Measuring Consumer Preferences for Complex Products: A Compositional Approach BasedonPaired Comparisons

Conjoint analysis has become a widely accepted tool for preference measurement in marketing research, though its applicability and performance strongly depend on the complexity of the product or service. Therefore, self-explicated approaches are still frequently used because of their simple design, which facilitates preference elicitation when large numbers of attributes need to be considered. However, the direct measurement of preferences, or rather utilities, has been criticized as being imprecise in many cases. Against this background, the authors present a compositional consumer preference measurement approach based on paired comparisons, otherwise known as PCPM. The trade-off character of paired comparisons ensures that the stated judgments are more intuitive than traditional self-explicated preference statements. In contrast to the latter, PCPM accounts for response errors and thus allows for the elicitation of more precise preferences. The authors benchmark PCPM against adaptive conjoint analysis and computer-assisted self-explication of multiattributed preferences to demonstrate its relative validity and predictive accuracy in two empirical studies using complex, high-involvement products. They find that PCPM yields better results than the benchmark approaches with respect to interview length, individual hit rates, and aggregate choice share predictions.

[1]  Rajdeep Grewal,et al.  Incentive-Aligned Conjoint Analysis , 2005 .

[2]  J. H. Myers,et al.  Determinant Buying Attitudes: Meaning and Measurement , 1968 .

[3]  Eric T. Bradlow,et al.  A Learning-Based Model for Imputing Missing Levels in Partial Conjoint Profiles , 2004 .

[4]  Anita Rao,et al.  Adaptive Self-Explication of Multiattribute Preferences , 2011 .

[5]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects , 2001, Interfaces.

[6]  David Hartvigsen Representing the strengths and directions of pairwise comparisons , 2005, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[7]  John W. Payne,et al.  The adaptive decision maker: Name index , 1993 .

[8]  T. RatchfordB New insights about the FCB grid. , 1987 .

[9]  Olivier Toubia,et al.  The Impact of Utility Balance and Endogeneity in Conjoint Analysis , 2005 .

[10]  George Deltas,et al.  The Small-Sample Bias of the Gini Coefficient: Results and Implications for Empirical Research , 2003, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[11]  John W. Payne,et al.  Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code , 1999 .

[12]  B. Wansink,et al.  The Validity of Attribute-Importance Measurement: A Review , 2007 .

[13]  John R. Hauser,et al.  Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation , 2002 .

[14]  Sushil Kumar,et al.  Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[15]  Robin M. Hogarth,et al.  Simple Models for Multiattribute Choice with Many Alternatives: When It Does and Does Not Pay to Face Trade-offs with Binary Attributes , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[16]  William L. Moore,et al.  A cross-validity comparison of rating-based and choice-based conjoint analysis models , 2004 .

[17]  Peeter W. J. Verlegh,et al.  Range and Number-of-Levels Effects in Derived and Stated Measures of Attribute Importance , 2002 .

[18]  F. Strack,et al.  The Semantics of Anchoring , 2001 .

[19]  V. Srinivasan,et al.  A CONJUNCTIVE-COMPENSATORY APPROACH TO THE SELF-EXPLICATION OF MULTIATTRIBUTED PREFERENCES* , 1988 .

[20]  P. Harker Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process , 1987 .

[21]  Armin Scholl,et al.  Solving multiattribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: An empirical comparison , 2005, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[22]  Eric T. Bradlow Current issues and a ‘wish list’ for conjoint analysis , 2005 .

[23]  Joel Huber,et al.  Expressing Preferences in a Principal-Agent Task: A Comparison of Choice, Rating, and Matching , 2002 .

[24]  Manoj K. Agarwal,et al.  A cross validation test of four models for quantifying multiattribute preferences , 1993 .

[25]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice , 1990 .

[26]  P. Herr,et al.  Motivated Search: Effects of Choice Accountability, Issue Involvement, and Prior Knowledge on Information Acquisition and Use , 1999 .

[27]  R. Hämäläinen,et al.  On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process , 1997 .

[28]  D. Ariely,et al.  Constructing Stable Preferences: A Look Into Dimensions of Experience and Their Impact on Preference Stability , 1999 .

[29]  Peter M. Todd,et al.  How much information do we need? , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[30]  John R. Hauser,et al.  Intensity Measures of Consumer Preference , 1980, Oper. Res..

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

[32]  Iwaro Takahashi,et al.  2-CYCLIC DESIGN IN AHP , 2003 .

[33]  Martin Weber,et al.  The Effect of Attribute Ranges on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurements , 1993 .

[34]  Joffre Swait,et al.  Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice , 2001 .

[35]  Henrik Sattler,et al.  A Comparison of Conjoint Measurement with Self-Explicated Approaches , 2007 .

[36]  John R. Hauser,et al.  Conjoint Analysis, Related Modeling, and Applications , 2004 .

[37]  P. Green,et al.  Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects , 2001 .

[38]  R. Mulye An empirical comparison of three variants of the AHP and two variants of conjoint analysis , 1998 .

[39]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[40]  U. Hoffrage,et al.  Fast, frugal, and fit: Simple heuristics for paired comparison , 2002 .

[41]  J. Orlin,et al.  Greedoid-Based Noncompensatory Inference , 2007 .

[42]  R. Kohli,et al.  Representation and Inference of Lexicographic Preference Models and Their Variants , 2007 .

[43]  T. J. Reynolds,et al.  Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. , 2001 .

[44]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  There Is Hope In Attribute Weighting , 2000 .

[45]  Chan Su Park,et al.  Surprising Robustness of the Self-Explicated Approach to Customer Preference Structure Measurement , 1997 .