IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

A Comparative Empirical Study on Common Methods for Measuring Preferences

Literature and practice reveal that most marketing related questionnaires measuring consumer preferences rely on some kind of conjoint analysis. Recent studies show the analytic hierarchy process to be suitable for this task, too. This paper gives a comparison of the approaches and the results of former studies. Because we found considerable differences in those results, an additional study has been performed being designed such that it has potential for explaining these differences. As we found respective explanations, we finally derive general guidelines on the selection of conjoint analysis and analytic hierarchy process depending on the complexity of the problem situation and the previous knowledge respondents have in preference measurement.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.wiwi.uni-jena.de/Papers/wp-sw2004.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät in its series Jenaer Schriften zur Wirtschaftswissenschaft with number 20/2004.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Oct 2004
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published as "A comparative empirical study on common methods for measuring preferences" in: International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Vol. 9, Nr. 3, 2008, S. 242-265.
Handle: RePEc:jen:jenasw:2004-20
Contact details of provider: Postal: Carl-Zeiss-Strasse 3, 07743 JENA
Phone: +049 3641/ 9 43000
Fax: +049 3641/ 9 43000
Web page: http://www.wiwi.uni-jena.de/

More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Postal: If a paper is not downloadable, please contact the author(s) or the library of University of Jena, not the archive maintainer.

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Roland Helm, 2004. "Export Market Entry Strategy and Success: Conceptual Framework and Empirical Examination," Jenaer Schriften zur Wirtschaftswissenschaft 06/2004, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
  2. Roland Helm & Laura Manthey & Armin Scholl & Michael Steiner, 2003. "Empirical Evaluation of Preference Elicitation Techniques from Marketing and Decision Analysis," Jenaer Schriften zur Wirtschaftswissenschaft 02/2003, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
  3. Scholl, Armin & Manthey, Laura & Helm, Roland & Steiner, Michael, 2005. "Solving multiattribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: An empirical comparison," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(3), pages 760-777, August.
  4. Uwe Cantner & Werner Gueth & Andreas Nicklisch & Torsten Weiland, 2003. "Competition in Innovation and Imitation - A Theoretical and Experimental Study -," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2004-02, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
  5. Vargas, Luis G., 1990. "An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 2-8, September.
  6. Green, Paul E, 1974. " On the Design of Choice Experiments Involving Multifactor Alternatives," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(2), pages 61-68, Se.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jen:jenasw:2004-20. 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: ()

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.