Continuous Conjoint Analysis

  • Dick R. Wittink
  • Sev K. Keil


Conjoint analysis was introduced in the 1970’s to quantify consumer tradeoffs. The methodology has become very popular for market-based strategic decisions (see e.g. Green and Srinivasan 1990; Wittink, Vriens and Burhenne 1994). This popularity has both been influenced by and has led to the development of a substantial body of research on conjoint analysis. Surprisingly, however, conjoint applications are almost exclusively limited to one-shot, ad hoc surveys.


Mean Square Error Consumer Preference Conjoint Analysis Common Stock Attribute Importance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Armstrong, J. S. and Collopy, F. (1996), Competitor Orientation: Effects of Objectives and Information on Managerial Decisions and Profitability, Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 188–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Green, P. E. and Srinivasan, V. (1990), Conjoint Analysis in Marketing Research: New Developments and Directions, Journal of Marketing, 54, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gupta, S. (1988), Impact of Price Promotions in When, What and How Much to Buy, Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 342–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Johnson, R. M. (1987), Adaptive Conjoint Analysis, Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Sun Valley, 253–265.Google Scholar
  5. Keil, S. K., Reibstein, D. and Wittink, D. R. (1999), Pricing Decisions: All Eyes on the Competitors, presentation at the conference on Competition and Marketing, Mainz, Germany.Google Scholar
  6. Leeflang, P. S. H. and Wittink, D. R. (1996), Competitive Reaction versus Consumer Response: Do Managers Overreact?, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Prahalad, C. K. and Hamel, G. (1990), The Core Competence of the Corporation, Harvard Business Review, 16, 301–307.Google Scholar
  8. Treacy, M. and Wiersema, F. (1995), The Discipline of Market Leaders,New York.Google Scholar
  9. Von Hippel, E. (1988), The Sources of Innovation, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Wilcox, R. T. (1999), Efficient Fee Structures of Mutual Funds, presented at the Sawtooth Software Conference, San Diego.Google Scholar
  11. Wind, J., Green, P. E., Shifflet, D. and Scarbrough, M. (1989), Courtyard by Marriott: Designing a Hotel Facility with Consumer-Based Marketing Models, Interfaces, 19, 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dick R. Wittink
  • Sev K. Keil

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations