Abstract
The predictive validity of the two methods, Aspiration-level interactive method (AIM) and conjoint analysis, used for solving decision problems involving discrete alternatives are compared. An empirical analysis based on subjects’ preferences for a multiattribute product (buying a house) and a service (selecting an MBA program for study) indicated that consumer preferences derived from AIM may be more valid than the preferences derived from the full-profile conjoint analysis method.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Agarwal, Manoj (1988), “An Empirical Comparison of Traditional Conjoint and Adaptive Conjoint Analysis,” Working Paper No. 88–140, School of Management, State University of New York at Binghamton. Anderson, James C. and Naveen Donthu (1988), “A Proximate Assessment of the External Validity of Conjoint Analysis,” 1988 AMA Educators’ Proceedings, G. Frazier et al., eds. Series 54. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 87–91.
Bateson, John E., David J. Reibstein, and William Boulding (1987), “Conjoint Analysis Reliability and Validity: A Framework for Future Research,” in Review of Marketing, michael J. Houston, ed. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 451–81.
Byrne, John A. (1990), Business Weekís Guide to the Best Business Schools, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, N.Y.
Clarke, Darrai G. (1987), Marketing Analysis and Decision Making. Redwood City, CA: The Scientific Press, 180–92.
Conover, W.J. (1980), Practical Nonparametric Statistics, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Dyer, James S., Peter C. Fishburn, and Ralph E. Steuer (1992), “Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: The Next Ten Years”, Management Science, 38 (May), 645–54.
Finkbeiner, Carl T. and Patricia J. Platz (1986), “Computerized Versus Paper and Pencil Methods: A Comparison Study,” paper presented at the Association for Consumer Research Conference, Toronto (October).
Green Paul E, J. D. Carroll and F. J. Carmone (1978), “Some New Types of Fractional Factorial Designs for Marketing Experiments,” In J.N. Sheth (Ed.), Research in Marketing, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.
Green, Paul E., and A.M. Krieger (1991), “Segmenting Markets With Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Marketing, October, 20–31.
Green, Paul E., and V.R. Rao (1971), “Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 355–63.
Green, Paul E., and V. Srinivasan (1990), “Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments With Implications for Research and Practice,” Journal of Marketing, October, 3–19.
Green, Paul E. and V. Srinivasan (1978), “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook,” Journal of Consumer Research, 5 (September), 103–23.
Green, Paul E., and Yoram Wind (1975), “New Way to Measure Consumersí Judgements,” Harvard Business Review, 53 (July-August), 107–17.
Johnson, Richard M (1987), “Adaptive Conjoint Analysis,” in Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing. Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, 253–65.
Krishnamurthi, Lakshman (1988), “Conjoint Models of Family Decision Making,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 5, 185–98.
Lotfi, Vahid, Theodor J. Stewart, and Stanley Zionts (1992), “An Aspiration-level Interactive Model for Multiple Criteria Decision Making,” Computers and Operations Research, 19(7), 671–681.
Luce, R.D., and J. W. Tukey (1964), “Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 1–27.
Mohn, N. Carroll (1990), Simulated Purchase ëChipí Testing vs. Trade-off (Conjoint) analysis-Coca Colaís Experience,” Marketing Research, 2 (March), 49–54.
Safizadeh, Hossein M. (1989), “The Internal Validity of the Trade-Off Method of Conjoint Analysis,” Decision Sciences, Vol 20, 451–61.
Srinivasan, V. (1988), “A Conjunctive-Compensatory Approach to the Self-Explication of Multiattributed Preferences,” Decision Sciences, 19 (Spring), 295–305.
Wittink, Dick R. and Philippe Cattin (1989), “Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update,” Journal of Marketing, 53 (July), 91–96.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Angur, M., Lotfi, V. (1997). A Comparison of Aspiration Level Interactive Method (AIM) and Conjoint Analysis in Multiple Criteria Decision Making. In: Karwan, M.H., Spronk, J., Wallenius, J. (eds) Essays In Decision Making. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-60663-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-60663-2_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-64499-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-60663-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive