Skip to main content

2022 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis

verfasst von : Felix Eggers, Henrik Sattler, Thorsten Teichert, Franziska Völckner

Erschienen in: Handbook of Market Research

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Conjoint analysis is one of the most popular methods to measure preferences of individuals or groups. It determines, for instance, the degree how much consumers like or value specific products, which then leads to a purchase decision. In particular, the method discovers the utilities that (product) attributes add to the overall utility of a product (or stimuli). Conjoint analysis has emerged from the traditional rating- or ranking-based method in marketing to a general experimental method to study individual’s discrete choice behavior with the choice-based conjoint variant. It is therefore not limited to classical applications in marketing, such as new product development, pricing, branding, or market simulations, but can be applied to study research questions from related disciplines, for instance, how marketing managers choose their ad campaign, how managers select internationalization options, why consumers engage in or react to social media, etc. This chapter describes comprehensively the “state-of-the-art” of conjoint analysis and choice-based conjoint experiments and related estimation procedures.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Addelman, S. (1962). Orthogonal main-effect plans for asymmetrical factorial experiments. Technometrics, 4(1), 21–46.CrossRef Addelman, S. (1962). Orthogonal main-effect plans for asymmetrical factorial experiments. Technometrics, 4(1), 21–46.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Allenby, G. M., Arora, N., & Ginter, J. L. (1995). Incorporating prior knowledge into the analysis of conjoint studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(2), 152–162.CrossRef Allenby, G. M., Arora, N., & Ginter, J. L. (1995). Incorporating prior knowledge into the analysis of conjoint studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(2), 152–162.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Allenby, G. M., Brazell, J. D., Howell, J. R., & Rossi, P. E. (2014). Economic valuation of product features. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 12(4), 421–456.CrossRef Allenby, G. M., Brazell, J. D., Howell, J. R., & Rossi, P. E. (2014). Economic valuation of product features. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 12(4), 421–456.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Arora, N., Allenby, G. M., & Ginter, J. L. (1998). A hierarchical Bayes model of primary and secondary demand. Marketing Science, 17(1), 29–44.CrossRef Arora, N., Allenby, G. M., & Ginter, J. L. (1998). A hierarchical Bayes model of primary and secondary demand. Marketing Science, 17(1), 29–44.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Batsell, R. R., & Louviere, J. J. (1991). Experimental analysis of choice. Marketing Letters, 2(3), 199–214.CrossRef Batsell, R. R., & Louviere, J. J. (1991). Experimental analysis of choice. Marketing Letters, 2(3), 199–214.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bauer, H., Herrmann, A., & Homberg, F. (1996). Analyse der Kundenwünsche zur Gestaltung eines Gebrauchsgutes mit Hilfe der Conjoint Analyse. Universität Mannheim, Lehrstuhl für ABWL und Marketing II, Working Paper Nr. 110. Bauer, H., Herrmann, A., & Homberg, F. (1996). Analyse der Kundenwünsche zur Gestaltung eines Gebrauchsgutes mit Hilfe der Conjoint Analyse. Universität Mannheim, Lehrstuhl für ABWL und Marketing II, Working Paper Nr. 110.
Zurück zum Zitat Becker, G. M., Degroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9(3), 226–232.CrossRef Becker, G. M., Degroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9(3), 226–232.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Brazell, J. D., Diener, C. G., Karniouchina, E., Moore, W. L., Séverin, V., & Uldry, P.-F. (2006). The no-choice option and dual response choice designs. Marketing Letters, 17(4), 255–268.CrossRef Brazell, J. D., Diener, C. G., Karniouchina, E., Moore, W. L., Séverin, V., & Uldry, P.-F. (2006). The no-choice option and dual response choice designs. Marketing Letters, 17(4), 255–268.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Burmester, A., Eggers, F., Clement, M., & Prostka, T. (2016). Accepting or fighting unlicensed usage – Can firms reduce unlicensed usage by optimizing their timing and pricing strategies? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(2), 434–356.CrossRef Burmester, A., Eggers, F., Clement, M., & Prostka, T. (2016). Accepting or fighting unlicensed usage – Can firms reduce unlicensed usage by optimizing their timing and pricing strategies? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(2), 434–356.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Chakraborty, G., Ball, D., Gaeth, G. J., & Jun, S. (2002). The ability of ratings and choice conjoint to predict market shares – A Monte Carlo simulation. Journal of Business Research, 55(3), 237–249.CrossRef Chakraborty, G., Ball, D., Gaeth, G. J., & Jun, S. (2002). The ability of ratings and choice conjoint to predict market shares – A Monte Carlo simulation. Journal of Business Research, 55(3), 237–249.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Chen, M.-H., Shao, Q.-M., & Ibrahim, J. G. (2000). Monte Carlo methods in Bayesian computation. New York: Springer Series in Statistics.CrossRef Chen, M.-H., Shao, Q.-M., & Ibrahim, J. G. (2000). Monte Carlo methods in Bayesian computation. New York: Springer Series in Statistics.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat De Bekker-Grob, E. W., Ryan, M., & Gerard, K. (2012). Discrete choice experiments in the health economics: A review of the literature. Health Economics, 21(2), 145–172.CrossRef De Bekker-Grob, E. W., Ryan, M., & Gerard, K. (2012). Discrete choice experiments in the health economics: A review of the literature. Health Economics, 21(2), 145–172.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat DeSarbo, W. S., Ramaswamy, V., & Cohen, S. (1995). Market segmentation with choice-based conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters, 6(2), 137–147.CrossRef DeSarbo, W. S., Ramaswamy, V., & Cohen, S. (1995). Market segmentation with choice-based conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters, 6(2), 137–147.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ding, M. (2007). An incentive-aligned mechanism for conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 214–223.CrossRef Ding, M. (2007). An incentive-aligned mechanism for conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 214–223.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ding, M., Grewal, R., & Liechty, J. (2005). Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 67–82.CrossRef Ding, M., Grewal, R., & Liechty, J. (2005). Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 67–82.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ding, M., Park, Y.-H., & Bradlow, E. T. (2009). Barter markets for conjoint analysis. Management Science, 55(6), 1003–1017.CrossRef Ding, M., Park, Y.-H., & Bradlow, E. T. (2009). Barter markets for conjoint analysis. Management Science, 55(6), 1003–1017.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Dong, S., Ding, M., & Huber, J. (2010). A simple mechanism to incentive-align conjoint experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(1), 25–32.CrossRef Dong, S., Ding, M., & Huber, J. (2010). A simple mechanism to incentive-align conjoint experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(1), 25–32.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Eggers, F., & Sattler, H. (2009). Hybrid individualized two-level choice-based conjoint (HIT-CBC): A new method for measuring preference structures with many attribute levels. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(2), 108–118.CrossRef Eggers, F., & Sattler, H. (2009). Hybrid individualized two-level choice-based conjoint (HIT-CBC): A new method for measuring preference structures with many attribute levels. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(2), 108–118.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Eggers, F., Hauser J. R., & Selove, M. (2016). The effects of incentive alignment, realistic images, video instructions, and ceteris paribus instructions on willingness to pay and price equilibria. Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software conference, 1–18 September. Eggers, F., Hauser J. R., & Selove, M. (2016). The effects of incentive alignment, realistic images, video instructions, and ceteris paribus instructions on willingness to pay and price equilibria. Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software conference, 1–18 September.
Zurück zum Zitat Elrod, T., Louviere, J. J., & Davey, K. S. (1992). An empirical comparison of ratings-based and choice-based conjoint models. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 368–377.CrossRef Elrod, T., Louviere, J. J., & Davey, K. S. (1992). An empirical comparison of ratings-based and choice-based conjoint models. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 368–377.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Frischknecht, B., Eckert, C., Geweke, J., & Louviere, J. J. (2014). A simple method for estimating preference parameters for individuals. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31(1), 35–48.CrossRef Frischknecht, B., Eckert, C., Geweke, J., & Louviere, J. J. (2014). A simple method for estimating preference parameters for individuals. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31(1), 35–48.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gensler, S., Hinz, O., Skiera, B., & Theysohn, S. (2012). Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs. European Journal of Operational Research, 219(2), 368–378.CrossRef Gensler, S., Hinz, O., Skiera, B., & Theysohn, S. (2012). Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs. European Journal of Operational Research, 219(2), 368–378.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103–123.CrossRef Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103–123.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54, 3–19.CrossRef Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54, 3–19.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Haaijer, R., & Wedel, M. (2003). Conjoint experiments. general characteristics and alternative model specifications. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann, & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications (3rd ed., pp. 371–412). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef Haaijer, R., & Wedel, M. (2003). Conjoint experiments. general characteristics and alternative model specifications. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann, & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications (3rd ed., pp. 371–412). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Haaijer, R., Wedel, M., Vriens, M., & Wansbek, T. (1998). Utility covariances and context effects in conjoint MNP models. Marketing Science, 17(3), 236–252.CrossRef Haaijer, R., Wedel, M., Vriens, M., & Wansbek, T. (1998). Utility covariances and context effects in conjoint MNP models. Marketing Science, 17(3), 236–252.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Haaijer, R., Kamakura, W. A., & Wedel, M. (2001). The “no-choice” alternative to conjoint choice experiments. International Journal of Market Research, 43(1), 93–106. Haaijer, R., Kamakura, W. A., & Wedel, M. (2001). The “no-choice” alternative to conjoint choice experiments. International Journal of Market Research, 43(1), 93–106.
Zurück zum Zitat Hartmann, A. (2004). Kaufentscheidungsprognose auf Basis von Befragungen. Modelle, Verfahren und Beurteilungskriterien. Wiesbaden: Gabler.CrossRef Hartmann, A. (2004). Kaufentscheidungsprognose auf Basis von Befragungen. Modelle, Verfahren und Beurteilungskriterien. Wiesbaden: Gabler.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hensher, D. A. (1994). Stated preference analysis of travel choices: The state of practice. Transportation, 21(2), 107–133.CrossRef Hensher, D. A. (1994). Stated preference analysis of travel choices: The state of practice. Transportation, 21(2), 107–133.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hensher, D. A., & Johnson, L. W. (1981). Applied discrete choice modelling. New York: Wiley. Hensher, D. A., & Johnson, L. W. (1981). Applied discrete choice modelling. New York: Wiley.
Zurück zum Zitat Huber, J., & Zwerina, K. (1996). The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(3), 307–317.CrossRef Huber, J., & Zwerina, K. (1996). The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(3), 307–317.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson, R. M. (1987). Adaptive conjoint analysis. In Sawtooth software conference proceedings. Ketchum: Sawtooth Software. Johnson, R. M. (1987). Adaptive conjoint analysis. In Sawtooth software conference proceedings. Ketchum: Sawtooth Software.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson, R. M., & Orme, B. K. (1996). How many questions should you ask in choice-based conjoint studies? (Sawtooth software research paper series). Sequim: Sawtooth Software. Johnson, R. M., & Orme, B. K. (1996). How many questions should you ask in choice-based conjoint studies? (Sawtooth software research paper series). Sequim: Sawtooth Software.
Zurück zum Zitat Kraus, S., Ambos, T. C., Eggers, F., & Cesinger, B. (2015). Distance and perceptions of risk in internationalization decisions. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1501–1505.CrossRef Kraus, S., Ambos, T. C., Eggers, F., & Cesinger, B. (2015). Distance and perceptions of risk in internationalization decisions. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1501–1505.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lindley, D. V., & Smith, A. F. (1972). Bayes estimates for the linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 34(1), 1–41. Lindley, D. V., & Smith, A. F. (1972). Bayes estimates for the linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 34(1), 1–41.
Zurück zum Zitat Louviere, J. J., & Woodworth, G. (1983). Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments. An approach based on aggregated data. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(4), 350–367.CrossRef Louviere, J. J., & Woodworth, G. (1983). Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments. An approach based on aggregated data. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(4), 350–367.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods. Analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods. Analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Louviere, J. J., Flynn, T. N., & Marley, A. A. J. (2015). Best-worst scaling: Theory, methods, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Louviere, J. J., Flynn, T. N., & Marley, A. A. J. (2015). Best-worst scaling: Theory, methods, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lusk, J. L., & Schroeder, T. C. (2004). Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(2), 467–482.CrossRef Lusk, J. L., & Schroeder, T. C. (2004). Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(2), 467–482.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat McFadden, D. (1981). Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In C. Manski & D. McFadden (Eds.), Structural analysis of discrete data (pp. 198–272). Cambridge: MIT-Press. McFadden, D. (1981). Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In C. Manski & D. McFadden (Eds.), Structural analysis of discrete data (pp. 198–272). Cambridge: MIT-Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Meissner, M. Oppewal, H., & Huber, J. (2016). How many options? Behavioral responses to two versus five alternatives per choice. Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software conference, 1–18 September. Meissner, M. Oppewal, H., & Huber, J. (2016). How many options? Behavioral responses to two versus five alternatives per choice. Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software conference, 1–18 September.
Zurück zum Zitat Miller, K. M., Hofstetter, R., Krohmer, H., & Zhang, Z. J. (2011). How should Consumersʼ willingness to pay be measured? An empirical comparison of state-of-the-art approaches. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 172–184.CrossRef Miller, K. M., Hofstetter, R., Krohmer, H., & Zhang, Z. J. (2011). How should Consumersʼ willingness to pay be measured? An empirical comparison of state-of-the-art approaches. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 172–184.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Moore, W. L. (2004). A cross-validity comparison of rating-based and choice-based conjoint analysis models. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 299–312.CrossRef Moore, W. L. (2004). A cross-validity comparison of rating-based and choice-based conjoint analysis models. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 299–312.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Moore, W. L., Gray-Lee, J., & Louviere, J. J. (1998). A cross-validity comparison of conjoint analysis and choice models at different levels of aggregation. Marketing Letters, 9(2), 195–207.CrossRef Moore, W. L., Gray-Lee, J., & Louviere, J. J. (1998). A cross-validity comparison of conjoint analysis and choice models at different levels of aggregation. Marketing Letters, 9(2), 195–207.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Orme, B. (2001). Assessing the monetary value of attribute levels with conjoint analysis: Warnings and suggestions (Sawtooth software research paper series). Sequim: Sawtooth Software. Orme, B. (2001). Assessing the monetary value of attribute levels with conjoint analysis: Warnings and suggestions (Sawtooth software research paper series). Sequim: Sawtooth Software.
Zurück zum Zitat Orme, B. (2002). Formulating attributes and levels in conjoint analysis (Sawtooth software research paper series). Sequim: Sawtooth Software. Orme, B. (2002). Formulating attributes and levels in conjoint analysis (Sawtooth software research paper series). Sequim: Sawtooth Software.
Zurück zum Zitat Orme, B., & Johnson, R.M. (2006). External effect adjustments in conjoint analysis (Sawtooth software research paper series). Sequim: Sawtooth Software. Orme, B., & Johnson, R.M. (2006). External effect adjustments in conjoint analysis (Sawtooth software research paper series). Sequim: Sawtooth Software.
Zurück zum Zitat Page, A. L., & Rosenbaum, H. F. (1992). Developing an effective concept testing program for consumer durables. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9, 267–277.CrossRef Page, A. L., & Rosenbaum, H. F. (1992). Developing an effective concept testing program for consumer durables. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9, 267–277.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Park, Y.-H., Ding, M., & Rao, V. R. (2008). Eliciting preference for complex products: A web-based upgrading method. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(5), 562–574.CrossRef Park, Y.-H., Ding, M., & Rao, V. R. (2008). Eliciting preference for complex products: A web-based upgrading method. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(5), 562–574.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Rao, V. R., & Sattler, H. (2003). Measurement of price effects with conjoint analysis: Separating informational and allocative effects of price. In Conjoint Measurement (pp. 47–66). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRef Rao, V. R., & Sattler, H. (2003). Measurement of price effects with conjoint analysis: Separating informational and allocative effects of price. In Conjoint Measurement (pp. 47–66). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Rooderkerk, R. P., Van Heerde, H. J., & Bijmolt, T. H. (2011). Incorporating context effects into a choice model. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(4), 767–780.CrossRef Rooderkerk, R. P., Van Heerde, H. J., & Bijmolt, T. H. (2011). Incorporating context effects into a choice model. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(4), 767–780.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Sattler, H. (2005). Markenbewertung: State-of-the-Art. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 2, 33–57. Sattler, H. (2005). Markenbewertung: State-of-the-Art. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 2, 33–57.
Zurück zum Zitat Sattler, H. (2006). Methoden zur Messung von Präferenzen für Innovationen. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 54(6), 154–176. Sattler, H. (2006). Methoden zur Messung von Präferenzen für Innovationen. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 54(6), 154–176.
Zurück zum Zitat Sattler, H., Hartmann, A., & Kröger, S. (2004). Number of tasks in choice-based conjoint analysis. Conference proceedings of the 33rd EMAC conference. Murcia. Sattler, H., Hartmann, A., & Kröger, S. (2004). Number of tasks in choice-based conjoint analysis. Conference proceedings of the 33rd EMAC conference. Murcia.
Zurück zum Zitat Sawtooth (1999). The choice-based conjoint (CBC) technical paper (Sawtooth software technical paper series). Sequim: Sawtooth Software. Sawtooth (1999). The choice-based conjoint (CBC) technical paper (Sawtooth software technical paper series). Sequim: Sawtooth Software.
Zurück zum Zitat Sawtooth. (2000). The CBC/HB system for hierarchical Bayes estimation version 4.0 (Sawtooth software technical paper series). Sequim: Sawtooth Software. Sawtooth. (2000). The CBC/HB system for hierarchical Bayes estimation version 4.0 (Sawtooth software technical paper series). Sequim: Sawtooth Software.
Zurück zum Zitat Sawtooth. (2004). The CBC latent class technical paper (version 3) (Sawtooth software technical paper series). Sequim: Sawtooth Software. Sawtooth. (2004). The CBC latent class technical paper (version 3) (Sawtooth software technical paper series). Sequim: Sawtooth Software.
Zurück zum Zitat Sawtooth. (2013). The MaxDiff system – Technical paper (Sawtooth software technical paper series). Orem: Sawtooth Software. Sawtooth. (2013). The MaxDiff system – Technical paper (Sawtooth software technical paper series). Orem: Sawtooth Software.
Zurück zum Zitat Sawtooth. (2014). ACBC – Technical paper (Sawtooth software technical paper series). Orem: Sawtooth Software. Sawtooth. (2014). ACBC – Technical paper (Sawtooth software technical paper series). Orem: Sawtooth Software.
Zurück zum Zitat Schlereth, C., & Skiera, B. (2016). Two new features in discrete choice experiments to improve willingness-to-pay estimation that result in SDR and SADR: Separated (adaptive) dual response. Management Science, 63(3), 829–842.CrossRef Schlereth, C., & Skiera, B. (2016). Two new features in discrete choice experiments to improve willingness-to-pay estimation that result in SDR and SADR: Separated (adaptive) dual response. Management Science, 63(3), 829–842.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Shocker, A. D., & Srinivasan, V. (1973). Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preference. Psychometrika, 337–369. Shocker, A. D., & Srinivasan, V. (1973). Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preference. Psychometrika, 337–369.
Zurück zum Zitat Srinivasan, V., & Park, C. S. (1997). Surprising robustness of the self-explicated approach to customer preference structure measurement. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(2), 286–291.CrossRef Srinivasan, V., & Park, C. S. (1997). Surprising robustness of the self-explicated approach to customer preference structure measurement. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(2), 286–291.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Teichert, T. (2001a). Nutzenschätzung in Conjoint-Analysen: Theoretische Fundierung und empirische Aussagekraft. Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRef Teichert, T. (2001a). Nutzenschätzung in Conjoint-Analysen: Theoretische Fundierung und empirische Aussagekraft. Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Teichert, T. (2001b). Nutzenermittlung in wahlbasierten Conjoint-Analysen. Ein Vergleich zwischen Latent-Class- und hierarchischem Bayes-Verfahren. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 53(8), 798–822. Teichert, T. (2001b). Nutzenermittlung in wahlbasierten Conjoint-Analysen. Ein Vergleich zwischen Latent-Class- und hierarchischem Bayes-Verfahren. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 53(8), 798–822.
Zurück zum Zitat Toubia, O., Simester, D. I., Hauser, J. R., & Dahan, E. (2003). Fast polyhedral adaptive conjoint estimation. Marketing Science, 22(3), 273–303.CrossRef Toubia, O., Simester, D. I., Hauser, J. R., & Dahan, E. (2003). Fast polyhedral adaptive conjoint estimation. Marketing Science, 22(3), 273–303.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Toubia, O., Hauser, J. R., & Simester, D. I. (2004). Polyhedral methods for adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 116–131.CrossRef Toubia, O., Hauser, J. R., & Simester, D. I. (2004). Polyhedral methods for adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 116–131.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Toubia, O., Hauser, J., & Garcia, R. (2007). Probabilistic polyhedral methods for adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis: Theory and application. Marketing Science, 26(5), 596–610.CrossRef Toubia, O., Hauser, J., & Garcia, R. (2007). Probabilistic polyhedral methods for adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis: Theory and application. Marketing Science, 26(5), 596–610.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Toubia, O., de Jong, M. G., Stieger, D., & Füller, J. (2012). Measuring consumer preferences using conjoint poker. Marketing Science, 31(1), 138–156.CrossRef Toubia, O., de Jong, M. G., Stieger, D., & Füller, J. (2012). Measuring consumer preferences using conjoint poker. Marketing Science, 31(1), 138–156.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Train, K. (2009). Discrete choice models with simulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Train, K. (2009). Discrete choice models with simulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Urban, G. L., & Hauser, J. R. (1993). Design and marketing of new products (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Urban, G. L., & Hauser, J. R. (1993). Design and marketing of new products (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Zurück zum Zitat Urban, G. L., Weinberg, B. D., & Hauser, J. R. (1996). Premarket forecasting of really-new products. Journal of Marketing, 60(1), 47–60.CrossRef Urban, G. L., Weinberg, B. D., & Hauser, J. R. (1996). Premarket forecasting of really-new products. Journal of Marketing, 60(1), 47–60.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Verlegh, P. W. J., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Wittink, D. R. (2002). Range and number-of-levels in derived and stated measures of attribute importance. Marketing Letters, 13(1), 41–52.CrossRef Verlegh, P. W. J., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Wittink, D. R. (2002). Range and number-of-levels in derived and stated measures of attribute importance. Marketing Letters, 13(1), 41–52.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Voeth, M. (1999). 25 Jahre conjointanalytische Forschung in Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Ergänzungsheft 2, 153–176. Voeth, M. (1999). 25 Jahre conjointanalytische Forschung in Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Ergänzungsheft 2, 153–176.
Zurück zum Zitat Vriens, M., Oppewal, H., & Wedel, M. (1998). Rating-based versus choice-based latent class conjoint models – An empirical comparison. Journal of the Market Research Society, 40(3), 237–248.CrossRef Vriens, M., Oppewal, H., & Wedel, M. (1998). Rating-based versus choice-based latent class conjoint models – An empirical comparison. Journal of the Market Research Society, 40(3), 237–248.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Walker, J., & Ben-Akiva, M. (2002). Generalized random utility model. Mathematical Social Sciences, 43(3), 303–343.CrossRef Walker, J., & Ben-Akiva, M. (2002). Generalized random utility model. Mathematical Social Sciences, 43(3), 303–343.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W. A. (2000). Market segmentation. conceptual and methodological foundations (2nd ed.). Boston: Springer.CrossRef Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W. A. (2000). Market segmentation. conceptual and methodological foundations (2nd ed.). Boston: Springer.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Wedel, M., Kamakura, W. A., Arora, N., Bemmaor, A., Chiang, J., Elrod, T., Johnson, R. M., Lenk, P., Neslin, S., & Poulsen, C. S. (1999). Discrete and continuous representations of unobserved heterogeneity in choice modeling. Marketing Letters, 10(3), 219–232.CrossRef Wedel, M., Kamakura, W. A., Arora, N., Bemmaor, A., Chiang, J., Elrod, T., Johnson, R. M., Lenk, P., Neslin, S., & Poulsen, C. S. (1999). Discrete and continuous representations of unobserved heterogeneity in choice modeling. Marketing Letters, 10(3), 219–232.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Wertenbroch, K., & Skiera, B. (2002). Measuring consumers’ willingness to pay at the point of purchase. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(2), 228–241.CrossRef Wertenbroch, K., & Skiera, B. (2002). Measuring consumers’ willingness to pay at the point of purchase. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(2), 228–241.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Wittink, D. R., Vriens, M., & Burhenne, W. (1994). Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: Results and critical reflections. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 41–52.CrossRef Wittink, D. R., Vriens, M., & Burhenne, W. (1994). Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: Results and critical reflections. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 41–52.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Wlömert, N., & Eggers, F. (2016). Predicting new service adoption with conjoint analysis: External validity of BDM-based incentive-aligned and dual-response choice designs. Marketing Letters, 27(1), 195–210.CrossRef Wlömert, N., & Eggers, F. (2016). Predicting new service adoption with conjoint analysis: External validity of BDM-based incentive-aligned and dual-response choice designs. Marketing Letters, 27(1), 195–210.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Zeithammer, R., & Lenk, P. (2009). Statistical benefits of choices from subsets. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 816–831.CrossRef Zeithammer, R., & Lenk, P. (2009). Statistical benefits of choices from subsets. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 816–831.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis
verfasst von
Felix Eggers
Henrik Sattler
Thorsten Teichert
Franziska Völckner
Copyright-Jahr
2022
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57413-4_23