Marketing Letters

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 255–268 | Cite as

The no-choice option and dual response choice designs

  • Jeff D. Brazell
  • Christopher G. Diener
  • Ekaterina Karniouchina
  • William L. Moore
  • Válerie Séverin
  • Pierre-Francois Uldry

Abstract

Choice set designs that include a constant or no-choice option have increased efficiency, better mimic consumer choices, and allow one to model changes in market size. However, when the no-choice option is selected no information is obtained on the relative attractiveness of the available alternatives. One potential solution to this problem is to use a dual response format in which respondents first choose among a set of available alternatives in a forced-choice task and then choose among the available alternatives and a no-choice option.

This paper uses a simulation to demonstrate and confirm the possible gains in efficiency of dual response over traditional choice-based conjoint tasks when there are different proportions choosing the no-choice option. Next, two choice-based conjoint analysis studies find little systematic violation of IIA with the addition/deletion of a no-choice option. Further analysis supports the hypothesis that selection of the no-choice option is more closely related to choice set attractiveness than to decision difficulty. Finally, validation evidence is presented. Our findings show that researchers can employ the dual response approach, taking advantages of the increased power of estimation, without concern for systematically biasing the resulting parameter estimates. Hence, we argue this is a valuable approach when there is the possibility of a large number of no-choices and preference heterogeneity.

Keywords

Choice-based conjoint analysis No-choice option Choice models Logit models 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, D. A., & Wiley, J. B. (1992). Efficient choice set designs for estimating available cross-effects models. Marketing Letters, 3(4), 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dhar, R. (1997). Consumer preference for the no-choice option. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(Sept.), 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 146–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Haaijer, R., Kamakura W., & Wedel, M. (2001). The ‘no-choice’ alternative in conjoint choice experiments. International Journal of Market Research, 43(1), 93–106.Google Scholar
  5. Huber, J. (1995). The antecedents and consequences of choice deferral. Advances in Consumer Research, 22(1).Google Scholar
  6. Huber, J., & Pinnell, J. (1994). The impact of set quality and decision difficulty on the decision to defer purchase. Working paper, Fuqua School of Business Duke University.Google Scholar
  7. Huber, J., & Zwerina, K. (1996). The importance of utility balance in efficient choice set designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sándor, Z., & Wedel, M. (2001). Designing conjoint experiments using managers’ prior beliefs. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 430–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sándor, Z., & Wedel, M. (2002). Profile construction in experimental choice designs for mixed logit models. Marketing Science, 21(4), 455–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Swait, J., & Louviere, J. (1993). The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(3), 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Tversky, A., & Shaffir, E. (1992). Choice under conflict: The dynamics of deferred decisions. Psychological Science, 3.6 (Nov.), 358–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Uldry, P.-F., Diener, C. G., & Séverin, V. (2002). Using a Dual Response Framework in Choice Modelling. Talk presented at the ART Forum, June, Vail, CO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeff D. Brazell
    • 1
  • Christopher G. Diener
    • 2
  • Ekaterina Karniouchina
    • 3
  • William L. Moore
    • 3
  • Válerie Séverin
    • 4
  • Pierre-Francois Uldry
    • 5
  1. 1.The Modellers, LLC.Salt Lake City
  2. 2.King, Brown, Partners, Inc.Salt Lake City
  3. 3.The David Eccles School of BusinessUniversity of UtahSalt Lake City
  4. 4.Research & Analytics, The Modellers, LLC.Salt Lake City
  5. 5.European Operations, The Modellers, LLC.Salt Lake City

Personalised recommendations