Compensatory versus noncompensatory models for predicting consumer preferences

Standard preference models in consumer research assume that people weigh and add all attributes of the available options to derive a decision, while there is growing evidence for the use of simplifying heuristics. Recently, a greedoid algorithm has been developed (Yee, Dahan, Hauser \& Orlin, 2007; Kohli \& Jedidi, 2007) to model lexicographic heuristics from preference data. We compare predictive accuracies of the greedoid approach and standard conjoint analysis in an online study with a rating and a ranking task. The lexicographic model derived from the greedoid algorithm was better at predicting ranking compared to rating data, but overall, it achieved lower predictive accuracy for hold-out data than the compensatory model estimated by conjoint analysis. However, a considerable minority of participants was better predicted by lexicographic strategies. We conclude that the new algorithm will not replace standard tools for analyzing preferences, but can boost the study of situational and individual differences in preferential choice processes.

[1]  Alessio Ishizaka,et al.  Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation , 2011, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[2]  Ulrich Hoffrage,et al.  When do people use simple heuristics, and how can we tell? , 1999 .

[3]  Greg M. Allenby,et al.  A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Rules , 2004 .

[4]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. , 1985 .

[5]  Philippe Cattin,et al.  METRIC VS. NONMETRIC PROCEDURES FOR MULTIATTRIBUTE MODELING: SOME SIMULATION RESULTS * , 1978 .

[6]  Franz Schmalhofer,et al.  Judgment as a component decision process for choosing between sequentially available alternatives , 1986 .

[7]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making. , 1988 .

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

[9]  R. Luce,et al.  Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement , 1964 .

[10]  Jörg Rieskamp,et al.  The influence of information redundancy on probabilistic inferences , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[11]  Philippe Cattin,et al.  Further Beyond Conjoint Measurement: Toward a Comparison of Methods , 1977 .

[12]  Sanjay Mishra,et al.  Attribute Importance Weights in Conjoint Analysis: Bias and Precision , 1989 .

[13]  J. Bettman,et al.  Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis , 1980 .

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

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

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

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

[18]  P. Todd,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

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

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

[21]  H. J. Einhorn.  Use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models as a function of task and amount of information , 1971 .

[22]  Seth Bullock,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[23]  J. Shanteau.  How much information does an expert use? Is it relevant? , 1992 .

[24]  Mirjam R. M. Westenberg,et al.  Response modes, decision processes and decision outcomes , 1992 .

[25]  R. Dhar.  The Effect of Decision Strategy on Deciding to Defer Choice , 1996 .

[26]  Robert S. Billings,et al.  The effects of response mode and importance on decision-making strategies: Judgment versus choice , 1988 .

[27]  Terry Elrod,et al.  A new integrated model of noncompensatory and compensatory decision strategies , 2004 .

[28]  John W. Payne,et al.  Contingent decision behavior. , 1982 .

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

[30]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Cognitive processes in preference reversals , 1989 .

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

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

[33]  H. J. Einhorn,et al.  Linear regression and process-tracing models of judgment. , 1979 .

[34]  A. Bröder,et al.  Take the best versus simultaneous feature matching: probabilistic inferences from memory and effects of representation format. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[35]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Robustness of Conjoint Analysis: Some Monté Carlo Results , 1978 .

[36]  Ulrich Hoffrage,et al.  Identifying decision strategies in a consumer choice situation , 2008, Judgment and Decision Making.

[37]  J. Rieskamp,et al.  SSL: a theory of how people learn to select strategies. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[38]  Arndt Bröder,et al.  Bayesian strategy assessment in multi‐attribute decision making , 2003 .

[39]  B. Newell,et al.  Take the best or look at the rest? Factors influencing "one-reason" decision making. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[41]  Philippe Cattin,et al.  Alternative Estimation Methods for Conjoint Analysis: A Monté Carlo Study , 1981 .

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

[43]  I. Simonson,et al.  Attribute–Task Compatibility as a Determinant of Consumer Preference Reversals: , 1997 .

[44]  P E Green,et al.  NEW WAYS TO MEASURE CONSUMER JUDGMENTS , 1975 .

[45]  O. Svenson.  Process descriptions of decision making. , 1979 .

[46]  R. Lines,et al.  Conjoint Respondents as Adaptive Decision Makers , 2007 .

[47]  Ulrich Hoffrage,et al.  Inferences under time pressure: how opportunity costs affect strategy selection. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[48]  G. Sundström.  Information search and decision making: The effects of information displays , 1987 .

[49]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The adaptive decision maker , 1993 .

[50]  James Shanteau,et al.  Expert Judgment: Is More Information Better? , 1987 .

[51]  Henrik Sattler,et al.  Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis , 2008 .

[52]  Dennis H. Gensch,et al.  The Influence of Involvement on Disaggregate Attribute Choice Models , 1987 .

[53]  Elke U. Weber,et al.  Beyond a Trait View of Risk Taking: A Domain-Specific Scale Measuring Risk Perceptions, Expected Benefits, and Perceived-Risk Attitudes in German-Speaking Populations , 2004 .

[54]  John W. Payne,et al.  Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis☆ , 1976 .

[55]  Peter E. Rossi,et al.  Bayesian Statistics and Marketing , 2005 .

[56]  Ulrich Hoffrage,et al.  Why does one-reason decision making work? A case study in ecological rationality , 1999 .

[57]  D. Goldstein,et al.  How good are simple heuristics , 1999 .

[58]  W. Gaissmaier,et al.  Sequential processing of cues in memory-based multiattribute decisions , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[59]  G Gigerenzer,et al.  Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. , 1996, Psychological review.

[60]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[61]  L. Beach,et al.  A Contingency Model for the Selection of Decision Strategies , 1978 .

[62]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  How good are fast and frugal heuristics , 1999 .

[63]  HILCA: A NEW CONJOINT PROCEDURE FOR AN IMPROVED PORTRAYAL OF PURCHASE DECISIONS ON COMPLEX PRODUCTS , 2007 .

[64]  John Hauser,et al.  Two-Stage Models : Identifying Non-Compensatory Heuristics for the Consideration Set then Adaptive Polyhedral Methods Within the Consideration Set , 2007 .

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

[66]  I. J. Myung,et al.  When a good fit can be bad , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[67]  Jean C. Bedard,et al.  The Effects of Task Size and Similarity on the Decision Behavior of Bank Loan Officers , 1985 .

[68]  A. Bröder.  Assessing the empirical validity of the "take-the-best" heuristic as a model of human probabilistic inference. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[69]  Iver Mysterud,et al.  Take the best , 2000 .

[70]  R. Lewontin.  ‘The Selfish Gene’ , 1977, Nature.

[71]  J. Ford,et al.  Process tracing methods: Contributions, problems, and neglected research questions , 1989 .

[72]  Robert S. Billings,et al.  Measures of compensatory and noncompensatory models of decision behavior: Process tracing versus policy capturing , 1983 .

[73]  B. Newell,et al.  Empirical tests of a fast-and-frugal heuristic: Not everyone "takes-the-best" , 2003 .

[74]  A. Tversky.  Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. , 1972 .