IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prg/jnlaop/v2013y2013i4id407p3-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hybrid Approach to Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ondřej Vilikus

Abstract

Conjoint analysis is a popular tool for analysing consumer preferences in market research which has undergone rapid development throughout history. It is now generally agreed that choice-based conjoint (CBC) has a stronger theoretical background than traditional conjoint methods and that it mimics the real decision-making process of consumers more closely. When hierarchical Bayesian models allowed robust estimation of consumer preferences from sparse data available from choice-based conjoint tasks, formerly popular self-explicated or hybrid approaches lost their popularity. In this article, it is shown that hybrid approaches can be a useful alternative to pure CBC design. A hybrid approach to CBC that combines self-explicated questions on attribute levels with individualised choice tasks is suggested and illustrated on a real example and its efficiency is compared to traditional CBC and adaptive CBC. The results of the study support the hypothesis that this approach can be beneficial under certain circumstances and yield higher model fit while keeping the questionnaire length and respondent fatigue at an acceptable level.

Suggested Citation

  • Ondřej Vilikus, 2013. "Hybrid Approach to Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Acta Oeconomica Pragensia, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2013(4), pages 3-19.
    • Handle: RePEc:prg:jnlaop:v:2013:y:2013:i:4:id:407:p:3-19
    DOI: 10.18267/j.aop.407
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://aop.vse.cz/doi/10.18267/j.aop.407.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://aop.vse.cz/doi/10.18267/j.aop.407.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18267/j.aop.407?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. 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. Robert Zeithammer & Peter Lenk, 2006. "Bayesian estimation of multivariate-normal models when dimensions are absent," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 241-265, September.
    2. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Kick, Markus & Littich, Martina, 2015. "Brand and Reputation as Quality Signals on Regulated Markets," EconStor Preprints 182503, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    6. Theodoros Evgeniou & Constantinos Boussios & Giorgos Zacharia, 2005. "Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 415-429, May.
    7. Burbano, Vanessa & Padilla, Nicolas & Meier, Stephan, 2020. "Gender Differences in Preferences for Meaning at Work," IZA Discussion Papers 13053, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Yu-Cheng Ku & Tsun-Feng Chiang & Sheng-Mao Chang, 2017. "Is what you choose what you want?—outlier detection in choice-based conjoint analysis," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 29-42, March.
    9. YiChun Miriam Liu & Jeff D. Brazell & Greg M. Allenby, 2022. "Non-linear pricing effects in conjoint analysis," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 397-430, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind, 2001. "Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 56-73, June.
    12. Robert Steiger & Eva Posch & Gottfried Tappeiner & Janette Walde, 2020. "Effects of climate change on tourism demand considering individual seasonal preferences," Working Papers 2020-08, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
    13. 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.
    14. Schlereth, Christian & Skiera, Bernd & Schulz, Fabian, 2018. "Why do consumers prefer static instead of dynamic pricing plans? An empirical study for a better understanding of the low preferences for time-variant pricing plans," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(3), pages 1165-1179.
    15. Adriane Hartmann & Henrik Sattler, 2004. "Wie robust sind Methoden zur Präferenzmessung?," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 3-22, February.
    16. 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.
    17. Atanu Adhikari, 2016. "Adjacent Price Anchoring and Consumer’s Willingness to Pay: A Bayesian Approach," Working papers 215, Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode.
    18. 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.
    19. B. P. S. Murthi & Sumit Sarkar, 2003. "The Role of the Management Sciences in Research on Personalization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(10), pages 1344-1362, October.
    20. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    hybrid approach; choice-based conjoint; Bayesian models; adaptive conjoint;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:prg:jnlaop:v:2013:y:2013:i:4:id:407:p:3-19. 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: Stanislav Vojir (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/uevsecz.html .

    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.