Advertisement

Marketing Letters

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 249–260 | Cite as

Attribute Range Effects in Binary Response Tasks

  • Tobias Ohler
  • Aihong Le
  • Jordan Louviere
  • Joffre Swait
Article

Abstract

This paper investigates attribute range effects in binary response conjoint analysis tasks. We investigate a long-standing conjecture that the regression estimates of attributes in choice tasks are influenced by a researcher's selected range of attribute levels across choice sets. Specifically, we examine the effect(s) of varying attribute ranges systematically over two ranges of levels (1=wide range, 2=levels in the middle of the wide range) in a public bus choice context. A master 23 design is used to vary the range (i.e., wide, middle) of three numerical attributes (fare, service and time). In each of the eight master range conditions a 23 factorial creates bus profiles, and a ninth condition is added to test for response non-linearity. Our results suggest that attribute range impacts attribute main effects to a small degree, yet exhibit substantial and systematic effects on attribute interactions and model goodness-of-fit. Implications of these results for practical design of academic and commercial choice-based conjoint analysis tasks are discussed.

Conjoint analysis choice modelling choice experiments 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adamowicz, W., J.J. Louviere, and M. Williams (1994). “Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26, 271–292.Google Scholar
  2. Batsell, R.B. and J.J. Louviere (1991). “Experimental Analysis of Choice,” Marketing Letters 2(3), 199–214.Google Scholar
  3. Ben-Akiva, M. and S.R. Lerman (1985). Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ben-Akiva, M. and T. Morikawa (1990). “Estimation of Switching Models from Revealed Preferences and Stated Intentions,” Transportation Research 24A(6), 485–495.Google Scholar
  5. Bollen, Kenneth (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Carson, R. et al. (1994). “Experimental Analysis of Choice,” Marketing Letters 5(4), 351–368.Google Scholar
  7. Cooke, A.D.C. and B.A. Mellers (1995). “Attribute Range and Response Range: Limits of Compatibility in Multiattribute Judgement,” Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Making 63, 187–194.Google Scholar
  8. Dallaert, B., J. Brazell, and J.J. Louviere (1999). “The Effect of Attribute Variation on Consumer Choice Consistency,” Marketing Letters 10(2), 139–147.Google Scholar
  9. Dawes, R.M. and B. Corrigan (1974). “Linear Models in Decision Making,” Psychological Bulletin 81(1), 95–106.Google Scholar
  10. DeShazo, J.R. and G. Fermo (1999). “Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency,” Unpublished Working Paper, Department of Economics, UCLA, February 1999.Google Scholar
  11. Domencich, T. and D. McFadden (1975). Urban Travel Demand—A Behavioral Analysis. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  12. Eagle, T.C. (1984). “Parameter Stability in Disaggregate Retail Choice Models: Experimental Evidence,” Journal of Retailing 60(1), 101–123.Google Scholar
  13. Green, P., D. Carroll, and W. Sarbo (1981). “Estimating Choice Probabilities in Multiattribute Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research 8, 76–84.Google Scholar
  14. Hensher, D., J.J. Louviere, and J. Swait (1999). “Combining Sources of Preference Data,” Journal of Econometrics 89(1–2), 197–221.Google Scholar
  15. Hutchinson, J.W., W.A. Kamakura, and J.G. Lynch (1997). “Unobserved Heterogeneity as an Alternative Explanation for “Reversal” Effects in Behavioral Research,” Unpublished working paper, Dept. of Marketing, Wharton School of Business, U. of Pennsylvania, November.Google Scholar
  16. Louviere, J.J. (1974). “Predicting the Evaluation of Real Stimulus Objects from an Abstract Evaluation of Their Attributes: The Case of Trout Streams,” Journal of Applied Psychology 59(5), 572–577.Google Scholar
  17. Louviere, J.J. (1988). Analyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis. Sage University Papers Series Number 67. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Louviere, J.J., M. Fox, and W. Moore (1993). “Cross-Task Validity Comparisons of Stated Preference Choice Models,” Marketing Letters 4(3) 205–213.Google Scholar
  19. Louviere, J.J., D. Hensher, and J. Swait (1999). “Conjoint Analysis Methods in the Broader Context of Preference Elicitation Methods,” in Gustafson, A., Hermannn, A. and F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  20. Louviere, J.J., D. Hensher, and J. Swait (2000). Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications in Marketing, Transportation and Environmental Valuation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  21. Louviere, J.J., et al. (1993). “Handling Large Numbers of Attributes in Conjoint Applications: Who says Existing Techniques Can't Be Applied? But If You Want an Alternative, How About Hierarchical Choice Experiments? ” Paper presented to the American marketing Association's Advanced Research Techniques (ART) Forum, Beaver Creek, Co., June.Google Scholar
  22. Louviere, J.J. et al. (1999). “Combining Sources of Preference Data for Modelling Complex Decision Processes,” Marketing Letters 10(3), 187–204.Google Scholar
  23. McClelland, G.H. and C.M. Judd (1993). “The Statistical Difficulties of Detecting Interactions and Moderator Effects,” Psychological Bulletin 144(2), 376–390.Google Scholar
  24. McFadden, D. (1974). “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior,” In Frontiers in Econometrics. P. Zarembka (Ed.). New York: Academic Press, pp. 105–142.Google Scholar
  25. Mellers, B.A., and K. Biagini (1994). “Similarity and Choice,” Psychological Review 101, 505–518.Google Scholar
  26. Mellers, B.A., and A.D.J. Cooke (1994). “Tradeoffs Depend on Attribute Range,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20, 1055–1067.Google Scholar
  27. Meyer, R., and T. Eagle (1982). “Context-Induced Parameter Instability in a Disaggregate-Stochastic Model of Store Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research 62164-171.Google Scholar
  28. Norman, K.L. (1977). “Attributes in Bus Transportation: Importance Depends on Trip Purpose,” Journal of Applied Psychology 62, 164–170.Google Scholar
  29. Norman, K.L. and J.J. Louviere (1974). “Integration of Attributes in Public Bus Transportation: Two Modeling Approaches,” Journal of Applied Psychology 59(6), 753–758.Google Scholar
  30. Swait, J. and W. Adamowicz (1998). “The Effect of Choice Environment and Task Demands on Consumer Behavior: Discriminating Between Contribution and Confusion,” Unpublished working paper, Dept. of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, October 1998, 39 pp.Google Scholar
  31. Swait, J. and J.J. Louviere (1993). “The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models,” Journal of Marketing Research 30, 305–314.Google Scholar
  32. Swait, J., J.J. Louviere and M. Williams (1994). “A Sequential Approach to Exploiting the Combined Strengths of SP and RP Data: Application to Freight Shipper Choice,” Transportation, 21(2), 135–152.Google Scholar
  33. Tversky, A. (1969). “The Intransitivity of Preferences,” Psychological Review 76, 31–48.Google Scholar
  34. White, P.J., R.D. Johnson, and J.J. Louviere (1993). “The Effect of Attribute Range and Variance on Weight Estimates,” Unpublished working paper, Dept. of Marketing and Economic Analysis, Faculty of Commerce, The University of Alberta.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias Ohler
    • 1
  • Aihong Le
    • 2
  • Jordan Louviere
    • 3
  • Joffre Swait
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.McKinsey & Company (Germany
  2. 2.AC Nielsen (Australia
  3. 3.Centre for Health Economics Research and EvaluationCamperdownAustralia
  4. 4.Advanis Inc.USA
  5. 5.University of FloridaUSA

Personalised recommendations