Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement

Marketing Letters

Volumn 19, Issue 3-4, 2008, Pages 337-354

  Netzer, Oded ^a   Toubia, Olivier ^a   Bradlow, Eric T ^b   Dahan, Ely ^c   Evgeniou, Theodoros ^d   Feinberg, Fred M ^e   Feit, Eleanor M ^e   Hui, Sam K ^f   Johnson, Joseph ^g   Liechty, John C ^h   Orlin, James B ⁱ   Rao, Vithala R ^j  

^a The Sanford C Bernstein Co Center for Leadership and Ethics   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d INSEAD   (France)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^f NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

^h PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁱ MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^j SAS Institute Inc   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Conjoint analysis; Marketing research; Preference measurement

Indexed keywords

EID: 54149087628     PISSN: 09230645     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11002-008-9046-1     Document Type: Article

References (115)

1. Adamowicz, W., Bunch, D., Cameron, T.-A., Dellaert, B. G. C., Hanneman, M., Keane, M., et al. (2008). Behavioral frontiers in choice modeling. Marketing Letters, DOI 10.1007/s11002-008-9038-1.
2. S. Addelman 1962 Symmetrical and asymmetrical fractional factorial plans Technometrics 4 47 58
3. G. Adomavicius A. Tuzhilin 2005 Toward the next generation of recommender systems: a survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 15 6 734 749
4. Amaldoss, W., Ho, T.-H., Krishna, A., Chen, K.-Y., Desai, P., Iyer, G., et al. (2008). Experiments on strategic choices and markets. Marketing Letters, DOI 10.1007/s11002-008-9040-7.
5. A. Ansari S. Essegaier R. Kohli 2000 Internet recommendation systems Journal of Marketing Research 37 363 375
6. N. Arora G. Allenby 1999 Measuring the influence of individual preference structures in group decision making Journal of Marketing Research 36 4 476 487
7. Arora, N., Ghose, A., Hess, J. D., Iyengar, R., Jing, B., Joshi, Y., et al. (2008). Putting one-to-one marketing to work: Personalization, customization and choice. Marketing Letters, in press.
8. M. Ben-Akiva M. Bradley T. Morikawa J. Benjamin T. P. Novak P. Thomas 1994 Combining revealed and stated preference data Marketing Letters 5 4 335 350
9. M. Ben-Akiva D. McFadden K. Train J. Walker C. Bhat M. Bierlaire 2002 Hybrid choice models, progress and challenges Marketing Letters 13 3 163 175
10. R. C. Blattberg E. I. George 1992 Estimation under profit-driven loss functions Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 10 437 444
11. H. Bleichrodt J. L. Pinto 2000 A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis Management Science 46 11 1485 1496
12. E. T. Bradlow 2005 Current issues and a wish-list for conjoint analysis Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry 4-5 319 323
13. E. T. Bradlow Y. Hu T.-H. Ho 2004 A learning-based model for imputing missing levels in partial conjoint profiles Journal of Marketing Research 41 4 369 381
14. P. Cattin D. R. Wittink 1982 Commercial use of conjoint analysis: a survey Journal of Marketing 46 3 44 53
15. K. Chaloner I. Verdinelli 1995 Bayesian experimental design: a review Statistical Science 10 3 273 304
16. D. Cui D. Curry 2005 Prediction in marketing using the support vector machine Marketing Science 24 4 595 615
17. Dahan, E. (2007). Conjoint adaptive ranking database system. Working paper, University of California at Los Angeles.
18. E. Dahan J. R. Hauser 2002 The virtual customer Journal of Product Innovation Management 19 332 353
19. Dahan, E., Lo, A., Poggio, T., Chan, N., & Kim, A. (2007a). Securities trading of concepts (STOC). Working paper, University of California at Los Angeles.
20. Dahan, E., Soukhoroukova, A., & Spann, M. (2007b). Preference markets: Organizing securities markets for opinion surveys with infinite scalability. Working paper, University of California at Los Angeles.
21. E. Dahan V. Srinivasan 2000 The predictive power of internet-based product concept testing using visual depiction and animation Journal of Product Innovation Management 17 99 109
22. De Bruyn, A., Liechty, J. C., Huizingh, E. K. R. E., & Lilien, G. L. (2008). Offering online recommendations with minimum customer input through conjoint-based decision aids. Marketing Science, in press.
23. W. DeSarbo D. K. H. Fong J. C. Liechty J. C. Coupland 2005 Evolutionary preferences/utility functions: a dynamic perspective Psychometrika 70 1 179
24. M. Ding 2007 An incentive-aligned mechanism for conjoint analysis Journal of Marketing Research 44 214 223
25. M. Ding J. Eliashberg 2007 A dynamic competitive forecasting model incorporating dyadic decision-making Management Science 54 820 834
26. M. Ding R. Grewal J. Liechty 2005 Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis Journal of Marketing Research 42 67 82
27. G. Dobson S. Kalish 1993 Heuristics for pricing and positioning a product-line using conjoint and cost data Management Science 7 2 107 125
28. T. Erdem M. Keane S. Öncü J. Strebel 2005 Learning about computers: an analysis of information search and technology choice Quantitative Marketing and Economics 3 3 207 247
29. T. Evgeniou C. Boussios G. Zacharia 2005 Generalized robust conjoint estimation Marketing Science 24 3 415 429
30. Evgeniou, T., Pontil, M., & Toubia, O. (2007). A convex optimization approach to modeling consumer heterogeneity in conjoint estimation. Marketing Science, 26(6), 805-818.
31. E. Fehr L. Goette 2007 Do workers work more if the wages are higher: evidence from a randomized field experiment The American Economic Review 97 1 298 317
32. Feit, E. M., Beltramo, M. A., & Feinberg, F. M. (2007). Combining survey and market data to enhance consumer preference models. Working paper, University of Michigan.
33. Gensler, S., Theysohn, S., Hinz, O., & Skiera, B. (2007). Individually adjusted choice-based conjoint analysis. Working paper, Frankfurt University, Germany.
34. T. J. Gilbride G. M. Allenby 2004 A choice model with conjunctive, disjunctive, and compensatory screening rules Marketing Science 23 3 391 406
35. Gilbride, T. J., Lenk, P. J., & Brazell, J. D. (2006). Market share constraints and the loss function in choice based conjoint analysis. Working paper, University of Notre Dame.
36. Z. Gilula R. E. McCulloch P. E. Rossi 2006 A direct approach to data fusion Journal of Marketing Research 43 1 73 83
37. Ghose, S., & Rao, V. R. (2007). A choice model of bundles features and meta-attributes: An application to product design. Working paper, Cornell University.
38. D. Godes D. Mayzlin 2004 Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication Marketing Science 23 4 545 560
39. J. Goldenberg B. Libai E. Muller 2002 Riding the saddle: How cross-market communications can create a major slump in sales Journal of Marketing 66 2 1 16
40. R. Gonzalez G. Wu 1999 On the shape of the probability weighting function Cognitive Psychology 38 129 166
41. P. E. Green S. M. Goldberg M. Montemayor 1981 A hybrid utility estimation model for conjoint analysis Journal of Marketing 45 33 41
42. P. E. Green A. M. Krieger 1985 Models and heuristics for product line selection Marketing Science 4 1 1 19
43. P. E. Green A. M. Krieger P. Bansal 1988 Completely unacceptable levels in conjoint analysis: a cautionary note Journal of Marketing Research 25 293 300
44. P. E. Green V. R. Rao 1971 Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data Journal of Marketing Research 8 355 363
45. P. E. Green V. Srinivasan 1990 Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice Journal of Marketing Research 54 3 19
46. Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., & Huber, F. (2007). Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications (4th ed.). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
47. M. E. Haaijer W. A. Kamakura M. Wedel 2000 Response latencies in the analysis of conjoint choice experiments Journal of Marketing Research 37 3 376 382
48. R. Haaijer M. Wedel M. Vriens T. Wansbeek 1998 Utility covariances and context effects in conjoint MNP models Marketing Science 17 3 236 252
49. G. Häubl K. B. Murray 2003 Preference construction and preference in digital marketplaces: The role of electronic recommendation agents Journal of Consumer Psychology 13 75 91
50. G. Häubl V. Trifts 2000 Interactive decision aids Marketing Science 19 1 4 21
51. D. Horsky S. Misra P. Nelson 2006 Observed and unobserved preference heterogeneity in brand-choice models Marketing Science 25 4 322 335
52. Hui, S. K., Bradlow, E. T., & Fader, P. S. (2008a). An integrated model of grocery store shopping path and purchase behavior. Working paper, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
53. Hui, S. K., Fader, P. S., & Bradlow, E. T. (2008b). Path data in marketing: An integrative framework and prospectus for model-building. Marketing Science, in press.
54. Iyengar, R., Jedidi, K., & Kohli, R. (2008). A conjoint approach to multi-part pricing. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(2), 195-210.
55. Jarnebrant, P., Toubia, O., & Johnson, E. J. (2008). The silver lining effect: Formal analysis and experiments. Working paper, Columbia Business School.
56. K. Jedidi R. Kohli 2005 Probabilistic subset-conjunctive models for heterogeneous consumers Journal of Marketing Research 42 4 483 494
57. Johnson, R. M. (1987). Adaptive conjoint analysis. In: Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, July, 253-265.
58. J. Johnson G. J. Tellis D. J. MacInnis 2005 Losers, winners and biased trades Journal of Consumer Research 32 2 324 329
59. D. Kahneman A. Tversky 1979 Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk Econometrica 47 2 263 292
60. Kim, J. G. (2004). Dynamic heterogeneous choice heuristics: A Bayesian hidden Markov mixture model approach. Working Paper, MIT Sloan School of Management.
61. J. G. Kim U. Menzefricke F. M. Feinberg 2005 Modeling parametric evolution in a random utility framework Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 23 5 282 294
62. J. G. Kim U. Menzefricke F. M. Feinberg 2007 Capturing flexible heterogeneous utility curves: Bayesian spline approach Management Science 53 2 340 354
63. R. Kivetz O. Netzer V. Srinivasan 2004 Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect Journal of Marketing Research 41 3 237 257
64. R. Kivetz O. Netzer V. Srinivasan 2004 Extending compromise effect models to complex buying situations and other context effects Journal of Marketing Research 41 3 262 268
65. R. Kohli K. Jedidi 2007 Representation and inference of lexicographic preference models and their variants Marketing Science 26 3 380 399
66. R. Kohli R. Sukumar 1990 Heuristics for product-line design using conjoint analysis Management Science 36 12 1464 1478
67. W. F. Kuhfeld R. D. Tobias M. Garratt 1994 Efficient experimental design with marketing applications Journal of Marketing Research 31 4 545 557
68. M. Lachaab A. Ansari K. Jedidi A. Trabelsi 2006 Modeling preference evolution in discrete choice models: a Bayesian state-space approach Quantitative Marketing and Economics 4 57 81
69. Lee, T. Y., & Bradlow, E. T. (2008). Automatic construction of conjoint attributes and levels from online customer reviews. Working paper, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
70. P. J. Lenk W. S. DeSarbo P. E. Green M. R. Young 1996 Hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis: recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs Marketing Science 15 2 173 91
71. J. C. Liechty D. K. H. Fong W. S. DeSarbo 2005 Dynamic models incorporating individual heterogeneity: utility evolution in conjoint analysis Marketing Science 24 2 285 293
72. J. Liechty R. Pieters M. Wedel 2003 Global and local covert visual attention: evidence from a Bayesian hidden Markov model Psychometrika 68 519 542
73. J. Liechty V. Ramaswamy S. H. Cohen 2001 Choice menus for mass customization: an experimental approach for analyzing customer demand with an application to a web-based information service Journal of Marketing Research 38 2 183 196
74. J. J. Louviere R. J. Meyer D. S. Bunch R. Carson B. Dellaert M. Hanemann 1999 Combining sources of preference data for modeling complex decision processes Marketing Letters 10 3 187 204
75. L. Luo P. K. Kannan B. Besharati S. Azarm 2005 Design of robust new products under variability: marketing meets design Journal of Product Innovation Management 22 177 192
76. Luo, L., Kannan, P. K., & Ratchford, B. (2008). Incorporating subjective characteristics in product design and evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(2), 182-194.
77. P. Marshall E. T. Bradlow 2002 A unified approach to conjoint analysis models Journal of the American Statistical Association 97 459 674 682
78. R. McBride F. S. Zufryden 1988 An integer programming approach to the optimal product line selection problem Marketing Science 7 2 126 140
79. Michalek, J. J., Feinberg, F. M., Ebbes, P., Adigüzel, F., & Papalambros, P. Y. (2007). Optimal feasible product line design for heterogeneous markets. Working paper, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University.
80. J. J. Michalek F. M. Feinberg P. Y. Papalambros 2005 Linking marketing and engineering product design decisions via analytical target cascading Journal of Product Innovation Management 22 42 62
81. Netzer, O., Schrift, R., & Toubia, O. (2008). Modeling and exploiting response time in conjoint analysis. Working paper, Columbia Business School.
82. Netzer, O., & Srinivasan, V. (2008). Adaptive self-explication of multi-attribute preferences. Working paper, Columbia Business School.
83. Otter, T., Allenby, G. M., & van Zandt, T. (2008). An integrated model of choice and response time with applications to conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, in press.
84. Park, Y. H., Ding, M., & Rao, V. R. (2008). Eliciting preference for complex products: A web-based upgrading method. Journal of Marketing Research, in press.
85. B. R. Parker V. Srinivasan 1976 A consumer preference approach to the planning of rural primary health-care facilities Operations Research 24 5 991 1025
86. D. Prelec 1998 The probability weighting function Econometrica 66 3 497 527
87. Prelec, D. (2001). A two-person scoring rule for subjective reports. Working Paper, Center for Innovation in Product Development, Cambridge, MA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
88. V. R. Rao J. H. Steckel 1991 A polarization model for describing group preferences Journal of Consumer Research 18 1 108 118
89. P. E. Rossi G. M. Allenby 2003 Bayesian statistics and marketing Marketing Science 22 3 304 328
90. Saigal, C., Dahan, E., & Cumberland, W. (2007). Measuring prostate cancer treatnment preferences with standard gambles, time tradeoffs and conjoint analysis. NIH Research Proposal.
91. Z. Sandor M. Wedel 2001 Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers prior beliefs Journal of Marketing Research 38 430 444
92. Z. Sandor M. Wedel 2005 Heterogeneous conjoint choice designs Journal of Marketing Research 42 210 218
93. Sonnier, G., Ainslie, A., & Otter, T. (2007). Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 5(3), 313-331.
94. Srebro, N., Rennie, J. D. M., & Jaakkola, T. (2005). Maximum margin matrix factorization. Advances In Neural Information Processing Systems, 17.
95. V. Srinivasan 1988 A conjunctive-compensatory approach to the self-explication of multiattributed preferences Decision Sciences 19 295 305
96. V. Srinivasan W. S. Lovejoy D. Beach 1997 Integrated product design for marketability and manufacturing Journal of Marketing Research 34 1 154 163
97. V. Srinivasan A. D. Shocker 1973 Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences Psychometrika 38 3 337 369
98. V. Srinivasan A. D. Shocker 1973 Estimating the weights for multiple attributes in a composite criterion using pairwise judgments Psychometrika 38 4 473 493
99. Su, M., & Rao, V. R. (2007). Evolution in willingness to pay at attribute level and its impact on new product adoption: a continuous conjoint analysis. Working paper, Cornell university.
100. Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2007). Risk and time preferences: experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. Working paper, California Institute of Technology.
101. F. Ter Hofstede Y. Kim M. Wedel 2002 Bayesian prediction in hybrid conjoint analysis Journal of Marketing Research 34 2 253 261
102. O. Toubia J. R. Hauser 2007 On managerially efficient experimental designs Marketing Science 26 6 851 858
103. Toubia, O., Evgeniou, T., & Hauser, J. R. (2007a). Optimization-based and machine-learning methods for conjoint analysis: estimation and question design. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann, & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications(4th ed.). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
104. O. Toubia J. R. Hauser R. Garcia 2007 Probabilistic polyhedral methods for adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis: Theory and application Marketing Science 26 5 596 610
105. O. Toubia J. R. Hauser D. Simester 2004 Polyhedral methods for adaptive choice based conjoint analysis Journal of Marketing Research 41 1 116 131
106. O. Toubia D. Simester J. R. Hauser E. Dahan 2003 Fast polyhedral conjoint estimation Marketing Science 22 3 274 303
107. A. Tversky D. Kahneman 1992 Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5 4 297 323
108. Vadali, S., Liechty, J., & Rangaswamy, A. (2007). Generalized hierarchical Bayes estimation for polyhedral conjoint analysis. Working Paper, Pennsylvania State University.
109. E. von Hippel R. Katz 2002 Shifting innovation to users via toolkits Management Science 48 7 821 833
110. H. J. Wassenaar W. Chen J. Cheng A. Sudjianto 2005 Enhancing discrete choice demand modeling for decision-based design ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 127 4 514 523
111. J. Wind P. E. Green D. Shifflet M. Scarbrough 1989 Courtyard by Marriott: designing a hotel facility with consumer-based marketing models Interfaces 19 25 47
112. D. R. Wittink P. Cattin 1989 Commercial use of conjoint analysis: an update Journal of Marketing 53 3 91 96
113. D. R. Wittink L. Krishnamurthi D. J. Reibstein 1989 The effect of differences in the number of attribute levels on conjoint results Marketing Letters 1 113 123
114. M. Yee E. Dahan J. R. Hauser J. Orlin 2008 Greedoid-based noncompensatory inference Marketing Science 26 4 532 549
115. Y. Ying F. M. Feinberg M. Wedel 2006 Leveraging missing ratings to improve online recommendation systems Journal of Marketing Research 43 3 355 365