IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis

  • John Liechty
  • Min Ding
  • Rajdeep Grewal
Registered author(s):

    Because most conjoint studies are conducted in hypothetical situations with no consumption consequences for the participants, the extent to which the studies are able to uncover "true" consumer preference structures is questionable. Experimental economics literature, with its emphasis on incentive alignment and hypothetical bias, suggests that more realistic incentive aligned studies will result in stronger out-of-sample predictive performance of actual purchase behaviors and provide better estimates of consumer preference structures than hypothetical studies. To test this hypothesis, the authors design an experiment with conventional (hypothetical) conditions and their parallel incentive-aligned counterparts. Using Chinese dinner specials as the context, the authors conducted a field experiment in a Chinese restaurant during dinnertime. The results provide strong evidence in favor of incentive-aligned choice conjoint analysis, in that incentive-aligned choice conjoint outperforms hypothetical choice conjoint in out-of-sample predictions (59% versus 26% for incentive-aligned choice conjoint and hypothetical choice conjoint, respectively for the top two choices). As expected, subjects in the incentive-aligned choice condition exhibit preference structures that are systematically different from the preference structures of subjects in the hypothetical condition. Most notably, the subjects in the incentive-aligned choice condition are more price sensitive and exhibit different heterogeneity patterns. To determine the robustness of these results, the authors conducted a second study that used snacks as the context and only considered the choice treatments. This study confirmed the results by again providing strong evidence in favor of incentive-aligned choice analysis in out-of-sample predictions (36% versus 16% for incentive-aligned choice conjoint and hypothetical choice conjoint, respectively for the top two choices). The results provide a strong motivation for conjoint practitioners to consider conducting their studies in realistic settings using incentive structures that require participants to live with their decisions.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://s3.amazonaws.com/fieldexperiments-papers/papers/00139.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by The Field Experiments Website in its series Framed Field Experiments with number 00139.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: 2005
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:feb:framed:00139
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.fieldexperiments.com

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December.
    2. Smith, Vernon L & Walker, James M, 1993. "Monetary Rewards and Decision Cost in Experimental Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(2), pages 245-61, April.
    3. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. " Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 5(2), pages 103-23, Se.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:feb:framed:00139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Joe Seidel)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.