SlideShare uma empresa Scribd logo
1 de 6
Baixar para ler offline
CONJOINT ANALYSIS July 2014 updated
Prepared by Michael Ling Page 1
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS
SAMPLE OF
CONJOINT PROCEDURE
Prepared by
Michael Ling
CONJOINT ANALYSIS July 2014 updated
Prepared by Michael Ling Page 2
PART 1
The questionnaire is designed based on a 2^3 fractional factorial design to compare the
main effects of four attributes – price, quality, gears, bike types – on consumer’s decision
making. Interaction effects are not to be considered here. The design matrix for the
questionnaire is as shown below. The respondents are asked to rank their purchase preferences
amongst the eight scenarios on a 15-point Likert scale that ranges from “Extremely likely to
buy” to “Extremely unlikely to buy”.
Price Quality Gears Bike Type
1 $600 (+1) High (+1) Yes (+1) Sports (+1)
2 $400 (-1) High (+1) Yes (+1) Sports (+1)
3 $600 (+1) Low (-1) Yes (+1) Regular (-1)
4 $400 (-1) Low (-1) Yes (+1) Regular (-1)
5 $600 (+1) High (+1) No (-1) Regular (-1)
6 $400 (-1) High (+1) No (-1) Regular (-1)
7 $600 (+1) Low (-1) No (-1) Sports (+1)
8 $400 (-1) Low (-1) No (-1) Sports (+1)
PART 2
The individual (Respondent #1) and the group responses of the experiment are listed in
Table 1. The coding scheme used for the four independent categorical variables in the
regression analysis is as shown below.
Code Price Quality Gears Bike Type
1 $600 High Yes Sports
-1 $400 Low No Regular
Individual Responses
CONJOINT ANALYSIS July 2014 updated
Prepared by Michael Ling Page 3
In the case of the individual, R2
is 1 because respondent #1 is the population (Table 2)
and hence the p-values are not relevant. Price (p < .001), Quality (p < .001) and Gears (p <
.001) are found to be statistically significant, whereas Bike Types is non-significant. The
regression equation is Rating = 8 - 5.5 * Price + 1.0 * Quality + 5.0 * Gears where the
regression coefficients of Price, Quality, Gears and Bike Type are -5.5, 1, 5 and 0 respectively
(Table 3). The standardized coefficients of Price, Quality, Gears and Bike Types are -.980, .178,
.089 and 0 respectively. The relative importance of the attributes can be found by comparing
their t values and, in the individual case, Price is the most important attribute as it has the largest
absolute t value, followed by Quality and Gears (Table 3). A review of the individual responses
(Table 1) supports that Price is the most important attribute as the four highest preference ratings
15, 14, 13 and 12 are accorded to the low price scenarios 2, 4, 6 and 8 respectively.
Consequently, the individual can be considered as a value buyer and his preference is in the
order of (i) low price and (ii) high quality.
Group Responses
In the case of the group, R2
is .535 which indicates that the regression model accounts for
53.5 percent of the variance (Table 4). The adjusted R2
is .482. The statistically significant
attributes are Price (p < .001) and Quality (p < .001) only. Gear and Bike Types are not
statistically significant (alpha at 0.05 level). The regression equation is Rating = 8.425 – 2.375
* Price + 2.075 * Quality where the regression coefficients of Price and Quality are -2.375 and
2.075 respectively (Table 5).
The p-values are used when inference needs to be made to a population from a sample.
As stated earlier, the p-values have no relevance in the individual case.
Comparing Individual and Group Effects
CONJOINT ANALYSIS July 2014 updated
Prepared by Michael Ling Page 4
In the case of the group, the standard coefficients of Price and Quality are BetaPrice = -
.532 and BetaQuality = .465 respectively. When compared against those in the individual case,
BetaPrice = -.98 and BetaQuality = .178, Price is relatively more important to the individual than the
group and Quality is relatively more important to the group than the individual. Price and
Quality are found to be significant in the individual and the group (all at p < .001). Gears is
found to be significant in the individual (p<.001) but not in the group. Bike Types is found to be
non-significant in both the individual and the group.
In the case of the individual, the regression equation is Rating = 8 - 5.5 * Price + 1.0 *
Quality + 5.0 * Gears. The incremental change of utility is ($600-$400)/11 = $18.18/unit. As a
result, the amount that the individual would pay for is as below:-
 An extra unit of Quality is 2*1*$18.18 = $36.36.
 An extra unit of Gears is 2*5*$18.18 =$181.8.
 An extra unit of Bike Types is $0 (non-significant).
In the case of the group, the regression equation is Rating = 8.425 – 2.375 * Price +
2.075 * Quality. The incremental change of utility is ($600-$400)/4.75 = $42.11/unit. As a
result, the amount that the group would pay for is as below:-
 An extra unit of Quality is 2*2.075*$42.11 = $174.74.
 An extra unit of Gears is $0 (non-significant).
 An extra unit of Gears is $0 (non-significant).
CONJOINT ANALYSIS July 2014 updated
Prepared by Michael Ling Page 5
Appendix
Table 1: Responses
Respondent 1
(Individual)
Respondent 2 Respondent 3 Respondent 4 Respondent 5
Q1 4.00 12.00 10.00 10.00 8.00
Q2 15.00 15.00 14.00 14.00 9.00
Q3 2.00 6.00 6.00 1.00 7.00
Q4 13.00 10.00 9.00 5.00 15.00
Q5 3.00 8.00 7.00 7.00 12.00
Q6 14.00 13.00 13.00 9.00 13.00
Q7 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 11.00
Q8 12.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 12.00
Table 2: Model Summary (Individual)
Model
R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 1.000a
1.000 1.000 .00000
a. Predictors: (Constant), BType, Gear, Quality, Price
Table 3: Coefficients (Individual)a
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 8.000 .000 5.937E8 .000
Price -5.500 .000 -.980 -4.082E8 .000
Quality 1.000 .000 .178 74211271.080 .000
Gear .500 .000 .089 37105635.540 .000
BType .000 .000 .000 .000 1.000
a. Dependent Variable: Responses
CONJOINT ANALYSIS July 2014 updated
Prepared by Michael Ling Page 6
Table 4: Model Summary (Group)
Model
R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .732a
.535 .482 3.25434
a. Predictors: (Constant), BType, Gear, Quality, Price
Table 5: Coefficients (Group)a
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 8.425 .515 16.373 .000
Price -2.375 .515 -.532 -4.616 .000
Quality 2.075 .515 .465 4.033 .000
Gear .825 .515 .185 1.603 .118
BType -.225 .515 -.050 -.437 .665
a. Dependent Variable: Responses

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais de Michael Ling

Social media governance and business
Social media governance and businessSocial media governance and business
Social media governance and business
Michael Ling
 
Increasing value of brand communities through employee participation
Increasing value of brand communities through employee participationIncreasing value of brand communities through employee participation
Increasing value of brand communities through employee participation
Michael Ling
 
MANOVA/ANOVA (July 2014 updated)
MANOVA/ANOVA (July 2014 updated)MANOVA/ANOVA (July 2014 updated)
MANOVA/ANOVA (July 2014 updated)
Michael Ling
 
FACTOR analysis (July 2014 updated)
FACTOR analysis (July 2014 updated)FACTOR analysis (July 2014 updated)
FACTOR analysis (July 2014 updated)
Michael Ling
 
Multiple Regression worked example (July 2014 updated)
Multiple Regression worked example (July 2014 updated)Multiple Regression worked example (July 2014 updated)
Multiple Regression worked example (July 2014 updated)
Michael Ling
 
MANOVA (July 2014 updated)
MANOVA (July 2014 updated)MANOVA (July 2014 updated)
MANOVA (July 2014 updated)
Michael Ling
 
A Graduate Guide to Work Culture
A Graduate Guide to Work CultureA Graduate Guide to Work Culture
A Graduate Guide to Work Culture
Michael Ling
 
Discontinuous Innovations (July 2014 updated)
Discontinuous Innovations (July 2014 updated)Discontinuous Innovations (July 2014 updated)
Discontinuous Innovations (July 2014 updated)
Michael Ling
 
Social Media - online communities
Social Media - online communitiesSocial Media - online communities
Social Media - online communities
Michael Ling
 
Social Media - Communal and consumption perspectives
Social Media - Communal and consumption perspectivesSocial Media - Communal and consumption perspectives
Social Media - Communal and consumption perspectives
Michael Ling
 

Mais de Michael Ling (19)

Social media governance and business
Social media governance and businessSocial media governance and business
Social media governance and business
 
Increasing value of brand communities through employee participation
Increasing value of brand communities through employee participationIncreasing value of brand communities through employee participation
Increasing value of brand communities through employee participation
 
Social media governance
Social media governanceSocial media governance
Social media governance
 
SERVQUAL Service Quality (July 2014 updated)
SERVQUAL Service Quality (July 2014 updated)SERVQUAL Service Quality (July 2014 updated)
SERVQUAL Service Quality (July 2014 updated)
 
Information Systems Continuance
Information Systems ContinuanceInformation Systems Continuance
Information Systems Continuance
 
MANOVA/ANOVA (July 2014 updated)
MANOVA/ANOVA (July 2014 updated)MANOVA/ANOVA (July 2014 updated)
MANOVA/ANOVA (July 2014 updated)
 
FACTOR analysis (July 2014 updated)
FACTOR analysis (July 2014 updated)FACTOR analysis (July 2014 updated)
FACTOR analysis (July 2014 updated)
 
Multiple Regression worked example (July 2014 updated)
Multiple Regression worked example (July 2014 updated)Multiple Regression worked example (July 2014 updated)
Multiple Regression worked example (July 2014 updated)
 
MANOVA (July 2014 updated)
MANOVA (July 2014 updated)MANOVA (July 2014 updated)
MANOVA (July 2014 updated)
 
A Graduate Guide to Work Culture
A Graduate Guide to Work CultureA Graduate Guide to Work Culture
A Graduate Guide to Work Culture
 
Free Choice
Free ChoiceFree Choice
Free Choice
 
Discontinuous Innovations (July 2014 updated)
Discontinuous Innovations (July 2014 updated)Discontinuous Innovations (July 2014 updated)
Discontinuous Innovations (July 2014 updated)
 
Disruptive Technologies (July 2014 updated)
Disruptive Technologies (July 2014 updated)Disruptive Technologies (July 2014 updated)
Disruptive Technologies (July 2014 updated)
 
Social Media - online communities
Social Media - online communitiesSocial Media - online communities
Social Media - online communities
 
Brand communities
Brand communitiesBrand communities
Brand communities
 
Marketing in Technology-Intensive Markets (July 2014 updated)
Marketing in Technology-Intensive Markets (July 2014 updated)Marketing in Technology-Intensive Markets (July 2014 updated)
Marketing in Technology-Intensive Markets (July 2014 updated)
 
Social Media - Communal and consumption perspectives
Social Media - Communal and consumption perspectivesSocial Media - Communal and consumption perspectives
Social Media - Communal and consumption perspectives
 
Website Strategy
Website StrategyWebsite Strategy
Website Strategy
 
Strategy - assessment template
Strategy - assessment templateStrategy - assessment template
Strategy - assessment template
 

Último

1029 - Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf
1029 -  Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf1029 -  Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf
1029 - Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf
QucHHunhnh
 
Russian Escort Service in Delhi 11k Hotel Foreigner Russian Call Girls in Delhi
Russian Escort Service in Delhi 11k Hotel Foreigner Russian Call Girls in DelhiRussian Escort Service in Delhi 11k Hotel Foreigner Russian Call Girls in Delhi
Russian Escort Service in Delhi 11k Hotel Foreigner Russian Call Girls in Delhi
kauryashika82
 

Último (20)

This PowerPoint helps students to consider the concept of infinity.
This PowerPoint helps students to consider the concept of infinity.This PowerPoint helps students to consider the concept of infinity.
This PowerPoint helps students to consider the concept of infinity.
 
Measures of Dispersion and Variability: Range, QD, AD and SD
Measures of Dispersion and Variability: Range, QD, AD and SDMeasures of Dispersion and Variability: Range, QD, AD and SD
Measures of Dispersion and Variability: Range, QD, AD and SD
 
Role Of Transgenic Animal In Target Validation-1.pptx
Role Of Transgenic Animal In Target Validation-1.pptxRole Of Transgenic Animal In Target Validation-1.pptx
Role Of Transgenic Animal In Target Validation-1.pptx
 
1029 - Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf
1029 -  Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf1029 -  Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf
1029 - Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf
 
General Principles of Intellectual Property: Concepts of Intellectual Proper...
General Principles of Intellectual Property: Concepts of Intellectual  Proper...General Principles of Intellectual Property: Concepts of Intellectual  Proper...
General Principles of Intellectual Property: Concepts of Intellectual Proper...
 
Measures of Central Tendency: Mean, Median and Mode
Measures of Central Tendency: Mean, Median and ModeMeasures of Central Tendency: Mean, Median and Mode
Measures of Central Tendency: Mean, Median and Mode
 
Nutritional Needs Presentation - HLTH 104
Nutritional Needs Presentation - HLTH 104Nutritional Needs Presentation - HLTH 104
Nutritional Needs Presentation - HLTH 104
 
Advanced Views - Calendar View in Odoo 17
Advanced Views - Calendar View in Odoo 17Advanced Views - Calendar View in Odoo 17
Advanced Views - Calendar View in Odoo 17
 
INDIA QUIZ 2024 RLAC DELHI UNIVERSITY.pptx
INDIA QUIZ 2024 RLAC DELHI UNIVERSITY.pptxINDIA QUIZ 2024 RLAC DELHI UNIVERSITY.pptx
INDIA QUIZ 2024 RLAC DELHI UNIVERSITY.pptx
 
Python Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docx
Python Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docxPython Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docx
Python Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docx
 
Russian Escort Service in Delhi 11k Hotel Foreigner Russian Call Girls in Delhi
Russian Escort Service in Delhi 11k Hotel Foreigner Russian Call Girls in DelhiRussian Escort Service in Delhi 11k Hotel Foreigner Russian Call Girls in Delhi
Russian Escort Service in Delhi 11k Hotel Foreigner Russian Call Girls in Delhi
 
Introduction to Nonprofit Accounting: The Basics
Introduction to Nonprofit Accounting: The BasicsIntroduction to Nonprofit Accounting: The Basics
Introduction to Nonprofit Accounting: The Basics
 
2024-NATIONAL-LEARNING-CAMP-AND-OTHER.pptx
2024-NATIONAL-LEARNING-CAMP-AND-OTHER.pptx2024-NATIONAL-LEARNING-CAMP-AND-OTHER.pptx
2024-NATIONAL-LEARNING-CAMP-AND-OTHER.pptx
 
Presentation by Andreas Schleicher Tackling the School Absenteeism Crisis 30 ...
Presentation by Andreas Schleicher Tackling the School Absenteeism Crisis 30 ...Presentation by Andreas Schleicher Tackling the School Absenteeism Crisis 30 ...
Presentation by Andreas Schleicher Tackling the School Absenteeism Crisis 30 ...
 
How to Give a Domain for a Field in Odoo 17
How to Give a Domain for a Field in Odoo 17How to Give a Domain for a Field in Odoo 17
How to Give a Domain for a Field in Odoo 17
 
Unit-V; Pricing (Pharma Marketing Management).pptx
Unit-V; Pricing (Pharma Marketing Management).pptxUnit-V; Pricing (Pharma Marketing Management).pptx
Unit-V; Pricing (Pharma Marketing Management).pptx
 
Mixin Classes in Odoo 17 How to Extend Models Using Mixin Classes
Mixin Classes in Odoo 17  How to Extend Models Using Mixin ClassesMixin Classes in Odoo 17  How to Extend Models Using Mixin Classes
Mixin Classes in Odoo 17 How to Extend Models Using Mixin Classes
 
Z Score,T Score, Percential Rank and Box Plot Graph
Z Score,T Score, Percential Rank and Box Plot GraphZ Score,T Score, Percential Rank and Box Plot Graph
Z Score,T Score, Percential Rank and Box Plot Graph
 
Class 11th Physics NEET formula sheet pdf
Class 11th Physics NEET formula sheet pdfClass 11th Physics NEET formula sheet pdf
Class 11th Physics NEET formula sheet pdf
 
Application orientated numerical on hev.ppt
Application orientated numerical on hev.pptApplication orientated numerical on hev.ppt
Application orientated numerical on hev.ppt
 

CONJOINT Analysis (July 2014 updated)

  • 1. CONJOINT ANALYSIS July 2014 updated Prepared by Michael Ling Page 1 QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS SAMPLE OF CONJOINT PROCEDURE Prepared by Michael Ling
  • 2. CONJOINT ANALYSIS July 2014 updated Prepared by Michael Ling Page 2 PART 1 The questionnaire is designed based on a 2^3 fractional factorial design to compare the main effects of four attributes – price, quality, gears, bike types – on consumer’s decision making. Interaction effects are not to be considered here. The design matrix for the questionnaire is as shown below. The respondents are asked to rank their purchase preferences amongst the eight scenarios on a 15-point Likert scale that ranges from “Extremely likely to buy” to “Extremely unlikely to buy”. Price Quality Gears Bike Type 1 $600 (+1) High (+1) Yes (+1) Sports (+1) 2 $400 (-1) High (+1) Yes (+1) Sports (+1) 3 $600 (+1) Low (-1) Yes (+1) Regular (-1) 4 $400 (-1) Low (-1) Yes (+1) Regular (-1) 5 $600 (+1) High (+1) No (-1) Regular (-1) 6 $400 (-1) High (+1) No (-1) Regular (-1) 7 $600 (+1) Low (-1) No (-1) Sports (+1) 8 $400 (-1) Low (-1) No (-1) Sports (+1) PART 2 The individual (Respondent #1) and the group responses of the experiment are listed in Table 1. The coding scheme used for the four independent categorical variables in the regression analysis is as shown below. Code Price Quality Gears Bike Type 1 $600 High Yes Sports -1 $400 Low No Regular Individual Responses
  • 3. CONJOINT ANALYSIS July 2014 updated Prepared by Michael Ling Page 3 In the case of the individual, R2 is 1 because respondent #1 is the population (Table 2) and hence the p-values are not relevant. Price (p < .001), Quality (p < .001) and Gears (p < .001) are found to be statistically significant, whereas Bike Types is non-significant. The regression equation is Rating = 8 - 5.5 * Price + 1.0 * Quality + 5.0 * Gears where the regression coefficients of Price, Quality, Gears and Bike Type are -5.5, 1, 5 and 0 respectively (Table 3). The standardized coefficients of Price, Quality, Gears and Bike Types are -.980, .178, .089 and 0 respectively. The relative importance of the attributes can be found by comparing their t values and, in the individual case, Price is the most important attribute as it has the largest absolute t value, followed by Quality and Gears (Table 3). A review of the individual responses (Table 1) supports that Price is the most important attribute as the four highest preference ratings 15, 14, 13 and 12 are accorded to the low price scenarios 2, 4, 6 and 8 respectively. Consequently, the individual can be considered as a value buyer and his preference is in the order of (i) low price and (ii) high quality. Group Responses In the case of the group, R2 is .535 which indicates that the regression model accounts for 53.5 percent of the variance (Table 4). The adjusted R2 is .482. The statistically significant attributes are Price (p < .001) and Quality (p < .001) only. Gear and Bike Types are not statistically significant (alpha at 0.05 level). The regression equation is Rating = 8.425 – 2.375 * Price + 2.075 * Quality where the regression coefficients of Price and Quality are -2.375 and 2.075 respectively (Table 5). The p-values are used when inference needs to be made to a population from a sample. As stated earlier, the p-values have no relevance in the individual case. Comparing Individual and Group Effects
  • 4. CONJOINT ANALYSIS July 2014 updated Prepared by Michael Ling Page 4 In the case of the group, the standard coefficients of Price and Quality are BetaPrice = - .532 and BetaQuality = .465 respectively. When compared against those in the individual case, BetaPrice = -.98 and BetaQuality = .178, Price is relatively more important to the individual than the group and Quality is relatively more important to the group than the individual. Price and Quality are found to be significant in the individual and the group (all at p < .001). Gears is found to be significant in the individual (p<.001) but not in the group. Bike Types is found to be non-significant in both the individual and the group. In the case of the individual, the regression equation is Rating = 8 - 5.5 * Price + 1.0 * Quality + 5.0 * Gears. The incremental change of utility is ($600-$400)/11 = $18.18/unit. As a result, the amount that the individual would pay for is as below:-  An extra unit of Quality is 2*1*$18.18 = $36.36.  An extra unit of Gears is 2*5*$18.18 =$181.8.  An extra unit of Bike Types is $0 (non-significant). In the case of the group, the regression equation is Rating = 8.425 – 2.375 * Price + 2.075 * Quality. The incremental change of utility is ($600-$400)/4.75 = $42.11/unit. As a result, the amount that the group would pay for is as below:-  An extra unit of Quality is 2*2.075*$42.11 = $174.74.  An extra unit of Gears is $0 (non-significant).  An extra unit of Gears is $0 (non-significant).
  • 5. CONJOINT ANALYSIS July 2014 updated Prepared by Michael Ling Page 5 Appendix Table 1: Responses Respondent 1 (Individual) Respondent 2 Respondent 3 Respondent 4 Respondent 5 Q1 4.00 12.00 10.00 10.00 8.00 Q2 15.00 15.00 14.00 14.00 9.00 Q3 2.00 6.00 6.00 1.00 7.00 Q4 13.00 10.00 9.00 5.00 15.00 Q5 3.00 8.00 7.00 7.00 12.00 Q6 14.00 13.00 13.00 9.00 13.00 Q7 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 11.00 Q8 12.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 12.00 Table 2: Model Summary (Individual) Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 1.000a 1.000 1.000 .00000 a. Predictors: (Constant), BType, Gear, Quality, Price Table 3: Coefficients (Individual)a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 8.000 .000 5.937E8 .000 Price -5.500 .000 -.980 -4.082E8 .000 Quality 1.000 .000 .178 74211271.080 .000 Gear .500 .000 .089 37105635.540 .000 BType .000 .000 .000 .000 1.000 a. Dependent Variable: Responses
  • 6. CONJOINT ANALYSIS July 2014 updated Prepared by Michael Ling Page 6 Table 4: Model Summary (Group) Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .732a .535 .482 3.25434 a. Predictors: (Constant), BType, Gear, Quality, Price Table 5: Coefficients (Group)a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 8.425 .515 16.373 .000 Price -2.375 .515 -.532 -4.616 .000 Quality 2.075 .515 .465 4.033 .000 Gear .825 .515 .185 1.603 .118 BType -.225 .515 -.050 -.437 .665 a. Dependent Variable: Responses