IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sankhb/v80y2018i1d10.1007_s13571-017-0146-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Some Results on Pareto Optimal Choice Sets for Estimating Main Effects and Interactions in 2 n and 3 n Factorial Plans

Author

Listed:
  • Jing Xiao

    (Temple University)

  • Pallavi Chitturi

    (Temple University)

Abstract

Choice-based conjoint experiments are used when choice alternatives can be described in terms of attributes. The objective is to infer the value that respondents attach to attribute levels. This method involves the design of profiles on the basis of attributes specified at certain levels. Respondents are presented sets of profiles called choice sets, and asked to select the one they consider best. Information Per Profile (IPP) is used as an optimality criteria to compare designs with different numbers of profiles. The optimality of connected main effects plans based on two consecutive choice sets, S l and S l+ 1, has been examined in the literature. However, the optimality of non-consecutive choice sets has not been examined. In this paper we examine the IPP of non-consecutive choice sets and show that IPP can be maximized under certain conditions. Further, we show that non-consecutive choice sets have higher IPP than consecutive choice sets for n ≥ 4. In addition, we examine the optimality of connected first-order-interaction designs based on three choice sets and show that non-consecutive choice sets have higher IPP than consecutive choice sets under certain conditions. Further, we check the D-, A- and E-optimality of best consecutive and non-consecutive PO choice sets with maximum IPP. Finally, we consider 3 n choice experiments. We look for the optimal PO choice sets and examine their IPP, D-, A- and E-optimality, as well as comparing consecutive and non-consecutive choice sets.

Suggested Citation

  • Jing Xiao & Pallavi Chitturi, 2018. "Some Results on Pareto Optimal Choice Sets for Estimating Main Effects and Interactions in 2 n and 3 n Factorial Plans," Sankhya B: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Springer;Indian Statistical Institute, vol. 80(1), pages 37-59, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sankhb:v:80:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s13571-017-0146-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s13571-017-0146-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13571-017-0146-x
    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/s13571-017-0146-x?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. Heiko Großmann & Heinz Holling & Ulrike Graßhoff & Rainer Schwabe, 2006. "Optimal Designs for Asymmetric Linear Paired Comparisons with a Profile Strength Constraint," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 64(1), pages 109-119, August.
    2. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Halme, Merja & Kallio, Markku, 2014. "Likelihood estimation of consumer preferences in choice-based conjoint analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 556-564.
    4. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294, April.
    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. 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).
    2. Bertrand, Marianne & Karlan, Dean S. & Mullainathan, Sendhil & Shafir, Eldar & Zinman, Jonathan, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Center Discussion Papers 28441, Yale University, Economic Growth Center.
    3. Khan, Mohammed Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod K., 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Line Bjørnskov Pedersen & Julie Riise & Arne Risa Hole & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2014. "GPs' shifting agencies in choice of treatment," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(7), pages 750-761, March.
    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. GOOS, Peter & VERMEULEN, Bart & VANDEBROEK, Martina, 2008. "D-optimal conjoint choice designs with no-choice options for a nested logit model," Working Papers 2008020, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    7. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2011. "Do EPA Administrators Recommend Environmental Policies That Citizens Want?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(1), pages 60-74.
    8. 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.
    9. Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nicholas & Torres, Cati, 2011. "Incorrectly accounting for taste heterogeneity in choice experiments: Does it really matter for welfare measurement?," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2011-02, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    10. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria & Anju Keetharuth & Arne Risa Hole & Aki Tsuchiya & Sophie Whyte & Phil Shackley, 2016. "Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 210-222, February.
    11. Fredrik Carlsson & Jorge García & Åsa Löfgren, 2010. "Conformity and the Demand for Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 407-421, November.
    12. Muñoz-Muñoz, E. & Crespo-Cebada, E. & Mirón-Sanguino, A.S. & Díaz-Caro, C., 2025. "Investors personality correlates with sustainability preferences in investment – A choice experiment with Spanish investors," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    13. Remoundou, Kyriaki & Kountouris, Yiannis & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2010. "Does institutional context affect preference formation? Evidence from a stated preference valuation study," MPRA Paper 122495, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Marit E. Kragt & Jeff Bennett, 2008. "Developing a Questionnaire for Valuing Changes in Natural Resource Management in the George Catchment, Tasmania," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 0808, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    15. Zhu, Zhanguo & Zhang, Tong & Hu, Wuyang, 2023. "The accumulation and substitution effects of multi-nation certified organic and protected eco-origin food labels in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    16. Samir Mamadehussene & Francesco Sguera, 2023. "On the Reliability of the BDM Mechanism," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 1166-1179, February.
    17. Kaleb S. Jada & Mequanint B. Melesse & Marrit Berg, 2023. "The effects of safety certification and nutrition messaging on the demand for nutritionally enhanced food in urban Ethiopia," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 15(2), pages 395-409, April.
    18. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    19. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2008. "How Much is Too Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(2), pages 165-176, June.
    20. Ruokamo, Enni, 2016. "Household preferences of hybrid home heating systems – A choice experiment application," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 224-237.

    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:sankhb:v:80:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s13571-017-0146-x. 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.