Product representations in conjoint analysis in an LMIC setting: Comparing attribute valuation when three-dimensional physical prototypes are shown versus two-dimensional renderings

Q1 Economics, Econometrics and Finance
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 ,&nbsp;Mojtaba Arezoomand ,&nbsp;Suzanne Chou ,&nbsp;Jesse Austin-Breneman ,&nbsp;Achyuta Adhvaryu ,&nbsp;Kowit Nambunmee ,&nbsp;Richard Neitzel ,&nbsp;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.

LMIC环境下联合分析中的产品表示:当显示三维物理原型与二维渲染时,比较属性估值
联合实验(CEs)为设计师提供了对消费者偏好的洞察,是旨在满足用户需求的几种基于用户的设计方法之一。传统的CEs要求参与者基于二维(2D)视觉表示或书面属性列表来评估产品。有证据表明,产品表征会影响参与者对属性的感知,这种影响在中低收入国家可能会加剧,因为这些国家很少对消费产品进行研究。本研究考察了物理三维(3D)原型和带有属性配置文件书面规格的二维渲染图如何在泰国东北部的工人中产生关于假设的电子废物回收新工具的CE估计效用的差异。每个代表表格分别进行两次独立ce。在两个实验中,90名参与者从最受欢迎到最不受欢迎的顺序,对三组五种替代工具概念解决方案进行排名。联合分析的结果指导了针对用户偏好进行优化的工具的设计,然后通过Becker-DeGroot-Marschak拍卖实验将其分发给一半的样本。拍卖结束一个月后,参与者完成了一份在线调查。结果指出了基于产品表示的不同产品属性相对重要性的潜在差异。在两个实验中,价格对工具的估值没有显著影响。产品属性的相对重要性的差异可能是由2D渲染对输送尺寸的限制所解释的。在这种情况下,需要进一步的研究来了解产品表征对偏好的影响。我们建议在ce中仔细考虑产品表示-特别是,表示如何很好地传达正在评估的所有产品属性。使用2D效果图和3D产品功能的组合可能既满足了效果图的速度和低成本优势,又使参与者对产品功能有更好的感觉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Development Engineering
Development Engineering Economics, 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."
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信