A Comparison of Full Profile and Hierarchical Information Integration Conjoint Methods to Modeling Group Preferences

This paper presents a comparative test of full profile (FP), original hierarchical information integration (HII-O), and integrated hierarchical information integration (HII-I) conjoint methods for modeling group preferences. It is hypothesized that in settings where groups need to decide about complex multi-attribute alternatives, HII-O will predict holdout profiles better than FP, and that HII-I will perform better than HII-O. The predictive ability of the three methods is tested for the case of housing preferences of housing co-ops, which are groups consisting of three to five people who jointly own a house. The results confirm that HII-I outperforms the other two methods and further suggest that FP and HII-O perform equally well. In addition, two variations of HII-I are developed. One of these provides independent estimates of the relative influence of group members on the decision outcomes, however at the expense of requiring larger designs. The two HII-I variations are also tested and found to be equivalent in predictive ability.

[1]  Hjp Harry Timmermans,et al.  Transport facilities and residential choice behavior : a model of multi-person choice processes , 1993 .

[2]  Joel H. Steckel,et al.  Towards a new way to measure power: Applying conjoint analysis to group decisions , 1989 .

[3]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Hierarchical Information Integration: a New Method For the Design and Analysis of Complex Multlattribute Judgment Problems , 1984 .

[4]  William A. V. Clark,et al.  Residential mobility and household location modelling , 1987 .

[5]  Weber Je,et al.  Joint Home Purchasing Decisions by Husbands and Wives , 1975 .

[6]  Donald R. Lehmann,et al.  Models of Cooperative Group Decision-Making and Relative Influence: An Experimental Investigation of Family Purchase Decisions , 1987 .

[7]  Seymour Sudman,et al.  How Well do you Know your Partner? Strategies for Formulating Proxy-Reports and Their Effects on Convergence to Self-Reports , 1995 .

[8]  William L. Moore,et al.  A Comparison of Conjoint Methods When There Are Many Attributes , 1999 .

[9]  Stephen J. Hoch,et al.  An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of Spousal Predictions , 1986 .

[10]  K. Hourihan The Evaluation of Urban Neighbourhoods 2: Preference , 1979 .

[11]  Lakshman Krishnamurthi,et al.  Conjoint models of family decision making , 1988 .

[12]  H. Oppewal,et al.  Residential Choice Behaviour of Dual Earner Households: A Decompositional Joint Choice Model , 1992 .

[13]  H. L. Davis,et al.  Perception of Marital Roles in Decision Processes , 1974 .

[14]  N. Anderson Foundations of information integration theory , 1981 .

[15]  Norman H. Anderson,et al.  Methods of information integration theory , 1982 .

[16]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Modeling Hierarchical Conjoint Processes with Integrated Choice Experiments , 1994 .

[17]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Family Members' Projections of Each Other's Preference and Influence: A Two-Stage Conjoint Approach , 1997 .

[18]  Joel H. Steckel,et al.  A Polarization Model for Describing Group Preferences , 1991 .

[19]  H.J.P. Timmermans,et al.  Testing the Validity of Hierarchical Information , 1997 .