An experiment was conducted to assess the convergent validity of a recently proposed conjunctive-compensatory self-explicated approach to conjoint measurement. A comparison of the self-explicated approach with the full profile conjoint method demonstrated that the self-explicated approach (1) was inconsistent in the identification of acceptable and unacceptable stimuli, and (2) did not exhibit a high degree of convergent validity with respect to part-worth and importance estimates when compared with the full profile approach. These findings identify potential problems with the conjunctive-compensatory self-explicated approach to conjoint measurement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Acito, Franklin
. 1977. "An Investigation of Some Data Collection Issues in Conjoint Measurement." In Contemporary Marketing Thought. Eds. Barnett A. Greenberg and Danny N. Bellenger. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 82-85.
2.
Acito, Franklin
. 1979. "An Investigation of the Reliability of Conjoint Measurement for Various Orthogonal Designs." In Proceedings, Southern Marketing Association 1979 Conference. Eds. R. S. Franz, R. M. Hopkins, and A. Toma. University of Southwestern Louisiana, 175-178.
Akaah, Ishmael P.
and Pradeep K. Korgaonkar. 1983. "An Empirical Comparison of the Predictive Validity of Self-Explicated, Huber-Hybrid, Traditional Conjoint, and Hybrid Conjoint Models."Journal of Marketing Research20 (May): 187-197.
5.
Calder, Bobby J.
, Lynn W. Phillips, and Alice M. Tybout. 1981. "Designing Research for Application."Journal of Consumer Research8 (September): 197-207.
6.
Cattin, Phillipe
and Marc Weinberger. 1980. "Some Validity and Reliability Issues in the Measurement of Attribute Utilities." In Advances in Consumer Research. Ed. J. C. Olsen. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 780-783.
7.
Chapman, Randall G.
and Ruth N. Bolton. 1985. "Attribute Presentation Order Bias and Nonstationarity in Full Profile Conjoint Analysis Tasks." In 1985 AMA Educators' Proceedings. Eds. Robert F. Lusch, Gary T. Ford, Gary L. Frazier, Roy D. Howell, Charles A. Ingene, Michael Reilly, and Ronald Stampfl. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 373-379.
8.
Currim, Imran S.
, Charles B. Weinberg, and Dick R. Wittink. 1981. "Design of Subscription Programs for a Performing Art Series."Journal of Consumer Research8 (June): 67-75.
9.
Davidson, J. D.1973. "Forecasting Traffic on STOL."Operational Research Quarterly24 (December): 561-569.
10.
Driver, Russell W.
, John D. Hatfield, and Richard C. Huseman. 1981. "A Proposed Method for Analyzing Employee Benefit Preferences: Conjoint Measurement."Human Resource Management20 (Spring): 18-23.
11.
Green, Paul E.
and Vithala R. Rao. 1971. "Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data."Journal of Marketing Research8 (August): 355-363.
12.
Green, Paul E.
and V. Srinivasan. 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook."Journal of Consumer Research5 (September): 103-123.
13.
Green, Paul E.
and Yoram Wind. 1973. Multiattribute Decisions in Marketing. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press.
14.
Green, Paul E.
, Stephen M. Goldberg, and Mila Montemayor. 1981. "A Hybrid Utility Estimation Model for Conjoint Analysis."Journal of Marketing45 (Winter): 33-41.
15.
Green, Paul E.
, Abba M. Krieger, and Pradeep Bansol. 1988. "Completely Unacceptable Levels in Conjoint Analysis: A Cautionary Note."Journal of Marketing Research25 (August): 293-300.
16.
Jain, Arun K.
, Franklin Acito, Naresh K. Malhotra, and Vijay Mahajan. 1979. "A Comparison of the Internal Validity of Alternative Parameter Estimation Methods in Decompositional Multiattribute Preference Models."Journal of Marketing Research16 (August): 313-322.
17.
Jain, Arun K.
, Naresh K. Malhotra, and Christian Pinson. 1980. "Stability and Reliability of Part-Worth Utility in Conjoint Analysis: A Longitudinal Investigation." Working Paper 80/05, European Institute of Business Administration.
18.
Johnson, Richard M.1974. "Trade-Off Analysis of Consumer Values."Journal of Marketing Research11 (May): 121-127.
19.
Johnson, Richard M.
. 1975. "A Simple Method for Pairwise Monotone Regression."Psychometrika40 (June): 163-168.
20.
Johnson, Richard M.
. 1981. "Problems in Applying Conjoint Analysis." In Analytic Approaches to Product and Marketing Planning: The Second Conference. Eds. V. Srinivasan and Allan D. Shocker. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, 154-165.
21.
Johnson, Richard M.
. 1987. "Adaptive Conjoint Analysis." In Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing (March). Ed. Margo Metegrano. Sun Valley, ID, 253-266.
22.
Klein, Noreen M.1986. "Assessing Unacceptable Attribute Levels in Conjoint Analysis." In Advances in Consumer Research. Eds. Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 154-158.
23.
Leigh, Thomas W.
, David B. MacKay, and John O. Summers. 1981. "On Alternative Experimental Methods for Conjoint Analysis." In Advances in Consumer Research. Ed. Kent B. Monroe. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 317-322.
24.
Leigh, Thomas W.
, David B. MacKay, and John O. Summers. 1984. "Reliability and Validity of Conjoint Analysis and Self-Explicated Weights: A Comparison."Journal of Marketing Research21 (November): 456-462.
25.
Malhotra, Naresh K.1982. "Structural Reliability and Stability of Nonmetric Conjoint Analysis."Journal of Marketing Research19 (May): 199-207.
26.
McCullough, James
and Roger Best. 1979. "Conjoint Measurement: Temporal Stability and Structural Reliability."Journal of Marketing Research16 (February): 26-31.
27.
Montgomery, David B.
and Dick R. Wittink. 1980. "The Predictive Validity of Conjoint Analysis for Alternative Aggregation Schemes." In Market Measurement and Analysis: Proceedings of the 1979 ORSAITIMS Conference on Marketing. Eds. David B. Montgomery and Dick R. Wittink. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, 298-309.
28.
Moore, William L.1980. "Levels of Aggregation in Conjoint Analysis: An Empirical Comparison."Journal of Marketing Research17 (November): 516-523.
29.
Oppedijk van Veen
, Walle M. and David Beazley. 1977. "An Investigation of Alternative Methods of Applying the Trade-Off Model."Journal of the Market Research Society19 (January): 2-11.
30.
Ogle, Robert S.1986. "Conjoint Models Cannot Live on Trade-Offs Alone."Marketing News20 (September 12): 22.
31.
Parker, Barnett R.
and V. Srinivasan. 1976. "A Consumer Preference Approach to the Planning of Rural Primary Health Care Facilities."Operations Research24 (September-October): 991-1025.
32.
Pedhazur, Elazar J.1982. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. Second edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
33.
Reibstein, David
, John E. G. Bateson, and William Boulding. 1988. "Conjoint Analysis Reliability: Empirical Findings."Marketing Science7 (Summer): 271-286.
34.
Robinson, Patrick J.
1980. "Applications of Conjoint Analysis to Pricing Problems." In Market Measurement and Analysis: Proceedings of the 1979 ORSAITIMS Conference on Marketing. Eds. David B. Montgomery and Dick R. Wittink. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, 183-205.
35.
Rosko, Michael D.
and William McKenna. 1983. "Modeling Consumer Choices of Health Plans: A Comparison of Two Techniques."Social Sciences and Medicine17 (7): 421-429.
36.
Safizadeh, M. Hossein
. 1989. "The Internal Validity of the Trade-Off Method of Conjoint Analysis."Decision Sciences20 (Summer): 451-461.
37.
Schuman, Howard
and Stanley Presser. 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. New York: Academic Press.
38.
Scott, Jerome E.
and Peter Wright. 1976. "Modeling an Organizational Buyer's Product Evaluation Strategy: Validity and Procedural Considerations."Journal of Marketing Research13 (August): 211-224.
39.
Segal, Madhav N.1982. "Reliability of Conjoint Analysis: Contrasting Data Collection Procedures."Journal of Marketing Research19 (February): 193-143.
40.
Srinivasan, V.1988. "A Conjunctive-Compensatory Approach to the Self-Explication of Multiattributed Preferences."Decision Sciences19 (Spring): 295-305.
41.
Teas, R. Kenneth
. 1985. "An Analysis of the Temporal Stability and Structural Reliability of Metric Conjoint Analysis Procedures."Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science13 (Winter): 122-142.
42.
Teas, R. Kenneth
. 1987. "Magnitude Scaling of the Dependent Variable in Decompositional Multiattribute Preference Models."Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science15 (Fall): 64-73.
43.
Teas, R. Kenneth
and W. L. Dellva. 1985. "Conjoint Measurement of Consumers' Preferences for Multiattribute Financial Services."Journal of Bank Research16 (Summer): 99-112.
44.
Wind, Yoram
, Paul E. Green, and Patrick J. Robinson. 1968. "The Determinants of Vendor Selection: The Evaluation Function Approach."Journal of Purchasing4 (August): 29-41.
45.
Wittink, Dick R.
and Phillipe Cattin. 1981. "Alternative Estimation Methods for Conjoint Analysis: A Monte Carlo Study."Journal of Marketing Research18 (February): 101-106.
46.
Wittink, Dick R.
and Phillipe Cattin. 1989. "Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update."Journal of Marketing53 (July): 91-96.
47.
Wittink, Dick R.
, Lakshman Krishnamurthi, and Julia B. Nutter. 1982. "Comparing Derived Importance Weights Across Attributes."Journal of Consumer Research8 (March): 471-474.
48.
Wright, Peter
and Mary Ann Kriewall. 1980. "State-of-Mind Effects on the Accuracy with Which Utility Functions Predict Marketplace Choice."Journal of Marketing Research17 (August): 277-293.
