Abstract
Research in marketing, and business in general, involves understanding when effect-sizes are expected to be large and when they are expected to be small. An example is the understanding of the level-effect in marketing, where the effect of product attributes on utility is positively related to the number of levels present among choice alternatives. Knowing when consumers are sensitive to the competing levels of attributes is an important aspect of merchandising, selling and promotion. In this paper, we propose a model and a method for studying the level-effect in conjoint analysis. The model combines perceptual theories in psychology to arrive at a non-linear specification of hyper-parameters in a hierarchical model. The method applies an experimental design criterion for efficient estimation of hyper-parameters. The proposed model and method are validated using a national sample of respondents.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Atkinson, A. C., & Donev, A. N. (1992). Optimum experimental designs. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Berger, J. O. (1985). Statistical decision theory and Bayesian analysis. New York: Springer.
Chaloner, K., & Verdinelli, I. (1995). Bayesian experimental design: A review. Statistical Science, 10(3), 273–304. doi:10.1214/ss/1177009939.
Cooke, A. D. J., Janiszewski, C., Cunha Jr., M., Nasco, S. A., & De Wilde, E. (2004). Stimulus context and the formation of consumer ideals. The Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 112–124 (June). doi:10.1086/383428.
Creyer, E., & Ross, W. T. (1988). The effects of range-frequency manipulations on conjoint importance weight stability. Advances in Consumer Research. Association for Consumer Research (U. S.), 15, 505–509.
Currim, I. S., Weinberg, C. B., & Wittink, D. R. (1981). Design of subscription programs for a performing arts series. The Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 67–75 (June). doi:10.1086/208842.
Gamerman, D. (1997). Markov chain Monte Carlo. London: Chapman & Hall.
Han, C., & Chaloner, K. (2004). Bayesian experimental design for nonlinear mixed-effects models with applications to HIV dynamics. Biometrics, 60, 25–33. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2004.00148.x.
Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. The Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90–98 (June). doi:10.1086/208899.
Krumhansl, C. L. (1978). Concerning the applicability of geometric models to similarity data: The interrelationship between similarity and spatial density. Psychological Review, 85(5), 445–463. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.445.
Kuhfeld, W. F. (2005). Experimental design, efficiency, coding and choice designs, Tech. rep., SAS TS-722C, http://support.sas.com/techsup/tnote/tnote_stat.html.
Lenk, P. J., Desarbo, W. S., Green, P. E., & Young, M. R. (1996). Hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis: Recovery of Partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs. Marketing Science, 15(2), 173–191.
Liu, Q., Dean, A. M., & Allenby, G. M. (2007), Design optimality for hyper-parameter estimation in hierarchical linear models, http://research3.bus.wisc.edu/qliu, Working paper.
Lynch, J. G., Chakravarti, D., & Mitra, A. (1991). Contrast effects in consumer judgments: Changes in mental representations or in the anchoring of rating scales? The Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 284–297 (December). doi:10.1086/209260.
Mentre, F., Mallet, A., & Baccar, D. (1997). Optimal design in random-effects regression models. Biometrika, 84(2), 429–442. doi:10.1093/biomet/84.2.429.
Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological Review, 72, 407–418. doi:10.1037/h0022602.
Parducci, A. (1974). Contextual effects: A range-frequency analysis. In E. Carterette, & M. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of perception (pp. 127–141). New York: Academic Press.
Parducci, A. (1982). Category ratings: still more contextual effects. In B. Wegener (Ed.), Social attitudes and psychophysical measurement (pp. 89–105). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Parducci, A., & Wedell, D. H. (1986). The category effect with rating scales: number of categories, number of stimuli, and method of presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 496–516.
Rossi, P. E., Allenby, G. M., & McCulloch, R. (2005). Bayesian statistics and marketing. New York: Wiley.
Sandor, Z., & Wedel, M. (2002). Profile construction in experimental choice designs for mixed logit models. Marketing Science, 21(4), 455–475. doi:10.1287/mksc.21.4.455.131.
Scheffé, H. (1959). Analysis of variance. New York: Wiley.
Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 281–295. doi:10.2307/3172740.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Wittink, D. R. (1994). The metric quality of full-profile judgments and the number-of-attribute-levels effect in conjoint analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 275–286. doi:10.1016/0167-8116(94)90006-X.
Tod, M., Mentre, F., Merle, Y., & Mallet, A. (1998). Robust optimal design for the estimation of hyper-parameters in population pharmacokinetics. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics, 26, 689–716. doi:10.1023/A:1020703007613.
Verlegh, P. W. J., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Wittink, D. R. (2002). Range and number-of-levels effects in derived and stated measures of attribute importance. Marketing Letters, 13(1), 41–52.
Wedell, D. H., Parducci, A., & Roman, D. (1989). Student perceptions of fair grading: a range-frequency analysis. The American Journal of Psychology, 102, 233–248.
Wittink, D. R., Huber, J., Zandan, P., & Johnson, R. M. (1992). The number of levels effect in conjoint: where does it come from, and can it be eliminated? in Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings.
Wittink, D. R., Krishnamurthi, L., & Nutter, J. B. (1982). Comparing derived importance weights across attributes. The Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 471–474. doi:10.1086/208890.
Wittink, D. R., Krishnamurthi, L., & Reibstein, D. J. (1990). The effect of differences in the number of attribute levels on conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters, 1(2), 113–123. doi:10.1007/BF00435295.
Wittink, D. R., McLauchlan, W. G., & Seetharaman, P. B. (1997). Solving the number-of-attribute-levels problem in conjoint analysis. in Sawtooth Software Conference proceedings
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the two anonymous referees and the editor Peter Rossi for helpful comments which led to a much improved paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1: Survey designs and corresponding model matrices
Appendix 2: Prediction validation results
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, Q., Dean, A., Bakken, D. et al. Studying the level-effect in conjoint analysis: An application of efficient experimental designs for hyper-parameter estimation. Quant Mark Econ 7, 69–93 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-008-9045-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-008-9045-9