IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/custns/v2y2015i1p19-40.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research

Author

Listed:
  • James Agarwal

    ()

  • Wayne DeSarbo

    ()

  • Naresh K. Malhotra

    ()

  • Vithala Rao

    ()

Abstract

This review article provides reflections on the state of the art of research in conjoint analysis—where we came from, where we are, and some directions as to where we might go. We review key articles, mostly contemporary published since 2000, but some classic, drawn from the major marketing as well as various interdisciplinary academic journals to highlight important areas related to conjoint analysis research and identify more recent developments in this area. We develop an organizing framework that attempts to integrate various threads of research in conjoint methods and models. Our goal is to (a) emphasize the major developments in recent years, (b) evaluate these developments, and (c) to identify several potential directions for future research. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:custns:v:2:y:2015:i:1:p:19-40
    DOI: 10.1007/s40547-014-0029-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s40547-014-0029-5
    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. Raghuram Iyengar & Christophe Van den Bulte & Thomas W. Valente, 2011. "Opinion Leadership and Social Contagion in New Product Diffusion," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 195-212, 03-04.
    2. Oded Netzer & James M. Lattin & V. Srinivasan, 2008. "A Hidden Markov Model of Customer Relationship Dynamics," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 185-204, 03-04.
    3. Joel Huber and Kenneth Train., 2000. "On the Similarity of Classical and Bayesian Estimates of Individual Mean Partworths," Economics Working Papers E00-289, University of California at Berkeley.
    4. Michalek, Jeremy J. & Ebbes, Peter & Adigüzel, Feray & Feinberg, Fred M. & Papalambros, Panos Y., 2011. "Enhancing marketing with engineering: Optimal product line design for heterogeneous markets," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-12.
    5. 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.
    6. Xinfang (Jocelyn) Wang & Jeffrey D. Camm & David J. Curry, 2009. "A Branch-and-Price Approach to the Share-of-Choice Product Line Design Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(10), pages 1718-1728, October.
    7. 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.
    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. Frenkel Ter Hofstede & Michel Wedel & Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, 2002. "Identifying Spatial Segments in International Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 160-177, July.
    10. Yu, Jie & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2011. "Individually adapted sequential Bayesian conjoint-choice designs in the presence of consumer heterogeneity," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 378-388.
    11. Rose, John M. & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2008. "Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 395-406, May.
    12. Daria Dzyabura & John R. Hauser, 2011. "Active Machine Learning for Consideration Heuristics," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 801-819, September.
    13. David Godes & Dina Mayzlin & Yubo Chen & Sanjiv Das & Chrysanthos Dellarocas & Bruce Pfeiffer & Barak Libai & Subrata Sen & Mengze Shi & Peeter Verlegh, 2005. "The Firm's Management of Social Interactions," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 415-428, December.
    14. Cawley, John, 2008. "Contingent valuation analysis of willingness to pay to reduce childhood obesity," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 281-292, July.
    15. Duncan Fong & Peter Ebbes & Wayne DeSarbo, 2012. "A Heterogeneous Bayesian Regression Model for Cross-sectional Data Involving a Single Observation per Response Unit," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 293-314, April.
    16. Jonathan Levav & Mark Heitmann & Andreas Herrmann & Sheena S. Iyengar, 2010. "Order in Product Customization Decisions: Evidence from Field Experiments," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(2), pages 274-299, April.
    17. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    18. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    19. Elie Ofek & V. Srinivasan, 2002. "How Much Does the Market Value an Improvement in a Product Attribute?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 398-411, June.
    20. Zsolt Sándor & Michel Wedel, 2002. "Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 455-475, February.
    21. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    22. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    23. Qing Liu & Neeraj Arora, 2011. "Efficient Choice Designs for a Consider-Then-Choose Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 321-338, 03-04.
    24. Franziska Voelckner, 2006. "An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 137-149, April.
    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. 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.
    27. 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.
    28. Wayne DeSarbo & Duncan Fong & John Liechty & Jennifer Coupland, 2005. "Evolutionary preference/utility functions: A dynamic perspective," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 179-202, March.
    29. 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.
    30. Linda Court Salisbury & Fred M. Feinberg, 2010. "Alleviating the Constant Stochastic Variance Assumption in Decision Research: Theory, Measurement, and Experimental Test," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 1-17, 01-02.
    31. Sung S. Kim & Naresh K. Malhotra, 2005. "A Longitudinal Model of Continued IS Use: An Integrative View of Four Mechanisms Underlying Postadoption Phenomena," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 741-755, May.
    32. Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(8), pages 1061-1076, December.
    33. Avi Goldfarb & Teck-Hua Ho & Wilfred Amaldoss & Alexander Brown & Yan Chen & Tony Cui & Alberto Galasso & Tanjim Hossain & Ming Hsu & Noah Lim & Mo Xiao & Botao Yang, 2012. "Behavioral models of managerial decision-making," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 405-421, June.
    34. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    35. Alexandre Belloni & Robert Freund & Matthew Selove & Duncan Simester, 2008. "Optimizing Product Line Designs: Efficient Methods and Comparisons," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(9), pages 1544-1552, September.
    36. Timothy J. Gilbride & Greg M. Allenby, 2004. "A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Rules," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 391-406, October.
    37. Gregan-Paxton, Jennifer & John, Deborah Roedder, 1997. "Consumer Learning by Analogy: A Model of Internal Knowledge Transfer," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 266-284, December.
    38. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    39. J. Wesley Hutchinson & Gal Zauberman & Robert Meyer, 2010. "—On the Interpretation of Temporal Inflation Parameters in Stochastic Models of Judgment and Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 23-31, 01-02.
    40. Dong, Songting & Ding, Min & Huber, Joel, 2010. "A simple mechanism to incentive-align conjoint experiments," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 25-32.
    41. David Godes & Dina Mayzlin, 2004. "Using Online Conversations to Study Word-of-Mouth Communication," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 545-560, June.
    42. Martijn G. de Jong & Donald R. Lehmann & Oded Netzer, 2012. "State-Dependence Effects in Surveys," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 838-854, September.
    43. 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.
    44. 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.
    45. Eleanor McDonnell Feit & Mark A. Beltramo & Fred M. Feinberg, 2010. "Reality Check: Combining Choice Experiments with Market Data to Estimate the Importance of Product Attributes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 785-800, May.
    46. Kamel Jedidi & Z. John Zhang, 2002. "Augmenting Conjoint Analysis to Estimate Consumer Reservation Price," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(10), pages 1350-1368, October.
    47. Kamel Jedidi & Sharan Jagpal & Puneet Manchanda, 2003. "Measuring Heterogeneous Reservation Prices for Product Bundles," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 107-130, July.
    48. Peter Stüttgen & Peter Boatwright & Robert T. Monroe, 2012. "A Satisficing Choice Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 878-899, November.
    49. Min Ding & Young-Hoon Park & Eric T. Bradlow, 2009. "Barter Markets for Conjoint Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(6), pages 1003-1017, June.
    50. Joffre Swait & Rick L. Andrews, 2003. "Enriching Scanner Panel Models with Choice Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 442-460, September.
    51. 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.
    52. Olivier Toubia & John R. Hauser, 2007. "—On Managerially Efficient Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 851-858, 11-12.
    53. P. K. Kannan & Barbara Kline Pope & Sanjay Jain, 2009. "—Pricing Digital Content Product Lines: A Model and Application for the National Academies Press," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 620-636, 07-08.
    54. David Laibson, 1997. "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 443-478.
    55. Luc Wathieu & Marco Bertini, 2007. "Price as a Stimulus to Think: The Case for Willful Overpricing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 118-129, 01-02.
    56. 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.
    57. Jeffrey D. Camm & James J. Cochran & David J. Curry & Sriram Kannan, 2006. "Conjoint Optimization: An Exact Branch-and-Bound Algorithm for the Share-of-Choice Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 435-447, March.
    58. Eric T. Bradlow & Young-Hoon Park, 2007. "Bayesian Estimation of Bid Sequences in Internet Auctions Using a Generalized Record-Breaking Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 218-229, 03-04.
    59. Shiling Ruan & Steven MacEachern & Thomas Otter & Angela Dean, 2008. "The Dependent Poisson Race Model and Modeling Dependence in Conjoint Choice Experiments," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 73(2), pages 261-288, June.
    60. Romero, Jaime & van der Lans, Ralf & Wierenga, Berend, 2013. "A Partially Hidden Markov Model of Customer Dynamics for CLV Measurement," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 185-208.
    61. Greg Allenby & Geraldine Fennell & Joel Huber & Thomas Eagle & Tim Gilbride & Dan Horsky & Jaehwan Kim & Peter Lenk & Rich Johnson & Elie Ofek & Bryan Orme & Thomas Otter & Joan Walker, 2005. "Adjusting Choice Models to Better Predict Market Behavior," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 197-208, December.
    62. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    63. Joo Heon Park & Douglas L. MacLachlan, 2008. "Estimating Willingness to Pay with Exaggeration Bias-Corrected Contingent Valuation Method," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 691-698, 07-08.
    64. Schlosser, Ann E & Shavitt, Sharon, 2002. "Anticipating Discussion about a Product: Rehearsing What to Say Can Affect Your Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 101-115, June.
    65. Oliver J. Rutz & Garrett P. Sonnier, 2011. "The Evolution of Internal Market Structure," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 274-289, 03-04.
    66. Theodoros Evgeniou & Constantinos Boussios & Giorgos Zacharia, 2005. "Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 415-429, May.
    67. Min Ding & Jehoshua Eliashberg, 2008. "A Dynamic Competitive Forecasting Model Incorporating Dyadic Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(4), pages 820-834, April.
    68. Johannesson, Magnus & Blomquist, Glenn C. & Blumenschein, Karen & Johansson, Per-olov & Liljas, Bengt & O'Conor, Richard M., 1999. "Calibrating Hypothetical Willingness to Pay Responses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 21-32, April.
    69. Garrett P. Sonnier & Leigh McAlister & Oliver J. Rutz, 2011. "A Dynamic Model of the Effect of Online Communications on Firm Sales," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 702-716, July.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Chen, Xuqi & Shen, Meng & Gao, Zhifeng, 2017. "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.
    5. Matej Mihelčić & Marko Bohanec, 2017. "Approximating incompletely defined utility functions of qualitative multi-criteria modeling method DEX," 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(3), pages 627-649, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Anna Kowalska-Pyzalska & Rafał Michalski & Marek Kott & Anna Skowrońska-Szmer & Joanna Kott, 2021. "Consumer preferences towards alternative fuel vehicles. Results from the conjoint analysis," WORking papers in Management Science (WORMS) WORMS/21/02, Department of Operations Research and Business Intelligence, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology.
    8. John Sterman, 2018. "System dynamics at sixty: the path forward," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 5-47, January.

    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. 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.
    2. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    3. Qing Liu & Yihui (Elina) Tang, 2015. "Construction of Heterogeneous Conjoint Choice Designs: A New Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 346-366, May.
    4. Dongling Huang & Lan Luo, 2016. "Consumer Preference Elicitation of Complex Products Using Fuzzy Support Vector Machine Active Learning," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 445-464, May.
    5. Olivier Toubia & Eric Johnson & Theodoros Evgeniou & Philippe Delquié, 2013. "Dynamic Experiments for Estimating Preferences: An Adaptive Method of Eliciting Time and Risk Parameters," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(3), pages 613-640, June.
    6. Daria Dzyabura & John R. Hauser, 2011. "Active Machine Learning for Consideration Heuristics," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 801-819, September.
    7. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    8. Eggers, Felix & Sattler, Henrik, 2009. "Hybrid individualized two-level choice-based conjoint (HIT-CBC): A new method for measuring preference structures with many attribute levels," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 108-118.
    9. Gensler, Sonja & Hinz, Oliver & Skiera, Bernd & Theysohn, Sven, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 368-378.
    10. Denis Sauré & Juan Pablo Vielma, 2019. "Ellipsoidal Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 315-338, March.
    11. Pauwels, Koen & Aksehirli, Zeynep & Lackman, Andrew, 2016. "Like the ad or the brand? Marketing stimulates different electronic word-of-mouth content to drive online and offline performance," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 639-655.
    12. John R. Hauser & Felix Eggers & Matthew Selove, 2019. "The Strategic Implications of Scale in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(6), pages 1059-1081, November.
    13. Dong, Songting & Ding, Min & Huber, Joel, 2010. "A simple mechanism to incentive-align conjoint experiments," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 25-32.
    14. Daria Dzyabura & Srikanth Jagabathula & Eitan Muller, 2019. "Accounting for Discrepancies Between Online and Offline Product Evaluations," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 88-106, January.
    15. Ghaderi, Mohammad & Kadziński, Miłosz, 2021. "Incorporating uncovered structural patterns in value functions construction," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    16. Nils Wlömert & Felix Eggers, 2016. "Predicting new service adoption with conjoint analysis: external validity of BDM-based incentive-aligned and dual-response choice designs," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 195-210, March.
    17. Kassie, Girma T. & Zeleke, Fresenbet & Birhanu, Mulugeta Y. & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2020. "Reminder Nudge, Attribute Nonattendance, and Willingness to Pay in a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304208, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Maldonado, Sebastián & Montoya, Ricardo & Weber, Richard, 2015. "Advanced conjoint analysis using feature selection via support vector machines," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(2), pages 564-574.
    19. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    20. Vishva Danthurebandara & Jie Yu & Martina Vandebroek, 2011. "Sequential choice designs to estimate the heterogeneity distribution of willingness-to-pay," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 429-448, December.

    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:spr:custns:v:2:y:2015:i:1:p:19-40. 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 (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). 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.