IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v61y2008i9p903-911.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling

Author

Listed:
  • Louviere, Jordan J.
  • Islam, Towhidul

Abstract

We review the measurement of product attribute importance, and find little consensus in definition or measurement methods. We compare four measurement methods: 1) two direct methods whereby respondents report the importance of attributes using best-worst scaling or constant sum scales, and 2) two indirect methods derived from discrete choice experiments. Our comparisons rely on previous findings that choice experiments are externally valid to use as the standard. We find high agreement within direct or indirect methods, but less agreement between direct and indirect methods. Our results also demonstrate that inferences derived from indirect measures appear to be susceptible to context effects related to the particular attributes a researcher chooses to investigate. We discuss implications for current and future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Louviere, Jordan J. & Islam, Towhidul, 2008. "A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 903-911, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:61:y:2008:i:9:p:903-911
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148-2963(07)00293-7
    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. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger, 1995. "Attribute Importance Weights Modification in Assessing a Brand's Competitive Potential," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 253-270.
    2. Levin, Irwin P. & Johnson, Richard D. & Deldin, Patricia J. & Carstens, Laura M. & Cressey, LuAnne J. & Davis, Charles R., 1986. "Framing effects in decisions with completely and incompletely described alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 48-64, August.
    3. Simonson, Itamar & Kivetz, Ran, 2000. "The Effects of Incomplete Information on Consumer Choice," Research Papers 1609, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    4. Lynch, John G, Jr & Srull, Thomas K, 1982. "Memory and Attentional Factors in Consumer Choice: Concepts and Research Methods," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(1), pages 18-37, June.
    5. Jaccard, James & Brinberg, David & Ackerman, Lee J, 1986. "Assessing Attribute Importance: A Comparison of Six Methods," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 12(4), pages 463-468, March.
    6. Joffre Swait & Rick L. Andrews, 2003. "Enriching Scanner Panel Models with Choice Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 442-460, September.
    7. Simmons, Carolyn J & Lynch, John G, Jr, 1991. "Inference Effects without Inference Making? Effects of Missing Information on Discounting and Use of Presented Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 17(4), pages 477-491, March.
    8. Louviere, Jordan J, 2001. "What If Consumer Experiments Impact Variances as Well as Means? Response Variability as a Behavioral Phenomenon," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(3), pages 506-511, December.
    9. Amos Tversky & Itamar Simonson, 1993. "Context-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1179-1189, October.
    10. Johnson, Richard D & Levin, Irwin P, 1985. "More than Meets the Eye: The Effect of Missing Information on Purchase Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 12(2), pages 169-177, September.
    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:2:p:196-204 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Shih-Chieh Chuang & Danny Tengti Kao & Yin-Hui Cheng & Chu-An Chou, 2012. "The effect of incomplete information on the compromise effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(2), pages 196-204, March.
    3. Davies, Antony & Cline, Thomas W., 2005. "A consumer behavior approach to modeling monopolistic competition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 797-826, December.
    4. Gunasti, Kunter & Ross, William T., 2015. "The effects of compensatory inferences for attributes on the choice of incomplete product options," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1136-1144.
    5. Ting Li & Robert J. Kauffman & Eric van Heck & Peter Vervest & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2014. "Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 345-363, June.
    6. Marc Jekel & Andreas Glockner & Arndt Broder & Viktoriya Maydych, 2014. "Approximating rationality under incomplete information: Adaptive inferences for missing cue values based on cue-discrimination," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(2), pages 129-147, March.
    7. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    8. Jordan Louviere & Joffre Swait, 2010. "—Discussion of “Alleviating the Constant Stochastic Variance Assumption in Decision Research: Theory, Measurement, and Experimental Test”," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 18-22, 01-02.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:2:p:129-147 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Meise, Jan Niklas & Rudolph, Thomas & Kenning, Peter & Phillips, Diane M., 2014. "Feed them facts: Value perceptions and consumer use of sustainability-related product information," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 510-519.
    11. John R. Hauser & Olivier Toubia, 2005. "The Impact of Utility Balance and Endogeneity in Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 498-507, August.
    12. Sanjay K. Dhar & Claudia González-Vallejo & Dilip Soman, 1999. "Modeling the Effects of Advertised Price Claims: Tensile Versus Precise Claims?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 154-177.
    13. Daniel J Walters & Hal E Hershfield & J Jeffrey Inman & Rebecca K Ratner, 2020. "Consumers Make Different Inferences and Choices When Product Uncertainty Is Attributed to Forgetting Rather than Ignorance [Is Memory Schematic?]," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 47(1), pages 56-78.
    14. Popkowski Leszczyc, Peter T.L. & Pracejus, John W. & Shen, Yingtao, 2008. "Why more can be less: An inference-based explanation for hyper-subadditivity in bundle valuation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 233-246, March.
    15. Ayala Arad & Amnon Maltz, 2022. "Turning on Dimensional Prominence in Decision Making: Experiments and a Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(8), pages 6075-6099, August.
    16. Simonson, Itamar & Kivetz, Ran, 2000. "The Effects of Incomplete Information on Consumer Choice," Research Papers 1609, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    17. Lai, John & Olynk Widmar, Nicole J. & Gunderson, Michael A. & Widmar, David A. & Ortega, David L., 2018. "Prioritization of farm success factors by commercial farm managers," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(6), July.
    18. 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.
    19. Moore, Don A., 1999. "Order Effects in Preference Judgments: Evidence for Context Dependence in the Generation of Preferences, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 146-165, May.
    20. 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.
    21. Flores, Alvaro & Berbeglia, Gerardo & Van Hentenryck, Pascal, 2019. "Assortment optimization under the Sequential Multinomial Logit Model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1052-1064.
    22. Christoph Engel, 2006. "The Difficult Reception of Rigorous Descriptive Social Science in the Law," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2006_1, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.

    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:61:y:2008:i:9:p:903-911. 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.