IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gewipr/210534.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Die Conjoint-Analyse als Instrument zur Nutzenmessung – Ergebnisse einer Befragung in den neuen Bundesländern

Author

Listed:
  • Wiegand, S.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Wiegand, S., 1993. "Die Conjoint-Analyse als Instrument zur Nutzenmessung – Ergebnisse einer Befragung in den neuen Bundesländern," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 29.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gewipr:210534
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.210534
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/210534/files/Bd29Nr53.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.210534?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    2. Green, Paul E & Devita, Michael T, 1975. "An Interaction Model of Consumer Utility," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 2(2), pages 146-153, Se.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leonard Greenhalg & Scott A. Neslin, 1981. "Conjoint Analysis of Negotiator Preferences," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 25(2), pages 301-327, June.
    2. John R. Hauser & Steven M. Shugan, 2008. "Defensive Marketing Strategies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 88-110, 01-02.
    3. Winfried Steiner & Harald Hruschka, 2002. "A Probabilistic One-Step Approach to the Optimal Product Line Design Problem Using Conjoint and Cost Data," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 1-4-1003, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    4. Ohlwein, Martin, 2022. "Same but different - The effect of the unit of measure on the valuation of a unit price," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    5. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    6. Jinsung Kim & Minseok Kim & Sehyeuk Im & Donghyun Choi, 2021. "Competitiveness of E Commerce Firms through ESG Logistics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-15, October.
    7. Dufhues, T. & Buchenrieder, G., 2004. "Der Beitrag der Conjoint Analyse zur nachfrageorintierten Entwicklung des ländlichen Finanzsektors in Vietnam," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 39.
    8. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    10. Minho Seo & Seiyong Kim, 2021. "A Comparative Evaluation of Utility Value Based on User Preferences for Urban Streets: The Case of Seoul, Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, April.
    11. He, Junnan & Calder, Bobby J., 2020. "The experimental evaluation of brand strength and brand value," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 194-202.
    12. Mahesh Balan U & Saji K. Mathew, 2021. "Personalize, Summarize or Let them Read? A Study on Online Word of Mouth Strategies and Consumer Decision Process," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 627-647, June.
    13. Shin, Jungwoo & Hwang, Won-Sik, 2017. "Consumer preference and willingness to pay for a renewable fuel standard (RFS) policy: Focusing on ex-ante market analysis and segmentation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 32-40.
    14. Ansari, A. & Economides, N. & Steckel, J., 1996. "The Max-Min-Min Principle of product Differentiation," Working Papers 96-10, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    15. Haaijer, Marinus E., 1996. "Predictions in conjoint choice experiments : the x-factor probit model," Research Report 96B22, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    16. Ha, Jinkyung, 2018. "Consumer valuation of Fintech: The case of Mobile Payment in Korea," 22nd ITS Biennial Conference, Seoul 2018. Beyond the boundaries: Challenges for business, policy and society 190341, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    17. P. A. Ferrari & S. Salini, 2008. "Measuring Service Quality: The Opinion of Europeans about Utilities," Working Papers 2008.36, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    18. Rhee, Hosung Timothy & Yang, Sung-Byung & Kim, Kyungho, 2016. "Exploring the comparative salience of restaurant attributes: A conjoint analysis approach," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 1360-1370.
    19. M. Murat Köksalan, 1989. "Identifying and ranking a most preferred subset of alternatives in the presence of multiple criteria," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 359-372, August.
    20. Benjamin R. Handel & Kanishka Misra, 2015. "Robust New Product Pricing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 864-881, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:gewipr:210534. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gewisea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.