0
Research Papers: Design Automation

Experiential Conjoint Analysis: An Experience-Based Method for Eliciting, Capturing, and Modeling Consumer Preference

[+] Author and Article Information
Noah Tovares

Mem. ASME
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Carnegie Mellon University,
5000 Forbes Avenue,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
e-mail: ntovares@cmu.edu

Peter Boatwright

Tepper School of Business,
Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
e-mail: pbhb@andrew.cmu.edu

Jonathan Cagan

Mem. ASME
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Carnegie Mellon University,
5000 Forbes Avenue,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
e-mail: cagan@cmu.edu

Contributed by the Design Automation Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received October 19, 2013; final manuscript received June 24, 2014; published online July 31, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Bernard Yannou.

J. Mech. Des 136(10), 101404 (Jul 31, 2014) (12 pages) Paper No: MD-13-1473; doi: 10.1115/1.4027985 History: Received October 19, 2013; Revised June 24, 2014

Traditionally, consumer preference is modeled in terms of preference for the aesthetic and functional features of a product. This paper introduces a new means to model consumer preference that accounts for not only for how a product looks and functions but also how it feels to interact with it. Traditional conjoint-based approaches to preference modeling require a participant to judge preference for a product based upon a static 2D visual representation or a feature list. While the aesthetic forms and functional features of a product are certainly important, the decision to buy or not to buy a product often depends on more, namely, the experience or feel of use. To address the importance of the product experience, we introduce the concept of experiential conjoint analysis, a method to mathematically capture preference for a product through experience-based (experiential) preference judgments. Experiential preference judgments are made based upon the use, or simulated use, of a product. For many products, creating enough physical prototypes to generate a preference model is cost prohibitive. In this work, virtual reality (VR) technologies are used to allow the participant an interactive virtual product experience, provided at little investment. The results of this work show that providing additional interaction-based (interactional) information about a product through a product experience does not affect the predictive ability of the resulting preference models. This work additionally demonstrates that the preference judgments of virtual product representations are more similar to preference judgments of real products than preference judgments of 2D product representations are. When examining similarity of modeled preference, experiential conjoint is found to be superior to visual conjoint with respect to mean absolute error (MAE), but with respect to correlation no significant difference between visual and experiential is found.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Topics: Preferences , Design
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Creusen, M., and Schoormans, J., 2004, “The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice,” J. Prod. Innov. Manag., 22(1), pp. 63–81. [CrossRef]
Orsborn, S., Cagan, J., and Boatwright, P., 2009, “Quantifying Aesthetic Form Preference in a Utility Function,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 131(6), pp. 1–10. [CrossRef]
Tseng, I., Cagan, J., and Kotovsky, K., 2011, “Learning Stylistic Desires and Generating Preferred Designs of Consumers Using Neural Networks and Genetic Algorithms,” ASME Paper No. DETC2011-48642. [CrossRef]
Reid, T. N., Gonzalez, R. D., and Papalambros, P. Y., 2010, “Quantification of Perceived Environmental Friendliness for Vehicle Silhouette Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 132(10), pp. 1–10. [CrossRef]
Kelly, J., and Papalambros, P., 2007, “Use of Shape Preference Information in Product Design,” International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris, France, Vol. 7, pp. 1–11.
Desmet, P., and Hekkert, P., 2007, “Framework of Product Experience,” Int. J. Des., 1(1), pp. 1–7.
Arthur, E. J., Hancock, P. A., and Chrysler, S. T., 1997, “The Perception of Spatial Layout in Real and Virtual Worlds,” Ergonomics, 40(1), pp. 69–77. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Henry, D., and Furness, T., 1993, “Spatial Perception in Virtual Environments: Evaluating an Architectural Application,” Virtual Reality Annual International Symposum, Seattle, WA, pp. 1–107. [CrossRef]
Green, P., and Wind, Y., 1975, “New Way to Measure Consumers' Judgement,” Harvard Business Review, July/August, pp. 107–117.
Green, P., 1974, “On the Design of Choice Experiments Involving Multifactor Alternatives,” J. Consum. Res., 1(2), pp. 61–68. [CrossRef]
Luce, R., and Tukey, J., 1964, “Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement,” J. Math. Psychol., 1(1), pp. 1–27. [CrossRef]
Sylcott, B., Cagan, J., and Tabibnia, G., 2013, “Understanding Consumer Tradeoffs Between Form and Function Through Metaconjoint and Cognitive Neuroscience Analyses,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 135(10), p. 101002. [CrossRef]
Reid, T., Gonzalez, R., and Papalambros, P., 2009, “A Methodology for Quantifying the Perceived Environmental Friendliness of Vehicle Silhouettes in Engineering Design,” ASME Paper No. DETC2009-97095. [CrossRef]
Tovares, N., Cagan, J., and Boatwright, P., 2013, “Capturing Consumer Preference Through Experiential Conjoint Analysis,” ASME Paper No. DETC2013-12549. [CrossRef]
Gurnani, A., and Lewis, K., 2005, “Robust Multiattribute Decision Making Under Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Design,” Eng. Optim., 37(8), pp. 813–830. [CrossRef]
Ferguson, S., Kasprzak, E., and Lewis, K., 2008, “Designing a Family of Reconfigurable Vehicles Using Multilevel Multidisciplinary Design Optimization,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 39(2), pp. 171–186. [CrossRef]
Li, H., and Azarm, S., 2002, “An Approach for Product Line Design Selection Under Uncertainty and Competition,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 124(3), pp. 385–392. [CrossRef]
Maddulapalli, A. K., and Azarm, S., 2006, “Product Design Selection With Preference and Attribute Variability for an Implicit Value Function,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 128(5), pp. 1027–1037. [CrossRef]
Ahlberg, G., Heikkinen, T., Iselius, L., Leijonmarck, C.-E., Rutqvist, J., and Arvidsson, D., 2002, “Does Training in a Virtual Reality Simulator Improve Surgical Performance?,” Surg. Endosc., 16(1), pp. 126–129. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Aoki, H., Oman, C. M., Buckland, D. A., and Natapoff, A., 2008, “Desktop-VR System for Preflight 3D Navigation Training,” Acta Astronaut., 63(7–10), pp. 841–847. [CrossRef]
Lapointe, J., and Robert, J., 2000, “Using VR for Efficient Training of Forestry Machine Operators,” Educ. Inf. Technol., 5(4), pp. 237–250. [CrossRef]
Rizzo, A., Morie, J., Williams, J., Pair, J., and Buckwalter, J., 2005, “Human Emotional State and its Relevance for Military VR Training,” Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction, Las Vegas, NV, pp. 1–10.
Seymour, N. E., 2008, “VR to OR: A Review of the Evidence That Virtual Reality Simulation Improves Operating Room Performance,” World J. Surg., 32(2), pp. 182–188. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ulicny, B., and Thalmann, D., 2001, “Crowd Simulation for Interactive Virtual Environments and VR Training Systems,” Proceedings of the Eurographic Workshop on Computer Animation and Simulation, pp. 163–170.
Xiaoling, W., Peng, Z., Zhifang, W., and Yan, S., 2004, “Development an Interactive VR Training for CNC Machining,” Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGGRAPH International Conference on Virtual Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry, New York, NY, pp. 131–133. [CrossRef]
Bowman, D., and McMahan, R., 2007, “Virtual Reality: How Much Immersion is Enough?,” Computer (Long Beach, CA), 41(7), pp. 36–43. [CrossRef]
Liu, L., and Van Liere, R., 2009, “Comparing Aimed Movements in the Real World and in Virtual Reality,” IEEE Virtual Reality, Lafayette, LA, pp. 219–222. [CrossRef]
Reuding, T., and Meil, P., 2004, “Predictive Value of Assessing Vehicle Interior Design Ergonomics in a Virtual Environment,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 4(2), pp. 109–113. [CrossRef]
Ahmed, F., and Cohen, J., 2010, “Influence of Tactile Feedback and Presence on Egocentric Distance Perception in Virtual Environments,” IEEE Virtual Reality, Waltham, MA, pp. 195–202. [CrossRef]
Söderman, M., 2005, “Virtual Reality in Product Evaluations With Potential Customers: An Exploratory Study Comparing Virtual Reality With Conventional Product Representations,” J. Eng. Des., 16(3), pp. 311–328. [CrossRef]
Artacho-Ramírez, M. A., Diego-Mas, J. A., and Alcaide-Marzal, J., 2008, “Influence of the Mode of Graphical Representation on the Perception of Product Aesthetic and Emotional Features: An Exploratory Study,” Int. J. Ind. Ergon., 38(11–12), pp. 942–952. [CrossRef]
Slater, M., Khanna, P., Mortensen, J., and Yu, I., 2009, “Virtual Realism Enhances Realistic Responses in an Immersive Virtual Environment,” IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl., 29(3), pp. 76–84. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bryson, S. T., 1993, “Effects of Lag and Frame Rate on Various Tracking Tasks,” Proc. SPIE, 1915, pp. 155–166. [CrossRef]
Ware, C., and Balakrishnan, R., 1994, “Reaching for Objects in VR Displays: Lag and Frame Rate,” ACM Trans. Comput. Interact., 1(4), pp. 331–356. [CrossRef]
Berneburg, A., 2007, “Interactive 3-D Simulations in Measuring Consumer Preferences: Friend or Foe to Test Results?,” J. Interact. Advert., 8(1), pp. 1–13. [CrossRef]
Dijkstra, J., Leeuwen, J. Van, and Timmermans, H., 2003, “Evaluating Design Alternatives Using Conjoint Experiments in Virual Reality,” Environ. Plan. B, Plan. Des., 30(3), pp. 357–367. [CrossRef]
Dijkstra, J., Roelen, W. A. H., and Timmermans, H. J. P., 1996, “Conjoint Measurement in Virtual Environments: A Framework,” Proceedings of 3rd Design and Decision Support Systems in Architecture and Urban Planning Conference, Vol. 1, pp. 1–13.
Orzechowski, M. A., Arentze, T. A., Borgers, A. W. J., and Timmermans, H. J. P., 2005, “Alternate Methods of Conjoint Analysis for Estimating Housing Preference Functions: Effects of Presentation Style,” J. Hous. Built Environ., 20(4), pp. 349–362. [CrossRef]
Kuhfeld, W., Tobias, R., and Garratt, M., 1994, “Efficient Experimental Design With Marketing Research Applications,” J. Mark. Res., 31(4), pp. 545–557. [CrossRef]
Swamy, S., Orsborn, S., Michalek, J., and Cagan, J., 2007, “Measurement of Headlight Form Preference Using a Choice Based Conjoint Analysis,” ASME Paper No. DETC2007-35409. [CrossRef]
Reid, T., MacDonald, E., and Du, P., 2012, “Impact of Product Design Representation on Customer Judgment With Associated Eye Gaze Patterns,” ASME Paper No. DETC2012-70734. [CrossRef]
Kuhfeld, W. F., 2010, “Experimental Design: Efficiency, Coding, and Choice Designs,” SAS Tech. Pap., MR-2010C, pp. 53–241.
Ariely, D., 2000, “Controlling the Information Flow: Effects on Consumers' Decision Making and Preferences,” J. Consum. Res., 27(2), pp. 233–248. [CrossRef]
Malhotra, N., 1982, “Information Load and Consumer Decision Making,” J. Consum. Res., 8(4), pp. 419–430. [CrossRef]
Milord, J., and Perry, R., 1977, “A Methodological Study of Overload,” J. Gen. Psychol., 97(1), pp. 131–137. [CrossRef]
Kuhfeld, W. F., 2010, “Conjoint Analysis,” SAS Tech. Pap., MR-2010H, pp. 681–801.
Louviere, B. J. J., 1988, “Conjoint Analysis Modelling of Stated Preferences: A Review of Theory, Methods, Recent Developments and External Validity,” J. Transp. Econ. Policy, 22(1), pp. 93–119.
Allenby, G., Arora, N., and Ginter, J., 1995, “Incorporating Prior Knowledge Into the Analysis of Conjoint Studies,” J. Mark. Res., 32(2), pp. 152–162. [CrossRef]
Kalish, S., and Nelson, P., 1991, “A Comparison of Ranking, Rating and Reservation Price Measurement in Conjoint Analysis,” Mark. Lett., 2(4), pp. 327–335. [CrossRef]
Klein, A., Nihalani, K., and Krishnan, K., 2010, “A Comparison of the Validity of Interviewer-Based and Online-Conjoint Analyses,” J. Manag. Mark. Res., 4, pp. 1–15.
Rodgers, J., and Nicewander, W., 1988, “Thirteen Ways to Look at the Correlation Coefficient,” Am. Stat., 42(1), pp. 59–66. [CrossRef]
Kass, S., Cole, K., and Stanny, C., 2007, “Effects of Distraction and Experience on Situation Awareness and Simulated Driving,” Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav., 10(4), pp. 321–329. [CrossRef]
Hanowski, R., Perez, M., and Dingus, T., 2005, “Driver Distraction in Long-Haul Truck Drivers,” Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav., 8(6), pp. 441–458. [CrossRef]
Casaló, L., Flavián, C., and Guinalíu, M., 2008, “The Role of Perceived Usability, Reputation, Satisfaction and Consumer Familiarity on the Website Loyalty Formation Process,” Comput. Human Behav., 24(2), pp. 325–345. [CrossRef]
Normark, C., Kappfjell, M., Tretten, P., Lundberg, J., and Garling, A., 2007, “Evaluation of Car Instrumentation Clusters by Using Eye-Tracking,” Proceedings 11th European Automotive Congress (EAEC), Budapest, Hungary, pp. 1–11.
Parkinson, M., and Reed, M., 2005, “Robust Truck Cabin Layout Optimization Using Advanced Driver Variance Models,” ASME Paper No. DETC2005-84179. [CrossRef]
Garneau, C. J., and Parkinson, M. B., 2009, “Including Preference in Anthropometry-Driven Models for Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 131(10), pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
Parkinson, M. B., Reed, M. P., Kokkolaras, M., and Papalambros, P. Y., 2007, “Optimizing Truck Cab Layout for Driver Accommodation,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 129(11), pp. 1–8. [CrossRef]
Chaffin, D. B., 2008, “Digital Human Modeling for Workspace Design,” Rev. Hum. Factors Ergon., 4(1), pp. 41–74. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Virtual dashboard with components

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Virtual dashboard with virtual hand

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Mug design parameterization

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Mug handle parameterization

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Average MAE for the nine model designs (designs 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, and 18)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In