Hybrid individualized two-level choice-based conjoint (HIT-CBC): A new method for measuring preference structures with many attribute levels

International Journal of Research in Marketing

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 108-118

  Eggers, Felix ^a   Sattler, Henrik ^b  

^a Delta Branding GmbH   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Choice based conjoint; Heterogeneity; Number of levels effect; Pricing

Indexed keywords

EID: 67349192975     PISSN: 01678116     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.01.002     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Abernethy J., Evgeniou Th., Toubia O., and Vert J.-P. Eliciting consumer preferences using robust adaptive choice questionnaires. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 20 2 (2008) 145-155
2. Allenby G.M., Arora N., and Ginter J.L. Incorporating prior knowledge into the analysis of conjoint studies. Journal of Marketing Research 32 2 (1995) 152-162
3. Arora N., and Huber J. Improving parameter estimates and model prediction by aggregate customization in choice experiments. Journal of Consumer Research 28 2 (2001) 273-283
4. Baumgartner B., and Steiner W.J. Are consumers heterogeneous in their preferences for odd and even prices? Findings from a choice-based conjoint study. International Journal of Research in Marketing 24 4 (2007) 312-323
5. k choice experiments. Communications in Statistics. Theory and Methods 32 (2003) 2185-2206
6. Carson R.T., Louviere J.J., Anderson D.A., Arabie P., Bunch D.S., Hensher D.A., et al. Experimental analysis of choice. Marketing Letters 5 4 (1994) 351-367
7. Currim I.S., Weinberg C.B., and Wittink D.R. The design of subscription programs for a performing arts series. Journal of Consumer Research 8 1 (1981) 67-75
8. De Wilde E., Cooke A.D.J., and Janiszewski C. Attentional contrast during sequential judgements: A source of the number-of-levels effect. Journal of Marketing Research 45 (2008, August) 437-449
9. Ding M. An incentive-aligned mechanism for conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 44 2 (2007) 214-223
10. Ding M., Grewal R., and Liechty J. Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 42 1 (2005) 67-82
11. Gedenk K., and Sattler H. The impact of price thresholds on profit contribution - Are 9-ending prices based on tradition or economic rationale?. Journal of Retailing 75 1 (1999) 33-57
12. Green P.E., and Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing 54 4 (1990) 3-19
13. Ho T.-H., and Chong J.-K. A parsimonious model of stockkeeping-unit choice. Journal of Marketing Research 40 3 (2003) 351-365
14. Huber J., Wittink D.R., Fiedler J.A., and Miller R. The effectiveness of alternative preference elicitation procedures in predicting choice. Journal of Marketing Research 30 1 (1993) 105-114
15. Huber J., and Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research 33 3 (1996) 307-317
16. Islam T., Louviere J.J., and Burke P.F. Modeling the effects of including/excluding attributes in choice experiments on systematic and random components. International Journal of Research in Marketing 24 (2007) 289-300
17. Iyengar R., Jedidi K., and Kohli R. A conjoint approach to multi-part pricing. Journal of Marketing Research 45 2 (2008) 195-210
18. Jedidi K., and Zhang J. Augmenting conjoint analysis to estimate consumer reservation prices. Management Science 48 (2002) 1350-1368
19. Johnson R.M. Adaptive conjoint analysis. Sawtooth Conference Proceedings (1987) 253-265
20. Kessels R., Goos P., and Vandebroek M. A comparison of criteria to design efficient choice experiments. Journal of Marketing Research 43 3 (2006) 409-419
21. Krieger A.M., and Green P.E. Designing Pareto optimal stimuli for multiattribute choice experiments. Marketing Letters 2 4 (1991) 337-348
22. Kuhfeld W.F. Marketing research methods in SAS (2004), SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC
23. Kuhfeld W.F., Tobias R.D., and Garratt M. Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. Journal of Marketing Research 31 4 (1994) 545-557
24. Liechty J.C., Fong D.K.H., and DeSarbo W.S. Dynamic models incorporating individual heterogeneity: Utility evolution in conjoint analysis. Marketing Science 24 2 (2005) 285-293
25. Louviere J.J., Burgess L., Street D., and Marley A.A.J. Modeling the choices of single individuals by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. Centre for the Study of Choice (CenSoC) Working Paper, No. 04-005 (2004)
26. Louviere J.J., and Eagle Th. Confound it! That pesky little scale constant messes up our convenient assumptions!. Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings (2006) 211-228
27. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., and Swait J.D. Stated choice methods: Analysis and applications in marketing, transportation and environmental valuation (2000), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
28. Moore W.L. Levels of aggregation in conjoint analysis: An empirical comparison. Journal of Marketing Research 17 4 (1980) 516-523
29. Moore W.L., Gray-Lee J., and Louviere J.J. A cross-validity comparison of conjoint analysis and choice models at different levels of aggregation. Marketing Letters 9 2 (1998) 195-207
30. Ofek E., and Srinivasan V. How much does the market value an improvement in a product attribute?. Marketing Science 21 4 (2002) 398-411
31. Pullman M.E., Dodson K.J., and Moore W.L. A comparison of conjoint methods when there are many attributes. Marketing Letters 10 2 (1999) 1-14
32. Rossi P.E., and Allenby G.M. A Bayesian approach to estimating household parameters. Journal of Marketing Research 30 2 (1993) 171-182
33. Rossi P.E., Allenby G.M., and McCulloch R. Bayesian statistics and marketing (2005), Wiley, Hoboken, NJ
34. Rossi P.E., and McCulloch R. bayesm: Bayesian inference for marketing/micro-economics. R package version 2.0-8 (2006). http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/peter.rossi/research/bsm.html available at http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/peter.rossi/research/bsm.html
35. Sonnier G., Ainslie A., and Otter Th. Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models. Quantitative Marketing and Economics 5 (2007) 313-331
36. Srinivasan V. Comments on the role of price in individual utility judgements. In: McAlister L. (Ed). Choice Models for Buyer Behavior (1982), JAI Press, Greenwich
37. Srinivasan V., Jain A.K., and Malhotra N.K. Improving predictive power of conjoint analysis by constrained parameter estimation. Journal of Marketing Research 20 4 (1983) 433-438
38. Srinivasan V., and Park C.S. Surprising robustness of the self-explicated approach to customer preference structure measurement. Journal of Marketing Research 34 2 (1997) 286-291
39. Steenkamp J.-B.E.M., and Wittink D.R. The metric quality of full-profile judgments and the number-of-attribute levels effect in conjoint analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing 11 3 (1994) 275-286
40. Street D.J., Burgess L., and Louviere J.J. Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing 22 4 (2005) 459-470
41. Toubia O., Hauser J.R., and Garcia R. Probabilistic polyhedral methods for adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis: Theory and application. Marketing Science 26 5 (2007) 596-610
42. Toubia O., Hauser J.R., and Simester D.I. Polyhedral methods for adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 41 1 (2004) 116-131
43. Toubia O., Simester D.I., Hauser J.R., and Dahan E. Fast polyhedral adaptive conjoint estimation. Marketing Science 22 3 (2003) 273-303
44. Verlegh P.W.J., Schifferstein H.N.J., and Wittink D.R. Range and number-of-levels in derived and stated measures of attribute importance. Marketing Letters 13 1 (2002) 41-52
45. Vermeulen B., Goos P., and Vandebroek M. Models and optimal designs for conjoint choice experiments including a no-choice option. International Journal of Research in Marketing 25 2 (2007) 94-103
46. Völckner F., and Sattler H. Separating negative and positive effects of price with choice-based-conjoint analyses. Marketing: Journal of Research and Management 1 1 (2005) 1-13
47. Wertenbroch K., and Skiera B. Measuring consumers' willingness to pay at the point of purchase. Journal of Marketing Research 39 2 (2002) 228-241
48. Wittink D.R., Krishnamurthi L., and Nutter J.B. Comparing derived importance weights across attributes. Journal of Consumer Research 8 4 (1982) 471-474
49. Wittink D.R., Krishnamurthi L., and Reibstein D.J. The effects of differences in the number of attribute levels on conjoint results. Marketing Letters 1 2 (1990) 113-123
50. Wittink D.R., McLauchlan W.G., and Seetharaman P.B. Solving the number-of-attribute-levels problem in conjoint analysis. Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings (1997) 227-240