An empirical assessment of stimulus presentation mode bias in conjoint analysis

Innovative Marketing

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 108-121

  Mishra, Debi P ^a   Min, Junhong ^a   Deniz Dalman, M ^a  

^a NONE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Conjoint analysis; Evaluability theory; Stimulus presentation mode bias

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872402009     PISSN: 18142427     EISSN: 18166326     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Allenby, Greg M. and James Ginter (1995). “Using extremes to design productsand segment markets”, Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (4), pp. 152-162.
2. Bradlow, Eric T., Ye Hu, and Teck-Hua Ho (2004). “Modeling Behavioral Regularities of Consumer Learning in Conjoint Analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (November), pp. 392-396.
3. Chatterjee, Subimal, Timothy B. Heath, and Junhong Min (2009). “The Susceptibility of Mental Accounting Principles, to Evaluation Mode Effects,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22, pp. 120-137.
4. Ding, Min (2007). “An Incentive-Aligned Mechanism for Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (May), pp. 214-223.
5. Ding, Min, Young-Hoon Park, and Eric T. Bradlow (2009). “Barter Markets for Conjoint Analysis,” Management Science, 55 (6), pp. 1003-1017.
6. Fischer, Marc, Franziska Volckner, and Henrik Sattler (2010). “How Important Are Brands? A Cross-Category, Cross-Country Study,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (October), pp. 823-839.
7. Green, Paul E. (1984). “Hybrid models for conjoint analysis: An expository review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (May), pp. 155-159.
8. Green, Paul E., and Wayne S. DeSarbo (1979). “Componential Segmentation in the Analysis of Consumer TradeOffs,” Journal of Marketing, 43 (Fall), pp. 83-91.
9. Green, Paul E., Abba M. Krieger, and Yoram Wind (2001). “Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects,” Interface, 31 (3), pp. S56-S73.
10. Green, Paul E., Stephen M. Goldberg, and Mila Montemayor (1981). “A Hybrid Utility Estimation Model for Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 45 (Winter), pp. 33-41.
11. Green, Paul E., and V. Srinivasan (1990). “Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (October), pp. 3-19.
12. Heeler, Roger M., Chike Okechuku, and Stan Reid (1979). “Attribute Importance: Contrasting Measurements,” Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (February), pp. 60-63.
13. Hsee, Christopher, Sally Blount, George F. Loewenstein, and Max H. Bazerman (1999). “Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options: A Review and Theoretical Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin, 125 (5), pp. 576-590.
14. Jain, Arun K., Franklin Acito, Naresh K. Malhotra, and Vijay Mahajan (1979). “A Comparison of the Internal Validity of Alternative Parameter Estimation Methods in Decompositionalultiattribute Preference Models,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (August), pp. 313-322.
15. Johnson, Richard M. (1974). “Trade-off Analysis of Consumer Values,” Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (May), pp. 121-127.
16. Louviere, Jordan J., David A. Hensher, and Joffre D. Swait (2000). Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications, Cambridge: University Press.
17. Louviere, Jordan J., and George Woodworth (1983). “Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: A Method Based on Aggregate Data,” Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (November), pp. 350-367.
18. Metha, Raj, William L. Moore, and Teresa M. Pavia (1992). “An Examination of the Use of Unacceptable levels in Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (December), pp. 470-476.
19. Nowlis, Stephen M. and Itamar Simonson (1997). “Attribute-Task Compatibility as a Determinant of Consumer Preference Reversals,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (May), pp. 205-218.
20. Oppewal, Harmen and Martijn Klabbers (2003). “Compromising between Information Completeness and Task Simplicity: A Comparison of Self-Explicated, Hierarchical Information Integration, and Full-profile Conjoint Methods,” Advances in Consumer Research, 30, pp. 298-304.
21. Ostrom, Amy and Dawn Iacobucci (1995). “Consumer Trade-Offs and the Evaluation of Services,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (January), pp. 17-28.
22. Ramaswamy, Venkatram and Steven H. Cohen (2000). “Latent class models for conjoint analysis,” in Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications, eds. A. Gustafsson, A. Hermann, and F. Huber, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
23. Sawtooth Software (2008). Sequim, WA.
24. Schmeltzer, Christophe, Jean-Paul Caverni, and Masimo Warglien (2004). “How Does Preference Reversal Appear and Disappear? Effects of the Evaluation Mode,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, pp. 395-408.
25. Segal, Madhav N. (1982). “Reliability of Conjoint Analysis: Contrasting Data Collection Procedures,” Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (February), pp. 139-143.
26. Sethuraman, Raj, Roger A. Kerin, and William L. Cron (2005). “A field study comparing online and offline data collection methods for identifying product attribute preferences using conjoint analysis,” Journal of Business Research, 58, pp. 602-610.
27. Srinivasan V. (1988). “A Conjunctive-Compensatory Approach to the Self-Explication of Multiattributed Preferences,” Decision Sciences, 19 (Spring), pp. 295-305.
28. Srinivasan, V., Peter G. Flachbart, Jarir S. Dajani, and Rolfe G. Hartley (1981). “Forecasting the Effectiveness of Work-Trip Gasoline Conservation Policies Through Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 45 (Summer), pp. 157-172.
29. Srinivansan V. and Chan Su Park (1997). “Surprising Robustness of the Self-Explicated Approach to Customer Preference Structure Measurement,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (2), pp. 286-291.
30. Toubia, Olivier, John R. Hauser, and Duncan I. Simester (2004). “Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (February) pp. 116-131.
31. Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2004). “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (January), pp. 1-17.
32. Willemsen, Martijn C. and Gideon Keren (2004). “The Role of Negative Features in Joint and Separate Evaluation,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, pp. 313-329.
33. Wittink, Dick R. and Philippe Cattin (1989). “Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update,” Journal of Marketing, 53 (July), pp. 91-96.
34. Yeung, Catherine W.M. and Dilip Soman (2005). “Attribute Evaluability and the Range Effect,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (December), pp. 363-369.