A Comparison of Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint and Choice-Based Conjoint to Determine Key Choice Attributes of Sour Cream with Limited Sample Size

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 27, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 451-462

  Jervis, S M ^a   Ennis, J M ^b   Drake, M A ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Institute for Perception   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DIFFERENTIATED PRODUCTS; FAT CONTENTS; LATENT CLASS; PRODUCT TYPES; RANDOM SAMPLE; SAMPLE SIZES; SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS; SOUR CREAM;

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; SAMPLING;

SURVEYS;

EID: 84870747454     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: 1745459X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/joss.12009     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Allenby, G.M., Fennell, G., Huber, J., Eagle, T., Gilbride, T.J., Horsky, D., Kim, J., Lenk, P., Johnson, R., Ofek, E. ETAL. 2005. Adjusting choice models to better predict market behavior. Mark. Lett. 16, 197-208.
2. Beckley, J., Ashman, H., Maier, A. and Moskowitz, H. 2004. What features drive rated burger craveability at the concept level? J. Sensory Studies 19, 27-47.
3. Cardello, A.V., Schutz, H.G. and Lesher, L.L. 2007. Consumer perceptions of foods processed by innovative and emerging technologies: A conjoint analytic study. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 8, 73-83.
4. Chapman, C.N., Alford, J.L., Johnson, C., Weidemann, R. and Lahav, M. 2009. CBC vs. ACBC: Comparing results with real product selection. Sawtooth Conference Proceedings 2009. http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/chapman09.pdf (accessed January 18, 2012).
5. Cheng, H.W., Clarke, A.D. and Heymann, H. 1990. Influence of selected marketing factors on consumer response to restructured beef steaks: A conjoint analysis. J. Sensory Studies 4, 165-178.
6. Childs, J.L. and Drake, M.A. 2009. Consumer perception of fat reduction in cheese. J. Sensory Studies 24, 902-921.
7. Cunningham, C.E., Deal, K. and Chen, Y. 2010. Adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis: A new patient-centered approach to the assessment of health service preferences. Patient 3(4), 257-273.
8. Ennis, D.M. and Johnson, N.L. 1993. Thurstone-Shepard similarity models as special cases of moment generating functions. J. Math. Psychol. 37, 104-110.
9. Ennis, D.M., Palen, J. and Mullen, K. 1988. A multidimensional stochastic theory of similarity. J. Math. Psychol. 32, 449-465.
10. Ewald, J. and Moskowitz, H. 2007. The push-pull of marketing and advertising and the algebra of the consumer's mind. J. Sensory Studies 22, 126-175.
11. Farquhar, P.H. 1990. Managing brand equity. J. Advert. Res. 30, 7-10.
12. Gensler, S., Hinz, O., Skiera, B. and Theysohn, S. 2012. Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 219, 368-378.
13. Gofman, A. 2006. Emergent scenarios, synergies and suppressions uncovered within conjoint analysis. J. Sensory Studies 21, 373-414.
14. Green, P. and Rao, V. 1971. Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. J. Mark. Res. 8, 355-363.
15. Green, P.E. and Srinivasan, V. 1990. Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. J. Mark. 54, 4-19.
16. Hauser, J.R., Ding, M. and Gaskin, S.P. 2009. Non-compensatory (and compensatory) models of consideration-set decisions. Sawtooth Conference Proceedings 2009. http://www.mit.edu/~hauser/Papers/Hauser_Ding_Gaskin_Sawtooth_Consideration_May_02_09.pdf (accessed January 18, 2012).
17. Howell, J. 2009. CBC/HB for beginners. Sawtooth Software, Inc. http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/CBCHBbeginners.pdf (accessed January 18, 2012).
18. Jervis, S.M., Lopetcharat, K. and Drake, M.A. 2012. Application of ethnography and conjoint analysis to determine key consumer attributes of latte-style coffee beverages. J. Sensory Studies 12, 48-58.
19. Jourdan, P. 2002. Measuring brand equity: Proposal for conceptual and methodological improvements. Adv. Consum. Res. 29, 290-298.
20. Krieger, B., Cappuccio, R., Katz, R. and Moskowitz, H. 2003. Next generation healthy soup: An exploration using conjoint analysis. J. Sensory Studies 18, 249-268.
21. Luce, D. and Tukey, J. 1964. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. J. Math. Psychol. 1, 1-27.
22. McFadden, D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics ( P. Zarembka, ed.) pp. 105-142, Academic Press, New York, NY.
23. Melo, L.L.M.M., Childs, J.L., Drake, M.A., Andre' Bolini, H.M. and Efraim, P. 2010. Expectations and acceptability of diabetic and reduced-calorie milk chocolates among nondiabetics and diabetics in the U.S.A. J. Sensory Studies 25, 133-152.
24. Moskowitz, H., Beckley, J. and Minkus-Mckenna, D. 2004. Use of conjoint analysis to assess web-based communications on functional foods. Appetite 43, 85-92.
25. Nelson, R.G., Jolly, C.M., Hinds, M.J., Donis, Y. and Prophete, E. 2005. Conjoint analysis of consumer preferences for roasted peanut products in Haiti. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 29, 208-215.
26. Olsen, A., Kildegaard, H., Gabrielsen, G., Thybo, A.K. and Moller, P. 2012. Measuring children's food preferences: Using pictures in a computerized conjoint analysis. J. Sensory Studies 2, 264-276.
27. Orme, B.K. 2004. Data use: A short history of conjoint analysis. Quirk's Marketing Research Review. http://www.quirks.com/articles/a2004/20040711.aspx?searchID=304597921&sort=5&pg=1 (accessed January 31, 2012).
28. Orme, B.K. 2010. Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research, Chapter 5, pp. 39-50, 78-81, Research Publishers, Madison, WI.
29. Orth, U.R. and Lopetcharat, K. 2005. Consumer-based brand equity versus product-attribute utility: A comparative approach to craft beer. J. Food Prod. Market. 11, 77-90.
30. Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Ares, G. and Varela, P. 2011. Semiotics and perception: Do labels convey the same messages to older and younger consumers? J. Sensory Studies 26, 197-208.
31. Rousseau, B., Ennis, D.M. and Rossi, F. 2012. Internal preference mapping and the issue of satiety. Food Qual. Prefer. 24, 67-74.
32. Sichtmann, C., Wilken, R. and Diamantopoulos, A. 2011. Estimating willingness-to-pay with choice-based conjoint analysis - can consumer characteristics explain variations in accuracy? Br. J. Manage. 22, 628-645.
33. Toubia, O., Hauser, J.R. and Simester, D.I. 2004. Polyhedral methods for adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis. J. Mark. Res. 41, 116-131.
34. Toubia, O., Hauser, J.R. and Garcia, R. 2007. Probabilistic polyhedral methods for adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis: Theory and application. Mark. Sci. 26, 596-610.
35. USDA. 2010. Agricultural statistics. U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/2010/2010.pdf (accessed February 9, 2012).
36. Vickers, Z.M. 1993. Incorporating tasting into a conjoint analysis of taste, health claim, price and brand for purchasing strawberry yogurt. J. Sensory Studies 8, 341-352.
37. Yu, J., Goos, P. and Vandebroek, M. 2011. Individually adapted sequential Bayesian conjoint-choice designs in the presence of consumer heterogeneity. Int. J. Res. Mark. 28, 378-388.
38. Zeithaml, V.A. 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 52, 2-22.