A multiple attribute model of consumer attitude was used to predict the relative preferences of individuals for various television shows. Differential weights provided only limited benefits, compared to the use of equal weights. This may be because respondents spread their perceptions of alternatives on the more important attributes, correlations between the attributes, or model misspecification.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BassFrank M., PessemierEdgar A., and LehmannDonald R. “An Experimental Study of Relationships Between Attitudes, Brand Preference, and Choice,” Behavioral Science, 17 (November 1972), 532–41.
2.
BassFrank M. and TalarzykW. Wayne. “An Attitude Model for the Study of Brand Preference,” Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (February 1972), 93–6.
3.
EinhornHillel J. and GonedesNicholas J. “An Exponential Discrepancy Model for Attitude Evaluation,” Behavioral Science, 16 (March 1971), 152–7.
4.
FishbeinMartin. “Attitude and the Prediction of Behavior,” in FishbeinMartin, ed., Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement.New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967, 477–92.
5.
GinterJames L. “An Experimental Study of Attitude Change and Choice of New Brands,” Proceedings.Spring Conference, American Marketing Association, 1972.
6.
GreenPaul E. and CarmoneFrank J. “Multidimensional Scaling: An Introduction and Comparison of Nonmetric Unfolding Techniques,” Journal of Marketing Research, 4 (August 1969), 330–41.
7.
KruskalJ. B. “Multidimensional Scaling by Optimizing Goodness of Fit to a Nonmetric Hypothesis,” Psychometrika, 29 (March 1964), 1–27.
8.
KruskalJ. B. “Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling: A Numerical Method,” Psychometrika, 29 (June 1964), 115–29.
9.
LancasterKelvin J. “A New Approach to Consumer Theory,” Journal of Political Economy, 74 (April 1966), 132–57.
10.
LehmannDonald R. “Television Show Preference: Application of a Choice Model,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (February 1971), 47–55.
11.
LehmannDonald R. “Evaluating Marketing Strategy in a Multiple Brand Market,” Journal of Business Administration, 3 (Fall 1971), 15–26.
12.
MoinpourResa and MacLachlanDouglas L. “The Relation Among Attribute and Importance Components of Rosenberg-Fishbein Type Attitude Models: An Empirical Investigation,” Proceedings.Annual Conference, Association for Consumer Research, 1971, 365–75.
13.
RosenbergM. J. “Cognitive Structure and Attitudinal Effect,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53 (November 1956), 367–72.
14.
SchendelDan E., WilkieWilliam L., and McCannJohn. “An Experimental Investigation of ‘Attribute Importance,’” Proceedings.Annual Conference, Association for Consumer Research, 1971, 404–16.
15.
ScottJerome E. and BennettPeter D. “Cognitive Models of Attitude Structure: ‘Value Importance’ is Important,” Combined Proceedings.Annual Conferences, American Marketing Association, 1971, 346–50.
16.
ShepardRoger N. “The Analysis of Proximities: Multidimensional Scaling with an Unknown Distance Function I,” Psychometrika, 27 (June 1962), 125–39.
17.
ShepardRoger N. “The Analysis of Proximities: Multidimensional Scaling with an Unknown Distance Function II,” Psychometrika, 27 (September 1962), 219–46.
18.
ShethJagdish N. and TalarzykW. Wayne. “Perceived Instrumentality and Value Importance as Determinants of Attitudes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (February 1972), 6–9.
19.
WinterFrederick W. “A Laboratory Experimental Study of Attitude Change and Brand Choice,” Proceedings.Spring Conference, American Marketing Association, 1972.
