Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Conjoint Measurement pp 113–131Cite as

Evolutionary Conjoint

  • Chapter

Abstract

Preference analysis and utility measurement remain central topics in consumer research. Although the concept of utility and its measurement was investigated in a large number of studies, it still remains ambiguous due to its unobservability and lack of an absolute scale unit (Teichert 2001a: 26): Whereas utility is praised as a quantitative indicator of consumer behavior, only preference judgments can be observed. These judgments contain error terms stemming from different sources which cannot be separated. This inherent methodological problem of utility measurement has not been handled consistently over years of empirical application.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Addelman, S. (1962), Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Fractional Factorial Plans, Technometrics, 4, 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G., Fennell, G., Huber, J., Eagle, T., Gilbride, T., Horsky, D., Kim, J., Lenk, P., Johnson, R., Ofek, E., Orme, B., Otter, T. and Walker, J. (2005), Adjusting Choice Models to Better Predict Market Behaviour, Marketing Letters, 16(3–4), 197–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aoki, K. and Tagaki, H. (1997), 3-D CG Lighting with an Interactive GA, KES’97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bäck, T. (1996), Evolutionary Algorithms in Theory and Practice, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balakrishnan, P. and Jacob, V. S. (1996), Genetic Algorithms for Product Design, Management Science, 42(8), 1105–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balakrishnan, P., Gupta, R. and V. Jacob (2006), An Investigation of Mating and Population Maintenance Strategies in Hybrid Genetic Heuristics for Product Line Designs, Computers & Operation Research, 33, 639–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, F. (1977), Axiomatic Conjoint Measurement, Decision Sciences, 8, 548–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camm J., Cochran J., Curry D., and Kanan, S. (2006), Conjoint Optimization, an Exact Branch-and-Bound Algorithm for the Share-of-Choice Problem, Management Science, 52, 435–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty, G., Ball, D., Gaeth, G., and Jun, S. (2002), The Ability of Ratings and Choice Conjoint to Predict Market Shares-A Monte Carlo Simulation, Journal of Business Research, 55, 237–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahan, E. and Hauser, J. (2002), The Virtual Customer, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(5), 332–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1859), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery, D., Barron, F. and Messier, W. Jr. (1982), Conjoint Measurement and the Analysis of Noisy Data, A Comment, Journal of Accounting Research, 20(2), Part I, 450–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G. (1976), Multidimensional Utility Models for Risky and Riskless Choice, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 17, 127–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, D. (1989), Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning, Addison Wesley Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. and Srinivasan, V. (1978), Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research, Issues and Outlook, Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. and Rao, V. (1971), Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data, Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 355–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P., Krieger, A. and Agarwal, M., (1991), Adaptive Conjoint Analysis, Some Caveats and Suggestions, Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 215–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, A. und Sattler, H. (2006), Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, in: A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann und F. Huber (Hrsg.), Conjoint Measurement, Methods and Applications, Berlin et al.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, J. and Rao, V. (2004), Conjoint Analysis, Related Modeling, and Applications, in: Y. Wind and Green, P. (Eds.), Marketing Research and Modeling, Progress and Prospects, A Tribute to Paul Green, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser J. and Toubia O. (2005), The Impact of Utility Balance and Endogeneity in Conjoint Analysis, Marketing Science, 24(3), 498–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herdy, M. (1998), Evolutionsstrategie mit Subjektiver Selektion zur Optimierung von Kaffeemischungen, in: Hafner, S., Industrielle Anwendungen evolutionärer Algorithmen, München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herdy, M. (2000), Beiträge zur Theorie und Anwendung der Evolutionsstrategie. Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. (1962), Outline for a Logical Theory of Adaptive Systems, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 3, 297–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. and Raiffa, H. (1976), Decisions with Multiple Objectives, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, R. and Krishnamurti, R. (1987), A Heuristic Approach to Product Design, Management Science, 33(12), 1523–1533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. (2006), What You Don’t Know Might Hurt You, Some Unresolved Issues in the Design and Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments, Environmental & Resource Economics, 34, 173–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. and Eagle, T. (2006), Confound it! That Pesky Little Scale Constant Messes up, Working Paper, Centre for the Study of Choice, Faculty of Business, University of Technology, Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J., Street, D. and Burgess, L. (2004), Y. Wind and Green, P. (Eds.), Marketing Research and Modeling, Progress and Prospects, A Tribute to Paul Green, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J., Street, D., Carson, R., Ainslie, A., DeShazo, J., Cameron, T., Hensher, D., Kohn, R. and T. Marley (2002), Dissecting the Random component of Utility, Marketing Letters, 13,3, 177–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1979). Modelling the Choice of Residential Location., Transportation Research, 673, 72–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissen, V. (1997), Einführung in evolutionäre Algorithmen. Optimierung nach dem Vorbild der Evolution. Braunschweig/Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rechenberg, I. (1994), Evolutionsstrategie’ 94, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rechenberg, I. (1973), Evolutionsstrategie. Optimierung Technischer Systeme nach Prinzipien der biologischen Evolution, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saez, Y., Isasi, P., and Hernandez, J.C. (2005), Reference Chromosome to Overcome User Fatigue, IEC New Generation Computing, 23, 129–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, H., (2006), Methoden zur Messung von Präferenzen für Innovationen, Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (zfbf), 54/06, 2006, 154–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Street, D., Burgess, L. and Louviere, J. (2005), Quick and Easy Choice Sets, Constructing Optimal and Nearly Optimal Stated Choice Experiments, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22,4, 459–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teichert, T. (2001a), Nutzenschätzung in Conjoint-Analysen, Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teichert, T. (2001b), Nutzenermittlung in wahlbasierter Conjoint-Analyse, ein Vergleich zwischen Latent-Class-und hierarchischem Bayes-Verfahren, Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 53, 798–822.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toubia, O., Hauser, J., Simester, D. and Duncan, I. (2004), Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, 41,1, 116–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Train, K. (2003), Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weicker, K. (2002), Evolutionäre Algorithmen, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, B. and Bodnovich, T. (1999), A Bibliography of Genetic Algorithm Business Application Research, 1988 June 1996, Expert Systems, 15,2, 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanagisawa, H. and Funkuda, S. (2004), Development of Interactive Industrial Design Support Systems Considering Customers’ Evaluations, JSME International Journal, Series C, 47,2, 762–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Hamburg, Germany

    Thorsten Teichert (Professor of Marketing and Media)

  2. Institute for Marketing and Media, University of Hamburg, Germany

    Edlira Shehu (doctorial candidate)

Authors
  1. Thorsten Teichert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edlira Shehu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Karlstad University, 651 88, Karlstad, Sweden

    Anders Gustafsson

  2. University of St. Gallen, Guisanstr. 1 a, 9010, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Andreas Herrmann

  3. University of Mainz, Jakob-Welder-Weg 9, 55128, Mainz, Germany

    Frank Huber

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Teichert, T., Shehu, E. (2007). Evolutionary Conjoint. In: Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., Huber, F. (eds) Conjoint Measurement. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71404-0_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation