Abstract
Depending on the concrete application field and the data collection situation, conjoint experiments can end up with a low internal validity of the estimated part-worth functions. One of the known reasons for this is the (missing) temporal stability and structural reliability of the respondents’ part-worth functions, another reason is the (missing) attentiveness of the respondents in an uncontrolled data collection environment, e.g. during an online interview with many parallel web applications (e.g. electronic mail, newspapers or web site browsing). Here, additional data collection and analysis has been proposed as a solution. Examples of internal sources of data are response latencies, eye movements, or mouse movements, examples of external sources are sales and market data. The authors suggest alternative procedures for conjoint data collection that deal with these potential sources of internal validity. A comparison in an adaptive conjoint analysis setting shows, that the new procedures lead to a higher internal validity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Allenby GM, Arora N, Ginter JL (1995) Incorporating prior knowledge into the analysis of conjoint analysis. J Market Res 32(2):152–162
Baier D (1998) Conjointanalytische Lösungsansätze zur Parametrisierung des House of Quality: Methodik und Anwendungsbeispiel. In: VDI-Gesellschaft Systementwicklung und Projektgestaltung (ed) QFD - Produkte und Dienstleistungen marktgerecht gestalten, pp 73–88
Brusch M, Baier D (2008) Conjoint analysis for complex services using clusterwise hierarchical Bayes procedures. Stud Classification 31:431–438
Chen YC, Shang RA, Kao CY (2009) The effects of information overload on consumers’ subjective state towards buying decision in the internet shopping environment. Electron Commerce Res Appl 8(1):48–58
DeSarbo W, Fong D, Liechty J, Coupland J (2005) Evolutionary preference/utility functions: A dynamic perspective. Psychometrika 70(1):179–202
Ding M, Grewal R, Liechty J (2005) Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. J Market Res 42(1):67–82
Green PE, Srinivasan V (1978) Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. J Consum Res Interdiscipl Q 5(2):103–123
Green PE, Krieger AM, Wind Y (2001) Thirty years of conjoint analysis: reflections and prospects. Interfaces 31(3):56–73
Hensel-Börner S, Sattler H (2006) Ein empirischer Validitätsvergleich zwischen der Customized Computerized Conjoint Analysis (ccc), der Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (aca) und Self-Explicated-Verfahren. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 70:705–727
Jacoby J (1984) Perspectives on information overload. J Consum Res 4:432–435
Jacoby J, Speller DE, Kohn CA (1974) Brand choice behavior as a function of information load. J Market Res 11(1):63–69
Johnson RM (1987) Adaptive conjoint analysis. In: Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conferece on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing, Sawtooth Software, Sun Valley, pp 253–265
Johnson RM, Orme BK (1996) How many questions should you ask in choice-based conjoint studies? Tech. rep., Sawtooth Software, Sequim
Louviere JJ (1984) Hierarchical information integration: a new method for the design and analyis of complex multiattribute judgement problems. Adv Consum Res 11(1):148–155
Louviere JJ, Woodworth G (1983) Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data. J Market Res 20(4):350–367
McCullough J, Best R (1979) Conjoint measurement: Temporal stability and structural reliability. J Market Res 16(1):26–31
Netzer O, Toubia O, Bradlow E, Dahan E, Evgeniou T, Feinberg F, Feit E, Hui S, Johnson J, Liechty J, Orlin J, Rao V (2008) Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement. Market Lett 19(3):337–354
Pauwels K (2004) How dynamic consumer response, competitor response, company support, and company inertia shape long-term marketing effectiveness. Market Sci 23(4):596–610
Sethuraman R, Kerin RA, Cron WL (2005) A field study comparing online and offline data collection methods for identifying product attribute preferences using conjoint analysis. J Bus Res 58(5):602–610
Srinivasan V (1988) A conjunctive-compensatory approach to the self-explication of multiattributed preference. Decis Sci 19(2):295–395
Srinivasan V, Park CS (1997) Surprising robustness of the self-explicated approach to customer preference structure measurement. J Market Res 34(2):286–291
Voeth M (2000) Nutzenmessung in der Kaufverhaltensforschung: Die Hierarchische Individualisierte Limit Conjoint-Analyse (HILCA). Gabler, Wiesbaden, Germany
Voeth M, Hahn C (1998) Limit conjoint-analyse. Market ZFP 2(2):119–132
Wildner R, Dietrich H, Hölscher A (2007) HILCA: A new conjoint procedure for an improved portrayal of purchase decisions on complex products. Yearbook Market Consum Res 5:5–20
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Selka, S., Baier, D., Brusch, M. (2012). Improving the Validity of Conjoint Analysis by Additional Data Collection and Analysis Steps. In: Gaul, W., Geyer-Schulz, A., Schmidt-Thieme, L., Kunze, J. (eds) Challenges at the Interface of Data Analysis, Computer Science, and Optimization. Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24466-7_54
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24466-7_54
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-24465-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-24466-7
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)