IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/feb/framed/00139.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Min Ding
  • Rajdeep Grewal
  • John Liechty

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
  • Handle: RePEc:feb:framed:00139
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://s3.amazonaws.com/fieldexperiments-papers2/papers/00139.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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 245-261, April.
    2. 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.
    3. List, John A & Shogren, Jason F, 1998. "The Deadweight Loss of Christmas: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1350-1355, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    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: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). General contact details of provider: http://www.fieldexperiments.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.