Attribute Importance Weights in Conjoint Analysis: Bias and Precision

ATTRIBUTE IMPORTANCE WEIGHTS IN CONJOINT ANALYSIS: BIAS AND PRECISION Sanjay Mishra, Washington State University U. N. Umesh, Washington State University Donald E. Stem, Jr., Washington State University ABSTRACT Consumer researchers have used conjoint analysis to evaluate the importance of an attribute in forming preferences. Although past researchers have tested the validity and reliability of the overall conjoint analysis results, some of the properties of the individual importance weights have remained unknown. Using a simulation, the current paper estimates the bias and precision of the importance weights. The bias and precision are each found to vary as a function of the estimation algorithm, judgmental error level, evaluation strategy used, number of profiles and attributes in the evaluation task and the number of attribute levels. When the dominant attribute evaluation strategy is used, the estimates of the importance weights have large biases and poor precision.

[1]  Dick R. Wittink,et al.  Comparing Derived Importance Weights Across Attributes , 1982 .

[2]  O. L. Davies,et al.  Statistical Methods. 6th Edition. , 1968 .

[3]  Franklin Acito,et al.  Evaluation of Conjoint Analysis Results: A Comparison of Methods , 1980 .

[4]  Vijay Mahajan,et al.  A Comparison of the Internal Validity of Alternative Parameter Estimation Methods in Decompositional Multiattribute Preference Models , 1979 .

[5]  M. Tiku.  Power Function of the F-Test Under Non-Normal Situations , 1971 .

[6]  Randall G. Chapaaan,et al.  Exploiting Rank Ordered Choice Set Data within the Stochastic Utility Model , 1982 .

[7]  Allan D. Shocker,et al.  Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences , 1973 .

[8]  S. Addelman.  Orthogonal Main-Effect Plans for Asymmetrical Factorial Experiments , 1962 .

[9]  J. Kruskal.  Analysis of Factorial Experiments by Estimating Monotone Transformations of the Data , 1965 .

[10]  Philippe Cattin,et al.  Alternative Estimation Methods for Conjoint Analysis: A Monté Carlo Study , 1981 .

[11]  John O. Summers,et al.  Reliability and Validity of Conjoint Analysis and Self-Explicated Weights: A Comparison , 1984 .

[12]  V. Srinivasan,et al.  A Direct Aggregation Approach to Inferring Microparameters of the Koyck Advertising-Sales Relationship from Macro Data , 1988 .

[13]  S. Shapiro,et al.  An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples) , 1965 .

[14]  Madhav N. Segal,et al.  Reliability of Conjoint Analysis: Contrasting Data Collection Procedures , 1982 .