Measuring consumer preferences using Conjoint Poker

Marketing Science

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 138-156

  Toubia, Olivier ^a   de Jong, Martijn G ^b   Stieger, Daniel ^c   Füller, Johann ^c  

^a The Sanford C Bernstein Co Center for Leadership and Ethics   (United States)

^b ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK   (Austria)

Author keywords

Conjoint analysis; Experimental economics; Measurement and inference; Product

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857155070     PISSN: 07322399     EISSN: 1526548X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1110.0672     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Baumgartner, H., J.-B. E. M. Steenkamp. 2001. Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. J. Marketing Res. 38(2) 143-156.
2. Bradlow, E. T. 2005. Current issues and a wishlist for conjoint analysis. Appl. Stochastic Models Bus. Indust. 21(4-5) 319-323.
3. Bunch, D. S., J. J. Louviere, D. Anderson. 1994. A comparison of experimental design strategies for multinomial logit models: The case of generic attributes. Working paper, Graduate School of Management, University of California, Davis, Davis.
4. Chandon, P., J. W. Hutchinson, E. T. Bradlow, S. H. Young. 2009. Does in-store marketing work? Effects of the number and position of shelf facings on brand attention and evaluation at the point of purchase. J. Marketing 73(November) 1-17.
5. De Jong, M. G., R. Pieters, J.-P. Fox. 2010. Reducing social desirability bias via item randomized response: An application to measure underreported desires. J. Marketing Res. 47(February) 14-27.
6. Ding, M. 2007. An incentive-aligned mechanism for conjoint analysis. J. Marketing Res. 44(1) 214-223.
7. Ding, M., R. Grewal, J. Liechty. 2005. Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis J. Marketing Res. 42(1) 67-82.
8. Ding, M., Y.-H. Park, E. T. Bradlow. 2009. Barter markets for conjoint analysis Management Sci. 55(6) 1003-1017.
9. Dong, S., M. Ding, J. Huber. 2010. A simple mechanism to incentive align conjoint experiments. Internat. J. Res. Marketing 27(1) 25-32.
10. Green, P. E., V. Srinivasan. 1990. Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. J. Marketing 54(4) 3-19.
11. Huber, J., K. Zwerina. 1996. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Marketing Res. 33(3) 307-317.
12. Johnson, R. 2008. A perspective on adaptive CBC (what can we expect from respondents?). Research paper, Sawtooth Software, Sequim, WA. http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/acbcperspective.pdf.
13. Kohli, R., R. Sukumar. 1990. Heuristics for product-line design using conjoint analysis. Management Sci. 36(12) 1464-1478.
14. Lenk, P. J., W. S. DeSarbo, P. E. Green, M. R. Young. 1996. Hierarchical bayes conjoint analysis: Recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs. Marketing Sci. 15(1) 173-191.
15. Liechty, J. C., D. K. H. Fong, W. DeSarbo. 2005. Dynamic models with individual level heterogeneity: Applied to evolution during conjoint studies. Marketing Sci. 24(1) 285-293.
16. Mahajan, V., P. E. Green, S. M. Goldberg. 1982. A conjoint model for measuring self- and cross-price/demand relationships. J. Marketing Res. 19(3) 334-342.
17. McFadden, D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. P. Zarembka, ed. Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York, 105-142.
18. Netzer, O., O. Toubia, E. T. Bradlow, E. Dahan, T. Evgeniou, F. M. Feinberg, E. M. Feit et al. 2008. Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement. Marketing Lett. 19(3-4) 337-354.
19. Newey, W. K., D. McFadden. 1994. Large sample estimation and hypothesis testing. R. F. Engle, D. L. McFadden, eds. Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. 4. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 2113-2247.
20. Park, Y.-H., M. Ding, V. R Rao. 2008. Eliciting preference for complex products: A Web-based upgrading method. J. Marketing Res. 45(5) 562-574.
21. Pieters, R., M. Wedel. 2004. Attention capture and transfer in advertising: Brand, pictorial, and text-size effects. J. Marketing 68(April) 36-50.
22. Rossi, P. E., G. M. Allenby. 2003. Bayesian statistics and marketing. Marketing Sci. 22(3) 304-328.
23. Sandor, Z., M. Wedel. 2001. Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers' prior beliefs. J. Marketing Res. 38(4) 430-444.
24. Sandor, Z., M. Wedel. 2002. Profile construction in experimental choice designs for mixed logit models. Marketing Sci. 21(4) 455-475.
25. Sandor, Z., M. Wedel. 2005. Heterogeneous conjoint choice designs. J. Marketing Res. 42(1) 210-218.
26. Starmer, C., R. Sugden. 1991. Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? An experimental investigation. Amer. Econom. Rev. 81(4) 971-978.
27. Thaler, R. H., E. J. Johnson. 1990. Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choices. Management Sci. 36(6) 643-660.
28. Tourangeau, R., L. J. Rips, K. Rasinski. 2000. The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
29. Van der Lans, R., M. Wedel, R. Pieters. 2011. Defining eyefixation sequences across individuals and tasks: The binocularindividual threshold (BIT) algorithm. Behav. Res. Methods 43(1) 239-257.
30. Wedel, M., R. Pieters. 2000. Eye fixations on advertisements and memory for brands: A model and findings. Marketing Sci. 19(4) 297-312.
31. Wittink, D. R., P. Cattin. 1989. Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update. J. Marketing Res. 53(3) 91-96.