Adaptive Self-Explication of Multi-Attribute Preferences

In this research we propose a web-based adaptive self-explicated approach for multi-attribute preference measurement (conjoint analysis) with a large number (ten or more) of attributes. In the empirical application reported here the proposed approach provides a substantial and significant improvement in predictive ability over current preference measurement methods designed for handling a large number of attributes. Our approach also overcomes some of the limitations of previous self-explicated approaches. Two methods are commonly used to estimate attribute importances in self-explicated studies: ratings and constant-sum allocation. A common problem with the ratings approach is that it does not explicitly capture the tradeoff between attributes; it is easy for respondents to say that every attribute is important. The constant-sum approach overcomes this limitation, but with a large number of product attributes it becomes difficult for the respondent to divide a constant sum among all the attributes. We developed a computer-based self-explicated approach that breaks down the attribute importance question into a sequence of constant-sum paired comparison questions. We first used a fixed design in which the set of questions is chosen from a balanced orthogonal design and then extend it to an adaptive design in which the questions are chosen adaptively for each respondent to maximize the information elicited from each paired comparison question. Unlike the traditional self-explicated approach, the proposed approach provides (approximate) standard errors for attribute importance. In a study involving digital cameras described on twelve attributes, we find that the predictive validity (correctly predicted top choices) of the proposed adaptive approach is 35%-52% higher than that of Adaptive Conjoint Analysis, the Fast Polyhedral approach, and the traditional self-explicated approach, irrespective of whether the part-worths were estimated using classical or hierarchical Bayes estimation. Additionally, the proposed adaptive approach reduces the respondents' burden by keeping the number of paired comparison questions small without significant loss of predictive validity.

[1]  G. Urban,et al.  Pre-Test-Market Evaluation of New Packaged Goods: A Model and Measurement Methodology , 1978 .

[2]  Eric T. Bradlow,et al.  A Unified Approach to Conjoint Analysis Models , 2002 .

[3]  Min Ding,et al.  Eliciting Preference for Complex Products: A Web-Based Upgrading Method , 2008 .

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

[5]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Attribute Importance Weights Modification in Assessing a Brand's Competitive Potential , 1995 .

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

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

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

[10]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  The Measurement of Values in Surveys: A Comparison of Ratings and Rankings , 1985 .

[11]  Elliott N. Weiss,et al.  AHP DESIGN ISSUES FOR LARGE-SCALE SYSTEMS , 1987 .

[12]  Martin Wetzels,et al.  Response Rate and Response Quality of Internet-Based Surveys: An Experimental Study , 2004 .

[13]  Gary E. Bolton,et al.  INCENTIVE-ALIGNED CONJOINT ANALYSIS , 2004 .

[14]  Giorgos Zacharia,et al.  Generalized robust conjoint estimation , 2005 .

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

[16]  Eric Marder,et al.  The Laws of Choice: Predicting Customer Behavior , 1997 .

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

[18]  Vithala R. Rao,et al.  Conjoint Measurement- for Quantifying Judgmental Data , 1971 .

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

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

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

[22]  Vijay Mahajan,et al.  A Comparison of the Internal Validity of Alternative Parameter Estimation Methods in Decompositional Multiattribute Preference Models , 1979 .

[23]  Jerry Wind,et al.  Courtyard by Marriott: Designing a Hotel Facility with Consumer-Based Marketing Models , 1989 .

[24]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation , 1990 .

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

[26]  Bryan K. Orme,et al.  Which Conjoint Method Should I Use? , 2001 .

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

[28]  John R. Hauser,et al.  Probabilistic Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis: Theory and Application , 2007 .

[29]  Paul E. Green,et al.  A Hybrid Utility Estimation Model for Conjoint Analysis , 1981 .

[30]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Adaptive Conjoint Analysis: Some Caveats and Suggestions , 1991 .

[31]  S. McIntyre,et al.  Developing Practical Procedures for the Measurement of Personal Values in Cross-Cultural Marketing , 1979 .

[32]  T. J. Reynolds,et al.  Measuring Personal Values: An Evaluation of Alternative Methods , 1980 .

[33]  B. Orme Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research , 2005 .

[34]  Michel Wedel,et al.  Bayesian Prediction in Hybrid Conjoint Analysis , 2002 .

[35]  Eric T. Bradlow,et al.  Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement , 2008 .

[36]  Terance D. Miethe The Validity and Reliability of Value Measurements , 1985 .

[37]  André I. Khuri,et al.  Replicated paired comparisons at the individual level , 1995 .

[38]  Joel Huber,et al.  The Effectiveness of Alternative Preference Elicitation Procedures in Predicting Choice , 1993 .

[39]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  A TEST OF THE FORM-RESISTANT CORRELATION HYPOTHESIS RATINGS, RANKINGS, AND THE MEASUREMENT OF VALUES , 1988 .

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

[41]  John R. Hauser,et al.  Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis , 2004 .

[42]  Min Ding An Incentive-Aligned Mechanism for Conjoint Analysis , 2007 .

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

[44]  David J. Curry,et al.  Prediction in Marketing Using the Support Vector Machine , 2005 .

[45]  P. Moran On the method of paired comparisons. , 1947, Biometrika.