Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Choice rules and sensitivity analysis in conjoint simulators

  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the widespread use of choice simulators in commercial conjoint applications, relatively little has been written about the applicability of various types of buyer choice rules and sensitivity analyses. This paper first discusses issues related to the selection of different buyer choice rules. We then propose six types of sensitivity analyses that can be implemented in buyer choice simulators, given the usual input data of respondents’ part worths, status quo product utilities, and background data.

Each sensitivity analysis is illustrated in the context of a common business application. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of possible extensions of sensitivity analysis and areas for further research.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akaah, Ismael and P.K. Korgaonkar (1983), “An Empirical Comparison of the Predictive Validity of Self-Explicated, Huber-Hybrid, Traditional Conjoint, and Hybrid Conjoint Models,”Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (May), 187–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aschenbrenner, K. Michael (1981), “Efficient Sets, Decision Heuristics and Single-Peaked Preferences,”Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 23, 227–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, R.A. and M.E. Terry (1952), “Rank Analysis of Incomplete Block Designs: I. The Method of Paired Comparisons,”Biometrika, 39, 324–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattin, Philippe, Alan E. Gelfand and Jeffrey Danes (1983), “A Simple Bayesian Procedure for Estimation in a Conjoint Model,”Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (February), 29–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattin, Philippe and Girish Punj (1984), “Factors Influencing the Selection of Preferennce Model Form for Continuous Utility Functions in Conjoint Analysis,”Marketing Science, 3 (Winterr), 73–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattin, Philippe and Dick R. Wittink (1982), “Commerical Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey,”Journal of Marketing, 46 (Summer), 44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, Wayne S., J. Douglas Carroll, Donald R. Lehmann and John O’Shaughnessy (1982), “Three-Way Multivariate Conjoint Analysis,”Marketing Science, 1 (Fall), 323–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, Peter R. (1982), “Person-Situation: Segmentation’s Missing Link,”Journal of Marketing, 46 (Fall), 56–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, J.A. (1972), “Condominium Design and Pricing: A Case Study in Consumer Tradeoff Analysis,”Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, M. Venkatsan, ed., 279–93.

  • Green, Paul E. (1984), “Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review,”Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (May), 155–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E., J. Douglas Carroll and S.M. Goldberg (1981), “A General Approach to Product Design Optimization via Conjoint Analysis,”Journal of Marketing, 45 (Summer), 17–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green Paul E. and Abba M. Krieger (1985), “Models and Heutistics for Product Line Selection,”Marketing Science, 4 (Winter), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagerty, Michael R. (1985), “Improving the Predictive Power of Conjoint Analysis: The Use of Factor and Cluster Analysis,”Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (May), 168–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, Morris B., William L. Moore, Gary N. Dodgen and William J. Havlena (1985), “Nonisomorphism, Shadow Features and Imputed Preferences,”Marketing Science, 4 (Summer), 215–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, Joel and William Moore (1979), “A Comparison of Alternative Ways to Aggregate Individual Conjoint Analyses,” inProceedings of the AMA Educators’ Conference, L. Landon, ed. Chicago: American Marketing Association 64–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuehn, Alfred A. and Ralph L. Day (1962), “Strategy of Product Quality,”Harvard Business Review, 40, 100–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leigh, Thomas W., D.B. Mackay and J.O. Summers (1984), “Reliability and Validity of Conjoint Analysis and Self-Explicated Weights: A Comparison,”Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (November), 456–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan (1959),Individual Choice Behavior, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, Vijay, Paul E. Green and Stephen Goldberrg (1982), “A Conjoint Model for Estimating Self- and Cross-Price/Demand Relationnships,”Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (August), 334–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, Naresh K. (1982). “Structural Reliability and Stability of Nonmetric Conjoint Analysis,”Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (May), 199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, Naresh K. (1983), “A Comparison of the Predictive Validity of Procedures for Analyzing Binary Data,”Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 1 (October), 362–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, Naresh K. (1986), “An Approach to the Measurement of Consumer Preferences Using Limited Information,”Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (February), 33–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, Daniel (1976). “Quantal Choice Analysis. A Survey,”Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5, 363–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Punj, Girish N. and Richard Staelin (1978). “The Choice Process for Graduate Business Schools,”Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 588–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segel, Madhav N. (1982). “Reliability of Conjoint Analysis: Contrasting Data Collection Procedures,”Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (February), 139–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, V., A.K. Jain and N.K. Malhotra (1983). “Improving Predictive Power of Conjoint Analysis by Constrained Parameter Estimation,”Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (November), 433–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorngate, Warren (1980). “Efficient Decision Heuristics,”Behavioral Science, 25, 219–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos (1972). “Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice,”Psychological Review, 79 (July), 281–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, James B. and J.T. Low (1983). “A Monte Carlo Simulation Study of Two Approaches for Aggregating Conjoint Data,”Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (November), 405–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Peter L. (1975). “Consumer Judgment Strategies: Simplifying versus Optimizing,”Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 60–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zufryden, Fred S. (1982), “Product Line Optimization by Integer Programming,” inProceedings of the Annual Meeting of ORSA/TIMS. San Diego, California.

  • Zufryden, Fred S. (1977). “A Conjoint Measurement-Based Approach for Optimal New Product Design and Market Segmentation,” inAnalytical Approaches to Product and Market Planning. A.D. Shocker, ed. Cambridge, MA, Marketing Science Institute, 100–14.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger

    Present address: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA

Authors and Affiliations

    Authors
    1. Paul E. Green
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Abba M. Krieger
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Cite this article

    Green, P.E., Krieger, A.M. Choice rules and sensitivity analysis in conjoint simulators. JAMS 16, 114–127 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723330

    Download citation

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723330

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation