Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Conjoint Measurement pp 3–30Cite as

Conjoint Analysis as an Instrument of Market Research Practice

  • Chapter

Abstract

The essay by the psychologist Luce and the statistician Tukey (1964) can be viewed as the origin of conjoint analysis (Green and Srinivasan 1978; Carroll and Green 1995). Since its introduction into marketing literature by Green and Rao (1971) as well as by Johnson (1974) in the beginning of the 1970s, conjoint analysis has developed into a method of preference studies that receives much attention from both theoreticians and those who carry out field studies. For example, Cattin and Wittink (1982) report 698 conjoint projects that were carried out by 17 companies in their survey of the period from 1971 to 1980. For the period from 1981 to 1985, Wittink and Cattin (1989) found 66 companies in the United States that were in charge of a total of 1062 conjoint projects. Wittink, Vriens, and Burhenne counted a total of 956 projects in Europe carried out by 59 companies in the period from 1986 to 1991 (Wittink, Vriens, and Burhenne 1994; Baier and Gaul 1999). Based on a 2004 Sawtooth Software customer survey, the leading company in Conjoint Software, between 5,000 and 8,000 conjoint analysis projects were conducted by Sawtooth Software users during 2003. The validation of the conjoint method can be measured not only by the companies today that utilize conjoint methods for decision-making, but also by the 989,000 hits on www.google.com. The increasing acceptance of conjoint applications in market research relates to the many possible uses of this method in various fields of application such as the following:

  • new product planning for determining the preference effect of innovations (for example Bauer, Huber, and Keller 1997; DeSarbo, Huff, Rolandelli, and Choi 1994; Green and Krieger 1987; 1992; 1993; Herrmann, Huber, and Braunstein 1997; Johnson, Herrmann, and Huber 1998; Kohli and Sukumar 1990; Page and Rosenbaum 1987; Sands and Warwick 1981; Yoo and Ohta 1995; Zufryden 1988) or to

  • improve existing achievements (Green and Wind 1975; Green and Srinivasan 1978; Dellaert et al., 1995), the method can also be applied in the field of

  • pricing policies (Bauer, Huber, and Adam 1998; Currim, Weinberg, and Wittink 1981; DeSarbo, Ramaswamy, and Cohen 1995; Goldberg, Green, and Wind 1984; Green and Krieger 1990; Kohli and Mahajan 1991; Mahajan, Green, and Goldberg 1982; Moore, Gray-Lee, and Louviere 1994; Pinnell 1994; Simon 1992; Wuebker and Mahajan 1998; Wyner, Benedetti, and Trapp 1984),

  • advertising (Bekmeier 1989; Levy, Webster, and Kerin 1983; Darmon 1979; Louviere 1984; Perreault and Russ 1977; Stanton and Reese 1983; Neale and Bath 1997; Tscheulin and Helmig 1998; Huber and Fischer 1999), and

  • distribution (Green and Savitz 1994; Herrmann and Huber 1997; Oppewal and Timmermans 1991; Oppewal 1995; Verhallen and DeNooij 1982).

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Acito, F. (1977), An Investigation of some Data Collection Issues in Conjoint Measurement, American Marketing Association Educators’ Proceedings, 82–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acito, F. (1979), Industrial Product Concept Testing, Industrial Marketing Management, 10, 157–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, M. (1988), Comparison of Conjoint Methods, Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Sun Valley, 51–57.

    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, 19, 309–314.

    Article  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, 187–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G. M., N. Arora, and J. L. Ginter (1995), Incorporating prior Knowledge into the Analysis of Conjoint Studies, Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 152–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alpert, M. I., J. F. Betak, and L. L. Golden (1978), Data gathering Issues in Conjoint Measurement, Working paper, Graduate School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, Neeraj and Joel Huber (2001), “Improving Parameter Estimates and Model Prediction by Aggregate Customization in Choice Experiments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28, (September), 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assmus, E. F. and J. K. Key (1992), Designs and their Codes, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baier, D., and W. Gaul (1996), Analyzing Paired Comparisons Data Using Probabilistic Ideal Point and Vector Models, in: Bock, H. H., Polasek, P., eds., Data Analysis and Information Systems, Berlin, 163–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baier, D., and W. Gaul (1999), Optimal Product Positioning Based on Paired Comparison Data, Journal of Econometrics, 89, 365–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baier, D. and W. Gaul (1995), Classification and Representation using Conjoint Data, in W. Gaul and D. Pfeifer eds., From data to knowledge: Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization, Berlin, 298–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, J. E., D. Reibstein, and W. Boulding (1987), Conjoint Analysis Reliability and Validity: a Framework for future Research, in: American Marketing Association, ed., Review of Marketing, Chicago, 451–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, H. H., F. Huber, and R. Adam (1998), Utility oriented design of service bundles in the hotel industry based on the conjoint measurement method, in: Fuerderer, R., Herrmann, A. and Wuebker, G., eds., Optimal Bundling-Marketing Strategies for Improving economic performance, Wiesbaden, 269–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, H. H., F. Huber, and T. Keller (1997), Design of Lines as a product-policy Variant to retain Customers in the Automotive Industry, in Johnson, M., Herrmann, A., Huber, F. and Gustafsson, A., Customer Retention in the Automotive Industry-Quality, Satisfaction and Retention, Wiesbaden, 67–92.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. D. (1972), Individual Differences and Multidimensional Scaling, in: Shepard, R. N., Romney, A. K., Nerlove, S. B., eds., Multidimensional Scaling-Theory and applications in behavioral sciences, Vol. 1, New York.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattin, P. and M. Weinberger (1980), Some Validity and Reliability Issues in the Measurement of Attribute Utilities, in: Olsen, Jerry C., ed., Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 780–783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattin, P. and D. R. Wittink (1977), Further knowledge beyond Conjoint Measurement: Toward a comparison of methods, Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 41–45.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerro, D. (1988), Conjoint Analysis by Mail, Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on perceptual mapping, Sun Valley, 139–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, W. G. and G. M. Cox (1957), Experimental Designs, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colberg, T. (1977), Validation of Conjoint Measurement Methods: a Simulation and empirical Investigation, Dissertation, University of Washington.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darmon, R. Y. (1979), Setting Sales Quotas with Conjoint Analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 133–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davey, K. S. and T. Elrod (1991), Predicting Shares from Preferences for Multiattribute Alternatives, working paper, University of Alberta.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Soete, G., J. D. Carroll (1983), A Maximum Likelihood Method for Fitting the Wandering Vector Model, Psychometrika, 48, 553–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Soete, G. and W. DeSarbo (1991), A latent Class Probit Model for Analyzing pick Any/N data, Journal of Classification, 8, 45–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Soete, G. and S. Winsberg (1994) A latent Class Vector Model for Preference Ratings, Journal of Classification, 8, 195–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dellaert, B., A. Borgers and H. Timmermans (1995), A Day in the City: Using Conjoint Experiments to urband Tourists’Choice of Activity Packages, Tourism Management, 16, 347–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., J. D. Carroll, D. R. Lehmann, and J. O’Shaughness (1982), Three-way Multivariate Conjoint Analysis, Marketing Science, 1, 323–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., R. L. Oliver, and A. Rangaswamy (1989), A simulated annealing Methodology for Clusterwise Linear Regression, Psychometrika, 54, 707–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., A. Ramaswamy, and K. Chaterjee (1992), Latent Class Multivariate Conjoint Analysis with Constant Sum Ratings Data, working paper, University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., V. Ramaswamy, and S. H. Cohen, (1995), Market Segmentation with Choice-based Conjoint Analysis, Marketing Letters, 6, 137–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., M. Wedel, M. Vriens, and V. Ramaswamy (1992), Latent Class Metric Conjoint Analysis, Marketing Letters, 3, 273–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W., L. Huff, M. M. Rolandelli, and J. Choi (1994), On the Measurement of Perceived Service Quality, in: R. T. Rust, and R. L. Oliver (ed.), Service Quality: New directions in theory and practice, London, 201–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., B. Schlegelmilch, and J. P. DePreez (1995), Lessons for Pan-European Marketing? The Role of Consumer Preferences in fine-tuning the Product Market Fit, International Marketing Review, 12, 38–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkbeiner, C. T. (1988), Comparison of Conjoint Choice Simulators, Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on perceptual mapping, Sun Valley, 75–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkbeiner, C. T. and P. J. Platz (1986), Computerized versus Paper and Pencil Methods: a Comparison Study, paper presented at the Association of Consumer Research Conference, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaul, W. (1989), Probabilistic Choice Behavior Models and their Combination With Additional Tools Needed for Applications to Marketing, in: De Soete, G., Feger, H., Klauer, K.-H., eds., New Developments in Psychological Choice Modeling, Amsterdam, 317–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaul, W. and E. Aust (1994), Latent Class Inequality Constrained Least Square Regression, working paper, University of Karlsruhe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaul, W., U. Lutz, and E. Aust (1994), Goodwill towards domestic Products as Segmentation Criterion: An empirical Study within the Scope of Research on country-of-origin effects, in: Bock H. H., Lenski, W. and Richter, M., eds., Information systems and Data Analysis, Studies in Classification and data analysis, and knowledge organization, 4, 415–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, S. M., P. Green, and Y. Wind (1984), Conjoint Analysis of Price Premiums for Hotel Amenities, Journal of Business, 57, 111–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. and V. Srinivasan (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. and D. S. Tull (1982), Methoden und Techniken der Marketingforschung, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. and Y. Wind (1975), New Way to Measure Consumers’ Judgments, Harvard Business Review, 53, 107–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. and A. M. Krieger (1990), A hybrid Conjoint Model for price-demand Estimation, European Journal of Operations Research, 44, 28–38.

    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, 346–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., K. Helsen, and B. Shandler (1988), Conjoint Internal Validity under alternative Profile Presentations, Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 392–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. and A. M. Krieger (1987), A simple Heuristic for Selecting ‘good’ Products in Conjoint Analysis, Application of Management Science, 5, 131–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. and A. M. Krieger (1992), An Application to Optimal Product Positioning Model to Pharmaceutical Products, Marketing Science, 11, 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. and A. M. Krieger (1993), A simple Approach to Target Market Advertising Strategy, Journal of the Market Research Society, 35, 161–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. and A. M. Krieger (1993), Conjoint Analysis with product-positioning Applications, J. Eliashberg, G. J. Lilien eds., Marketing, Handbooks in OR&MS, 5, 467–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. and J. Savitz (1994), Applying Conjoint Analysis to Product Assortment and Pricing in Retailing Research, Pricing Strategy and Practice, 4–19.

    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, 168–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagerty, M. R. (1986), The cost of simplifying Preference Models, Marketing Science, 5, 298–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, A., B. Franken, F. Huber, M. Ohlwein, and R. Schellhase (1999), The Conjoint Analysis as an Instrument for Marketing Controlling taking a public Theatre as an Example, International Journal of Arts Management, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, A. and F. Huber (1997), Utility orientated Product Distribution, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 8, 369–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, A., F. Huber, and C. Braunstein (1997), Standardization and Differentiation of Services: a cross-cultural study based on Semiotics, Means End Chains and Conjoint Analysis, Academy of Marketing/American Marketing Association Proceedings of 31st Annual Conference 7th July 1997, Manchester Metropolitan University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hruschka, H. (1986), Market definition and Segmentation Using Fuzzy Clustering Methods, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 3, 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, F. and M. Fischer (1999), Measurement of Advertising Response-Results of a conjointanalytical Study, Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science World Conference, Malta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. (1974), Multiattribute Utility Models: a Review of filed and field-like Studies, Management Science, 20, 1393–1402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J. (1997), What we have learned from 20 Years of Conjoint Research: When to use self-explicated, graded pairs, full profiles or choice experiments, Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Seattle, 243–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J., D. Ariely, and G. Fischer (1997), The Ability of People to express Values with Choices, Matching and Ratings, working paper, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain, A. R., F. Acito, N. Malhorta, and V. Mahajan (1979), A Comparison of internal Validity of alternative Parameter Estimation Methods in decompositional Multiattribute Preference Models, Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 313–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain, A. R., N. Malhorta, and C. Pinson (1980), Stability and Reliability of part-worth utility in Conjoint Analysis: a longitudinal Investigation, working paper, European Institute of Business Administration, Brüssel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M., A. Herrmann, and F. Huber (1998), Growth through Product Sharing Services, Journal of Service Research, 1, 167–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. M. (1974), Trade-Off Analysis of Consumer Values, Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 121–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (1979), Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk, Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, W. A. (1988), A least squares Procedure for Benefit Segmentation with Conjoint Experiments, Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 157–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, W. A. and R. K. Srivastava (1986), An ideal-point probabilistic Choice Model for heterogeneous Preferences, Marketing Science, 5, 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, R. and R. Sukumar (1990), Heuristics for Product-Line-Design using Conjoint Analysis, Management Science, 36, 1464–1478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, R. and V. Mahajan (1991), A reservation-price Model for optimal Pricing of Mulitattribute Products in Conjoint Analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 347–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnamurthi, L. (1988), Conjoint Models of Family Decision Making, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 5, 185–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnamurthi, L. and D. R. Wittink (1991), The Value of Idiosyncratic Functional Forms in Conjoint Analysis, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 301–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhfeld, W. D. (1997), Efficient Experimental Designs using Computerized Searches, Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Seattle, 71–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, M., J. Webster, and R. A. Kerin (1983), Formulating Push Marketing Strategies: a Method and Application, Journal of Marketing, 47, 25–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. (1984), Using discrete Choice Experiments and mulitnominal Logit Models to forecast Trial in a competitive Retail Environment: a fast food Restaurant Illustration, Journal of Retailing, 60, 81–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D. and J. W. Tukey (1964), Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement-A New Type of Fundamental Measurement, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, V., P. E. Green, and S. M. Goldberg (1982), A Conjoint Model for Measuring Self and Cross-Price/Demand Relationships, Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 334–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCullough, J. and R. Best (1979), Conjoint Measurement: Temporal Stability and Structural Reliability, Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 26–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, S., U. N. Umesh, and D. E. Stem (1989), Attribute Importance weights in Conjoint Analysis: Bias and Precision, Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 605–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohn, N. C. (1989), Simulated purchase ‘Chip’ testing versus trade-off (conjoint) analysis, Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on perceptual mapping, Sun Valley, 53–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, D. B. and D. R. Wittink (1980), The predictive Validity of Conjoint Analysis for alternative Aggregation Schemes, Market Science Institute, ed., Market Measurement and Analysis, Cambridge, 298–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, D. B., D. R. Wittink, and T. Glaze (1977), A predictive Test of individual level Concept Evaluation and trade-off Analysis, Research paper No. 415, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, W. L., J. Gray-Lee, and J. J. Louviere (1994), A cross-validity Comparison of Conjoint Analysis and Choice Models at different levels of Aggregation, working paper, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, W. L. and M. B, Holbrook (1990), Conjoint Analysis on objects with environmentally correlated Attributes: The questionable Importance of representative Design, Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 490–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neal, W. D. and S. Bathe (1997), Using the Value Equation to evaluate Campaign Effectiveness, Journal of Advertising Research, 37, 80–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogawa, K. (1987), An Approach to Simultaneous Estimation and Segmentation in Conjoint Analysis, Marketing Science, 6, 66–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppedijk van veen, W. M. and D. Beazley (1977), An Investigation of alternative Methods of Applying the trade-off Model, Journal of Market Research Society, 19, 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppewal, H. (1995), Conjoint experiments and retail planning: Modeling consumer choice of shopping centre and retailer reactive behavior, thesis, Eindhoven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orme, B. K., M. I. Alpert, and E. Chistensen (1997), Assessing the validity of Conjoint Analysis-continued, Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Seattle, 209–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, A. and H. F. Rosenbaum (1987), Redesigning Product Lines with Conjoint Analysis: how Sunbeam does it, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4, 120–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, A. and H. F. Rosenbaum (1989), Redesigning Product Lines with Conjoint Analysis: a reply to Wittink, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 6, 293–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, B. R. and V. Srinivasan (1976), A consumer Preference Approach to the Planning of rural primary health-care facilities, Operations Research, 24, 991–1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, R. W. and R. F. Boruch (1986), Survey Research designs: Towards a better Understanding of their Cost and Benefits, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pekelman, D. and S. K. Senk (1979): Improving prediction in conjoint analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 211–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perreault, W. D. and F. A. Russ (1977), Improving Physical Distribution Service Decisions with trade-off Analysis, International Journal of physical Distribution and Materials Management, 7, 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinnell, J. (1994), Multi-Stage Conjoint Methods to Measure Price Sensitivity, in: Weiss, S., ed., Sawtooth News, 10, 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pullman, M. E., K. J. Dodson, and W. L. Moore (1999),. A comparison of conjoint methods when there are many attributes, Marketing Letters, 10(2), 125–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punj, G. and D. W. Stewart (1983), Cluster Analysis in Marketing Research: Review and Suggestions for Application, Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 134–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P. J. (1980), Applications of Conjoint Analysis to Pricing Problems, in: D. B. Montgomery and D. R. Wittink eds., Proceedings of the first ORSA/TMS Special interest conference on market measurement and analysis, Report 80-103, Cambridge, 183–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosko, M. D. and W. F. McKenna (1983), Modelling consumer choices of health plans: A comparison of two techniques, Social Sciences and Medicine, 17, 421–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safizadeh, M. H. (1989), The internal Validity of the trade-off Method of Conjoint Analysis, Decision Science, 20, 451–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sands, S. and K. Warwick (1981), What product Benefits to offer to whom: an Application of Conjoint Segmentation, California Management Review, 24, 69–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segal, M. N. (1982), Reliability of Conjoint Analysis: contrasting Data Collection Procedures, Journal of Marketing Research, 13, 211–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah, K. R. and B. K. Sinha (1989), Theory of Optimal Designs, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1992b), Pricing Opportunities-And How to Exploit Them, Sloan Management Review, 34, 55–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., D. Fleissner, and S. Bauman (1972), Analyzing the use of Information in Investment Decision Making: a methodological proposal, Journal of Business, 45, 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, V., A. K. Jain, and N. K. Malhotra (1983), Improving predictive Power of Conjoint Analysis by constrained Parameter Estimation, Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 433–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, V. and C. S. Park (1997), Surprising Robustness of the self-explicated Approach to Customer Preference Structure Measurement, Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 286–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, V. and A. D. Shocker (1973), Linear Programming Techniques for Multidimensional Analysis of Preferences, Psychometrika, 38, 337–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, V., A. D. Shocker, and A. G. Weinstein (1973), Measurement of a Composite Criterion of Managerial Success, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 147–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, B. (1988), Conjoint Analysis by Telephone, Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on perceptual mapping, Sun Valley, 131–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanton, W. W. and R. M. Reese (1983), Three Conjoint Segmentation Approaches to the Evaluation of Advertising Theme Creation, Journal of Business Research, 11, 201–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steckel, J. H., W. DeSarbo, and V. Mahjan (1990), On the Creation of acceptable Conjoint Analysis Experimental Designs, Decision Sciences, 22, 435–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J. B. and M. Wedel (1991), Segmenting Retail Markets on Store Image using a consumer-based Methodology, Journal of Retailing, 7, 300–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J. B. and M. Wedel (1993), Fuzzy clusterwise Regression in Benefit Segmentation Application and Investigation into its Validity, Journal of Business Research, 26, 237–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscheulin, D. K. and B, Helmig. (1998), The optimal Design of Hospital Advertising by Means of Conjoint Measurement, Journal of Advertising Research, 38, 35–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tscheulin, D. K. and C. Blaimont (1993), Die Abhängigkeit der Prognosegüte von Conjoint-Studien von demographischen Probanden-Charakteristika, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, 63, 839–847.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1991), Loss Aversion and Riskless Choice: A Reference Dependent Model, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 6, 1039–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Lans, I. A., P. W. Verlegh, and H. N. Schifferstein (1999), An Empirical Comparison of various individual-level Hybrid Conjoint Analysis Models, in: Hildebrandt, L., Annacker, D. and Klapper, D., eds., Proceedings of the 28th EMAC Conference, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhallen, T. and G. J. DeNooij (1982), Retail Attributes and shopping Patronage, Journal of Economic Psychology, 2, 439–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vriens, M. (1995), Conjoint analysis in Marketing, Ph. D thesis, Capelle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vriens, M., H. Oppewal, and M. Wedel (1998), Ratings-based versus choice-based Latent Class Conjoint Models-an empirical comparison, Journal of the Market Research Society, 40, 237–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vriens, M., H. R. van der Scheer, J. C. Hoekstra, and J. P. Bult (1998), Conjoint Experiments for direct mail Response Optimization, European Journal of Marketing, 32, 323–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vriens, M., M. Wedel, and T. Wilms (1996), Metric Conjoint Segmentation Methods: a Monte Carlo comparison, Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vriens, M. and D. Wittink (1992), Data Collection in Conjoint Analysis, unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M. and C. Kistemaker (1989), Consumer Benefit Segmentation using clusterwise Linear Regression, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 6, 45–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M. and J. B. Steenkamp (1989), Fuzzy clusterwise Regression Approach to Benefit Segmentation, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 6, 241–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M. and J. B. Steenkamp (1991), A clusterwise Regression Method for simultaneous fuzzy market structuring and Benefit Segmentation, Journal of Research in Marketing, 28, 385–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winer, B. J. (1973), Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witt, K. J. (1997), Best Practice in Interviewing via the Internet, Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Seattle, 15–34.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D. R. and D. Montgomery (1979), Predicting validity of trade-off analysis for alternative Segmentation Schemes, American Marketing Association Educator’s Conference, Chicago, 69–73.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, P. and M. A. Kriewall (1980), State-of-mind Effects on the Accuracy with which Utility Functions predict marketplace Choice, Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 277–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wuebker, G. and V. Mahajan (1998), A conjoint analysis-based Procedure to measure Reservation Price and to optimally Price Product Bundles, in: Fuerderer, R., Herrmann, A. and Wuebker, G., eds., Optimal Bundling-Marketing Strategies for Improving economic performance, Wiesbaden, 157–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyner, G. A., L. H. Benedetti, and B. M. Trapp (1984), Measuring the quantity and mix of Product Demand, Journal of Marketing, 48, 101–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, D. I, and H. Ohta (1995), Optimal Pricing and Product Planning for new Mulitattribute Products based on Conjoint Analysis, International Journal of Production Economics, 38, 245–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, F. W. (1972), A model for polynomial Conjoint Analysis algorithms, in: Shepard, R., Romney, A. K. and Nerlove, S. B., eds., Multidimensional Scaling-Theory and Applications in Behavioral Sciences, New York, 69–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zandan, P. and L. Frost (1989), Customer Satisfaction Research using disks-by-mail, Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on perceptual mapping, Sun Valley, 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zufryden, F. (1988), Using Conjoint Analysis to predict trial and repeat-purchase Patterns of new frequently purchased Products, Decision Sciences, 19, 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service Research Center, Karlstad University, Sweden

    Anders Gustafsson (Associate Professor)

  2. Department of Quality Technology and Management, Linköping University, Sweden

    Anders Gustafsson (Associate Professor)

  3. Center of Business Metrics, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Andreas Herrmann (Professor of Business Metrics and Director)

  4. Center of Market-Oriented Product and Production Management, University of Mainz, Germany

    Frank Huber (Professor of Marketing and Director)

Authors
  1. Anders Gustafsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas Herrmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank Huber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Karlstad University, 651 88, Karlstad, Sweden

    Anders Gustafsson

  2. University of St. Gallen, Guisanstr. 1 a, 9010, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Andreas Herrmann

  3. University of Mainz, Jakob-Welder-Weg 9, 55128, Mainz, Germany

    Frank Huber

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., Huber, F. (2007). Conjoint Analysis as an Instrument of Market Research Practice. In: Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., Huber, F. (eds) Conjoint Measurement. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71404-0_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation