An empirical comparison of methods to measure willingness to pay by examining the hypothetical bias

International Journal of Market Research

Volumn 47, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 543-562

  Backhaus, Klaus ^a   Wilken, Robert ^a   Voeth, Markus ^b   Sichtmann, Christina ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HOHENHEIM   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 25444498307     PISSN: 14707853     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Aaker, D.A., Kumar V. & Day. G.S. (2003) Marketing Research. New York: Wiley.
2. Addelman, S. (1962) Orthogonal main-effects plans for asymmetrical factorial experiments. Technometrics, 4, 1, pp. 21-46.
3. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Learner, E., Radner, R. & Schuman, H. (1993) Report from the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register, 58, pp. 4601-4614.
4. Backhaus, K. & Voeth, M. (2003) Limit conjoint analysis. Scientific Discussion Series of the Marketing Center Muenster, 2, available from http://www.marketing-centrum.de/ias/conpresso/_file/No.2lim.pdf.
5. Ben-Akiva, M.E., Bradley, M., Morikawa, T., Benjamin, J., Novak, T.P., Oppewal, H. & Rao, V. (1994) Combining revealed and stated preferences data. Marketing Letters, 5, 4, pp. 336-350.
6. Botelho, A. & Pinto, L.C. (2002) Hypothetical, real, and predicted real willingness to pay in open-ended surveys: experimental results. Applied Economic Letters, 9, 15, pp. 993-997.
7. Brzoska, L. (2003) Die Conjoint-Analyse als Instrument zur Prognose von Preisreaktionen: Eine theoretische und empirische Beurteilung der externen Validität. Hamburg: Verlag Dr Kovac.
8. Cameron, T.A. & James, M.D. (1987) Estimating willingness to pay from survey data: an alternative to pretest-market evaluation procedure. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 4, pp. 389-395.
9. Cummings, R.G., Harrison, G.W. & Rutström, E.E. (1995) Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive compatible? American Economic Review, 85, 1, pp. 260-266.
10. Elrod, T., Louviere, J. & Davey, K. (1993) A comparison of ratings-based and choice-based conjoint models. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 3, pp. 368-377.
11. Finkbeiner, C.T. (1988) Comparison of conjoint choice simulators, in Johnson, R.M. (ed.) Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping. Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing. Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, pp. 75-105.
12. Garda, R.E. & Marn, M.C. (1993) Price wars. The McKinsey Quarterly, 3, pp. 87-100.
13. Green, P.E. & Srinivasan, V. (1990) Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54, October, pp. 3-19.
14. Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A. & Huber, F. (2003) Conjoint analysis as an instrument of market research practice, in Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A. & Huber, F. (eds) Conjoint Measurement - Methods and Applications. Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 5-46.
15. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E. & Tatham, R.L. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings. Tulsa, OK: Petroleum.
16. Halvorsen, B. & Soelensminde, K. (1998) Differences between willingness-to-pay estimates from open-ended and discrete-choice contingent valuation methods: the effects of heteroscedasticity. Land Economics, 74, May, pp. 262-282.
17. Harrison, G.W. & Rutstroem, E.E. (1995) Experimental evidence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods, in Plott, C.R. & Smith, V.L. (eds) Handbook of Experimental Economic Results. New York: Elsevier.
18. Hoffman, E., Menkhaus, D.J., Chakravarti, D., Field, R.A. & Whipple, G.D. (1993) Using laboratory experimental auctions in marketing research: a case study of new packaging for fresh beef. Marketing Science, 12, 3, pp. 318-338.
19. Iacobucci, D. (2001) Kellogg on Marketing. New York: Wiley.
20. Jedidi, K., Jagpal, S. & Manchada, P. (2003) Measuring heterogeneous reservation prices for product bundles. Marketing Science, 22, 1, pp. 107-130.
21. Johnson, R. (1989) Making decisions with incomplete information: the first complete test of the inference model. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, pp. 522-528.
22. Kalish, S. & Nelson, P. (1991) A comparison of ranking, rating and reservation price measurement in conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters, 2, 4, pp. 327-335.
23. Louviere, J., Fox, M. & Moore, W. (1993) Cross-task validity comparisons of stated preference choice models. Marketing Letters, 4, 3, pp. 205-213.
24. Louviere, J., Hensher, D.A. & Swait, J.D. (2000) Stated Preference Methods. Anaylsis and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Marn, M.V., Roegner, E.V. & Zawada, C.C. (2004) The Price Advantage. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
26. Meyer, R. (1977) An experimental analysis of student apartment selection decisions under uncertainty. Great Plains-Rocky Mountains Geographical Journal, 6, pp. 30-38.
27. Meyer, R. & Eagle, T. (1982) Context induced parameter instability in a disaggregate-stochastic model of store choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, February, pp. 62-71.
28. Mitchell, R.C. & Carson, R.T. (1989) Using Survey to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
29. Monroe, K.B. (1990) Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions. New York: McGrawHill.
30. Nagel, T.T. & Holden, R.K. (2002) The Strategy and Tactics. A Guide to Profitable Decision Making. New Jersey: Pearson Education International.
31. Neill, H.R., Cummings, R.G., Ganderton, P.T., Harrison, G.W. & McGuckin, T. (1994) Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Economics, 70, 2, pp. 145-155.
32. Olsen, G.D., Swait, J., Johnson, R. & Louviere, J. (1995) Response mode influences on attribute weight and predictive ability when linear models are not certain to be robust. Working paper, Faculty of Business, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
33. Sattler, H. & Nitschke, T. (2003) Ein empirischer Vergleich von Instrumenten zur Erhebung von Zahlungsbereitschaften. Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (ZfbF), 55, June, pp. 364-381.
34. Sattler, H. & Voelckner, F. (2002) Methods for Measuring Consumers' Willingness to Pay. Research Papers on Marketing and Retailing. University of Hamburg.
35. Simon, H. & Fassnacht, M. (2003) Preismanagement: Analyse, Strategie, Umsetzung. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
36. Thibaut, J.W. & Kelley, H.H. (1959) The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley.
37. Urban, G. & Hauser, J. (1993) Design and Marketing of New Products. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
38. Voeth, M. (1998) Limit conjoint analysis - a modification of the traditional conjoint analysis, in Andersson, P (ed.), paper presented at the 27th EMAC Conference: Marketing Research and Practice. Marketing Research, pp. 315-331.
39. Voeth, M. (2000) Nutzenmessung in der Kaufverhaltensforschung: Die Hierarchische Individualisierte Limit Conjoint-Analyse (HILCA). Wiesbaden: Gabler.
40. Voeth, M. & Hahn, C. (1998) Limit conjoint-analyse. Marketing Zeitschrift für Forschung und Praxis, 20, 2, pp. 119-132.
41. Vriens, M. (1995) Conjoint Analysis in Marketing. Developments in Stimulus Representation and Segmentation Methods. Capelle a/d Ijssel: Labyrint Publication.
42. Wertenbroch, K. & Skiera, B. (2002) Measuring consumers' willingness to pay at the point of purchase. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, May, pp. 228-241.