The authors compare two approaches to conjoint analysis in terms of their ability to predict shares in a holdout choice task. The traditional approach is represented by three models fit to individual-level ratings of full profiles, whereas the other approach is represented by four multinomial logit models fit to choice shares for sets of full profiles. Both approaches predict holdout shares well, with neither the ratings-based nor the choice-based approach dominant, though some models predict better than others. Particularly promising is a new aggregate model that captures departures from independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonNorman H. (1981), Foundations of Information Integration Theory.New York: Academic Press, Inc.
2.
AndersonNorman H. (1982), Methods of Information Integration Theory.New York: Academic Press, Inc.
3.
AnscombeF. J. (1948), “The Transformation of Poisson, Binomial and Negative-Binomial Data,”Biometrika, 35, 246–54.
4.
AnscombeF. J. (1954), “Comments” [discussion of “The Analysis of Variance With Various Binomial Transformations” by Sir Ronald Fisher], Biometrics, 10, 141–4.
5.
BatesonJohn E. G., and ReibsteinDavid, and BouldingWilliam (1987), “Conjoint Analysis Reliability and Validity: A Framework for Future Research,” in Review of Marketing, HoustonMichael J., ed. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 451–81.
6.
BatsellRichard R., and PolkingJohn C. (1985), “New Class of Market Share Models,”Marketing Science, 4(Summer) 177–98.
7.
BunchDavid S., and BatsellRichard R. (1989), “A Monté Carlo Comparison of Estimators for the Multinomial Logit Model,”Journal of Marketing Research, 26(February), 56–68.
8.
CarpenterGregory S., CooperLee G., HanssensDominique M., and MidgleyDavid F. (1988), “Modeling Asymmetric Competition,”Marketing Science, 1(Fall), 393–412.
9.
CurryDavid J., and FauldsDavid J. (1986), “Indexing Product Quality: Issues, Theory and Results,”Journal of Consumer Research, 13(June), 134–45.
10.
DaveyKrishnaKumar S. (1990), “Predicting Shares From Preferences for Multiattribute Alternatives,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University.
11.
EinhornHillel J., KleinmuntzDavid N., and KleinmuntzBenjamin (1979), “Linear Regression and Process-Tracing Models of Judgment,”Psychological Review, 86(September), 464–85.
12.
ElrodTerry, and KrishnaKumarS. (1989), “Bias in the First Choice Rule for Predicting Share,” in Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference.Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, 259–71.
13.
FinkbeinerCarl (1988), “Comparison of Conjoint Choice Simulators,” in Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference.Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, 75–103.
14.
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.
15.
GreenPaul E., and HelsenKristiaan, and ShandlerBruce (1988), “Conjoint Internal Validity Under Alternative Profile Presentations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 15(December), 392–7.
16.
GreenPaul E., and SrinivasanV. (1990), “Conjoint Analysis in Marketing Research: New Developments and Directions,”Journal of Marketing, 54(October), 3–19.
17.
HagertyMichael R. (1986), “Cost of Simplifying Preference Models,”Marketing Science, 5(Fall), 298–319.
18.
HaleyRussell I., and CasePeter B. (1979); “Testing Thirteen Attitude Scales for Agreement and Brand Discrimination,”Journal of Marketing, 43(Fall), 20–32.
19.
JohnsonEric J., MeyerRobert J., and GhoseSajoy (1989), “When Choice Models Fail: Compensatory Models in Negatively Correlated Environments,”Journal of Marketing Research, 26(August), 255–70.
20.
JohnsonRichard D. (1987), “Making Judgments When Information is Missing: Inferences, Biases, and Framing Effects,”Acta Psychologica, 66, 69–82.
21.
JohnsonRichard D., and LevinIrwin P. (1985), “More Than Meets the Eye: The Effect of Missing Information on Purchase Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 12(September), 169–77.
22.
LeighThomas W., MacKayDavid B., and SummersJohn O. (1984), “Reliability and Validity of Conjoint Analysis and Self-Explicated Weights: A Comparison,”Journal of Marketing Research, 21(November), 456–62.
23.
LouviereJordan J. (1988a), “Conjoint Analysis Modeling of Stated Preferences: A Review of Theory, Methods, Recent Developments and External Validity,”Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 22(January), 93–119.
24.
LouviereJordan J. (1988b), Analyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
25.
LouviereJordan J., and GaethGary J. (1988), “A Comparison of Rating and Choice Responses in Conjoint Tasks,” in Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference.Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, 59–73.
26.
LouviereJordan J., and WoodwormGeorge (1983), “Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: A Method Based on Aggregate Data,”Journal of Marketing Research, 20(November), 350–67.
27.
MeyerRobert J. (1977), “An Experimental Analysis of Student Apartment Selection Decisions Under Uncertainty,”Great Plains–Rocky Mountain Geographical Journal, 6, 30–8.
28.
NewmanJ. Robert (1977), “Differential Weighting in Multiattribute Utility Measurement: Where It Should and Where It Does Make a Difference,”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20(December), 312–25.
29.
ReibsteinDavid, BatesonJohn E. G., and BouldingWilliam (1988), “Conjoint Analysis Reliability: Empirical Findings,”Marketing Science, 1(Summer), 271–86.
30.
WittinkDick R., and CattinPhilippe (1989), “Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update,”Journal of Marketing, 53(July), 91–6.
