IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v6y1997i4d10.1023_a1008612828114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling Group Preferences Using a Decompositional Preference Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Eric Molin

    (Delft University of Technology)

  • Harmen Oppewal

    (Eindhoven University of Technology)

  • Harry Timmermans

    (Eindhoven University of Technology)

Abstract

This article examines an extension of the decompositional, conjoint, or stated-preference approach to model group decisions. In the conventional approach, only one member is chosen to be the group's representative and provide answers for the group as a whole. In this study, all group members are brought together and asked to jointly complete a conjoint preference experiment. The hypothesis is tested that this joint group approach predicts group behavior better than the conventional approach with representatives. The paper presents the estimated part-worth utilities of the group model and compares preference structures of individual group members and groups. Finally, group preference models are tested to determine whether they outperform representative-based preference models in terms of the ability to correctly predict the group preferences for new alternatives. These analyses are performed in the context of residential preferences of co-ops, which are groups of young people, usually not partners, who live together in owner-occupied houses.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric Molin & Harmen Oppewal & Harry Timmermans, 1997. "Modeling Group Preferences Using a Decompositional Preference Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 6(4), pages 339-350, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:6:y:1997:i:4:d:10.1023_a:1008612828114
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1008612828114
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1008612828114
    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:1008612828114?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. Davis, Harry L & Hoch, Stephen J & Ragsdale, E K Easton, 1986. "An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of Spousal Predictions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(1), pages 25-37, June.
    2. 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Huai, Yue & Lo, Hong K. & Ng, Ka Fai, 2021. "Monocentric versus polycentric urban structure: Case study in Hong Kong," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 99-118.
    2. Eric J E Molin & Harry J P Timmermans, 2003. "Testing Hierarchical Information Integration Theory: The Causal Structure of Household Residential Satisfaction," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 35(1), pages 43-58, January.
    3. Zhang, Junyi & Kuwano, Masashi & Lee, Backjin & Fujiwara, Akimasa, 2009. "Modeling household discrete choice behavior incorporating heterogeneous group decision-making mechanisms," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 230-250, February.
    4. M P G Schellekens & H J P Timmermans, 1997. "A Conjoint-Based Simulation Model of Housing-Market Clearing Processes: Theory and Illustration," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 29(10), pages 1831-1846, October.
    5. Bruce Walker & Alex Marsh & Mark Wardman & Pat Niner, 2002. "Modelling Tenants' Choices in the Public Rented Sector: A Stated Preference Approach," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 39(4), pages 665-688, April.
    6. Marcucci, Edoardo & Rotaris, Lucia & Paglione, Guido, 2009. "A methodology to evaluate the prospects for the introduction of a Park&Buy service," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 42, pages 26-46.
    7. Oliveira, Gabriela D. & Roth, Richard & Dias, Luis C., 2019. "Diffusion of alternative fuel vehicles considering dynamic preferences," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 83-99.
    8. Edoardo Marcucci & Amanda Stathopoulos & Lucia Rotaris & Romeo Danielis, 2011. "Comparing Single and Joint Preferences: A Choice Experiment on Residential Location in Three-Member Households," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(5), pages 1209-1225, May.

    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. 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.
    3. Dufhues, T. & Buchenrieder, G., 2004. "Der Beitrag der Conjoint Analyse zur nachfrageorintierten Entwicklung des ländlichen Finanzsektors in Vietnam," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 39.
    4. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. 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.
    6. Mahesh Balan U & Saji K. Mathew, 2021. "Personalize, Summarize or Let them Read? A Study on Online Word of Mouth Strategies and Consumer Decision Process," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 627-647, June.
    7. Shin, Jungwoo & Hwang, Won-Sik, 2017. "Consumer preference and willingness to pay for a renewable fuel standard (RFS) policy: Focusing on ex-ante market analysis and segmentation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 32-40.
    8. 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).
    9. Ha, Jinkyung, 2018. "Consumer valuation of Fintech: The case of Mobile Payment in Korea," 22nd ITS Biennial Conference, Seoul 2018. Beyond the boundaries: Challenges for business, policy and society 190341, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    10. P. A. Ferrari & S. Salini, 2008. "Measuring Service Quality: The Opinion of Europeans about Utilities," Working Papers 2008.36, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    11. Steinhorst, M.P. & Bahrs, E., 2013. "Renditansprüche im Kontext gleichmäßiger Rückflüsse – Ergebnisse eines Experiments mit Stakeholdern des Agribusiness," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 48, March.
    12. Yavuz Taşcıoğlu & Mevlüt Gül & Metin Göksel Akpınar & Bahri Karlı & Bektaş Kadakoğlu & Bekir Sıtkı Şirikçi & Musa Acar & Hilal Yılmaz, 2023. "Optimum Support Policy Component for the Development of Agricultural Production: Potato Producer," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-13, April.
    13. Luisa Menapace & Gregory Colson & Carola Grebitus & Maria Facendola, 2011. "Consumers' preferences for geographical origin labels: evidence from the Canadian olive oil market," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(2), pages 193-212, June.
    14. Arbel, Yuval & Ben-Shahar, Danny & Gabriel, Stuart, 2014. "Anchoring and housing choice: Results of a natural policy experiment," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 68-83.
    15. Srinivasan, V. Seenu & Netzer, Oded, 2007. "Adaptive Self-Explication of Multi-attribute Preferences," Research Papers 1979, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    16. 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).
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Robert S. Wigton & Vincent L. Hoellerich & Kashinath D. Patil, 1986. "How Physicians Use Clinical Information in Diagnosing Pulmonary Embolism," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 6(1), pages 2-11, February.
    20. 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).

    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:4:d:10.1023_a:1008612828114. 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.