IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v29y1983i12p1393-1413.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conjoint Analysis: A Comparative Analysis of Specification Tests for the Utility Function

Author

Listed:
  • Marcel L. Corstjens

    (INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France)

  • David A. Gautschi

    (INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France)

Abstract

The focus of this paper is on determining appropriate combination rules for idiosyncratic ordinal utility functions in conjoint measurement. An axiomatic diagnosis is used which is based on explanatory criteria rather than goodness-of-fit or predictive criteria. Experimental results are presented comparing the selection of combination rules based on axiomatic tests and empirical fitting procedures for additive (x + y + z) and distributive (x(y + z)) combinations of three factors. A number of conflicting diagnoses result from the simultaneous applications of axiomatic tests and goodness-of-fit criteria, suggesting the importance of testing certain necessary conditions for simple polynomial combination rules, such as additive and distributive rules. Because the axiomatic approach is effective in rejecting inappropriate functional forms, we argue that it should complement rather than replace the empirical fitting diagnostic approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcel L. Corstjens & David A. Gautschi, 1983. "Conjoint Analysis: A Comparative Analysis of Specification Tests for the Utility Function," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(12), pages 1393-1413, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:29:y:1983:i:12:p:1393-1413
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.12.1393
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Stephen L. DeJardins & Dennis A. Ahlburg & Brian McCall, "undated". "An Integrated Model of Application, Admission, Enrollment, and Financial Aid," Working Papers 0104, Human Resources and Labor Studies, University of Minnesota (Twin Cities Campus).

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:29:y:1983:i:12:p:1393-1413. 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: (Mirko Janc). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.