IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/wagmwp/46449.html

Range And Number-Of-Levels Effects In Derived And Stated Measures Of Attribute Importance

Author

Listed:
  • Verlegh, Peeter W.J.
  • Schifferstein, Hendrik N.J.
  • Wittink, Dick R.

Abstract

We study how the range of variation and the number of attribute levels affect five measures of attribute importance: full profile conjoint estimates, ranges in attribute level attractiveness ratings, regression coefficients, graded paired comparisons, and self-reported ratings. We find that all importance measures are affected by the range manipulation. The number of attribute levels affects only two measures. The results allow us to benchmark the magnitude of the number-of-levels effect against the range effect: conjoint importance estimates were approximately equally affected by a threefold increase in the range of attribute variation and by the insertion of two intermediate attribute levels. Our findings show that the number-of-levels effect is most likely due to respondents’ tendencies to distribute their mental stimulus representations and their responses uniformly over the corresponding continua.

Suggested Citation

  • Verlegh, Peeter W.J. & Schifferstein, Hendrik N.J. & Wittink, Dick R., 2001. "Range And Number-Of-Levels Effects In Derived And Stated Measures Of Attribute Importance," Mansholt Working Papers 46449, Wageningen University, Mansholt Graduate School of Social Sciences.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:wagmwp:46449
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.46449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/46449/files/2001-03%20MP.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.46449?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wittink, Dick R & Krishnamurthi, Lakshman & Nutter, Julia B, 1982. "Comparing Derived Importance Weights Across Attributes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(4), pages 471-474, March.
    2. Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Martin Weber, 1993. "The Effect of Attribute Ranges on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurements," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(8), pages 937-943, August.
    3. Currim, Imran S & Weinberg, Charles B & Wittink, Dick R, 1981. "Design of Subscription Programs for a Performing Arts Series," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(1), pages 67-75, June.
    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. D'Souza Giles & Phelps Joseph E, 2009. "The Privacy Paradox: The Case of Secondary Disclosure," Review of Marketing Science, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-31, December.

    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. Ohlwein, Martin, 2022. "Same but different - The effect of the unit of measure on the valuation of a unit price," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Maren Hein & Peter Kurz & Winfried J. Steiner, 2020. "Analyzing the capabilities of the HB logit model for choice-based conjoint analysis: a simulation study," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(1), pages 1-36, February.
    4. 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.
    5. Poyhonen, Mari & Vrolijk, Hans & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "Behavioral and procedural consequences of structural variation in value trees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 216-227, October.
    6. Heribert Gierl & Christina Eleftheriadou, 2005. "Asymmetrisch überlegene Stockouts als Phantomprodukte," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 57(6), pages 475-502, September.
    7. Poyhonen, Mari & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(3), pages 569-585, March.
    8. Laura Graf & Marlen Rimbeck & Jutta Stumpf-Wollersheim & Isabell M. Welpe, 2024. "Academic success is in the eye of the beholder: understanding scholars’ implicit appointment preferences through adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 94(5), pages 725-761, July.
    9. Manel Baucells & Rakesh K. Sarin, 2003. "Group Decisions with Multiple Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(8), pages 1105-1118, August.
    10. Risto Lahdelma & Pekka Salminen, 2001. "SMAA-2: Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for Group Decision Making," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 444-454, June.
    11. A Morton & B Fasolo, 2009. "Behavioural decision theory for multi-criteria decision analysis: a guided tour," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(2), pages 268-275, February.
    12. Sarah K. Jacobi & Benjamin F. Hobbs, 2007. "Quantifying and Mitigating the Splitting Bias and Other Value Tree-Induced Weighting Biases," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 194-210, December.
    13. Manalo, Alberto B., 1989. "Benefits Sought by Apple Consumers," Working Papers 115908, Regional Research Project NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance.
    14. Beynon, Malcolm J., 2005. "Understanding local ignorance and non-specificity within the DS/AHP method of multi-criteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(2), pages 403-417, June.
    15. Vetschera, Rudolf & Weitzl, Wolfgang & Wolfsteiner, Elisabeth, 2014. "Implausible alternatives in eliciting multi-attribute value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 221-230.
    16. Fernando A. F. Ferreira & Marjan S. Jalali & Paulo Bento & Carla S. E. Marques & João J. M. Ferreira, 2017. "Enhancing individual entrepreneurial orientation measurement using a metacognitive decision making-based framework," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 327-346, June.
    17. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 1998. "Multicriteria aid for agricultural decisions using preference relations: methodology and application," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 483-503, December.
    18. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind, 2001. "Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 56-73, June.
    19. Li, Feng & Du, Timon C. & Wei, Ying, 2020. "Enhancing supply chain decisions with consumers’ behavioral factors: An illustration of decoy effect," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ags:wagmwp:46449. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mgwaunl.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.