Conjoint choice experiments: General characteristics and alternative model specifications

Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 199-229

  Haaijer, Rinus ^a   Wedel, Michel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892282561     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-71404-0_11     Document Type: Chapter

References (89)

1. Addelman, S. (1962), Orthogonal Main-Effects Plans for Asymmetrical Factorial Experiments. Technometrics, 4, 21 -46.
2. Akaike, H. (1973). Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle, in: Petrov, B.N. and Csaki, F., eds., 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, 267-281.
3. Alien, G. M., Arora, N. and G inter, J. L. (1995), Incorporating Prior Knowledge into the Analysis of Conjoint Studies, Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 152-162.
4. Allenby, G. M., Arora, N. and Ginter, J. L. (1998), On the Heterogeneity of Demand. Journal of Marketing Research, 35. 384-389.
5. Allen, G. M. and Ginter, J. L. (1995), Using Extremes to Design Products and Segment Markets, Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 392-403.
6. Allenby, G. M. and Rossi, P. E. (1999), Marketing Models of Consumer Heterogeneity, Journal of Econometrics, 89, 57-78.
7. Arora, N., Allenby, G. M. and Ginter, J. L. (1998), A Hierarchical Bayes Model of Primary and Secondary Demand, Marketing Science, 17. 29-44.
8. Bekker, P. A., Merckens, A. and Wansbeek, T. J. (1994), Identification, Equivalent Models, and Computer Algebra. San Diego.
9. Ben-Akiva, M. and Lerman, S. R. (1985), Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, Cambridge.
10. Borsch-Supan, A., Hajivassiliou, V. A., Kotlikoff, L. J. and Morris, J. N. (1990), Health, Children, and Elderly Living Arrangements: A Multiperiod. Multinomial Probit Model with Unobserved Heterogeneity and Autocorrelated Errors. MBER working Paper 3343.
11. Bunch, D. S. (1991), Estimability in the Multinomial Probit Model, Transportation Research B. 25. 1-12.
12. Bunch, D. S. and Kitamura, R. (1989), Multinomial Probit Model Estimation Revisited: Testing Estimable Model Specifications, Maximum Likelihood Algorithms, and Probit Integral Approximations for Trinomial Models of Household Car Ownership, working paper, University of California at Davis.
13. Carroll, J. D. (1972), Individual Differences and Multidimensional Scaling, in: Shepard, R. N., Roniney, A. K. and Nerlove, S. B., eds., Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications in the Behavioral Sciences, New York.
14. Carroll, J. D. and Green, P. E. (1995), Psychometric Methods in Marketing Research: Part 1, Conjoint Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 385-391.
15. Cattin, P. and Wittink, D. R. (1982), Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey, Journal of Marketing, 46, 44-53.
16. Chintagunta, P. K. (1992). Estimating A Multinomial Probit Model Of Brand Choice Using The Method Of Simulated Moments, Marketing Science, 11, 386-407.
17. Chrzan, K. (1994), Three Kinds of Order Effects in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis, Marketing Letters, 5, 165-172.
18. Cohen, S. H. (1997), Perfect Union: CBCA Marries the Best of Conjoint and Discrete Choice Models, Marketing Research, 9, 12-17.
19. Daganzo, C. F. (1979), Multinomial Probit The Theory and Its Applications to Demand Forecasting, New York.
20. Dansie, B. R. (1985), Parameter Estimabilitv in the Multinomial Probit Model, Transportation Research B. 19, 526-528.
21. Dellaert, B. G. C., Borgers, A. W. J. and Timmermans, H. J. P. (1995), A Day in the City, Using Conjoint Choice Experiments to Model Tourists Choice of Activity Packages, Tourism Management, 16, 347-353.
22. Dellaert, B. G. C., Borgers, A. W. J. and Timmermans, H. J. P. (1996), Conjoint Choice Models of Joint Participation and Activity Choice, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13. 251-264.
23. Dellaert, B. G. C., Borgers, A. W. J. and Timmermans, H. J. P. (1997), Conjoint Models of Tourist Portfolio Choice: Theory and Illustration. Leisure Science, 19. 31-58.
24. DeSarbo, W. S. and Green, P. E. (1984), Concepts, Theory, and Techniques, Choice- Constrained Conjoint Analysis, Decision Science, 15, 291-323.
25. DeSarbo, W. S., Ramaswamy, V. and Cohen, S. H. (1995). Market Segmentation with Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis, Marketing Letters, 6, 137-148.
26. Elrod, T. and Keane, M. P. (1995), A Factor-Analytic Probit Model for Representing the Market Structures in Panel Data, Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 1-16.
27. Elrod, T., Louviere, J. J. and Davey, K. S. (1992), An Empirical Comparison of Rating- Based arid Choice-Based Conjoint Models, Journal of Marketing Research. 29. 368- 377.
28. Green, P. E. (1984), Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review, Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 155-169.
29. Green, P. E., Goldberg, S. M. and Montemayor, M. (1981), A Hybrid Utility Estimation Model for Conjoint Analysis, Journal of Marketing, 45, 33-41.
30. Green, P. E. and Rao, V. R. (1971), Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data, Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 355-363.
31. Green, P. E. and Srinivasan, V. (1978), Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook, Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103-123.
32. Green, P. E. and Srinivasan, V. (1990), Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Develop-ments with Implications for Research and Practice. Journal of Marketing, 54, 3-19.
33. Haaijer, M. E. (1999), Modeling Conjoint Choice Experiments with the Probit Model. University of Groningen.
34. Haaijer, M. E., Kamakura, W. A. and Wedel, M. (2000). Response Latencies in the Analysis of conjoint Choice Experiments, Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 376-382.
35. Haaijer, M. E., Kamakura, W. A. and Wedel, M. (2001). The No-Choice Alternative in Conjoint Choice Experiments, International Journal of Market Research, 43, 93-106.
36. Haaijer, M. E., Wedel, M., Vriens, M. and Wansbeek, T. J. (1998), Utility Covariances and Context Effects in Conjoint MNP Models, Marketing Science, 17, 236-252.
37. Hajivassiliou, V. A. (1993), Simulation Estimation Methods for Limited Dependent Variable Models, in: Maddala. G. S., Rao, C. R. and Vinod, H.D., eds., Handbook of Statis-tics, 11. 519-543.
38. Hausman, J. A. and Wise, D. A. (1978), A Conditional Probit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences, Econometrica, 46, 403-426.
39. Huber, J., Payne, J. W. and Puto, C. (1982), Adding Asymmetrically Dominant Alterna-tives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypotheses, Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90-98.
40. Ruber, J. and Puto, C. (1983), Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects, Journal of Consumer Research, 10. 31-44.
41. Huber, J. and Zwerina, K. (1996), The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs, Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 307-317.
42. Johnson, R. M. (1974), Trade-off Analysis of Consumer Values, Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 1221-1227.
43. Johnson R. M. (1985), Adaptive Conjoint Analysis, in: Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis and Computer Interview- ing. Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, Inc.. 253-265.
44. Johnson, R. M. and Orme, B. K. (1996), How Many Questions Should You Ask In Choice- Based Conjoint Studies, Sawtooth Software Technical Paper.
45. Kamakura, W. A. (1989), The Estimation of Multinomial Probit Models: A New Calibration Algorithm, Transportation Science. 23, 253-265.
46. Kamakura, W. A., Wedel, M. and Agrawal, J. (1994), Concomitant Variable Latent Class Models for Conjoint Analysis, International Journal of Research in Mar lie ting, 11, 451-464.
47. Keane, M. P. (1992), A Note on Identification in the Multinomial Probit Model, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 10, 193-200.
48. Kruskal, J. B. (1965), Analysis of Factorial Experiments by Estimating Monotone Transformations of the Data, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B. 251-263.
49. Kuhfeld, W. F., Tobias, R. D. and Garratt, M. (1994), Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications, Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 545-557.
50. Lenk, P. J., DeSarbo, W. S., Green, P. E. and Young, M. R. (1996), Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs. Marketing Science, 15, 173-191.
51. Louviere, J. J. (1988), Conjoint Analysis Modeling of Stated Preferences. A Review of Theory, Methods, Recent Developments and External Validity, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 10, 93-119.
52. Louviere, J. J. and Woodworth, G. (1983), Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data, Journal of Marketing Research. 20, 350-367.
53. Louviere, J. J. and limmermans, H. J. P. (1990), A Review of Recent Advances in Decom- positional Preference and Choice Models, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 81, 214-225.
54. Luce, R. D. and Tukey, J. W. (1964), Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1. 1-27.
55. Madansky, A. (1980), On Conjoint Analysis and Quantal Choice Models, Journal of Business, 53, S37-S44.
56. Maddala, G. S. (1983), Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
57. McFadden, D. (1976), Quanta! Choice Analysis: A Survey, Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5, 363-390.
58. McFadden, D. (1986), The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research, Marketing Science., 5, 275-297.
59. Moore, W. L., Gray-Lee, J. and Louviere, J. J. (1998), A Cross-Validity Comparison of Conjoint Analysis and Choice Models at Different Levels of Aggregation. Marketing Letters, 195-207.
60. Nowlis, S. M. and Simonson, I. (1997). Attribute-Task Compatibility as a Determinant of Consumer Preference Reversals, Journal of Marketing Research. 34, 205-218.
61. Oliphant, K., Eagle, T. C., Louviere, J. J. and Anderson, D. (1992), Cross-Task Comparison of Rating-Based and Choice-Based Conjoint. Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference 1992.
62. Oppewal, H., Louviere, J. J. and Timmermans, H. J. P. (1994), Modeling Hierarchical Conjoint Processes with Integrated Choice Experiments, Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 92-105.
63. Oppewal, H. and Timmermans, H. J. P. (1993), Conjuncte Keuze-Experimenten: Ach- Tergronden, Theorie, Toepassingen en Ontwikkelingen, NVVM JaarboeL 33-58. (In Dutch).
64. Papatla, P. (1996), A Multiplicative Fixed-effects Model of Consumer Choice, Marketing Science, 15, 243-261.
65. Pekelman, D. and Sen, S. (1974), Mathematical Programming Models for the Determination of Attribute Weights, Management Science, 20, 1217-1229.
66. Pudney, S. (1989), Modeling Individual Choice: The Econometrics of Corners, Kinks and Holes, Basil Blackwell Inc., Oxford.
67. Rossi, P. E., McCulloch, R. E. and Allenby, G. M. (1996), The Value of Purchase History Data in Target Marketing. Marketing Science, 15, 321-340.
68. Sandor, Z. and VVedel, M. (1999), Robust Optimal Designs for Conjoint Choice Experiments. SOM- Working Paper University of Groningen. Netherlands.
69. Sawtooth Software Inc. (1995), The CBC System for Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis, Sawtooth Software Technical Paper.
70. Schwarz, G. (1978), Estimating the Dimension of a Model, Annals of Statistics, 6. 461-464.
71. Simonson, I. (1989), Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Substitution Effects, Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158-174.
72. Simonson, I. and Tversky, A. (1992), Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrasts and Extremeness Aversion. Journal of Marketing Research. 29. 281-295.
73. Srinivasan, V. and Shocker, A. D. (1973a), Linear Programming Techniques for Multidimensional Analysis of Preferences, Psychometrika, 38. 337-369.
74. Srinivasan, V. and Shocker, A. D. (1973b), Estimating the Weights for Multiple Attributes in a Composite Criterion Using Pairwise Judgements, Psychometrika, 38, 473-493.
75. Steenkamp, J. E. B. M. (1985), De Constructie van Profielensets voor hct Schatten van Hoofdeffecten en Tnteracties bij Conjunct Met en, NWM Jaarhoek, 125-155. (in Dutch).
76. StruhL S. (1994), Discrete Choice Modelling: Understanding a Better Conjoint Than Conjoint. Quirk's Marketing Research Review, 36-39.
77. Swait, J. and Louviere, J. J. (1993), The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models, Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 305- 314.
78. Timmermans, H. J. P. and Van Noortwijk, L. (1995), Context Dependencies in Housing Choice Behavior, Environment and Planning A, 21, 181-192.
79. Tversky, A. (1972), Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice, Psychological Review, 79, 281-299.
80. Vriens, M. (1994), Solving Marketing Problems With Conjoint Analysis, Journal of Marketing Management, 10. 37-55.
81. Vriens, M. (1995), Conjoint Analysis in Marketing; Developments in Stimulus Representation and Segmentation Methods, Thesis. University of Groningen.
82. Vriens, M., Oppevval, H. and Wedel, M. (1998), Ratings-Based versus Choice-Based Latent Class Conjoint Models - An Empirical Comparison, Journal of the Market Research Society. 40, 237-248.
83. Vriens, M., Wedel, M. and Wilms, T. (1996), Segmentation Methods for Metric Conjoint Analysis: A Monte Carlo Comparison, Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 73-85.
84. Wedel, M. and Karnakura, W.A. (1997), Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations, Dordrecht, Kluwer.
85. Wedel, M., Karnakura, W., Arora, N., Bemmaor, A., Chiang, J., Elrod, T., Johnson, R., Lenk, P., Neslin, S. and Poulsen, C.S. (1999), Heterogeneity and Bayesian Methods in Choice Modeling, working paper University of Groningen.
86. Wedel, M., Vriens, JVL, Bijmolt, T. I J. A., Krijnen, W. and Leeflang, P. S. H. (1998), As-sessing the Effects of Abstract Attributes and Brand Familiarity in Conjoint Choice Experiments, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15, 71-78.
87. Wittink, D. R. and Cattin, P. (1989). Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update, Journal of Marketing, 53, 91-96.
88. Wittink, D. R., Huber, J., Fiedler, J. A. and Miller, R. L. (1991), The Magnitude of and an Explanation/Solution for the Number of Levels Effect in Conjoint Analysis, working paper Cornell University.
89. Wittink, D. R., Vriens, M. and Burhenne, W. (1994), Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis in Europe: Results and Critical Reflections, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11. 41-52.