IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ems/eureir/20937.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ranking Models in Conjoint Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Lam, K.Y.
  • Koning, A.J.
  • Franses, Ph.H.B.F.

Abstract

In this paper we consider the estimation of probabilistic ranking models in the context of conjoint experiments. By using approximate rather than exact ranking probabilities, we do not need to compute high-dimensional integrals. We extend the approximation technique proposed by \\citet{Henery1981} in the Thurstone-Mosteller-Daniels model for any Thurstone order statistics model and we show that our approach allows for a unified approach. Moreover, our approach also allows for the analysis of any partial ranking. Partial rankings are essential in practical conjoint analysis to collect data efficiently to relieve respondents' task burden.

Suggested Citation

  • Lam, K.Y. & Koning, A.J. & Franses, Ph.H.B.F., 2010. "Ranking Models in Conjoint Analysis," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2010-51, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:ems:eureir:20937
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repub.eur.nl/pub/20937/EI2010-51.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & Morikawa, Takayuki & Shiroishi, Fumiaki, 1992. "Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 149-164, March.
    2. Albert Maydeu-Olivares, 1999. "Thurstonian modeling of ranking data via mean and covariance structure analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 64(3), pages 325-340, September.
    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. Kornprom Satraphand & Supeecha Panichpathom, 2018. "Willingness to Pay for Senior Wellness Center," ERES eres2018_21, European Real Estate Society (ERES).

    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. Amaya, Johanna & Arellana, Julian & Delgado-Lindeman, Maira, 2020. "Stakeholders perceptions to sustainable urban freight policies in emerging markets," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 329-348.
    2. DeSarbo, Wayne S. & Selin Atalay, A. & Blanchard, Simon J., 2009. "A three-way clusterwise multidimensional unfolding procedure for the spatial representation of context dependent preferences," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 3217-3230, June.
    3. Delle Site, Paolo & Kilani, Karim & Gatta, Valerio & Marcucci, Edoardo & de Palma, André, 2019. "Estimation of consistent Logit and Probit models using best, worst and best–worst choices," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 87-106.
    4. Elie Ofek & V. Srinivasan, 2002. "How Much Does the Market Value an Improvement in a Product Attribute?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 398-411, June.
    5. Geržinič, Nejc & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Cats, Oded & Lancsar, Emily & Chorus, Caspar, 2021. "Estimating decision rule differences between ‘best’ and ‘worst’ choices in a sequential best worst discrete choice experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    6. Yangui, Ahmed1 & Akaichi, Faiçal & Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, Jose Maria, 2014. "Are ranking preferences information methods comparable with the choice experiment information in predicting actual behavior?," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182672, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Baltas, George & Doyle, Peter, 2001. "Random utility models in marketing research: a survey," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 115-125, February.
    8. Tatiana Dyachenko & Rebecca Walker Reczek & Greg M. Allenby, 2014. "Models of Sequential Evaluation in Best-Worst Choice Tasks," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(6), pages 828-848, November.
    9. Bhat, Chandra R. & Castelar, Saul, 2002. "A unified mixed logit framework for modeling revealed and stated preferences: formulation and application to congestion pricing analysis in the San Francisco Bay area," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 593-616, August.
    10. Yan, Jin & Yoo, Hong Il, 2019. "Semiparametric estimation of the random utility model with rank-ordered choice data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 414-438.
    11. Boxall, Peter C. & Englin, Jeffrey & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2003. "Valuing aboriginal artifacts: a combined revealed-stated preference approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 213-230, March.
    12. Douglas J. MacNair & William H. Desvousges, 2007. "The Economics of Fish Consumption Advisories: Insights from Revealed and Stated Preference Data," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 600-616.
    13. José L. Oviedo & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "A Latent Class Nested Logit Model for Rank-Ordered Data with Application to Cork Oak Reforestation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1021-1051, December.
    14. Holmes, Thomas P. & Boyle, Kevin J., 2004. "Dynamic Learning And Context-Dependence In Sequential, Attribute-Based Contingent Valuation," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20014, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Scarpa, Riccardo & Ruto, Eric S. K. & Kristjanson, Patti & Radeny, Maren & Drucker, Adam G. & Rege, John E. O., 2003. "Valuing indigenous cattle breeds in Kenya: an empirical comparison of stated and revealed preference value estimates," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 409-426, July.
    16. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
    17. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    18. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    19. Layton, David F., 2000. "Random Coefficient Models for Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 21-36, July.
    20. Yangui, Ahmed & Akaichi, Faical & Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, Jose Maria, 2019. "Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best–worst scaling and discrete choice experiments in a nonhypothetical context," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    conjoint experiments; partial rankings; thurstone order statistics model;
    All these keywords.

    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:ems:eureir:20937. 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: RePub (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feeurnl.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.