IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jstats/v7y2024i2p32-536d1411537.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Optimal Design through a Compound Criterion for Integrating Extra Preference Information in a Choice Experiment: A Case Study on Moka Ground Coffee

Author

Listed:
  • Rossella Berni

    (Department of Statistics Computer Science Applications “G. Parenti”, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy)

  • Nedka Dechkova Nikiforova

    (Department of Statistics Computer Science Applications “G. Parenti”, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy)

  • Patrizia Pinelli

    (Department of Statistics Computer Science Applications “G. Parenti”, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy)

Abstract

In this manuscript, we propose an innovative approach to studying consumers’ preferences for coffee, which integrates a choice experiment with consumer sensory tests and chemical analyses (caffeine contents obtained through a High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) method). The same choice experiment is administered on two consecutive occasions, i.e., before and after the guided tasting session, to analyze the role of tasting and awareness about coffee composition in the consumers’ preferences. To this end, a Bayesian optimal design, based on a compound design criterion, is applied in order to build the choice experiment; the compound criterion allows for addressing two main issues related to the efficient estimation of the attributes and the evaluation of the sensorial part, e.g., the HPLC effects and the scores obtained through the consumer sensory test. All these elements, e.g., the attributes involved in the choice experiment, the scores obtained for each coffee through the sensory tests, and the HPLC quantitative evaluation of caffeine, are analyzed through suitable Random Utility Models. The initial results are promising, confirming the validity of the proposed approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Rossella Berni & Nedka Dechkova Nikiforova & Patrizia Pinelli, 2024. "An Optimal Design through a Compound Criterion for Integrating Extra Preference Information in a Choice Experiment: A Case Study on Moka Ground Coffee," Stats, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-16, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jstats:v:7:y:2024:i:2:p:32-536:d:1411537
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-905X/7/2/32/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-905X/7/2/32/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jie Yu & Peter Goos & Martina Vandebroek, 2009. "Efficient Conjoint Choice Designs in the Presence of Respondent Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 122-135, 01-02.
    2. Arnaud De Bruyn & John C. Liechty & Eelko K. R. E. Huizingh & Gary L. Lilien, 2008. "Offering Online Recommendations with Minimum Customer Input Through Conjoint-Based Decision Aids," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 443-460, 05-06.
    3. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    4. Michael Veall & Klaus Zimmermann, 1994. "Evaluating Pseudo-R 2 's for binary probit models," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 151-164, May.
    5. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Effects on Welfare Measures of Alternative Means of Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Recreational Demand Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1011-1027.
    6. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    7. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    8. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    9. Olivier Toubia & John R. Hauser, 2007. "—On Managerially Efficient Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 851-858, 11-12.
    10. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2010. "Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 720-734, July.
    11. Gregory W. Fischer & Mary Frances Luce & Jianmin Jia, 2000. "Attribute Conflict and Preference Uncertainty: Effects on Judgment Time and Error," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(1), pages 88-103, January.
    12. Zsolt Sándor & Michel Wedel, 2002. "Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 455-475, February.
    13. Kessels, Roselinde & Jones, Bradley & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2009. "An Efficient Algorithm for Constructing Bayesian Optimal Choice Designs," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 27(2), pages 279-291.
    14. Hirotugu Akaike, 1987. "Factor analysis and AIC," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 317-332, September.
    15. Qing Liu & Yihui (Elina) Tang, 2015. "Construction of Heterogeneous Conjoint Choice Designs: A New Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 346-366, May.
    16. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene, 2005. "Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeastern Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
    17. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    18. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    19. Timothy J. Gilbride & Greg M. Allenby, 2004. "A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Rules," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 391-406, October.
    20. Bhat, Chandra R., 1995. "A heteroscedastic extreme value model of intercity travel mode choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 471-483, December.
    21. Olivier Toubia & John Hauser & Rosanna Garcia, 2007. "Probabilistic Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis: Theory and Application," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 596-610, 09-10.
    22. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
    2. Nedka Dechkova Nikiforova & Rossella Berni & Jesús Fernando López‐Fidalgo, 2022. "Optimal approximate choice designs for a two‐step coffee choice, taste and choice again experiment," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 71(5), pages 1895-1917, November.
    3. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    4. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    5. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    6. Rossella Berni & Fabrizia Mealli, 2013. "Mode choice analysis of mobility in Florence. A choice experiment," Studi e approfondimenti 328, Istituto Regionale per la Programmazione Economica della Toscana.
    7. Qing Liu & Yihui (Elina) Tang, 2015. "Construction of Heterogeneous Conjoint Choice Designs: A New Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 346-366, May.
    8. von Haefen, Roger H. & Domanski, Adam, 2018. "Estimation and welfare analysis from mixed logit models with large choice sets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 101-118.
    9. 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.
    10. Yu, Jie & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2011. "Individually adapted sequential Bayesian conjoint-choice designs in the presence of consumer heterogeneity," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 378-388.
    11. Franceschinis, Cristiano & Thiene, Mara & Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John & Moretto, Michele & Cavalli, Raffaele, 2017. "Adoption of renewable heating systems: An empirical test of the diffusion of innovation theory," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 313-326.
    12. Domanski, Adam, 2009. "Estimating Mixed Logit Recreation Demand Models With Large Choice Sets," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49413, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nicholas & Torres, Cati, 2011. "Incorrectly accounting for taste heterogeneity in choice experiments: Does it really matter for welfare measurement?," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2011-02, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    14. Crabbe, Marjolein & Akinc, Deniz & Vandebroek, Martina, 2014. "Fast algorithms to generate individualized designs for the mixed logit choice model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1-15.
    15. Beville, Stephen T. & Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Hughey, Kenneth F.D., 2012. "Valuing impacts of the invasive alga Didymosphenia geminata on recreational angling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 1-10.
    16. Japelj, Anže & Mavsar, Robert & Hodges, Donald & Kovač, Marko & Juvančič, Luka, 2016. "Latent preferences of residents regarding an urban forest recreation setting in Ljubljana, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 71-79.
    17. Eric Ruto & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate Preferences for Cattle Traits in Kenya," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Hole, Arne Risa, 2008. "Modelling heterogeneity in patients' preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 1078-1094, July.
    19. Oded Netzer & Olivier Toubia & Eric Bradlow & Ely Dahan & Theodoros Evgeniou & Fred Feinberg & Eleanor Feit & Sam Hui & Joseph Johnson & John Liechty & James Orlin & Vithala Rao, 2008. "Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 337-354, December.
    20. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Font, Antoni Riera, 2009. "Environmental diversity in recreational choice modelling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2743-2750, September.

    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:gam:jstats:v:7:y:2024:i:2:p:32-536:d:1411537. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.