Eliciting Online Customers’ Preferences: Conjoint vs Self-Explicated Attribute-Level Measurements

The growth of the Internet for shopping has led to an increasing interest in tools for assisting consumers with decision-making, efficienfly using the vast quantity of widely dispersed information. Online product recommendation agents gather information from consumers and then match these consumer preferences with their database of products to recommend the best product. Two approaches can be taken for gathering information from consumers on their preferences – conjoint-type full-profile ratings or self-explicated ratings. That is, organizations may infer consumers’ preferences for attributes and levels on the basis of their ratings of several alternative products or may simply directly ask them their evaluations of various attributes and levels. We compare these two approaches and find that, in general, they do not result in the same conclusions. In this paper we examine the differences in the approaches to making recommendations and discuss the implications of these differences. Our results show that there is a closer match between the methods for products closer to the extremes of consumer preference. Also, our study shows that a recommendation agent should offer more than one recommendation in order to match the needs of the system user.

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

[2]  A. Tversky Intransitivity of preferences. , 1969 .

[3]  H. J. Einhorn The use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models in decision making. , 1970, Psychological bulletin.

[4]  Peter Wright Consumer Choice Strategies: Simplifying Vs. Optimizing , 1975 .

[5]  J. Bettman,et al.  Effects of Information Presentation Format on Consumer Information Acquisition Strategies , 1977 .

[6]  David B. Montgomery,et al.  Predictive Validity of Trade-Off Analysis for Alternative Segmentation Schemes , 1979 .

[7]  Nils Brunsson,et al.  The Irrationality of Action and Action Rationality. , 1979 .

[8]  William L. Moore,et al.  Levels of Aggregation in Conjoint Analysis: An Empirical Comparison , 1980 .

[9]  Nils Brunsson THE IRRATIONALITY OF ACTION AND ACTION RATIONALITY: DECISIONS, IDEOLOGIES AND ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIONS , 1982 .

[10]  John W Payne Contingent Decision Behavior: A Review and Discussion of Issues. , 1982 .

[11]  N. Malhotra Information Load and Consumer Decision Making , 1982 .

[12]  B. Dosher,et al.  Strategies for multiattribute binary choice. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review , 1984 .

[14]  Janet L. Yellen,et al.  Can Small Deviations from Rationality Make Significant Differences to Economic Equilibria , 1985 .

[15]  David V. Budescu,et al.  Reflection of transitive and intransitive preferences: A test of prospect theory , 1987 .

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

[17]  Henry Lieberman,et al.  Letizia: An Agent That Assists Web Browsing , 1995, IJCAI.

[18]  What’s so Rational about Rational Expectations? Hyperrationality and the Logical Limits to Neoclassicism , 1997 .

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

[20]  Dominique Rouzies,et al.  Internal Validity of Conjoint Analysis Under Alternative Measurement Procedures , 1999 .

[21]  Ran Kivetz,et al.  The Effects of Incomplete Information on Consumer Choice , 2000 .

[22]  Mary Kwak Web Sites Learn To Make Smarter Suggestions , 2001 .

[23]  Paul P. Maglio,et al.  When buying on-line, does price really matter? , 2001, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[24]  Rajiv Vaidyanathan,et al.  The Impact of Shopping Agents on Small Business E-Commerce Strategy , 2002 .

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