Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Confounding of Effects in Rank-Based Conjoint-Analysis

  • Chapter
Conjoint Measurement

  • 232 Accesses

Abstract

Conjoint analysis enjoys large popularity among marketing researchers, as it combines easy-to-handle data collection with sophisticated evaluation methods. Dating back to the 70th, rank-based conjoint analysis is traditionally used to approximate metric utility functions of individual respondents within its given limits (see overview in: Green and Srinivasan 1978, 1990). This approach constitutes the basis for many past academic research studies and practical applications (Schubert 1991) and thus shapes their findings. Today, rating scales are applied more often (Wittink et al. 1994), partly because of the scale requirements of new methods, such as hybrid models (e.g., Green 1984) or the standardized software package ACA (Green et al. 1991). Accordingly, this paper is intended for those who either (still) apply rank-based Conjoint-analyses or who want to compare their findings with those from past rank-based conjoint studies.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ben-Akiva, M., Morikawa, T. and Shiroishi, F. (1992), Analysis of the Reliability of Preference Ranking Data, Journal of Business Research, 24, 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Box, G., Hunter, W. and Hunter, J. St. (1978), Statistics for Experimenters: An Introduction to Design, Data Analysis and Model Building,New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, M. and Daly, A (1994), Use of the Logit Scaling Approach to Test for Rank-Order and Fatigue effects in Stated Preference Data, Transportation, 21, 167–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmone, F. J. and Green, P. E. (1981), Model Misspecifications in Multiattribute Parameter Estimation, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 87–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattin, Ph. and Bliemel, F. (1978), Metric versus Nonmetric Procedures for Multiattribute Modeling: Some Simulation Results, Decision Science, 9, 472–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattin, Ph. and Weinberger, M. G. (1980), Some Validity and Reliability Issues in the Measurement of Attribute Utilities, in: Olson, J.C., ed., Advances in Consumer Research, 7, Ann Arbor, 780–783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currim, I. S., Weinberg, C. B. and Wittink, D. R. (1981), The Design of Subscription Programs for a Performing Arts Series, Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 67–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darmon, R. and Rouziès, D. (1991), Internal Validity Assessment of Conjoint Estimated Attribute Importance Weights, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 9 /4, 315–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darmon, R. and Rouziès, D. (1994), Reliability and Internal Validity of Conjoint Estimated Utility Functions under Error-Free versus Full-Error Conditions, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 465–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darmon, R. and Rouziès, D. (1999), Internal Validity of Conjoint Analysis Under Alternative Measurement Procedures, Journal of Business Research, 46, 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. and Srinivasan, V. (1990), Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice, Journal of Marketing, 54, 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., Carroll, J. D. and Carmone, F. J. (1978), Some New Types of Fractional Factorial Designs for Marketing Experiments, in: Sheth, J., ed., Research in Marketing Greenwich, 1, CT: JAI Press, 99–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M. and Agarwal, M. K. (1991), Adaptive Conjoint Analysis: Some Caveats and Suggestions, Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 215–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, G. J. and Shapiro, S. S. (1966), A Catalogue and Computer Programme for the Design and Analysis of Orthogonal Symmetric and Asymmetric Fractional Factorial Experiments, Report No. 66C - 165, General Electric Research and Development Center, Schenectady, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhfeld, W., Tobias, R. and Garratt, M. (1994), Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications, Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 545–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. J. (1988), Analyzing Decision Making - Metric Conjoint Analysis, London, New Dehli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mengen, A. (1993), Konzeptgestaltung von Dienstleistungsprodukten: Eine Conjoint-Analyse im Luftfrachtmarkt unter Berücksichtigung der Qualitätsunsicherheit beim Dienstleistungskauf,Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Hagedorn, L., Sewing, E. and Toporowski, W. (1993), Zur Validität von Conjoint-Analysen, Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 2, 123–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pocsi, L., Miller, B., Huang, C. and Turner, S. (1994), An International Shelled Peanut Futures Contract: The Use of Conjoint Analysis in New Contract Design, The Review of Futures Market,13(1), 219247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schirm, K. (1995), Die Glaubwürdigkeit von Produktvorankündigungen,Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, B. (1991), Entwicklung von Konzepten für Produktinnovationen mittels Conjointanalyse,Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J.-B. and Wittink, D. R. (1994), The Metric Quality of Full-Profile Judgments and the Number-of-Attribute-Levels Effect in Conjoint Analysis, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 275–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teichert, Th. (1994), Zur Validität der in Conjoint-Analysen ermittelten Nutzenwerte, Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 7, 610–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teichert, Th. (1998), Schätzgenauigkeit von Conjoint-Analysen, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 68 (11), 1245–1266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toy, D., Rager, R. and Guadagnolo, F. (1989), Strategic Marketing for Recreational Facilities: A Hybrid Conjoint Analysis Approach, Journal of Leisure Research, 21, 276–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D. R., and Cattin, Ph. (1981), Alternative Estimation Methods for Conjoint Analysis: A Monté Carlo Study, Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (2), 101–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D. R., Krishnamurthi, L. and Reibstein, D. J. (1989), The Effects of Differences in the Number of Attribute Levels on Conjoint Results, Marketing Letters, 1, 113–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D. R., Vriens, M. and Burhenne, W. (1994), Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis in Europe: Results and Critical Reflections, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Thorsten Teichert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Service Research, University of Karlstad, 65223, Karlstad, Sweden

    Anders Gustafsson (Associate Professor of the Service Research Center) (Associate Professor of the Service Research Center)

  2. MCM Institute for Media and Communications Management, University of St. Gallen, Blumenbergplatz 9, 9000, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Andreas Herrmann (Professor, Director of the Center for Market-Oriented Product and Production Management) (Professor, Director of the Center for Market-Oriented Product and Production Management)

  3. University of Mainz, Germany

    Andreas Herrmann (Professor, Director of the Center for Market-Oriented Product and Production Management) (Professor, Director of the Center for Market-Oriented Product and Production Management)

  4. Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre und Marketing, University of Mainz, Welderweg 9, 55099, Mainz, Germany

    Frank Huber (Professor of Marketing) (Professor of Marketing)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Teichert, T. (2003). Confounding of Effects in Rank-Based Conjoint-Analysis. In: Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., Huber, F. (eds) Conjoint Measurement. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24713-5_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24713-5_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-11370-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-24713-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation