IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v238y2014i1p185-198.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measurement of preferences with self-explicated approaches: A classification and merge of trade-off- and non-trade-off-based evaluation types

Author

Listed:
  • Schlereth, Christian
  • Eckert, Christine
  • Schaaf, René
  • Skiera, Bernd

Abstract

Self-explicated approaches are popular preference measurement approaches for products with many attributes. This article classifies previous self-explicated approaches according to their evaluation types, i.e. trade-off- versus non-trade-off-based, and outlines their advantages and disadvantages. In addition, it proposes a new method, the presorted adaptive self-explicated approach that is based on Netzer and Srinivasan’s (2011) adaptive self-explicated approach and that combines trade-off- and non-trade-off-based evaluation types. Two empirical studies compare this new method with the most popular existing self-explicated approaches, including the adaptive self-explicated approach and paired comparison preference measurement. The new method overcomes the insufficient discrimination between importance weights, as usually found in non-trade-off-based evaluation types; discourages respondents’ simplification strategies, as are frequently encountered in trade-off evaluation types; is easy to implement; and yields high predictive validity compared with other popular self-explicated approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Schlereth, Christian & Eckert, Christine & Schaaf, René & Skiera, Bernd, 2014. "Measurement of preferences with self-explicated approaches: A classification and merge of trade-off- and non-trade-off-based evaluation types," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(1), pages 185-198.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:238:y:2014:i:1:p:185-198
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2014.03.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221714002240
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.03.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gensler, Sonja & Hinz, Oliver & Skiera, Bernd & Theysohn, Sven, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 368-378.
    2. Louviere, Jordan J. & Islam, Towhidul, 2008. "A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 903-911, September.
    3. Michael Yee & Ely Dahan & John R. Hauser & James Orlin, 2007. "Greedoid-Based Noncompensatory Inference," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 532-549, 07-08.
    4. Karniouchina, Ekaterina V. & Moore, William L. & van der Rhee, Bo & Verma, Rohit, 2009. "Issues in the use of ratings-based versus choice-based conjoint analysis in operations management research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 340-348, August.
    5. Eggers, Felix & Sattler, Henrik, 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, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 108-118.
    6. Christian Schlereth & Christine Eckert & Bernd Skiera, 2012. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate willingness-to-pay intervals," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 761-776, September.
    7. Schlereth, Christian & Skiera, Bernd, 2012. "Measurement of consumer preferences for bucket pricing plans with different service attributes," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 167-180.
    8. Srinivasan, V. & Wyner, Gordon A., 2009. "An Improved Method for the Quantitative Assessment of Customer Priorities," Research Papers 2028, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    9. Green, Paul E. & Krieger, Abba M., 1990. "A hybrid conjoint model for price-demand estimation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 28-38, January.
    10. Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Martin Weber, 1993. "The Effect of Attribute Ranges on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurements," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(8), pages 937-943, August.
    11. Natter, Martin & Feurstein, Markus, 2002. "Real world performance of choice-based conjoint models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(2), pages 448-458, March.
    12. Bettman, James R & John, Deborah Roedder & Scott, Carol A, 1986. "Covariation Assessment by Consumers," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(3), pages 316-326, December.
    13. Schlereth, Christian & Stepanchuk, Tanja & Skiera, Bernd, 2010. "Optimization and analysis of the profitability of tariff structures with two-part tariffs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(3), pages 691-701, November.
    14. Scholl, Armin & Manthey, Laura & Helm, Roland & Steiner, Michael, 2005. "Solving multiattribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: An empirical comparison," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(3), pages 760-777, August.
    15. Bettman, James R. & Johnson, Eric J. & Payne, John W., 1990. "A componential analysis of cognitive effort in choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 111-139, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Böhm, Robert & Letmathe, Peter & Schinner, Matthias, 2023. "The monetary value of competencies: A novel method and case study in smart manufacturing," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    2. Joséphine Süptitz & Christian Schlereth, 2017. "Fracking: Messung der gesellschaftlichen Akzeptanz und der Wirkung akzeptanzsteigernder Maßnahmen [Fracking: Measuring Social Acceptance and the Effect of Acceptance Increasing Measures]," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 69(4), pages 405-439, November.
    3. Katharina Saunders & Christian Hagist & Alistair McGuire & Christian Schlereth, 2020. "Preferences of a new health care profession. A pilot study with anaesthesia technologist trainees in Germany," WHU Working Paper Series - Economics Group 20-01, WHU - Otto Beisheim School of Management.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gensler, Sonja & Hinz, Oliver & Skiera, Bernd & Theysohn, Sven, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 368-378.
    2. Maldonado, Sebastián & Montoya, Ricardo & Weber, Richard, 2015. "Advanced conjoint analysis using feature selection via support vector machines," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(2), pages 564-574.
    3. Jella Pfeiffer & Michael Scholz, 2013. "A Low-Effort Recommendation System with High Accuracy," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 5(6), pages 397-408, December.
    4. Karniouchina, Ekaterina V. & Moore, William L. & van der Rhee, Bo & Verma, Rohit, 2009. "Issues in the use of ratings-based versus choice-based conjoint analysis in operations management research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 340-348, August.
    5. Hein, Maren & Goeken, Nils & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2022. "Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 630-651.
    6. Schlereth, Christian & Skiera, Bernd & Schulz, Fabian, 2018. "Why do consumers prefer static instead of dynamic pricing plans? An empirical study for a better understanding of the low preferences for time-variant pricing plans," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(3), pages 1165-1179.
    7. Christian Schlereth & Fabian Schulz, 2014. "Schnelle und einfache Messung von Bedeutungsgewichten mit der Restricted-Click-Stream Analyse: Ein Vergleich mit etablierten Präferenzmessmethoden," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 66(8), pages 630-657, December.
    8. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    9. Friederike Paetz & Winfried J. Steiner, 2017. "The benefits of incorporating utility dependencies in finite mixture probit models," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 39(3), pages 793-819, July.
    10. Frank Ebbers & Jan Zibuschka & Christian Zimmermann & Oliver Hinz, 2021. "User preferences for privacy features in digital assistants," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(2), pages 411-426, June.
    11. Christian Schlereth & Christine Eckert & Bernd Skiera, 2012. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate willingness-to-pay intervals," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 761-776, September.
    12. Mayer, Stefan & Klein, Robert & Seiermann, Stephanie, 2013. "A simulation-based approach to price optimisation of the mixed bundling problem with capacity constraints," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 584-598.
    13. Roemer, Nils & Müller, Sven & Voigt, Guido, 2023. "A choice-based optimization approach for contracting in supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(1), pages 271-286.
    14. Suk, Kwanho & Yoon, Song-Oh, 2012. "The moderating role of decision task goals in attribute weight convergence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 37-45.
    15. Meise, Jan Niklas & Rudolph, Thomas & Kenning, Peter & Phillips, Diane M., 2014. "Feed them facts: Value perceptions and consumer use of sustainability-related product information," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 510-519.
    16. Halme, Merja & Kallio, Markku, 2014. "Likelihood estimation of consumer preferences in choice-based conjoint analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 556-564.
    17. Katharina Keller & Christian Schlereth & Oliver Hinz, 2021. "Sample-based longitudinal discrete choice experiments: preferences for electric vehicles over time," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 482-500, May.
    18. Schoenwitz, Manuel & Potter, Andrew & Gosling, Jonathan & Naim, Mohamed, 2017. "Product, process and customer preference alignment in prefabricated house building," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(PA), pages 79-90.
    19. Nicole Stein & Stefan Spinler & Helga Vanthournout & Vered Blass, 2020. "Consumer Perception of Online Attributes in Circular Economy Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, March.
    20. Steven D. Silver, 2018. "Multivariate methodology for discriminating market segments in urban commuting," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 63-89, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:238:y:2014:i:1:p:185-198. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.