Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects

  • Chapter
Marketing Research and Modeling: Progress and Prospects

Part of the book series: International Series in Quantitative Marketing ((ISQM,volume 14))

Abstract

Conjoint analysis is marketers’ favorite methodology for finding out how buyers make tradeoffs among competing products and suppliers. Conjoint analysts develop and present descriptions of alternative products or services that are prepared from fractional factorial, experimental designs. They use various models to infer buyers’ partworths for attribute levels, and enter the partworths into buyer choice simulators to predict how buyers will choose among products and services. Easy-to-use software has been important for applying these models. Thousands of applications of conjoint analysis have been carried out over the past three decades.

Adapted from Interfaces, 31 (3), Part 2 of 2, May/June 2001, S56–S73.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Addelman, S. (1962), “Orthogonal main-effect plans for asymmetrical factorial experiments,”Technometrics,4 (1), 21–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G. M., Arora, N., and Ginter, J. L. (1995), “Incorporating prior knowledge into the analysis of conjoint studies,” Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (May), 152–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G. M., and Ginter, J. L. (1995), “Using extremes to design products and segment markets,” Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (May), 152–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D. A., and Wiley, J. B. (1992), “Efficient choice set designs for estimating cross-effects models,” Marketing Letters, 3 (October), 357–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. H. (1970), “Functional measurement and psychophysical judgment,” Psychological Review, 77 (3) 153–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansari, A., Essegaier, S., and Kohli, R. (2000), “Internet recommendation systems,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (August), 363–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, J. E. G., Reibstein, D. J., and Boulding, W. (1987), “onjoint analysis reliability and validity: A framework for future research,” in M. J. Houston (ed.), Review of Marketing, Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, pp. 451–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batsell, R. R., and Lodish, L. M. (1981), “A model and measurement methodology for predicting individual consumer choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batsell, R. R., and Louviere, J. J. (1991), “Experimental analysis of choice,”Marketing Letters, 2 (August), 199–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. F., Raiffa, H., and Tversky, A. (eds.) (1988), Decision Making: Descriptive Normative and Prescriptive Interactions, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M., and Gershenfeld, S. (1998), “Multi-featured products and services: Analyzing pricing and bundling strategies,” Journal of Forecasting, 17, 175–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmone, F. J., Green, P. E., and Jain, A. K. (1978), “The robustness of conjoint analysis: Some Monte Carlo results,”Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 300–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. D. (1969), “Categorical conjoint measurement,” Meeting of Mathematical Psychology, Ann Arbor, MI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. D., and Green, P. E. (1997), “Psychometric methods in marketing research: Part II, multidimensional scaling,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (May), 193–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattin, P., and Wittink, D. R. (1976), “A Monte Carlo study of metric and nonmetric estimation techniques,” Paper 341, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, S. C., DeSarbo, W. S., and Harker, P. T. (1990), “Product positioning under price competition,” Management Science, 30, 175–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., Carroll, J. D., Lehmann, D. R., and O’Shaugnhessy, J. (1982). “Three-way multivariate conjoint analysis,” Marketing Science, 1 (Fall), 323–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., Wedel, M., Vriens, C., and Ramaswamy, V. (1992), “Latent class metric conjoint analysis,”Marketing Letters,3 (July), 273–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gensch, D. H., and Recker, W. W. (1979), “The multinominal multiattribute logit choice model,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 124–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. (1984), “Hybrid models for conjoint analysis: An expository review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (May), 155–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., Frank, R. E., and Robinson, P. J. (1967), “Cluster analysis in test market selection,”Management Science, 13, B387–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., Goldberg, S. M., and Montemayor, M. (1981), “A hybrid utility estimation model for conjoint analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 45 (Winter), 33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., and Krieger, A. M. (1991), “Segmenting markets with conjoint analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 55 (October), 20–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., and Krieger, A. M. (1996), “Individualized hybrid models for conjoint analysis,” Management Science, 42 (June), 850–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., and Krieger, A. M. (1997), “Using conjoint analysis to view competitive interaction through the customer’s eyes,” in G. S. Day and D. J. Reibstein (eds.), Wharton on Dynamic Competitive Strategy, New York, NY: John Wiley amp; Sons, pp. 343–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M., and Carroll, J. D. (1987), “Conjoint analysis and multidimensional scaling: A complementary approach,” Journal of Advertising Research, 27 (October/November), 21–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M., and Zelnio, R. N. (1989), “A componential segmentation model with optimal design features,” Decision Sciences, 20 (Spring), 221–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., and Rao, V. R. (1971), “Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (August), 355–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., and Srinivasan, V. (1978), “Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook,” Journal of Consumer Research, 5 (September), 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., and Srinivasan, V. (1990), “Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (October), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., and Wind, Y. (1973), Multiattribute Decisions in Marketing: A Measurement Approach, Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press…

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., and Wind, Y. (1975), “New way to measure consumers’ judgments,” Harvard Business Review, 53 (July-August), 107–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustaffsson, A., Hermann, A., and Huber, F. (eds.) (2000), Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications, Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haaijer, R., Kamakura, W., and Wedel, M. (2000), “Response latencies in the analysis of conjoint choice experiments,” Journal of Marketing Research,37 (August), 376–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagerty, M. R. (1985), ”Improving the predictive power of conjoint analysis: The use of factor analysis and cluster analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research,22 (May), 168–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman,S.(1988), “Software for full-profile conjoint analysis,”in M. Metegrano (ed.), Proceedings of the Sawtooth Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing,Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, pp. 117–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, P. J., Slovic, P., and Rorer, L. G. (1968), “An analysis of variance model for the assessment of configurai cue utilization in clinical judgment,” Psychological Bulletin, 69, 338–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J., and Zwerina, K. (1996), “The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs,” Journal of Marketing Research, 33 (August), 307–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E., Meyer, R. J., and Ghose, S. (1989), “When choice models fail: Compensatory models in negatively correlated environments,” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (August), 255–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. M. (1974), “Trade-off analysis of consumer values,” Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (May), 121–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. M. (1987), “Adaptive conjoint analysis,” in Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing, Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, pp. 253–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, W. (1988), “A least squares procedure for benefit segmentation with conjoint experiments,” Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (May), 157–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, W., Wedel, M., and Agrawal, J. (1994), “Concomitant variable latent class models for conjoint analysis,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 451–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaul, A., and Rao, V. R. (1994), “Research for product position and design decisions: An integrative review,” International Journal of Research on Marketing, 12, 293–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H. (1976), Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs, New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, R., and Mahajan, V. (1991), “A reservation price model for optimal pricing of multiattribute products in conjoint analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (August), 347–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krieger, A., Green, P., Lodish, L., D’Arcangelo, J., Rothey, C., Thirty, P. (2002), Consumer Evaluations of “Really New” Services: The TRAFFICPULSE System,“ Working Paper, The Wharton School Marketing Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal, J. B. (1965), “Analysis of factorial experiments by estimating monotone transformations of the data,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 27, 251–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhfeld, W. F., Tobias, R. D., and Garratt, M. (1994), “Efficient experimental designs with marketing research applications,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (November), 545–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazari, A. G., and Anderson, D. A. (1994), “Designs of discrete choice set experiments for estimating both attribute and availability cross effects,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (August), 375–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenk, P. J., DeSarbo, W. S., Green, P. E., and Young, M. R. (1996), “Hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis: Recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs,” Marketing Science, 15, No. 2, 173–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J., and Woodworth, G. (1983), “Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments,” Journal of Marketing Research,20 (November), 350–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D., and Tukey, J. W. (1964), “Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, V., Green, P. E., and Goldberg, S. M. (1982), “A conjoint model for measuring self-and cross-price demand relationships,” Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (August), 334–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1974), “Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior,” in P. Zarembka (ed.), Frontiers on Econometrics, New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 105–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, J. G., Massy, W. F., and Greyser, S. A. (1980), Marketing Research and Knowledge Development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall…

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppewal, H., Louviere, J., and Timmermans, H. (1994), “Modeling hierarchical conjoint processes with integrated choice experiments,”Journal of Marketing Research,31 (February), 92–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plackett, R. L., and Burman, J. P. (1946), “The design of optimum multifactorial experiments,” Biometrika, 33, 305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punj, G. N., and Staelin, R. (1978), “The choice process for graduate business schools,” Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (November), 588–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramaswamy, V., and Cohen, S. H. (2000), “Latent class models for conjoint analysis,” in A. Gustafsson, A. Hermann, and F. Huber (eds.), Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications, Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980), The Analytical Hierarchy Process, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Sawtooth Software (1999), CBC for Windows, Sequim, WA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shocker, A. D., and Srinivasan, V. (1977), “LINMAP (Version II): A FORTRAN IV computer program for analyzing ordinal preference (dominance) judgments via linear programming techniques and for conjoint measurement,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 101–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, V. (1988), “A conjunctive-compensatory approach to the self-explication of multiattributed preferences,” Decision Sciences, 19 (Spring), 295–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, V., Jain, A. K., and Malhotra, N. K. (1983), “Improving the predictive power of conjoint analysis by constrained parameter estimation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (November), 433–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starr, M. K., and Zeleny, M. (1977), Multiple Criteria Decisions Making, Amsterdam, Holland: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steckel, J. H., DeSarbo, W. S., and Mahajan, V. (1991), “On the creation of feasible conjoint analysis experimental designs,” Decision Sciences, 22, 435–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Lans, I. A., and Heiser, W. H. (1992), “Constrained partworth estimation in conjoint analysis using the self-explicated utility model,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 9, 325–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vavra, T. G., Green, P. E., and Krieger, A. M. (1999), “Evaluating E-Z Pass,” Marketing Research, 11 (Summer), 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vriens, M., Wedel, M., and Wilms, T. (1996), “Metric conjoint segmentation methods: A Monte Carlo comparison, ” Journal of Marketing Research, 33 (February), 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M., and Kamakura, W. A. (1998), Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations, Boston, MA: Kluwer…

    Google Scholar 

  • Westwood, D., Lunn, T., and Beazley, D. (1974), “The trade-off model and its extensions,” Journal of the Market Research Society, 16, 227–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wind, J., Green, P. E., Shifflet, D., and Scarbrough, M. (1989), “Courtyard by Marriott: Designing a hotel facility with consumer-based marketing models,” Interfaces 19 (January-February), 25–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D., and Cattin, P. (1989), “Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update,” Journal of Marketing, 53 (July), 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D. R., Krishnamurthi, L., and Nutter, J. B. (1982), “Comparing derived importance weights across attributes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (March), 471–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D., Vriens, M., and Burhenne, W. (1994), “Commercial use of conjoint in Europe: Results and critical reflections,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, F. W. (1969), “Polynomial conjoint analysis of similarities: Definitions for a special algorithm,”Research paper No. 76, Psychometric Laboratory, University of North Carolina.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, USA

    Paul E. Green, Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind

Authors
  1. Paul E. Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abba M. Krieger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yoram Wind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, USA

    Yoram Wind  & Paul E. Green  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Green, P.E., Krieger, A.M., Wind, Y. (2004). Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects. In: Wind, Y., Green, P.E. (eds) Marketing Research and Modeling: Progress and Prospects. International Series in Quantitative Marketing, vol 14. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-28692-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-28692-1_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-24308-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-28692-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation