IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0256010.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicted preference conjoint analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Sonja Radas
  • Dražen Prelec

Abstract

In this paper we propose a new method of eliciting market research information. Instead of asking respondents for their personal choices and preferences, we ask respondents to predict the choices of other respondents to the survey. Such predictions tap respondents’ knowledge of peers, whether based on direct social contacts or on more general cultural information. The effectiveness of this approach has already been demonstrated in the context of political polling. Here we extend it to market research, specifically, to conjoint analysis. An advantage of the new approach is that it can elicit reliable responses in situations where people are not comfortable with disclosing their true preferences, but may be willing to give information about people around them. A theoretical argument demonstrates that predictions should yield utility estimates that are more accurate. These theoretical results are confirmed in four online experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Sonja Radas & Dražen Prelec, 2021. "Predicted preference conjoint analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0256010
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0256010
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0256010&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0256010?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dražen Prelec & H. Sebastian Seung & John McCoy, 2017. "A solution to the single-question crowd wisdom problem," Nature, Nature, vol. 541(7638), pages 532-535, January.
    2. David Court & Benjamin Gillen & Jordi McKenzie & Charles R. Plott, 2018. "Two information aggregation mechanisms for predicting the opening weekend box office revenues of films: Boxoffice Prophecy and Guess of Guesses," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(1), pages 25-54, January.
    3. 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.
    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. Sonja Radas & Drazen Prelec, 2019. "Whose data can we trust: How meta-predictions can be used to uncover credible respondents in survey data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Tom Wilkening & Marcellin Martinie & Piers D. L. Howe, 2022. "Hidden Experts in the Crowd: Using Meta-Predictions to Leverage Expertise in Single-Question Prediction Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(1), pages 487-508, January.
    3. Winfried Steiner & Harald Hruschka, 2002. "A Probabilistic One-Step Approach to the Optimal Product Line Design Problem Using Conjoint and Cost Data," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 1-4-1003, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    4. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    5. Haaijer, Marinus E., 1996. "Predictions in conjoint choice experiments : the x-factor probit model," Research Report 96B22, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    6. Fusco, Elisa, 2023. "Potential improvements approach in composite indicators construction: The Multi-directional Benefit of the Doubt model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    7. Xue, Hong & Mainville, Denise Y. & You, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2009. "Nutrition Knowledge, Sensory Characteristics and Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pasture-Fed Beef," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49277, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    9. Kowalska-Pyzalska, Anna & Michalski, Rafał & Kott, Marek & Skowrońska-Szmer, Anna & Kott, Joanna, 2022. "Consumer preferences towards alternative fuel vehicles. Results from the conjoint analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    10. Dai, Min & Jia, Yanwei & Kou, Steven, 2021. "The wisdom of the crowd and prediction markets," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 561-578.
    11. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    12. Horna, J. Daniela & Smale, Melinda & von Oppen, Matthias, 2005. "Private Participation In Agricultural Extension In Nigeria And Benin: Determining The Willingness To Pay For Information," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19401, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. John Liechty & Duncan Fong & Eelko Huizingh & Arnaud Bruyn, 2008. "Hierarchical Bayesian conjoint models incorporating measurement uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 141-155, June.
    14. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    15. Kannika Thampanishvong, 2013. "Determinants of Flash Flood Evacuation Choices and Assessment of Preferences for Flash Flood Warning Channels: The Case of Thailand," EEPSEA Research Report rr2013034, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Mar 2013.
    16. Teichert, Thorsten Andreas, 1997. "Schätzgenauigkeit von Conjoint-Analysen," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 444, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
    17. Theodoros Evgeniou & Constantinos Boussios & Giorgos Zacharia, 2005. "Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 415-429, May.
    18. Poortinga, Wouter & Steg, Linda & Vlek, Charles & Wiersma, Gerwin, 2003. "Household preferences for energy-saving measures: A conjoint analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 49-64, February.
    19. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    20. Sell, Sandra & Lopatta, Kerstin & Hundsdoerfer, Jochen, 2010. "Der Einfluss der Besteuerung auf die Rechtsformwahl: Eine Conjoint-Analyse," Discussion Papers 2010/10, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0256010. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.