Methodological issues in conjoint analysis: a case study

To help further our understanding of how keymethodological issues in conjoint analysis influence outcomes, a choice‐based conjoint study measuring consumer preferences for pre‐packed apple selection packs was conducted. The role of stimuli presentation format was considered by comparing the performance of physical prototype stimuli and realistic pictorial representations. This indicated no substantial differences in the choice decisions made using the two presentation formats and suggested that photographic images may be used instead of prototype stimuli. A second issue pertained to the need for training and warm‐up exercises prior to the actual conjoint choice task. While this indicated some differences in choice strategies, a significant improvement in internal validity of choice decisions made with and without training was not achieved. One possible explanation for this finding may be that respondents made choices between apple products, a product category for which decision strategies are likely to be stable and well‐developed.

[1]  H. Timmermans,et al.  Stated preference and choice models applied to recreation research : a review , 1990 .

[2]  David W. Beach,et al.  Integrated Product Design for Marketability and Manufacturing , 1997 .

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

[4]  Gh Loosschilder,et al.  PICTORIAL STIMULI IN CONJOINT-ANALYSIS - TO SUPPORT PRODUCT STYLING DECISIONS , 1995 .

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

[6]  Mel Yamamoto,et al.  The impact of product aesthetics on the evaluation of industrial products , 1994 .

[7]  Molly Eckman,et al.  Judging the attractiveness of product design: The effect of visual attributes and , 1994 .

[8]  Morris B. Holbrook,et al.  Assessing the Real-to-Artificial Generalizability of Multiattribute Attitude Models in Tests of New Product Designs , 1988 .

[9]  Peter H. Bloch.  Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response: , 1995 .

[10]  R. Fisher.  FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE VALUES OF THE CORRELATION COEFFIENTS IN SAMPLES FROM AN INDEFINITELY LARGE POPU;ATION , 1915 .

[11]  David R. Cox,et al.  Regression models and life tables (with discussion , 1972 .

[12]  Hjp Harry Timmermans,et al.  A day in the city: Using conjoint choice experiments to model urban tourists' choice of activity packages , 1995 .

[13]  Dick R. Wittink,et al.  Verbal versus realistic pictorial representations in conjoint analysis with design attributes , 1998 .

[14]  Steven H. Cohen,et al.  Market segmentation with choice-based conjoint analysis , 1995 .

[15]  Peter J. Crosbie,et al.  MEASURING FOOD SAFETY PREFERENCES: IDENTIFYING CONSUMER SEGMENTS , 1993 .

[16]  Linda J. O'Dierno,et al.  Marketing Problems and Opportunities in Mid-Atlantic Seafood Retailing , 1995 .

[17]  J. Steenkamp,et al.  Conjoint measurement in ham quality evaluation. , 1987 .

[18]  Klaus G. Grunert,et al.  What's in a steak? A cross-cultural study on the quality perception of beef☆ , 1997 .

[19]  N. Nagelkerke,et al.  A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination , 1991 .

[20]  James B. Wilcox,et al.  How Valid are Product Descriptions and Protocols in Choice Experiments , 1981 .

[21]  V. Srinivasan,et al.  The Predictive Power of Internet‐Based Product Concept Testing Using Visual Depiction and Animation , 2000 .

[22]  John G. Lynch,et al.  Capturing and Creating Public Opinion in Survey Research , 1993 .

[23]  Joel Huber,et al.  The Use of Real Versus Artificial Stimuli in Research on Visual Esthetic Judgments , 1981 .

[24]  Michel Wedel,et al.  Latent class metric conjoint analysis , 1992 .

[25]  Mark J. Garratt,et al.  Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications , 1994 .

[26]  J. Carroll,et al.  Guest Editorial: Psychometric Methods in Marketing Research: Part I, Conjoint Analysis , 1995 .

[27]  John Bates,et al.  ECONOMETRIC ISSUES IN STATED PREFERENCE ANALYSIS , 1988 .

[28]  Philippe Cattin,et al.  Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update , 1989 .

[29]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data , 1983 .

[30]  George P. Huber,et al.  Multi-Attribute Utility Models: A Review of Field and Field-Like Studies , 1974 .

[31]  Leonard M. Lodish,et al.  A Model and Measurement Methodology for Predicting Individual Consumer Choice , 1981 .

[32]  Dick R. Wittink,et al.  Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: Results and critical reflections , 1994 .

[33]  J. Douglas Carroll,et al.  Psychometric Methods in Marketing Research: Part I, Conjoint Analysis , 1995 .

[34]  Morris B. Holbrook,et al.  Nonisomorphism, Shadow Features and Imputed Preferences , 1985 .

[35]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  An Empirical Comparison of Ratings-Based and Choice-Based Conjoint Models , 1992 .

[36]  A. Page,et al.  Developing an effective concept testing program for consumer durables , 1992 .

[37]  Marco Vriens,et al.  Conjoint experiments for direct mail response optimization , 1998 .

[38]  Greg M. Allenby,et al.  Incorporating Prior Knowledge into the Analysis of Conjoint Studies , 1995 .

[39]  D. McFadden.  The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research , 1986 .

[40]  David R. Cox.  The analysis of binary data , 1970 .

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

[42]  Michael R. Anderberg,et al.  Cluster Analysis for Applications , 1973 .

[43]  A. Paivio.  Perceptual comparisons through the mind’s eye , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[44]  Hjp Harry Timmermans,et al.  Modeling Consumer Perception of Public Space in Shopping Centers , 1999 .

[45]  Mohan V. Bala,et al.  Predicting participation intentions for optional energy services , 1998 .

[46]  David A. Elston,et al.  An application of economic choice experiments to a traditional land use - deer hunting and landscape change in the Scottish highlands. , 1998 .

[47]  P. Lenk,et al.  Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs , 1996 .

[48]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation , 1996 .

[49]  James J. Kellaris,et al.  An exploratory investigation of responses elicited by music varying in tempo, tonality, and texture , 1993 .

[50]  Chung L. Huang,et al.  Conjoint Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Evaluations of a Processed Meat , 1995 .

[51]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Modelling the Effects of Shopping Centre Size and Store Variety on Consumer Choice Behaviour , 1997 .

[52]  A. D. Gordon,et al.  Classification : Methods for the Exploratory Analysis of Multivariate Data , 1981 .

[53]  Joel Huber,et al.  The Effectiveness of Alternative Preference Elicitation Procedures in Predicting Choice , 1993 .

[54]  M. F. Luce,et al.  Constructive Consumer Choice Processes , 1998 .

[55]  D. Wittink,et al.  Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey , 1982 .

[56]  D. Hensher.  Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice , 1994 .

[57]  Hj Norussis,et al.  SPSS for Windows , 1993 .

[58]  Morris B. Holbrook,et al.  Feature Interactions in Consumer Judgments of Verbal Versus Pictorial Presentations , 1981 .

[59]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Experimental analysis of choice , 1991 .

[60]  George E. McKechnie.  Simulation Techniques in Environmental Psychology , 1977 .

[61]  M Ryan,et al.  Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care. , 1998, Health economics.

[62]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice , 1990 .

[63]  M. Hui,et al.  The Ecological Validity of Photographic Slides and Videotapes in Simulating the Service Setting , 1992 .

[64]  Gregory Baker.  Consumer Preferences for Food Safety Attributes in Fresh Apples: Market Segments, Consumer Characteristics, and Marketing Opportunities , 1999 .

[65]  Dick R. Wittink,et al.  The metric quality of full-profile judgments and the number-of-attribute-levels effect in conjoint analysis , 1994 .

[66]  N. Hanley,et al.  Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment , 1998 .

[67]  J. Louviere,et al.  Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities , 1994 .

[68]  Leonard M. Lodish,et al.  Comparing Dynamic Consumer Choice in Real and Computer-simulated Environments , 1992 .