Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Empirical Evaluation of Preference Elicitation Techniques from Marketing and Decision Analysis


Author Info

  • Roland Helm

    (University of Jena, Faculty of Economics)

  • Laura Manthey

    (University of Jena, Faculty of Economics)

  • Armin Scholl

    (University of Jena, Faculty of Economics)

  • Michael Steiner

    (University of Jena, Faculty of Economics)


Within empirical preference measurement, conjoint analysis (CA) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) are common methods with CA dominating marketing research and practice and AHP becoming more and more relevant as a tool of decision analysis. Both methods mainly differ with respect to their basic conception: AHP is a compositional method whereas CA is designed in a decompositional manner. Our study aims at comparing the methods as instruments of preference measurement on a fair basis therefore being designed as similar as possible. As decision problem we use the question which university to prefer or how to design preferable universities, respectively. The results of our empirical study show a high degree of predictive validity of both methods with slight advantages for AHP. Furthermore, they seem to have a high convergent validity. However, inspecting the results in detail reveals considerable discrepancies between them, in particular with respect to the computed part-worths and attribute weights. Due to not knowing the real preferences exactly we cannot undoubtedly state which method takes the better model of the preferences of the respondents but AHP seems to perform a little better and may be a reasonable alternative to CA especially in case of more complex marketing studies.

Download Info

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät in its series Jenaer Schriften zur Wirtschaftswissenschaft with number 02/2003.

as in new window
Date of creation: Jan 2003
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:jen:jenasw:2003-02

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Carl-Zeiss-Strasse 3, 07743 JENA
Phone: +049 3641/ 9 43000
Fax: +049 3641/ 9 43000
Web page:
More information through EDIRC

Order Information:
Postal: If a paper is not downloadable, please contact the author(s) or the library of University of Jena, not the archive maintainer.

Related research

Keywords: preference measurement; analytic hierarchy process; conjoint analysis; empirical study;


No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.


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

Cited by:
  1. 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.
  2. Uwe Cantner & Holger Graf, 2004. "The Network of Innovators in Jena: An Application of Social Network Analysis," Jenaer Schriften zur Wirtschaftswissenschaft 04/2004, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
  3. Roland Helm & Michael Steiner & Armin Scholl & Laura Manthey, 2004. "A Comparative Empirical Study on Common Methods for Measuring Preferences," Jenaer Schriften zur Wirtschaftswissenschaft 20/2004, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.


This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.


Access and download statistics


When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jen:jenasw:2003-02. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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