In the short span of five years, Sawtooth Software's Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA) has become one of industry's most popular software packages for collecting and analyzing conjoint data. The authors critically examine ACA's assumption structure and measurement procedures; both formal and empirical findings are reported. They conclude with a series of constructive suggestions for increasing the reliability and versatility of the ACA package.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgarwalManoj K. (1989), “How Many Pairs Should We Use in Adaptive Conjoint Analysis? An Empirical Analysis,” in AMA Winter Educators’ Conference Proceedings.Chicago: American Marketing Association.
2.
AgarwalManoj K., and GreenPaul E. (1989), “Adaptive Conjoint Analysis Versus Self-Explicated Models: Some Empirical Results,” working paper, State University of New York at Binghamton (December); accepted for future publication in International Journal of Research in Marketing.
3.
CarmoneFrank J. (1987), “ACA System for Adaptive Conjoint Analysis,”Journal of Marketing Research, 24(August), 325–7.
4.
FinkbeinerCarl (1988), “Comparison of Conjoint Choice Simulators,”Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing.Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, Inc., 75–104, 105–8.
5.
FinkbeinerCarl, and PlatzPatricia J. (1986), “Computerized Versus Paper and Pencil Methods: A Comparison Study,” paper presented at Association for Consumer Research Conference, Toronto (October).
6.
GreenPaul E. (1984), “Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review,”Journal of Marketing Research, 21(May), 155–9.
7.
GreenPaul E., KriegerAbba M., and BansalPradeep (1988), “Completely Unacceptable Levels in Conjoint Analysis: A Cautionary Note,”Journal of Marketing Research, 25(August), 293–300.
8.
HermanSteven (1988), “Software for Full-Profile Conjoint Analysis,”Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing.Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, Inc., 117–30.
9.
HuberJoel, and HansenDavid (1986), “Testing the Impact of Dimensional Complexity and Affective Differences of Paired Concepts in Adaptive Conjoint Analysis,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, WallendorfM., and AndersonP., eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 159–63.
10.
JohnsonRichard M. (1987a), “Adaptive Conjoint Analysis,”Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing.Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, Inc., 253–65.
11.
JohnsonRichard M. (1987b), “Accuracy of Estimation in ACA,” working paper. Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, Inc.
12.
KleinNoreen M.M. (1986), “Assessing Unacceptable Attribute Levels in Conjoint Analysis,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, WallendorfM., and AndersonP., eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 154–8.
13.
SmithScott M. (1988), “Statistical Software for Conjoint Analysis,” in Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing.Ketchum ID: Sawtooth Software, Inc., 109–16.
