Conjoint analysis has become a widely accepted tool for preference measurement in marketing research, though its applicability and performance strongly depend on the complexity of the product or service. Therefore, self-explicated approaches are still frequently used because of their simple design, which facilitates preference elicitation when large numbers of attributes need to be considered. However, the direct measurement of preferences, or rather utilities, has been criticized as being imprecise in many cases. Against this background, the authors present a compositional consumer preference measurement approach based on paired comparisons, otherwise known as PCPM. The trade-off character of paired comparisons ensures that the stated judgments are more intuitive than traditional self-explicated preference statements. In contrast to the latter, PCPM accounts for response errors and thus allows for the elicitation of more precise preferences. The authors benchmark PCPM against adaptive conjoint analysis and computer-assisted self-explication of multiattributed preferences to demonstrate its relative validity and predictive accuracy in two empirical studies using complex, high-involvement products. They find that PCPM yields better results than the benchmark approaches with respect to interview length, individual hit rates, and aggregate choice share predictions.
BradlowEric, T. (2005), “Current Issues and a ‘Wish List’ for Conjoint Analysis,”Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, 21(4-5), 319–23.
2.
BradlowEric T., HuYe, and HoTeck-Hua (2004), “A Learning-Based Model for Imputing Missing Levels in Partial Conjoint Profiles,”Journal of Marketing Research, 41(November), 369–81.
3.
DeltasGeorge (2003), “The Small Sample Bias of the Gini Coefficient: Results and Implications for Empirical Research,”Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(1), 226–34.
4.
DingMin, GrewalRajdeep, and LiechtyJohn (2005), “Incentive-Aligned Conjoint Analysis,”Journal of Marketing Research, 42(February), 67–82.
5.
GreenPaul E., KriegerAbba M., and AgarwalManoj K. (1993), “A Cross Validation Test of Four Models for Quantifying Multiattribute Preferences,”Marketing Letters, 4(4), 369–80.
6.
GreenPaul E., KriegerAbba M., and SchafferCatherine (1992), “Some Methodological and Empirical Findings Regarding Self-Explicated Preference Models,” in Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, LeoneR.P., and KumarV., eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 433–39.
7.
GreenPaul E., and SrinivasanVenkat (1990), “Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice,”Journal of Marketing, 54(October), 3–19.
8.
GreenPaul E., SrinivasanVenkat, and WindYoram (2001), “Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects,”Interfaces, 31(3), 56–73.
9.
HarkerPatrick, T. (1987), “Incomplete Pairwise Comparisons in the Analytic Hierarchy Process,”Mathematical Modelling, 9(11), 837–48.
10.
HartvigsenDavid (2005), “Representing the Strengths and Directions of Pairwise Comparisons,”European Journal of Operational Research, 163(2), 357–69.
11.
HauserJohn R., and RaoVithala (2003), “Conjoint Analysis, Related Modeling, and Applications,” in Market Research and Modeling: Progress and Prospects, WindJerry, and GreenPaul, eds. New York: Springer, 141–68.
12.
HauserJohn R., and ShuganSteven M. (1980), “Intensity Measures of Consumer Preference,”Operations Research, 28(2), 278–320.
13.
HauserJohn R., and ToubiaOlivier (2005), “The Impact of Utility Balance and Endogeneity in Conjoint Analysis,”Marketing Science, 24(3), 498–507.
14.
HoefflerSteve, and ArielyDan (1999), “Constructing Stable Preferences,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(2), 113–39.
15.
HogarthRobin M., and KarelaiaNatalia (2005), “Simple Models for Multiattribute Choice with Many Alternatives: When It Does and Does Not Pay to Face Trade-Offs with Binary Attributes,”Management Science, 51(12), 1860–72.
16.
HuberJoel (1997), “What We Have Learned from 20 Years of Conjoint Research: When to Use Self-Explicated, Graded Pairs, Full Profiles or Choice Experiments,” in Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series.Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software.
17.
HuberJoel, ArielyDan, and FischerGregory (2002), “Expressing Preferences in a Principal-Agent Task: A Comparison of Choice, Rating, and Matching,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(1), 66–90.
18.
KellyGeorge, A. (1955), The Psychology of Personal Constructs.New York: Norton.
19.
KingChristopher W., HillAaron, and OrmeBryan (2004), “The ‘Importance’ Question in ACA: Can It Be Omitted?” in Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series.Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software.
20.
KohliRajeev, and JedidiKamel (2007), “Representation and Inference of Lexicographic Preference Models and Their Variants,”Marketing Science, 26(3), 380–99.
21.
LeeHanjoon, HerrPaul M., KardesFrank R., and KimChankon (1999), “Motivated Search Effects of Choice Accountability, Issue Involvement, and Prior Knowledge on Information Acquisition and Use,”Journal of Business Research, 45(1), 75–88.
22.
MartignonLaura, and HoffrageUlrich (2002), “Fast, Frugal, and Fit: Simple Heuristics for Paired Comparisons,”Theory and Decision, 52(1), 29–71.
23.
MiyakeChikako, HarimaSatomi, OsawaKeikichi, and ShinoharaMasaaki (2003), “2-Cyclic Design in AHP,”Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan, 46(4), 429–47.
24.
MooreWilliam, L. (2004), “A Cross-Validity Comparison of Rating-Based and Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Models,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 299–312.
25.
MulyeRajendra (1998), “An Empirical Comparison of Three Variants of the AHP and Two Variants of Conjoint Analysis,”Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11(4), 263–80.
26.
MussweilerThomas, and StrackFritz (2001), “The Semantics of Anchoring,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 234–55.
27.
MyersJames H., and AlpertMark I. (1968), “Determinant Buying Attitudes: Meaning and Measurement,”Journal of Marketing, 32(October), 13–20.
28.
NetzerOdet, and SrinivasanSeenu (2011), “Adaptive Self-Explication of Multiattribute Preferences,”Journal of Marketing Research, 48, forthcoming.
29.
PayneJohn W., BettmanJames R., and JohnsonEric J. (1993), The Adaptive Decision Maker.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
PayneJohn W., BettmanJames R., and SchkadeDavid A. (1999), “Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1-3), 243–70.
31.
PinnellJon, and FridleyLisa (2001), “The Effects of Disaggregation with Partial Profile Choice Experiments,” in Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference.Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software, 151–68.
32.
PöyhönenMari, and HämäläinenRaimo P. (2000), “There Is Hope in Attribute Weighting,”INFOR, 38(3), 272–82.
33.
PullmanMadeleine E., DodsonKimberly J., and MooreWilliam L. (1999), “A Comparison of Conjoint Methods When There Are Many Attributes,”Marketing Letters, 10(2), 1–14.
34.
RatchfordBrian, T. (1987), “New Insights About the FCB Grid,”Journal of Advertising Research, 27(August-September), 24–38.
35.
ReynoldsThomas J., and GutmanJonathan (1988), “Laddering Theory, Method, Analysis and Interpretation,”Journal of Advertising Research, 28(1), 11–31.
36.
SaatyThomas, L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process.New York: McGraw-Hill.
37.
SaatyThomas, L. (2003), “Decision-Making with the AHP: Why Is the Principal Eigenvector Necessary?”European Journal of Operational Research, 145(1), 85–91.
38.
SaloAhti A., and HämäläinenRaimo P. (1997), “On the Measurement of Preferences in the Analytic Hierarchy Process,”Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6(6), 309–319.
39.
SattlerHendrik, and Hensel-BörnerSusanne (2003), “A Comparison of Conjoint Measurement with Self-Explicated Approaches,” in Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications, GustafssonAnders, HerrmannAndreas, and HuberFrank, eds. Berlin: Springer, 147–59.
40.
Sawtooth Software (2003), SSI Web v3.5.Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software.
41.
Sawtooth Software (2005), SSI Web v5: Software for Web Interviewing and Conjoint Analysis.Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software.
42.
SchollArmin, MantheyLaura, HelmRoland, and SteinerMichael (2005), “Solving Multiattributive Design Problems with the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Conjoint Analysis: An Empirical Comparison,”European Journal of Operational Research, 164(3), 760–77.
43.
SrinivasanVenkat (1988), “A Conjunctive-Compensatory Approach to the Self-Explication of Multiattributed Preferences,”Decision Sciences, 19(2), 295–305.
44.
SrinivasanVenkat, and ParkChan S. (1997), “Surprising Robustness of the Self-Explicated Approach to Customer Preference Structure Measurement,”Journal of Marketing Research, 34(May), 286–91.
45.
SrinivasanVenkat, and WynerGordon A. (1988), “CASEMAP: Computer-Assisted Self-Explication of Multiattributed Preferences,” in Handbook on New Product Development and Testing, HenryW., MenascoM., and TakadaH., eds. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 91–111.
46.
SwaitJoffre, and AdamowiczWiktor (2001), “Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 141–67.
47.
ToddPeter, M. (2007), “How Much Information Do We Need?”European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1317–32.
48.
ToubiaOlivier, SimesterDuncan, HauserJohn R., and DahanEly (2003), “Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation,”Marketing Science, 22(3), 273–303.
49.
VaidyaOmkarprasad S., and KumarSushil (2006), “Analytic Hierarchy Process: An Overview of Applications,”European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1–29.
50.
Van IttersumKoert, PenningsJoost M.E., WansinkBrian, and van TrijpHans C.M. (2007), “The Validity of Attribute-Importance Measurement: A Review,”Journal of Business Research, 60(11), 1177–90.
51.
VerleghPeeter W.J., SchiffersteinHendrik N.J., and WittinkDick R. (2002), “Range and Number-of-Levels Effects in Derived and Stated Attribute Importances,”Marketing Letters, 13(1), 41–52.
52.
Von NitzschRüdiger, and WeberMartin (1993), “The Effect of Attribute Ranges on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurements,”Management Science, 39(8), 937–43.
53.
Von WinterfeldtDetlef, and EdwardsWard (1986), Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
