A comparison of conjoint measurement with self-explicated approaches

Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 67-76

  Sattler, Henrik ^a   Hensel Börner, Susanne ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

^b FRIEDRICH SCHILLER UNIVERSITY JENA   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954764495     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-71404-0_4     Document Type: Chapter

References (24)

1. Agarwal, M. K. and Green, P. E. (1991), Adaptive Conjoint Analysis versus Self- Explicated Models: Some Empirical Results, International Journal of Research in Marketing; 8, 141-146.
2. Akaah, P. and Korgaonkar, P. K. (1983), An Empirical Comparison of the Predictive Validity of Self-Explicated. Huber-Hybrid. Traditional Conjoint, and Hybrid Conjoint Models, Journal of Marketing Research. 20, 187-197.
3. Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. (1966), Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, Chicago.
4. Johnson, R. (1987), Adaptive Conjoint Analysis, Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, 253-256.
5. Gedenk, K., Hensel-Borner, S. and Sattler, H. (1999), Bandbreitensensitivitat von Verfah- ren zur Praferenzmessung, working paper, University of Jena.
6. Green, P. E. and Helsen, K. (1989), Cross-Validation Assessment of Alternatives to Individual-Level Conjoint Analysis: A Case Study, Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 346-350.
7. Green, P. E. and Srinivasan, V. (1978), Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook. Journal of Consumer Research. 5, 103-123.
8. Green, P. E. and Srinivasan, V. (1990), Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: Mew Development with Implications for Research and Practice, Journal of Marketing, 54, 3-19.
9. Green, P. E., Carmone, F. J and Wind, Y. (1972), Subjective Evaluation Models and Conjoint Measurement, Behavioral Science, 17, 288-299.
10. Green, P. E., Goldberg, S. M. and Montemayor, M. (1981), A Hybrid Utility Estimation Model for Conjoint Analysis, Journal of Marketing, 45, 33-41.
11. Green, P. E., Goldberg, S. M. and Wiley, J. B. (1982), A Cross-Validation Test of Hybrid Con joint Models, Advances in Consumer Research, 10, 147-150.
12. Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M. and Agarwal, M. (1993), A Cross Validation Test of Four Models Quantifying Multiattributed Preferences, Marketing Letters, 4, 369-380.
13. Heeler, R. M, Okechuku, C. and Reid, S. (1979), Attribute Importance: Contrasting Measurements. Journal of Marketing Research, 16. 60-63.
14. Iiensel-Bflrner, S. and Sattler, H. (1999), Validitat tier Customized Computerized Conjoint Analysis (CCC), working paper, University of Jena.
15. Ruber, G. P., Daneshgar, R. and Ford, D. L. (1971), An Empirical Comparison of Five Utility Models for Predicting Job Preferences, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6. 267-282.
16. Huber, J. C., Wittink, D. R., Fiedler, J. A. and Miller, R. (1993), The Effectiveness of Alternative Preference Eli citation Procedures in Predicting Choice, Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 53-72.
17. Leigh, T. W., MacKay, D. B. and Summers, J. O. (1984), Reliability and Validity of Con-joint Analysis and Self-Explicated Weights: A Comparison, Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 456-462.
18. Nitzsch, R. V. and Weber, M. (1993), The Effect of Attribute Ranges on Weights in Mul- Tiattribute Utility Measurements, Management Science, 39, 937-943.
19. Srinivasan, V. (1988), A Conjunctive-Compensatory Approach to the Self-Explication of Multiattributed Preferences, Decision Sciences, 19, 295-305.
20. Srinivasan, V. and Park, C. S. (1997). Surprising Robustness of the Self-Explicated Ap-proach to Customer Preference Structure Measurement, Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 286-291.
21. Srinivasan, V. and Wyner, G. A. (1989), CASEMAP: Computer-Assisted Self-Explication of Multiattributed Preferences, in: Henry, W., Menasco. M. and Takada, H., eds.. New Product Development and Testing. Lexington, 91-111.
22. Wittink, D. R. and Cattin, P. (1989), Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update, Journal of Marketing, 53, 91-96.
23. Wright, P. (1975), Consumer Choice Strategies: Simplifying vs. Optimizing, Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 60-67.
24. Wright, P. and Kriewall, M. A. (1980), State of Mind Effects on the Accuracy with which Utility Functions Predict Marketplace Choice, Journal of Marketing Research, 17. 277-293.