Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Schnelle und einfache Messung von Bedeutungsgewichten mit der Restricted-Click-Stream Analyse: Ein Vergleich mit etablierten Präferenzmessmethoden

  • Messung von Bedeutungsgewichten
  • Published:
Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Zur Messung von Bedeutungsgewichten nutzen Marktforscher etablierte Präferenzmessmethoden wie die Choice-Based Conjoint Analyse. Parallel hierzu nutzen Verhaltensforscher eigene Methoden zur Aufzeichnung des Informationssuchprozesses. Ziel dieses Beitrages ist, zu zeigen, dass die Beobachtung der Aufmerksamkeit, welche Konsumenten den Produkteigenschaften in solchen Experimenten widmen, bereits zur Bestimmung von Bedeutungsgewichten ausreicht. Hierzu wird eine neue, leicht einzusetzende Methode entwickelt, die Restricted-Click-Stream Analyse, und in einer empirischen Studie mit etablierten Präferenzmessmethoden verglichen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die Restricted-Click-Stream Analyse eine ähnliche Validität aufweist, zugleich aber die kognitive und emotionale Belastung der Probanden geringer ist als bei etablierten Methoden. Daher bietet die Restricted-Click-Stream Analyse für Anwender dann eine praktikable Alternative, wenn Erkenntnisse zu Bedeutungsgewichte in einer möglichst kurzen Befragung gewonnen werden sollen.

Abstract

Market researchers typically apply established preference measurement methods like choice-based conjoint analysis to determine attribute importance weights. Behavioral researchers established their own methods to analyze the information search process in product decisions. Goal of this paper is to demonstrate that the information on how much attention has been devoted to an attribute in product choice is sufficient to determine attribute importance weights. The authors develop a new preference measurement method, the restricted-click-stream analysis, and compare it with established methods. The results show that the validity of the new method is comparable with conjoint methods; however, the cognitive and emotional load for respondents is lower. Thus, the restrictedclick- stream analysis offers a valid alternative for researchers hoping to gain insights on top of product preferences within a survey.

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

Literatur

  • Bauer, Johannes C./ Schmitt, Philipp Morwitz, Vicki G./ Winer, Russell S. (2013), Managerial Decision Making in Customer Management: Adaptive, Fast and Frugal?, in: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 41, S. 436–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, James R./ John, Deborah Roedder/ Scott, Carol A. (1986), Covariation Assessment by Consumers, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, S. 316–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brzinsky-Fay, Christian/ Kohler, Ulrich/ Luniak, Magdalena (2006), Sequence Analysis with Stata, in: Stata Journal, Vol. 6, S. 435–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, Colin F./ Johnson, Eric J./ Rymon, Talia/ Sen, Sankar (1993), Cognition and Framing in Sequential Bargaining for Gains and Losses, in: Binmore, Ken/ Kirman, Alan/ Tani, Piero (Hrsg.), Frontiers of Game Theory, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, S. 27–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, Gretchen B./ Johnson, Eric J. (1999), Anchoring, Activation, and the Construction of Values, in: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 79, S. 115–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, Jose M. (1993), What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, S. 98–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covey, Judith A./ Lovie, Alexander D. (1998), Information Selection and Utilization in Hypothesis Testing: A Comparison of Process-tracing and Structural Analysis Techniques, in: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 75, S. 56–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, Ravi/ Nowlis, Stephen M. (2004), To Buy or Not to Buy: Response Mode Effects on Consumer Choice, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 41, S. 423–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, Ravi/ Nowlis, Stephen M./ Sherman, Steven J. (1999), Comparison Effects on Preference Construction, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26, S. 293–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elrod, Terry/ Louviere, Jordan J./ Davey, Krishnakumar S. (1992), An Empirical Comparison of Rating-Based and Choice-Based Conjoint Models, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, S. 368–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. Anders/ Simon, Herbert A. (1985), Protocol Analysis, MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabaix, Xavier/ Laibson, David/ Moloche, Guillermo/ Weinberg, Stephen (2006), Costly Information Acquisition: Experimental Analysis of a Boundedly Rational Model, in: American Economic Review, Vol. 96, S. 1043–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambara, Hilda/ León, Orfelio G. (2002), Training and Pre-Decisional Bias in a Multiattribute Decision Task, in: Psicothema, Vol. 14, S. 233–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goukens, Caroline/ Dewitte, Siegfried/ Warlop, Luk (2009), Me, Myself, and My Choices: The Influence of Private Self-awareness on Choice, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 46, S. 682–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, Adriane/ Sattler, Henrik (2004), Wie robust sind Methoden zur Präferenzmessung?, in: Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, Vol. 56, S. 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, Joel/ Zwerina, Klaus (1996), The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33, S. 307–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, Jakob/ Chestnut, Robert W./ Fisher, William A. (1978), A Behavioral Process Approach to Information Acquisition in Nondurable Purchasing, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15, S. 532–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janiszewski, Chris/ Kuo, Andrew/ Tavassoli, Nader (2013), The Influence of Selective Attention and Inattention to Products on Subsequent Choice, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 39, S. 1258–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Eric J./ Payne, John W./ Schkade, David A./ Bettman, James (1989), Monitoring Information Processing and Decisions: The Mouselab System, Technical Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Eric J./ Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael/ Willemsen, Martijn C. (2008), Process Models Deserve Process Data: Comment on Brandstatter, Gigerenzer, and Hertwig (2006), in: Psychological Review, Vol. 115, S. 263–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levenshtein, Vladimir I. (1966), Binary Codes Capable of Correcting Deletions, insertions and Reversals. Soviet physics doklady.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Qing/ Arora, Neeraj (2011), Efficient Choice Designs for a Consider-then Choose Model, in: Marketing Science, Vol. 30, S. 321–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohse, Gerald L./ Johnson, Eric J. (1996), A Comparison of Two Process Tracing Methods for Choice Tasks. Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, Jordan/ Gaeth, Gary J. (1988), A Comparison of Rating and Choice Response in Conjoint Tasks. Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference, Ketchum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, Jordan J./ Hensher, David A./ Swait, Joffre D. (2000), Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, Jordan/ Islam, Towhidul J. (2008), A Comparison of Importance Weights and Willingness-to-Pay Measures Derived from Choice-based Conjoint, Constant Sum Scales and Best-worst Scaling, in: Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61, S. 903–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meißner, Martin/ Decker, Reinhold/ Pfeiffer, Jella (2010), Ein empirischer Vergleich der Prozessaufzeichnungsmethoden Mouselab und Eyetracking bei Präferenzmessungen mittels Choice-based Conjoint-Analyse, in: Marketing ZFP, Vol. 32, S. 135–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintz, Ofer/ Currim, Imran S./ Jeliazkov, Ivan (2013), Information Processing Pattern and Propensity to Buy: An Investigation of Online Point-of-Purchase Behavior, in: Marketing Science, Vol. 32, S. 716–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, Deborah J./ Kahn, Barbara E./ Knasko, Susan C. (1995), There’s Something in the Air: Effects of Congruent or Incongruent Ambient Odor on Consumer Decision Making, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22, S. 229–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, James H./ Alpert, Mark I. (1968), Determinant Buying Attitudes: Meaning and Measurement, in: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32, S. 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nitschke, Thomas/ Völckner, Franziska (2006), Präferenzmessung bei unsicheren Produkteigenschaften: Berücksichtigung von Risiko in Conjoint-Analysen, in: Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, Vol. 58, S. 743–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliphant, Karen/ Eagle, Thomas C./ Louviere, Jordan J./ Anderson, Don (1992), Cross-Task Comparison of Ratings- Based and Choice-Based Conjoint. Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing, Ketchum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orquin, Jacob L./ Mueller Loose, Simone (2013), Attention and Choice: A Review on Eye Movements in Decision Making, in: Acta psychologica, Vol. 144, S. 190–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, Jeffrey R./ Schrift, Rom Y. (2011), Rejectable Choice Sets: How Seemingly Irrelevant No-Choice Options Affect Consumer Decision Processes, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 48, S. 840–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, John W. (1976), Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Decision Making: An Information Search and Protocol Analysis, in: Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16, S. 366–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer, Jella/ Scholz, Michael (2013), A Low-Effort Recommendation System with High Accuracy: A New Approach with Ranked Pareto-Fronts, in: Business & Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 5, S. 397–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisen, Nils/ Hoffrage, Ulrich/ Mast, Fred W. (2008), Identifying Decision Strategies in a Consumer Choice Situation, in: Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, S. 641–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogelberg, Steven G./ Fisher, Gwenith G./ Maynard, Douglas C./ Hakel, Milton D./ Horvath, Michael (2001), Attitudes toward Surveys: Development of a Measure and Its Relationship to Respondent Behavior, in: Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 4, S. 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, Jr., William T./ Creyer, Elizabeth H. (1992), Making Inferences About Missing Information: The Effects of Existing Information, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, S. 14–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, J. Edward/ Dosher, Barbara A. (1983), Strategies for Multiattribute Binary Choice, in: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 9, S. 676–696.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, Henrik/ Nitschke, Thomas (2003), Ein empirischer Vergleich von Instrumenten zur Erhebung von Zahlungsbereitschaften, in: Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, Vol. 55, S. 364–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlereth, Christian/ Eckert, Christine/ Skiera, Bernd (2014), Measurement of Preferences with Self-Explicated Approaches: A Classification and Merge of Trade-off- and Non-Trade-off-based Evaluation Types, in: European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 238, S. 185–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlereth, Christian/ Eckert, Christine/ Skiera, Bernd (2012), Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Estimate Willingness-to-Pay Intervals, in: Marketing Letters, Vol. 23, S. 761–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlereth, Christian/ Skiera, Bernd (2012), DISE: Dynamic Intelligent Survey Engine, in: Diamantopoulos, Adamantios/ Fritz, Wolfgang/ Hildebrandt, Lutz (Hrsg.), Quantitative Marketing and Marketing Management — Festschrift in Honor of Udo Wagner, S. 225–243.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schlereth, Christian/ Skiera, Bernd/ Wolk, Agnieszka (2011), Measuring Consumers’ Preferences for Metered Pricing of Services, in: Journal of Service Research, Vol. 14, S. 443–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimojo, Shinsuke/ Simion, Claudiu/ Shimojo, Eiko/ Scheier, Christian (2003), Gaze Bias Both Reflects and Influences Preference, in: Nature Neuroscience, Vol. 6, S. 1317–1322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Herbert A. (1957), Models of Man: Social and Rational; Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in Society Setting, New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, Dan N../ Kadous, Kathryn (1997), The Joint Effects of Task-related Negative Affect and Task Difficulty in Multiattribute Choice, in: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 70, S. 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Street, Deborah J./ Burgess, Leonie/ Louviere, Jordan (2005), Quick and Easy Choice Sets: Constructing Optimal and Nearly Optimal Stated Choice Experiments, in: International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 22, S. 459–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yee, Michael/ Dahan, Ely/ Hauser, John R./ Orlin, James (2007), Greedoid-Based Noncompensatory Inference, in: Marketing Science, Vol. 26, S. 532–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. WHU - Otto Beisheim School of Management, Burgplatz 2, 56179, Vallendar, Deutschland

    Christian Schlereth (Professor für Digitales Marketing, Marketing and Sales Group)

  2. Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Grüneburgplatz 1, 60323, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland

    Fabian Schulz (Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter, Professur für Electronic-Commerce)

Authors
  1. Christian Schlereth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fabian Schulz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Schlereth.

Additional information

Die Autoren danken herzlich Robert Dey, der die Datenerhebung und große Teile der Analyse im Rahmen seiner Bachelorarbeit unterstützt hat. Zudem danken wir Michael Scholz von der Universität Passau für sein wertvolles Feedback zur ersten Version des Manuskripts. Weiterer Dank gebührt Bernd Skiera für seine hilfreichen Anregungen sowie Katharina Kaufmann und Emanuel Bayer für die kritische Durchsicht des Manuskripts. Großer Dank gebührt ebenso den beiden anonymen Gutachtern sowie dem Herausgeber für ihre wertvollen und konstruktiven Hinweise

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schlereth, C., Schulz, F. Schnelle und einfache Messung von Bedeutungsgewichten mit der Restricted-Click-Stream Analyse: Ein Vergleich mit etablierten Präferenzmessmethoden. Schmalenbachs Z betriebswirtsch Forsch 66, 630–657 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03372910

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03372910

JEL-classification

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation