IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v57y2004i10p1092-1097.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The robustness of hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis under alternative measurement scales

Author

Listed:
  • Park, Chan Su

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Park, Chan Su, 2004. "The robustness of hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis under alternative measurement scales," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(10), pages 1092-1097, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:57:y:2004:i:10:p:1092-1097
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148-2963(03)00039-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Darmon, Rene Y. & Rouzies, Dominique, 1999. "Internal Validity of Conjoint Analysis Under Alternative Measurement Procedures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 67-81, September.
    2. Michael R. Hagerty, 1986. "The Cost of Simplifying Preference Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 298-319.
    3. Dominique Rouzies & René Y. Darmon, 1999. "Internal Validity of Conjoint Analysis Under Alternative Measurement Procedures," Post-Print hal-00537590, HAL.
    4. 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.
    5. Michael R. Hagerty, 1986. "Reply—Reflections on the Cost of Simplifying Preference Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 323-324.
    6. Peter J. Lenk & Wayne S. DeSarbo & Paul E. Green & Martin R. Young, 1996. "Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 173-191.
    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. Baidu-Forson, Jojo & Ntare, Bonny R. & Waliyar, Farid, 1997. "Utilizing conjoint analysis to design modern crop varieties: Empirical example for groundnut in Niger," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 16(3), pages 219-226, August.
    2. Verma, Rohit & Pullman, Madeleine E., 1998. "An analysis of the supplier selection process," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 739-750, December.
    3. 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," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 237-249, March.
    4. Ronny Baierl, 2018. "Understanding Entrepreneurial Team Decisions: Measuring Team Members’ Influences With The Metricized Limit Conjoint Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(2), pages 21582440187, May.
    5. John Liechty & Duncan Fong & Eelko Huizingh & Arnaud Bruyn, 2008. "Hierarchical Bayesian conjoint models incorporating measurement uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 141-155, June.
    6. Theodoros Evgeniou & Constantinos Boussios & Giorgos Zacharia, 2005. "Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 415-429, May.
    7. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    8. Mishra, Sanjay & Umesh, U. N., 2005. "Determining the quality of conjoint analysis results using violation of a priori signs," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 301-311, March.
    9. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    10. Voleti, Sudhir & Srinivasan, V. & Ghosh, Pulak, 2017. "An approach to improve the predictive power of choice-based conjoint analysis," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 325-335.
    11. Montgomery, David B. & Ramus, Catherine, 2007. "Including Corporate Social Responsibility, Environmental Sustainaibility, and Ethics in Calibrating MBA Job Preferences," Research Papers 1981, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    12. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind, 2001. "Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 56-73, June.
    13. Hein, Maren & Goeken, Nils & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2022. "Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 630-651.
    14. Adriane Hartmann & Henrik Sattler, 2004. "Wie robust sind Methoden zur Präferenzmessung?," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 3-22, February.
    15. Nadine Gatzert & Anna Kraus, 2024. "Do sustainability attributes play a role for individuals’ decisions regarding unit-linked life insurance? A survey research on German private investors," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 49(4), pages 719-746, October.
    16. Butori, Raphaëlle & De Bruyn, Arnaud, 2013. "So you want to delight your customers: The perils of ignoring heterogeneity in customer evaluations of discretionary preferential treatments," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 358-367.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:3:p:200-213 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Merja Halme & Outi Somervuori, 2013. "Choice behavior of information services when prices are increased and decreased from reference level," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 549-564, December.
    19. Henrik Sattler, 2006. "Methoden zur Messung von Präferenzen für Innovationen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 58(54), pages 154-176, January.
    20. Sinha, Ashish & Gazley, Aaron & Ashill, Nicholas J., 2008. "Measuring Customer Based Brand Equity using Hierarchical Bayes Methodology," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 3-19.
    21. Lieven, Theo, 2015. "Policy measures to promote electric mobility – A global perspective," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 78-93.

    More about this item

    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:eee:jbrese:v:57:y:2004:i:10:p:1092-1097. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    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.