Three methods of obtaining attribute importance—conjoint measurement, self (questionnaire) report, and information display board—are compared and found to yield contrasting results. The results of multiattribute models, and determinant attribute and tradeoff analyses would depend on the method of measurement used. The information display board is hypothesized to yield a measure of greater face validity than the other two methods.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlpertMark. “Identification of Determinant Attributes: A Comparison of Methods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (May 1971), 184–91.
2.
CattellR. B. “Validity and Reliability: A Proposed More Basic Set of Concepts,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 55 (February 1964), 1–22.
3.
FishbeinMartin. “A Behavior Theory Approach to the Relations Between Beliefs About an Object and the Attitude Toward the Object,” in FishbeinM., ed., Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967, 389–99.
4.
GreenPaul E. and RaoVithala R. “Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgemental Data,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (August 1971), 355–63.
5.
HeelerRoger M. and OkechukuChike. “Brand Selection for Gift Giving Versus Personal Use,” Proceedings Marketing 1978, Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, 1978, 129–38.
6.
HeelerRoger M. and RayMichael. “Measure Validation in Marketing,” Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (November 1972), 361–70.
7.
JacobyJacob. “Consumer Research—A State of the Art Review,” Journal of Marketing, 2 (April 1978), 87–95.
8.
JacobyJacob, SzybilloGeorge J., JacquelineBusato-Schach. “Information Acquisition Behavior in Branch Choice Situations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (March 1977) 209–16.
9.
JohnsonRichard M. “Trade-Off Analysis of Consumer Values,” Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (May 1974), 121–7.
10.
LancasterK. J.Consumer Demand: A New Approach. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971.
11.
MyersJames H. and AlpertMark. “Determinant Buying Attitudes: Meaning and Measurement,” Journal of Marketing, 32 (October 1968), 13–20.
12.
MyersJames H. and AlpertMark. “Semantic Confusion in Attitude Research: Salience vs Importance vs Determinance,” in PerreaultW. D.Jr., ed., Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 4. Atlanta: Association for Consumer Research1977, 106–9.
13.
PeterJ. Paul. “Reliability, Generalizability and Consumer Behavior,” in PerreaultW. D.Jr., ed., Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 4. Atlanta: Association for Consumer Research, 1977, 394–400.
14.
QuelchJohn A.Behavioral Measurement of the Relative Importance of Product Attributes: Process Methodology and Pilot Application, Working Paper 180R, School of Business Administration, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada, 1978.
15.
RyansAdrian B. “Estimating Consumer Preferences for a New Durable Brand in an Established Product Class,” Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (November 1974) 434–43.
16.
WilkieWilliam L. and PessemierEdgar A. “Issues in Marketing's Use of Multi-Attribute Attitude Models,” Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (November 1972) 428–41.
