Skip to main content
Log in

Attribute Elicitation in Marketing Research: A Comparison of Three Procedures

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article compares three attribute elicitation procedures commonlyapplied in marketing research—free elicitation (FE), hierarchicaldichotomization (HD), and Kelly's repertory grid—on type ofinformation generated, convergent validity, efficiency in datacollection, and consumers' reaction to the elicitation task. On mostcriteria, RG and HD were not significantly different. The maincontrasts were found between FE on the one hand and RG and HD on theother hand. FE yielded more attributes, a higher proportion of abstractattributes, and a higher level of articulation and was more timeefficient. FE was also evaluated more positively by respondents thanthe other two techniques. Despite these differences, the threeprocedures exhibited a considerable degree of convergent validity interms of the basic categories of concepts uncovered in the elicitationprocedure. Unless the marketing research technique for which theattributes are elicited requires attributes at a low level ofabstraction, the results suggest that FE is to be preferred to HD andRG.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, David A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, James C., and David W. Gerbing. (1988). “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin 103(3), 411–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bannister, D. (1962). “Personal Construct Theory: A Summary and Experimental Paradigm.” Acta Psychologica 20(March), 104–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantor, N., and W. Mischel. (1979). “Prototypes in Person Perception.” In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 12, pp. 3–52). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Alan M., and Elizabeth F. Loftus. (1975). “A Spreading Activation Theory of Semantic Processing.” Psychological Review 82(November), 407–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coxon, Anthony P. M. (1982). The User's Guide to Multidimensional Scaling. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, George S. (1975). “The Threats to Marketing Research.” Journal of Marketing Research 22(November), 462–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, Anthony. (1976). “Within-Subjects Designs: To Use or Not to Use?” Psychological Bulletin 83(2), 314–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Michael D. (1988). “Comparability and Hierarchical Processing in Multialternative Choice. ”Journal of Consumer Research 15(December), 303–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Michael D., and Claes Fornell. (1987). “The Nature and Methodological Implications of the Cognitive Representations of Products.” Journal of Consumer Research 14(September), 214–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanwar, Rajesh, Jerry C. Olson, and Laura S. Sims. (1981). “Toward Conceptualizing and Measuring Cognitive Structures.” In Kent B. Monroe (ed), Advances in Consumer Research (vol. 8, pp. 122–127). Ann Arbor, MI: Association of Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, George A. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefkoff-Hagius, Roxanne, and Charlotte H. Mason. (1993). “Characteristic, Beneficial, and Image Attributes in Consumer Judgments of Similarity and Preference.” Journal of Consumer Research 20(June), 100–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, Stephen W., Perry Verille, and Charles S. Madden. (1985). “The Threats to Marketing Research: An Empirical Reappraisal.” Journal of Marketing Research 22(February), 74–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, James H., and Allen D. Shocker. (1981). “The Nature of Product-Related Attributes.” In Jagdish N. Sheth (ed.), Research in Marketing (vol. 5, pp. 211–236). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, Jerry C., and Aydin Muderrisoglu. (1979). “The Stability of Responses Obtained by Free Elicitation: Implications for Measuring Attribute Salience and Memory Structure.” In William L. Wilkie (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (vol. 6, pp. 45–51). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shocker, Allan D., and V. Srinivasan. (1979). “Multiattribute Approaches for Product Concept Evaluation and Generation: A Critical Review.” Journal of Marketing Research 16(May), 159–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., Hans C. M. van Trijp, and Jos M. F. Ten Berge. (1994). “Perceptual Mapping Based on Idiosyncratic Sets of Attributes.” Journal of Marketing Research 31(February), 15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, Beth, Richard Celsi, and Jerry C. Olson. (1987). “Exploring the Structural Characteristics of Consumers' Knowledge.” In Melanie Wallendorf and Paul F. Anderson, (eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (vol. 14, pp. 17–21). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

STEENKAMP, JB., VAN TRIJP, H. Attribute Elicitation in Marketing Research: A Comparison of Three Procedures. Marketing Letters 8, 153–165 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007975518638

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007975518638

Navigation