Conjoint analysis is a widely used method for determining how much certain attributes matter to consumers by observing a series of their choices. However, how those attributes are expressed has important consequences for their choices and thus for conclusions drawn by market researchers about attribute importance. Expanded attribute scales (e.g., expressing exercise time in minutes) leads consumers to perceive greater differences between scale levels than contracted scales (e.g., expressing exercise time in hours). The authors show in two domains that simply expanding an attribute's scale can shift choice toward alternatives that perform well on a scale that is expanded and thus can impact conjoint results such as attribute importance and screening. Thus, practitioners should take care when they choose precisely how to elicit preferences or how to describe their products: the extent of the scale's expansion will determine researchers’ inferences about the importance of the attribute it describes. By illustrating the curvilinear relationship between scale expansion and multiple measures, the authors also offer practitioners some insight into the limits of scale expansion.
AribargAnochaAroraNeerajHendersonTy and KimYoungju (2014), “Private Label Imitation of a National Brand: Implications for Consumer Choice and Law,”Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (December), 657–75.
2.
AroraNeeraj and AllenbyGreg M. (1999), “Measuring the Influence of Individual Preference Structures in Group Decision Making,”Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (November), 476–87.
3.
AroraNeerajAllenbyGreg M. and GinterJames L. (1995), “On the Heterogeneity of Demand,”Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (August), 384–89.
BirnbaumMichael H. (1974), “Reply to the Devil's Advocates: Don't Confound Model Testing and Measurement,”Psychological Bulletin, 81 (11), 854–59.
6.
BursonKatherine A.LarrickRichard P. and LynchJohn G.Jr. (2009), “Six of One, Half Dozen of the Other: Expanding and Contracting Numerical Dimensions Produces Preference Reversals,”Psychological Science, 20 (9), 1074–78.
7.
CamilleriAdrian R. and LarrickRichard P. (2014), “Metric and Scale Design as Choice Architecture Tools,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 33 (Spring), 108–25.
8.
DehaeneStanislas (2011), The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
9.
De LangheBart and PuntoniStefano (2016), “Productivity Metrics and Consumers’ Misunderstanding of Time Savings,”Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (April), 366–80.
10.
De WildeElsCookeAlan D.J., and JaniszewskiChris (2008), “Attentional Contrast During Sequential Judgments: A Source of the Number-of-Levels Effect,”Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (August), 437–50.
11.
DingMin (2007), “An Incentive-Aligned Mechanism for Conjoint Analysis,”Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (May), 214–23.
12.
DingMinGrewalRajdeep and LiechtyJohn (2005), “Incentive-Aligned Conjoint Analysis,”Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (February), 67–82.
13.
FishbeinMartin (1967), Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
14.
GelfandAlan E. and SmithAdrian F.M. (1990), “Sampling-Based Approaches to Calculating Marginal Densities,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85 (410), 398–409.
15.
GilbrideTimothy J. and AllenbyGreg M. (2004), “A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Strategies,”Marketing Science, 23 (3), 391–406.
16.
GilbrideTimothy J. and AllenbyGreg M. (2006), “Estimating Heterogeneous EBA and Economic Screening Rule Choice Models,”Marketing Science, 25 (5), 494–509.
17.
GourvilleJohn T. (1998), “Pennies-a-Day: The Effect of Temporal Reframing on Transaction Evaluation,”Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 395–403.
18.
GreenPaul E. and SrinivasanVenkatachary (1978), “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook,”Journal of Consumer Research, 5 (2), 103–23.
19.
GreenPaul E. and SrinivasanVenkatachary (1990), “Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice,”Journal of Marketing, 54 (October), 3–19.
20.
GrossmanEdward R.F.W. (1955), “The Measurement of Discriminability,”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4 (7), 176–95.
21.
JedidiKamel and KohliRajeev (2005), “Probabilistic Subset-Conjunctive Models for Heterogeneous Consumers,”Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (November), 483–94.
22.
LarrickRichard P. and SollJack B. (2008), “The MPG Illusion,”Science, 320 (5883), 1593–94.
23.
LembregtsChristophe and PandelaereMario (2013), “Are All Units Created Equal? The Effect of Default Units on Product Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1275–89.
24.
LynchJohn G.Jr.ChakravartiDipankar, and MitraAnusree (1991), “Contrast Effects in Consumer Judgments: Changes in Mental Representations or in the Anchoring of Rating Scales?”Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (December), 284–97.
25.
MellersBarbara A. and CookeAlan D.J. (1994), “Trade-Offs Depend on Attribute Range,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20 (5), 1055–67.
26.
MontgomeryDavid B. (1986), “Conjoint Calibration of the Customer/Competitor Interface in Industrial Markets,” in Industrial Marketing: A German-American Perspective, BackhausK. and WilsonD., eds. Berlin: Springer, 297–319.
27.
NetzerOded and SrinivasanV. (2011), “Adaptive Self-Explicate of Multiattribute Preferences,”Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (February), 140–56.
28.
OrmeBrian K. (2010), Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research.Madison, WI: Research Publishers.
29.
PaciniRosemary and EpsteinSeymour (1999), “The Relation of Rational and Experiential Information Processing Styles to Personality, Basic Beliefs, and the Ratio-Bias Phenomenon,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (6), 972–87.
30.
PandelaereMarioBriersBarbara and LembregtsChristophe (2011), “How to Make a 29% Increase Look Bigger: The Unit Effect in Option Comparisons,”Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (2), 308–22.
31.
PelhamBrett W.SumartaTin Tin, and MyaskovskyLaura (1994), “The Easy Path from Many to Much: The Numerosity Heuristic,”Cognitive Psychology, 26 (2), 103–33.
32.
PricePaul C. (1994), “Installment Framing: The Mental Aggregation and Disaggregation of Monetary Cost over Time,” poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making, St. Louis (November 13).
33.
RaghubirPriya and SrivastavaJoydeep (2002), “Effect of Face Value on Product Valuation in Foreign Currencies,”Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (3), 335–47.
34.
RipsLance J. (2013), “How Many is a Zillion? Sources of Number Distortion,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39 (4), 1257–64.
35.
RosenbergMilton J. (1956), “Cognitive Structure and Attitudinal Affect,”Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53 (3), 367–72.
36.
RossiPeter E. and AllenbyGreg M. and McCullochRobert E. (2006), Bayesian Statistics and Marketing, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
37.
RossiPeter E.McCullochRobert E. and AllenbyGreg M. (1996), “The Value of Purchase History Data in Target Marketing,”Marketing Science, 15 (4), 321–40.
38.
SchleyDan R. and PetersEllen (2014), “Assessing ‘Economic Value': Symbolic-Number Mappings Predict Risky and Riskless Valuations,”Psychological Science, 25 (3), 753–61.
39.
SchwarzNorbertBlessHerbertBohnerGerdHarlacherUwe and KellenbenzMargit (1991), “Response Scales as Frames of Reference: The Impact of Frequency Range on Diagnostic Judgment,”Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5 (1), 37–50.
40.
SchwarzNorbertBlessHerbertDeutschBrigitte and StrackFritz (1985), “Response Scales: Effects of Category Range on Reported Behavior and Subsequent Judgments,”Public Opinion Quarterly, 49 (3), 388–95.
41.
SimonsonItamar and TverskyAmos (1992), “Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion,”Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (August), 281–95.
42.
SteenkampJan-Benedict E.M., and WittinkDick R. (1994), “The Metric Quality of Full-Profile Judgements and the Number-of-Attribute-Level Effect in Conjoint Analysis,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11 (3), 275–86.
43.
StoneEric R.SieckWinston R.BullBenita E.YatesJ. Frank, ParksStephanie C. and RushCarolyn J. (2003), “Foreground: Background Salience: Explaining the Effects of Graphical Displays on Risk Avoidance,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90 (1), 19–36.
44.
StoneEric R.YatesJ. Frank, and ParkerAndrew M. (1997), “Effects of Numerical and Graphical Displays on Professed Risk-Taking Behavior,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3 (4), 243–56.
45.
SudmanSeymourBradburnNorman M. and SchwarzNorbert (1996), Thinking About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
46.
ThalerRichard H. and SunsteinCass R. (2008), Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
47.
ThomasManoj and MorwitzVicki G. (2005), “Penny Wise and Pound Foolish: The Left-Digit Effect in Price Cognition,”Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (June), 54–64.
48.
VerleghPeeter W.J., SchiffersteinHendrik N.J., and WittinkDick R. (2002), “Range and Number-of-Levels Effects in Derived and Stated Measures of Attribute Importance,”Marketing Letters, 13 (1), 41–52.
49.
Von NitzschRuediger and WeberMartin (1993), “The Effect of Attribute Ranges on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurements,”Management Science, 39 (8), 937–43.
50.
WertenbrochKlausSomanDilip and ChattopadhyayAmitava (2007), “On the Perceived Value of Money: The Reference Dependence of Currency Numerosity Effects,”Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (1), 1–10.
51.
WittinkDick R.KrishnamurthiLakshman and ReibsteinDavid J. (1989), “The Effect of Differences in the Number of Attribute Levels on Conjoint Results,”Marketing Letters, 1 (2), 113–23.
52.
YamagishiKimihiko (1997), “When a 12.86% Mortality Is More Dangerous than 24.14%: Implications for Risk Communication,”Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11 (6), 495–506.
53.
YeeMichaelDahanElyHauserJohn R. and OrlinJames (2007), “Greedoid-Based Noncompensatory Inference,”Marketing Science, 26 (4), 532–49.
Supplementary Material
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.
