Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Predictive performance of self-explicated, traditional conjoint, and hybrid conjoint models under alternative data collection modes

  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although data collection in conjoint analysis has traditionally involved the use of in-person interviews, recent years have seen a trend toward the use of alternative data collection modes, including mail questionnaires and telephone interviews. Since these alternative modes differ in environment, the author examines the predictive performance of conjoint models under three data collection modes, i.e., in-person interviews, mail questionnaire, and telephone interviews. The results indicate the conjoint models examined to be comparable in predictive, performance across the three data collection modes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Actio, F. 1977. “An Investigation of Some Data Collection Issues in Conjoint Measurement.” In1977 Educators’ Proceedings, pp. 82–85. Chicago: American Marketing Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akaah, I. P. 1988. “Cluster Analysis Versus Q-Type Factor Analysis as a Disaggregation Method in Hybrid Conjoint Modeling: An Empirical Investigation.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16 (Summer): 11–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1987. “Predictive Performance of Hybird Conjoint Models in a Smaller Scale Design: An Empirical Assessment.”Proceedings, American Marketing Association Educators’ Conference (August). Toronto: American Marketing Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akaah, I. P. and P. K. Korgaonkar. 1983. “An Empirical Comparison of the Predictive Validity of Self-Explicated, Huber-Hybrid, Traditional Conjoint, and Hybrid Conjoint Models.”Journal of Marketing Research 20 (May): 187–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmone, F. J., P. E. Green, and A. K. Jain. 1978. “The Robustness of Conjoint Analysis: Some Monte Carlo Results.”Journal of Marketing Research 15 (May): 300–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattin, P. and D. R. Wittink. 1982. “Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey.”Journal of Marketing 46 (Summer): 44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattin, P. and D. R. Wittink. 1976. “A Monte Carlo Study of Metric and Non-Metric Estimation Methods for Multiattribute Models.” Research Paper No. 341. Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.

  • Cerro, D. 1988. “Conjoint Analysis by Mail.” Sawtooth Software Conference, Ketchum ID, pp. 139–144.

  • Connor, W. S. and M. Zelen. 1959. “Fractional Factorial Experiment Designs for Factors at Three Levels.” U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Applied Mathematics Series.

  • Green, P. E. 1984. “Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review.”Journal of Marketing Research 21 (May): 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., S. M. Goldberg, and M. Montemayor. 1981. “A Hybrid Utility Estimation Model for Conjoint Analysis.”Journal of Marketing 45 (Winter): 33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. and K. Helsen. 1989. “Cross-Validation Assessment of Alternatives to Individual-Level Conjoint Analysis: A Case Study.”Journal of Marketing Research 26 (August): 346–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., K. Helsen, and B. Shandler. 1988. “Conjoint Internal Validity Under Altermative Profile Presentations.”Journal of Consumer Research 15: 392–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., A. M. Krieger, and P. Bansal. 1988. “Completely Unacceptable Levels in Conjoint Analysis: A Cautionary Note.”Journal of Marketing Research 25 (August): 293–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. and V. R. Rao. 1971. “Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data.”Journal of Marketing Research 8 (August): 355–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. and V. Srinivasan. 1990. “A Bibliography on Conjoint Analysis and Related Methodology in Marketing Research.” Working Paper, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania (March).

  • Green, P. E. and V. Srinivasan. 1978. “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook.”Journal of Consumer Research 5 (September): 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagerty, M. R. 1985. “Improving the Predictive Power of Conjoint Analysis: The Use of Factor Analysis and Cluster Analysis.”Journal of Marketing Research 22 (May): 168–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heeler, R. M., C. Okechuku, and S. Reid. 1979. “Attribute Importance: Contrasting Measurement.”Journal of Marketing Research 16 (February): 60–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoepfl, R. T. and G. P. Huber. 1970. “A Study of Self-Explicated Models.”Behavioral Science 15: 408–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. 1974. “Multiattribute Utility Models: A Review of Field and Field-like Studies.”Management Science 20 (June): 1393–1402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain, A. K., F. Acito, N. K. Malhotra and V. Mahajan. 1979. “A Comparison of the Internal Validity of Alternative Parameter Estimation Methods in Decompositional Multiattribute Preference Models.”Journal of Marketing Research 16 (August): 313–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. M. 1974. “Trade-off Analysis of Consumer Values.”Journal of Marketing Research 11 (May): 121–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leight, T. W., D. B. MacKay, and J. O. Summers. 1984. “Reliability and Validity of Conjoint Analysis and Self-Explicated Weights: A Comparison.”Journal of Marketing Research 21 (November): 456–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, W. L. 1980. “Levels of Aggregation in Conjoint Analysis: An Empirical Comparison.”Journal of Marketing Research 17 (November): 516–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, W. L. and R. J. Semenik. 1988. “Measuring Preferences with Hybrid Conjoint Analysis: The Impact of a Different Number of Atributes in the Master Design.”Journal of Business Research 16: 261–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neslin, S. A. 1981. “Linking Product Features to Perceptions: Self-Stated Versus Statistically Revealed Importance Weights.”Journal of Marketing Research 18 (February): 80–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SAS. 1982.SAS User’s Guide: Statistics. Cary: SAS Institute Inc.

  • Segal, M. N. 1982. “Reliability of Conjoint Analysis: Contrasting Data Collection Procedures.”Journal of Marketing Research 19 (February): 139–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, B. 1988. “Conjoint Analysis by Telephone.” Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Ketchum, ID, pp. 131–138.

  • Wiley, J. B., D. L. MacLachlan, and R. Moinpour 1977. “Comparison of Stated and Inferred Parameter Values in Additive Models: An Illustration of a Paradigm.” InAdvances in Consumer Research, Volume 4, pp. 98–105. Ed. W. D. Perreault, Jr. Atlanta, GA: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D. R. and P. Cattin. 1989. “Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update.”Journal of Marketing 53 (July): 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wayne State University, USA

    Ishmael P. Akaah

Authors
  1. Ishmael P. Akaah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Akaah, I.P. Predictive performance of self-explicated, traditional conjoint, and hybrid conjoint models under alternative data collection modes. JAMS 19, 309–314 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02726505

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02726505

Keywords

Search

Navigation