Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Conjoint Measurement pp 199–229Cite as

Conjoint Choice Experiments: General Characteristics and Alternative Model Specifications

  • Chapter

Abstract

Conjoint choice experimentation involves the design of product profiles on the basis of product attributes specified at certain levels, and requires respondents to repeatedly choose one alternative from different sets of profiles offered to them, instead of ranking or rating all profiles, as is usually done in various forms of classic metric conjoint studies. The Multinomial Logit (MNL) model has been the most frequently used model to analyze the 0/1 choice data arising from such conjoint choice experiments (e.g., Louviere and Woodworth 1983; Elrod, Louviere and Davey 1992). One of the first articles describing the potential advantages of a choice approach for conjoint analysis was by Madanski (1980). His conclusion was that conjoint analysts could adopt the random utility model approach to explain gross trends or predilections in decisions instead of each person's specific decision in each choice presented. The real breakthrough for conjoint choice came with the Louviere and Woodworth (1983) article in which they integrated the conjoint and discrete choice approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Addelman, S. (1962), Orthogonal Main-Effects Plans for Asymmetrical Factorial Experiments, Technometrics, 4, 21–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akaike, H. (1973), Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle, in: Petrov, B.N. and Csáki, F., eds., 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 267–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G. M., Arora, N. and Ginter, J. L. (1995), Incorporating Prior Knowledge into the Analysis of Conjoint Studies, Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 152–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G. M., Arora, N. and Ginter, J. L. (1998), On the Heterogeneity of Demand, Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 384–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G. M. and Ginter, J. L. (1995), Using Extremes to Design Products and Segment Markets, Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 392–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G. M. and Rossi, P. E. (1999), Marketing Models of Consumer Heterogeneity, Journal of Econometrics, 89, 57–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, N., Allenby, G. M. and Ginter, J. L. (1998), A Hierarchical Bayes Model of Primary and Secondary Demand, Marketing Science, 17, 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekker, P. A., Merckens, A. and Wansbeek, T. J. (1994), Identification, Equivalent Models, and Computer Algebra, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M. and Lerman, S. R. (1985), Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börsch-Supan, A., Hajivassiliou, V. A., Kotlikoff, L. J. and Morris J. N. (1990), Health, Children, and Elderly Living Arrangements: A Multiperiod, Multinomial Probit Model with Unobserved Heterogeneity and Autocorrelated Errors, NBER working Paper 3343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunch, D. S. (1991), Estimability in the Multinomial Probit Model, Transportation Research B, 25, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunch, D. S. and Kitamura, R. (1989), Multinomial Probit Model Estimation Revisited: Testing Estimable Model Specifications, Maximum Likelihood Algorithms, and Probit Integral Approximations for Trinomial Models of Household Car Ownership, working paper, University of California at Davis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. D. (1972), Individual Differences and Multidimensional Scaling, in: Shepard, R. N., Romney, A. K. and Nerlove, S. B., eds., Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications in the Behavioral Sciences, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. D. and Green, P. E. (1995), Psychometric Methods in Marketing Research: Part 1, Conjoint Analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 385–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattin, P. and Wittink, D. R. (1982), Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey, Journal of Marketing, 46, 44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chintagunta, P. K. (1992), Estimating A Multinomial Probit Model Of Brand Choice Using The Method Of Simulated Moments, Marketing Science, 11, 386–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrzan, K. (1994), Three Kinds of Order Effects in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis, Marketing Letters, 5, 165–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. H. (1997), Perfect Union: CBCA Marries the Best of Conjoint and Discrete Choice Models, Marketing Research, 9, 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daganzo, C. F. (1979), Multinomial Probit, The Theory and Its Applications to Demand Forecasting, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dansie, B. R. (1985), Parameter Estimability in the Multinomial Probit Model, Transportation Research B, 19, 526–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dellaert, B. G. C., Borgers, A. W. J. and Timmermans, H. J. P. (1995), A Day in the City, Using Conjoint Choice Experiments to Model Tourists Choice of Activity Packages, Tourism Management, 16, 347–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dellaert, B. G. C., Borgers, A. W. J. and Timmermans, H. J. P. (1996), Conjoint Choice Models of Joint Participation and Activity Choice, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, 251–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dellaert, B. G. C., Borgers, A. W. J. and Timmermans, H. J. P. (1997), Conjoint Models of Tourist Portfolio Choice: Theory and Illustration, Leisure Science, 19, 31–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S. and Green, P. E. (1984), Concepts, Theory, and Techniques, Choice-Constrained Conjoint Analysis, Decision Science, 15, 291–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., Ramaswamy, V. and Cohen, S. H. (1995), Market Segmentation with Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis, Marketing Letters, 6, 137–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elrod, T. and Keane, M. P. (1995), A Factor-Analytic Probit Model for Representing the Market Structures in Panel Data, Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elrod, T., Louviere, J. J. and Davey, K. S. (1992), An Empirical Comparison of Rating-Based and Choice-Based Conjoint Models, Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 368–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. (1984), Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review, Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., Goldberg, S. M. and Montemayor, M. (1981), A Hybrid Utility Estimation Model for Conjoint Analysis, Journal of Marketing, 45, 33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. and Rao, V. R. (1971), Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data, Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 355–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. and Srinivasan, V. (1978), Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook, Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. and Srinivasan, V. (1990), Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice, Journal of Marketing, 54, 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haaijer, M. E. (1999), Modeling Conjoint Choice Experiments with the Probit Model, University of Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haaijer, M. E., Kamakura, W. A. and Wedel, M. (2000), Response Latencies in the Analysis of conjoint Choice Experiments, Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 376–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haaijer, M. E., Kamakura, W. A. and Wedel, M. (2001), The No-Choice Alternative in Conjoint Choice Experiments, International Journal of Market Research, 43, 93–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haaijer, M. E., Wedel, M., Vriens, M. and Wansbeek, T. J. (1998), Utility Covariances and Context Effects in Conjoint MNP Models, Marketing Science, 17, 236–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajivassiliou, V. A. (1993), Simulation Estimation Methods for Limited Dependent Variable Models, in: Maddala, G. S., Rao, C. R. and Vinod, H.D., eds., Handbook of Statistics, 11, 519–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. A. and Wise, D. A. (1978), A Conditional Probit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences, Econometrica, 46, 403–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J., Payne, J. W. and Puto, C. (1982), Adding Asymmetrically Dominant Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypotheses, Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J. and Puto, C. (1983), Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects, Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J. and Zwerina, K. (1996), The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs, Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 307–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. M. (1974), Trade-off Analysis of Consumer Values, Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 1221–1227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R. M. (1985), Adaptive Conjoint Analysis, in: Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis and Computer Interviewing, Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, Inc., 253–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. M. and Orme, B. K. (1996), How Many Questions Should You Ask In Choice-Based Conjoint Studies?, Sawtooth Software Technical Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, W. A. (1989), The Estimation of Multinomial Probit Models: A New Calibration Algorithm, Transportation Science, 23, 253–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, W. A., Wedel, M. and Agrawal, J. (1994), Concomitant Variable Latent Class Models for Conjoint Analysis, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 451–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keane, M. P. (1992), A Note on Identification in the Multinomial Probit Model, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 10, 193–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal, J. B. (1965), Analysis of Factorial Experiments by Estimating Monotone Transformations of the Data, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 251–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhfeld, W. F., Tobias, R. D. and Garratt, M. (1994), Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications, Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 545–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenk, P. J., DeSarbo, W. S., Green, P. E. and Young, M. R. (1996), Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs, Marketing Science, 15, 173–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. J. (1988), Conjoint Analysis Modeling of Stated Preferences. A Review of Theory, Methods, Recent Developments and External Validity, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 10, 93–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. J. and Woodworth, G. (1983), Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data, Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 350–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. J. and Timmermans, H. J. P. (1990), A Review of Recent Advances in Decompositional Preference and Choice Models, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 81, 214–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D. and Tukey, J. W. (1964), Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madansky, A. (1980), On Conjoint Analysis and Quantal Choice Models, Journal of Business, 53, S37–S44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddala, G. S. (1983), Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1976), Quantal Choice Analysis: A Survey, Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5, 363–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1986), The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research, Marketing Science, 5, 275–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, W. L., Gray-Lee, J. and Louviere, J. J. (1998), A Cross-Validity Comparison of Conjoint Analysis and Choice Models at Different Levels of Aggregation, Marketing Letters, 9, 195–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowlis, S. M. and Simonson, I. (1997), Attribute-Task Compatibility as a Determinant of Consumer Preference Reversals, Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 205–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliphant, K., Eagle, T. C., Louviere, J. J. and Anderson, D. (1992), Cross-Task Comparison of Rating-Based and Choice-Based Conjoint, Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppewal, H., Louviere, J. J. and Timmermans, H. J. P. (1994), Modeling Hierarchical Conjoint Processes with Integrated Choice Experiments, Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 92–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppewal, H. and Timmermans, H. J. P. (1993), Conjuncte Keuze-Experimenten: Achtergronden, Theorie, Toepassingen en Ontwikkelingen, NVVM Jaarboek, 33–58. (In Dutch).

    Google Scholar 

  • Papatla, P. (1996), A Multiplicative Fixed-effects Model of Consumer Choice, Marketing Science, 15, 243–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekelman, D. and Sen, S. (1974), Mathematical Programming Models for the Determination of Attribute Weights, Management Science, 20, 1217–1229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pudney, S. (1989), Modeling Individual Choice: The Econometrics of Corners, Kinks and Holes, Basil Blackwell Inc., Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. E., McCulloch, R. E. and Allenby, G. M. (1996), The Value of Purchase History Data in Target Marketing, Marketing Science, 15, 321–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sándor, Z. and Wedel, M. (1999), Robust Optimal Designs for Conjoint Choice Experiments, SOM-Working Paper, University of Groningen, Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawtooth Software Inc. (1995), The CBC System for Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis, Sawtooth Software Technical Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, G. (1978), Estimating the Dimension of a Model, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, I. (1989), Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Substitution Effects, Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, I. and Tversky, A. (1992), Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrasts and Extremeness Aversion, Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, V. and Shocker, A. D. (1973a), Linear Programming Techniques for Multidimensional Analysis of Preferences, Psychometrika, 38, 337–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, V. and Shocker, A. D. (1973b), Estimating the Weights for Multiple Attributes in a Composite Criterion Using Pairwise Judgements, Psychometrika, 38, 473–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J. E. B. M. (1985), De Constructie van Profielensets voor het Schatten van Hoofdeffecten en Interacties bij Conjunct Meten, NVVM Jaarboek, 125–155. (In Dutch).

    Google Scholar 

  • Struhl, S. (1994), Discrete Choice Modelling: Understanding a Better Conjoint Than Conjoint, Quirk’s Marketing Research Review, 36–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swait, J. and Louviere, J. J. (1993), The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models, Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 305–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timmermans, H. J. P. and Van Noortwijk, L. (1995), Context Dependencies in Housing Choice Behavior, Environment and Planning A, 27, 181–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1972), Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice, Psychological Review, 79, 281–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vriens, M. (1994), Solving Marketing Problems With Conjoint Analysis, Journal of Marketing Management, 10, 37–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vriens, M. (1995), Conjoint Analysis in Marketing, Developments in Stimulus Representation and Segmentation Methods, Thesis, University of Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vriens, M., Oppewal, H. and Wedel, M. (1998), Ratings-Based versus Choice-Based Latent Class Conjoint Models — An Empirical Comparison, Journal of the Market Research Society, 40, 237–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vriens, M., Wedel, M. and Wilms, T. (1996), Segmentation Methods for Metric Conjoint Analysis: A Monte Carlo Comparison, Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M. and Kamakura, W.A. (1997), Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations, Dordrecht, Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M., Kamakura, W., Arora, N., Bemmaor, A., Chiang, J., Elrod, T., Johnson, R., Lenk, P., Neslin, S. and Poulsen, C.S. (1999), Heterogeneity and Bayesian Methods in Choice Modeling, working paper, University of Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M., Vriens, M., Bijmolt, T. H. A., Krijnen, W. and Leeflang, P. S. H. (1998), Assessing the Effects of Abstract Attributes and Brand Familiarity in Conjoint Choice Experiments, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15, 71–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D. R. and Cattin, P. (1989), Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update, Journal of Marketing, 53, 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D. R., Huber, J., Fiedler, J. A. and Miller, R. L. (1991), The Magnitude of and an Explanation/Solution for the Number of Levels Effect in Conjoint Analysis, working paper, Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics, Department of Marketing and Marketing Research, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

    Rinus Haaijer (doctorial candidate in Marketing Research) & Michel Wedel (Professor of Marketing Research)

Authors
  1. Rinus Haaijer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michel Wedel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Karlstad University, 651 88, Karlstad, Sweden

    Anders Gustafsson

  2. University of St. Gallen, Guisanstr. 1 a, 9010, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Andreas Herrmann

  3. University of Mainz, Jakob-Welder-Weg 9, 55128, Mainz, Germany

    Frank Huber

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Haaijer, R., Wedel, M. (2007). Conjoint Choice Experiments: General Characteristics and Alternative Model Specifications. In: Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., Huber, F. (eds) Conjoint Measurement. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71404-0_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation