Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 114–127 | Cite as

Choice rules and sensitivity analysis in conjoint simulators

  • Paul E. Green
  • Abba M. Krieger
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Market Share Attribute Level Conjoint Analysis Choice Rule Maximum Rule 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akaah, Ismael and P.K. Korgaonkar (1983), “An Empirical Comparison of the Predictive Validity of Self-Explicated, Huber-Hybrid, Traditional Conjoint, and Hybrid Conjoint Models,”Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (May), 187–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aschenbrenner, K. Michael (1981), “Efficient Sets, Decision Heuristics and Single-Peaked Preferences,”Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 23, 227–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Cattin, Philippe, Alan E. Gelfand and Jeffrey Danes (1983), “A Simple Bayesian Procedure for Estimation in a Conjoint Model,”Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (February), 29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Cattin, Philippe and Dick R. Wittink (1982), “Commerical Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey,”Journal of Marketing, 46 (Summer), 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Dickson, Peter R. (1982), “Person-Situation: Segmentation’s Missing Link,”Journal of Marketing, 46 (Fall), 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Green, Paul E. (1984), “Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review,”Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (May), 155–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Green, Paul E., J. Douglas Carroll and S.M. Goldberg (1981), “A General Approach to Product Design Optimization via Conjoint Analysis,”Journal of Marketing, 45 (Summer), 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Green Paul E. and Abba M. Krieger (1985), “Models and Heutistics for Product Line Selection,”Marketing Science, 4 (Winter), 1–19.Google Scholar
  13. Hagerty, Michael R. (1985), “Improving the Predictive Power of Conjoint Analysis: The Use of Factor and Cluster Analysis,”Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (May), 168–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holbrook, Morris B., William L. Moore, Gary N. Dodgen and William J. Havlena (1985), “Nonisomorphism, Shadow Features and Imputed Preferences,”Marketing Science, 4 (Summer), 215–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Kuehn, Alfred A. and Ralph L. Day (1962), “Strategy of Product Quality,”Harvard Business Review, 40, 100–10.Google Scholar
  17. Leigh, Thomas W., D.B. Mackay and J.O. Summers (1984), “Reliability and Validity of Conjoint Analysis and Self-Explicated Weights: A Comparison,”Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (November), 456–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Luce, R. Duncan (1959),Individual Choice Behavior, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  19. Mahajan, Vijay, Paul E. Green and Stephen Goldberrg (1982), “A Conjoint Model for Estimating Self- and Cross-Price/Demand Relationnships,”Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (August), 334–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Malhotra, Naresh K. (1982). “Structural Reliability and Stability of Nonmetric Conjoint Analysis,”Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (May), 199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Malhotra, Naresh K. (1986), “An Approach to the Measurement of Consumer Preferences Using Limited Information,”Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (February), 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McFadden, Daniel (1976). “Quantal Choice Analysis. A Survey,”Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5, 363–90.Google Scholar
  24. Punj, Girish N. and Richard Staelin (1978). “The Choice Process for Graduate Business Schools,”Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 588–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Segel, Madhav N. (1982). “Reliability of Conjoint Analysis: Contrasting Data Collection Procedures,”Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (February), 139–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Srinivasan, V., A.K. Jain and N.K. Malhotra (1983). “Improving Predictive Power of Conjoint Analysis by Constrained Parameter Estimation,”Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (November), 433–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thorngate, Warren (1980). “Efficient Decision Heuristics,”Behavioral Science, 25, 219–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tversky, Amos (1972). “Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice,”Psychological Review, 79 (July), 281–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wiley, James B. and J.T. Low (1983). “A Monte Carlo Simulation Study of Two Approaches for Aggregating Conjoint Data,”Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (November), 405–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wright, Peter L. (1975). “Consumer Judgment Strategies: Simplifying versus Optimizing,”Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 60–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zufryden, Fred S. (1982), “Product Line Optimization by Integer Programming,” inProceedings of the Annual Meeting of ORSA/TIMS. San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  32. 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

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul E. Green
    • 1
  • Abba M. Krieger
    • 1
  1. 1.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations