Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the Influence of the Evaluation Methods in Conjoint Design — Some Empirical Results

  • Chapter
Conjoint Measurement

  • 255 Accesses

Abstract

It is the goal of conjoint analysis to explain and predict preferences of customers (Schweikl 1985). Variants of predefined manifestations of attributes of various product concepts (both real and hypothetical) are created, and these are presented to test persons for evaluation. The contributions (partial benefits) the various attributes make to overall preference (overall benefit) are estimated on the basis of overall preference judgments (Green and Srinivasan 1978).

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

  • Acito, F. (1977), An Investigation of some Data Collection Issues in Conjoint Measurement, in: Greenberg, Barnett. A. and Bellenger, D. N., eds., Contemporary marketing thought ( Educators Conference Proceedings ), Chicago, 82–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acito, F. (1979), An Investigation of the Reliability of Conjoint Measurement for Various Orthogonal Designs, in: Franz, R. S., Hopkins, R. M. and Toma, A., eds., Southern Marketing Association Conference Proceedings, University of Southwestern Louisiana, 175–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, M. (1988), Comparison of conjoint methods, Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis and Computer Interviewing, Sun Valley, 51–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C. (1987), The Effect of Type of Presentation on Judgments of New Product Acceptance, Industrial Marketing and Purchasing, 2, 29–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aust, E. (1996), Simultane Conjointanalyse, Benefitsegmentierung, Produktlinien-und Preisgestaltung, Frankfurt am Main.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C. (1987), The Effect of Type of Presentation on Judgments of New Product Acceptance, in: Industrial Marketing and Purchasing, 2, 29–46.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, R. G. and Bolton R. N. (1985), Attribute Presentation Order Bias and Nonstationarity in Full Profile Conjoint Analysis Tasks, in: Lusch, R. F. et al., ed., AMA Educators Conference Proceedings, Chicago, 373–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrzan, K. (1994), Three Kinds of Order Effects in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis, Marketing Letters, 5, 165–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Creyer, E. H. and Ross, W. T. (1988), The Effects of Range-Frequency Manipulations on Conjoint Importance Weight Stability, in: Houston, M. J., ed., Advances in Consumer Research, Provo, 15, 505509.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domzal, T. J. and Unger, L. S. (1985), Judgments of Verbal versus Pictorial Presentations of a Product with Functional and Aesthetic Features, Hirschman, E. C. and Holbrook, M. B., eds., Advances in Consumer Research, Provo, 12, 268–272.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutsche, J. (1995), Produktpräferenzanalyse: Ein modelltheoretisches und methodisches Konzept zur Marktsimulation mittels Präferenzerfassungsmodellen, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausruckinger, G. and Herker, A. (1992), Die Konstruktion von Schätzdesigns für Conjoint-Analysen auf der Basis von Paarvergleichen, Marketing ZFP, 14, 99–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helson, H. (1964), Adaptation-level Theory: An experimental and systematic approach to behavior, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, M. B. and Moore, W. L. (1981), Feature Interactions in Consumer Judgments of Verbal Versus Pictorial Presentations, Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 103–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, S. and Wyer, R. S., Jr. (1989), Effects of Country-of-Origin and Product-Attribute Information on Product Evaluation: An Information Processing Perspective, Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 175–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J. C., Wittink, D. R., Fiedler, J. A. and Miller, R. L. (1991), An Empirical Comparison of ACA and Full Profile Judgements, Saw-tooth Software Conference Proceedings, Ketchum, 1991, 189–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J. C., Wittink, D. R., Fiedler, J. A. and Miller, R. L. (1993), The Effectiveness of Alternative Preference Elicitation Procedures in Predicting Choice, Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 105–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, J. W. (1983), On the Locus of Range Effects in Judgment and Choice, Bagozzi, Richard and Tybout, A., eds., Advances in Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, 10, 305–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain, A. R., Acito, F., Malhorta, N. and Mahajan, V. (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 

  • Johnson, R. M. (1982), Problems in Applying Conjoint Analysis, in: Srivastava, R. K. and Shocker, A. D., eds., Analytical Approaches to Product and Marketing Planning. The Second Conference, Cambridge, 154–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. M. (1989), Assessing the Validity of Conjoint Analysis, Saw- tooth Software Conference Proceedings, Ketchum, 273–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalish, S. and Nelson, P. (1991) A Comparison of Ranking, Rating and Reservation Price Measurement in Conjoint Analysis, Marketing Letters, 2, 327–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V. and Gaeth, G. J. (1991), Attribute order and product familiarity effects in decision tasks using conjoint analysis, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 113–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J- J., Schroeder, H., Louviere, C. H. and Woodworth, G. G. (1987), Do the Parameters of Choice Models Depend on Differences in Stimulus Presentation: Visual versus Verbal Presentation?, Wallendorf, M.and Anderson, P. F., eds., Advances in Consumer Research, Provo, 14, 79–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leigh, T. W., MacKay, D. B. and Summers, J. O. (1981), An Alternative Experimental Methods for Conjoint Analysis, in: Monroe, K. B., ed., Advances in Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, 8, 317–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKay, D. B., Ellis, M. and Zinnes, J. L. (1986), Graphic and Verbal Presentation of Stimuli: A Probabilistic MDS Analysis, in: Lutz, R. J., ed., Advances in Consumer Research, Provo, 13, 529–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, N. K. (1982), Structural Reliability and Stability of Nonmetric Conjoint Analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellers, B. A. (1982), Equity Judgment: A Revision of Aristotelian Views, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 111, 242–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Hagedorn, L., Sewing, E. and Toporowski, W. (1993), Zur Validität von Conjoint-Analysen, Zeitschry für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 45, 123–148.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Parducci, A. (1965), Category Judgment: A Range-Frequency Model, Psychological Review, 72, 407–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrey, J. (1996), Erhebungsdesign-Effekte bei der conjoint analysis, Marketing ZFP, 18, 105–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reibstein, D., Bateson, J. E. G. and Boulding, W. (1988), Conjoint Analysis Reliability: Empirical Findings, Marketing Science, 7, 271–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, H. (1994), Die Validität von Produkttests–Ein empirischer Vergleich zwischen hypothetischer und realer Produktpräsentation, Marketing ZFP, 16, 31–41.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweikl, H. (1985), Computergestützte Präferenzanalyse mit individuell wichtigen Produktmerkmalen,Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal, M. N. (1984), Alternate Form Conjoint Reliability: An Empirical Assessment, Journal of Advertising, 13, 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smead, R. J., Wilcox, J. B. and Wilkes, R. E. (1981), How Valid are Product Descriptions and Protocols in Choice Experiments, Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 37–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp J. B. E. M. 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 

  • Tharp, M. and Marks, L. (1990), An Examination of the Effects of Attribute Order and Product Order Biases in Conjoint Analysis, in: Goldberg, M. E., Gorn, E., Pollay, R. W., eds., Advances in Consumer Research, Provo, 17, 563–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, L. (1979), Conjoint Measurement als Instrument der Absatzforschung, Marketing ZFP, 1. 199–211.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Vriens, M., Oppewal, H. & Wedel, M. (1998), Ratings-based versus choice-based latent class conjoint models–an empirical comparison. Journal of the Market Research Society, 40, 237–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisenfeld, U. (1989), Die Einflüsse von Verfahrensvariationen und der Art des Kaufentscheidungsprozesses auf die Reliabilität der Ergebnisse bei der Conjoint Analysis, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D. R., Huber, J., Zandan, P. and Johnson, R. M. (1992), The Number of Levels Effect in Conjoint: Where does it come from, and can it be eliminated?, Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Ketchum, 355–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D. R., Krishnamurthi, L. and Nutter, J. B. (1982), Comparing Derived Importance Weights Across Attributes, Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 471–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D. R. and Cattin, P. (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 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, 11, 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Frank Huber
    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. Anders Gustafsson
    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

Huber, F., Herrmann, A., Gustafsson, A. (2000). On the Influence of the Evaluation Methods in Conjoint Design — Some Empirical Results. In: Conjoint Measurement. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-06395-8_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-06395-8_8

  • 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