Aaker, D.A. & Day, G.S. (1986). Chapter 18: Conjoint analysis. In Marketing research (3rd ed., pp. 491-502). New York, NY: Wiley.

Acito, F. & Hustad, T.P. (1981). Industrial product concept testing. Industrial Marketing Management, 10, 157-164.

Acito, F. & Jain, A.K. (1980). Evaluation of conjoint analysis results: A comparison of methods. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 106-112.

Acito, F. & Olshavsky, R.W. (1980). Limits to accuracy in conjoint analysis. In Advances in consumer research (No. 8, pp. 313-316). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Acito, F. (1977). An investigation of some data collection issues in conjoint measurement. In B.A. Greenberg & D.N. Bellenger (Eds.), Contemporary marketing thought (pp. 82-85). Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Acito, F. (1978). Consumer decision making and health maintenance organizations: A review. Medical Care, 16, 1-13.

Acito, F. (1979). An investigation of the reliability of conjoint measurement for various orthogonal designs. In R.S. Franz, R.M. Hopkins & A. Toma (Eds.), Proceedings, Southern Marketing Association 1979 Conference (pp. 175-178). Lafayette: University of Southwestern Louisiana.

Ackerberg, D.A. & Rysman, M. (2002). Unobserved product differentiation in discrete choice models: Estimating price elasticities and welfare effects. Working paper, Department of Economics, University of California.

Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J. & Williams, M. (1994). Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Enviromental and Economics Management, 271-292.

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

Agarwal, M.K. & Green, P.E. (1991). Adaptive conjoint analysis versus self-explicated models: Some empirical results. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 141-146.

Agarwal, M.K. (1983). A monte carlo study of ties in configuration recovery using conjoint analysis. In P.E. Murphy, G.R. Laczniak, P.F. Anderson, R.W. Belk, O.C. Ferrell, R.F. Lusch, T.A. Shimp & C.B. Weinberg (Eds.), 1983 AMA Educators’ Proceedings (No. 49, pp. 447-451). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

Agarwal, M.K. (1988a). A monte carlo study investigating configuration recovery in adaptive conjoint analysis. In G. Frazier, C. Ingene, D. Aaker, A. Ghosh, T. Kinnear, S. Levy, R. Staelin & J. Summers (Eds.), 1988 AMA Educators´ Proceedings: Efficiency and effectiveness in marketing (No. 54, pp. 292-296). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

Agarwal, M.K. (1988b). Comparison of conjoint methods. In R.M. Johnson (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference of Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing (No. 2, pp. 51-57). Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software.

Agarwal, M.K. (1988c). An empirical comparison of traditional conjoint and adaptive conjoint analysis (Working Paper No. 88-140). New York: School of Management, State University of New York at Binghamton.

Agarwal, M.K. (1989). How many pairs should we use in adaptive conjoint analysis? An empirical analysis. In American Marketing Association (Ed.), AMA Winter Educators' Conference Proceedings (pp. 7-11). Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Akaah, I.P. & Korgaonkar, P.K. (1983). An empirical comparison of the predictive validity of self-explicated, Huber-hybrid, traditional conjoint , and hybrid conjoint models. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 187-197.

Akaah, I.P. &Yaprak, A. (1988). Identifying target segments for foreign direct investment attraction: An application of conjoint methodology. International Marketing Review, 6, 28-37.

Akaah, I.P. (1987). Predictive performance of hybrid conjoint models in a smaller scale design: An empirical assessment. In S.P. Douglas, M.R. Solomon, V. Mahajan, M.I. Alpert, W.M. Pride, G.L. Frazier, G.T. Ford, J.C. Anderson & P. Doyle (Eds.), 1987 AMA Educators’ Proceedings (No. 53, pp. 102-106). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

Akaah, I.P. (1987). Predictive performance of hybrid conjoint models in a small-scale design: An empirical assessment. Working paper, Wayne State University.

Akaah, I.P. (1988). Cluster analysis versus Q-type factor analysis as a disaggregation method in hybrid conjoint modeling: An empirical investigation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (2), 11-18.

Akaah, I.P. (1991). Predictive performance of self-explicated, traditional conjoint, and hybrid conjoint models under alternative data collection modes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19 (4), 309-314.

Albaum, G. & Carmone, F.J. (1991). Conjoint Linmap - new books in review. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 117-119.

Albaum, G. (1989). New books in review: Bridger (Ver.1.0) & Simgraf (Ver.1.0). Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 486-488.

Albers, S. & Bielert, W. (1996). Kostenminimale Gestaltung von finanziellen Nebenleistungen für Führungskräfte. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 66 (4), 459-473.

Albers, S. & Brockhoff, K. (1985). Die Gültigkeit der Ergebnisse eines Testmarktsimulators bei unterschiedlichen Daten und Auswertungsmethoden. Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 37, 191-217.

Albers, S. (1983). Schätzung von Nachfragereaktionen auf Variationen des Tarif- und Leistungsangebots im öffentlichen Personennahverkehr. Zeitschrift für Verkehrswissenschaft, 3, 207-230.

Albrecht, J. (1997). Validitätsarten und ihre Überprüfung bei der Conjoint-Analyse. In Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaus (Bd. 33, S. 299-311).

Allenby, G.M. & Ginter, J.L. (1995). Using extremes to design products and segment markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (Nov.), 392-403.

Allenby, G.M., Arora, N. & Ginter, J.L. (1995). Incorporating prior knowledge into the analysis of conjoint studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (2), 152-162.

Allison, N. (1989). Conjoint analysis across the business system. In Sawtooth Software (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference. Gaining a competitive advantage through PC-based interviewing and analysis (Vol. 1, pp. 197-239). Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software.

Alpert, F., Kamins, M., Sakano, T., Onzo, N. & Graham, J. (1997). Retail buyer decision making in Japan: What US sellers need to know. International Business Review, 6 (2), 91-112.

Alpert, M.I., Betak, J.F. & Golden, L.L. (1978). Data gathering issues in conjoint measurement. Working Paper, Graduate School of Business, The University of Texas, Austin.

Alvarez-Farizo, B. & Hanley, N. (2002). Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. Energy Policy, 30 (2), 107-116.

Alvensleben, R.v. & Gertken, D. (1993). Regionale Gütezeichen als Marketinginstrument bei Nahrungsmitteln. Agrarwirtschaft, 33, 247-251.

Alvensleben, R.v. & Kretschmar, H. (1993). Bevölkerungspräferenzen für Landschaften in Ost und West. In Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaus (Bd. 29, S. 471-479).

Alvensleben, R.v. & Schleyerbach, K.O. (1994). Präferenzen und Zahlungsbereitschaft der Bevölkerung für Naturschutz- und Landschaftspflegeleistungen. In Berichte über die Landwirtschaft (Nr. 72, S. 524-534).

Alvensleben, R.v. & Ziehlberg, R.v. (1995). Verbrauchereinstellungen zu Bio-Milch. Deutsche Milchwirtschaft, 46, 159-161.

Alvensleben, R.v. (1990). Die Bedeutung des Umweltschutzmotivs beim Kauf von Nahrungsmitteln. In Schriftenreihe der Agrarwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Kiel (Nr. 72, S. 93-106). Kiel: Universität Kiel, Agrarwissenschaftliche Fakultät.

Anderson, D.A. & Wiley, J.B. (1992). Efficient choice set designs for estimating cross-effects models. Marketing Letters, 3 (October), 357-370.

Anderson, D.A. (2000, May). The analysis of discrete choice experiments with correlated error. Paper presented at the 2000 Advanced Research Techniques Forum in Monterey, CA.

Anderson, D.A., Louviere, J.J., Daniel, T. & Orland, B. (1993). Comparing verbal and visual attribute representations in choice-based conjoint: Videotapes versus paper and pencil. Working Paper, Department of Marketing, University of Utah.

Anderson, J.C. & Donthu, N. (1988). A proximate assessment of the external validity of conjoint analysis. In G. Frazier, C. Ingene, D. Aaker, A. Ghosh, T. Kinnear, S. Levy, R. Staelin & J. Summers (Eds.), 1988 AMA Educators’ Proceedings: Efficiency and Effectiveness in Marketing (No. 54, pp. 287-291). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

Anderson, J.G. & Anderson, J.L. (1990). Quantitative approaches for analyzing consumer choice decisions regarding seafood quality and safety. In R.N. Mayer (Ed.), Enhancing consumer choice: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Research in the Consumer Interest (pp. 129-135). Columbia, Missouri: American Council on Consumer Interests.

Anderson, J.L. & Bettencourt, S.U. (1993). A conjoint approach to model product preferences: The New England market for fresh and frozen salmon. Marine Resource Economics, 8, 31-49.

Anderson, N.H. & Zalinsky, J. (1990). Functional measurement approach to self-estimation in multiattribute evaluation. In N.H. Anderson (Ed.), Contributions to information integration theory (pp. 145-185). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Anderson, N.H. (1970). Functional measurement and psychological judgment. Psychological Review, 77, 153-170.

Anderson, N.H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Anderson, N.H. (1982). Methods of information integration theory. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Andrews, R.L., Ansari, A. & Currim, I.S. (2002). Hierarchical Bayes versus finite mixture conjoint analysis models: A comparison of fit, prediction, and partworth recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (1), 87-98.

Angur, M.G., Lotfi, V. & Sarkis, J. (1996). A hybrid conjoint measurement and bi-criteria model for a two group negotiation problem. Socioeconomic Planning Science, 30 (3), 195-206.

Anonymous (2000). Getting your product launches right. Retail world, 53 (16), 7.

Anttila, M, van den Heuvel, R.R. & Möller, K. (1980). Conjoint measurement for marketing management. European Journal of Marketing, 14, 397-408.

Anttila, M. (1990). Consumer price perception and preferences: A reference price model of brand evaluation and a conjoint analysis of price utility structures (ACTA Acdemiae Oeconomicae Helsingiensis, No. A: 73). Helsinki: The Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration.

Arens, T. (1998). Überprüfung der Annahmen linearer Modelle in der Conjointanalyse. Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster.

Arias, J.T.G. (1996). Conjoint-based preferential segmentation in the design of new financial service. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 14 (3), 30-32.

Armitage, A.M.D. (1997). The application of conjoint analysis to evaluate service quality. Total Quality Management, 8 (2/3), S79-S82.

Arnaout, A., Hildebrandt, J. & Werner, H. (1998). Einsatz der Conjoint-Analyse im Target Costing. Ein Fallbeispiel des Geschäftsfeldes Personenwagen der Daimler-Benz AG. Controlling, 5, 306-315.

Aronson, J.E. & Zionts, S. (1998). Operations research: Methods, models and applications. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Arzheimer, K. & Klein, M. (1998, Mai). Die Conjoint-Analyse als Instrument der empirischen Wahlforschung. Präsentation für die Tagung des AK Wahlen und politische Einstellungen der DVP am 14./15. Mai 1998 in Mainz.

Aust, E. & Gaul, W. (1994). Decision making concerning product line design based on conjoint analysis. In A. Bachem, U. Derigs, M. Jünger & R. Schrader (Eds.), Operations research `93 (pp. 12-15). Heidelberg: Springer.

Aust, E. & Gaul, W. (1995). A unifying approach to benefit segmentation and product line design based on rank order conjoint data. In W. Gaul & D. Pfeifer (Eds.), From data to knowledge: Theoretical and practical aspects of classification, data analysis, and knowledge organization (pp. 289-297). Berlin: Springer.

Aust, E. (1996). Simultane Conjointanalyse, Benefitsegmentierung, Produktlinien- und Preisgestaltung. In W. Gaul & H.G. Gemünden (Hrsg.), Entscheidungsunterstützung für ökonomische Probleme, Band 11. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Auty, S. (1995). Using conjoint analysis in industrial marketing. The role of judgement. Industrial Marketing Management, 24, 191-206.

Averdiek-Bolwin, C. (1998). Die Effizienz von Aktienbörsen: SEAQ versus Tradepoint. München u.a.: Oldenbourg.

Axelrod, J.N. & Frendberg, N. (1990). Conjoint analysis: Peering behind the jargon. Marketing Research, June, 28-35.