Abstract
Question and response order effects are known to occur in survey research instruments. Choice-based conjoint analysis presents respondents with multiple sets of concepts fully specified in terms of a number of attributes. Respondents choose one “full-profile” concept from each of the many “choice sets.” Thus there are three plausible order effects with respect to choice-based conjoint analysis: choice set order, profile order within choice sets, and attribute order within profiles. Three empirical studies show that statistically significant choice set order, profile order, and attribute order effects occur. Some of these order effects are significant from a practical standpoint, but none occur in a predictable way. Analysts are advised to rotate, across respondents, profile and attribute order to offset the order biases. Directions for future research are suggested.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Green, Paul, and V. Srinivasan. (1990). “Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice,”Journal of Marketing 54 (October), 3–19.
Hosmer, David W., and Stanley Lemeshow. (1989).Applied Logistic Regression. New York: Wiley.
Huber, Joel, Dick R. Wittink, John A. Fiedler, and Richard L. Miller. (1991). “An Empirical Comparison of ACA and Full Profile Judgements,”Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings. Ketchum: Sawtooth Software.
Johnson, Richard M. (1989). “Assessing the Validity of Conjoint Analysis,”Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Ketchum: Sawtooth Software.
Kalton, Graham, Martin Collins, and Lindsay Brook. (1978). “Experiments in Wording Opinion Questions,”Applied Statistics 27, 149–161.
Louviere, Jordan J. (1988).Analyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07-067. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Louviere, Jordan J., and George Woodworth. (1983). “Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data,”Journal of Marketing Research 20 (November), 350–367.
Schuman, Howard, and Stanley Presser. (1981).Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Content, New York: Academic Press.
Steinberg, Dan, and Phillip Colla. (1991).LOGIT: A Supplementary Module for SYSTAT. Evanston, IL: Systat.
Tourangeau, Roger, and Kenneth A. Rasinski. (1988). “Cognitive Processes Underlying Context Effects in Attitude Measurement,”Psychological Bulletin 103, 299–314.
Tourangeau, Roger, Kenneth A. Rasinski, Norman Bradburn, and Roy D'Andrade. (1989). “Carryover Effects in Attitude Surveys,”Public Opinion Quarterly 53 (Winter), 495–524.
Wittink, Dick R., and Philippe Cattin. (1989). “Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update,”Journal of Marketing 53 (July), 91–96.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chrzan, K. Three kinds of order effects in choice-based conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters 5, 165–172 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994106
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994106