Abstract
In commercial applications of conjoint analysis to product design and product pricing it has become quite popular to further evaluate the estimated individual part-worth functions by predicting shares of choices for alternatives in hypothetical market scenarios (Wittink, Vriens and Burhenne 1994 and Baier 1999 for surveys on commercial applications). Wide-spread software packages for conjoint analysis (Sawtooth Software’s 1994 ACA system) already include specific modules to handle this so-called market simulation situation for which, typically, a threefold input is required: (I) The (estimated) individual part-worth functions have to be provided. (II) A definition of a hypothetical market scenario is needed that allows to calculate individual utility values for each available alternative. (III) A so-called choice rule has to be selected, which relates individual utility values to expected individual choice probabilities and, consequently, to market shares for the alternatives. In this context, the determination of an adequate choice rule seems to be the most cumbersome task. Well-known traditional choice rules are, e.g., the 1ST CHOICE rule (where the individuals are assumed to always select the choice alternative with the highest utility value), the BTL (Bradley,Terry, Luce) rule (where individual choice probabilities are related to corresponding shares of utility values), and the LOGIT rule (where exponentiated utility values are used). Furthermore, in newer choice rules implemented by various software developers, the similarity of an alternative to other alternatives is taken into account as a corrective when choice probabilities are calculated (Sawtooth Software 1994).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Akaike, H. (1977), On Entropy Maximization Principle, in: Krishnaiah, P., ed., Applications of Statistics, Amsterdam, 27–41.
Akao, Y. (1990), QFD, Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design, Cambridge.
Aust, E. and Gaul, W. (1995), A Unifying Approach to Benefit Segmentation and Product Line Design Based on Rank Order Conjoint Data, in: Gaul, W., Pfeifer, D., eds., From Data to Knowledge, Berlin, 289–297.
Baier, D. (1998), Conjointanalytische Lösungsansätze zur Parametrisierung des House of Quality, in: VDI-Gesellschaft Systementwicklung und Produktgestaltung, ed., QFD: Produkte und Dienstleistungen marktgerecht gestalten, Düsseldorf, 73–88.
Baier, D. (1999), Methoden der Conjointanalyse in der Marktforschungsund Marketingpraxis, to appear, in: Gaul, W., Schader, M., eds., Mathematische Methoden der Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Heidelberg.
Baier, D. and Gaul, W. (1995), Classification and Representation Using Conjoint Data, in: Gaul, W., Pfeifer, D., eds., From Data to Knowledge, Berlin, 298–307.
Baier, D. and Gaul, W. (1996), Analyzing Paired Comparisons Data Using Probabilistic Ideal Point and Vector Models, in: Bock, H.H., Polasek, P., eds., Data Analysis and Information Systems, Berlin, 163–174.
Baier, D. and Gaul, W. (1999), Optimal Product Positioning Based on Paired Comparison Data, Journal of Econometrics, 89, 365–392.
Ben-Akiva, M. and Lerman, S. (1985), Discrete Choice Analysis,Cambridge.
Böckenholt, I. and Gaul, W. (1986), Analysis of Choice Behaviour via Probabilistic Ideal Point and Vector Models, Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis, 2, 209–226.
Böckenholt, I. and Gaul, W. (1988), Probabilistic Multidimensional Scaling of Paired Comparisons Data, in: Bock, H.H., ed., Classification and Related Methods of Data Analysis, Amsterdam, 405–412.
Bozdogan, H. (1987), Model Selection and Akaike’s Information Criterion: The General Theory and Its Analytical Extensions, Psychometrika, 52, 345–370.
Bozdogan, H. (1993), Choosing the Number of Component Clusters in the Mixture-Model Using a New Informational Complexity Criterion of the Inverse-Fisher Information Matrix, in: Opitz, O., Lausen, B., Klar, R., eds., Information and Classification, Berlin, 40–54.
Brunswick, E. (1952), The Conceptual Framework of Psychology,Chicago.
Cooper, L. G. and Nakanishi, M. (1983), Two Logit Models for External Analysis of Preferences, Psychometrika, 48, 607–620.
Daganzo, M. (1979), Multinomial Probit,New York.
De Soete, G. (1990), A Latent Class Approach to Modeling Pairwise Preferential Choice Data, in: Schader, M., Gaul, W., eds., Knowledge, Data, and Computer-Assisted Decisions, Berlin, 240–249.
De Soete, G. and Carroll, J. D. (1983), A Maximum Likelihood Method for Fitting the Wandering Vector Model, Psychometrika, 48, 553–566.
De Soete, G., Carroll, J. D. and DeSarbo, W. S. (1986), The Wandering Ideal Point Model: A Probabilistic Multidimensional Unfolding Model for Paired Comparisons Data, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 30, 28–41.
DeSarbo, W. S., Ramaswamy, V. and Cohen, S. H. (1995), Market Segmentation with Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis, Marketing Letters, 6, 137–147.
DeSarbo, W. S., Wedel, M., Vriens, M. and Ramaswamy, V. (1992), Latent Class Metric Conjoint Analysis, Marketing Letters, 3, 273–288.
Elrod, T. and Kumar, K. (1989), Bias in the First Choice Rule for Predicting Shares, Proceedings of the 1989 Sawtooth Software Conference, 259–271.
Gaul, W. (1989): Probabilistic Choice Behavior Models and Their Combination With Additional Tools Needed for Applications to Marketing, in: De Soete, G., Feger, H., Klauer, K.-H., eds., New Developments in Psychological Choice Modeling, Amsterdam, 317–337.
Gaul, W. Aust, E. and Baier, D. (1995), Gewinnorientierte Produktliniengestaltung unter Berücksichtigung des Kundennutzens, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 65, 835–854.
Green, P. E. and Krieger, A. (1988), Choice Rules and Sensitivity Analysis in Conjoint Simulators, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 114–127.
Hauser, J. R. and Clausing, D. (1988), The House of Quality, Harvard Business Review, 66, 63–73.
Hausman, J. and Wise, D. A. (1978), A Conditional Probit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences, Econometrica, 46, 403–426.
Kamakura, W. A. and Srivastava, R. K. (1984), Predicting Choice Shares Under Conditions of Brand Interdependence, Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 420–434.
Louviere, J. J. and Woodworth, G. G. (1983), Design and Analysis of Simulated Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data, Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 350–367.
McFadden, D. (1973), Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior, Zarembka, P, ed., Frontiers of Econometrics, New York, 105–142.
Sawtooth Software (1994), ACA System Version 4.0, Sawtooth Software Inc., Evanston, IL.
Vriens, M., Wedel, M. and Wilms, T. (1996), Metric Conjoint Segmentation Methods: A Monte Carlo Comparison, Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 73–85.
Wedel, M. and DeSarbo, W. S. (1993), A Latent Class Binomial Logit Methodology for the Analysis of Paired Comparison Choice Data, Decision Sciences, 24, 1157–1170.
Wittink, D. R., Vriens, M. and Burhenne, W. (1994), Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis in Europe: Results and Critical Reflections, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 41–52.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baier, D., Gaul, W. (2003). Market Simulation Using a Probabilistic Ideal Vector Model for Conjoint Data. In: Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., Huber, F. (eds) Conjoint Measurement. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24713-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24713-5_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-11370-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-24713-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive