On the influence of the evaluation methods in conjoint design-some empirical results

Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 93-112

  Huber, Frank ^a   Herrmann, Andreas ^b   Gustafsson, Anders ^c,d  

^a JOHANNES GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ST GALLEN   (Switzerland)

^c KARLSTAD UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^d LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892228613     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-71404-0_6     Document Type: Chapter

References (61)

1. Acito, F. (1977), Ail Investigation of some Data Collection Issues in Conjoint Measurement. in: Greenberg. Barnett. A. and Bellenger, D. N., eds., Contemporary marketing thought (Educators Conference Proceedings), Chicago, 82-85.
2. Acito, F. (1979), An Investigation of the Reliability of Conjoint Measurement for Various Orthogonal Designs, in: Franz, R. S., Hopkins, R. M. and Toma, A., eds., Southern Marketing Association Conference Proceedings, University of Southwestern Louisiana, 175-178.
3. Agarwal, M. (1988). Comparison of conjoint methods, Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis and Computer Interviewing., Sun Valley, 51-57.
4. Anderson, J. C. (1987), The Effect of Type of Presentation on Judgments of New Product Acceptance, Industrial Marketing and Purchasing, 2, 29-46.
5. Aust, E. (1996), Simultane Conjointanalyse, Benefitsegmentierung, Produktlinien- und Preisgestaltwig, Frankfurt am Main.
6. Anderson, J. C. (1987), The Effect of Type of Presentation on Judgments of New Product Acceptance, in: Industrial Marketing and Purchasing. 2, 29-46.
7. Carmone, F. J., Green, P. E. and Jain, A. K. (1978), Robustness of Conjoint Analysis: Some Monte Carlo Results. Journal of Marketing Reseaarch, 15, 300-303.
8. Cattin, P. and Bliemel, F. (1978). Metric vs. Nonmetric Procedures for Multiattribute Modeling: Some Simulation Results, Decision Sciences, 9. 472-480.
9. Cattin, P. and Weinberger, M. (1980). Some Validity and Reliability Issues in the Measurement of Attribute Utilities, in: Olsen, J. C., ed., Advances in Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, 7, 780-783.
10. Cattin, P. and Wittink, D. R. (1982), Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey, Journal of Marketing, 46, 44-53.
11. Chapman, R. G. and Bolton, R. N. (1985), Attribute Presentation Order Bias and Nonsta- Tionarity in Full Profile Conjoint Analysis Tasks, in: Lusch, R. F. et al., ed., AM A Educators Conference Proceedings, Chicago, 373-379.
12. Chrzan, K. (1994). Three Kinds of Order Effects in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis, Marketing Letters, 5. 165-172.
13. Colberg, T. (1977), Validation of Conjoint Measurement Methods: A simulation and empirical Investigation. dissertation. University of Washington.
14. Greyer, E. H. and Ross, W. T. (1988), The Effects of Range-Frequency Manipulations on Conjoint Importance Weight Stability, in: Houston, M. J., ed., Advances in Consumer Research, Provo, 15, 505-509.
15. Currim, I. S., Weinberg, C. B. and Wittink, D. R. (1981), Design of Subscription Programs for a Performing Arts Series. Journal of Consumer Research. 8, 67-75.
16. Domzal, T. J. and linger, L. S. (1985), Judgments of Verbal versus Pictorial Presentations of a Product with Functional and Aesthetic Features, Hirschman. E. C. and Holbrook, M. B., eds., Advances in Consumer Research, Provo, 12, 268-272.
17. Green, P. E. and Srinivasan, V. (1990), Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments With Implications for Research and Practice, Journal of Marketing, 54, 3-19.
18. Green, P. E. and Srinivasan, V. (1978), Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook, Journal of Consumer Research, 5. 103-123.
19. Gutsche, J. (1995). Produktprciferenzanalyse: Ein modelltheoretisches und methodisches Konzept zur Marktsimulation mittels Prdferenzerfassungsmodellen, Berlin.
20. Hausruckinger, G. and Flerker, A. (1992), Die Konstruktion von Schatzdesigns fur Con- joint-Analysen auf der Basis von Paarvergleichen, Marketing ZFP, 14, 99-110.
21. Helson, H. (1964), Adaptation-level Theory: An experimental and systematic approach to behavior; New York.
22. Holbrook, M. B. and Moore, W. L. (1981), Feature Interactions in Consumer Judgments of Verbal Versus Pictorial Presentations, Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 103-113.
23. Hong, S. and Wyer, R. S. Jr. (1989), Effects of Country-of-Origin and Product-Attribute Information on Product Evaluation: An Information Processing Perspective, Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 175-185.
24. Huber, J. C., Wittink, D. R., Fiedler, J. A. and Miller, R. L. (1991), An Empirical Comparison of ACA and Full Profile Judgements, Sawtooth Sofhvare Conference Proceedings, Ketchum, 1991, 189-202.
25. Huber, J. C., Wittink, D. R., Fiedler, J. A. and Miller, R. L. (1993). The Effectiveness of Alternative Preference Elicitation Procedures in Predicting Choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 105-114.
26. Hutchinson, J. W. (1983), On the Locus of Range Effects in Judgment and Choice, Bagozzi, Richard and Tybout, A., eds., Advances in Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, 10. 305-308.
27. Jain, A. R., Acito, F., Malhorta, N. and Mahajan, V. (1979), A comparison of internal validity of alternative parameter estimation methods in decompositional multiattribute preference models, Journal of Marketing Research. 16, 313-322.
28. Johnson, R. M. (1982), Problems in Applying Conjoint Analysis, in: Srivastava, R. K. and Shocker, A. D., eds.. Analytical Approaches to Product and Marketing Planning: The Second Conference, Cambridge, 154-164.
29. Johnson, R. M. (1989). Assessing the Validity of Conjoint Analysis. Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Ketch urn, 273-280.
30. Kalish, S. and Nelson, P. (1991) A Comparison of Ranking, Rating and Reservation Price Measurement in Conjoint Analysis, Marketing Letters, 2. 327-335.
31. Krishnamurthi, L. and Wittink, D. R. (1991), The Value of Idiosyncratic Functional Forms in Conjoint Analysis, International Journal of Research in Marketing 78, 301-313.
32. Kumar, V. and Caeth, G. J. (1991), Attribute order and product familiarity effects in decision tasks using conjoint analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 8, 113-124.
33. Louviere, J- J., Schroeder, J.O., Louviere, C. F. and Wood worth, G. G. (1987). Do the Parameters of Choice Models Depend on Differences in Stimulus Presentation: Visual versus Verbal Presentation, Wallendorf. M.and Anderson, P. F., eds., Advances in Consumer Research. Provo, 14, 79-82.
34. Leigh, T. W., MacKay, D. B. and Summers, J. O. (1981), An Alternative Experimental Methods for Conjoint Analysis, in: Monroe, K. B., ed., Advances in Consumer Research. Ann Arbor, 8. 317-322.
35. MacKay, D. B., Ellis, M. and Zinnes, J. L. (1986), Graphic and Verbal Presentation of Stimuli: A Probabilistic MDS Analysis, in: Lutz, R. J., ed., Advances in Consumer Research, Provo, 13, 529-533.
36. Malhotra, N. K. (1982), Structural Reliability and Stability of Nonmetric Conjoint Analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 199-207.
37. Mellers, B. A. (1982), Equity Judgment: A Revision of Aristotelian Views, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 111, 242-270.
38. Mishra, S., Umesh, U. N. and Stem, D. E. (1989), Attribute importance weights in conjoint analysis: Bias and Precision, Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 605-611.
39. Mtiller-Hagedorn, L., Sewing, E. and Toporowski, W. (1993). Zur Vali-ditat von Conjoint- Analysen, Zeitschrift fiir betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 45, 123-148.
40. Oppedijk van veen, W. M. and Beazlev, D. (1977), An Investigation of alternative Methods of applying the trade-off Model, Journal of Market Research Society, 19, 2-9.
41. Parducci, A. (1965), Category' Judgment: A Range-Frequency Model, Psychological Review. 72, 407-418.
42. Perrey, J. (1996), Erhebungsdesign-Effekte bei der conjoint analysis, Marketing ZFP. 18, 105-116.
43. Reibstein, D., Bateson, J. E. G. and Boulding, W. (1988), Conjoint Analysis Reliability: Empirical Findings, Marketing Science, 1, 271-286.
44. Sattler, FT. (1994), Die Validitat von Produkttests - Ein empirischer Vergleich zwischen hypothetischer und realer ProduktprSsentation, Marketing ZFP, 16, 31 -41.
45. Schubert, B. (1991), Entwicklung von Konzepten fiir Produktinnovationen mittels Conjoint Analysis, Stuttgart.
46. Schweikl, H. (1985), Computergestutzte Prdferenzanalyse mit individuell wichtigen Pro- duktmerhnalen, Berlin.
47. Segal, M. N. (1982). Reliability of Conjoint Analysis: Contrasting Data Collection Procedures, Journal of Marketing Research. 13. 211-224.
48. Segal, M. N. (1984). Alternate Form Conjoint Reliability : An Empirical Assessment. Journal of Advertising, 13, 31 - 38.
49. Smead, R. J., Wilcox, J. B. and Wilkes, R. E. (1981), How Valid are Product Descriptions and Protocols in Choice Experiments, Journal of Consumer Research, 8. 37-42.
50. Steenkamp J. B. E. M. and Wittink D. R. (1994), The Metric Quality of Full-Profile Judgments and the Number-of-Attribute-Levels Effect in Conjoint Analysis, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 275-286.
51. Tharp, M. and Marks, L. (1990), An Examination of the Effects of Attribute Order and Product Order Biases in Conjoint Analysis, in: Goldberg, M. E., Gorn, E., Pollay, R. W., eds., Advances in Consumer Research, Provo, 17, 563-570.
52. Thomas, L. (1979), Conjoint Measurement als Instrument der Absatzforschung, Marketing ZFP, 1. 199-211.
53. Vriens, M. (1995), Conjoint analysis in Marketing, ph.D thesis, Capelle.
54. Vriens, M., Oppewal, H. & Wedel, M. (1998). Ratings-based versus choice-based latent class conjoint models - An empirical comparison. Journal of the Market Research Society, 40, 237-248.
55. Weisenfeld, U. (1989), Die Einflusse von Verfahrensvariationen und der Art des Kaufent- scheidungsprozesses auf die Reliability der Ergebnisse bei der Conjoint Analysis, Berlin.
56. Wittink, D. R., Huber, J., Zandan, P. and Johnson, R. M (1992), The Number of Levels Effect in Conjoint: Where does it come from, and can it be eliminated, Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Ketchum, 355-364.
57. Wittink, D. R., Krishnamurthi, L. and Nutter, J. B. (1982), Comparing Derived Importance Weights Across Attributes, Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 471-474.
58. Wittink, D. R., Krishnamurthi, L. and Reibstein, D. J. (1989), The Effect of Differences in the Number of Attribute Levels on Conjoint Results, Marketing Letters, 1, 113-123.
59. Wittink, D. R. and Cattin, P. (1981). Alternative Estimation Methods for Conjoint Analysis: A Mont£ Carlo Study. Journal of Marketing Research, 18. 101-106.
60. Wittink, D. R. and Cattin, P. (1989), Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update, Journal of Marketing, 53, 91-96.
61. Wittink, D. R., Vriens, M. and Burhenne, W. (1994), Commercial Use of Con joint Analysis in Europe: Results and Critical Reflections, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 41-52.