Jane tang advances in quant - 2011

A Presenta*on from The NewMR “Advances in Quan*ta*ve Research” Event

19 September, 2012

Event sponsored by Affinnova All copyright owned by The Future Place and the presenters of the material

For more informa=on about Affinnova visit www.affinnova.com For more informa=on about NewMR events visit newmr.org

Malleable Conjoint Partworths: How the Breadth of Response Scales Alters Price Sensi=vity Jane Tang, Vision Cri/cal

Speaker Jane Tang, Vision Critical, Canada NewMR Advances in Quantitative Research Event, 19 September 2012, Session 2

Conditioning via Broad versus Narrow Categories:

How the Breadth of Response Scales

Alters Price Sensitivity

Jane Tang Advanced Analytics

Vision Critical


Respondents are often asked other questions before the conjoint exercise begin (e.g. screening criteria, demographic questions, current product usage, etc...) The response categories used in the questions before a conjoint task provide conditioning and affect choices made in the conjoint section, altering respondents’ price sensitivity.


Broad Narrow Under 18 years old Under 18 years old

18 to 34 18 to 24 35 to 54 25 to 29

55 or older 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 69 70 to 74 75 to 79 80 or older


•  AMITAV CHAKRAVARTI – London School of Economics •  VICKI G. MORWITZ – New York University •  GÜLDEN ÜLKÜMEN - University of Southern California

•  AMITAV CHAKRAVARTI – London School of Economics •  VICKI G. MORWITZ – New York University •  GÜLDEN ÜLKÜMEN - University of Southern California

“Categories Create Mindsets: The Effect of Exposure to Broad versus Narrow Categorizations

on Subsequent, Unrelated Decisions,”

Journal of Marketing Research, 2010


•  Scale type used in decision context #1

Basic Premise

Decision context #2 – Subsequent and unrelated – Judgments and decisions

Broad Scale Narrow Scale


Decision Context #1: Manipulation

Broad Scales Narrow Scales


8

Study 1: Effects on Object Sorting


9

Number of Categories


Study 2: Category Inclusion Task

•  Continuum of Chinese-Western European faces

10

Check the appropriate buTon a)  This is a Chinese face b)  I am not sure

Results –  Those who responded on Broad scales accepted a greater number of faces to be

Chinese before expressing their uncertainty than did those who responded on Narrow scales (MBROAD = 3.33, MNARROW = 2.53)


Overview of Findings

11

Grouping Task (Study 1) Few, large groups Many, small groups

Categoriza*on Task (Study 2) Lenient inclusion criterion Stricter inclusion criterion

General Findings

Survey Scale

Changes in Informa=on Processing Style

Broad Narrow

Lenient & less careful less conceptual complexity few, salient dimensions

Cri=cal & careful more conceptual complexity mul=ple, salient & non-‐salient


Survey Scale

Changes in Informa=on Processing Style

Broad Narrow

Lenient & less careful less conceptual complexity few, salient dimensions

Cri=cal & careful more conceptual complexity mul=ple, salient & non-‐salient

Conjoint Study Focusing on fewer product

features

More Price Sensi*ve

Focusing on more product features

Less Price Sensi*ve


13

•  Screening questions: –  Decision maker, gender, age, occupation, devices inventory (own & plan

to buy) •  Mobile device usage:

–  Frequency of usage of devices own/plan to buy •  Introduction to Mobile Internet Device (MID) concept •  Evaluation of the concept:

–  Overall appeal and impressions. •  Introduction to conjoint:

–  Education about the features •  CBC exercise •  Profiling questions:

–  Game playing, Attitudes toward technology, (open-end) thoughts about the survey.

Questionnaire Flow


14

Scale Manipulation: Broad vs. Fine

•  The number of response categories in each of the cells were as follows:

# of response categories Broad Narrow

Age 4 14

Occupation 4 39

Devices own/plan to buy 8 20

Frequency of usage of the device 4 10

Evaluation of Product concept 3 10


15

The CBC exercise


16

Relative Importance of Factors

Rela*ve Importance of

Factors

Broad Condi*on

Narrow Condi*on t = p =

Connec*vity 24% 24% 0.08 0.94

Internet Browsing 14% 17% 2.90 <0.01

eMail 7% 5% -‐2.00 0.05

GPS 2% 3% 2.54 0.01

Phone 13% 18% 3.19 <0.01

Storage 5% 4% -‐1.83 0.07

Price 35% 29% -‐2.24 0.03


17

Price Elasticity

Broad Narrow

$99 18% 21% $499 5% 8%

Price Elas*city -‐0.87 -‐0.67 Difference -‐0.2

SD 0.07 t= -‐2.78

p-‐value 0.006


The conditioning respondents receive before the conjoint task (via the nature of the response categories) matters.

Can we strategically make use of this conditioning to make respondents/consumers pay more or less attention to certain types of information?


Jane Tang Vision Critical

Thank you

Jane.Tang@visioncri=cal.com


Q & A

Jane Tang Vision Critical

Ray Poynter VCU, Vision Critical


Jane Tang

Read Jane’s blog @ hTp://vcu.visioncri=cal.com/blog/

Jane.Tang@visioncri=cal.com

Please write to me to for the full working paper

A Presenta*on from The NewMR “Advances in Quan*ta*ve Research” Event

19 September, 2012

Event sponsored by Affinnova All copyright owned by The Future Place and the presenters of the material

For more informa=on about Affinnova visit www.affinnova.com For more informa=on about NewMR events visit newmr.org

Malleable Conjoint Partworths: How the Breadth of Response Scales Alters Price Sensi=vity Jane Tang, Vision Cri/cal