H

Haaijer, M.E., Kamakura, W.A. & Wedel, M. (1998). The information content of response latencies in conjoint choice experiments. Groningen: Graduate School/Research Institute for Systems, Organisation and Management.

Haaijer, M.E., Kamakura, W.A. & Wedel, M. (2000). Response latencies in the analysis of conjoint choice experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (3), 376-382.

Haaijer, R., Kamakura, W. & Wedel, M. (2001). The „no-choice“ alternative in conjoint choice experiments. International Journal of Market Research, 43 (1), 93-106.

Haaijer, M.E., Vriens, M., Wansbeek, T.J. & Wedel, M. (1996). Predictions in conjoint choice experiments: The x-factor probit model. Working paper, Department of Marketing and Marketing Research, University of Groningen, Netherlands.

Haaijer, R. & Wedel, M. (2000). Conjoint choice experiments: General characteristics and alternative model specifications. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement - methods and applications (pp. 319-360). Berlin: Springer.

Hager, A. (1996). Verbraucherorientierte Produktkonzeptgestaltung mit Hilfe der Conjoint-Analyse am Beispiel des Soja-Snack. Diplomarbeit, Universität für Bodenkultur Wien.

Hagerty, M.R. & Srinivasan, V. (1991, in Vorbereitung). Comparing the predictive powers of alternative multiple regression models. Psychometrika.

Hagerty, M.R. (1978). Model testing techniques and price-quality tradeoffs. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 194-205.

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

Hagerty, M.R. (1986). The cost of simplifying preference models. Marketing Science, 5, 298-319.

Hagerty, M.R. (1993). Can segmentation improve predictive accuracy in conjoint analysis? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 353-355.

Hahn, C. & Voeth, M. (1997). Limit-Cards in der Conjoint-Analyse. Arbeitspapier (Nr. 21), Betriebswirtschaftliches Institut für Anlagen- und Systemtechnologien, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster.

Hahn, C. (1997). Conjoint- und discrete Choice-Analyse als Verfahren zur Abbildung von Präferenzstrukturen und Produktauswahlentscheidungen: ein theoretischer und computergestützter empirischer Vergleich. Betriebswirtschaftliche Schriftenreihe (Bd. 80). Münster: Lit.

Haiber, A. (1997). Die Kundenzufriedenheit im Textileinzelhandel. Ein betriebstypenspezifischer Vergleich auf Basis einer Conjoint Measurement-Studie. Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Universität Mannheim.

Haider, W., Rollins, K., Anderson, D. & Hunt, L. (1998). Estimation of existence values using discrete choice conjoint analysis and a comparison with contingent valuation estimates. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80 (5), 1192-1192.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W.C. (1995). Chapter 10: Conjoint analysis. In J.F. Hair et al. (Eds.), Multivariate data analysis (4^th ed., pp. 556-615). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Hakim, Z. & Pathak, D.S. (1999). Modelling the EuroQol data: A comparison of discrete choice conjoint and conditional preference modelling. Health Economics, 8 (2), 103-116.

Halbrendt, C., Bacon, J.R. & Pesek, J. (1992). Weighted least squares analysis for conjoint studies: The case of hybrid striped bass. Agribusiness, 8 (2), 187-198.

Halbrendt, C.K., Wirth, E.F. & Vaughn, G.F. (1991). Conjoint analysis of the Mid-Atlantic food-fish market for farm-raised hybrid striped bass. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, July, 155-163.

Haley, R.I. (1985). Conjoint measurement and tradeoff analysis. In Developing effective communications strategy: A benefit segmentation approach (pp. 209-215). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Halperin, M. & Strazdon, M. (1980). Measuring students' preferences for reference service: A conjoint analysis. The Library Quarterly, 50 (2), 209-223.

Halvorsen, B., Strand, J., Soelensminde, K. & Wenstoep, F. (1998). Comparing contingent valuation, conjoint analysis and decision panels: An application of the valuation of reduced damages from air pollution in Norway. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, 465, 285.

Hansen, D.E. & Wittink, D.R. (1995). Combining self-explicated priors with conjoint data using bayesian regression. Marketing Letters, 6 (1), 63-71.

Hanushek, E.A. & Jackson, J.E. (1977). Chapter 4: Ordinary least squares in practice. In Statistical methods for social scientists (pp. 75-108). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Hargreaves, G., Claxton, J.D. & Siller, F.H. (1981). New product evaluation: Electric vehicles for commercial applications. In D.A. Aaker (Ed.), Multivariate analysis in marketing (2nd ed., pp. 105-107). Palo Alto, CA: The Scientific Press.

Hargrove, E. (1988). Conjoint study lends support to financial decisions. Marketing News, 22 (18), 28.

Harrison, D.D. & Cooke, C.W. (1988). An elucidation of factors influencing physicians’ willingness to perform elective female sterilization. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 72 (4), 565-570.

Harrison, R.W., Oezayan, A. & Meyers, S.P. (1998). A conjoint analysis of new food products processed from underutilized small crawfish. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 30 (2), 257-266.

Harte, J.M., Koele, P. & van Engelenburg, G. (1996). Estimation of attribute weights in a multiattribute choice situation. Acta Psychologica, 93, 37-55.

Hartmann, S., Doanne, M.K. & Woo, C.K. (1991). Consumer rationality and the status quo. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 141-162.

Hase, P.F. (1991a). Modeling preference in conjoint measurement. In M. Metegrano (Ed.), 1991 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings (pp. 231-248). Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software.

Hase, P.F. (1991b). Comment on MacLauchlan. In M. Metegrano (Ed.), 1991 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings (pp. 269-270). Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software.

Hattori, S. (1992). Conjoint analysis in Japan. In M. Metegrano (Ed.), 1992 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings (pp. 215-222). Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software.

Häubl, G. (1995). Standortentscheidungen und Konsumentenverhalten: Der Einfluß des Produktionsstandorts auf die Beurteilung eines neuen Automobils. Wien: Service-Fachverlag.

Hauser, C. (1996). Marktorientierte Bewertung von Unternehmensprozessen. Bergisch Gladbach: Eul.

Hauser, J.R. & Shugan, S.M. (1980). Intensity measures of consumer preference. Operations Research, 28, 278-320.

Hauser, J.R. & Simmie, P. (1981). Profit maximizing perceptual positions: An integrated theory for the selection of product features and price. Management Science, 27 (1), 33-56.

Hauser, J.R. & Urban, G.L. (1977). A normative methodology for modeling consumer response to innovation. Operations Research, 25, 579-619.

Hauser, J.R. & Urban, G.L. (1979). Assessment of attribute importances and consumer utility functions: von Neumann-Morgenstern theory applied to consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 251-262.

Hauser, J.R., Tybout, A.M. & Koppelman F.S. (1981). Consumer-oriented transportation service planning: Consumer analysis and strategies. In R.L. Schultz (Ed.), Applications of management science (1, pp. 91-138). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.

Hausruckinger, G. & Helm, R. (1996). Die Bedeutung des Country-of-Origin Effekts vor dem Hintergrund der Internationalisierung von Unternehmen. Eine teilweise individualisierte Conjoint Analyse. Marketing ZFP, 4, 267-278.

Hausruckinger, G. & Herker, A. (1992). Die Konstruktion von Schätzdesigns für Conjoint-Analysen auf der Basis von Paarvergleichen. Marketing ZfP, 2, 99-110.

Hausruckinger, G. (1993). Herkunftsbezeichnung als präferenzdeterminierende Faktoren: eine internationale Studie bei langlebigen Gebrauchsgütern. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang.

Healey, A. & Chisholm, D. (1999). Willingness to pay as a measure of the benefits of mental health care. The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 2 (2), 55-58.

Heeler, R.M., Okechuku, C. & Reid, S. (1979). Attribute importance: Contrasting measurements. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 60-63.

Heise, G. (1997). Internationale Marktsegmentierung im Automobilmarketing. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Univ.-Verlag.

Helgesen, H., Solheim, R. & Naes, T. (1998). Consumer purchase probability of dry fermented lamb sausages. Food Quality and Preference, 9 (5), 295-301.

Heemann, L. (2001). Die nutzenorientierte Gestaltung von Kundenkarten mittels Conjoint-Analyse. In L. Müller-Hagedorn (Hrsg.), Kundenbindung im Handel. Frankfurt a.M.: Deutscher Fachverlag.

Henrichsmeier, S. (1998). Entwicklung eines Modells zur Absatzprognose in frühen Phasen der Produktentstehung. Hamburg: Kovac.

Hensel-Börner, S. & Sattler, H. (1998). Validität der Customized Computerized Conjoint Analysis (CCC) (Diskussionspapier Reihe A, Nr. 98/13). Jena: Universität, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.

Hensel-Börner, S. & Sattler, H. (1999). Validity of adaptive hybrid conjoint analysis (Diskussionspapier Reihe A, Nr. 99/08). Jena: Universität, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.

Hensher, D.A. & Johnson, L.W. (1981). Chapter 2.3: Choice and utility. In Applied discrete-choice modeling (pp. 1-21). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hensher, D.A. (1991). The use of discrete choice models in the determination of community choices in public issue area impacting on business decision making. Journal of Business Research, 23, 299-309.

Hensher, D.A. (1994). The practice of stated preference. Transportation, 21, 105.

Herman, S. & Klein, R. (1995). Improving the predictive power of conjoint analysis: New techniques help researchers compensate for insufficient stimuli. Marketing Research, 7 (4), 29-31.

Herman, S. (1988). Software of full-profile conjoint analysis. In R.M. Johnson (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference of Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing (No. 2, pp. 117-130). Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software.

Herman, S.J. & Shocker, A.D. (1993). The effectiveness of alternative preference elicitation procedures in predicting choice: A comment. Morristown, NJ: Bretton-Clark.

Herp, T. (1982). Der Marktwert von Marken des Gebrauchtgütersektors: ein Modell zur Erfassung markenspezifischer Effekte auf den Erfolg beim Verkauf von Gebrauchsgütern; exemplarisch eingesetzt zur Analyse des Marktes für Farbfernsehgeräte in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang.

Herrmann, A. & Huber, F. (1997). Utility-oriented product distribution. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 7 (4), 369-381.

Herrmann, A. & Jungmann, F. (1997). Nutzenorientierte Konzeption eines Privatgirokontos. Die Bank, 6, 378-381.

Herrmann, A. (1998). Produktmanagement. München: Vahlen.

Herrmann, A., Bauer, H.H., Herrmann, S. (1996). Kundeorientierte Gestaltung des öffentlichen Personennahverkehrs. Zeitschrift für Verkehrswissenschaft, 67, 327-337.

Herrmann, A., Huber, F. & Braunstein, C. (1997, July). Standardization and differentiation of services: A crosscultural study based on semiotics, means end chains and conjoint analysis. Paper presented at the 31^st Annual Conference of the Academy of Marketing / American Marketing Association, Manchester Metropolitan University.

Herrmann, A., Schmidt-Gallas, D. & Huber, F. (2000). Adaptive conjoint analysis: Understanding the methodology and assessing reliability and validity. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement - methods and applications (pp. 253-277). Berlin: Springer.

Hershey, J.C., Kunreuther, H., Schwartz, J.S. & Williams, S.V. (1984). Health insurance under competition: would people choose what is expected? Inquiry, 21 (4), 349-360.

Hettler, U. (1996). Gewinnorientierte Produktgestaltung. Ein Beitrag zur Erfassung und Integration von kosten- und abnehmergerichteten Entscheidungsgrößen bei der Entwicklung von Produktinnovationen. Dissertation, Universität Leipzig.

Hicks, C.R. (1973). Chapter 15: Fractional replication. In Fundamental concepts in the design of experiments (pp. 247-258). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Hilleke, K. (1994). "Decision Support"-Systeme bei der Preisbestimmung von Produkten. Pharma-Marketing Journal, 1, 11-22.

Hintze, W.J. (1991). The degree of freedom problem in conjoint analysis. In W.D. Neal (Ed.), First Annual Advanced Research Techniques Forum, June 24-27, 1990, Beaver Creek, Colorado (pp. 56-67). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

Hobbs, J.E. (1996). A transaction cost analysis of quality, traceability and animal welfare issues in UK beef retailing. British Food Journal, 98 (6), 16-26.

Hobbs, J.E. (1996). Transaction costs and slaughter cattle procurement: Processors’ selection of supply channels. Agribusiness, 12 (6), 509-523.

Holbrook, M.B. & Havlena, W.J. (1988). Assessing the real-to-artificial generalizability of multiattribute attitude models in test of new product designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 25-35.

Holbrook, M.B. & Moore, W.L. (1981). Feature interactions in consumer judgments of verbal versus pictorial presentations. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 8, 103-113.

Holbrook, M.B. (1981). Integrating compositional and decompositional analysis to represent the intervening role of perceptions in evaluative judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 13-28.

Holland, S.W. & Cravens, D.W. (1973). Fractional factorial experimental designs in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 270-276.

Holling, H., Großmann, H. & Jütting, A. (1999, July). ALASCA - a general program for utility and decision analysis. Software presented at the 11^th European Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Lüneburg, Germany.

Holling, H., Jütting, A. & Nienaber, C. (1999). Konstruktion von Bewertungsfunktionen mittels Conjoint Measurement. In H. Holling, F. Lammers & R.D. Pritchard (Hrsg.), Effektivität durch Partizipatives Produktivitätsmanagement. Überblick, neue theoretische Entwicklungen und europäische Fallbeispiele (S. 155-178). Göttingen: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie.

Holling, H., Melles, T. & Reiners, W. (1999). Evaluation verschiedener Formen von Paarvergleichen in der Conjoint Analyse. In H. Holling & G. Gediga (Hrsg.), Evaluationsforschung (S. 249-267). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Holmes, T., Alger, K., Zinkhan, C. & Mercer, E. (1998) The effect of response time on conjoint analysis estimates of rainforest protection values. Journal of Forest Economics, 4 (1), 7-28.

Holmes, T., Zinkhan, C., Alger, K. & Mercer, E. (1996). Conjoint analysis of nature tourism values in Bahia, Brazil (Working Paper No. 57). Southeastern Center for Forest Economics Research, Research Triangle Park, NC, FPEI.

Hölscher, A. & Dankert, M. (1998). Segmentierungsansätze im Business-to-Business-Markt. Planung & Analyse, 4, 40-43.

Holt, J.O. & Wallsten, T.S. (1974). A user's manual for CONJOINT: A computer program for evaluating certain conjoint-measurement axioms (Technical Report No. 42). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, L.L. Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory.

Homburg, C. & Beutin, N. (2000). Marketing und Kommunikation. Nutzen geht vor Preis. Value-Based Marketing. Acquisa, 9, 44-46.

Hoogerbrugge, M. (1997). Respondents’ behaviour in complex choice tasks; a segmentation-based and individual approach. In Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference (No. 6, pp. 175-190). Seattle, WA: Sawtooth Software.

Hoogerbrugge, M. (2000). Practical issues concerning the number-of-levels effect. In Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference (No. 8, pp. 113-123). Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software.

Hooley, G.J. & Lynch, J.E. (1981). Modelling the student university choice process through the use of conjoint measurement techniques. European Research, 9, 158-170.

Hopkins, D.S.P., Larréché, J.-C. & Massy, W.F. (1977). Constrained optimization of a university administrator’s preference function. Management Science, 24, 365-377.

Horsky, D. (1984). Comment on "Conjoint analysis of price premiums for hotel amenities". Journal of Business, 57 (1; pt.2), S139-S147.

Horst, H.S., Dijkhuizen, A.A., Huirne, R.B.M. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. (1999). Monte Carlo simulation of virus introduction into the Netherlands. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 41 (2-3), 209-229.

Horst, H.S., Huirne, R.B.M. & Dijkhuizen, A.A. (1996). Eliciting the relative importance of risk factors concerning contagious animal diseases using conjoint analysis: a preliminary survey report. PreventiveVeterinary Medicine, 27, 183-195.

Horton, R.L. (1984). Conjoint measurement. In Appendix C: Multidimensional scaling and conjoint measurement in buyer behavior: A decision-making approach (pp. 468-473). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.

Höser, H. (1998). Kontextabhängige Präferenzen: Die Relativität von Präferenzurteilen und ihre Bedeutung für Kaufentscheidungen von Konsumenten (Europäische Hochschulschriften: Reihe 5, Volks- und Betriebswirtschaft, Bd. 2304). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Hubel, W. (1988). Der Einsatz von Conjoint Measurement bei Unternehmensimageanalysen. Planung und Analyse, 15 (1), 22-27.

Huber, F., Herrmann, A. & Braunstein, C. (1998). Interkulturelle Werteforschung zur Gestaltung von Dienstleistungen im Schienenfernverkehr. Marketing ZFP, 20, 25-36.

Huber, F., Herrmann, A. & Gustafsson, A. (2000). On the influence of the evaluation methods in conjoint designs - some empirical results. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement - methods and applications (pp. 183-208). Berlin: Springer.

Huber, G.P. (1974a). Methods for qualifying subjective probabilities and multi-attribute utilities. Decision Sciences, 5, 430-458.

Huber, G.P. (1974b). Multi-attribute utility models: A review of field and field-like studies. Management Science, 20, 1393-1402.

Huber, G.P., Daneshgar, R. & Ford, D.L. (1971). An empirical comparison of five utility models for predicting job preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 267-282.

Huber, G.P., Sahney, V.K. & Ford, D.L. (1969). A study of subjective evaluation models. Behavioral Science, 14, 483-489.

Huber, J. & Hansen, D. (1986). Testing the impact of dimensional complexity and affective differences of paired concepts in adaptive conjoint analysis. In M. Wallendorf & P. Anderson (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (No. 14, pp. 159-163). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Huber, J. & Klein, N.M. (1991). Adapting cutoffs to the choice environment: The effects of attribute correlation and reliability. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 346-357.

Huber, J. & McCann, J. (1982). The impact of inferential beliefs on product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 324-333.

Huber, J. & Moore, W. (1979). A comparison of alternative ways to aggregate individual conjoint analysis. In N.E. Beckwith et al. (Eds.), 1979 educators' conference proceedings (pp. 64-68). Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Huber, J. & Zwerina, K. (1996). The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 307-317.

Huber, J. (1975). Predicting preferences on experimental bundles of attributes: A comparison of models. Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 290-297.

Huber, J. (1992). Comment on McLauchlan. In M. Metegrano (Ed.), 1992 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings (pp. 313-315). Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software.

Huber, J. (1997). What we have learned from 20 years of conjoint research: When to use self-explicated, graded pairs, full profiles, or choice experiments. In Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference (No. 6, pp. 243-256). Seattle, WA: Sawtooth Software.

Huber, J. (1999). Comment on Wittink & Seetharaman. In Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference (No. 7, pp. 283-284). Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software.

Huber, J., Orme, B.K. & Miller, R. (1999). Dealing with product similarity in conjoint simulations. In Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference (No. 7, pp. 253-166). Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software.
zugleich: Huber, J., Orme, B.K. & Miller, R. (2000). Dealing with product similarity in conjoint simulations. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement - methods and applications (pp. 393-410). Berlin: Springer.

Huber, J., Wittink, D.R., Fiedler, J.A. & Miller, R. (1993). The effectiveness of alternative preference elicitation procedures in predicting choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 105-114.

Huber, J., Wittink, D.R., Fiedler, J.A. & Miller, R.L. (1991). An empirical comparison of ACA and full profile judgments. In M. Metegrano (Ed.), 1991 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings (pp. 189-202). Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software.

Huber, J., Wittink, D.R., Johnson, R.M. & Miller, R. (1992). Learning effects in preference tasks: Choice-based versus standard conjoint. In M. Metegrano (Ed.), 1992 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings (pp. 275-282). Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software.

Huber, J.C. & Fiedler, J.A. (1991). An empirical comparison of ACA and full profile judgments. In M. Metegrano (Ed.), 1991 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings (pp. 189-202). Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software.

Huber, J.C. (1991). Comment on Finkbeiner and Lim. In M. Metegrano (Ed.), 1991 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings (pp. 299-302). Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software.

Hugher, G.D. (1971). Chapter 5: Identifying salient attributes and measuring beliefs in their existence. Chapter 6: Instruments to measure attitudes and action tendencies. In Attitude measurement for marketing strategies (pp. 73-109). Glenview, IL: Scoot, Foresman and Company.

Huisman, D. (1992a). Price-sensitivity measurement of multi-attribute products. in M. Metegrano (Ed.), 1992 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings (pp. 197-210). Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software.

Huisman, D. (1992b). Price-sensitivity measurement of multi-attribute products. In Marketing opportunities with advanced research techniques: Proceedings of the second SKIM Seminar (pp. 33-50). Rotterdam: SKIM Market and Policy Research.

Huisman, D. (1997). Creating end-user value with multi-media interviewing systems. In Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference (No. 6, pp. 49-55). Seattle, WA: Sawtooth Software.

Hujer, R., Grammig, J., Fryns, H. & Herterich, R. (1996). Preisfindung und optimale Marketingstrategien für neue pharmazeutische Produkte. Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 3, 219-232.

Hutchinson, H.L. (1989). Gaining a competitive advantage by combining perceptural mapping and conjoint analysis. In Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference. Gaining a competitive advantage through PC-based interviewing and analysis (Vol. 1, pp. 251-258). Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software.