IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v61y2008i9p903-911.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling

Author

Listed:
  • Louviere, Jordan J.
  • Islam, Towhidul

Abstract

We review the measurement of product attribute importance, and find little consensus in definition or measurement methods. We compare four measurement methods: 1) two direct methods whereby respondents report the importance of attributes using best-worst scaling or constant sum scales, and 2) two indirect methods derived from discrete choice experiments. Our comparisons rely on previous findings that choice experiments are externally valid to use as the standard. We find high agreement within direct or indirect methods, but less agreement between direct and indirect methods. Our results also demonstrate that inferences derived from indirect measures appear to be susceptible to context effects related to the particular attributes a researcher chooses to investigate. We discuss implications for current and future research.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:61:y:2008:i:9:p:903-911
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148-2963(07)00293-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger, 1995. "Attribute Importance Weights Modification in Assessing a Brand's Competitive Potential," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 253-270.
    2. Lynch, John G, Jr & Srull, Thomas K, 1982. " Memory and Attentional Factors in Consumer Choice: Concepts and Research Methods," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 18-37, June.
    3. Jaccard, James & Brinberg, David & Ackerman, Lee J, 1986. " Assessing Attribute Importance: A Comparison of Six Methods," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(4), pages 463-468, March.
    4. Johnson, Richard D & Levin, Irwin P, 1985. " More than Meets the Eye: The Effect of Missing Information on Purchase Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 169-177, September.
    5. Levin, Irwin P. & Johnson, Richard D. & Deldin, Patricia J. & Carstens, Laura M. & Cressey, LuAnne J. & Davis, Charles R., 1986. "Framing effects in decisions with completely and incompletely described alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 48-64, August.
    6. Simonson, Itamar & Kivetz, Ran, 2000. "The Effects of Incomplete Information on Consumer Choice," Research Papers 1609, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    7. Joffre Swait & Rick L. Andrews, 2003. "Enriching Scanner Panel Models with Choice Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 442-460, September.
    8. Simmons, Carolyn J & Lynch, John G, Jr, 1991. " Inference Effects without Inference Making? Effects of Missing Information on Discounting and Use of Presented Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 477-491, March.
    9. Louviere, Jordan J, 2001. " What If Consumer Experiments Impact Variances as Well as Means? Response Variability as a Behavioral Phenomenon," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(3), pages 506-511, December.
    10. Amos Tversky & Itamar Simonson, 1993. "Context-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1179-1189, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    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:eee:jbrese:v:61:y:2008:i:9:p:903-911. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.