IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/jen/jenasw/2004-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Comparative Empirical Study on Common Methods for Measuring Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Roland Helm

    (University of Jena, Faculty of Economics)

  • Michael Steiner

    (University of Jena, Faculty of Economics)

  • Armin Scholl

    (University of Jena, Faculty of Economics)

  • Laura Manthey

    (University of Jena, Faculty of Economics)

Abstract

Literature and practice reveal that most marketing related questionnaires measuring consumer preferences rely on some kind of conjoint analysis. Recent studies show the analytic hierarchy process to be suitable for this task, too. This paper gives a comparison of the approaches and the results of former studies. Because we found considerable differences in those results, an additional study has been performed being designed such that it has potential for explaining these differences. As we found respective explanations, we finally derive general guidelines on the selection of conjoint analysis and analytic hierarchy process depending on the complexity of the problem situation and the previous knowledge respondents have in preference measurement.

Suggested Citation

  • Roland Helm & Michael Steiner & Armin Scholl & Laura Manthey, 2004. "A Comparative Empirical Study on Common Methods for Measuring Preferences," Jenaer Schriften zur Wirtschaftswissenschaft (Expired!) 20/2004, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
    • Handle: RePEc:jen:jenasw:2004-20
    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.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roland Helm & Armin Scholl & Laura Manthey & Michael Steiner, 2004. "Measuring customer preferences in new product development: comparing compositional and decompositional methods," International Journal of Product Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(1), pages 12-29.
    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. Jonas Jasper, 2019. "A Var Analysis of the Connection between FDI and Economic Growth: A Case Study from Vietnam after 30 Years Reforms," International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, Inovatus Services Ltd., vol. 4(6), pages 51-67, Februaury.
    2. Maarten Ijzerman & Janine Til & John Bridges, 2012. "A Comparison of Analytic Hierarchy Process and Conjoint Analysis Methods in Assessing Treatment Alternatives for Stroke Rehabilitation," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(1), pages 45-56, March.
    3. Hafezi, Maryam & Zolfagharinia, Hossein, 2018. "Green product development and environmental performance: Investigating the role of government regulations," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 395-410.
    4. Alain De Beuckelaer & Jarl Kampen & J. Van Trijp, 2013. "An empirical assessment of the cross-national measurement validity of graded paired comparisons," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 1063-1076, February.
    5. Gabriela D. Oliveira & Luis C. Dias, 2020. "The potential learning effect of a MCDA approach on consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 767-787, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Preference Measurement; Conjoint Analysis; Analytic Hierarchy Process; Applicability Measures; Internal Validity; Predictive Validity; Convergent Validity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing

    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:jen:jenasw:2004-20. 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: Markus Pasche (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.wiwi.uni-jena.de/ .

    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.