IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v6y1997i2d10.1023_a1008622601004.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Experimental Strategies for Preference Information Acquisition: A Lattice Path Treatment

Author

Listed:
  • J. C. Moore

    (Purdue University)

  • H. Raghav Rao

    (Jacobs Management Center, SUNY at Buffalo)

  • A. B. Whinston

    (University of Texas)

Abstract

This paper investigates strategies for the acquisition of consumer preference information by a market researcher. Such preference information is obtained by the market researcher through an experimental process that entails polling consumers about their preference profiles with a view to completely specifying the preference order. In this paper, we limit the focus to one or two consumers. In this environment, the experiments are pairwise comparisons between resource bundles about which there is no a-priori preference information. Each such experiment can have three possible signals: one bundle is more preferred, indifferent, or less preferred over another. Choice of an experiment in the experimental sequence is important because different choices result in different average amounts of information. For the analysis the paper establishes a link between preference theory and lattice path counting. Combinatorial arguments that allow the market researcher to calculate quantities of information at the start of the information acquisition process are presented. A recursion for finding the impact of choosing different experiments on the average values of information gain is constructed. The paper studies how the experiments chosen subsequently can affect the elimination of other experiments from the experimental set and thus have an effect on the efficiency of information acquisition. The measures derived could be used by the market researcher as a benchmark with which to compare information gathering strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • J. C. Moore & H. Raghav Rao & A. B. Whinston, 1997. "Experimental Strategies for Preference Information Acquisition: A Lattice Path Treatment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 139-158, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:6:y:1997:i:2:d:10.1023_a:1008622601004
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1008622601004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1008622601004
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1008622601004?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. Herbert Moskowitz & Paul V. Preckel & Aynang Yang, 1993. "Decision Analysis with Incomplete Utility and Probability Information," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 41(5), pages 864-879, October.
    2. Gregory Dobson & Shlomo Kalish, 1988. "Positioning and Pricing a Product Line," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 107-125.
    3. Weber, Martin, 1987. "Decision making with incomplete information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 44-57, January.
    4. Rao, H Raghav & Moore, James C & Whinston, Andrew B, 1990. "A Preference Theory Approach to Decision Analysis in Resource Allocation," Computer Science in Economics & Management, Kluwer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 3(3), pages 215-237.
    5. James C. Moore & H. Raghav Rao & Andrew B. Whinston, 1996. "Information processing for a finite resource allocation mechanism (*)," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 8(2), pages 267-290.
    6. Moore, James C & Rao, H Raghav & Whinston, Andrew B, 1996. "Information Processing for a Finite Allocation Mechanism," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 8(2), pages 267-290, August.
    7. Jacob Marschak, 1963. "On Adaptive Programming," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 517-526, July.
    8. Marcel L. Corstjens & David A. Gautschi, 1983. "Formal Choice Models in Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 19-56.
    9. Richard D. McBride & Fred S. Zufryden, 1988. "An Integer Programming Approach to the Optimal Product Line Selection Problem," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 126-140.
    10. 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.
    11. Ahti A. Salo & Raimo P. Hämäläinen, 1992. "Preference Assessment by Imprecise Ratio Statements," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 40(6), pages 1053-1061, December.
    12. Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1985. "Ordinal Ranking with Intensity of Preference," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 26-32, January.
    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. 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.
    2. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    3. Bechler, Georg & Steinhardt, Claudius & Mackert, Jochen & Klein, Robert, 2021. "Product line optimization in the presence of preferences for compromise alternatives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(3), pages 902-917.
    4. 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.
    5. Alexouda, Georgia & Paparrizos, Konstantinos, 2001. "A genetic algorithm approach to the product line design problem using the seller's return criterion: An extensive comparative computational study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 165-178, October.
    6. Albritton, M. David & McMullen, Patrick R., 2007. "Optimal product design using a colony of virtual ants," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(1), pages 498-520, January.
    7. Kraus, Ursula G. & Yano, Candace Arai, 2003. "Product line selection and pricing under a share-of-surplus choice model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(3), pages 653-671, November.
    8. Wilhelm, Wilbert E. & Xu, Kaihong, 2002. "Prescribing product upgrades, prices and production levels over time in a stochastic environment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(3), pages 601-621, May.
    9. Mustajoki, Jyri & Hamalainen, Raimo P. & Lindstedt, Mats R.K., 2006. "Using intervals for global sensitivity and worst-case analyses in multiattribute value trees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(1), pages 278-292, October.
    10. James Moore, 2010. "On aggregation and welfare analysis," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 14(1), pages 95-129, March.
    11. Juho Kokkala & Kimmo Berg & Kai Virtanen & Jirka Poropudas, 2019. "Rationalizable strategies in games with incomplete preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(2), pages 185-204, March.
    12. 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.
    13. G. E. Fruchter & A. Fligler & R. S. Winer, 2006. "Optimal Product Line Design: Genetic Algorithm Approach to Mitigate Cannibalization," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 227-244, November.
    14. Liesio, Juuso & Mild, Pekka & Salo, Ahti, 2007. "Preference programming for robust portfolio modeling and project selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1488-1505, September.
    15. Day, Jamison M. & Venkataramanan, M.A., 2006. "Profitability in product line pricing and composition with manufacturing commonalities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(3), pages 1782-1797, December.
    16. Dimitris Bertsimas & Velibor V. Mišić, 2019. "Exact First-Choice Product Line Optimization," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 651-670, May.
    17. Salvatore Corrente & Salvatore Greco & Roman Słowiński, 2017. "Handling imprecise evaluations in multiple criteria decision aiding and robust ordinal regression by n-point intervals," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 127-157, June.
    18. Kamalini Ramdas & Mohanbir S. Sawhney, 2001. "A Cross-Functional Approach to Evaluating Multiple Line Extensions for Assembled Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 22-36, January.
    19. Juan José Miranda Bront & Isabel Méndez-Díaz & Gustavo Vulcano, 2009. "A Column Generation Algorithm for Choice-Based Network Revenue Management," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 769-784, June.
    20. Winfried J. Steiner & Harald Hruschka, 2002. "Produktliniengestaltung mit Genetischen Algorithmen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 54(7), pages 575-601, November.

    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:spr:grdene:v:6:y:1997:i:2:d:10.1023_a:1008622601004. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.