Verfahren zur Präferenzmessung – Eine Übersicht und Beurteilung existierender und möglicher neuer Self-Explicated-Verfahren

Agarwal MK, Green PE (1991) Adaptive conjoint analysis versus self explicated models, some empirical results. Int J Res Market 8:141–146 Aggarwal P, Vaidyanathan R (2003) Eliciting online consumers’ preferences: conjoint vs self-explicated attribute-level measurements. J Market Manag 19:157–177 Akaah I, Korgaonkar PK (1983) An empirical comparison of the predictive validity of self-explicated, huber-hybrid, traditional conjoint and hybrid conjoint models. J Market Res 20:187–197 Alwin DF, Krosnick JA (1985) The measurement of values in surveys: A comparison of ratings and rankings. Pub Opin Q 49:535–552 Brockhoff K (1999) Produktpolitik. Lucius&Lucius, Stuttgart Brown TC, Peterson RM, Broderson V, Ford V, Bell PA (2005) The judged seriousness of an environmental loss is a matter of what caused it. J Environ Psychol 25:13–21 Chrzan K, Golovashkina N (2006) An empirical test of six stated importance measures. Int J Market Res 48:717–740 Churchill GA, Iacobucci D (2002) Marketing research: methodological foundations. Mason, Ohio Cohen S (2003) Maximum difference scaling: improved measures of importance and preference for segmentation. Proceedings of the 2003 Sawtooth Software Conference, San Diego, S. 61–74 Comrey AL (1950) A proposed method for absolute ratio scaling. Psychometrika 15:317–325 David HA (1988) The method of paired comparisons. Charles Griffin, London Dorsch MJ, Teas RK (1992) A test of the convergent validity of self-explicated and decompositional conjoint measurement. J Acad Market Sci 20:37–48 Farsky M, Eggers F (2007) Golden -i-: Konzeption und empirische Validitätsprüfung eines neuen Instrumentes zur Messung von Markenimages. Market Z Forsch Praxis 29:105–118 Finn A, Louviere JJ (1992) Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: The case of food safety. J Pub Policy Market 11:12–25 Fishbein M (1967) A behavior theory approach to the relations between beliefs and about an object and the attitude toward the object. Wiley, New York Green PE (1984) Hybrid conjoint analysis: an expository review. J Market Res 21:155–159 Green PE, Goldberg S, Montemayor M (1981) A hybrid utility estimation model for conjoint analysis. J Market 45:33–41 Green PE, Goldberg SM, Wiley JW (1983) Cross-validation test of hybrid conjoint models. Adv Consum Res 10:147–150 Green PE, Helsen K (1989) Cross-validation assessment of alternatives to individual-level conjoint analysis. J Market Res 26:346–350 Green PE, Krieger AM (1993) Conjoint analysis with product positioning applications. In: Eliashberg J, Lilien G (Hrsg.) Handbook in operations research and marketing science, Volume 5, Marketing. North Holland, Amsterdam, S. 467–515 Green PE, Krieger AM (1996) Individualized hybrid models for conjoint analysis. Manag Sci 42:850–867 Green PE, Krieger AM, Agarwal MK (1993) A cross validation test of four models for quantifying multiattribute preferences. Market Lett 4(4):369–380 Green PE, Krieger AM, Bansal P (1988) Completely unacceptable levels in conjoint analysis: a cautionary note. J Market Res 25:293–300 Green PE, Srinivasan V (1978) Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. J Consum Res 5:103–123 Green PE, Srinivasan V (1990) Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practise. J Market 54:3–19 Gutsche J (1995) Produktpräferenzanalyse: Ein modelltheoretisches und methodisches Konzept zur Marktsimulation mittels Präferenzerfassungsmodellen. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin Hartmann A, Sattler H (2002) Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Working Paper No. 006, University of Hamburg Hartmann A, Sattler H (2004) Wie robust sind Methoden zur Präferenzmessung? Z betriebswirtsch Forsch (zfbf) 56:3–22 Heeler RM, Okechuku C, Reid S (1979) Attribute importance: contrasting measurements. J Market Res 16:60–86 Hensel-Börner S (2000) Validität computergestützter hybrider Conjoint-Analyse. Deutscher Universitätsverlag, Wiesbaden Hensel-Börner S, Sattler H (2000) Ein empirischer Validitätsvergleich zwischen der Customized Computerized Conjoint Analysis (CCC) der Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA) und Self-Explicated-Verfahren. Z Betriebswirtsch (ZfB) 70:705–727 Herrmann A, Schmidt-Gallas D, Huber F (2001) Adaptive conjoint analyse: understanding the methodology and assessing reliability and validity. In: Gustaffson A, Herrmann A, Huber F (Hrsg.) Conjoint measurement: methods and applications. Springer, Berlin, S. 305–329 Höpfl RT, Huber PH (1970) A study of self-explicated utility models. Behav Sci 15:408–414 Huber GP, Daneshgar R, Ford DL (1971) An empirical comparison of five utility models for predicting job preferences. Organ Behav Human Perform 6:267–282 Hughes D (1970) Distinguishing salience and valence. Attitude Research Workshop, University of Illinois Jain AK, Acito F, Malhotra N, Mahajan V (1979) A comparison of the internal validity of alternative parameter estimation methods in decompositional multiattribute preference models. J Market Res 16:312–322 Kramer T (2007) The effect of measurement task transparency on preference construction and evaluation of personalized recommendations. J Market Res 44:224–233 Lehmann DR (1971) Television show preferences. J Market Res 8:47–55 Leigh TW, MacKay DB, Summers JO (1984) Reliability and validity of conjoint analysis and self-explicated weights: A comparison. J Market Res 21:456–462 Lodge M (1984) Magnitude scaling: quantitative measurement of opinions. Sage Publications, Beverley Hills Louviere JJ, Islam T (2008) A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling. J Bus Res 61:903–911 Malhotra NK (2006) Marketing research: an applied orientation. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey Marder E (1997) The laws of choice. Free Press, New York Myers JH (1999) Measuring customer satisfaction: hot buttons and other measurement issues. American Marketing Association, Chicago Netzer O, Srinivasan S (2007) Adaptive self-explication of multi attribute preferences. Working Paper, Columbia University Oppewal H, Klabbers M (2003) Compromising between the information completeness and task simplicity: A comparison of self-explicated, hierarchical information integration, and full-profile conjoint methods. Adv Consum Res 30:298–303 Orme B (2003) Scaling multiple items: monadic ratings vs. paired comparisons. Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Sequim, S. 43–59 Park YH, Ding M, Rao V (2008) Eliciting preference for complex products: a web-based upgrading method. J Market Res 45:562–574 Pullman ME, Dodson KJ, Moore WL (1999) A comparison of conjoint methods when there are many attributes. Market Lett 10:125–138 Ray ML (1979) Introduction to the special section: measurement and marketing research – is this flirtation going to lead a romance? J Market Res 16:1–6 Ray ML, Sherrill PN (1973) Unobtrusive marketing research techniques. In: Britt SH (Hrsg.) Marketing manager’s handbook. Dartnell, Chicago, S. 317–330 Retzer J (2006) The century of bayes. Int J Market Res 48:49–60 Rosenberg MJ (1956) Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 53:367–372 Sattler H (1991) Herkunfts- und Gütezeichen im Kaufentscheidungsprozeß. Die Conjoint-Analyse als Instrument der Bedeutungsmessung. M & P, Verl. für Wiss. und Forschung, Stuttgart Sattler H (2006) Methoden zur Messung von Präferenzen für Innovationen. Z betriebswirtsch Forsch 54:154–176 Sattler H, Hensel-Boerner S (2000) A comparison of conjoint measurement with self-explicated approaches. In: Gustaffson A, Herrmann A, Huber F (Hrsg.) Conjoint measurement: methods and applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 121–133 Sawtooth Software I (2002a) ACA 5.0 Technical Paper, http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/acatech.pdf, Stand: 12.11.2006 Sawtooth Software I (2002b) ACA user manual version 5, Sequim Sawtooth Software I (2007a) The ACA, Web v6.0 Technical Paper, http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/acatech.pdf, Stand: 21.12.2007 Sawtooth Software I (2007b) The MaxDiff, Web v6.0 Technical Paper, http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/acatech.pdf, Stand: 21.12.2007 Schendel DE, Wilkie WL, McCann JM (1971) An experimental investigation of attribute importance. Proceedings of the Association for Consumer Research, S. 404–416 Skiera B (1999) Mengenbezogene Preisdifferenzierung bei Dienstleistungen. Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden Srinivasan V (1988) A conjunctive-compensatory approach to the self-explication of multiattributed preferences. Decis Sci 19:295–305 Srinivasan V, Park CS (1997) Surprising robustness of the self-explicated approach to customer preference structure measurement. J Market Res 34:286–291 Srinivasan V, Wyner G (1989) CASEMAP: computer-assisted self-explication of multiattributed preferences. In: Henry W, Menasco M, Takada H (Hrsg.) New-product development and testing. Lexington Books, Lexington, pp 91–112 Stapleton LM, Edmonds M (2005) An exploration of the validity of the unbounded write-in-scale for inter-individual research. Int J Pub Opin Res 17:484–494 Stephenson W (1953) The study of behaviour: the Q-technique and its methodology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Tigert DJ (1966) An investigation of experimental techniques to determine the relative importance of various product attributes in the consumer decision-making process. Institute Paper No. 126, Purdue University Torgerson WS (1958) Theory and method of scaling. John Wiley, New York Voeth M (1999) 25 Jahre conjointanalytische Forschung in Deutschland. Z Betriebswirtsch Ergänzungsheft 2:153–176 Wilkie WL, Pessemier EA (1973) Issues in marketing’s use of multi-attribute attitude models. J Market Res 10:428–441 Wittink DR, Cattin P (1989) Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update. J Market 53:91–96 Wittink DR, Vriens M, Burhenne W (1994) Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: results and critical reflections. Int J Res Market 11:41–52 Wright P, Kriewall MA (1980) State-of-mind effects on the accuracy with which utility functions predict marketplace choice. J Market Res 17:277–293