Abstract
The emergence of Bayesian methodology has facilitated respondent-level conjoint models, and deriving utilities from choice experiments has become very popular among those modeling product line decisions or new product introductions. This review begins with a paradox of why experimental choices should mirror market behavior despite clear differences in content, structure and motivation. It then addresses ways to design the choice tasks so that they are more likely to reflect market choices. Finally, it examines ways to model the results of the choice experiments to better mirror both underlying decision processes and potential market choices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allenby, Greg M., Thomas S. Shively, Sha Yang, and Mark J. Garratt. (2004). “A Choice Model for Packaged Goods: Dealing with Discrete Quantities and Quantity Discounts,” Marketing Science 23, 95–108.
Bell, David R. and James M. Lattin. (2000). “Looking for Loss Aversion in Scanner Panel Data: The Confounding Effect of Price Response Heterogeneity,” Marketing Science 19, 185–200.
Ben-Akiva, Moshe, Mark Bradley, Taka Morikawa, Julian Benjamin, Thomas Novak, Harmen Oppewal, and Vithala Rao. (1994). “Combining Revealed and Stated Preferences Data,” Marketing Letters 5, 335–350.
Chrzan, Keith and Michael Patterson. (1999). “Comparing the Ability of Full and Partial Profile Choice Experiments to Predict Holdout Choices,” Paper presented at AMA's ART Forum, Santa Fe, NM, 1999.
DeSarbo, Wayne S. and Paul E. Green. (1984). “Concepts, Theory, and Techniques, Choice-Constrained Conjoint Analysis,” Decision Science 15, 291–323.
Dickson, Peter R. and Alan G. Sawyer. (1990). “The Price Knowledge and Search of Supermarket Shoppers,” Journal of Marketing 54, 42–53.
Fennell, Geraldine. (1997). “Value and Values: Relevance to Advertising.” In L. Kahle and L. Chiagouris (eds.), Values, Lifestyles, and Psychographics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fennell, Geraldine. (1988). “Action as Counterchange: Identifying Antecedents of the Domain and Goal of Action,” In L. Alwitt (ed.), Proceedings 95th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Gilbride, Timothy J., Greg M. Allenby, and Jeff Brazell. (2004). “Models of Heterogeneous Variable Selection,” Working paper, Ohio State University.
Gilbride, Timothy J. and Greg M. Allenby. (2004). “A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Rules,” Marketing Science 23, 391–406.
Green, Paul E. and V. Srinivasan. (1978). “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook,” Journal of Consumer Research 5, 103–123.
Horsky, Dan and Paul Nelson. (1992). “New Brand Positioning and Pricing in an Oligopolistic Market,” Marketing Science 11, 133–153.
Horsky, Dan, Paul Nelson, and Steven S. Posovac. (2004). “Stating Preference for the Ethereal but Choosing the Concrete: How the Tangibility of Attributes Affects Attribute Weighting in Value Elicitation and Choice,” Journal of Consumer Psychology 14, 132–140.
Horsky, Dan, Paul Nelson, and Sanjog Misra. (2004). “Observed and Unobserved Preference Heterogeneity in Brand Choice Models,” working paper, Simon School of Business University of Rochester.
Huber, Joel. (2004). “The Distorting Impact of Dominance and Compromise in Choice Based Conjoint,” Paper presented at AMA's ART Forum, Whistler, Canada, 2004.
Huber, Joel, Dick R. Wittink, John A. Fiedler, and Richard Miller. (1993). “The Effectiveness of Alternative Preference Elicitation Procedures in Predicting Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research 30, 105–114.
Huber, Joel and Klaus Zwerina. (1996). “The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs,” Journal of Marketing Research 33, 307–317.
Huber, Joel, Dan Ariely, and Greg Fischer. (2002). “Expressing Preferences in a Principal-Agent Task: A Comparison of Choice, Rating and Matching,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 87, 66–90.
Johnson, Rich and Bryan Orme. (1996). “How Many Questions Should You Ask in Choice-Based Conjoint Studies,” Technical Report, Sawtooth Software: available at http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/technicaldownloads.shtml#howmany.
Johnson, Rich, Joel Huber, and Lynd Bacon. (2003). “Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint”. In Proceedings of the 10th Sawtooth Software Conference, April 2003, San Antonio, Texas.
Kim, Jaehwan, Greg M. Allenby, and Peter E. Rossi. (2004). “Volumetric Conjoint Analysis,” working paper, Ohio State University.
Kim, Jaehwan, Greg M. Allenby, and Peter E. Rossi. (2002). “Modeling Consumer Demand for Variety,” Marketing Science 21, 229–250.
Kuhfeld, Warren. (2004). “Experimental Designs, Efficiency, Coding and Choice Designs,” Technical Report TS-722C, SAS: available at http://support.sas.com/techsup/tnote/tnote_stat.html
Lenk, Peter. (1992). “Hierarchical Bayes Forecasts of Multinomial Dirichlet Data Applied to Coupon Redemptions,” Journal of Forecasting 11, 603–619.
Lenk, Peter and Ambar Rao. (1990). “New Models from Old: Forecasting Product Adoption by Hierarchical Bayes Procedures,” Marketing Science 9, 42–53.
Louviere, Jordan and George Woodworth. (1983). “Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data,” Journal of Marketing Research 20, 350–367.
Louviere, Jordan L., Deborah J. Street, and Leonie Burgess. (2003). “A 20+ Years Retrospective on Choice Experiments”. In Yoram Wind and Paul E. Green (eds.), Market Research and Methodology: Progress and Prospects, New York: Kluwer Academic Press, pp. 201–214.
Ofek, Elie and V. Srinivasan. (2002). “How Much Does the Market Value an Improvement in a Product Attribute?” Marketing Science 21, 398–411.
Orme, Bryan and Gary Baker. (2000). “Comparing Hierarchical Bayes Draws and Randomized First Choice for Conjoint Simulations”. In Proceedings of the 8th Sawtooth Software Conference, March 2000, Hilton Head Island, South Carolina.
Otter, Thomas, Sylvia Frühwirth-Schnatter, and Regina Tüchler. (2004). “Unobserved Preference Changes in Conjoint Analysis,” Working paper, Ohio State University.
Renken, Tim, Greg Rogers, and Joel Huber. (2004). “A Comparison of Conjoint and Scanner Data-Based Price Elasticity Estimates,” Paper presented at AMA's ART Forum, Whistler, Canada, 2004.
Severin, Valerie C., Leonie Burgess, Jordan Louviere, and Deborah J. Street. (2004). “Comparing Statistical Efficiency and Respondent Efficiency in Choice Experiments,” working paper, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
Sonnier, Garrett, Andrew Ainslie, and Thomas Otter. (2004). “The Effects of Different Parameterizations on Heterogeneous Choice Models,” working paper, UCLA
Street, Deborah J. and Leonie Burgess. (2004). “Optimal and Near-optimal Pairs for the Estimation of Effects in 2-level Choice Experiments,” Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 118, 185–199.
Tobia, Olivier, John R. Hauser, and Duncan Simester (2004), “Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-based Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research 41, 116–131.
Train, Kenneth. (2003). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zehna, Peter W. (1966). “Invariance of Maximum Likelihood Estimators,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics 37, 744.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Co-chairs. Author order is alphabetical.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Allenby, G., Fennell, G., Huber, J. et al. Adjusting Choice Models to Better Predict Market Behavior. Market Lett 16, 197–208 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-005-5885-1
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-005-5885-1