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. Hensher, David & Louviere, Jordan & Swait, Joffre, 1998. "Combining sources of preference data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 197-221, November.
    2. Joffre Swait & Rick L. Andrews, 2003. "Enriching Scanner Panel Models with Choice Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 442-460, 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. 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. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    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. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Ali Ardeshiri & Spring Sampson & Joffre Swait, 2019. "Seasonality Effects on Consumers Preferences Over Quality Attributes of Different Beef Products," Papers 1902.02419, arXiv.org.
    11. Lienhoop, Nele & Ansmann, Till, 2011. "Valuing water level changes in reservoirs using two stated preference approaches: An exploration of validity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1250-1258, May.
    12. 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.
    13. James J. Heckman, 2008. "Econometric Causality," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 76(1), pages 1-27, April.
    14. Daniel McFadden, 2001. "Economic Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 351-378, June.
    15. de Koning, Koen & Filatova, Tatiana & Bin, Okmyung, 2017. "Bridging the Gap Between Revealed and Stated Preferences in Flood-prone Housing Markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 1-13.
    16. Liu, Gang, 2007. "A behavioral model of work-trip mode choice in Shanghai," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 456-476.
    17. Stuart J. Wright & Caroline M. Vass & Gene Sim & Michael Burton & Denzil G. Fiebig & Katherine Payne, 2018. "Accounting for Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare-Related Discrete Choice Experiments when Comparing Stated Preferences: A Systematic Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(5), pages 475-488, October.
    18. Shyamal Chowdhury & J. V. Meenakshi & Keith I. Tomlins & Constance Owori, 2010. "Are Consumers in Developing Countries Willing to Pay More for Micronutrient-Dense Biofortified Foods? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(1), pages 83-97.
    19. K. Valerie Carl & Cristina Mihale-Wilson & Jan Zibuschka & Oliver Hinz, 2024. "A consumer perspective on Corporate Digital Responsibility: an empirical evaluation of consumer preferences," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 94(7), pages 979-1024, October.
    20. Michael P. Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "The Structure of Consumer Taste Heterogeneity in Revealed vs. Stated Preference Data," Economics Papers 2013-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.

    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.