A
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.