IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v297y2022i2p630-651.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data

Author

Listed:
  • Hein, Maren
  • Goeken, Nils
  • Kurz, Peter
  • Steiner, Winfried J.

Abstract

The use of Hierarchical Bayes (HB) estimation techniques for choice-based conjoint (CBC) data offers the opportunity to directly use HB draws for preference simulations. This paper analyzes the use of HB draws for shares of choice predictions. Five different choice rules are compared: the first choice rule applied to HB draws, the logit choice rule applied to HB draws, the randomized first choice rule, the traditional first choice rule and the traditional logit choice rule. Each two different holdout choice scenarios are constructed containing one time two extremely similar and the other time very unique alternatives to assess how well the choice rules tolerate the IIA property in predicting choice shares. We present a Monte Carlo study to systematically explore shares of choice predictions based on the different choice rules and further verify whether our findings hold in empirical settings. The key finding of our Monte Carlo study is that using HB draws either combined with the first choice rule or the logit choice rule substantially improves choice share predictions when compared to the other choice rules, regardless of the type of holdout choice scenario. While the logit choice rule applied to HB draws performs a touch better for simulated data, the first choice rule applied to HB draws provides the best choice share predictions for each of the five empirical data sets. Using HB draws does not only provide the best predictive validity but, more importantly, it is theoretically correct when applying a Bayesian estimation approach to CBC data.

Suggested Citation

  • Hein, Maren & Goeken, Nils & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2022. "Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 630-651.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:297:y:2022:i:2:p:630-651
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2021.05.056
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221721004975
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.05.056?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gensler, Sonja & Hinz, Oliver & Skiera, Bernd & Theysohn, Sven, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 368-378.
    2. Braun, Alexander & Schmeiser, Hato & Schreiber, Florian, 2016. "On consumer preferences and the willingness to pay for term life insurance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 761-776.
    3. Vermeulen, Bart & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2008. "Models and optimal designs for conjoint choice experiments including a no-choice option," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 94-103.
    4. Xinfang (Jocelyn) Wang & Jeffrey D. Camm & David J. Curry, 2009. "A Branch-and-Price Approach to the Share-of-Choice Product Line Design Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(10), pages 1718-1728, October.
    5. S Tsafarakis & E Grigoroudis & N Matsatsinis, 2011. "Consumer choice behaviour and new product development: an integrated market simulation approach," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(7), pages 1253-1267, July.
    6. Karniouchina, Ekaterina V. & Moore, William L. & van der Rhee, Bo & Verma, Rohit, 2009. "Issues in the use of ratings-based versus choice-based conjoint analysis in operations management research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 340-348, August.
    7. Leeflang, P.S.H. & Wittink, Dick R., 2000. "Building models for marketing decisions: past, present and future," Research Report 00F20, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    8. Marc R. Dotson & Joachim Büschken & Greg M. Allenby, 2020. "Explaining Preference Heterogeneity with Mixed Membership Modeling," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(2), pages 407-426, March.
    9. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, December.
    10. repec:dgr:rugsom:00f20 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Timothy J. Gilbride & Peter J. Lenk & Jeff D. Brazell, 2008. "Market Share Constraints and the Loss Function in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(6), pages 995-1011, 11-12.
    12. Voleti, Sudhir & Srinivasan, V. & Ghosh, Pulak, 2017. "An approach to improve the predictive power of choice-based conjoint analysis," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 325-335.
    13. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, September.
    14. Alexandre Belloni & Robert Freund & Matthew Selove & Duncan Simester, 2008. "Optimizing Product Line Designs: Efficient Methods and Comparisons," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(9), pages 1544-1552, September.
    15. Ray, Paramesh, 1973. "Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(5), pages 987-991, September.
    16. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    17. Joel Huber & Bryan Orme & Richard Miller, 2007. "Dealing with Product Similarity in Conjoint Simulations," Springer Books, in: Anders Gustafsson & Andreas Herrmann & Frank Huber (ed.), Conjoint Measurement, edition 0, chapter 17, pages 347-362, Springer.
    18. Eleanor McDonnell Feit & Mark A. Beltramo & Fred M. Feinberg, 2010. "Reality Check: Combining Choice Experiments with Market Data to Estimate the Importance of Product Attributes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 785-800, May.
    19. Natter, Martin & Feurstein, Markus, 2002. "Real world performance of choice-based conjoint models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(2), pages 448-458, March.
    20. Halme, Merja & Kallio, Markku, 2014. "Likelihood estimation of consumer preferences in choice-based conjoint analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 556-564.
    21. Chakraborty, Goutam & Ball, Dwayne & Gaeth, Gary J. & Jun, Sunkyu, 2002. "The ability of ratings and choice conjoint to predict market shares: a Monte Carlo simulation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 237-249, March.
    22. Anocha Aribarg & Neeraj Arora & Moon Young Kang, 2010. "Predicting Joint Choice Using Individual Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 139-157, 01-02.
    23. Kessels, Roselinde & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2008. "Optimal designs for conjoint experiments," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(5), pages 2369-2387, January.
    24. Winkler, Robert L. & Murphy, Allan H., 1992. "On seeking a best performance measure or a best forecasting method," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 104-107, June.
    25. Olivier Toubia & Martijn G. de Jong & Daniel Stieger & Johann Füller, 2012. "Measuring Consumer Preferences Using Conjoint Poker," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 138-156, January.
    26. Peter J. Lenk & Wayne S. DeSarbo & Paul E. Green & Martin R. Young, 1996. "Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 173-191.
    27. Jeffrey D. Camm & James J. Cochran & David J. Curry & Sriram Kannan, 2006. "Conjoint Optimization: An Exact Branch-and-Bound Algorithm for the Share-of-Choice Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 435-447, March.
    28. Fahrmeir, Ludwig & Kneib, Thomas, 2011. "Bayesian Smoothing and Regression for Longitudinal, Spatial and Event History Data," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199533022.
    29. Halme, Merja & Kallio, Markku, 2011. "Estimation methods for choice-based conjoint analysis of consumer preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(1), pages 160-167, October.
    30. Maldonado, Sebastián & Montoya, Ricardo & Weber, Richard, 2015. "Advanced conjoint analysis using feature selection via support vector machines," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(2), pages 564-574.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Monica Mihaela Maer Matei & Ana-Maria Zamfir & Cristina Mocanu, 2023. "Criteria Weights in Hiring Decisions—A Conjoint Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    2. Maldonado, Sebastián & Montoya, Ricardo & Weber, Richard, 2015. "Advanced conjoint analysis using feature selection via support vector machines," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(2), pages 564-574.
    3. Meixner, Oliver & Haas, Rainer, 2017. "The Difficulties in Measuring Individual Utilities of Product Attributes: A Choice Based Experiment," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276887, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    4. Díaz, Verónica & Montoya, Ricardo & Maldonado, Sebastián, 2023. "Preference estimation under bounded rationality: Identification of attribute non-attendance in stated-choice data using a support vector machines approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(2), pages 797-812.
    5. Schön, Cornelia, 2010. "On the product line selection problem under attraction choice models of consumer behavior," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(1), pages 260-264, October.
    6. Meixner, Oliver & Haas, Rainer, 2017. "The Difficulties in Measuring Individual Utilities of Product Attributes: A Choice Based Experiment," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 2017(1), June.
    7. Gensler, Sonja & Hinz, Oliver & Skiera, Bernd & Theysohn, Sven, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 368-378.
    8. Carsten Herbes & Johannes Dahlin & Peter Kurz, 2020. "Consumer Willingness To Pay for Proenvironmental Attributes of Biogas Digestate-Based Potting Soil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-19, August.
    9. Franke, Melanie & Nadler, Claudia, 2019. "Energy efficiency in the German residential housing market: Its influence on tenants and owners," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 879-890.
    10. Yegoryan, Narine & Guhl, Daniel & Klapper, Daniel, 2018. "Inferring Attribute Non-Attendance Using Eye Tracking in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 111, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    11. Eunae Son & Song Soo Lim, 2021. "Consumer Acceptance of Gene-Edited versus Genetically Modified Foods in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-17, April.
    12. Weber, Anett & Steiner, Winfried J., 2021. "Modeling price response from retail sales: An empirical comparison of models with different representations of heterogeneity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(3), pages 843-859.
    13. Meixner, Oliver & Kubinger, Magdalena & Haghirian, Parissa & Haas, Rainer, 2018. "Empirical Research in Foreign Cultures: The Case of Japanese Rice," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276881, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    14. Narine Yegoryan & Daniel Guhl & Friederike Paetz, 2023. "When Zeros Count: Confounding in Preference Heterogeneity and Attribute Non-attendance," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 482, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    15. Ronny Baierl, 2018. "Understanding Entrepreneurial Team Decisions: Measuring Team Members’ Influences With The Metricized Limit Conjoint Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(2), pages 21582440187, May.
    16. Lee, Ungki & Kang, Namwoo & Lee, Ikjin, 2020. "Choice data generation using usage scenarios and discounted cash flow analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    17. Maren Hein & Peter Kurz & Winfried J. Steiner, 2020. "Analyzing the capabilities of the HB logit model for choice-based conjoint analysis: a simulation study," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(1), pages 1-36, February.
    18. Wang, Xinfang (Jocelyn) & Curry, David J., 2012. "A robust approach to the share-of-choice product design problem," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 818-826.
    19. Friederike Paetz & Winfried J. Steiner, 2017. "The benefits of incorporating utility dependencies in finite mixture probit models," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 39(3), pages 793-819, July.
    20. Frank Ebbers & Jan Zibuschka & Christian Zimmermann & Oliver Hinz, 2021. "User preferences for privacy features in digital assistants," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(2), pages 411-426, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:297:y:2022:i:2:p:630-651. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.