Recently, both Hagerty and Kamakura have proposed insightful suggestions for improving the predictive accuracy of conjoint analysis via various types of averaging of individual responses. Hagerty uses Q-type factor analysis (i.e., optimal weighting) and Kamakura a hierarchical cluster analysis that optimizes predictive validity. Both approaches are compared with conventional conjoint and self-explicated utility models using real datasets. Neither the Hagerty nor the Kamakura suggestions lead to higher predictive validities than are obtained by conventional conjoint analysis applied to individual response data.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkaahIshmael P. and PradeepK. Korgaonkar (1983), “An Empirical Comparison of Predictive Validity for Self-Explicated, Huber-Hybrid, Traditional Conjoint, and Hybrid Conjoint Models,” Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (May), 187–97.
2.
CattinPhilippe, AlanGelfand, and JeffreyDanes (1983), “A Simple Bayesian Procedure for Estimation in a Conjoint Model,” Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (February), 29–35.
3.
CurrimImran S. (1981), “Using Segmentation Approaches for Better Prediction and Understanding from Consumer Mode Choice Models,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August), 301–9.
4.
GreenPaul E. (1977), “A New Approach to Market Segmentation,” Business Horizons, 20 (February), 61–73.
5.
GreenPaul E. (1984), “Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (May), 155–9.
6.
GreenPaul E. and WayneS. DeSarbo (1979), “Componential Segmentation in the Analysis of Consumer Trade-Offs,” Journal of Marketing, 43 (Fall), 83–91.
7.
GreenPaul E. and WayneS. DeSarbo, StephenM. Goldberg, and MilaMontemayor (1981), “A Hybrid Utility Estimation Model for Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 45 (Winter), 33–41.
8.
GreenPaul E. and WayneS. DeSarbo, StephenM. Goldberg, and MilaMontemayor and AbbaM. Krieger (1989), “A Hybrid Conjoint Model for Price-Demand Estimation,” European Journal of Operational Research, 37, in press.
9.
GreenPaul E. and WayneS. DeSarbo, StephenM. Goldberg, and MilaMontemayor and AbbaM. Krieger and SrinivasanV. (1978), “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook,” Journal of Consumer Research, 5 (September), 103–23.
10.
HagertyMichael R. (1985), “Improving the Predictive Power of Conjoint Analysis: The Use of Factor Analysis and Cluster Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (May), 168–84.
11.
KamakuraWagner A. (1988), “A Least Squares Procedure for Benefit Segmentation with Conjoint Experiments,” Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (May), 157–67.
12.
LeighThomas W., DavidB. Mackay, and SummersJohn O. (1984), “Reliability and Validity of Conjoint Analysis and Self-Explicated Weights: A Comparison,” Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (November), 456–62.
13.
MadanskyAlbert (1980), “On Conjoint Analysis and Quantal Choice Models,” Journal of Business, 53 (July), 537–44.
14.
McFaddenDaniel (1980), “Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice Among Products,” Journal of Business, 53 (July), 513–29.
15.
MooreWilliam (1980), “Levels of Aggregation in Conjoint Analysis: An Empirical Comparison,” Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (November), 516–23.
16.
SrinivasanV. (1980), “Comments on Conjoint Analysis and Quantal Choice Models,” Journal of Business, 53 (July), 547–50.
17.
SrinivasanV. and AllanD. Shocker (1973), “Linear Programming Techniques for Multidimensional Analysis of Preferences,” Psychometrika, 38, 337–69.
18.
WardJoe H. (1963), “Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236–44.
