Unstructured Direct Elicitation of Decision Rules

被引:26
作者
Ding, Min [1 ]
Hauser, John R. [2 ]
Dong, Songting [3 ]
Dzyabura, Daria [2 ]
Yang, Zhilin [4 ]
Su, Chenting [4 ]
Gaskin, Steven P.
机构
[1] Penn State Univ, Smeal Coll Business, University Pk, PA 16802 USA
[2] MIT, MIT Sloan Sch Management, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
[3] Australian Natl Univ, Res Sch Business, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
[4] City Univ Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
关键词
decision rules; consideration sets; direct elicitation; incentive alignment; product development; CONJOINT-ANALYSIS; CHOICE MODELS; POLYHEDRAL METHODS; SELF-EXPLICATION; PREFERENCE; VALIDITY; RELIABILITY; HYBRID; ALTERNATIVES; ATTRIBUTES;
D O I
10.1509/jmkr.48.1.116
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
The authors investigate the feasibility of unstructured direct elicitation (UDE) of decision rules consumers use to form consideration sets. They incorporate incentives into the tested formats that prompt respondents to state noncompensatory, compensatory, or mixed rules for agents who will select a product for the respondents. In a mobile phone study, two validation tasks prompt respondents to indicate which of 32 mobile phones they would consider from a fractional design of features and levels. The authors find that UDE predicts consideration sets better, across both profiles and respondents, than a structured direct-elicitation method. It predicts comparably to established incentive-aligned compensatory, noncompensatory, and mixed decompositional methods. In a more complex automotive study, noncompensatory decomposition is not feasible and additive-utility decomposition is strained, but UDE scales well. The authors align incentives for all methods using prize indemnity insurance to award a chance at $40,000 for an automobile plus cash. They conclude that UDE predicts consideration sets better than either an additive decomposition or an established structured direct-elicitation method (CASEMAP).
引用
收藏
页码:116 / 127
页数:12
相关论文
共 69 条
[1]   AN EMPIRICAL-COMPARISON OF THE PREDICTIVE-VALIDITY OF SELF-EXPLICATED, HUBER-HYBRID, TRADITIONAL CONJOINT, AND HYBRID CONJOINT MODELS [J].
AKAAH, IP ;
KORGAONKAR, PK .
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, 1983, 20 (02) :187-197
[2]  
[Anonymous], INFORM SCORING CONJO
[3]  
[Anonymous], HDB NEW PRODUCT DEV
[4]  
Bateson JE., 1987, REVIEWOF MARKETING, P451
[5]   MEASURING UTILITY BY A SINGLE-RESPONSE SEQUENTIAL METHOD [J].
BECKER, GM ;
DEGROOT, MH ;
MARSCHAK, J .
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, 1964, 9 (03) :226-232
[6]   Logical analysis of numerical data [J].
Boros, E ;
Hammer, PL ;
Ibaraki, T ;
Kogan, A .
MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING, 1997, 79 (1-3) :163-190
[7]   Assessing the empirical validity of the "Take-The-Best' heuristic as a model of human probabilistic inference [J].
Bröder, A .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION, 2000, 26 (05) :1332-1346
[8]  
Brown Juanita., 1992, J ACAD MARKET SCI, V20, P235
[9]   Bayesian experimental design: A review [J].
Chaloner, K ;
Verdinelli, I .
STATISTICAL SCIENCE, 1995, 10 (03) :273-304
[10]   Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis [J].
Ding, M ;
Grewal, R ;
Liechty, J .
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, 2005, 42 (01) :67-82