IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joamsc/v52y2024i3d10.1007_s11747-023-00997-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Crossing incentive alignment and adaptive designs in choice-based conjoint: A fruitful endeavor

Author

Listed:
  • Verena Sablotny-Wackershauser

    (Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg)

  • Marcel Lichters

    (Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg)

  • Daniel Guhl

    (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)

  • Paul Bengart

    (Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg)

  • Bodo Vogt

    (Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg)

Abstract

Choice-based conjoint (CBC) analysis features prominently in market research to predict consumer purchases. This study focuses on two principles that seek to enhance CBC: incentive alignment and adaptive choice-based conjoint (ACBC) analysis. While these principles have individually demonstrated their ability to improve the forecasting accuracy of CBC, no research has yet evaluated both simultaneously. The present study fills this gap by drawing on two lab and two online experiments. On the one hand, results reveal that incentive-aligned CBC and hypothetical ACBC predict comparatively well. On the other hand, ACBC offers a more efficient cost-per-information ratio in studies with a high sample size. Moreover, the newly introduced incentive-aligned ACBC achieves the best predictions but has the longest interview time. Based on our studies, we help market researchers decide whether to apply incentive alignment, ACBC, or both. Finally, we provide a tutorial to analyze ACBC datasets using open-source software (R/Stan).

Suggested Citation

  • Verena Sablotny-Wackershauser & Marcel Lichters & Daniel Guhl & Paul Bengart & Bodo Vogt, 2024. "Crossing incentive alignment and adaptive designs in choice-based conjoint: A fruitful endeavor," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 610-633, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joamsc:v:52:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s11747-023-00997-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11747-023-00997-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11747-023-00997-5
    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/s11747-023-00997-5?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. Gensler, Sonja & Hinz, Oliver & Skiera, Bernd & Theysohn, Sven, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 368-378.
    2. Jeffrey Meyer & Venkatesh Shankar & Leonard L. Berry, 2018. "Pricing hybrid bundles by understanding the drivers of willingness to pay," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 497-515, May.
    3. Carpenter, Bob & Gelman, Andrew & Hoffman, Matthew D. & Lee, Daniel & Goodrich, Ben & Betancourt, Michael & Brubaker, Marcus & Guo, Jiqiang & Li, Peter & Riddell, Allen, 2017. "Stan: A Probabilistic Programming Language," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 76(i01).
    4. Marcel Lichters & Paul Bengart & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2017. "What really matters in attraction effect research: when choices have economic consequences," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 127-138, March.
    5. Anita Rao, 2015. "Online Content Pricing: Purchase and Rental Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 430-451, May.
    6. Katharina Dowling & Daniel Guhl & Daniel Klapper & Martin Spann & Lucas Stich & Narine Yegoryan, 2020. "Behavioral biases in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 449-477, May.
    7. Yu, Jie & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2011. "Individually adapted sequential Bayesian conjoint-choice designs in the presence of consumer heterogeneity," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 378-388.
    8. Deacue Fields & Walt Prevatt, 2008. "An Incentive Compatible Conjoint Ranking Mechanism," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 487-498.
    9. 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.
    10. Greg Allenby & Jeff Brazell & John Howell & Peter Rossi, 2014. "Economic valuation of product features," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 421-456, December.
    11. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, March.
    12. Akinc, Deniz & Vandebroek, Martina, 2018. "Bayesian estimation of mixed logit models: Selecting an appropriate prior for the covariance matrix," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 133-151.
    13. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    14. 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.
    15. Arndt, Aaron D. & Ford, John B. & Babin, Barry J. & Luong, Vinh, 2022. "Collecting samples from online services: How to use screeners to improve data quality," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 117-133.
    16. Mingyu Joo & Michael L. Thompson & Greg M. Allenby6, 2019. "Optimal Product Design by Sequential Experiments in High Dimensions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 3235-3254, July.
    17. 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.
    18. Lichters, Marcel & Wackershauser, Verena & Han, Shixing & Vogt, Bodo, 2019. "On the applicability of the BDM mechanism in product evaluation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-7.
    19. 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.
    20. Katharina Keller & Christian Schlereth & Oliver Hinz, 2021. "Sample-based longitudinal discrete choice experiments: preferences for electric vehicles over time," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 482-500, May.
    21. Brucks, Merrie, 1985. "The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, June.
    22. Eggers, Felix & Sattler, Henrik, 2009. "Hybrid individualized two-level choice-based conjoint (HIT-CBC): A new method for measuring preference structures with many attribute levels," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 108-118.
    23. 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.
    24. John R. Hauser & Felix Eggers & Matthew Selove, 2019. "The Strategic Implications of Scale in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(6), pages 1059-1081, November.
    25. Pachali, Max & Kurz, Peter & Otter, Thomas, 2023. "Omitted budget constraint bias and implications for competitive pricing," Other publications TiSEM 3a3eeaa6-6e7f-4a63-b800-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    26. Liang Guo, 2022. "Testing the Role of Contextual Deliberation in the Compromise Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 4326-4355, June.
    27. Raoul V. Kübler & Michael Langmaack & Sönke Albers & Wayne D. Hoyer, 2020. "The impact of value-related crises on price and product-performance elasticities," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 776-794, July.
    28. Srikant Vadali, 2016. "The Performance Of Competitive And Lottery Incentive Schemes Vis-À-Vis Fixed Fee Incentive Schemes In Improving Conjoint Analysis," International Journal of Management and Marketing Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 9(2), pages 81-100.
    29. Katharina Keller & Christian Schlereth & Oliver Hinz, 2021. "Correction to: Sample-based longitudinal discrete choice experiments: preferences for electric vehicles over time," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 501-501, May.
    30. 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.
    31. 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.
    32. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    33. Christian Schlereth & Bernd Skiera, 2017. "Two New Features in Discrete Choice Experiments to Improve Willingness-to-Pay Estimation That Result in SDR and SADR: Separated (Adaptive) Dual Response," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 829-842, March.
    34. Min Ding & Young-Hoon Park & Eric T. Bradlow, 2009. "Barter Markets for Conjoint Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(6), pages 1003-1017, June.
    35. 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.
    36. 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. Daniel Guhl & Friederike Paetz & Udo Wagner & Michel Wedel, 2024. "Predicting and optimizing marketing performance in dynamic markets," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 46(1), pages 1-27, March.

    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. 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.
    3. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    4. 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.
    5. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    6. 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.
    7. YiChun Miriam Liu & Jeff D. Brazell & Greg M. Allenby, 2022. "Non-linear pricing effects in conjoint analysis," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 397-430, December.
    8. Liu, Jiapeng & Wang, Yan & Kadziński, Miłosz & Mao, Xiaoxin & Rao, Yuan, 2024. "A multiple criteria Bayesian hierarchical model for analyzing heterogeneous consumer preferences," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    11. Ohlwein, Martin, 2022. "Same but different - The effect of the unit of measure on the valuation of a unit price," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Sergey Turlo & Matteo Fina & Johannes Kasinger & Arash Laghaie & Thomas Otter, 2025. "Discrete choice in marketing through the lens of rational inattention," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 45-104, March.
    14. Min Ding & Young-Hoon Park & Eric T. Bradlow, 2009. "Barter Markets for Conjoint Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(6), pages 1003-1017, June.
    15. Katharina Keller & Christian Schlereth & Oliver Hinz, 2021. "Sample-based longitudinal discrete choice experiments: preferences for electric vehicles over time," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 482-500, May.
    16. Denis Sauré & Juan Pablo Vielma, 2019. "Ellipsoidal Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 315-338, March.
    17. K. Valerie Carl & Cristina Mihale-Wilson & Jan Zibuschka & Oliver Hinz, 2024. "A consumer perspective on Corporate Digital Responsibility: an empirical evaluation of consumer preferences," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 94(7), pages 979-1024, October.
    18. Basem Al-Omari & Joviana Farhat & Mujahed Shraim, 2023. "The Role of Web-Based Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Technology in Eliciting Patients’ Preferences for Osteoarthritis Treatment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-15, February.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:joamsc:v:52:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s11747-023-00997-5. 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.