Designing Pareto optimal stimuli for multiattribute choice experiments
- 77 Downloads
- 12 Citations
Abstract
Full factorial designs have long been used in designing multiattribute stimuli (e.g., hypothetical job applicants) for use in policy capturing and functional measurement models. More recently, marketing researchers have employedfractional factorial designs in multiatribute preference models, such as those used in conjoint analysis.
Occasions arise where the researcher also desires the stimulus profiles to be Pareto optimal. This paper addresses some conceptual and methodological issues associated with Pareto optimal choice sets. In particular, we discuss the problem of determining the expected number of dominant-entry pairs. We then consider the task of deriving Pareto optimal choice sets from fractional factorial designs. A heuristic for accomplishing this is described and applied to an illustrative set of main effects and main effects plus interactions designs.
Key words
Factorial Designs Pareto Optimal Set Dominant Entry PairsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Addelman, Sidney. (1962). “Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Fractional Factorial Plans,”Technometrics 4 (February). 47–58.Google Scholar
- Anderson, Ian. (1987).Combinatorics of Finite Sets. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Anderson, Norman H. (1979). “Algebraic Rules in Psychological Measurement”American Scientist 67 (5), 555–563.Google Scholar
- Curry, David J., and David J. Faulds. (1986). “Indexing Product Quality: Issues, Theory and Results,”Journal of Consumer Research 13, 134–145.Google Scholar
- Einhorn, Hillel J., and Robin Hogarth. (1975). “Unit Weighting Schemes for Decision Making,”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 13, 171–192.Google Scholar
- Green, Paul E. (1974). “On the Design of Choice Experiments Involving Multifactor Alternatives,”Journal of Consumer Research 1 (September). 61–68.Google Scholar
- Green, Paul E. (1984). “Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review,”Journal of Marketing Research 21 (May), 155–169.Google Scholar
- Hoffman, Paul J., Paul Slovic, and Leonard G. Rorer. (1968). “An Analysis of Variance Model of the Assessment of Configural Cue Utilization in Clinical Judgment,”Psychological Bulletin 69 (5), 338–349.Google Scholar
- Johnson, Eric J., Robert J. Meyer, and Sanjoy Ghose. (1989). “When Choice Models Fail: Compensatory Representations in Negatively Correlated Environments,”Journal of Marketing Research 26 (August), 255–270.Google Scholar
- McClelland, Gary H. (1978). “Equal versus Differential Weighting for Multiattribute Decisions: There Are No Free Lunches,” Report No. 207, Center for Research on Judgment and Policy, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
- Newman, J. Robert. (1977). “Differential Weighting in Multiattribute Utility Measurement: Where It Should and Where It Does Make a Difference”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 20 (December), 312–325.Google Scholar
- Plackett, R. L., and J. P. Burman. (1946). “The Design of Optimum Multifactorial Experiments,”Biometrika 33, 305–325.Google Scholar
- Stillwell, William G., David A. Seaver, and Ward Edwards. (1981). “A Comparison of Weight Approximation Techniques in Multiattribute Utility Decision Making,”Organization Behavior and Human Performance 28, 62–77.Google Scholar
- Wiley, James B. (1977). “Selecting Pareto Optimal Subsets from Multiattribute Alternatives,”Advances in Consumer Research, H. K. Hunt (ed.), 171–174.Google Scholar