Abstract
The purpose of this chapter is to place conjoint analysis techniques within the broader framework of preference elicitation techniques that are consistent with the Random Utility Theory (RUT) paradigm. This allows us to accomplish the following objectives: explain how random utility theory provides a level playing field on which to compare preference elicitation methods, and why virtually all conjoint methods can be treated as a special case of a much broader theoretical framework. We achieve this by:
-
discussing wider issues in modelling preferences in the RUT paradigm, the implications for understanding consumer decision processes and practical prediction, and how conjoint analysis methods fit into the bigger picture.
-
discussing how a level playing field allows meaningful comparisons of a variety of preference elicitation methods and sources of preference data (conjoint methods are only one of many types), which in turn allows us to unify many disparate research streams;
-
discussing how a level playing field allows sources of preference data from various elicitation methods to be combined, including the important case of relating sources of preference elicitation data to actual market behaviour;
-
discussing the pros and cons of relaxing the simple error assumptions in basic choice models, and how these allow one to capture individual differences without needing individual-level effects;
-
using three cases studies to illustrate the themes of the chapter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Adamowicz, W.L., Louviere, J. and Williams, M. (1994), Combining Stated and Revealed Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 271–292.
Adamowicz, W. L., Swait, J., Boxall, P., Louviere, J. and Williams, M. (1996), Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32, 65–84.
Allenby, G. and Ginter, J. (1995), The effects of in-store Displays and feature Advertising on Consideration Sets, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 67–80.
Ainslie, A. and Rossi, P.E. (1998), Similarities in Choice Behavior Across Product Categories, Marketing Science, 17, 91–106.
Ben-Akiva, M E and Lerman, S (1985), Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, Cambridge.
Ben-Akiva, M. and Morikawa, T. (1990), Estimation of Switching Models From Revealed Preferences and Stated Intentions, Transportation Research, 24A, 485–495.
Ben-Akiva, M., Bradley, M., Morikawa, T., Benjamin, J., Novak, T., Oppewal, H. and Rao, V. (1994), Combining Revealed and Stated Preferences Data, Marketing Letters: Special Issue on the Duke Invitational Conference on Consumer Decision-Making and Choice Behavior, 5, 17–31.
Ben-Akiva, M., Morikawa, T. and Shiroishi, F. (1991), Analysis of the Reliability of Preference Ranking Data, Journal of Business Research, 23, 253–268.
Bhat, C. (1995), A heteroscedastic extreme value model of intercity travel mode choice, Transportation Research, 29, 471–483.
Bhat, C. (1996), Accommodating variations in responsiveness to level-of-service measures in travel mode choice modeling, Transportation Research.
Bhat, C. (1997a), Incorporating Observed and Unobserved Heterogeneity in Urban Mode Choice Models, Transportation Science, under review.
Bhat, C. (1997), Recent methodological advances relevant to activity and travel behavior analysis, Conference Pre-prints, IATBR’97, The 8th Meeting of the International Association of Travel Behaviour Research, Austin, Texas.
Boersch-Supan, A. and Hajvassiliou, V. (1990), Smooth unbiased multivariate probability simulators for maximum likelihood estimation of limited dependent variable models, Journal of Econometrics, 58, 347–368.
Bradley, M. and Daly, A. (1994), Use of the logit scaling approach to test rank-order and fatigue effects in stated preference data, Transportation, 21, 167–184.
Brownstone, D., Bunch, D. and Train, K. (1997), Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuelled vehicles, Conference Pre-prints, IATBR’97, The 8th Meeting of the International Association of Travel Behaviour Research, Austin, Texas.
Carson, R. T., Louviere, J. J., Anderson, D. A., Arabie, P., Bunch, D. S., Hensher, D. A., Johnson, R. M., Kuhfeld, W. F., Steinberg, D., Swait, J. D., Timmermans, H. and Wiley, J. B. (1994), Experimental Analysis of Choice, Marketing Letters: Special Issue on the Duke Invitational Conference on Consumer Decision-Making and Choice Behavior, 5, 351–368.
Chapman, R. and Staelin, R. (1982), Exploiting Rank Ordered Choice Set Data Within the Stochastic Utility Model, Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 288–301.
Chrzan, K. (1994), Three Kinds of Order Effects in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis, Marketing Letters, 5, 165–172
Elrod, T., Louviere, J. and Davey, K. (1993), A Comparison of Ratings-Based and Choice-Based Conjoint Models, Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 368–377.
Erdem T. and M.P. Keane (1996), Decision-making under Uncertainty: Capturing dynamic Brand Choice Processes in turbulent Consumer Goods Markets, Marketing Science, 15, 1–20.
Guadagni P. M. and J. D. Little (1983), A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data, Marketing Science, 2, 203–238.
Geweke, J., Keane, M. and Runkle, D. (1994), Alternative computational Approaches to inference in the multinomial Probit Model, Review of Economics and Statistics, 76, 609–632.
Hensher, D. and Bradley, M. (1993), Using Stated Response Choice Data to Enrich Revealed Preference Discrete Choice Models, Marketing Letters, 4, 139–151.
Hensher, D. A. (1997), A practical Approach to identifying the Market for high speed rail: a case study in the Sydney-Canberra corridor, Transportation Research, 31, 431–446.
Hensher, D. A. (1998a), Establishing a Fare Elasticity Regime for Urban Passenger Transport: Non-Concession Commuters, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 32, 221–246.
Hensher, D. A., Boersch-Supan, A. and Brewer, A. (1999), Alternative behavioural perspectives on interactive Agency Choice, Institute of Transport Studies University of Sydney and Department of Economics, Mannheim University, forthcoming.
Johnson, N., Kotz, S. and Balakrishnan, N. (1995), Continuous Univariate Distribution, New York.
Johnson, R. (1989), Making Decisions with Incomplete Information: The First Complete Test of the Inference Model, Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 522–528.
Keane, M.P. (1997), Current issues in discrete Choice Modelling, Marketing Letters, 8, 307–322.
Krijnen, W.P. (1997), Some Remarks To Using Single-Factor Analysis, As A Measurement Model, unpublished working paper, Department of Marketing, University of Groningen.
Louviere, J.J. (1988), Analyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis. Sage University Papers Series in Quintitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 67, Newbury Park.
Louviere, J. (1994), Conjoint Analysis, in: Bagozzi, R. ed., Advances in Marketing Research, London.
Louviere, J. and Woodworth, G. (1983), Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data, Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 350–367.
Louviere, J., Fox, M. and Moore, W. (1993), Cross-Task Validity Comparisons of Stated Preference Choice Models, Marketing Letters, 4, 205–213.
Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D.A. and Swait, J. (1998), Combining Sourcs of Preference Data, Journal of Econometrics, Special Issue on Marketing and Econometrics, forthcoming.
Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A. and Swait, J. (1999), Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications in Marketing, Transportation and Environmental Valuation, New York.
Luce, R. D. and Suppes, P. (1965), Preference, utility and subjective probability, in: Luce R. D., Bush R. R., and Galanter E., eds., Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, New York.
McFadden, D. (1974), Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour, in: Zarembka P., ed., Frontiers in Econometrics, New York, 105–142.
McFadden, D. (1986), The Choice Theory Approach to Marketing Research, Marketing Science, 5, 275–297.
McFadden, D. (1981), Econometric Models of probabilistic Choice, in: Manski, C.F. and McFadden, D., eds., Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications, Cambridge, 198–272.
McFadden, D. and Ruud, P. A. (1994), Estimation by Simulation, Review of Economics and Statistics, 76, 591–608.
McFadden, D. and Train, K. (1996), Mixed MNL Models for discrete Response, Department of Economics, University of California at Berkeley.
Meyer, R. (1977), An Experimental Analysis of Student Apartment Selection Decisions Under Uncertainty, Special Issue on Human Judgment and Spatial Behavior, Great Plains-Rocky Mountains Geographical Journal, 6, 30–38.
Meyer, R. and Eagle, T. (1982), Context Induced Parameter Instability in a Disaggregate-Stochastic Model of Store Choice, Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 62–71.
Meyer, R., Louviere, J., Bunch, D., Carson, R., Delleart, B., Hanemann, M., Hensher, D. Irwin, J. (1999), Combining Sources of Preference Data, Marketing Letters, Special Issue on the HEC Invitational Conference on Consumer Decision-Making and Choice Behaviour, forthcoming.
Morikawa, T (1989), Incorporating Stated Preference Data in Travel Demand Analysis, PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, M.I.T.
Morikawa, T. (1994), Correcting state dependence and serial correlation in the RP/SP combined estimation method, Transportation, 21, 153–166.
Oliphant, K., Eagle, T., Louviere, J. and Anderson, D. (1992), Crosspresented at the 1992 Advanced Research Techniques Forum of the American Marketing Association, Beaver Creek.
Olsen, G.D. and Swait, J. (1995), Nothing is Important, unpublished working paper, Faculty of Management, University of Calgary, Alberta.
Olsen, G.D., Swait, J., Johnson, R., Louviere, J. (1995), Response Mode Influences on Attribute Weight and Predictive Ability When Linear Models are Not Certain to be Robust, unpublished working paper, Faculty of Business, University of Calgary, Alberta.
Revelt, D. and Train, K. (1996), Incentives for Appliance Efficiency: random Parameters logit models for households’ Choices, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley.
Rushton, G. (1969), Analysis of Spatial Behaviour by Revealed Space Preference, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 59, 391–400.
Simon H.A. (1983), Reason in Human Affairs, Stanford.
Stern, S. (1997), Simulation-based Estimation, Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 2006–2039.
Swait, J. and Louviere, J. (1993), The Role of the Scale Parameter in The Estimation and Use of Multinomial Logit Models, Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 305–314.
Swait, J., Louviere, J. and Williams, M. (1994), A sequential Approach to exploiting the combined strengths of SP and RP data: Application to Freight Shipper Choice, Transportation, 21, 135–152.
Swait, J., Adamowicz, W. and Louviere, J. (1998), Attribute-based stated Choice Methods for resource Compensation: An Application to oil spill damage assessment, Paper presented at the NOAA Workshop on Application of Stated Preference Methods to Resource Compensation, Washington.
Thurstone, L. L. (1927), A Law of Comparative Judgment, Psychological Review, 34, 273–286.
Train, K. (1997), Mixed logit models for Recreation Demand, in: Kling, C. and Herriges, J., eds., Valuing the Environment Using Recreation Demand Models, New York.
Wedel, W., Kamakura, W., Arora, N., Bemmaor, A., Chiang, J., Elrod, T., Johnson, R., Lenk, P., Neslin, S., and Poulsen, C.S. (1999), Heterogeneity and Bayesian Methods in Choice Modeling, Marketing Letters, Special Issue on the HEC Invitational Conference on Consumer Decision-Making and Choice Behaviour, forthcoming.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Louviere, J., Hensher, D., Swait, J. (2007). Conjoint Preference Elicitation Methods in the Broader Context of Random Utility Theory Preference Elicitation Methods. In: Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., Huber, F. (eds) Conjoint Measurement. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71404-0_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71404-0_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-71403-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-71404-0
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)