Advertisement

Methoden zur Messung von Präferenzen für Innovationen

  • Henrik Sattler
Messung von Präferenzen

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Addelman, Sidney (1962), Orthogonal Main-Effect Plans for Asymmetrical Factorial Experiments, In: Technometrics, Vol. 4 (1), S. 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albers, Sönke (1989), Gewinnorientierte Neuproduktpositionierung in einem Eigenschaftsraum, In: Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 41. Jg., S. 186–209.Google Scholar
  3. Albers, Sönke/ Brockhoff, Klaus (1985), Die Gültigkeit der Ergebnisse eines Testmarktsimulators bei unterschiedlichen Daten und Auswertungsmethoden, In: Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 37. Jg, S. 191–217.Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, Rick L./ Ainslie, Andrew/ Currim, Imran S. (2002), An Empirical Comparision of Logit Choice Models with Discrete Versus Continuous Representations of Heterogeneity, In: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39 (November), S. 479–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Backhaus, Klaus/ Voeth, Markus/ Sichtmann, Christina// Wilken, Robert (2005a), Conjoint-Analyse versus Direkte Preisabfrage zur Erhebung von Zahlungsbereitschaften - Eine modifizierte Replikationsstudie, In: Die Betriebswirtschaft, 65. Jg., 2005, S. 439–457.Google Scholar
  6. Backhaus, Klaus/ Voeth, Markus/ Sichtmann, Christina/ Wilken, Robert (2005b), An empirical comparison of methods to measure willingness to pay by examing the hypothetical bias, In: International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 47, Issue 5, S. 543–562.Google Scholar
  7. Ben-Akiva, Moshe/ Bradley, Michael D./ Morikawa, Takayuki/ Benjamin, Julian/ Novak, Thomas/ Oppewal, Harmen/ Rao, Vithala (1994), Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Data, In: Marketing Letters, Vol. 5, S. 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Böcker, Franz (1986), Präferenzforschung als Mittel marktorientierter Unternehmensführung, In: Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 38. Jg., S. 543–574.Google Scholar
  9. Böcker, Franz/ Schweikl, Herbert (1988), Better Preference Prediction with Individualized Sets of Relevant Attributes, In: International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 5, S. 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brockhoff, Klaus (1998), Der Kunde im Innovationsprozeß.Google Scholar
  11. Brockhoff, Klaus (1999), Produktpolitik, 4. Auflage.Google Scholar
  12. Brockhoff, Klaus (2005), Konflikte bei der Einbeziehung von Kunden in die Produktentwicklung, In: Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 75. Jg., S. 859–877.Google Scholar
  13. Chakraborty, Goutam/ Ball, Dwayne/ Gaeth, Gary J./ Jun, Sunkyu (2002), The Ability of Ratings and Choice Conjoint to Predict Market Shares - A Monte Carlo Simulation, In: Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55, S. 237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clement, Michel (2000), Interaktives Fernsehen: Analyse und Prognose seiner Nutzung.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dahan, Ely/ Hauser, John R. (2001), The Virtual Customer, In: Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 19, S. 332–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dahan, Ely/ Srinivasan, V. Seenu (2000), The Predictive Power of Internet-Based Product Concept Testing Using Visual Depiction and Animation, In: Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 17, S. 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dahan, Ely/ Hauser, John R./ Simester, Duncan/ Toubia, Olivier (2002), Application and Test of Web-based Adaptive Polyhedral Conjoint Analysis, In: MIT-Working Paper.Google Scholar
  18. Ding, Min/ Grewal, Rajdeep/ Liechty, John (2005), Incentive-Aligned Conjoint Analysis, In: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 42, S. 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elrod, Terry/ Louviere, Jordan J./ Davey, Krishnakumar S. (1992), An Empirical Comparison of Ratings-Based and Choice-Based Conjoint Models, In: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, S. 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ernst, Olaf (2001), Multimediale versus abstrakte Produktpräsentationsformen bei der Adaptiven Conjoint-Analyse. Ein empirischer Validitätsvergleich.Google Scholar
  21. Ernst & Young (1999), New Product Introduction: Successful Innovation/Failure: A Fragile Boundary.Google Scholar
  22. Gedenk, Karen/ Sattler, Henrik (2005), Range Effects in Measuring Attribute Importance, In: Research Papers on Marketing and Retailing Nr. 20, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
  23. Gensler, Sonja (2003), Heterogenität in der Präferenzforschung.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Göritz, Anja S. (2004), The impact of material incentives on response quantity, response quality, sample composition, survey outcome, and cost in online access panels, In: International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 46, S. 327–345.Google Scholar
  25. Green, Paul E. (1984), Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review, In: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 21, S. 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Green, Paul E./ Srinivasan, V. Seenu (1978), Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook, In: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 5, S. 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Green, Paul E./ Srinivasan, V. Seenu (1990), Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments With Implications for Research and Practice, In: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, S. 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Green, Paul E./ Krieger, Abba M./ Agarwal, Manoj K. (1993), A Cross Validation Test of Four Models for Quantifying Multiattribute Preference, In: Marketing Letters, Vol. 4, S. 369–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gustafsson, Anders/ Herrmann, Andreas/ Huber, Frank (2003), Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications, 3. Auflage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haaijer, Rinus/ Wedel, Michel (2003), Conjoint Choice Experiments: General Characteristics and Alternative Model Specifications, In: Gustafsson, Anders/ Herrmann, Andreas/ Huber, Frank (Hg.), Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications, 3. Auflage, S. 371–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hartmann, Adriane (2004): Kaufentscheidungsprognose auf Basis von Befragungen-Modelle, Verfahren und Beurteilungskriterien.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hartmann, Adriane/ Sattler, Henrik (2004), Wie robust sind Methoden zur Präferenzmessung?, In: Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 56. Jg., S. 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hartmann, Adriane/ Sattler, Henrik (2006), Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, erscheint in: Gustafsson, Anders/ Herrmann, Andreas/ Huber, Frank (Hg.), Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications, 4. Auflage.Google Scholar
  34. Hauschildt, Jürgen (2004), Innovationsmanagement, 3. Aufl.Google Scholar
  35. HenselBörner, Susanne/ Sattler, Henrik (2000), Ein empirischer Validitätsvergleich zwischen der Customized Computerized Conjoint Analysis (CCC), der Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA) und Self-Explicated-Verfahren, In: Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 70. Jg., S. 705–727.Google Scholar
  36. Hoeffler, Steve (2003), Measuring Preferences for Really New Products, In: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40, S. 406–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huber, Joel/ Zwerina, Klaus (1996), The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs, In: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33, S. 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnson, Richard M. (1987), Adaptive Conjoint Analysis, In: Conference Proceedings of Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing, S. 253–265.Google Scholar
  39. Krieger, Abba M./ Green, Paul E. (1991), Designing Pareto Optimal Stimuli for Multiattribute Choice Experiments, In: Marketing Letters, Vol. 2, S. 337–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lenk, Peter J./ DeSarbo, Wayne S./ Green, Paul E./ Young, Martin R. (1996), Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs, In: Marketing Science, Vol. 15, S. 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Louviere, Jordan J. (1984), Hierarchical Information Integration: A New Method for the Design and Analysis of Complex Multiattribute Judgment Problems, In: Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, S. 148–155.Google Scholar
  42. Louviere, Jordan J./ Gaeth, Gary J. (1987), Decomposing the Determinants of Retail Facility Choice Using the Method of Hierarchical Information Integration: A Supermarket Illustration, In: Journal of Retailing, Vol. 63, S. 25–48.Google Scholar
  43. Louviere, Jordan J./ Woodworth, George (1983), Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data, In: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20, S. 350–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Louviere, Jordan J./ Hensher, David A./ Swait, Joffre D. (2000), Stated Choice Methods-Analysis and Application.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moore, William L. (2004), A Cross-Validity Comparison of Rating-Based and Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Models, In: International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21, S. 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moore, William L./ Gray-Lee, Jason/ Louviere, Jordan J. (1998), A Cross-Validity Comparison of Conjoint Analysis and Choice Models at Different Levels of Aggregation, In: Marketing Letters, Vol. 9, S. 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Morrison, Pamela D./ Roberts, John H/ Midgley, David F. (2004), The Nature of Lead Users and Measurement of Leading Edge Status, In: Research Policy, Vol. 33, S. 351–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rothwell, Roy/ Freeman, Chris/ Horlsey, A./ Jervis, V.T.P./ Robertson, A.B./ Townsend, Joe (1974), SAPPHO Updated - Project SAPPHO Phase II, In: Research Policy, Vol. 3, S. 258–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sattler, Henrik (2004), Applications of Conjoint Analysis in New Product Development, In: Albers, Sönke (Hg.): Innovation Management, S. 159–174.Google Scholar
  50. Sattler, Henrik/ Eggers, Felix/ Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten/ Marx, Paul (2005), Golden Conjoint, erscheint in: Research Papers on Marketing and Retailing, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
  51. Sattler, Henrik/ Hartmann, Adriane/ Kröger, Sonja (2004), Number of Tasks in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis, In: Conference Proceedings of the 33rd EMAC Conference, Murcia.Google Scholar
  52. Sattler, Henrik/ HenseTBörner, Susanne (2003), A Comparison of Conjoint Measurement with Self-Explicated Approaches, In: Gustafsson, Anders/ Herrmann, Andreas/ Huber, Frank (Hg.): Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications, 3. Aufl., S. 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sattler, Henrik/ Hensel-Börner, Susanne/ Krüger, Beate (2001), Die Abhängigkeit der Validität von Conjoint-Studien von demographischen Probanden-Charakteristika: Neue empirische Befunde, In: Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 71. Jg., S. 771–787.Google Scholar
  54. Sattler, Henrik/ Nitschke, Thomas (2003), Ein empirischer Vergleich von Instrumenten zur Erhebung von Zahlungsbereitschaften, In: Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 55. Jg., S. 364–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sattler, Henrik/ Schrader, Stephan (1995), Innovationsmarketing, In: B. Tietz, R. Köhler, und J. Zentes (Hg.): Hand-wörterbuch des Marketing, 2. Aufl., Sp. 996–1008.Google Scholar
  56. Schiffman, Susan S./ Reynolds, M. Lance/ Young, Forrest W. (1981), Introduction to Multidimensional Scaling - Theory, Methods, and Applications.Google Scholar
  57. Srinivasan, V. Seenu (1988), A Conjunctive-Compensatory Approach to the Self-Explication of Multiattributed Preferences, In: Decision Sciences, Vol. 19, S. 295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Srinivasan, V. Seenu/ Park, Chan Su (1997), Surprising Robustness of the Self-Explicated Approach to Customer Preference Structure Measurement, In: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, S. 286–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Srinivasan, V. Seenu/ Shocker, Allan D. (1973), Linear Programming Techniques for Multidimensional Analysis of Preferences, In: Psychometrika, Vol. 38, S. 337–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Teichert, Thorsten (2001), Nutzenschätzung in Conjoint-Analysen: Theoretische Fundierung und empirische Aussagekraft.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tscheulin, Dieter/ Blaimont, Cecile (1993), Die Abhängigkeit der Prognosegüte von Conjoint-Studien von demographischen Probanden-Charakteristika, In: Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 63. Jg., S. 839–847.Google Scholar
  62. Toubia, Olivier/ Hauser, John R/ Simester, Duncan I. (2004), Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis, In: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 41, S. 116–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Toubia, Olivier/ Simester, Duncan I./ Hauser, John R/ Dahan, Ely (2003), Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation, In: Marketing Science, Vol. 22, S. 273–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Urban, Glen L./ Weinberg, Bruce D./ Hauser, John R. (1996), Premarket Forecasting of Really-New Products, In: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, S. 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Verlegh, Peeter W J./ Schifferstein, Hendrik N. J./ Wittink, Dick R. (2002), Range and Number-of-Levels Effects in Derived and Stated Measures of Attribute Importance, In: Marketing Letters, Vol. 13, S. 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Völckner, Franziska (2005), Biases in Measuring Consumers’ Willingness to Pay, In: Research Papers on Marketing and Retailing, Nr. 25, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
  67. Völckner, Franziska (2006), An Empirical Comparison of Methods for Measuring Consumers’ Willingness to Pay, erscheint in: Marketing Letters, Vol. 17.Google Scholar
  68. von Hippel, Eric (1976), The Dominant Role of Users in the Scientific Instrument Innovation Process, In: Research Policy, Vol. 5, S. 212–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. von Hippel, Eric (1988), The Sources of Innovation.Google Scholar
  70. von Nitzsch, Rüdiger/ Weber, Martin (1993), The Effect of Attribute Ranges on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurements, In: Management Science, Vol. 39, S. 937–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. von Winterfeldt, Detlof/ Edwards, Ward (1986), Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research.Google Scholar
  72. Voeth, Markus (2000), Nutzenmessung in der Kaufverhaltensforschung: Die Hierarchische Individualisierte Limit Conjoint-Analyse (HILCA).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vriens, Marco/ Oppewal, Harmen/ Wedel, Michel (1998), Rating-based Versus Choice-based Latent Class Conjoint Models - An Empirical Comparison, In: Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 40, S. 237–248.Google Scholar
  74. Weber, Martin/ Eisenführ, Franz/ von Winterfeldt, Detlof (1988), The Effects of Splitting Attributes on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurement, In: Management Science, Vol. 34, S. 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wittink, Dick R./ Krishnamurthi, Lakshman/ Reibstein, David J. (1989), The Effects of Differences in the Number of Attribute Levels on Conjoint Results, In: Marketing Letters, Vol. 1, S. 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft.eV. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geschäftsführender Direktor des Instituts für Handel und MarketingUniversität HamburgHamburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations