The authors compare the predictive validity of different types of self-explicated, Huber-hybrid, traditional conjoint, and hybrid conjoint models. The results indicate that traditional and hybrid conjoint models outperform the self-explicated and Huber-hybrid models but are comparable in predictive validity terms. A sharp drop in validity measures from calibration to validation predictions is observed for all the models except those of the self-explicated category.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AcitoFranklin (1978), “Consumer Decision Making and Health Maintenance Organizations: A Review,” Medical Care, 16, 1–13.
2.
AcitoFranklin and JainArun K. (1980), “Evaluation of Conjoint Measurement Results: A Comparison of Methods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (February), 106–12.
3.
CarmoneFrank J. and GreenPaul E. (1981), “Model Misspecification in Multiattribute Parameter Estimation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), 87–93.
4.
CarmoneFrank J. Paul E. Green, and JainArun K. (1978), “Robustness of Conjoint Analysis: Some Monte Carlo Results,” Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (May), 300–3.
5.
EinhornHillel J. (1970), “The Use of Nonlinear, Non-compensatory Models in Decision Making,” Psychological Bulletin, 73 (3), 221–30.
6.
FerberRobert (1979), “What is the JCR Editorial Policy on Samples and Sample Requirements,” Newsletter, Association for Consumer Research, 7 (December), 16.
7.
GoldbergStephen M. (1980), “An Empirical Comparison of Hybrid and Non-Hybrid Utility Estimation Models,” working paper, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
8.
GreenPaul E. (1973), “On the Analysis of Interactions in Marketing Research Data,” Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (November), 410–20.
9.
GreenPaul E., CarmoneFrank J., and WindYoram (1972), “Subjective Evaluation Models and Conjoint Measurement,” Behavioral Science, 17, 288–99.
10.
GreenPaul E., CarrollJ. Douglas, and GoldbergStephen M. (1981), “A General Approach to Product Design Optimization Via Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 45 (Summer), 17–37.
11.
GreenPaul E., and DevitaMichael T. (1975), “An Interaction Model of Consumer Utility,” Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (September), 146–53.
12.
GreenPaul E., and GoldbergStephen M. (1981), “A Nonmetric Version of the Hybrid Conjoint Analysis Model,” paper presented at the Third ORSA/TIMS Market Measurement Conference, New York University (March).
13.
GreenPaul E., GoldbergStephen M., and MontemayorMila (1981), “A Hybrid Utility Estimation Model for Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 45 (Winter), 33–41.
14.
GreenPaul E., GoldbergStephen M., and WileyJames B. (1981), “A Cross-Validation of Hybrid Conjoint Models,” working paper, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
15.
GreenPaul E., and SrinivasanV. (1978), “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook,” Journal of Consumer Research, 5 (September), 103–23.
16.
GreenPaul E., and WindYoram (1973), Multiattribute Decisions in Marketing.Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press.
17.
HeelerRoger M., OkechukuCheke, and ReidStan (1979), “Attribute Importance: Contrasting Measurements,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 60–3.
18.
HoepflRobert T. and HuberGeorge P. (1970), “A Study of Self-Explicated Models,” Behavioral Science, 15, 408–14.
19.
HolbrookMorris B. (1981), “Integrating Compositional and Decompositional Analysis to Represent the Intervening Role of Perception in Evaluative Judgments,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), 13–28.
20.
HuberG. P. (1974), “Multiattribute Utility Models: A Review of Field and Field-like Studies,” Management Science, 20 (June), 1393–1402.
21.
HuberG. P., DaneshgarR., and FordD. L. (1971), “An Empirical Comparison of Five Utility Models for Predicting Job Preferences,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 267–82.
22.
HuberG. P., SahneyV., and FordD. L. (1969), “A Study of Subjective Evaluation Models, Behavioral Science, 14 (November), 483–9.
23.
JainArun K., AcitoFranklin, MalhotraNaresh K., and MahajanVijay (1979), “A Comparison of the Internal Validity of Alternative Parameter Estimation Methods in Decompositional Multiattribute Preference Models,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (August), 313–22.
24.
McClainJ. O. and RaoVithala R. (1974), “Trade-Offs and Conflicts in Evaluation of Health System Alternatives: Methodology for Analysis,” Health Service Research, 9, 35.
25.
MikesP. S. and HulinC. L. (1968), “Use of Importance as a Weighting Component of Job Satisfaction,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 394–8.
26.
NeslinScott A. (1981), “Linking Product Features to Perceptions: Self-Stated Versus Statistically Revealed Importance Weights,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), 80–6.
27.
SchlenkerRobert E., QualeJean N., WetherilleRhona L., and McNeilRichardJr. (1974), HMOs in 1973: A National Survey.Minneapolis, MN: Interstudy.
28.
SiegelSidney (1956), Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavior Sciences.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
29.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1972), “Marketing of Health Maintenance Organization Services,” Vols. 1–111, prepared by Health Systems Research Program, Bionetics Research Laboratories, Inc.
30.
WileyJames B., MacLachlanDouglas L., and MoinpourReza (1977), “Comparison of Stated and Inferred Parameter Values in Additive Models: An Illustration of a Paradigm,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4, W. D. Perreault, Jr., ed. Atlanta: Association for Consumer Research, 98–105.
31.
WilkieWilliam L. and PessemierEdgar A. (1973), “Issues in Marketing's Use of Multiattribute Attitude Models,” Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (November), 428–41.
