Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis

The authors propose and test a new “polyhedral” choice-based conjoint analysis question-design method that adapts each respondent's choice sets on the basis of previous answers by that respondent. Polyhedral “interior-point” algorithms design questions that quickly reduce the sets of partworths that are consistent with the respondent's choices. To identify domains in which individual adaptation is promising (and domains in which it is not), the authors evaluate the performance of polyhedral choice-based conjoint analysis methods with Monte Carlo experiments. They vary magnitude (response accuracy), respondent heterogeneity estimation method, and question-design method in a 4 × 23 experiment. The estimation methods are hierarchical Bayes and analytic center. The latter is a new individual-level estimation procedure that is a by-product of polyhedral question design. The benchmarks for individual adaptation are random designs, orthogonal designs, and aggregate customization. The simulations suggest that polyhedral question design does well in many domains, particularly those in which heterogeneity and partworth magnitudes are relatively large. The authors test feasibility, test an important design criterion (choice balance), and obtain empirical data on convergence by describing an application to the design of executive education programs in which 354 Web-based respondents answered stated-choice tasks with four service profiles each.

[1]  Giorgos Zacharia,et al.  Generalized robust conjoint estimation , 2005 .

[2]  Richard M. Johnson The Joys and Sorrows of plementing HB Methods for Conjoint Analysis , 1999 .

[3]  M. Couper A REVIEW OF ISSUES AND APPROACHES , 2000 .

[4]  Mark J. Garratt,et al.  Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications , 1994 .

[5]  Rick L. Andrews,et al.  An Empirical Comparison of Logit Choice Models with Discrete versus Continuous Representations of Heterogeneity , 2002 .

[6]  P. Lenk,et al.  Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs , 1996 .

[7]  Wagner A. Kamakura,et al.  Life-Style Segmentation with Tailored Interviewing , 1995 .

[8]  D. McFadden Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[9]  Kathryn Graziano The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail , 1998 .

[10]  Wiebke Kuklys,et al.  Stated choice methods: analysis and application, Jordan J. Louviere, David A. Hensher and Joffre D. Swait, Cambridge University Press, ISBN: 0-521-78830-7 , 2002 .

[11]  Yurii Nesterov,et al.  Interior-point polynomial algorithms in convex programming , 1994, Siam studies in applied mathematics.

[12]  Charles A. Tuck Statement of ownership, management and circulation , 1981 .

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

[14]  Michel Wedel,et al.  Bayesian Prediction in Hybrid Conjoint Analysis , 2002 .

[15]  Robert M. Freund,et al.  Projective transformations for interior-point algorithms, and a superlinearly convergent algorithm for the w-center problem , 1993, Math. Program..

[16]  Clayton M. Christensen The Innovator's Dilemma , 1997 .

[17]  Joel Huber,et al.  Improving Parameter Estimates and Model Prediction by Aggregate Customization in Choice Experiments , 2001 .

[18]  G. Sonnevend An "analytical centre" for polyhedrons and new classes of global algorithms for linear (smooth, convex) programming , 1986 .

[19]  Peter E. Rossi,et al.  Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity , 1998 .

[20]  John R. Hauser,et al.  Testing the Accuracy, Usefulness, and Significance of Probabilistic Choice Models: An Information-Theoretic Approach , 1978, Oper. Res..

[21]  Steven H. Cohen,et al.  Choice Menus for Mass Customization: An Experimental Approach for Analyzing Customer Demand with an Application to a Web-Based Information Service , 2001 .

[22]  Greg M. Allenby,et al.  Adjusting Choice Models to Better Predict Market Behavior , 2005 .

[23]  Mark D. Uncles,et al.  Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand , 1987 .

[24]  Narendra Karmarkar,et al.  A new polynomial-time algorithm for linear programming , 1984, Comb..

[25]  Greg M. Allenby,et al.  A Hierarchical Bayes Model of Primary and Secondary Demand , 1998 .

[26]  P. M. Vaidya A locally well-behaved potential function and a simple Newton-type method for finding the center of a polytype , 1988 .

[27]  Peter Gritzmann,et al.  Computational complexity of inner and outerj-radii of polytopes in finite-dimensional normed spaces , 1993, Math. Program..

[28]  John R. Hauser,et al.  Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation by Olivier Toubia , 2001 .

[29]  Michael J. Todd,et al.  Identifying the set of always-active constraints in a system of linear inequalities by a single linear program , 1985 .

[30]  Kim Bartel Sheehan,et al.  E-mail Survey Response Rates: A Review , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[31]  Q. Zhang A NEW POLYNOMIAL-TIME ALGORITHM FOR LP , 1996 .

[32]  M. Wedel,et al.  Designing Conjoint Choice Experiments Using Managers' Prior Beliefs , 2001 .

[33]  W. Greub Linear Algebra , 1981 .

[34]  Clayton M. Christensen The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail , 2013 .

[35]  Joel Huber,et al.  The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs , 1996 .