Investigating Research Streams of Conjoint Analysis: A Bibliometric Study

Business Research

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 49-68

  Teichert, Thorsten ^a   Shehu, Edlira ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

^b Hamburger Sparkasse   (Germany)

Author keywords

bibliometric analysis; conjoint analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880548457     PISSN: 21983402     EISSN: 21982627     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF03342715     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Adamowicz, Wiktor L., Jordan J. Louviere, and Martin Williams (1994): Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26 (3): 271–292.
2. Adamowicz, Wiktor L., Joffre D. Swait, Peter C. Boxall, Jordan J. Louviere, and Michael Williams (1997): Perceptions Versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32 (1): 65–84.
3. Addelman, Sidney (1962): Orthogonal Main-Effect Plans for Asymmetrical Factorial Experiments, Technometrics, 4 (1): 21–46.
4. Allenby, Greg M., Neeraj Arora, and James Ginter (1995): Incorporating Prior Knowledge into the Analysis of Conjoint Studies, Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (2): 152–162.
5. Allenby, Greg M., Neeraj Arora, and James L. Ginter (1998): On the Heterogeneity of Demand, Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (3): 384–389.
6. Allenby, Greg M. and Peter E. Rossi (1999): Marketing Models of Consumer Heterogeneity, Journal of Econometrics, 89 (1–2): 57–78.
7. Bar-Ilan, Judit (2008): Informetrics at the Beginning of the 21st Century — A Review, Journal of Informetrics, 2 (1): 1–52.
8. Baumgartner, Hans and Rik Pieters (2003): The Structural Influence of Marketing Journals: A Citation Analysis of the Discipline and its Subareas Over Time, Journal of Marketing, 67 (2): 123–139.
9. Ben-Akiva, Moshe E. and Steven R. Lerman (1985): Discrete Choice Analysis, MIT Press: Cambridge.
10. Biehl, Markus, Henry Kim, and Michael Wade (2006): Relationships Among the Academic Business Disciplines: A Multi-Method Citation Analysis, Omega, 34 (4): 359–371.
11. Borgatti, Steve, Marin Everett, and Lin Freeman (2002): Ucinet 6 for Windows, Analytic Technologies: Harvard.
12. Boxall, Peter C., Wiktor L. Adamowicz, Joffre D. Swait, Michael Williams, and Jordan J. Louviere (1996): A Comparison of Stated Preference Methods for Environmental Valuation, Ecological Economics, 18 (3): 243–253.
13. Boyack, Kevin W., Katy Börner, and Richard Klavans (2009): Mapping the Structure and Evolution of Chemistry Research, Scientometrics, 79 (1): 45–60.
14. Carson, Richard T., Jordan J. Louviere, Donald A. Anderson, Phipps Arabie, David S. Bunch, David A. Hensher, Richard M. Johnson, Warren Kuhfeld, Dan Steinberg, Joffre D. Swait, Harry Timmermans, and James B. Wiley (1994): Experimental Analysis of Choice, Marketing Letters, 5 (4): 351–367.
15. Cattin, Philippe and Dick R. Wittink (1982): Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey, Journal of Marketing, 46 (3): 44–53.
16. Cote, Joseph A., Siew Meng Leong, and Jane Cote (1991): Assessing the Influence of Journal of Consumer Research: A Citation Analysis, Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (3): 402–410.
17. Culnan, Mary J. (1986): The Intellectual Development of Management Information Systems, 1972–1982: A Co-Citation Analysis, Management Science, 32 (2): 156–172.
18. Culnan, Mary J., Charles A. O’Reilly, and Jennifer A. Chatman (1990): Intellectual Structure of Research in Organisational Behavior, 1972–1984: A Cocitation Analysis, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41 (6): 453–458.
19. Debreu, Gerard (1960): Review of R. Duncan Luce: Individual Choice Behaviour: A Theoretical Analysis, American Economic Review, 50 (1): 186–188.
20. Elrod, Terry, Jordan J. Louviere, and Krishnakumar S. Davey (1992): An Empirical Comparison of Ratings-Based and Choice-Based Conjoint Models, Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (3): 368–377.
21. Fishburn, Peter C. (1970): Intransitive Individual Indifference and Transitive Majorities, Econometrica, 38 (3): 482–489.
22. Garfield, Eugene (1979): Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology and Humanities, Wiley: New York.
23. Green, Paul E. (1984): Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review, Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (2): 155–169.
24. Green, Paul E., Stephen M. Goldberg, and Mila Montemayor (1981): A Hybrid Utility Estimation Model for Conjoint Analysis, Journal of Marketing, 45 (1): 33–41.
25. Green, Paul E. and Kristiaan Helsen (1989): Cross-Validation Assessment of Alternatives to Individual-Level Conjoint Analysis: A Case Study, Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (3): 346–350.
26. Green, Paul E. and Vithala R. Rao (1971): Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data, Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (3): 355–363.
27. Green, Paul E. and V. Srinivasan (1978): Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook, Journal of Consumer Research, 5 (2): 103–123.
28. Green, Paul E. and V. Srinivasan (1990): Conjoint-Analysis in Marketing — New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice, Journal of Marketing, 54 (4): 3–19.
29. Hauser, John R. and Vithala R. Rao (2004): Conjoint Analysis, Related Modeling and Applications, in: Yoram Wind and Paul E. Green (eds.): Marketing Research and Modeling, Progress and Prospect — A Tribute to Paul E. Green, Springer: Dordrecht, 141–168.
30. Hensher, David A. (1994): Stated Preference Analysis of Travel Choices: The State of Practice, Transportation, 21 (2): 107–133.
31. Hoffman, Donna L. and Morris B. Holbrook (1993): The Intellectual Structure of Consumer Research: A Bibliometric Study of Author Cocitations in the First 15 Years of the Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (4): 505–517.
32. Huber, Joel and Klaus Zwerina (1996): The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs, Journal of Marketing Research, 33 (3): 307–317.
33. Hult, G. Tomas M. and Brian R. Chabowski (2008): Sourcing Research as an Intellectual Network of Ideas, Decision Sciences, 39 (3): 323–335.
34. Jarneving, Bo (2005): A Comparison of Two Bibliometric Methods for Mapping of the Research Front, Scientometrics, 65 (2): 245–263.
35. Jarneving, Bo (2008): A Variation of the Calculation of the First Author Cocitation Strength in Author Cocitation Analysis, Scien-tometrics, 77 (3): 485–504.
36. Johnson, Richard M. (1987): Adaptive Conjoint Analysis, Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping Conjoint Analysis and Computer Interviewing, Sawtooth Software: Ketchum, 254–265.
37. Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky (1979): Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk, Econometrica, 47 (2): 263–291.
38. Kohli, Rajeev and Ramesh Krishnamurti (1987): A Heuristic Approach to Product Design, Management Science, 33 (12): 1523–1533.
39. Kohli, Rajeev and Ramesh Krishnamurti (1989): Optimal Product Design Using Conjoint Analysis: Computational Complexity and Algorithms, European Journal of Operational Research, 40 (2): 186–195.
40. Kohli, Rajeev and R. Sukumar (1990): Heuristics for Product-Line Design Using Conjoint Analysis, Management Science, 36 (12): 1464–1478.
41. Krantz, David H. and Amos Tversky (1971): Conjoint Measurement Analysis of Composition Rules in Psychology, Psychological Review, 78 (2): 151–169.
42. Kruskal, J. B. (1965): Analysis of Factorial Experiments by Estimating Monotone Transformations of the Data, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 27 (2): 251–263.
43. Leigh, Thomas W., David B. MacKay, and John O. Summers (1984): Reliability and Validity of Conjoint Analysis and Self-Explicated Weights: A Comparison, Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (4): 456–462.
44. Lenk, Peter J., Wayne S. DeSarbo, Paul E. Green, and Martin R. Young (1996): Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs, Marketing Science, 15 (2): 173–191.
45. Leong, Siew Meng (1989): A Citation Analysis of the Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (4): 492–497.
46. Lievrouw, Leah (1990): Reconciling structure and process in the study of scholarly communication, in: C. L. Borgman (ed.): Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics, Sage, Newbury Park, 59–72.
47. Louviere, Jordan J. (1988): Conjoint Analysis Modelling of Stated Preferences: A Review of Theory, Methods, Recent Developments and External Validity, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 22 (1): 93–119.
48. Louviere, Jordan J., Thomas C. Eagle, and Steven H. Cohen (2005): Conjoint Analysis: Methods, Myths and Much More, Working Paper, University of Technology: Sydney.
49. Louviere, Jordan J., David A. Hensher, and Joffre D. Swait (2000): Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge U.K.
50. Louviere, Jordan J. and George Woodworth (1983): Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data, Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (4): 350–367.
51. Luce, R. Duncan and John W. Tukey (1964): Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1 (1): 1–27.
52. Ma, Zhenzhong, Yender Lee, and Kuo-Hsun Yu (2008): Ten Years of Conflict Management Studies: Themes, Concepts and Relationships, International Journal of Conflict Management, 19 (3): 234–248.
53. McBride, Richard D. and Fred S. Zufryden (1988): An Integer Programming Approach to the Optimal Product Line Selection Problem, Marketing Science, 7 (2): 126–140.
54. McCain, Katherine W. (1990): Mapping Authors in Intellectual Space: A Technical Overview, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41 (6): 433–443.
55. McFadden, Daniel (1974): Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behaviour, in: Paul Zarembka (ed.): Frontiers in Econometrics, Academic Press: New York, 105–142.
56. Merton, Robert K. (1965): On the Shoulders of Giants: a Shan-dean Postscript, The Free Press: New York.
57. Nerur, Sridhar P., Abdul A. Rasheed, and Vivek Natarajan (2008): The Intellectual Structure of the Strategic Management Field: An Author Co-Citation Analysis, Strategic Management Journal, 29 (3): 319–336.
58. Parasuraman, A., Valerie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry (1985): A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research, Journal of Marketing, 49 (4): 41–50.
59. Pieters, Rik, Hans Baumgartner, Jeroen Vermunt, and Tammo Bijmolt (1999): Importance and Similarity in the Evolving Citation Network of the International Journal of Research in Marketing, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16 (2): 113–127.
60. Pilkington, Alan and Jack Meredith (2009): The Evolution of the Intellectual Structure of Operations Management — 1980–2006: A Citation/Co-Citation Analysis, Journal of Operations Management, 27 (3): 185–202.
61. Pilkington, Alan and Thorsten Teichert (2006): Management of Technology: Themes, Concepts and Relationships, Technovation, 26 (3): 288–299.
62. Polonsky, Michael and Les Carlson (2009): Is there Global Inclusion of Authors in the Five Leading Advertising Journals? A Regional Comparison 1998–2007, International Journal of Advertising, 28 (4): 691–714.
63. Ponzi, Leonard J. (2002): The Intellectual Structure and Interdisciplinary Breadth of Knowledge Management: A Bibliometric Study of its Early Stage of Development, Scientometrics, 55 (2): 259–272.
64. Ramos-Rodriguez, Antoni-Rafael and José Ruiz-Navarro (2004): Changes in the Intellectual Structure of Strategic Management Research: A Bibliometric Study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000, Strategic Management Journal, 25 (10): 981–1004.
65. Roberts, Fred S. (1979): Measurement Theory, Addison-Wesley: New York.
66. Ryan, Mandy and Shelley Farrar (2000): Using Conjoint Analysis to Elicit Preferences for Health Care, British Medical Journal, 320 (7248): 1530–1533.
67. Ryan, Mandy and Jenny Hughes (1997): Using Conjoint Analysis to Assess Women’s Preferences for Miscarriage Management, Health Economics, 6 (3): 261–273.
68. Shocker, Allan D. and V. Srinivasan (1974): A Consumer-Based Methodology for Identification of New Product Ideas, Management Science, 20 (6): 921–937.
69. Shocker, Allan D. and V. Srinivasan (1979): Multiattribute Approaches for Product Concept Evaluation and Generation: A Critical-Review, Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (2): 159–180.
70. Sivadas, Eugene and Mark S. Johnson (2005): Knowledge Flows in Marketing: An Analysis of Journal Article References and Citations, Marketing Theory, 5 (4): 339–361.
71. Small, Henry (1973): Co-Citation in the Scientific Literature: A New Measure of the Relationship between Two Documents, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24 (4): 265–269.
72. Small, Henry (2004): On the Shoulders of Robert Merton: Towards a Normative Theory of Citation, Scientometrics, 60 (1): 71–79.
73. Small, Henry (2006): Tracking and Predicting Growth Areas in Science, Scientometrics, 68 (3): 595–610.
74. Srinivasan, V. and Allan D. Shocker (1973): Estimating the Weights for Multiple Attributes in a Composite Criterion Using Pairwise Judgments, Psychometrika, 38 (4): 473–493.
75. Swait, Joffre D. and Jordan J. Louviere (1993): The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models, Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (3): 305–314.
76. Tahai, Alireza and Michael J. Meyer (1999): A Revealed Preference Study of Management Journals’ Direct Influences, Strategic Management Journal, 20 (3): 279–296.
77. Teichert, Thorsten (2004): Mapping Research in Innovation Management: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Policy, in: Sönke Albers (ed.): Cross-Functional Innovation Management: Perspectives from Different Disciplines, Gabler: Wiesbaden, 369–388.
78. Tversky, Amos (1969): Intransitivity of Preferences, Psychological Review, 76 (1): 31–48.
79. Tversky, Amos and Eldar Shafir (1992): Choice Under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision, Psychological Science, 3 (6): 358–361.
80. Vriens, Marco, Harmen Oppewal, and Michel Wedel (1998): Ratings-Based versus Choice-Based Latent Class Conjoint Models — An Empirical Comparison, Journal of the Market Research Society, 40 (3): 237–248.
81. White, Howard D. (1990): Author Cocitation Analysis: Overview and Defense, in: Christine L. Borgman (ed.): Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics, Sage: Newbury Park, 84–106.
82. White, Howard D. (2004): Citation Analysis and Discourse Analysis Revisited, Applied Linguistics, 25 (1): 89–116.
83. White, Howard and Belver C. Griffith (1981): Author Cocitation: A Literature Measure of Intellectual Structure, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32 (3): 163–172.
84. White, Howard D. and Katherine W. McCain (1998): Visualizing a Discipline: An Author Co-Citation Analysis of Information Science, 1972–1995, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49 (4): 327–355.
85. Wittink, Dick R. and Philippe Cattin (1989): Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update, Journal of Marketing, 53 (3): 91–96.
86. Zinkhan, George M., Martin S. Roth, and Mary Jane Saxton (1992): Knowledge Development and Scientific Status in Consumer-Behavior Research: A Social-Exchange Perspective, Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (2): 282–291.