Over the past few years hybrid models for conjoint analysis have been developed to reduce data collection effort and time. Hybrid models combine features of self-explicated utility measurement with more traditional conjoint analysis. A classification of hybrid models is presented, followed by a review of their comparative performance in cross-validation tests. Though hybrid models represent an attempt to cope with an important practical problem in industry applications of conjoint techniques, these models entail a number of untested assumptions requiring further theoretical analysis and empirical research. Suggestions are offered on future studies that are essential before the role of hybrid models in conjoint methods can be evaluated properly.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkaahIsmael P., and KorgaonkarPradeep K. (1983), “An Empirical Comparison of the Predictive Validity of Compositional, Decompositional, and Hybrid Multiattribute Preference Models,”Journal of Marketing Research, 20(May), 187–97.
2.
ArnoldStephen J. (1979), “A Test for Clusters,”Journal of Marketing Research, 16(November), 545–51.
3.
BlattbergRobert, and SargentThomas (1971), “Regression with Non-Gaussian Stable Disturbances: Some Sampling Results,”Econometrica, 39, 501–10.
4.
CarrollJ. Douglas (1969), “Categorical Conjoint Measurement,” paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Mathematical Psychology Association, Ann Arbor, MI (August).
5.
CarrollJ. Douglas (1972), “Individual Differences and Multidimensional Scaling,” in Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications in Behavorial Sciences, vol. I, ShepardR. N., eds. New York: Seminar Press,105–55.
6.
CattinPhilippe, GelfandAlan E., and DanesJeffrey (1983), “A Simple Bayesian Procedure for Estimation in a Conjoint Model,”Journal of Marketing Research, 20(February), 29–35.
7.
CattinPhilippe, and HermetGerard, and PiocheAlain (1982), “Alternative Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: Some Empirical Results,” in Analytical Approaches to Product and Market Planning: The Second Conference.Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute (October), 142–52.
8.
CattinPhilippe, and WittinkDick R. (1982), “Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey,”Journal of Marketing, 46(Summer), 44–53.
9.
CochranWilliam G., and CoxGertrude M. (1957), Experimental Designs, 2nd ed.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chap.12.
10.
CohenJacob (1968), “Multiple Regression as a General Data-Analytic System,”Psychological Bulletin, 70(December), 426–43.
11.
CurrimImran S. (1982), “Predictive Testing of Consumer Choice Models Not Subject to Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives,”Journal of Marketing Research, 19(May), 208–22.
12.
DeSarboWayne S., and Douglas CarrollJ., LehmannDonald R., and O'ShaughnessyJohn (1982), “Three-Way Multivariate Conjoint Analysis,”Marketing Science, 1(Fall), 323–50.
13.
GreenPaul E. (1974), “On the Design of Choice Experiments Involving Multifactor Alternatives,”Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 61–8.
14.
GreenPaul E., and Douglas CarrollJ., and DeSarboWayne S. (1979), “Hierarchical Testing in Conjoint Analysis,” Proceedings of Tenth Annual Meeting of the Association for Consumer Research, 688–91.
15.
GreenPaul E., and Douglas CarrollJ., and GoldbergStephen M. (1981), “A General Approach to Product Design Optimization via Conjoint Analysis,”Journal of Marketing, 45(Summer), 17–37.
16.
GreenPaul E., and DeSarboWayne S. (1979), “Componential Segmentation in the Analysis of Consumer Tradeoffs,”Journal of Marketing, 43(Fall), 83–91.
17.
GreenPaul E., and GoldbergStephen M. (1981), “A Nonmetric Version of the Hybrid Conjoint Analysis Model,” paper presented at Third ORSA/TIMS Market Measurement Conference, New York University (March).
18.
GreenPaul E., GoldbergStephen M., and MontemayorMila (1981), “A Hybrid Utility Estimation Model for Conjoint Analysis,”Journal of Marketing, 45(Winter), 33–41.
19.
GreenPaul E., GoldbergStephen M., and WileyJames B. (1982), “A Cross Validation Test of Hybrid Conjoint Models,” Proceedings of 1982 Annual Meeting of the Association for Consumer Research, San Francisco (October).
20.
GreenPaul E., and RaoVithala R. (1971), “Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data,”Journal of Marketing Research, 8(August), 355–63.
21.
GreenPaul E., and SrinivasanV. (1978), “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook,”Journal of Consumer Research, 5(September), 103–23.
22.
HuberG. P. (1974), “Multiattribute Utility Models: A Review of Field and Field-like Studies,”Management Science, 20(June), 1393–1402.
23.
HuberG. P., and SahneyV. J., and FordD. L. (1969), “A Study of Subjective Evaluation Models,”Behavorial Science, 14(November), 483–9.
24.
HuberJoel, and MooreWilliam (1979), “A Comparison of Alternative Ways to Aggregate Individual Conjoint Analyses,”Proceedings of the AMA Educators’ Meeting, No. 44. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 64–8.
25.
JohnsonRichard M. (1974), “Trade-off Analysis of Consumer Values,”Journal of Marketing Research, 11(May), 121–7.
26.
KruskalJoseph B. (1965), “Analysis of Factorial Experiments by Estimating Monotone Transformations of the Data,”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 27, 251–63.
27.
KuehnA. A., and DayRalph A. (1962), “Strategy of Product Quality,”Harvard Business Review, 40(November-December), 100–10.
28.
McFaddenDaniel (1976), “Quantal Choice Analysis: A Survey,”Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5, 363–90.
29.
MilliganGlenn W. (1980), “An Examination of the Effect of Six Types of Error Perturbation on Fifteen Clustering Algorithms,”Psychometrika, 45(September), 325–42.
30.
RaoVithala R., and WinterFrederick W. (1977), “Application of the Multivariate Probit Model for Market Segmentation and Product Design,” Working Paper 338, School of Business Administration, University of Illinois at Urbana.
31.
ReibsteinDavid J., and BatesonJohn, and BouldingWilliam (1983), “A Framework for Assessing the Reliability of Conjoint Analysis,” Working Paper 83-022, Marketing Department, The Wharton School, The University of Pennsylvania.
32.
ShepardRoger (1964), “On Subjectively Optimum Selections Among Multiattribute Alternatives,” in Human Judgments and Optimality, ShellyM. W.II, and BryanG. L., eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,257–81.
33.
ShockerAllan D., and SrinivasanV. (1977), “LINMAP (Version II): A FORTRAN IV Computer Program for Analyzing Ordinal Preference (Dominance) Judgments via Linear Programming Techniques and for Conjoint Measurement,”Journal of Marketing Research, 14(February), 101–03.
34.
SrinivasanV. (1980), “Comments On: On Conjoint Analysis and Quantal Choice Models,”Journal of Business, 53(July), 547–50.
35.
TukeyJohn W. (1949), “One Degree of Freedom for Additivity,”Biometrics, 5(September), 232–42.
36.
WilkieWilliam L., and PessemierEdgar A. (1973), “Issues in Marketing's Use of Multiattribute Attitude Models,”Journal of Marketing Research, 10(November), 428–41.
