IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aip/access/v4y2023i3p480-502.html

A systematic review of food product conjoint analysis research

Author

Listed:
  • Kristian PENTUS

    (University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia)

Abstract

Objectives: Conjoint research techniques have been employed in many articles. These are mainly in the field of food sciences. There has yet to be a thorough analysis of these papers. Reviewing food product conjoint analysis articles was the goal of the current literature review. Methods/Approach: A systematic literature review approach was used based PRISMA approach. Results: Published between years 2000 to 2020, 72 articles were reviewed. The article focussed on average sample size, most common subsampling methods, differences in conjoint evaluation questions, and most tested product categories. As a result of these findings, the author brought out steps to take when planning to conduct conjoint analysis and highlighted gaps in the current literature. Conclusions: 62 articles focused on hedonic goods and 38 on extrinsic qualities. Insights from this review champion conjoint analysis as an indispensable tool, highlighting its potential to refine future research endeavours in the domain. Results and supporting data from conjoint research conducted on utilitarian products still need to be included. The median sample size was 298, while the average was 459.

Suggested Citation

  • Kristian PENTUS, 2023. "A systematic review of food product conjoint analysis research," Access Journal, Access Press Publishing House, vol. 4(3), pages 480-502, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:aip:access:v:4:y:2023:i:3:p:480-502
    DOI: 10.46656/access.2023.4.3(11)
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journal.access-bg.org/journalfiles/journal/issue-4-3-2023/a_systematic_review_of_food_product_conjoint_analysis_research.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.46656/access.2023.4.3(11)?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    2. Deborah Marshall & John Bridges & Brett Hauber & Ruthanne Cameron & Lauren Donnalley & Ken Fyie & F. Reed Johnson, 2010. "Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health — How are Studies being Designed and Reported?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 249-256, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Katharina Keller & Christian Schlereth & Oliver Hinz, 2021. "Correction to: Sample-based longitudinal discrete choice experiments: preferences for electric vehicles over time," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 501-501, May.
    2. Axel Mühlbacher & Peter Zweifel & Anika Kaczynski & F. Johnson, 2015. "Experimental measurement of preferences in health care using best-worst scaling (BWS): theoretical and statistical issues," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Tammo H.A. Bijmolt & Michel Wedel & Wayne S. DeSarbo, 2021. "Adaptive Multidimensional Scaling: Brand Positioning Based on Decision Sets and Dissimilarity Judgments," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, June.
    4. Volker Kuppelwieser & Fouad Ben Abdelaziz & Olfa Meddeb, 2020. "Unstable interactions in customers’ decision making: an experimental proof," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 479-499, November.
    5. F. Cirone & M. Masotti & Paolo Prosperi & S. Bosi & G. Dinelli & M. Vittuari, 2023. "Business strategy pathways for short food supply chains: sharing value between consumers and producers," Post-Print hal-04186888, HAL.
    6. John V. Colias & Stella Park & Elizabeth Horn, 2023. "Optimizing B2B Product Offers with Machine Learning, Mixed Logit, and Nonlinear Programming," Papers 2308.07830, arXiv.org.
    7. Chen, Xuqi & Shen, Meng & Gao, Zhifeng, "undated". "Impact of Intra-respondent Variations in Attribute Attendance on Consumer Preference in Food Choice," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258509, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Herbert Dawid & Reinhold Decker & Thomas Hermann & Hermann Jahnke & Wilhelm Klat & Rolf König & Christian Stummer, 2017. "Management science in the era of smart consumer products: challenges and research perspectives," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 25(1), pages 203-230, March.
    9. Kowalska-Pyzalska, Anna & Michalski, Rafał & Kott, Marek & Skowrońska-Szmer, Anna & Kott, Joanna, 2022. "Consumer preferences towards alternative fuel vehicles. Results from the conjoint analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    10. Damian Clarke & Sonia Oreffice & Climent Quintana‐Domeque, 2021. "On the Value of Birth Weight," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(5), pages 1130-1159, October.
    11. Lee, Hye-Jae & Bae, Eun-Young, 2017. "Eliciting preferences for medical devices in South Korea: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 243-249.
    12. John Sterman, 2018. "System dynamics at sixty: the path forward," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 5-47, January.
    13. Julian Schuir & Frank Teuteberg, 2021. "Understanding augmented reality adoption trade-offs in production environments from the perspective of future employees: A choice-based conjoint study," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 1039-1085, September.
    14. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2015. "Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 48-56.
    15. Caiati, Valeria & Rasouli, Soora & Timmermans, Harry, 2020. "Bundling, pricing schemes and extra features preferences for mobility as a service: Sequential portfolio choice experiment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 123-148.
    16. Francesco Moresino & Emmanuel Fragnière, 2018. "Combining Behavioral Approaches with Techno-Economic Energy Models: Dealing with the Coupling Non-Linearity Issue," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-14, July.
    17. Damian Clarke & Sonia Oreffice & Climent Quintana‐Domeque, 2019. "The demand for season of birth," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(5), pages 707-723, August.
    18. Hayk Khachatryan & Alicia L. Rihn & Benjamin Campbell & Chengyan Yue & Charles Hall & Bridget Behe, 2017. "Visual Attention to Eco-Labels Predicts Consumer Preferences for Pollinator Friendly Plants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-14, September.
    19. Schoon, Rebecca & Chi, Chunhuei, 2022. "Integrating Citizens Juries and Discrete Choice Experiments: Methodological issues in the measurement of public values in healthcare priority setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 309(C).
    20. Emmanuel Fragnière & Roman Kanala & Francesco Moresino & Adriana Reveiu & Ion Smeureanu, 2017. "Coupling techno-economic energy models with behavioral approaches," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 633-647, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing
    • M00 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - General - - - General
    • M39 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Other

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:aip:access:v:4:y:2023:i:3:p:480-502. 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: Mariana Petrova (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://access-bg.org/ .

    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.