Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validity of Customized and Adaptive Hybrid Conjoint Analysis

  • Conference paper
Classification and Information Processing at the Turn of the Millennium

Abstract

In this paper we compare the validity of a new type of customized hybrid conjoint analysis called Customized Computerized Conjoint Analysis (CCC) with the Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA) and two self-explicated models. CCC combines self-explicated preference structure measurement with individually designed full-profile conjoint analysis in a fully computerized interview. For a sample of almost 500 German potential customers of refrigerators we find (similar to Srinivasan, Park 1997)) surprisingly robust results of the self-explicated approaches compared to CCC as well as ACA.

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

Access this chapter

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Agarwal, M.K. and Green, P.E. (1991): Adaptive Conjoint Analysis versus Self-Explicated Models: Some Empirical Results. International Journal of Research in Marketing 8, 141–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baier, D. and SÄuberlich, F. (1997): Kundennutzenschätzung mittels individueller Hybrid-Conjointanalyse. Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung und Praxis 49, 951–972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P.E. (1984): Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review. Journal of Marketing Research 21, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P.E. and Krieger, A.M. (1988): Choice Rules and Sensitivity Analysis in Conjoint Simulators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science; 16 (Spring), 114–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P.E. and Krieger, A.M. (1996): Individualized Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis. Management Science 42(6), 850–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P.E. and Srinivasan, V. (1990): Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments With Implications for Research and Practice. Journal of Marketing 54(October), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P.E., Krieger, A.M., and Agarwal, M. (1991): Adaptive Conjoint Analysis: Some Caveats and Suggestions. Journal of Marketing Research 28 (May), 215–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P.E., Krieger, A.M., and Agarwal, M. (1993): A Cross Validation Test of Four Models for Quantifying Multiattribute Preferences. Marketing Letters 44, 369–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J.C., Wittink, D.R., Fiedler, J.A., and Miller, R. (1993): The Effectiveness of Alternative Preference Elicitation Procedures in Predicting Choice. Journal of Marketing Research 30(February), 105–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R.M. (1987): Adaptive Conjoint Analysis. Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing, Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, Inc., 253–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, H. and Hensel-BÖRner, S. (1999): A Comparison of Conjoint Measurement with Self-Explicated Approaches. In: Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., and Huber, F. (Eds.): Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, V. and Park, Cs. (1997): Surprising Robustness of the Self-Explicated Approach to Customer Preference Structure Measurement. Journal of Marketing Research 34(May), 286–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D.R. and Cattin, P. (1989): Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update. Journal of Marketing 53, 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D.R., Vriens M., and Burhenne, W. (1994): Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis in Europe: Results and Critical Reflections. International Journal of Research in Marketing 11(1), 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Unilever Chair of Marketing and Management Science, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Carl-Zeiß-Str. 3, D-07743, Jena, Germany

    S. Hensel-Börner & H. Sattler

Authors
  1. S. Hensel-Börner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Sattler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bielefeld Betriebswirtschaftslehre und Marketing, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany

    Reinhold Decker

  2. Institut für Entscheidungstheorie und Unternehmensforschung, University of Karlsruhe (TH), Kaiserstraße 12, 76128, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Wolfgang Gaul

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Hensel-Börner, S., Sattler, H. (2000). Validity of Customized and Adaptive Hybrid Conjoint Analysis. In: Decker, R., Gaul, W. (eds) Classification and Information Processing at the Turn of the Millennium. Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-57280-7_35

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-57280-7_35

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67589-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-57280-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation