The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs
Open accessAbstract
The drive to satisfy customers in narrowly defined market segments has led firms to offer wider arrays of products and services. Delivering products and services with the appropriate mix of features for these highly fragmented market segments requires understanding the value that customers place on these features. Conjoint analysis endeavors to unravel the value or partworths, that customers place on the product or service's attributes from experimental subjects' evaluation of profiles based on hypothetical products or services. When the goal is to estimate the heterogeneity in the customers' partworths, traditional estimation methods, such as least squares, require each subject to respond to more profiles than product attributes, resulting in lengthy questionnaires for complex, multiattributed products or services. Long questionnaires pose practical and theoretical problems. Response rates tend to decrease with increasing questionnaire length, and more importantly, academic evidence indicates that long questionnaires may induce response biases. The problems associated with long questionnaires call for experimental designs and estimation methods that recover the heterogeneity in the partworths with shorter questionnaires. Unlike more popular estimation methods, Hierarchical Bayes (HB) random effects models do not require that individual-level design matrices be of full rank, which leads to the possibility of using fewer profiles per subject than currently used. Can this theoretical possibility be practically implemented? This paper tests this conjecture with empirical studies and mathematical analysis. The random effects model in the paper describes the heterogeneity in subject-level partworths or regression coefficients with a linear model that can include subject-level covariates. In addition, the error variances are specific to the subjects, thus allowing for the differential use of the measurement scale by different subjects. In the empirical study, subjects' responses to a full profile design are randomly deleted to test the performance of HB methods with declining sample sizes. These simple experiments indicate that HB methods can recover heterogeneity and estimate individual-level partworths, even when individual-level least squares estimators do not exist due to insufficient degrees of freedom. Motivated by these empirical studies, the paper analytically investigates the trade-off between the number of profiles per subject and the number of subjects on the statistical accuracy of the estimators that describe the partworth heterogeneity. The paper considers two experimental designs: each subject receives the same set of profiles, and subjects receive different blocks of a fractional factorial design. In the first case, the optimal design, subject to a budget constraint, uses more subjects and fewer profiles per subject when the ratio of unexplained, partworth heterogeneity to unexplained response variance is large. In the second case, one can maintain a given level of estimation accuracy as the number of profiles per subject decreases by increasing the number of subjects assigned to each block. These results provide marketing researchers the option of using shorter questionnaires for complex products or services. The analysis assumes that response quality is independent of questionnaire length and does not address the impact of design factors on response quality. If response quality and questionnaire length were, in fact, unrelated, then marketing researchers would still find the paper's results useful in improving the efficiency of their conjoint designs. However, if response quality were to decline with questionnaire length, as the preponderance of academic research indicates, then the option to use shorter questionnaires would become even more valuable.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sampling-based approaches to calculating marginal densities
Gelfand, A. E., & Smith, A. F. M. (1990) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1990.10476213 · Cited by 6,606
Bayes Estimates for the Linear Model
Lindley, D. V., & Smith, A. F. M. (1972) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1972.tb00885.x · Cited by 2,025
Bayesian computation via the Gibbs sampler and related Markov chain Monte Carlo methods
Smith, A. F. M., & Roberts, G. O. (1993) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1993.tb01466.x · Cited by 1,713
Information Load and Consumer Decision Making
Malhotra, N. K. (1982) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/208882 · Cited by 778
Cited by
Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects
Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M., & Wind, Y. (2001) · Interfaces · doi:10.1287/inte.31.3s.56.9676 · Cited by 388
Self-citationImproving Design Preference Prediction Accuracy Using Feature Learning
Burnap, A., Pan, Y., Liu, Y., Ren, Y., Lee, H., Gonzalez, R., & Papalambros, P. Y. (2016) · Journal of Mechanical Design · doi:10.1115/1.4033427 · Cited by 42
Bankuoru Egala, S., & Liang, D. (2024) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2023.2251927 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Lenk, P. J., DeSarbo, W. S., Green, P. E., & Young, M. R.
- Venue
- Marketing Science
- Published
- 1996-05
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 173-191
- ISSN
- 0732-2399 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-548X
- OpenAlex
- W2121959576
- Cited by
- 532
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 16.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.