Construction of Heterogeneous Conjoint Choice Designs: A New Approach

References

• Arora N, Huber J (2001) Improving parameter estimates and model prediction by homogeneous customization in choice experiments. J. Consumer Res. 28(2):273–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Atkinson A, Donev A, Tobias R (2007) Optimum Experimental Designs, with SAS (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ben-Akiva M, Lerman S (1985) Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH (2000) Psychological Experiments on the Internet (Academic Press, San Diego).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chaloner K, Verdinelli I (1995) Bayesian experimental design: A review. Statist. Sci. 10(3):273–304.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chrzan K, Orme B (2000) An overview and comparison of design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis. Technical report, Sawtooth software. http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/desgncbc.pdf.Google Scholar
• Ding M (2007) An incentive-aligned mechanism for conjoint analysis. J. Marketing Res. 44(2):214–223.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ding M, Grewal R, Liechty J (2005) Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. J. Marketing Res. 42(1):67–82.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ding M, Park YH, Bradlow ET (2009) Barter markets for conjoint analysis. Management Sci. 55(6):1003–1017.Link, Google Scholar
• Fang KT, Lin DKJ (2003) Uniform experimental design and its applications in industry. Rao CR, Khattree R, eds. Handbook of Statistics in Industry, Vol. 22 (North Holland, Amsterdam), 131–170.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fedorov VV, Hackl P (1997) Model-Oriented Design of Experiments (Springer Verlag, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilbride TJ, Allenby GM (2004) A choice model with conjunctive, disjunctive, and compensatory screening rules. Marketing Sci. 23(3):391–406.Link, Google Scholar
• Gilbride TJ, Allenby GM (2006) Estimating heterogeneous EBA and economic screening rule choice models. Marketing Sci. 25(5):494–509.Link, Google Scholar
• Green PE, Srinivasan V (1990) Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. J. Marketing 54(4):3–19.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haaijer R, Kamakura WA, Wedel M (2001) The no-choice alternative in conjoint choice experiments. Internat. J. Market Res. 43(1):93–106.Google Scholar
• Huber J, Zwerina K (1996) The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Marketing Res. 33(3):307–317.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson R, Huber J, Bacon L (2003) Adaptive choice-based conjoint designs. Sawtooth Software Conf. Proc. 333–343. http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/support/technical-papers/conference-proceedings.Google Scholar
• Johnson R, Orme B, Huber J, Pinnell J (2005) Testing adaptive choice-based conjoint designs. Technical paper, Sawtooth software. http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/acbc3.pdf.Google Scholar
• Kessels R, Goos P, Vandebroek M (2006) A comparison of criteria to design efficient choice experiments. J. Marketing Res. 43(3):409–419.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kessels R, Jones B, Goos P, Vanderbroek M (2009) An efficient algorithm for constructing Bayesian optimal choice designs. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 27(2):279–291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kiefer J (1974) General equivalence theory for optimum designs (approximate theory). Ann. Statist. 2(5):849–879.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuhfeld WF, Tobias R (2005) Large factorial designs for product engineering and marketing research applications. Technometrics 47(2):132–141.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuhfeld WF, Tobias RD, Garratt M (1994) Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J. Marketing Res. 31(4):545–557.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu Q, Arora N (2011) Efficient choice designs for a consider-then-choose model. Marketing Sci. 30(2):321–338.Link, Google Scholar
• Liu Q, Dean AM, Allenby GM (2012) Bayesian designs for hierarchical linear models. Statistica Sinica 22(1):393–417.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka P, ed. Frontiers in Econometrics (Academic Press, New York), 105–142.Google Scholar
• Meyer R, Nachtsheim C (1995) The coordinate-exchange algorithm for constructing exact optimal experimental designs. Technometrics 37(1):60–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Netzer O, Toubia O, Bradlow ET, Dahan E, Evgeniou T, Feinberg FM, Feit EMet al. (2008) Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement. Marketing Lett. 19(3–4):337–354.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newton M, Raftery A (1994) Approximate Bayesian inference with weighted likelihood bootstrap. J. Royal Statist. Soc. Series B 56(1):3–48.Google Scholar
• Pukelsheim F (1993) Optimal Design of Experiments (John Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Sándor Z, Wedel M (2001) Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers’ prior beliefs. J. Marketing Res. 38(4):430–444.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sándor Z, Wedel M (2002) Alternative construction in experimental choice designs for mixed logit models. Marketing Sci. 21(4):455–475.Link, Google Scholar
• Sándor Z, Wedel M (2005) Heterogeneous conjoint choice designs. J. Marketing Res. 42(2):210–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Silvey SD (1980) Optimal Design (Chapman and Hall, London).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Swait J, Adamowicz W (2001) The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: A latent class model of decision strategy switching. J. Consumer Res. 28(1):135–148.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Toubia O, Hauser JR (2007) On managerial efficiency for experimental designs. Marketing Sci. 26(6):851–858.Link, Google Scholar
• Toubia O, Hauser JR, Garcia R (2007) Probabilistic polyhedral methods for adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis: Theory and application. Marketing Sci. 26(5):596–610.Link, Google Scholar
• Toubia O, Hauser JR, Simester DI (2004) Polyhedral methods for adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis. J. Marketing Res. 41(1):116–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Toubia O, de Jong MG, Stieger D, Fueller J (2012) Measuring consumer preferences using conjoint poker. Marketing Sci. 31(1):138–156.Link, Google Scholar
• Wittink DR, Bergestuen T (1999) Forecasting with conjoint analysis. Armstrong JS, ed. Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners (Kluwer Academic, Norwell, MA), 147–167.Google Scholar
• Yang M, Stufken J (2009) Support points of locally optimal designs for nonlinear models with two parameters. Ann. Statist. 37(1):518–541.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yang M, Biedermann S, Tang E (2013) On optimal designs for nonlinear models: A general and efficient algorithm. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 108(504):1411–1420.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yu J, Goos P, Vandebroek M (2008) Model-robust design of conjoint choice experiments. Comm. Statist.: Simulation Comput. 37(8):1603–1621.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yu J, Goos P, Vanderbroek M (2009) Efficient conjoint choice designs in the presence of respondent heterogeneity. Marketing Sci. 28(1):122–135.Link, Google Scholar
• Zhou YD, Fang KT (2012) An efficient method for constructing uniform designs with large size. Comput. Statist. 28(3):1319–1331.Crossref, Google Scholar