IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/f/pka668.html
   My authors  Follow this author

Ekaterina Karniouchina

Personal Details

First Name:Ekaterina
Middle Name:
Last Name:Karniouchina
Suffix:
RePEc Short-ID:pka668

Affiliation

Economic Science Institute (ESI)
Argyros School of Business and Economics
Chapman University

Orange, California (United States)
http://www.chapman.edu/ESI/

: (714) 628-2830
(714) 628-2881
One University Drive, Orange, CA 92866
RePEc:edi:esichus (more details at EDIRC)

Research output

as
Jump to: Articles

Articles

  1. Karniouchina, Ekaterina V. & Moore, William L. & van der Rhee, Bo & Verma, Rohit, 2009. "Issues in the use of ratings-based versus choice-based conjoint analysis in operations management research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 340-348, August.
  2. Jeff Brazell & Christopher Diener & Ekaterina Karniouchina & William Moore & Válerie Séverin & Pierre-Francois Uldry, 2006. "The no-choice option and dual response choice designs," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 255-268, December.

Citations

Many of the citations below have been collected in an experimental project, CitEc, where a more detailed citation analysis can be found. These are citations from works listed in RePEc that could be analyzed mechanically. So far, only a minority of all works could be analyzed. See under "Corrections" how you can help improve the citation analysis.

Articles

  1. Karniouchina, Ekaterina V. & Moore, William L. & van der Rhee, Bo & Verma, Rohit, 2009. "Issues in the use of ratings-based versus choice-based conjoint analysis in operations management research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 340-348, August.

    Cited by:

    1. Meise, Jan Niklas & Rudolph, Thomas & Kenning, Peter & Phillips, Diane M., 2014. "Feed them facts: Value perceptions and consumer use of sustainability-related product information," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 510-519.
    2. Ozer, Muammer, 2011. "Understanding the impacts of product knowledge and product type on the accuracy of intentions-based new product predictions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 359-369, June.
    3. Friederike Paetz & Winfried J. Steiner, 2017. "The benefits of incorporating utility dependencies in finite mixture probit models," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 39(3), pages 793-819, July.
    4. Meeran, Sheik & Jahanbin, Semco & Goodwin, Paul & Quariguasi Frota Neto, Joao, 2017. "When do changes in consumer preferences make forecasts from choice-based conjoint models unreliable?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 512-524.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Park, Sang-June & Lee, Yeong-Ran & Borle, Sharad, 2018. "The shape of Word-of-Mouth response function," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 304-309.
    8. Halme, Merja & Kallio, Markku, 2011. "Estimation methods for choice-based conjoint analysis of consumer preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(1), pages 160-167, October.
    9. Wang, Juite & Lai, Jung-Yu & Chang, Chih-Hsin, 2016. "Modeling and analysis for mobile application services: The perspective of mobile network operators," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 146-163.
    10. Schlereth, Christian & Eckert, Christine & Schaaf, René & Skiera, Bernd, 2014. "Measurement of preferences with self-explicated approaches: A classification and merge of trade-off- and non-trade-off-based evaluation types," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(1), pages 185-198.

  2. Jeff Brazell & Christopher Diener & Ekaterina Karniouchina & William Moore & Válerie Séverin & Pierre-Francois Uldry, 2006. "The no-choice option and dual response choice designs," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 255-268, December.

    Cited by:

    1. Anthony Scott & Julia Witt, 2015. "Loss Aversion, Reference Dependence and Diminishing Sensitivity in Choice Experiments," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2015n16, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    2. Kallas, Zein & Borrisser-Pairó, Francesc & Martínez, Beatriz & Vieira, Ceferina & Rubio, Begonia & Panella, Nuria & Gil, Marta & Linares, M. Belén & Garrido, M. Dolores & Ibañez, Miguel & M. Angels, O, 2015. "The impact of the sensory experience on scale and preference heterogeneity: The GMNL model approach to pig castration and meat quality," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202708, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Masiero, Lorenzo & Rose, John M., 2013. "The role of the reference alternative in the specification of asymmetric discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 83-92.
    4. Burmester, Alexa B. & Eggers, Felix & Clement, Michel & Prostka, Tim, 2016. "Accepting or fighting unlicensed usage: Can firms reduce unlicensed usage by optimizing their timing and pricing strategies?," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 343-356.
    5. Kallas, Zein & Maria Gil, Jose, 2011. "A Dual Response Choice Experiments (DRCE) design to assess rabbit meat preference in Catalonia: A Heteroescedatistic Extreme-Value Model," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114779, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Kallas, Zein & Gil, José María, 2015. "Do the Spanish want biodiesel? A case study in the Catalan transport sector," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 398-406.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ollikainen, Markku, 2013. "Valuation of environmental and societal trade-offs of renewable energy sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1148-1156.
    10. Greg M. Allenby & Jeff Brazell & John R. Howell & Peter E. Rossi, 2014. "Valuation of Patented Product Features," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(3), pages 629-663.
    11. Sascha Kraus & Christine Mitter & Felix Eggers & Philipp Stieg, 2017. "Drivers of internationalization success: a conjoint choice experiment on German SME managers," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 691-716, July.
    12. Cantillo, Víctor & Amaya, Johanna & Ortúzar, J. de D., 2010. "Thresholds and indifference in stated choice surveys," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 753-763, July.
    13. Ida, Takanori & Takemura, Kosuke & Sato, Masayuki, 2015. "Inner conflict between nuclear power generation and electricity rates: A Japanese case study," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 61-69.
    14. Carroll, Páraic & Caulfield, Brian & Ahern, Aoife, 2017. "Examining the potential for car-shedding in the Greater Dublin Area," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 440-452.
    15. Kallas, Zein & Gil, José Maria, 2014. "Consumers' preferences towards biodiesel in the Spanish transport sector: A case study in Catalonia," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182801, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Markku, Ollikainen, 2015. "Ecosystem benefits from coastal habitats—A three-country choice experiment," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 15-27.
    17. Schlereth, Christian & Skiera, Bernd & Schulz, Fabian, 2018. "Why do consumers prefer static instead of dynamic pricing plans? An empirical study for a better understanding of the low preferences for time-variant pricing plans," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(3), pages 1165-1179.
    18. Greg Allenby & Jeff Brazell & John Howell & Peter Rossi, 2014. "Economic valuation of product features," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 421-456, December.
    19. Schlereth, Christian & Skiera, Bernd, 2012. "Measurement of consumer preferences for bucket pricing plans with different service attributes," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 167-180.
    20. Murray Rudd, 2011. "An Exploratory Analysis of Societal Preferences for Research-Driven Quality of Life Improvements in Canada," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 101(1), pages 127-153, March.
    21. Stefanie Heinzle, 2012. "Disclosure of Energy Operating Cost Information: A Silver Bullet for Overcoming the Energy-Efficiency Gap?," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 43-64, March.
    22. Dan Marsh & Lena Mkwara & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Do Respondents’ Perceptions of the Status Quo Matter in Non-Market Valuation with Choice Experiments? An Application to New Zealand Freshwater Streams," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 3(9), pages 1-23, September.

More information

Research fields, statistics, top rankings, if available.

Statistics

Access and download statistics for all items

Corrections

All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. For general information on how to correct material on RePEc, see these instructions.

To update listings or check citations waiting for approval, Ekaterina Karniouchina should log into the RePEc Author Service.

To make corrections to the bibliographic information of a particular item, find the technical contact on the abstract page of that item. There, details are also given on how to add or correct references and citations.

To link different versions of the same work, where versions have a different title, use this form. Note that if the versions have a very similar title and are in the author's profile, the links will usually be created automatically.

Please note that most corrections can 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.