The impact of including images in a conjoint measurement task: Evidence from two small-scale studies

Journal of Housing and the Built Environment

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 271-297

  Jansen, Sylvia ^a   Boumeester, Harry ^a   Coolen, Henny ^a   Goetgeluk, Roland ^a   Molin, Eric ^b  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Conjoint measurement; Housing preferences; Verbal presentation format; Visual presentation format

Indexed keywords

HOUSING CONDITIONS; HOUSING PROJECT; MEASUREMENT METHOD; PHOTOGRAPH; VISUALIZATION;

BENELUX; EURASIA; EUROPE; NETHERLANDS; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 68549118818     PISSN: 15664910     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10901-009-9149-x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Alpert, M. I., Betak, J. F., & Golden, L. L. (1978). Data gathering issues in conjoint measurement. Working Paper, Graduate School of Business, University of Texas, Austin.
2. Ben-Akiva, M., & Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and application to travel demand. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
3. Boumeester, H. J. F. M., Hoekstra, J. S. C. M., Meesters, J., & Coolen, H. C. C. H. (2005). Woonwensen nader in kaart: De woonbeleving van bewoners. Voorburg: NVB.
4. Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., & Heckler, S. E. (1985). Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 125-134.
5. Dijkstra, J., & Timmermans, H. J. P. (1997). Exploring the possibilities of conjoint measurement as a decision-making tool for virtual wayfinding environments. In Y.-T. Liu (Ed.), CAADRIA '97 Proceedings of the Second Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (pp. 61-72). Taipeh: Hu's Publishers Inc.
6. Domzal, T. J., & Unger, L. S. (1985). Judgments of verbal versus pictorial presentations of a product with functional and aesthetic features. Advances in Consumer Research, 12(1), 268-272.
7. Goetgeluk, R. (1997). Bomen over wonen, woningmarktonderzoek met beslissingsbomen. Dissertation, University of Utrecht. Utrecht: Utrecht Geographical Studies, 235.
8. Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5(September), 103-123.
9. Heins, S. (2002). Rural residential environments in city and countryside: Countryside images, demand for and supply of rural residential environments. Dissertation, University of Utrecht. Delft: Uitgeverij Eburon.
10. Holbrook, M. B., & Moore, W. L. (1981). Feature interactions in consumer judgments of verbal versus pictorial presentations. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(January), 103-113.
11. Jaeger, S. R., Hedderley, D., & MacFie, H. J. H. (2001). Methodological issues in conjoint analysis: A case study. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11), 1217-1239.
12. Jansen, S., Boumeester, H., Coolen, H., Goetgeluk, R., & Molin, E. (2009). The effect of presentation: What you see is what you value (submitted).
13. Kim, M., & Lennon, S. (2008). The effects of visual and verbal information on attitudes and purchase intentions in Internet shopping. Psychology & Marketing, 25, 146-178.
14. Lees, G., & Wright, M. (2004). The effect of concept formulation on concept test scores. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 389-400.
15. Louviere, J. J., Schroeder, H., Louviere, C. H., & Woodworth, G. G. (1987). Do the parameters of choice models depend on differences in stimulus presentation: Visual versus verbal presentation? Advances in Consumer Research, 14, 79-82.
16. Molin, E., Oppewal, H., & Timmermans, H. (1996). Predicting consumer response to new housing: A stated choice experiment. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 11(3), 297-311.
17. Molin, E., Oppewal, H., & Timmermans, H. (2001). Analyzing heterogeneity in conjoint estimates of residential preferences. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16(3), 267-284.
18. Orzechowski, M. A., Arentze, T. A., Borgers, A. W. J., & Timmermans, H. J. P. (2005). Alternate methods of conjoint analysis for estimating housing preference functions: Effects of presentation style. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20(4), 349-362.
19. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and cognitive processes. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
20. Rossiter, J. R., & Percy, L. (1978). Visual imagining ability as a mediator of advertising response. In H. K. Hunt & A. Arbor (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 5, pp. 621-629). MI: Association for Consumer Research.
21. Sojka, J. Z., & Giese, J. L. (2006). Communicating through pictures and words: Understanding the role of affect and cognition in processing visual and verbal information. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 995-1014.
22. Steenkamp, J. E. B. M. (1985). De constructie van profielensets voor het schatten van hoofdeffecten en interacties bij conjunct meten. Jaarboek NVM.
23. Vriens, M., Loosschilder, G. H., Rosbergen, E., & Wittink, D. R. (1998). Verbal versus realistic pictorial representations in conjoint analysis with design attributes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(5), 455-467.
24. Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W. A. (1999). Market segmentation: Conceptual and methodological foundations. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
25. Wittink, D. R., Vriens, M., & Burhenne, W. (1994). Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: Results and critical reflections. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11(January), 41-52.