IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/mktlet/v19y2008i3p337-354.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement

Author

Listed:
  • Oded Netzer

    ()

  • Olivier Toubia

    ()

  • Eric Bradlow

    ()

  • Ely Dahan

    ()

  • Theodoros Evgeniou

    ()

  • Fred Feinberg

    ()

  • Eleanor Feit

    ()

  • Sam Hui

    ()

  • Joseph Johnson

    ()

  • John Liechty

    ()

  • James Orlin

    ()

  • Vithala Rao

    ()

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Oded Netzer & Olivier Toubia & Eric Bradlow & Ely Dahan & Theodoros Evgeniou & Fred Feinberg & Eleanor Feit & Sam Hui & Joseph Johnson & John Liechty & James Orlin & Vithala Rao, 2008. "Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 337-354, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:19:y:2008:i:3:p:337-354 DOI: 10.1007/s11002-008-9046-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11002-008-9046-1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. Neeraj Arora & Xavier Dreze & Anindya Ghose & James Hess & Raghuram Iyengar & Bing Jing & Yogesh Joshi & V. Kumar & Nicholas Lurie & Scott Neslin & S. Sajeesh & Meng Su & Niladri Syam & Jacquelyn Thom, 2008. "Putting one-to-one marketing to work: Personalization, customization, and choice," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 305-321, December.
    2. Jin Gyo Kim & Ulrich Menzefricke & Fred M. Feinberg, 2007. "Capturing Flexible Heterogeneous Utility Curves: A Bayesian Spline Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(2), pages 340-354, February.
    3. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    4. Toubia, Olivier & Hauser, John & Simester, Duncan, 2003. "Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Working papers 4285-03, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    5. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    6. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    7. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto, 2000. "A Parameter-Free Elicitation of the Probability Weighting Function in Medical Decision Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1485-1496, November.
    8. John C. Liechty & Duncan K. H. Fong & Wayne S. DeSarbo, 2005. "Dynamic Models Incorporating Individual Heterogeneity: Utility Evolution in Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 285-293, November.
    9. Ernst Fehr & Lorenz Goette, 2007. "Do Workers Work More if Wages Are High? Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 298-317, March.
    10. 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.
    11. David Godes & Dina Mayzlin, 2004. "Using Online Conversations to Study Word-of-Mouth Communication," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 545-560, June.
    12. Rinus Haaijer & Michel Wedel & Marco Vriens & Tom Wansbeek, 1998. "Utility Covariances and Context Effects in Conjoint MNP Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 236-252.
    13. Rao, Vithala R & Steckel, Joel H, 1991. " A Polarization Model for Describing Group Preferences," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 108-118, June.
    14. Kim, Jin Gyo & Menzefricke, Ulrich & Feinberg, Fred M., 2005. "Modeling Parametric Evolution in a Random Utility Framework," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 23, pages 282-294, July.
    15. Wiktor Adamowicz & David Bunch & Trudy Cameron & Benedict Dellaert & Michael Hanneman & Michael Keane & Jordan Louviere & Robert Meyer & Thomas Steenburgh & Joffre Swait, 2008. "Behavioral frontiers in choice modeling," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 215-228, December.
    16. Wilfred Amaldoss & Teck-Hua Ho & Aradhna Krishna & Kay-Yut Chen & Preyas Desai & Ganesh Iyer & Sanjay Jain & Noah Lim & John Morgan & Ryan Oprea & Joydeep Srivasatava, 2008. "Experiments on strategic choices and markets," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 417-429, December.
    17. Dan Horsky & Sanjog Misra & Paul Nelson, 2006. "Observed and Unobserved Preference Heterogeneity in Brand-Choice Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 322-335, 07-08.
    18. John Liechty & Rik Pieters & Michel Wedel, 2003. "Global and local covert visual attention: Evidence from a bayesian hidden markov model," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 519-541, December.
    19. Rajeev Kohli & R. Sukumar, 1990. "Heuristics for Product-Line Design Using Conjoint Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(12), pages 1464-1478, December.
    20. V. Srinivasan & Allan Shocker, 1973. "Estimating the weights for multiple attributes in a composite criterion using pairwise judgments," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 38(4), pages 473-493, December.
    21. Mohamed Lachaab & Asim Ansari & Kamel Jedidi & Abdelwahed Trabelsi, 2006. "Modeling preference evolution in discrete choice models: A Bayesian state-space approach," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 57-81, March.
    22. Olivier Toubia & John Hauser & Rosanna Garcia, 2007. "Probabilistic Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis: Theory and Application," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 596-610, 09-10.
    23. Olivier Toubia & John R. Hauser, 2007. "—On Managerially Efficient Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 851-858, 11-12.
    24. Tomomi Tanaka & Colin F. Camerer & Quang Nguyen, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 557-571, March.
    25. Rajeev Kohli & Kamel Jedidi, 2007. "Representation and Inference of Lexicographic Preference Models and Their Variants," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 380-399, 05-06.
    26. Garrett Sonnier & Andrew Ainslie & Thomas Otter, 2007. "Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 313-331, September.
    27. Peter J. Lenk & Wayne S. DeSarbo & Paul E. Green & Martin R. Young, 1996. "Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 173-191.
    28. Tülin Erdem & Michael Keane & T. Öncü & Judi Strebel, 2005. "Learning About Computers: An Analysis of Information Search and Technology Choice," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 207-247, September.
    29. V. Srinivasan & Allan Shocker, 1973. "Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 38(3), pages 337-369, September.
    30. Arnaud De Bruyn & John C. Liechty & Eelko K. R. E. Huizingh & Gary L. Lilien, 2008. "Offering Online Recommendations with Minimum Customer Input Through Conjoint-Based Decision Aids," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 443-460, 05-06.
    31. Dapeng Cui & David Curry, 2005. "Prediction in Marketing Using the Support Vector Machine," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 595-615, January.
    32. Gregory Dobson & Shlomo Kalish, 1993. "Heuristics for Pricing and Positioning a Product-Line Using Conjoint and Cost Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(2), pages 160-175, February.
    33. Richard D. McBride & Fred S. Zufryden, 1988. "An Integer Programming Approach to the Optimal Product Line Selection Problem," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 126-140.
    34. Theodoros Evgeniou & Massimiliano Pontil & Olivier Toubia, 2007. "A Convex Optimization Approach to Modeling Consumer Heterogeneity in Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 805-818, 11-12.
    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. Giana Eckhardt & Luming Wang, 2015. "The Multidimensional Nature of Product Perceptions within Asia," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(4), pages 290-301, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Emmanuel Fragnière & Angela Lombardi & Francesco Moresino, 2012. "Designing and Pricing Services Based on Customer-Perceived Value: An Airline Company Feasibility Study," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 320-330, December.
    4. Wolfgang Gaul & Dominic Gastes, 2012. "A note on consistency improvements of AHP paired comparison data," Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, Springer;German Classification Society - Gesellschaft für Klassifikation (GfKl);Japanese Classification Society (JCS);Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society (CLADAG);International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS), vol. 6(4), pages 289-302, December.
    5. Qian, Li, 2011. "Product price and performance level in one market or two separated markets under various cost structures and functions," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(2), pages 505-518, June.
    6. Rossella Berni & Fabrizia Mealli, 2013. "Mode choice analysis of mobility in Florence. A choice experiment," Studi e approfondimenti 328, Istituto Regionale per la Programmazione Economica della Toscana.
    7. Vishal Narayan & Vithala R. Rao & Carolyne Saunders, 2011. "How Peer Influence Affects Attribute Preferences: A Bayesian Updating Mechanism," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 368-384, 03-04.
    8. Terry Elrod & Gerald Häubl & Steven Tipps, 2012. "Parsimonious Structural Equation Models for Repeated Measures Data, with Application to the Study of Consumer Preferences," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 358-387, April.
    9. Peter Stüttgen & Peter Boatwright & Robert T. Monroe, 2012. "A Satisficing Choice Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 878-899, November.
    10. Kaenzig, Josef & Heinzle, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2013. "Whatever the customer wants, the customer gets? Exploring the gap between consumer preferences and default electricity products in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 311-322.
    11. Peters, M. & Ketter, W., 2013. "Towards autonomous decision-making: A probabilistic model for learning multi-user preferences," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2013-007-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    12. Lüthi, Sonja & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2012. "The price of policy risk — Empirical insights from choice experiments with European photovoltaic project developers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 1001-1011.
    13. Signe Waechter & Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2017. "Decision-Making Strategies for the Choice of Energy-friendly Products," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 81-103, March.
    14. Esteban-Bravo, Mercedes & Leszkiewicz, Agata & Vidal-Sanz, Jose M., 2012. "Reconsidering optimal experimental design for conjoint analysis," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB wb121405, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    15. Lüthi, Sonja & Prässler, Thomas, 2011. "Analyzing policy support instruments and regulatory risk factors for wind energy deployment--A developers' perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 4876-4892, September.
    16. Olivier Toubia & Martijn G. de Jong & Daniel Stieger & Johann Füller, 2012. "Measuring Consumer Preferences Using Conjoint Poker," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 138-156, January.

    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:kap:mktlet:v:19:y:2008:i:3:p:337-354. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.