Despite the widespread use of choice simulators in commercial conjoint applications, relatively little has been written about the applicability of various types of buyer choice rules and sensitivity analyses. This paper first discusses issues related to the selection of different buyer choice rules. We then propose six types of sensitivity analyses that can be implemented in buyer choice simulators, given the usual input data of respondents'part worths, status quo product utilities, and background data.
Each sensitivity analysis is illustrated in the context of a common business application. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of possible extensions of sensitivity analysis and areas for further research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Akaah, Ismael and P.K. Korgaonkar (1983), "An Empirical Comparison of the Predictive Validity of Self-Explicated, Huber-Hybrid, Traditional Conjoint, and Hybrid Conjoint Models," Journal of Marketing Research , 20 (May), 187-97.
2.
Aschenbrenner, K. Michael (1981), "Efficient Sets, Decision Heuristics and Single-Peaked Preferences," Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 23, 227-56.
3.
Bradley, R.A. and M.E. Terry (1952), "Rank Analysis of Incomplete Block Designs: I. The Method of Paired Comparisons," Biometrika, 39, 324-45.
4.
Cattin, Philippe, Alan E. Gelfand and Jeffrey Danes ( 1983), "A Simple Bayesian Procedure for Estimation in a Conjoint Model," Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (February), 29-35
5.
Cattin, Philippe and Girish Punj (1984), "Factors Influencing the Selection of Preferennce Model Form for Continuous Utility Functions in Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, 3 (Winterr), 73-82.
6.
Cattin, Philippe and Dick R. Wittink (1982), "Commerical Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey," Journal of Marketing,46 (Summer), 44-53.
7.
DeSarbo, Wayne S., J. Douglas Carroll, Donald R. Lehmann and John O'Shaughnessy (1982), "Three-Way Multivariate Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, 1 (Fall), 323-50.
8.
Dickson, Peter R. (1982), "Person-Situation: Segmentation's Missing Link ," Journal of Marketing,46 (Fall), 56-64.
9.
Fiedler, J.A. (1972), "Condominium Design and Pricing: A Case Study in Consumer Tradeoff Analysis," Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, M. Venkatsan, ed., 279-93.
10.
Green, Paul E. (1984), "Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review," Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (May), 155-69.
11.
Green, Paul E., J. Douglas Carroll andS.M. Goldberg (1981), "A General Approach to Product Design Optimization via Conjoint Analysis," Journal of Marketing, 45 (Summer), 17-37.
12.
Green Paul E. and Abba M. Krieger (1985), "Models and Heutistics for Product Line Selection," Marketing Science, 4 (Winter), 1-19.
13.
Hagerty, Michael R. (1985), "Improving the Predictive Power of Conjoint Analysis: The Use of Factor and Cluster Analysis," Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (May), 168-84.
14.
Holbrook, Morris B., William L. Moore, Gary N. Dodgen and William J. Havlena (1985), "Nonisomorphism, Shadow Features and Imputed Preferences," Marketing Science, 4 (Summer), 215-33.
15.
Huber, Joel and William Moore (1979), "A Comparison of Alternative Ways to Aggregate Individual Conjoint Analyses," in Proceedings of the AMA Educators' Conference, L. Landon, ed. Chicago: American Marketing Association 64-8.
16.
Kuehn, Alfred A. and Ralph L. Day (1962), "Strategy of Product Quality," Harvard Business Review, 40, 100-10.
17.
Leigh, Thomas W, D.B. Mackay and J.O. Summers (1984), "Reliability and Validity of Conjoint Analysis and Self-Explicated Weights: A Comparison," Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (November), 456-62.
18.
Luce, R. Duncan (1959), Individual Choice Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
19.
Mahajan, Vijay, Paul E. Green and Stephen Goldberrg (1982), "A Conjoint Model for Estimating Self- and Cross-Price/Demand Relationnships," Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (August), 334-42.
20.
Malhotra, Naresh K. (1982), "Structural Reliability and Stability of Nonmetric Conjoint Analysis," Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (May), 199-207.
21.
Malhotra, Naresh K. (1983), "A Comparison of the Predictive Validity of Procedures for Analyzing Binary Data," Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 1 (October), 362-36.
22.
Malhotra, Naresh K. (1986), "An Approach to the Measurement of Consumer Preferences Using Limited Information," Journal of Marketing Research , 23 (February), 33-40.
23.
McFadden, Daniel (1976), "Quantal Choice Analysis. A Survey," Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5, 363-90.
24.
Punj, Girish N. and Richard Staelin (1978), "The Choice Process for Graduate Business Schools ," Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 588-98.
25.
Segel, Madhav N. (1982), "Reliability of Conjoint Analysis: Contrasting Data Collection Procedures," Journal of Marketing Research , 19 (February), 139-43.
26.
Srinivasan, V., A.K. Jain and N.K. Malhotra (1983), "Improving Predictive Power of Conjoint Analysis by Constrained Parameter Estimation," Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (November), 433-8.
Tversky, Amos (1972), "Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice," Psychological Review, 79 (July), 281-99.
29.
Wiley, James B. and J.T. Low (1983), "A Monte Carlo Simulation Study of Two Approaches for Aggregating Conjoint Data," Journal of Marketing Research , 20 (November), 405-16.
30.
Wright, Peter L. (1975), "Consumer Judgment Strategies: Simplifying versus Optimizing," Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 60-7.
31.
Zufryden, Fred S. (1982), "Product Line Optimization by Integer Programming ," in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of ORSA/TIMS . San Diego, California.
32.
Zufryden, Fred S. (1977), "A Conjoint Measurement-Based Approach for Optimal New Product Design and Market Segmentation," in Analytical Approaches to Product and Market Planning. A.D. Shocker, ed. Cambridge, MA.Marketing Science Institute, 100-14.
