Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Internal validity assessment of conjoint estimated attribute importance weights

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

Abstract

This paper investigates how various conjoint designs (full versus fractional) and estimation procedures (LINMAP, MONANOVA, OLS) may interact with basic characteristics of the “true” utility functions (i.e., their range, shape, and curvature) when estimating attribute importance weights. Substantial weight distortions are found, especially under a fractional design.

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

  • Akaah, Ismael and Pradeep 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 

  • Bass, Frank M., Edgar A. Pessemier, and Donald R. Lehmann 1972 “An Experimental Study of Relationships Between Attitudes, Brand Preference, and Choice.”Behavioral Science 17 (November): 532–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, Frank M. and Wayne W. Talarzyk. 1972. “An Attitude Model for the Study of Brand Preference.”Journal of Marketing Research 9 (February): 93–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckwith, Neil E. and Donald R. Lehmann. 1973. “The Importance of Differential Weights in Multiple Attribute Models of Consumer Attitude.”Journal of Marketing Research 10 (May): 141–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattin, Philippe and Friedhelm Bliemel. 1978. “Metric vs. Nonmetric Procedures for Multiattribute Modeling: Some Simulation Results.”Decision Sciences 9 (July): 472–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattin, Philippe and Marc Weinberger. 1980. “Some Validity and Reliability Issues in the Measurement of Attribute Utilities.” InAdvances in Consumer Research. Ed. Jerry Olson. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattin, Philippe and Dick R. Wittink. 1980. “Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey.”Journal of Marketing 46 (Summer): 44–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currim, Imram S., Charles B. Weinberg and Dick R. Wittink. 1981. “The Design of Subscription Programs for a Performing Arts Series: Issues in Applying Conjoint Analysis.”Journal of Consumer Research 8 (June): 67–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curry, David J., Jordan J. Louviere, and Michael J. Augustine. 1981. “On the Sensitivity of Brand-Choice Simulations to Attribute Importance Weights.”Decision Sciences 12:502–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, George S. 1972. “Evaluating Models of Attitude Structure”Journal of Marketing Research 9 (August): 279–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, Wayne S and Paul E. Green. 1984. “Choice-Constrained Conjoint Analysis.”Decision Sciences 15 (July): 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H. J. 1970. “The Use of Nonlinear Noncompensatory Models in Decision Making.”Psychological Bulletin 73: 221–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H. J. and N. J. Gonedes. 1971. “An Exponential Discrepancy Model for Attitude Evaluation.”Behavioral Science 16 (March): 152–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H. J., S. S. Komorita, and B. Rosen 1972. “Multidimensional Models for the Evaluation of Political Candidates.”Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology 8 (January): 58–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E., Wayne S. DeSarbo, and Pradeep K. Kedia. 1980. “On the Insensitivity of Brand Simulation to Attribute Importance Weights.”Decision Sciences 11 (July): 439–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E. and V. Srinivasan. 1978. “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook.”Journal of Consumer Research 6 (September): 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E. and Yoram Wind. 1973.Multiattribute Decisions in Marketing: A Measurement Approach. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E. and Yoram Wind. 1975. “New Way to Measure Consumers’ Judgments.”Harvard Business Review 53 (July–August): 107–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heeler, Roger M., Chike Okechuku, and Stan Reid. 1979. “Attribute Importance: Contrasting Measurements.”Journal of Marketing Research 16 (February): 60–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, P. J. 1960. “The Paramorphic Representation of Clinical Judgments.”Psychological Bulletin 57:116–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, James, David Brinberg, and Lee J. Ackerman. 1986. “Assessing Attribute Importance: A Comparison of Six Methods.”Journal of Consumer Research 12 (March): 463–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, James, Richard Knox, and David Brinberg 1979. “Prediction of Behavior from Beliefs: An Extension and Test of a Subjective Probability Model.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 1239–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, Jacob, George J. Szybillo, and Jacqueline Busato-Schack. 1977. “Information Acquisition Behavior in Brand Choice Situations.”Journal of Consumer Research 3 (March): 209–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain, Arun K., Franklin Acito, Naresh Malhotra, and Vijay Mahajan. 1979. “A comparison of Internal Validity of Alternative Parameter Estimation Methods in Decomposition Multiattribute Models.”Journal of Marketing Research 16 (August): 313–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, Donald R. 1971. “Television Show Preference: Application of a Choice Model.”Journal of Marketing Research 8 (February): 46–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 (November): 456–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, Sanjay, U. N. Umesh and Donald E. Stem, Jr. 1989. “Attribute Importance Weights in Conjoint Analysis: Bias and Precision,” InAdvances Importance Weights in Conjoint Analysis: Bias and Precision.” InAdvances in Consumer Research 16 (Hawaii), pp. 605–611. Ed. Thomas K. Srull.

  • Pekelman, Dov and Subrata K. Sen. 1974. “Mathematical Programming Models for the Determination of Attitude Weights.”Management Science 20 (April): 1217–1229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quelch, John A. 1978. “Behavioral Measurement of the Relative Importance of Product Attributes: Process Methodology and Pilot Application.” Working paper 180K. School of Business Administration. University of Western Ontario: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, Jerome E. and Peter Wright. 1976. “Modeling an Organizational Buyer’s Product Evaluation Strategy: Validity and Procedural Considerations.”Journal of Marketing Research 13 (August): 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, R. N. 1964. “On Subjectively Optimum Selection among Multiattribute Alternatives.” InHuman Judgments and Optimality. Eds. M.W. Shelly and G.L. Bryan. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, Dick R., Lakshman Krishnamurthi and Julia B. Nutter. 1982. “Comparing Derived Importance Weights Across Attributes.”Journal of Consumer Research 8 (March): 471–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Groupe Essec, France

    René Y. Darmon

  2. Groupe H.E.C., France

    Dominique Rouziès

Authors
  1. René Y. Darmon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dominique Rouziès
    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

Darmon, R.Y., Rouziès, D. Internal validity assessment of conjoint estimated attribute importance weights. JAMS 19, 315–322 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02726506

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02726506

Keywords

Search

Navigation