IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/sprchp/978-3-540-71404-0_10.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Conjoint Preference Elicitation Methods in the Broader Context of Random Utility Theory Preference Elicitation Methods

In: Conjoint Measurement

Author

Listed:
  • Jordan Louviere

    (University of Sydney)

  • David Hensher

    (University of Sydney)

  • Joffre Swait

    (Advanis Inc.
    University of Florida)

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to place conjoint analysis techniques within the broader framework of preference elicitation techniques that are consistent with the Random Utility Theory (RUT) paradigm. This allows us to accomplish the following objectives: explain how random utility theory provides a level playing field on which to compare preference elicitation methods, and why virtually all conjoint methods can be treated as a special case of a much broader theoretical framework. We achieve this by: discussing wider issues in modelling preferences in the RUT paradigm, the implications for understanding consumer decision processes and practical prediction, and how conjoint analysis methods fit into the bigger picture. discussing how a level playing field allows meaningful comparisons of a variety of preference elicitation methods and sources of preference data (conjoint methods are only one of many types), which in turn allows us to unify many disparate research streams; discussing how a level playing field allows sources of preference data from various elicitation methods to be combined, including the important case of relating sources of preference elicitation data to actual market behaviour; discussing the pros and cons of relaxing the simple error assumptions in basic choice models, and how these allow one to capture individual differences without needing individual-level effects; using three cases studies to illustrate the themes of the chapter.

Suggested Citation

  • Jordan Louviere & David Hensher & Joffre Swait, 2007. "Conjoint Preference Elicitation Methods in the Broader Context of Random Utility Theory Preference Elicitation Methods," Springer Books, in: Anders Gustafsson & Andreas Herrmann & Frank Huber (ed.), Conjoint Measurement, edition 0, chapter 10, pages 167-197, Springer.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-3-540-71404-0_10
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-71404-0_10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    2. Charles Cunningham & Linda Kostrzewa & Heather Rimas & Yvonne Chen & Ken Deal & Susan Blatz & Alida Bowman & Don Buchanan & Randy Calvert & Barbara Jennings, 2013. "Modeling Organizational Justice Improvements in a Pediatric Health Service," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 6(1), pages 45-59, March.
    3. Gerds, Marcel, 2012. "Requirements towards and Discrimination against Agricultural Workers – Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment among East German Farms," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 13(2), pages 1-28.

    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:sprchp:978-3-540-71404-0_10. 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: 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.