Choice rules and sensitivity analysis in conjoint simulators
- 251 Downloads
Despite the widespread use of choice simulators in commercial conjoint applications, relatively little has been written about the applicability of various types of buyer choice rules and sensitivity analyses. This paper first discusses issues related to the selection of different buyer choice rules. We then propose six types of sensitivity analyses that can be implemented in buyer choice simulators, given the usual input data of respondents’ part worths, status quo product utilities, and background data.
Each sensitivity analysis is illustrated in the context of a common business application. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of possible extensions of sensitivity analysis and areas for further research.
KeywordsMarket Share Attribute Level Conjoint Analysis Choice Rule Maximum Rule
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bradley, R.A. and M.E. Terry (1952), “Rank Analysis of Incomplete Block Designs: I. The Method of Paired Comparisons,”Biometrika, 39, 324–45.Google Scholar
- Cattin, Philippe and Girish Punj (1984), “Factors Influencing the Selection of Preferennce Model Form for Continuous Utility Functions in Conjoint Analysis,”Marketing Science, 3 (Winterr), 73–82.Google Scholar
- DeSarbo, Wayne S., J. Douglas Carroll, Donald R. Lehmann and John O’Shaughnessy (1982), “Three-Way Multivariate Conjoint Analysis,”Marketing Science, 1 (Fall), 323–50.Google Scholar
- Fiedler, J.A. (1972), “Condominium Design and Pricing: A Case Study in Consumer Tradeoff Analysis,”Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, M. Venkatsan, ed., 279–93.Google Scholar
- Green Paul E. and Abba M. Krieger (1985), “Models and Heutistics for Product Line Selection,”Marketing Science, 4 (Winter), 1–19.Google Scholar
- Huber, Joel and William Moore (1979), “A Comparison of Alternative Ways to Aggregate Individual Conjoint Analyses,” inProceedings of the AMA Educators’ Conference, L. Landon, ed. Chicago: American Marketing Association 64–8.Google Scholar
- Kuehn, Alfred A. and Ralph L. Day (1962), “Strategy of Product Quality,”Harvard Business Review, 40, 100–10.Google Scholar
- Luce, R. Duncan (1959),Individual Choice Behavior, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Malhotra, Naresh K. (1983), “A Comparison of the Predictive Validity of Procedures for Analyzing Binary Data,”Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 1 (October), 362–36.Google Scholar
- McFadden, Daniel (1976). “Quantal Choice Analysis. A Survey,”Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5, 363–90.Google Scholar
- Zufryden, Fred S. (1982), “Product Line Optimization by Integer Programming,” inProceedings of the Annual Meeting of ORSA/TIMS. San Diego, California.Google Scholar
- Zufryden, Fred S. (1977). “A Conjoint Measurement-Based Approach for Optimal New Product Design and Market Segmentation,” inAnalytical Approaches to Product and Market Planning. A.D. Shocker, ed. Cambridge, MA, Marketing Science Institute, 100–14.Google Scholar