Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experimental analysis of choice

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Our paper reviews and summarizes the state-of-the-art in the design and analysis of consumer choice experiments. We emphasize experiments involving discrete choices, but also review related work on the design and analysis of ranking and resource allocation experiments. Major topics include 1) Choice experiments and conjoint analysis, 2) Random utility and constant utility probabilistic discrete choice models as a theoretical foundation for choice experiments, and 3) The design of choice experiments. Other topics include a) Experimental procedure, b) Model specification, c) Model estimation, and d) Model validation. Suggestions for future research are made with respect to each topic.

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

  • Anderson, N. H. (1981).Foundations of Information Integration Theory. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • AndersonN. H. (1982).Methods of Information Integration. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • BatsellR. R. (1980). “Consumer Resource Allocation Models at the Individual Level”,Journal of Consumer Research 7, 78–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BatsellR. R., and L.Lodish (1981). “A Model and Measurement Methodology for Predicting Individual Consumer Choice”,Journal of Marketing Research 18, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BatsellR. R., and J. C.Polking (1985). “A Generalized Model of Market Share”,Marketing Science 4, 177–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • BechtelG. G. (1990). “Share-Ratio Estimation of the Nested Multinomial Logit Model”,Journal of Marketing Research 27, 232–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-AkivaM., and S. R.Lerman. (1985).Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M., and T. Morikawa. (1991). “Estimation of Switching Models From Revealed Preferences and Stated Intentions”,Transportation Research B forthcoming.

  • Ben-Akiva, M., T. Morikawa, and F. Shiroishi. (1990). “Analysis of the Reliability of Preference Ranking Data”, In Louviere, J. J. (Ed)Journal of Business Research: Special Issue on Experimental Choice Analysis Forthcoming.

  • BerkumvanE. E. M. (1987).Optimal Paired Comparison Designs For Factorial Experiments CWI Tract 31. Amsterdam: Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica.

    Google Scholar 

  • BishopY. M. M., S. E.Feinberg, and P. W.Holland. (1975).Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • BunchD. S., and R. R.Batsell. (1989). “A Monte Carlo Comparison of Estimators for the Multinomial Logic Model”,Journal of Marketing Research 26, 56–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CarpenterG. S., L. G.Cooper, D. M.Haansens, and D. F.Midgley. (1988). “Modeling Asymmetric Competition”,Marketing Science 7, 4, 393–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • ChapmanR. G. (1984). “An Approach to Estimating Logit Models of a Single Decision Maker's Choice Behavior”,Advances in Consumer Research 11, 656–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • ChapmanR. G., and R.Staelin. (1982). “Exploiting Rank Ordered Choice Set Data Within the Stochastic Utility Model”,Journal of Marketing Research 19, 288–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty, G., G. G. Woodworth, G. J. Gaeth, and R. Ettenson. (1991). “A Procedure to Screen for Interactions Between Design Factors and Demographics in Choice-Based Conjoint”, In Louviere, J. J. (Ed),Journal of Business Research: Special Issue on Experimental Choice Analysis Forthcoming.

  • Daly, A. J., and S. Zachary. (1975). “Commuters' Values of Time”,Local Government O.R. Unit Report T55, London, January. (House Studies).

  • Elrod, T., J. J. Louviere, and S. K. Davey. (1989). “How Well Can Conjoint Analysis Predict Choices From Efficient Sets?”, Paper presented to the Annual TIMS Marketing Science Conference, Duke University, Durham, NC, March.

  • GreenP. E., and V.Rao. (1971). “Conjoint Measurement For Quantifying Judgmental Data”,Journal of Marketing Research 8, 355–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GreenP. E., and V.Srinivasan. (1990). “Conjoint Analysis in Marketing Research: New Developments and Directions”,Journal of Marketing 54, 4, 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GreenP. E., J. D.Carroll, and W. S.DeSarbo. (1981). “Estimating Choice Probabilities in Multiattribute Decision Making”,Journal of Consumer Research 8, 76–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HaggertyM. R. (1985). “Improving the Predictive Power of Conjoint Analysis: The Use of Factor Analysis and Cluster Analysis”,Journal of Marketing Research 22, 168–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, J. L., and J. J. Louviere. (1990). “Testing Predicted Choices Against Observations In Probabilistic Discrete Choice Models”, Paper presented to the TIMS Marketing Science Conference, Urbana, IL, March.

  • Jennrich, R. I., and R. H. Moore. (1975). “Maximum Likelihood Estimation By Means of Nonlinear Least Squares”,Proceedings, Statistical Computing Section, American Statistical Association, 57–65.

  • JohnsonE. J., R. J.Meyer, and S.Ghosh. (1989). “When Choice Models Fail: Compensatory Models in Negatively Correlated Environments”,Journal of Marketing Research 26, 255–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KaciakE., and J. J.Louviere. (1990). “Multiple Correspondence Analysis of Multiple Choice Data”,Journal of Marketing Research 27, 455–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KeeneyR. L., and H.Raiffa. (1976).Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • KrantzD. H., and A.Tversky. (1971). “Conjoint Measurement Analysis of Composition Rules in Psychology”,Psychological Review 78, 151–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakshmi-Ratan, R. A., S. G. Lanning, and J. A. Rotondo. (1991). “An Aggregate Contextual Choice Model for Estimating Demand for New Products from a Laboratory Experiment”, In Louviere, J. J. (Ed)Journal of Business Research: Special Issue on Experimental Choice Analysis, Forthcoming.

  • LevinI. P., J. J.Louviere, A.Schepanski, and K. L.Norman. (1983). “External Validity of Laboratory Studies of Information Integration”,Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 31, 173–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LouviereJ. J. (1974). “Predicting the Evaluation of Real Stimulus Objects from an Abstract Evaluation of Their Attributes: The Case of Trout Streams”,Journal of Applied Psychology 59, 572–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • LouviereJ. J. (1984). “Using Discrete Choice Experiments and Multinomial Logit Choice Models To Forecast Trial in a Competitive Retail Environment: A Fast Foot Restaurant Illustration”,Journal of Retailing 60, 81–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • LouviereJ. J. (1986). “A Conjoint Model for Analyzing New Product Positions in a Differentiated Market with Price Competition”,Advances in Consumer Research 13, 376–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • LouviereJordan J. (1988a). “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 

  • LouviereJordan J. (1988b).Analyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences No. 67, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • LouviereJordan J., and George G.Woodworth. (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 

  • LouviereJ. J., and G. G.Woodworth. (1986). “On The Design and Analysis of Correlated Conjoint Experiments Using Difference Designs”, In M. J.Houston (Ed)Advances in Consumer Research 15, 510–517, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • LouviereJ. J., and G. J.Gaeth. (1988). “Comparing Rating and Choice Responses in Conjoint Tasks”,Proceedings, Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis and Computerized Interviewing. Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. J., and H. Timmermans. (1991). “Stated Preference Models Applied to Recreation Research and Planning”,Leisure Science, forthcoming.

  • Louviere, J. J., L. L. Beavers, K. L. Norman, and F. Stetzer. (1972). “Theory, Methodology and Findings in Mode Choice Behavior”,Working Paper No. 11, Institute of Urban and Regional Research, University of Iowa, July.

  • LuceR. D. 1959.Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • LuceR. D., and J. W.Tukey. (1964). “Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement”,Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1, 1–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MahajanV., P. E.Green, and S. M.Goldberg. 1982. A conjoint model for measuring self- and cross-price/demand relationships.Journal of Marketing Research 19: 334–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ManskiC. (1977). “The Structure of Random Utility Models”,Theory And Decision 8, 229–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFaddenDaniel. (1974). “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior, inFrontiers in Econometrics, P.Zarembka (Ed.), New York: Academic Press, 105–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFaddenD. (1975). “On Independence, Structure and Simultaneity in Transportation Demand Analysis”,Working Paper No. 7511, Urban Travel Demand Forecasting Project, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messinger, P. (1991). “A Specification Test Using Graded Comparison Data”, In Louviere, J. J. (Ed),Journal of Business Research: Special Issue on Experimental Choice Analysis, Forthcoming.

  • MooreW. L., and D. R.Lehmann. (1989). “A Paired Comparison Nested Logit Model of Individual Preference Structures”,Journal of Marketing Research 26, 420–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NakanishiM., and L. G.Cooper. (1974). “Parameter Estimation for a Multiplicative Competitive Interaction Model—Least Squares A”,Journal of Marketing Research 11: 303–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NakanishiM., and L. G.Cooper. (1982). “Simplified Estimation Procedures for MCI Models”,Marketing Science 1: 314–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RestleF. (1961).Psychology of Judgment and Choice: A Theoretical Essay. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swait, J. D., and J. J. Louviere. (1991). “The Role of the Scale Parameter In The Estimation and Use of Generalized Extreme Value Models”, Paper presented to the TIMS Marketing Science Conference, Wilmington, DL, March.

  • ThurstoneL. L. (1929). “A Law of Comparative Judgement”,Psychological Review 34, 273–286

    Google Scholar 

  • TimmermansH. J. P., and J. J.Louviere. (1990). “A Review of Recent Advances in Decompositional Preferences and Choice Models”,Journals of Economic and Social Geography 3, 214–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, J. B., and D. A. Anderson. (1990). “On The Design of Efficient Choice Set Experiments to Estimate Competing Effects Models”, Paper presented to the TIMS Marketing Science Conference, Urbana, IL (March).

  • Woodworth, George G., and Louviere, Jordan J. (1984). “An Approach To Estimating the Parameters of Large Multinomial Logit Models”, Paper presented to the TIMS Marketing Science Meetings, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN (March).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rice University, Houston, USA

    Richard R. Batsell

  2. Faculty of Business #3-23, University of Alberta, T6G 2R6, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    Jordan J. Louviere

Authors
  1. Richard R. Batsell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jordan J. Louviere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This paper was prepared with the assistance of other workshop participants, who contributed discussion papers prior to the Banff Symposium and commented on drafts of this manuscript. Remaining omissions or commissions are the responsibility of the authors, and not the other participants. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Don Anderson (University of Wyoming), Andrew Daly (The Hague Consulting Group), Tom Eagle (Decision Research Corp.), Charan Jagpol (Rutgers University), Steven Lanning (AT&T Bell Labs), Paul Messinger (Washington University), Harmen Oppewal (Technical University of Eindhoven), Harry Timmermans (Technical University of Eidhoven and University of Alberta), John White (Decision Research Corp.), and Colleen Collins-Dodd (Workshop recorder, University of Alberta).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Batsell, R.R., Louviere, J.J. Experimental analysis of choice. Market Lett 2, 199–214 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02404072

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02404072

Key words

Search

Navigation