Product representations in conjoint analysis in an LMIC setting: Comparing attribute valuation when three-dimensional physical prototypes are shown versus two-dimensional renderings
Marianna J. Coulentianos , Mojtaba Arezoomand , Suzanne Chou , Jesse Austin-Breneman , Achyuta Adhvaryu , Kowit Nambunmee , Richard Neitzel , Kathleen H. Sienko
{"title":"Product representations in conjoint analysis in an LMIC setting: Comparing attribute valuation when three-dimensional physical prototypes are shown versus two-dimensional renderings","authors":"Marianna J. Coulentianos , Mojtaba Arezoomand , Suzanne Chou , Jesse Austin-Breneman , Achyuta Adhvaryu , Kowit Nambunmee , Richard Neitzel , Kathleen H. Sienko","doi":"10.1016/j.deveng.2021.100063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Conjoint experiments (CEs) provide designers with insights into consumer preferences and are one of several user-based design approaches aimed at meeting users’ needs. Traditional CEs require participants to evaluate products based on two-dimensional (2D) visual representations or written lists of attributes. Evidence suggests that product representations can affect how participants perceive attributes, an effect that might be exacerbated in a Low- and Middle-Income Country setting where CEs have seldom been studied.</p><p>This study examined how physical three-dimensional (3D) prototypes and 2D renderings with written specifications of attribute profiles generated differences in estimated utilities of a CE about a hypothetical new tool for electronic-waste recycling, among workers in North-Eastern Thailand. Two independent CEs were performed with each representation form. Ninety participants across both experiments each ranked three sets of five alternative tool concept solutions from most to least preferred. The results of the conjoint analysis guided the design of a tool optimized for user preferences, which was then distributed to half of the sample through a Becker-DeGroot-Marschak auction experiment. One month after the auction, participants completed an endline survey.</p><p>The results point toward potential differences in relative importance of different product attributes based on product representation. Price was found to have no significant impact on the valuation of tools in either experiment. The differences in relative importance of product attributes may have been explained by the limitations of 2D renderings for conveying sizes.</p><p>Further research is needed to understand the impact of product representation on preferences in this context. We recommend careful consideration for product representations – specifically, how well the representations convey all product attributes being evaluated – in CEs. Using a combination of 2D renderings and 3D product features might have satisfied both the speed and low-cost advantages of renderings while enabling participants to have a better sense of product features.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37901,"journal":{"name":"Development Engineering","volume":"6 ","pages":"Article 100063"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.deveng.2021.100063","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Development Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352728521000051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Conjoint experiments (CEs) provide designers with insights into consumer preferences and are one of several user-based design approaches aimed at meeting users’ needs. Traditional CEs require participants to evaluate products based on two-dimensional (2D) visual representations or written lists of attributes. Evidence suggests that product representations can affect how participants perceive attributes, an effect that might be exacerbated in a Low- and Middle-Income Country setting where CEs have seldom been studied.
This study examined how physical three-dimensional (3D) prototypes and 2D renderings with written specifications of attribute profiles generated differences in estimated utilities of a CE about a hypothetical new tool for electronic-waste recycling, among workers in North-Eastern Thailand. Two independent CEs were performed with each representation form. Ninety participants across both experiments each ranked three sets of five alternative tool concept solutions from most to least preferred. The results of the conjoint analysis guided the design of a tool optimized for user preferences, which was then distributed to half of the sample through a Becker-DeGroot-Marschak auction experiment. One month after the auction, participants completed an endline survey.
The results point toward potential differences in relative importance of different product attributes based on product representation. Price was found to have no significant impact on the valuation of tools in either experiment. The differences in relative importance of product attributes may have been explained by the limitations of 2D renderings for conveying sizes.
Further research is needed to understand the impact of product representation on preferences in this context. We recommend careful consideration for product representations – specifically, how well the representations convey all product attributes being evaluated – in CEs. Using a combination of 2D renderings and 3D product features might have satisfied both the speed and low-cost advantages of renderings while enabling participants to have a better sense of product features.
Development EngineeringEconomics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (all)
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
31 weeks
期刊介绍:
Development Engineering: The Journal of Engineering in Economic Development (Dev Eng) is an open access, interdisciplinary journal applying engineering and economic research to the problems of poverty. Published studies must present novel research motivated by a specific global development problem. The journal serves as a bridge between engineers, economists, and other scientists involved in research on human, social, and economic development. Specific topics include: • Engineering research in response to unique constraints imposed by poverty. • Assessment of pro-poor technology solutions, including field performance, consumer adoption, and end-user impacts. • Novel technologies or tools for measuring behavioral, economic, and social outcomes in low-resource settings. • Hypothesis-generating research that explores technology markets and the role of innovation in economic development. • Lessons from the field, especially null results from field trials and technical failure analyses. • Rigorous analysis of existing development "solutions" through an engineering or economic lens. Although the journal focuses on quantitative, scientific approaches, it is intended to be suitable for a wider audience of development practitioners and policy makers, with evidence that can be used to improve decision-making. It also will be useful for engineering and applied economics faculty who conduct research or teach in "technology for development."