The construction of preferences for crux and sentinel product attributes

Journal of Engineering Design

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 609-626

  MacDonald, Erin Faith ^a   Gonzalez, Richard ^a   Papalambros, Panos ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Conjoint analysis; Construction of preferences; Context effects; Discrete choice; Inferences; Preference model; Product design; Stated choice

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449903244     PISSN: 09544828     EISSN: 14661837     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09544820802132428     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Atkins, J., 2004. A beginner's guide to towel and tissue, part 1. Solutions!: For People, Processes, and Paper, 87, 32-36.
2. Bennett, J. and Blamey, R., 2001.Yea-saying and validation of a choice model of green product choice. In: J. Bennett and R. Blamey, eds. The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 178-201.
3. Consumer Reports, 1998. The best picker-uppers, Consumer Reports Issue 63, p. 52.
4. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., and Lichtenstein, S., 1978. Fault trees: sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4 (2), 330-344.
5. Kagel, J. and Roth, A., 1995. Handbook of experimental economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
6. Krippendorff, K. and Butter, R., 1984. Product semantics: exploring the symbolic qualities of form. The Journal of the Industrial Designers Society of America, Spring, 4-9.
7. Louviere, J., Hensher, D., and Swait, J., 2000. Stated choice methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Luth Research, 2007. Luth Research. San Diego, California.Available from: www.luthresearch.com [Accessed 22 October 2007].
9. MacDonald, E., Gonzalez, R., and Papalambros, P.Y., 2007a. The construction of preference for crux and sentinel attributes. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on engineering design, 28-31 August, Paris, France.
10. MacDonald, E., Gonzalez, R., and Papalambros, P.Y., 2007b. Preference inconsistency in multidisciplinary design decision making. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ASME design technical conferences, DETC2007-35580, 4-8 September, Las Vegas, Nevada.
11. Michalek, J.J., Feinberg, F.M., and Papalambros, P.Y., 2005. Linking marketing and engineering product design decisions via analytical target cascading. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 42-62.
12. Norman, D., 1998. The design of everyday things. NewYork: Doubleday.
13. Orme, B.K., 2005. Getting started with conjoint analysis. Madison: Research Publishers.
14. Oxford English Dictionary, 2007. Oxford English Dictionary. Available from: http://www.oed.com/ [Accessed 1 June 2007].
15. Pullman, M., Moore, W., and Wardell, D., 2002. A comparison of quality function deployment and conjoint analysis in new product design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19 (5), 354-364.
16. Rice, J.A., 1995. Mathematical statistics and data analysis, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
17. Sawtooth Software, 2007a. Choice-based conjoint technical paper. Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series. Available from: http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/cbctech.pdf [Accessed 27 September 2007].
18. Sawtooth Software., 2007b. The CBC/HB system for hierarchical bayes estimation version 4.0. Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series. Available from: http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/hbtech.pdf [Accessed 27 September 2007].
19. Slovic, P., 1995. The construction of preference. American Psychologist, 50, 364-371.
20. Sudman, S., Bradburn, N., and Schwarz, N., 1996. Thinking about answers: the application of cognitive processes to survey methodology, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
21. Wassenaar, H.J., Chen, W., and Cheng, J., 2005. Enhancing discrete choice demand modeling for decision-based design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 127 (4), 514-523.