IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sjobre/v66y2014i8d10.1007_bf03372910.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Schnelle und einfache Messung von Bedeutungsgewichten mit der Restricted-Click-Stream Analyse: Ein Vergleich mit etablierten Präferenzmessmethoden

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Schlereth

    (WHU - Otto Beisheim School of Management)

  • Fabian Schulz

    (Goethe-Universität Frankfurt)

Abstract

Zusammenfassung Zur Messung von Bedeutungsgewichten nutzen Marktforscher etablierte Präferenzmessmethoden wie die Choice-Based Conjoint Analyse. Parallel hierzu nutzen Verhaltensforscher eigene Methoden zur Aufzeichnung des Informationssuchprozesses. Ziel dieses Beitrages ist, zu zeigen, dass die Beobachtung der Aufmerksamkeit, welche Konsumenten den Produkteigenschaften in solchen Experimenten widmen, bereits zur Bestimmung von Bedeutungsgewichten ausreicht. Hierzu wird eine neue, leicht einzusetzende Methode entwickelt, die Restricted-Click-Stream Analyse, und in einer empirischen Studie mit etablierten Präferenzmessmethoden verglichen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die Restricted-Click-Stream Analyse eine ähnliche Validität aufweist, zugleich aber die kognitive und emotionale Belastung der Probanden geringer ist als bei etablierten Methoden. Daher bietet die Restricted-Click-Stream Analyse für Anwender dann eine praktikable Alternative, wenn Erkenntnisse zu Bedeutungsgewichte in einer möglichst kurzen Befragung gewonnen werden sollen.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Schlereth & Fabian Schulz, 2014. "Schnelle und einfache Messung von Bedeutungsgewichten mit der Restricted-Click-Stream Analyse: Ein Vergleich mit etablierten Präferenzmessmethoden," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 66(8), pages 630-657, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sjobre:v:66:y:2014:i:8:d:10.1007_bf03372910
    DOI: 10.1007/BF03372910
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF03372910
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF03372910?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Mitchell, Deborah J & Kahn, Barbara E & Knasko, Susan C, 1995. "There's Something in the Air: Effects of Congruent or Incongruent Ambient Odor on Consumer Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 22(2), pages 229-238, September.
    3. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson & Guillermo Moloche & Stephen Weinberg, 2006. "Costly Information Acquisition: Experimental Analysis of a Boundedly Rational Model," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1043-1068, September.
    4. Ofer Mintz & Imran S. Currim & Ivan Jeliazkov, 2013. "Information Processing Pattern and Propensity to Buy: An Investigation of Online Point-of-Purchase Behavior," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 716-732, September.
    5. Ross, William T, Jr & Creyer, Elizabeth H, 1992. "Making Inferences about Missing Information: The Effects of Existing Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 19(1), pages 14-25, June.
    6. Christian Brzinsky-Fay & Ulrich Kohler & Magdalena Luniak, 2006. "Sequence analysis with Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 6(4), pages 435-460, December.
    7. Dhar, Ravi & Nowlis, Stephen M & Sherman, Steven J, 1999. "Comparison Effects on Preference Construction," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(3), pages 293-306, December.
    8. Bettman, James R & John, Deborah Roedder & Scott, Carol A, 1986. "Covariation Assessment by Consumers," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(3), pages 316-326, December.
    9. Qing Liu & Neeraj Arora, 2011. "Efficient Choice Designs for a Consider-Then-Choose Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 321-338, 03-04.
    10. 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.
    11. Chris Janiszewski & Andrew Kuo & Nader T. Tavassoli, 2013. "The Influence of Selective Attention and Inattention to Products on Subsequent Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(6), pages 1258-1274.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:8:p:641-658 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Schlereth, Christian & Eckert, Christine & Schaaf, René & Skiera, Bernd, 2014. "Measurement of preferences with self-explicated approaches: A classification and merge of trade-off- and non-trade-off-based evaluation types," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(1), pages 185-198.
    2. Gilbride, Timothy J. & Currim, Imran S. & Mintz, Ofer & Siddarth, S., 2016. "A Model for Inferring Market Preferences from Online Retail Product Information Matrices," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(4), pages 470-485.
    3. Gould, Stephen J. & Kramer, Thomas, 2009. ""What's it Worth to Me?" Three interpretive studies of the relative roles of task-oriented and reflexive processes in separate versus joint value construction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 840-858, December.
    4. Mellár, Tamás, 2010. "Válaszút előtt a makroökonómia? [Does macroeconomics face a dilemma?]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(7), pages 591-611.
    5. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2011. "Search and Satisficing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2899-2922, December.
    6. Breuer, Christoph & Boronczyk, Felix & Rumpf, Christopher, 2021. "Message personalization and real-time adaptation as next innovations in sport sponsorship management? How run-of-play and team affiliation affect viewer response," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 309-316.
    7. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    8. Dost, Florian & Geiger, Ingmar, 2017. "Value-based pricing in competitive situations with the help of multi-product price response maps," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 219-236.
    9. Julia Mikolai & Hill Kulu, 2019. "Union dissolution and housing trajectories in Britain," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 41(7), pages 161-196.
    10. Stephanie Knox & Rosalie Viney & Deborah Street & Marion Haas & Denzil Fiebig & Edith Weisberg & Deborah Bateson, 2012. "What’s Good and Bad About Contraceptive Products?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1187-1202, December.
    11. Jacob LaRiviere & Mikolaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Katherine Simpson, 2016. "What is the Causal Impact of Knowledge on Preferences in Stated Preference Studies?," Working Papers 2016-12, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    12. Anya Savikhin & Roman Sheremeta, 2010. "Visibility of Contributions and Cost of Information: An Experiment on Public Goods," Working Papers 10-22, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    13. Bartosz Maćkowiak & Filip Matějka & Mirko Wiederholt, 2023. "Rational Inattention: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 226-273, March.
    14. Sébastien Foudi, 2024. "Are risk attitude, impatience, and impulsivity related to the individual discount rate? Evidence from energy-efficient durable goods," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 96(4), pages 627-661, June.
    15. Langena, Nina & Klink, Jeanette & Hartmann, Monika, 2013. "Individualized or non-individualized IDM: What elicits consumer preferences best?," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150637, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Milena Djourelova & Ruben Durante, 2019. "Media attention and strategic timing in politics: Evidence from U.S. presidential executive orders," Economics Working Papers 1675, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    17. Kashaev, Nail & Aguiar, Victor H., 2022. "A random attention and utility model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    18. Benjamin Patrick Evans & Mikhail Prokopenko, 2021. "Bounded rationality for relaxing best response and mutual consistency: The Quantal Hierarchy model of decision-making," Papers 2106.15844, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2023.
    19. Ainsworth, Jeremy & Foster, Jamye, 2017. "Comfort in brick and mortar shopping experiences: Examining antecedents and consequences of comfortable retail experiences," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 27-35.
    20. Gordon L Clark, 2012. "Pensions or Property?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 44(5), pages 1185-1199, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    M31; C81; C83;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing
    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods

    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:spr:sjobre:v:66:y:2014:i:8:d:10.1007_bf03372910. 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.