Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Conjoint Measurement pp 361–392Cite as

Latent Class Models for Conjoint Analysis

  • Chapter

Abstract

Conjoint analysis was introduced to market researchers in the early 1970s as a means to understand the importance of product and service attributes and price as predictors of consumer preference (e.g., Green and Rao 1971; Green and Wind 1973). Since then it has received considerable attention in academic research (see Green and Srinivasan 1978, 1990 for exhaustive reviews; and Louviere 1994 for a review of the behavioral foundations of conjoint analysis). By systematically manipulating the product or service descriptions shown to a respondent with an experimental design, conjoint analysis allows decision-makers to understand consumer preferences in an enormous range of potential market situations (see Cattin and Wittink 1982; Wittink and Cattin 1989; and Wittink, Vriens, and Burhenne 1994 for surveys of industry usage of conjoint analysis).

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   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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aaker, D. (1998), Strategic Marketing Management,New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Addelman, S. (1962), Orthogonal Main-effect Plans for Asymmetrical Factorial Experiments, Technometrics, 4, 21–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akaike, H. (1974), A New Look at Statistical Model Identification, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 716–723.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G. M., Aurora, N. and Ginter, J. L. (1995), Incorporating Prior Knowledge in Conjoint Analysis Studies, Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 152–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G. M., Aurora, N. and Ginter, J. L. (1998), On the Heterogeneity of Demand, Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 384–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G. M. and Ginter, J. L. (1995), Using Extremes to Design Products and Segment Markets, Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 39 2403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G. M. and Rossi, P. E. (1999), Marketing Models of Consumer Heterogeneity, Journal of Econometrics, 89, 57–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M., McFadden, D., Abe, M., Bockenholt, U., Bolduc, D., Gopinath, D., Morikawa, T., Ramaswamy, V., Rao, V., Revelt, D. and Steinberg, D. (1997), Modeling Methods for Discrete Choice Analysis, Marketing Letters, 8, 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M. and Gershenfeld, S. (1998), Multi-featured Products and Services: Analyzing Pricing and Bundling Strategies, Journal of Forecasting, 17, 175–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M. and Lerman, S. R. (1985), Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand,Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bockenholt, U., Bozdogan, H., DeSarbo, W. S., Dillon, W. R., Gupta, S., Kamakura, W., Kumar, A., Ramaswamy, V. and Zenor, M. (1994), Issues in the Specification and Application of Latent Structure Models of Choice, Marketing Letters, 5, 323–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bretton-Clark (1992), Conjoint Analyzer,Morristown.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. H. (1997), Perfect Union: CBCA Marries the Best of Conjoint and Discrete Choice Models, Marketing Research Magazine, 3, 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. H. and Ramaswamy, V. (1998), Latent Segmentation Models, Marketing Research Magazine, 10, 15–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damien, P., Dellaportas, P. and Ramaswamy, V. (1998), How Many Segments?: A Full Bayesian Approach for Latent Segmentation Models, presentation made at the Advanced Research Techniques Forum, Beaver Creek.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damien, P. S., Wakefield, J. and Walker, G. (1999), Gibbs Sampling for Bayesian Nonconjugate and Hierarchical Models Using Auxiliary Variables, Journal of Royal Statistical Society, 61, 331–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M. and Rubin, D. B. (1977), Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data via the E.M. Algorithm, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 39, 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., Oliver, R. L. and Rangaswamy, A. (1989), A Simulated Annealing Methodology for Clusterwise Linear Regression, Psychometrika, 54, 707–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, W. R. and Kumar, A. (1994), Latent Structure and Other Mixture Models in Marketing: An Integrative Survey and Overview, in: Bagozzi, R., ed., Advanced Methods of Marketing Research, Cambridge, 295–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elrod, T., Louviere, J. J. and Davey, K. S. (1992), An Empirical Comparison of Ratings-based and Choice-based Conjoint Models, Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 368–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand, A. E., and Smith, A. F. M. (1990), Sampling-based Approaches to Calculating Marginal Densities, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85, 398–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S. and Rubin, D. B. (1996), Bayesian Data Analysis,London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilks, W. R., Richardson, S. and Spiegelhalter, D. (1996), Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice,London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. and Krieger, A. M. (1991), Segmenting Markets with Conjoint Analysis, Journal of Marketing, 55, 20–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. and Srinivasan, V. (1978), Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook, Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. and Wind, Y. (1973), Multiattribute Decisions in Marketing: A Measurement Approach,Hinsdale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagerty, M. R. (1985), The Cost of Simplifying Preference Models, Marketing Science, 5, 298–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haley, R. I. (1985), Developing Effective Communications Strategy: A Benefit Segmentation Approach,New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. M. (1994), The CBC System for Choice-based Conjoint Analysis,Sawtooth Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. M. (1997), Individual Utilities from Choice Data: A New Method,Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, W. A. and Russell, G. J. (1989), A Probabilistic Choice Model for Market Segmentation and Elasticity Structure, Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 379–390.

    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 

  • Krishnan, M., Ramaswamy, V., Meyer, M. C. and Damien, P. (1998), Customer Satisfaction for Financial Services: The Role of Products, Services, and Technology, Management Science, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liechty, J., Ramaswamy, V., and Cohen, S. H. (1999), Menu-based Conjoint Analysis for Mass Customization: An Application to a Web-based Information Service, working paper, Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. J. (1988), Analyzing Individual Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis,Sage University Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Series #67, Newbury Park.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. J. (1994), Conjoint Analysis, in: Bagozzi, R., ed., Advanced Methods of Marketing Research, Cambridge, 223–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. and Swait, J. (1999), Conjoint Preference Elicitation Methods in the Broader Context of Random Utility Theory Preference Elicitation Methods, Working paper, Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. J. and Woodworth, G. G. (1983), Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data, Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 350–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1986), The Choice Theory Approach to Marketing Research, Marketing Science, 5, 275–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, W. L. (1980), Levels of Aggregation in Conjoint Analysis: An Empirical Comparison, Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 516523.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliphant, K., Eagle, T. C., Louviere, J. J. and Anderson, D. (1992), Cross-task Comparison of Ratings-based and Choice-based Conjoint, Sun Valley, ID: Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, 383–394.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramaswamy, V. and DeSarbo, W. S. (1990), SCULPTRE: A New Methodology for Deriving and Analyzing Hierarchical Product-Market Structures from Panel Data, Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 418–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramaswamy, V., DeSarbo, W. S., Reibstein, D. J. and Robinson, W. T. (1993), An Empirical Pooling Approach for Estimating Marketing Mix Elasticities with PIMS Data, Marketing Science, 12, 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramaswamy, V., Chatterjee, R. and Cohen, S. H. (1996), Joint Segmentation on Distinct Interdependent Bases with Categorical Data, Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 337–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. E., McCulloch, R. E. and Allenby, G. M. (1996), The Value of Purchase History Data in Target Marketing, Marketing Science, 15, 321–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. F. M., and Roberts, G. O. (1993), Bayesian Computations via the Gibbs Sampler and Related Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 55, 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Struhl, S. (1994), Discrete Choice Modeling: Understanding a `Better Conjoint than Conjoint’, Quirk’s Marketing Research Review, 8, 6–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titterington, D. M. (1990), Some Recent Research in the Analysis of Mixture Distributions, Statistics, 4, 619–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vriens, M., Wedel, M. and Wilms, T. (1996), Metric Conjoint Segmentation Methods: A Monte Carlo Comparison, Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M. and DeSarbo, W. S. (1994), A Review of Recent Developments in Latent Class Regression Models, in: Bagozzi, R. P., ed., Advanced Methods of Marketing Research, Cambridge, 352–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M. and Kamakura, W. (1997), Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations,Boston.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M. and Steenkamp, J. B. (1989), A Clusterwise Regression Method for Simultaneous Fuzzy Market Structuring and Benefit Segmentation, Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 385–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wind, Y. (1978), Issues and Advances in Segmentation Research, Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 317–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    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, 15, 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Venkatram Ramaswamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven H. Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ramaswamy, V., Cohen, S.H. (2000). Latent Class Models for Conjoint Analysis. In: Conjoint Measurement. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-06395-8_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-06395-8_14

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-06397-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-06395-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation