Reference Dependence and Conjoint Analysis

Abstract Although there is enormous evidence that reference levels influence preferences, conjoint models, one of the most successful marketing research tools, assume that preferences depend on the absolute levels of attributes. In this paper we investigate the relevance of reference effects in two settings, compositional or self-explicated models in experimental studies 1 and 2, and decompositional or choice-based models in experimental study 3. In particular, we introduce a simple modification of the traditional self-explicated conjoint model which permits dependence of preference on reference levels. By eliciting gains and losses from expectations the model is adaptable to changes in respondents' reference points, which the traditional model is incapable of. Reference options are found to clearly affect subject choices in studies 1 and 2. In addition, the reference dependent self-explicated model is found to offer useful predictions when reference points are manipulated in study 1, and improve on predictions of its traditional counterpart when reference points are measured in study 2. In contrast, in study 3, the choice-based model’s diagnostics and predictions are found to be robust to reference point manipulations. Taken together, these results suggest that the self-explicated model is more suited than the choice-based model to understanding and predicting how respondents make judgments relative to reference points because reference points and gains and losses from reference levels are more salient in the self-explicated model. We discuss implications for managers constructing conjoint models in product-market settings wherein reference points are changing due to new product introductions or marketing efforts.

[1]  Lakshman Krishnamurthi,et al.  A comparative analysis of reference price models , 1997 .

[2]  G. Kalyanaram,et al.  Empirical Generalizations from Reference Price Research , 1995 .

[3]  Rick L. Andrews,et al.  Hierarchical Bayes versus Finite Mixture Conjoint Analysis Models: A Comparison of Fit, Prediction, and Partworth Recovery , 2002 .

[4]  Richard A. Briesch,et al.  A High-Tech Product Market Share Model with Customer Expectations , 1995 .

[5]  A. Tversky,et al.  Contingent weighting in judgment and choice , 1988 .

[6]  W. Edwards,et al.  Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research , 1986 .

[7]  Rakesh K. Sarin,et al.  Prospect Versus Utility , 1989 .

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

[9]  I. Simonson,et al.  Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects , 1989 .

[10]  Robert J. Meyer,et al.  Empirical Generalizations in the Modeling of Consumer Choice , 1995 .

[11]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

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

[13]  D. Bell,et al.  Looking for Loss Aversion in Scanner Panel Data: The Confounding Effect of Price Response Heterogeneity , 2000 .

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

[15]  Purushottam Papatla,et al.  An Investigation of Reference Price Segments , 2000 .

[16]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[17]  Bruce G. S. Hardie,et al.  Modeling Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence Effects on Brand Choice , 1993 .

[18]  A. Tversky,et al.  Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model , 1991 .

[19]  U. Dholakia,et al.  The Effect of Explicit Reference Points on Consumer Choice and Online Bidding Behavior , 2005 .