Conjoint Measurement

The conjoint measurement approach (also referred to as conjoint analysis or trade-off analysis) is an empirical research method for studying individual preferences or (purchase) decisions, determining trade-offs, segmenting groups with similar values, and simulating reactions to novel products or scenarios. The theoretical groundwork of conjoint analysis reaches back to the 1920s, but the foundation for the applied conjoint measurement approach was laid in the 1960s by the mathematical psychologist Luce and the statistician Tukey (Luce & Tukey, 1964). The methodwas—and still is—predominantly used inmarketing research for designing and positioning new products, estimating product demand or pricing decisions (Green & Srinivasan, 1978; Kohli & Sukumar, 1990). Today, conjoint studies are established in various other scientific disciplines such as health care (Ryan&Farrar, 2000), transportation (Bunch, Bradley, Golob, Kitamura, & Occhiuzzo, 1993), or environmental studies (Álvarez-Farizo & Hanley, 2002). In contrast, in communication science the conjoint measurement approach is rarely used so far, although it could provide valuable contributions to communication science research issues. Hence, the aim of this entry is an introduction to conjoint analysis and an overview of its application in the field of communication science.

[1]  M. B. Jensen.  Planning of online and offline B2B promotion with conjoint analysis , 2008 .

[2]  B. Orme.  Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research , 2005 .

[3]  William L. Moore,et al.  A cross-validity comparison of rating-based and choice-based conjoint analysis models , 2004 .

[4]  P. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook , 1978 .

[5]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Adaptive Conjoint Analysis: Some Caveats and Suggestions , 1991 .

[6]  R. Luce,et al.  Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement , 1964 .

[7]  Vithala R. Rao,et al.  Conjoint Measurement- for Quantifying Judgmental Data , 1971 .

[8]  Gerrit Antonides,et al.  Preferred information strategies for food allergic consumers. A study in Germany, Greece, and The Netherlands , 2011 .

[9]  Gordon Lowry,et al.  Modelling user acceptance of building management systems , 2002 .

[10]  M Ryan,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  Ryuichi Kitamura,et al.  Demand for clean-fuel vehicles in California: A discrete-choice stated preference pilot project , 1993 .

[12]  Andreas Herrmann,et al.  Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications , 2000 .

[13]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Segmenting Markets with Conjoint Analysis , 1991 .

[14]  Dick R. Wittink,et al.  The effect of differences in the number of attribute levels on conjoint results , 1990 .

[15]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Conjoint Measurement of Base Station Siting Preferences , 2010 .

[16]  R. Kohli,et al.  Heuristics for Product-Line Design Using Conjoint Analysis , 1990 .

[17]  A. Paivio.  Imagery and verbal processes , 1972 .

[18]  Tomas Öberg,et al.  Conjoint analysis for environmental evaluation , 2008, Environmental science and pollution research international.

[19]  Martina Ziefle,et al.  Understanding age differences in PDA acceptance and performance , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[20]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain , 2002 .