Technical Brief

Modeling Aggregate Choice for Form and Function Through Metaconjoint Analysis

[+] Author and Article Information
Brian Sylcott

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
e-mail: sylcott@alumni.cmu.edu

Jonathan Cagan

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Carnegie Mellon University,
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 August 28, 2013; final manuscript received July 26, 2014; published online October 20, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Harrison M. Kim.

J. Mech. Des 136(12), 124501 (Oct 20, 2014) (5 pages) Paper No: MD-13-1381; doi: 10.1115/1.4028274 History: Received August 28, 2013; Revised July 26, 2014

In the previous work, meta-attributes have been used to model the relationship between two groups of disparate product attributes. There, preference for form, function, and the relationship between the two were modeled for individual consumers. However, this approach is limited as designers are often called on to choose a design that best appeals to a group of consumers, not individuals. This work expands on the concept and makes it more generally applicable by adapting metaconjoint to model aggregate choice for consumer groups. The results from this work show that a metaconjoint approach can be used to model aggregate choice for form and function and can yield better results on holdout sample predictions than form or function alone.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Green, P. E., and Rao, V. R., 1971, “Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data,” J. Mark. Res., 8(3), pp. 355–363. [CrossRef]
Huber, J., and Zwerina, K., 1996, “The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs,” J. Mark. Res., 33(3), pp. 307–317. [CrossRef]
Besharati, B., Luo, L., Azarm, S., and Kannan, P. K., 2006, “Multi-Objective Single Product Robust Optimization: An Integrated Design and Marketing Approach,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 128(4), pp. 884–892. [CrossRef]
Moore, W. L., Louviere, J. J., and Verma, R., 1999, “Using Conjoint Analysis to Help Design Product Platforms,” J. Prod. Innov. Manag., 16(1), pp. 27–39. [CrossRef]
Williams, N., Azarm, S., and Kannan, P. K., 2008, “Engineering Product Design Optimization for Retail Channel Acceptance,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 130(6), p. 061402. [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]
Swamy, S., Orsborn, S., Michalek, J., and Cagan, J., 2007, “Measurement of Headlight Form Preference Using Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis,” Proceedings of the ASME 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE), Las Vegas, NV, pp. 1–10.
Petiot, J.-F., and Dagher, A., 2010, “Preference-Oriented Form Design: Application to Cars' Headlights,” Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf., 5(1), pp. 17–27. [CrossRef]
Orsborn, S., Cagan, J., and Boatwright, P., 2009, “Quantifying Aesthetic Form Preference in a Utility Function,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 131(6), p. 061001. [CrossRef]
MacDonald, E., Lubensky, A., Sohns, B., and Papalambros, P. Y., 2009, “Product Semantics and Wine Portfolio Optimisation,” Int. J. Prod. Dev., 7(1), pp. 73–98. [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), p. 101010. [CrossRef]
Sylcott, B., Michalek, J., and Cagan, J., 2013, “Towards Understanding the Role of Interaction Effects in Visual Conjoint Analysis,” Portland, OR, August 4–7, ASME Paper No. DETC2013-12622 [CrossRef]
Kelly, J. C., Maheut, P., Petiot, J.-F., and Papalambros, P. Y., 2011, “Incorporating User Shape Preference in Engineering Design Optimisation,” J. Eng. Des., 22(9), pp. 627–650. [CrossRef]
Tseng, I., Cagan, J., and Kotovsky, K., 2012, “Concurrent Optimization of Computationally Learned Stylistic Form and Functional Goals,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 134(11), p. 111006. [CrossRef]
Gensch, D., and Recker, W., 1979, “The Multinomial, Multiattribute Logit Choice Model,” J. Mark. Res., 16(1), pp. 124–132. [CrossRef]
Train, K. E., 2003, Discrete Choice Methods With Simulation, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.
Sylcott, B., 2013, “Understanding the Role of Aesthetic Judgment in Consumer Choice and Preference Modeling,” Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Orme, B. K., Alpert, M. I., and Christensen, E., 1997, “Assessing the Validity of Conjoint Analysis-Continued,” Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Sequim, WA.
Arrow, K. J., 1963, Social Choice and Individual Values, Wiley, New York.
Hazelrigg, G., 1996, “The Implications of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem on Approaches to Optimal Engineering Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 118(2), pp. 161–164. [CrossRef]
Van de Poel, I., 2007, “Methodological Problems in QFD and Directions for Future Development,” Res. Eng. Des., 18(1), pp. 21–36. [CrossRef]
Scott, M., and Antonsson, E., 1999, “Arrow's Theorem and Engineering Design Decision Making,” Res. Eng. Des., 11(4), pp. 218–228. [CrossRef]
Lusk, J., and Norwood, F., 2005, “Effect of Experimental Design on Choice Based Conjoint Valuation Estimates,” Am. J. Agric. Econ., 87(3), pp. 771–785. [CrossRef]
Bliemer, M. C. J., and Rose, J. M., 2011, “Experimental Design Influences on Stated Choice Outputs: An Empirical Study in Air Travel Choice,” Transp. Res. A, 45(1), pp. 63–79. [CrossRef]
De Palma, A., and Picard, N., 2005, “Route Choice Decision Under Travel Time Uncertainty,” Transp. Res. A, 39(4), pp. 295–324. [CrossRef]
Hollander, Y., 2006, “Direct Versus Indirect Models for the Effects of Unreliability,” Transp. Res. A, 40(9), pp. 699–711. [CrossRef]
Kerr, G. N., and Sharp, B. M. H., 2010, “Choice Experiment Adaptive Design Benefits: A Case Study*,” Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ., 54(4), pp. 407–420. [CrossRef]
Goldberg, I., and Roosen, J., 2007, “Scope Insensitivity in Health Risk Reduction Studies: A Comparison of Choice Experiments and the Contingent Valuation Method for Valuing Safer Food,” J. Risk Uncertainty, 34(2), pp. 123–144. [CrossRef]
Wang, Z., Kannan, P. K., and Azarm, S., 2011, “Customer-Driven Optimal Design for Convergence Products,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 133(10), p. 101010. [CrossRef]
Chrzan, K., and Orme, B., 2000, “An Overview and Comparison of Design Strategies for Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis,” Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Hilton Head Island, SC.
Train, K., 1998, “Recreation Demand Models With Taste Differences Over People,” Land Econ., 74(2), pp. 230–239. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Sample aesthetic preference trial

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Sample function preference trial

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Sample combined preference trial

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Plot of aesthetic design evaluations in combined survey

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Division of aesthetic design evaluations in combined survey




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