INCENTIVE-ALIGNED CONJOINT ANALYSIS

Because most conjoint studies are conducted in hypothetical situations with no consumption consequences for the participants, the extent to which the studies are able to uncover “true” consumer preference structures is questionable. Experimental economics literature, with its emphasis on incentive alignment and hypothetical bias, suggests that more realistic incentivealigned studies will result in stronger out-of-sample predictive performance of actual purchase behaviors and provide better estimates of consumer preference structures than hypothetical studies. To test this hypothesis, the authors design an experiment with conventional (hypothetical) conditions and their parallel incentive-aligned counterparts. Using Chinese dinner specials as the context, the authors conducted a field experiment in a Chinese restaurant during dinnertime. The results provide strong evidence in favor of incentive-aligned choice conjoint analysis, in that incentive-aligned choice conjoint outperforms hypothetical choice conjoint in out-of-sample predictions (59% versus 26% for incentive-aligned choice conjoint and hypothetical choice conjoint, respectively for the top two choices). As expected, subjects in the incentive-aligned choice condition exhibit preference structures that are systematically different from the preference structures of subjects in the hypothetical condition. Most notably, the subjects in the incentive-aligned choice condition are more price sensitive and exhibit different heterogeneity patterns. To determine the robustness of these results, the authors conducted a second study that used snacks as the context and only considered the choice treatments. This study confirmed the results by again providing strong evidence in favor of incentive-aligned choice analysis in out-of-sample predictions (36% versus 16% for incentive-aligned choice conjoint and hypothetical choice conjoint, respectively for the top two choices). The results provide a strong motivation for conjoint practitioners to consider conducting their studies in realistic settings using incentive structures that require participants to “live with” their decisions.

[1]  Greg M. Allenby,et al.  On the Heterogeneity of Demand , 1998 .

[2]  John R. Hauser,et al.  Application and Test of Web-based Adaptive Polyhedral Conjoint Analysis , 2002 .

[3]  D. Wittink,et al.  Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey , 1982 .

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

[5]  Colin Camerer,et al.  The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework , 1999 .

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

[7]  J. S. Dajani,et al.  Forecasting the Effectiveness of Work-Trip Gasoline Conservation Policies through Conjoint Analysis , 1981 .

[8]  V. Smith,et al.  Monetary rewards and decision cost in experimental economics , 2000 .

[9]  J. D. Davidson,et al.  Forecasting Traffic on STOL , 1973 .

[10]  M. Degroot,et al.  Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. , 1964, Behavioral science.

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

[12]  V. Mahajan,et al.  A Reservation-Price Model for Optimal Pricing of Multiattribute Products in Conjoint Analysis , 1991 .

[13]  Sanjoy Ghose,et al.  When Choice Models Fail: Compensatory Models in Negatively Correlated Environments , 1989 .

[14]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Segmenting Markets with Conjoint Analysis , 1991 .

[15]  B. Skiera,et al.  Measuring Consumers' Willingness to Pay at the Point of Purchase , 2002 .

[16]  Peter Wright,et al.  State-of-mind effects on the accuracy with which utility functions predict marketplace choice. , 1980 .

[17]  John A. List,et al.  Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards , 2001 .

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

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

[20]  Bradley J. Ruffle,et al.  The Deadweight Loss of Christmas: Comment , 2000 .

[21]  Glen L. Urban,et al.  Validation and lessons from the field : applications of information acceleration , 1995 .

[22]  P. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook , 1978 .

[23]  Vijay Mahajan,et al.  A Conjoint Model for Measuring Self- and Cross-Price/Demand Relationships , 1982 .

[24]  Donald A. Anderson,et al.  Designs of Discrete Choice Set Experiments for Estimating Both Attribute and Availability Cross Effects , 1994 .

[25]  Paul E. Green,et al.  An Application of a Product Positioning Model to Pharmaceutical Products , 1992 .

[26]  A. Page,et al.  Redesigning product lines with conjoint analysis: How sunbeam does it , 1987 .

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

[28]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  An Empirical Comparison of Ratings-Based and Choice-Based Conjoint Models , 1992 .

[29]  J. Hausman,et al.  Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number? , 1994 .

[30]  Philippe Cattin,et al.  Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update , 1989 .

[31]  V. Smith.  Papers in experimental economics , 1991 .

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

[33]  Dick R. Wittink,et al.  Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: Results and critical reflections , 1994 .

[34]  J. Douglas Carroll,et al.  Psychometric Methods in Marketing Research: Part I, Conjoint Analysis , 1995 .