Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evolutionary preference/utility functions: A dynamic perspective

  • Published:
Psychometrika Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The collection of repeated measures in psychological research is one of the most common data collection formats employed in survey and experimental research. The behavioral decision theory literature documents the existence of the dynamic evolution of preferences that occur over time and experience due to learning, exposure to additional information, fatigue, cognitive storage limitations, etc. We introduce a Bayesian dynamic linear methodology employing an empirical Bayes estimation framework that permits the detection and modeling of such potential changes to the underlying preference utility structure of the respondent. An illustration of revealed stated preference analysis (i.e., conjoint analysis) is given involving students’ preferences for apartments and their underlying attributes and features. We also present the results of several simulations demonstrating the ability of the proposed procedure to recover a variety of different sources of dynamics that may surface with preference elicitation over repeated sequential measurement. Finally, directions for future research are discussed.

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

  • Addelman S. (1962) Orthogonal main-effect plans for asymmetrical factorial experiments. Technometrics 4:21–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguilar O., West M. (2000) Bayesian dynamic factor models and portfolio allocation. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 18:338–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson N. H. (1971) Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review 78:171–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson N. H. (1981) Foundations of information integration theory. San Diego, CA: Academic Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel G. G. (1976) Multidimensional preference scaling. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlyne D. E. (1960) Conflict, Arousal and Curiosity New York: Mc-Graw Hill

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlyne D. E. (1974) Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. Washington, D.C.:Hemisphere

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardo J. M. (1979) Reference posterior distributions for Bayesian inference (with discussion) Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Ser. B 41:113–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharjee B., Sinha K. C., Krogmeier J. V. (2001) Modeling the effects of traveler information on freeway origin-destination demand prediction. Transportation Research Part C-Emerging Technologies 9:381–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickman P., D’Amato B. (1975) Exposure effects in a free-choice situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32 (Sept):415–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo J. T., Petty R. E. (1979) Effects of message repetition and position of cognition response, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (January):97–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cargnoni C., Muller P., West M. (1997) Bayesian forecasting of multinomial time series through conditionally Gaussian dynamic models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 92:640–647

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll J.D. (1969) Categorical conjoint measurement. Meeting of Mathematical Psychology. Ann Arbor, MI

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook T. D., Campbell D. T. (1979) Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings Boston: Houghton-Mifflin

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B., Slovic P., Lichtenstein S. (1980) Knowing what you want: Measuring labile values. In T. Wallstein (Ed.), Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior (pp 117–141) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

    Google Scholar 

  • Fruhwirth-Schnatter S. (2001) Markov chain monte-carlo estimation of classical and dynamic switching and mixture models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 96:194–209

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman A., Carlin J. B., Stern H. S., Rubin D. B. (1997) Bayesian data analysis. London: Chapman and Hall

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert D. T. (1989) Thinking lightly about others: Automatic components of the social inference process. In J. S. Uleman, J. A. Bargh, (Eds.), Unintended Thought (pp. 189–211) New York: Guilford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert D. T., Krull D.S., Pelham B.W. (1988) Of thoughts unspoken: Social inference and the self-regulation of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55:685–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green P.E. (1974) On the design of choice experiments involving multifactor alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research 1:61–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green P.E., Rao V.R. (1971) Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. Journal of Marketing Research 8:355–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green P.E., Rao V.R. (1971) Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. Journal of Marketing Research 8:355–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair J. E., Anderson R. E., Tatham R. L., Black W.C. (1995) Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar 

  • Herr P. M. (1989) Priming price: Prior knowledge and context effects. Journal of Consumer Research 16:67–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber J., Wittink D.R., Johnson R. M., Miller R. (1992) Learning effects in preference tasks: Choice-based versus standard conjoint. In Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software, Inc.

  • Huber J., Hansen D. (1986) Testing the impact of dimensional complexity and affective differences of paired concepts in adaptive conjoint analysis. In M. Wallendorf P. Anderson (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 14, pp. 159–163) Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research

    Google Scholar 

  • Huynh H. (1980) A nonrandomized Minimax solution for passing scores in the binomial error model. Psychometrika 45:167–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffreys H. (1961) Theory of Probability, (3rd ed) Oxford University Press: London

    Google Scholar 

  • Johar G. V., Jedidi K., Jacoby J. (1997) A varying-parameter averaging model of on-line brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research 24:232–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson E. J., Meyer R. J. (1984) Compensatory choice models of noncompensatory processes: The effect of varying context. Journal of Consumer Research 11:528–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R. M., Orme B. K. (1996) How many questions should you ask in choice-based conjoint studies? Technical Report Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software, Inc

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision making under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Kardes F. R., Kalyanaram G. (1992) Order-of-entry effects on consumer memory and judgment: An information integration perspective. Journal of Marketing Research 29:343–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Kass R., Raftery A.E., (1995) Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90:40–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal J.B. (1965) Analysis of factorial experiments by estimating monotone transformations of the data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B27:251–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes L. L. (1982) Toward a procedural theory of judgment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin

  • Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J.D. (2000) Stated choice models: Analysis and application. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce R. D., Tukey J. W. (1964) Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1:1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March J. G. (1978) Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. Bell Journal of Economics 9:587–608

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer R. J. (1987) The learning of multiattribute judgment policies. Journal of Consumer Research 14:155–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore D. A. (1999) Order effects in preference judgments: evidence for context dependence in the generation of preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 78:146–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pole A., West M., Harrison J. (1994) Applied bayesian forecasting and time series analysis. New York: Chapman and Hall

    Google Scholar 

  • Prado R., West M., Krystal A. D. (1999) Multi-channel EEG analyses via dynamic regression models with time-varying lag lead structure. Applied Statistics 50:95–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonson I., Tversky A. (1992) Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research 29:281–295

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Slovic, D. Griffin, A. Tversky (1990) Compatibility affects in judgment and choice. In R. M. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making: A tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonellato S. F. (2001) A multivariate time series model for the analysis and prediction of carbon monoxide atmospheric concentrations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C-Applied Statistics 50:187–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgerson W. S. (1958) Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • West M., Harrison J. (1997) Bayesian forecasting and dynamic models. New York: Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Young F.W. (1969) Polynomial conjoint analysis of similarities: Definitions for a special algorithm. Research Paper No. 76. University of North Carolina: Psychometric Laboratory

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc R. B. (1968) Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement 9 (Part 2):1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc R. B., Markus H., Wilson W. R. (1974) Exposure affects and associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology 10:248–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pennsylvania State University, USA

    Wayne S. DeSarbo

  2. Pennsylvania State University, USA

    Duncan K. H. Fong

  3. Pennsylvania State University, USA

    John Liechty

  4. Pennsylvania State University, USA

    Jennifer Chang Coupland

  5. Marketing Department, Smeal College of Business, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Wayne S. DeSarbo

Authors
  1. Wayne S. DeSarbo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Duncan K. H. Fong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Liechty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jennifer Chang Coupland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wayne S. DeSarbo.

Additional information

The authors wish to acknowledge and thank the Editor, the Associate Editor, and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments. Duncan K.H. Fong’s work was sponsored in part by a research grant from the Smeal College.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

DeSarbo, W.S., Fong, D.K.H., Liechty, J. et al. Evolutionary preference/utility functions: A dynamic perspective. Psychometrika 70, 179–202 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-002-0976-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-002-0976-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation