IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cte/wbrepe/wb121405.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reconsidering optimal experimental design for conjoint analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Esteban-Bravo, Mercedes
  • Leszkiewicz, Agata
  • Vidal-Sanz, Jose M.

Abstract

The quality of Conjoint Analysis estimations heavily depends on the alternatives presented in the experiment. An efficient selection of the experiment design matrix allows more information to be elicited about consumer preferences from a small number of questions, thus reducing experimental cost and respondent's fatigue. The statistical literature considers optimal design algorithms (Kiefer, 1959), and typically selects the same combination of stimuli more than once. However in the context of conjoint analysis, replications do not make sense for individual respondents. In this paper we present a general approach to compute optimal designs for conjoint experiments in a variety of scenarios and methodologies: continuous, discrete and mixed attributes types, customer panels with random effects, and quantile regression models. We do not compute good designs, but the best ones according to the size (determinant or trace) of the information matrix of the associated estimators without repeating profiles as in Kiefer's methodology. We handle efficient optimization algorithms to achieve our goal, avoiding the use of widespread ad-hoc intuitive rules.

Suggested Citation

  • Esteban-Bravo, Mercedes & Leszkiewicz, Agata & Vidal-Sanz, Jose M., 2012. "Reconsidering optimal experimental design for conjoint analysis," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB wb121405, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    • Handle: RePEc:cte:wbrepe:wb121405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://e-archivo.uc3m.es/bitstream/handle/10016/14548/wb121405.pdf?sequence=1
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Wittink, Dick R & Krishnamurthi, Lakshman & Nutter, Julia B, 1982. "Comparing Derived Importance Weights Across Attributes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(4), pages 471-474, March.
    3. Currim, Imran S & Weinberg, Charles B & Wittink, Dick R, 1981. "Design of Subscription Programs for a Performing Arts Series," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(1), pages 67-75, June.
    4. Green, Paul E, 1974. "On the Design of Choice Experiments Involving Multifactor Alternatives," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 1(2), pages 61-68, Se.
    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. 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.
    2. Manalo, Alberto B., 1989. "Benefits Sought by Apple Consumers," Working Papers 115908, Regional Research Project NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance.
    3. Verlegh, Peeter W.J. & Schifferstein, Hendrik N.J. & Wittink, Dick R., 2001. "Range And Number-Of-Levels Effects In Derived And Stated Measures Of Attribute Importance," Mansholt Working Papers 46449, Wageningen University, Mansholt Graduate School of Social Sciences.
    4. 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).
    5. Benedikt M. Brand & Theresa Maria Rausch & Jannika Brandel, 2022. "The Importance of Sustainability Aspects When Purchasing Online: Comparing Generation X and Generation Z," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-28, May.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Vishal Narayan & Vithala R. Rao & Carolyne Saunders, 2011. "How Peer Influence Affects Attribute Preferences: A Bayesian Updating Mechanism," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 368-384, 03-04.
    9. Anoek Castelein & Dennis Fok & Richard Paap, 2020. "A multinomial and rank-ordered logit model with inter- and intra-individual heteroscedasticity," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 20-069/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    10. Vetschera, Rudolf & Weitzl, Wolfgang & Wolfsteiner, Elisabeth, 2014. "Implausible alternatives in eliciting multi-attribute value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 221-230.
    11. Menictas, Con & Wang, Paul Z. & Louviere, Jordan J., 2012. "Assessing the validity of brand equity constructs," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 3-8.
    12. 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.
    13. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind, 2001. "Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 56-73, June.
    14. Li, Feng & Du, Timon C. & Wei, Ying, 2020. "Enhancing supply chain decisions with consumers’ behavioral factors: An illustration of decoy effect," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    15. Peter Stüttgen & Peter Boatwright & Robert T. Monroe, 2012. "A Satisficing Choice Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 878-899, November.
    16. Kaenzig, Josef & Heinzle, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2013. "Whatever the customer wants, the customer gets? Exploring the gap between consumer preferences and default electricity products in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 311-322.
    17. Waseem Alnosaier & David Birkes, 2019. "Inner workings of the Kenward–Roger test," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 82(2), pages 195-223, March.
    18. Joost M.E. Pennings & Scott H. Irwin & Darrel L. Good & Olga Isengildina, 2005. "Heterogeneity in the likelihood of market advisory service use by U.S. crop producers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(1), pages 109-128.
    19. 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).
    20. Burton, Michael P. & Marsh, Sally P. & Patterson, Josie, 2000. "Community attitudes towards water management in the Moore Catchment, WA," 2000 Conference (44th), January 23-25, 2000, Sydney, Australia 123616, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Conjoint Analysis;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cte:wbrepe:wb121405. 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: Ana Poveda (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.business.uc3m.es/es/index .

    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.