IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/mktlet/v15y2004i4p223-236.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Industrial Buyer Preferences: Using the Swait-Louviere Test to Test the Key Informant Assumption

Author

Listed:
  • David Hansen

Abstract

When using professional buyers to study an organization’s buying behavior an important consideration is whether their preferences reflect those of the organization. Since this is a key informant problem, the present article focuses on the issue of the degree to which key informants can be used to provide insights into their own organization’s preferences. We conduct a direct test of the key informant assumption using the Swait-Louviere test. In this test preferences from a choice experiment using actual buyers, and from market decisions made by the organization, are estimated separately, then jointly in multinomial logit models. We found that buyers’ experimental preferences were similar to estimates obtained from the market decisions. Buyers’ preferences were closer to the intuitive preferences of the organization’s top executives than the estimates based on past market decisions, although a model based on the combined data outperformed either. We discuss the implications of these results for industrial buying research. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Suggested Citation

  • David Hansen, 2004. "Assessing Industrial Buyer Preferences: Using the Swait-Louviere Test to Test the Key Informant Assumption," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 223-236, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:15:y:2004:i:4:p:223-236
    DOI: 10.1007/s11002-005-0459-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11002-005-0459-9
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11002-005-0459-9?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
    ---><---

    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. Joffre Swait & Rick L. Andrews, 2003. "Enriching Scanner Panel Models with Choice Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 442-460, September.
    2. Hensher, David & Louviere, Jordan & Swait, Joffre, 1998. "Combining sources of preference data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 197-221, November.
    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. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.
    2. Trey Malone & Jayson L. Lusk, 2019. "Releasing The Trap: A Method To Reduce Inattention Bias In Survey Data With Application To U.S. Beer Taxes," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(1), pages 584-599, January.
    3. Sofia B. Villas‐Boas & Céline Bonnet & James Hilger, 2021. "Random Utility Models, Wine and Experts," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(2), pages 663-681, March.
    4. Sanou, Awa & Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda O. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Kerr, John, 2021. "Introducing an aflatoxin-safe labeling program in complex food supply chains: Evidence from a choice experiment in Nigeria," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    5. Vincenzina Caputo & Jayson L Lusk & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2020. "Am I Getting a Good Deal? Reference‐DependentDecision Making When the Reference Price Is Uncertain," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(1), pages 132-153, January.
    6. Tin Cheuk Leung, 2013. "What Is the True Loss Due to Piracy? Evidence from Microsoft Office in Hong Kong," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 1018-1029, July.
    7. Villas-Boas, Sofia B, 2020. "Reduced Form Evidence on Belief Updating Under Asymmetric Information," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt08c456vk, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    8. Els Breugelmans & Katia Campo & Els Gijsbrechts, 2007. "Shelf sequence and proximity effects on online grocery choices," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 117-133, June.
    9. Heng, Yan, 2014. "Demand for Differentiated Products: A Case of Shell Eggs," 2014 Annual Meeting, February 1-4, 2014, Dallas, Texas 162488, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    10. Daniel McFadden, 2001. "Economic Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 351-378, June.
    11. Liu, Gang, 2007. "A behavioral model of work-trip mode choice in Shanghai," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 456-476.
    12. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    13. Erik Meijer & Jan Rouwendal, 2006. "Measuring welfare effects in models with random coefficients," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 227-244, March.
    14. Pamela Giustinelli, 2016. "Group Decision Making With Uncertain Outcomes: Unpacking Child–Parent Choice Of The High School Track," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 57(2), pages 573-602, May.
    15. Robert P. Rooderkerk & Harald J. van Heerde & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2013. "Optimizing Retail Assortments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 699-715, September.
    16. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    17. Kettlewell, Nathan & Walker, Matthew J. & Yoo, Hong Il, 2024. "Alternative Models of Preference Heterogeneity for Elicited Choice Probabilities," IZA Discussion Papers 16821, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Hinz, Oliver & Schulze, Christian & Takac, Carsten, 2014. "New product adoption in social networks: Why direction matters," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 2836-2844.
    19. Steven M. Shugan, 2004. "Endogeneity in Marketing Decision Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 1-3.
    20. Christian Schlereth & Christine Eckert & Bernd Skiera, 2012. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate willingness-to-pay intervals," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 761-776, September.

    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:kap:mktlet:v:15:y:2004:i:4:p:223-236. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.