Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methoden zur Messung individueller Zahlungsbereitschaften: Ein Überblick zum State of the Art

  • State-of-the-Art-Artikel
  • Published:
Journal für Betriebswirtschaft Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Werbeslogans wie z. B. ,,Geiz ist geil“ (Saturn), ,,Preise gut, alles gut“ (C&A) oder ,,Bei diesen Preisen muss man reisen“ (1-2-Fly) verdeutlichen, dass der Preis im Fokus der Marketingstrategie vieler Unternehmen steht. Die im Markt erzielten Preise haben einen wesentlichen Einfluss darauf, ob und in welchem Maße Unternehmen mit dem Verkauf ihrer Produkte Gewinne erzielen. Zur optimalen Gestaltung und Umsetzung preispolitischer Maßnahmen ist die Kenntnis der Zahlungsbereitschaft von Nachfragern essentiell. Der vorliegende Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über die wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse zur Messung von Zahlungsbereitschaften. Dazu werden die in der wissenschaftlichen Literatur vorgeschlagenen Ansätze zur Ermittlung von individuellen Zahlungsbereitschaften systematisiert, erläutert und ihre Eignung kritisch beurteilt. Der Beitrag zeigt damit, welche Methoden der Zahlungsbereitschaftsmessung zur Verfügung stehen und bietet Hilfestellung bei der Methodenauswahl.

Abstract

Price is one of the most important cues on the marketplace. The price cue is present in all purchase situations and at the very least represents to all consumers the economic outlay that must be sacrificed in order to engage in a given purchase transaction. The price of a product is a crucial determinant of a firm’s profit, which is why many firms focus their marketing strategies on pricing. A valid procedure for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) is essential for designing optimal pricing policies or for estimating demand for new products. A broad variety of methods for measuring WTP has been developed in the literature. This article provides a review of the state of the art in measuring consumer WTP. We systematize and discuss existing methods of consumer WTP measurement, discuss potential pitfalls in measuring WTP and identify directions for future research.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. Backhaus K, Erichson B, Plinke W, Weiber R (2003) Multivariate Analysemethoden. Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung, 10. Aufl. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  2. Backhaus K, Brzoska L (2004) Conjointanalytische Präferenzmessung zur Prognose von Preisreaktionen. Die Betriebswirtschaft 64(1):39–57

    Google Scholar 

  3. Balderjahn I (1994) Der Einsatz der Conjoint-Analyse zur empirischen Bestimmung von Preisresponsefunktionen. Marketing ZFP 16(1):12–20

    Google Scholar 

  4. Balistreri E, McClelland GH, Poe G, Schulze W (2001) Can hypothetical questions reveal true values? A laboratory comparison of dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent values with auction values. Environ Resour Econ 18(3):275–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Batsell RR, Louviere JJ (1991) Experimental analysis of choice. Market Lett 2(3):199–214

    Google Scholar 

  6. Becker GM, DeGroot MH, Marschak J (1964) Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behav Sci 9(3):226–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ben-Akiva M, Bradley M, Morikawa T, Benjamin J, Novak T, Oppewal H, Rao V (1994) Combining revealed and stated preference data. Market Lett 5(4):335–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bernhardt M, Spann M, Skiera B (2005) Reverse pricing. Die Betriebswirtschaft 65(1):104–107

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bhatia MR, Fox-Rushby JA (2003) Validity of willingness to pay: Hypothetical versus actual payment. Appl Econ Lett 10(12):737–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bishop RC, Heberlein TA (1979) Measuring values of extra-market goods. Are indirect measures biased? Am J Agr Econ 61(5):926–930

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bishop RC, Heberlein TA (1990) The contingent valuation method. In: Johnson RL, Johnsons GV (Hrsg) Economic valuation of natural resources: Issues, theory, and applications. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, S 81–103

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bjornstadt DJ, Kahn JR (Hrsg) (1998) The contingent valuation of environmental resources. Elgar, Cheltenham, UK

    Google Scholar 

  13. Blackburn McK, Harrison GW, Rutström EE (1994) Statistical bias function and informative hypothetical surveys. Am J Agr Econ 76(5):1084–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Blomquist GC, Liljas B, O’Conor R (1998) Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Southern Econ J 65(1):169–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bohm P, Linden J, Sonnegard J (1997) Eliciting reservation prices: Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism vs. markets. Econ J 107(443):1079–1089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Boyle KJ, Bishop RC, Welsh MP (1985) Starting point bias in contingent valuation bidding games. Land Econ 61(2):188–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Boyle KJ, Johnson FR, McCollum DW, Desvousges WH, Dunford RW, Hudson SP (1996) Valuing public goods. Discrete versus continuous contingent-valuation responses. Land Econ 72(3):381–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Brown T, Champ P, Bishop R, McCollum D (1996) Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good. Land Econ 72(2):152–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bucklin RE, Gupta S (1999) Commercial use of upc scanner data: Industry and academic perspectives. Market Sci 18(3):247–273

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cameron TA, James MD (1987) Estimating willingness to pay from survey data: An alternative to pretest-market evaluation procedure. J Market Res 24(4):389–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Carroll JD, Green PE (1995) Psychometric methods in marketing research: Part I, Conjoint analysis. J Market Res 32(4):385–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Carson RT, Wright JL, Carson NJ, Alberini A, Flores NE (1994) A bibilography of contingent valuation studies and papers. Natural Resource Damage Assessment Inc., La Jolla, CA

    Google Scholar 

  23. Casey JT, Delquié P (1995) Stated vs implicit willingness to pay under risk. Org Behav Hum Dec 61(2):123–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chakravarti D, Greenleaf E, Sinha A, Cheema A, Cox JC, Friedman D, Ho TH, Isaac RM, Mitchell AA, Rapoport A, Rothkopf MH, Srivastava J, Zwick R (2002) Auctions. Research opportunities in marketing. Market Lett 13(3):281–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chernev A (2003) Reverse pricing and online price elicitation strategies in consumer choice. J Consum Psychol 13(1–2):51–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Clement M (2000) Interaktives Fernsehen: Analyse und Prognose seiner Nutzung. DUV, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cox JC, Smith VL, Walker JM (1985) Expected revenue in discriminative and uniform price sealed bid auctions. In: Smith VL (Hrsg) Research in experimental economics, 3. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, S 183–232

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cummings RG, Taylor LO (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89(3):649–665

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cummings RG, Harrison GW, Rutström EE (1995) Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible? Am Econ Rev 85(1):260–266

    Google Scholar 

  30. Desvousges WH, Hudson SP, Ruby MC (1996) Evaluation CV performance: Separating the light from the heat. In: Bjornstad DJ, Kahn JR (Hrsg) The contingent valuation of environmental resources. Methodological issues and research needs. Elgar, Cheltenham UK Brookfield US, S 117–144

    Google Scholar 

  31. Dickie M, Fisher A, Gerking S (1987) Market transactions and hypothetical demand data. A comparative study. J Am Stat Assoc 82(397):69–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Diller H (2000) Preispolitik, 3. Aufl. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ding M, Grewal R, Liechty J (2005) Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. J Market Res 42(1):67–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Eisenberger R, Weber M (1995) Willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept for risk and ambiguous lotteries. J Risk Uncertainty 10(May):223–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Fay S (2004) Partial repeat bidding in the name-your-own-price channel. Market Sci 23(3):407–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Fox J, Shogren J, Hayes D, Kleibenstein J (1998) CVM-X: Calibrating contingent values with experimental auction markets. Am J Agr Econ 80(3):455–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Frykblom P (1997) Hypothetical question modes and real willingenss to pay. J Environ Econ Manage 34(3):275–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Frykblom P (2000) Willingness to pay and the choice of question format: Experimental results. Appl Econ Lett 7(10):665–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gabor A, Granger CWJ (1964) Price sensitivity of the consumer. J Advertising Res 4(December):40–44

    Google Scholar 

  40. Goldberg SM, Green PE, Wind Y (1984) Conjoint analysis of price premiums for hotel amenities. J Bus 57(1):111–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Green PE, Goldberg SM, Montemayor M (1981) A hybrid utility estimation model for conjoint analysis. J Market Res 45(1):33–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Green PE, Krieger AM (1990) A hybrid conjoint model for price-demand estimation. Eur J Oper Res 44(1):28–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Green PE, Krieger AM (1996) Individualized hybrid models for conjoint analysis. Manage Sci 42(June):850–867

    Google Scholar 

  44. Green PE, Srinivasan V (1990) Conjoint analysis in marketing: new development with implications for research and practice. J Marketing 54(October):3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hammann P, Erichson B (2000) Marktforschung, 4. Aufl. Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hanemann WM (1994) Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J Econ Perspect 8(4):19–34

    Google Scholar 

  47. Harrison GW, Rutström EE (2006) Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. In: Plott C, Smith VL (Hrsg) Handbook of experimental economics results. North-Holland, im Erscheinen

  48. Hartmann A (2004) Kaufentscheidungsprognose auf Basis von Befragungen. Gabler, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hartmann A, Sattler H (2004) Wie robust sind Methoden zur Präferenzmessung? Z betriebswirt Forsch 56(Februar):3–22

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hartmann A, Sattler H (2005) Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F (Hrsg) Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications, 4. Aufl. Berlin, im Erscheinen

  51. Hensel-Börner S (2000) Validität computergestützter hybrider Conjoint-Analysen. Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  52. Hensel-Börner S, Sattler H (2000) Ein empirischer Validitätsvergleich zwischen der Customized Computerized Conjoint Analysis (CCC), der Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA) und Self-Explicated-Verfahren. Z Betriebswirt 70(6):705–727

    Google Scholar 

  53. Hoffman E, Menkhaus DJ, Chakravarti D, Field RA, Whipple GD (1993) Using laboratory experimental auctions in marketing research: A case study of new packaging for fresh beef. Market Sci 12(3):318–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Homburg C, Koschate N, Hoyer WD (2005) Do satisfied customers really pay more? A study of the relationship between customer satisfaction and willingness to pay. J Marketing 69(April):84–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Jedidi K, Zhang ZJ (2002) Augmenting conjoint analysis to estimate consumer reservation price. Manage Sci 48(October):1350–1368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Johnson RL, Bregenzer NS, Shelby B (1990) Contingent valuation question formats. Dichotomous choice versus open-ended responses. In: Johnson RL, Johnson GV (Hrsg) Economic valuation of natural resources. Issues, theory, and applications. Westview Press, Oxford CO, S 193–203

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kaas KP, Ruprecht H (2003) Sind die Vickrey Auktion und der BDM-Mechanismus wirklich anreizkompatibel? Empirische Befunde und optimale Bietstrategien bei unsicheren Zahlungsbereitschaften. Arbeitspapier Nr. 11. Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  58. Kagel JH (1995) Auctions: A survey of experimental research. In: Kagel JH, Roth AE (Hrsg) The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, S 501–585

    Google Scholar 

  59. Kagel JH, Harstad RM, Levin D (1987) Information impact and allocation rules in auctions with affiliated private values: A laboratory study. Econometrica 55(6):1275–1304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kagel JH, Levin D (1993) Independent private value auctions: Bidder behavior in first-, second- and third-price auctions with varying numbers of bidders. Econ J 103(419):868–879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1990) Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. J Polit Econ 98(6):1325–1348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Kalish S, Nelson P (1991) A comparison of ranking, rating and reservation price measurement in conjoint analysis. Market Lett 2(4):327–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Kealy MJ, Montgomery M, Dovidio JF (1990) Reliability and predictive validity of contingent values. Does the nature of the goods matter? J Environ Econ Manage 19(3):244–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Kealy MJ, Turner RW (1993) A test of the equality of close-ended and open-ended contingent valuations. Am J Agr Econ 75(2):321–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Keane MP (1997) Current issues in discrete choice modeling. Market Lett 8(3):307–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Kohli R, Mahajan V (1991) A reservation-price model for optimal pricing of multi-attribute products in conjoint analysis. J Market Res 28(3):347–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Klemperer P (1999) Auction theory: A guide to the literature. J Econ Surveys 13(3):227–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Loomis J, Brown T, Lucero B, Peterson G (1996) Improving validity experiments of contingent valuation methods: Results of efforts to reduce the disparity of hypothetical and actual willingenss to pay. Land Econ 72(4):450–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Louviere JJ, Woodworth G (1983) Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data. J Market Res 20(4):350–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Lusk J, Feldkamp T, Schroeder TC (2004) Experimental auction procedure. Impact on valuation of quality differentiated goods. Am J Agr Econ 86(2):389–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Lusk JL, Schroeder TC (2004) Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. Am J Agr Econ 86(2):467–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Marn MV, Roegner EV, Zawada CC (2004) The Price Advantage. Wiley & Sons, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  73. McAfee RP, McMillan J (1987) Auctions and bidding. J Econ Lit 25(June):699–738

    Google Scholar 

  74. McFadden D (1994) Contingent valuation and social choice. Am J Agr Econ 76(4):689–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. McFadden D (1998) Measuring willingness-to-pay for transportation improvements. In: Gärling T, Laitila T, Westin K (Hrsg) Theoretical foundations of travel choice modelling. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, S 339–364

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  76. Menges R, Schröder C, Traub S (2004) Erhebung von Zahlungsbereitschaften für Ökostrom: Methodische Aspekte und Ergebnisse einer experimentellen Untersuchung. Marketing ZFP 26(3):247–258

    Google Scholar 

  77. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  78. Noussair C, Robin S, Ruffieux B (2004) Revealing consumers’ willingness-to-pay: A comparison of the BDM mechanism and the Vickrey auction. J Econ Psychol 25(6):725–741

    Google Scholar 

  79. Neill HR (1999) Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay. Appl Econ Lett 6(5):267–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Neill HR, Cummings RG, Ganderton PT, Harrison GW, McGuckin T (1994) Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Econ 70(2):145–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Nitschke T, Sattler H (2005) Präferenzstrukturen und Zahlungsbereitschaften für Online-Medieninhalte: Eine empirische Analyse am Beispiel von Online-Videoangeboten. In: Posselt T, Schade C (Hrsg) Quantitative Marketingforschung in Deutschland. Festschrift für Klaus-Peter Kaas. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, S 59–80

    Google Scholar 

  82. Nitschke T, Völckner F (2006) Präferenzmessung bei unsicheren Produkteigenschaften: Risikoberücksichtigung bei Ergebnissen aus Conjoint-Analysen. Erscheint in Z betriebswirt Forsch 58

  83. Onwujekwe O, Hanson K, Fox-Rushby J (2005) Do divergences between stated and actual willingness to pay signify the existence of bias in contingent valuation surveys? Soc Sci Med 60(3):525–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Peter JP (1979) Reliability: A review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices. J Market Res 16(1):6–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Posavac SS (1997) Strategic overbidding in contingent valuation: Stated economic value of public goods varies according to consumers’ expectations of funding source. J Econ Psychol 19(2):205–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Prelec D, Simester D (2001) Always leave home without it: a further investigation of the credit-card effect on willingness to pay. Market Lett 12(1):5–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Reibstein D, Bateson JE, Boulding W (1988) Conjoint analysis reliability: Empirical findings. Market Sci 7(3):271–286

    Google Scholar 

  88. Ruprecht H (2005) Anreizkompatible Verfahren zur Erhebung von Zahlungsbereitschaften. Dissertation, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main

  89. Rutström EE (1998) Home-grown values and incentive compatible design. Int J Game Theory 27(3):427–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Sattler H (2005) Präferenzforschung für Innovationen. In: Albers S, Gassmann O (Hrsg) Handbuch Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement. Strategie – Umsetzung – Controlling. Gabler, Wiesbaden, S 359–378

    Google Scholar 

  91. Sattler H, Nitschke T (2003) Ein empirischer Vergleich von Instrumenten zur Erhebung von Zahlungsbereitschaften. Z betriebswirt Forsch 55(Juni):364–381

    Google Scholar 

  92. Sattler H, Hensel-Börner S (2003) A comparison of conjoint measurement with self-explicated approaches. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F (Hrsg) Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications. Springer, Berlin, S 147–159

    Google Scholar 

  93. Schade C, Kunreuther H (2002) Worry and the illusion of safety: Evidence from a real-objects experiment. Discussion Paper Nr. 25, SFB 373, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

  94. Schade C, Kunreuther H, Kaas KP (2002) Low-probability insurance decisions: The role of concern. Discussion Paper Nr. 23, SFB 373, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

  95. Schäfers B (2004) Preisgebote im Internet: Neue Ansätze zur Messung individueller Zahlungsbereitschaften. Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  96. Simon H (1992) Preismanagement: Analyse, Strategie, Umsetzung, 2. Aufl. Gabler, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  97. Sinden JA (1988) Empirical tests of hypothetical biases in consumers’ surplus surveys. Aust J Agr Econ 32(2–3):98–112

    Google Scholar 

  98. Skiera B (1999) Mengenbezogene Preisdifferenzierung bei Dienstleistungen. Gabler, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  99. Skiera B, Spann M (2003) Auktionen. In: Diller H, Herrmann A (Hrsg) Handbuch Preispolitik. Gabler, Wiesbaden, S 623–641

    Google Scholar 

  100. Skiera B, Revenstorff I (1999) Auktionen als Instrument zur Erhebung von Zahlungsbereitschaften. Z betriebswirt Forsch 51(3):224–242

    Google Scholar 

  101. Smith VL (1962) An experimental study of competitive market behavior. J Polit Econ 70(April):111–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Smith VL (1976) Experimental economics: Induced value theory. Am Econ Rev 66(2):274–279

    Google Scholar 

  103. Spann M, Skiera B, Schäfers B (2005) Reverse-Pricing Verfahren und deren Möglichkeiten zur Messung von individuellen Suchkosten und Zahlungsbereitschaften. Z betriebswirt Forsch 57(März):107–129

    Google Scholar 

  104. Srinivasan V (1988) A conjunctive-compensatory approach to the self-explication of multiattributed preferences. Decision Sci 19(2):295–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1986) Rational choice and the framing of decisions. J Bus Res 59(4):251–278

    Google Scholar 

  106. Urban GL, Weinberg BD, Hauser JR (1996) Premarket forecasting of really-new products. J Marketing 60(January):47–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Urban GL, Hauser JR, Qualls WJ, Weinberg B, Bohlmann JD, Chicos RA (1997) Information acceleration: Validation and lessons from the field. J Market Res 34(1):143–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Völckner F (2006) An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay. Market Lett 17:137–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Voeth M (2000) Nutzenmessung in der Kaufverhaltensforschung. Die Hierarchische Individualisierte Limit Conjoint-Analyse (HILCA). Gabler, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  110. Voeth M, Hahn C (1998) Limit Conjoint-Analyse. Marketing ZFP 20(2):119–132

    Google Scholar 

  111. Wertenbroch K (1998) Consumption self-control by rationing purchase quantities of virtue and vice. Market Sci 17(4):317–337

    Google Scholar 

  112. Wertenbroch K, Skiera B (2002) Measuring consumers’ willingness to pay at the point of purchase. J Market Res 39(2):228–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Wübker G, Mahajan V (1999) A conjoint analysis-based procedure to measure reservation price and to optimally price product bundles. In: Fürderer R, Herrmann A, Wübker G (Hrsg) Optimal bundling: Marketing strategies for improving economic performance. Springer, Berlin, S 157–174

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Handel und Marketing: Arbeitsbereich Marketing & Branding, Universität Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 5, 20146, Hamburg, Deutschland

    Franziska Völckner

Authors
  1. Franziska Völckner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franziska Völckner.

Additional information

JEL classifications

C81, D81, D12, M31

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Völckner, F. Methoden zur Messung individueller Zahlungsbereitschaften: Ein Überblick zum State of the Art. JfB 56, 33–60 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-006-0002-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-006-0002-y

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation