Verfahren zur Präferenzmessung - Eine Übersicht und Beurteilung existierender undmöglicher neuer Self-Explicated-Verfahren

Journal fur Betriebswirtschaft

Volumn 59, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 31-56

  Eckert, Jochen ^a   Schaaf, René ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Importance measurement; Preference measurement; Self explicated approaches

Indexed keywords

EID: 65549108640     PISSN: 03449327     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11301-009-0046-x     Document Type: Review

References (74)

1. Agarwal MK, Green PE (1991) Adaptive conjoint analysis versus self explicated models, some empirical results. Int J Res Market 8:141-146
2. Aggarwal P, Vaidyanathan R (2003) Eliciting online consumers' preferences: Conjoint vs self-explicated attribute-level measurements. J Market Manag 19:157-177
3. Akaah I, Korgaonkar PK (1983) An empirical comparison of the predictive validity of self-explicated, huber-hybrid, traditional conjoint and hybrid conjoint models. J Market Res 20:187-197
4. Alwin DF, Krosnick JA (1985) The measurement of values in surveys: A comparison of ratings and rankings. Pub Opin Q 49:535-552
5. Brockhoff K (1999) Produktpolitik. Lucius&Lucius, Stuttgart
6. Brown TC, Peterson RM, Broderson V, Ford V, Bell PA (2005) The judged seriousness of an environmental loss is a matter of what caused it. J Environ Psychol 25:13-21
7. Chrzan K, Golovashkina N (2006) An empirical test of six stated importance measures. Int J Market Res 48:717-740
8. Churchill GA, Iacobucci D (2002) Marketing research: Methodological foundations. Mason, Ohio
9. Cohen S (2003) Maximum difference scaling: Improved measures of importance and preference for segmentation. Proceedings of the 2003 Sawtooth Software Conference, San Diego, S. 61-74
10. Comrey AL (1950) A proposed method for absolute ratio scaling. Psychometrika 15:317-325
11. David HA (1988) The method of paired comparisons. Charles Griffin, London
12. Dorsch MJ, Teas RK (1992) A test of the convergent validity of self-explicated and decompositional conjoint measurement. J Acad Market Sci 20:37-48
13. Farsky M, Eggers F (2007) Golden -i-: Konzeption und empirische Validitätsprüfung eines neuen Instrumentes zur Messung von Markenimages. Market Z Forsch Praxis 29:105-118
14. Finn A, Louviere JJ (1992) Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: The case of food safety. J Pub Policy Market 11:12-25
15. Fishbein M (1967) A behavior theory approach to the relations between beliefs and about an object and the attitude toward the object. Wiley, New York
16. Green PE (1984) Hybrid conjoint analysis: An expository review. J Market Res 21:155-159
17. Green PE, Goldberg S, Montemayor M (1981) A hybrid utility estimation model for conjoint analysis. J Market 45:33-41
18. Green PE, Goldberg SM, Wiley JW (1983) Cross-validation test of hybrid conjoint models. Adv Consum Res 10:147-150
19. Green PE, Helsen K (1989) Cross-validation assessment of alternatives to individual-level conjoint analysis. J Market Res 26:346-350
20. Green PE, Krieger AM (1993) Conjoint analysis with product positioning applications. In: Eliashberg J, Lilien G (Hrsg.) Handbook in operations research and marketing science, Volume 5, Marketing. North Holland, Amsterdam, S. 467-515
21. Green PE, Krieger AM (1996) Individualized hybrid models for conjoint analysis. Manag Sci 42:850-867
22. Green PE, Krieger AM, Agarwal MK (1993) A cross validation test of four models for quantifying multiattribute preferences. Market Lett 4(4):369-380
23. Green PE, Krieger AM, Bansal P (1988) Completely unacceptable levels in conjoint analysis: A cautionary note. J Market Res 25:293-300
24. Green PE, Srinivasan V (1978) Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. J Consum Res 5:103-123
25. Green PE, Srinivasan V (1990) Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practise. J Market 54:3-19
26. Gutsche J (1995) Produktpräferenzanalyse: Ein modelltheoretisches und methodisches Konzept zur Marktsimulation mittels Präferenzerfassungsmodellen. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
27. Hartmann A, Sattler H (2002) Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Working Paper No. 006, University of Hamburg
28. Hartmann A, Sattler H (2004) Wie robust sind Methoden zur Präferenzmessung? Z betriebswirtsch Forsch (zfbf) 56:3-22
29. Heeler RM, Okechuku C, Reid S (1979) Attribute importance: Contrasting measurements. J Market Res 16:60-86
30. Hensel-Börner S (2000) Validität computergestützter hybrider Conjoint-Analyse. Deutscher Universitätsverlag, Wiesbaden
31. Hensel-Börner S, Sattler H (2000) Ein empirischer Validitätsvergleich zwischen der Customized Computerized Conjoint Analysis (CCC) der Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA) und Self-Explicated-Verfahren. Z Betriebswirtsch (ZfB) 70:705-727
32. Herrmann A, Schmidt-Gallas D, Huber F (2001) Adaptive conjoint analyse: understanding the methodology and assessing reliability and validity. In: Gustaffson A, Herrmann A, Huber F (Hrsg.) Conjoint measurement: methods and applications. Springer, Berlin, S. 305-329
33. Höpfl RT, Huber PH (1970) A study of self-explicated utility models. Behav Sci 15:408-414
34. Huber GP, Daneshgar R, Ford DL (1971) An empirical comparison of five utility models for predicting job preferences. Organ Behav Human Perform 6:267-282
35. Hughes D (1970) Distinguishing salience and valence. Attitude Research Workshop, University of Illinois
36. Jain AK, Acito F, Malhotra N, Mahajan V (1979) A comparison of the internal validity of alternative parameter estimation methods in decompositional multiattribute preference models. J Market Res 16:312-322
37. Kramer T (2007) The effect of measurement task transparency on preference construction and evaluation of personalized recommendations. J Market Res 44:224-233
38. Lehmann DR (1971) Television show preferences. J Market Res 8:47-55
39. Leigh TW, MacKay DB, Summers JO (1984) Reliability and validity of conjoint analysis and self-explicated weights: A comparison. J Market Res 21:456-462
40. Lodge M (1984) Magnitude scaling: Quantitative measurement of opinions. Sage Publications, Beverley Hills
41. Louviere JJ, Islam T (2008) A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling. J Bus Res 61:903-911
42. Malhotra NK (2006) Marketing research: An applied orientation. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey
43. Marder E (1997) The laws of choice. Free Press, New York
44. Myers JH (1999) Measuring customer satisfaction: Hot buttons and other measurement issues. American Marketing Association, Chicago
45. Netzer O, Srinivasan S (2007) Adaptive self-explication of multi attribute preferences. Working Paper, Columbia University
46. Oppewal H, Klabbers M (2003) Compromising between the information completeness and task simplicity: A comparison of self-explicated, hierarchical information integration, and full-profile conjoint methods. Adv Consum Res 30:298-303
47. Orme B (2003) Scaling multiple items: Monadic ratings vs. paired comparisons. Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Sequim, S. 43-59
48. Park YH, Ding M, Rao V (2008) Eliciting preference for complex products: a web-based upgrading method. J Market Res 45:562-574
49. Pullman ME, Dodson KJ, Moore WL (1999) A comparison of conjoint methods when there are many attributes. Market Lett 10:125-138
50. Ray ML (1979) Introduction to the special section: Measurement and marketing research - is this flirtation going to lead a romance? J Market Res 16:1-6
51. Ray ML, Sherrill PN (1973) Unobtrusive marketing research techniques. In: Britt SH (Hrsg.) Marketing manager's handbook. Dartnell, Chicago, S. 317-330
52. Retzer J (2006) The century of bayes. Int J Market Res 48:49-60
53. Rosenberg MJ (1956) Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 53:367-372
54. Sattler H (1991) Herkunfts- und Gütezeichen im Kaufentscheidungsprozeß. Die Conjoint-Analyse als Instrument der Bedeutungsmessung. M & P, Verl. für Wiss. und Forschung, Stuttgart
55. Sattler H (2006) Methoden zur Messung von Präferenzen für Innovationen. Z betriebswirtsch Forsch 54:154-176
56. Sattler H, Hensel-Boerner S (2000) A comparison of conjoint measurement with self-explicated approaches. In: Gustaffson A, Herrmann A, Huber F (Hrsg.) Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 121-133
57. Sawtooth Software I (2002a) ACA 5.0 Technical Paper, http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/acatech.pdf, Stand: 12.11.2006
58. Sawtooth Software I (2002b) ACA user manual version 5, Sequim
59. Sawtooth Software I (2007a) The ACA, Web v6.0 Technical Paper, http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/acatech.pdf, Stand: 21.12.2007
60. Sawtooth Software I (2007b) The MaxDiff, Web v6.0 Technical Paper, http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/acatech.pdf, Stand: 21.12.2007
61. Schendel DE, Wilkie WL, McCann JM (1971) An experimental investigation of attribute importance. Proceedings of the Association for Consumer Research, S. 404-416
62. Skiera B (1999) Mengenbezogene Preisdifferenzierung bei Dienstleistungen. Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden
63. Srinivasan V (1988) A conjunctive-compensatory approach to the self-explication of multiattributed preferences. Decis Sci 19:295-305
64. Srinivasan V, Park CS (1997) Surprising robustness of the self-explicated approach to customer preference structure measurement. J Market Res 34:286-291
65. Srinivasan V, Wyner G (1989) CASEMAP: Computer-assisted self-explication of multiattributed preferences. In: Henry W, Menasco M, Takada H (Hrsg.) New-product development and testing. Lexington Books, Lexington, pp 91-112
66. Stapleton LM, Edmonds M (2005) An exploration of the validity of the unbounded write-in-scale for inter-individual research. Int J Pub Opin Res 17:484-494
67. Stephenson W (1953) The study of behaviour: The Q-technique and its methodology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
68. Tigert DJ (1966) An investigation of experimental techniques to determine the relative importance of various product attributes in the consumer decision-making process. Institute Paper No. 126, Purdue University
69. Torgerson WS (1958) Theory and method of scaling. John Wiley, New York
70. Voeth M (1999) 25 Jahre conjointanalytische Forschung in Deutschland. Z Betriebswirtsch Ergänzungsheft 2:153-176
71. Wilkie WL, Pessemier EA (1973) Issues in marketing's use of multi-attribute attitude models. J Market Res 10:428-441
72. Wittink DR, Cattin P (1989) Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update. J Market 53:91-96
73. Wittink DR, Vriens M, Burhenne W (1994) Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: Results and critical reflections. Int J Res Market 11:41-52
74. Wright P, Kriewall MA (1980) State-of-mind effects on the accuracy with which utility functions predict marketplace choice. J Market Res 17:277-293