IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v7y1988i3p271-286.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conjoint Analysis Reliability: Empirical Findings

Author

Listed:
  • David Reibstein

    (University of Pennsylvania)

  • John E. G. Bateson

    (London Business School)

  • William Boulding

    (Duke University)

Abstract

This paper looks at the comparative reliability of different methodological variants of the conjoint analysis procedure. It differs from previous studies in that it looks at three methods of data collection (Full Profile, Trade-off Matrices, and Paired Comparison) and two levels of a key attribute (price) across five different product categories. In addition it tests these manipulations using two different reliability assessment procedures. The results show that most manipulations have a significant effect on the reliability scores and many interaction terms are significant.

Suggested Citation

  • David Reibstein & John E. G. Bateson & William Boulding, 1988. "Conjoint Analysis Reliability: Empirical Findings," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 271-286.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:7:y:1988:i:3:p:271-286
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.7.3.271
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.7.3.271
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.7.3.271?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Petrit Ademi & Monika C. Schuhmacher & Andrew L. Zacharakis, 2023. "Evaluating Affordance-Based Opportunities: A Conjoint Experiment of Corporate Venture Capital Managers’ Decision-Making," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(6), pages 2293-2322, November.
    2. 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.
    3. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl Lagerkvist, 2007. "Preferences with and without prices - does the price attribute affect behavior in stated preference surveys?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(2), pages 155-164, October.
    4. Teichert, Thorsten Andreas, 1997. "Schätzgenauigkeit von Conjoint-Analysen," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 444, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
    5. de Bont, Cees J. P. M. & Schoormans, Jan P. L., 1995. "The effects of product expertise on consumer evaluations of new-product concepts," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 599-615, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Warnick, Benjamin J. & Murnieks, Charles Y. & McMullen, Jeffery S. & Brooks, Wade T., 2018. "Passion for entrepreneurship or passion for the product? A conjoint analysis of angel and VC decision-making," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 315-332.
    8. Stirling Bryan & David Parry, 2002. "Structural reliability of conjoint measurement in health care: an empirical investigation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(5), pages 561-567.
    9. Michele Manconi & Salvatore Bellomo & Anna Nosella & Lara Agostini, 2022. "Attributes of Business Incubators: A Conjoint Analysis of Venture Capitalist’s Decision Making," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-16, May.
    10. 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.
    11. Stefanie Weniger & Svenja Jarchow, 2023. "Between benefit and risk: how entrepreneurs evaluate corporate investors," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(5), pages 783-816, July.
    12. Monica Mihaela Maer Matei & Ana-Maria Zamfir & Cristina Mocanu, 2023. "Criteria Weights in Hiring Decisions—A Conjoint Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, February.
    13. Suk, Kwanho & Yoon, Song-Oh, 2012. "The moderating role of decision task goals in attribute weight convergence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 37-45.

    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:inm:ormksc:v:7:y:1988:i:3:p:271-286. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.