hwarang & Koo, Yoonmo, 2024. "Analysis of user acceptance of information and communications technology for electrical safety inspection based on a choice experiment and hierarchical Bayesian model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    19. Sicsic, Jonathan & Krucien, Nicolas & Franc, Carine, 2016. "What are GPs' preferences for financial and non-financial incentives in cancer screening? Evidence for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 116-127.
    20. Laura Grigolon, 2021. "Blurred boundaries: A flexible approach for segmentation applied to the car market," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(4), pages 1273-1305, November.

    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:spr:jbecon:v:94:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11573-023-01156-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.