Cette recherche évalue l'efficacité de différentes méthodes de modélisation des préférences des consommateurs au niveau individuel : la méthode de composition (phase I et II d'ACA4 de Sawtooth Software), l'analyse conjointe traditionnelle (Conjoint Analyzer de Bretton Clark; profil complet) et l'analyse conjointe hybride (ACA4 de Sawtooth Software).
Les conclusions principales sont les suivantes : dans le cas où le nombre d'attributs est inférieur à six, la validité prédictive de l'analyse conjointe hybride et de l'analyse conjointe traditionnelle (profil complet) est supérieure à celle de la méthode de composition. En revanche, la validité prédictive de l'analyse conjointe hybride est inférieure à celle de l'analyse conjointe traditionnelle (profil complet).
AcitoF.JainA. (1980), Evaluation of conjoint analysis results: A comparison of methods, Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 1, 106–12.
2.
AkaahI.P.KorgaonkarP.K. (1983), An empirical comparison of the predictive validity of self explicated, Huber-hybrid, traditional conjoint and hybrid conjoint models, Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 2, 187–197.
3.
AllenbyG.M.AroraN.GinterJ.L. (1995), Incorporating prior knowledge into the analysis of conjoint studies, Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 2, 152–162.
4.
AndrewsR.AnsariA.CurrrimI. (2002), Hierarchical Bayes versus finite mixture conjoint analysis models: A comparison of fit, prediction, and part-worth recovery, Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 1, 87–98.
5.
BassF.TalarzykW. (1972), An attitude model for the study of brand preference, Journal of Marketing Research, 9, 1, 63–72.
6.
BaumgartnerG.JolibertA. (1978), Les modèles des mesures conjointes : Applications et perspectives, Revue Française du Marketing, 73, 2, 101–115.
7.
BettmanJ.R.LuceM.F.PayneJ.W. (2000), Processus de choix construit du consommateur, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 15, 2, 81–124.
8.
BlochA.ManceauD. (2000), De l'idée au marché : innovation et lancement de produits, Paris, Vuibert.
9.
ClarkBretton (1992), Manuel d'utilisation Conjoint Analyzer 3, New York, Bretton Clark.
10.
ClarkBretton (1992), Manuel d'utilisation LINMAP, New York, Bretton Clark.
11.
CattinP.HermetG.PiocheA. (1982), Alternative hybrid models for conjoint analysis: Some empirical results, Analytical approaches to product and market planning: the second conference, éds. SrivastavaR.ShockerA., Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, 82–109, 142–151.
12.
CattinP.WittinkD.R. (1982), Commercial use of conjoint analysis: A survey, Journal of Marketing, 46, 3, 44–53.
13.
DuboisB.QuaghebeurA. (1997), Les consommateurs font-ils ce qu'ils disent?, Actes de la 13e conférence de l'Association Française du Marketing, éd. SlSN, Toulouse, IAE, ESC, 891–911.
14.
EvrardY.PrasB.RouxE. (1993), Market–Études et recherches en marketing, Paris, Nathan.
15.
FishbeinM. (1967), Readings in attitude theory an measurement, New York, John Wiley.
16.
MarktforschungGfk (1995), Manuel GfK-Optimizer Computer Software, Nuremberg, GfK.
17.
GreenP. (1984), Hybrid models for conjoint analysis: An expository review, Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 2, 155–169.
18.
GreenP.GoldbergS.M.MontemayorM. (1981), A hybrid utility estimation model for conjoint analysis, Journal of Marketing, 45, 4, 33–41.
19.
GreenP.GoldbergS.WileyJ. (1982), A cross validation test of hybrid conjoint models, Advances in Consumer Research, 10, éds. BagozziR.TyboutA., San Francisco, Association for Consumer Research, 147–167.
20.
GreenP.KriegerA.AgarwalM. (1991), Adaptive conjoint analysis: Some caveats and suggestions, Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 2, 215–222.
GreenP.KriegerA.WindY. (2001), Thirty years of conjoint analysis: Reflections and prospects, Interfaces, 31, 3, 56–73.
23.
GreenP.RaoV. (1971), Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data, Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 3, 355–363.
24.
GreenP.SrinivasanV. (1978), Conjoint analysis in consumers research, Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 3, 103–123.
25.
GreenP.SrinivasanV. (1990), Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice, Journal of Marketing, 54, 4, 3–19.
26.
GustafssonA.HerrmannA.HuberF., Conjoint analysis as an instrument of market research practice, Conjoint measurement: methods and applications, éds. GustafssonA.HerrmannA.HuberF., Berlin, Springer, 5–46.
27.
HairJ.BushR.OrtinauD. (2003), Marketing research within a changing information environment, New York, McGraw-Hill.
28.
HauserJ.RaoV. (2002), Conjoint analysis, related modelling, and applications, Advances in marketing research: progress and prospects, éd. WindJ., Boston, Kluwer, 121–145.
29.
HartmannA.SattlerH. (2002), Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, papier de recherche N° 6, Université de Hambourg.
30.
HollingH.JüttingA.GroßmannH. (1998), ALASCA. Computergestützte Entscheidungs- und Nutzenanalyse, Göttingen, Hogrefe.
31.
HuberJ. (1997), What we have learned from 20 years of conjoint research: when to use self-explicated, graded pairs, full profiles or choice experiments, série papiers de recherche, Sawtooth Software, éd. WeissS., Evanston, IL, Sawtooth Software Inc.
32.
HuberJ. (2005), Conjoint analysis: how we got here and where we are, série papiers de recherche, Sawtooth Software, éd. WeissS., Evanston, IL, Sawtooth Software Inc.
33.
HuberJ.HansenD. (1987), Testing the impact of dimensional complexity and affective differences in adaptive conjoint analysis, Advances in Consumer Research, 13, éds. WallendorfA.AndersonP., Provo, UT, Association for Consumer Research, 85–102.
34.
HuberJ.WittinkD.FielderJ.MillerR. (1993), The effectiveness of alternative elicitation procedures in predicting choice, Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 1, 105–114.
35.
JaegerS.HedderlyD.MacFieH. (2001), Methodological issues in conjoint analysis: A case study, European Journal of Marketing, 35, 11/12, 1217–1237.
36.
JedidiK.KohliR.DesarboW. (1996), Consideration sets in conjoint analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 3, 364–372.
JohnsonR.M. (1998), The CBC/HB module for hierarchical Bayes estimation, série papiers de recherche, Sawtooth Software, éd. WeissS., Evanston, IL, Sawtooth Software Inc.
39.
JohnsonR.M. (1991), Comments on studies dealing with ACA validity and accuracy, with suggestions for future research, série papiers de recherche, Sawtooth Software, éd. WeissS., Evanston, IL, Sawtooth Software Inc.
40.
KriegerA.GreenP.WindY. (2004), Adventures in conjoint analysis: a practitioner's guide to tradeoff modelling and applications, papier de recherche, Wharton School of Business, Pennsylvanie.
KruskallJ.B. (1965), Analysis of factorial experiments by estimating monotone transformation of data, Journal of Royal Statistical Society, B, 27, 251–263.
43.
LeighT.McKayD.SummersJ. (1984), Reliability and validity of conjoint analysis and self-explicated weights: A comparison, Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 4, 456–462.
44.
LouviereJ.WoodworthG. (1983), Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data, Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 4, 350–367.
45.
LuceR.TukeyJ. (1964), Simultaneous conjoint measurement. A new type of fundamental measurement, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 1–27.
46.
MarderE. (1999), The assumptions of choice modelling: Conjoint analysis and SUMM (Single Unit Marketing Model), Canadian Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 1, 1–12.
47.
MarshallP.BradlowE. (2002), A unified approach to conjoint analysis models, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97, 459, 674–682.
48.
McFaddenD.L. (1986), The choice theory approach to market research, Marketing Science, 5, 4, 275–297.
49.
MellesT.HollingH. (1998), Einsatz der Conjoint-Analyse in Deutschland- Eine Befragung von Anwendern, papier de recherche, Universität Münster, Psychologisches Institut IV.
50.
MillerG. (1956), The magical number seven, plus or minus two, Psychological Review, 63, 2, 81–97.
51.
MooreW.MehtaR.PaviaT. (1994), A simplified method of constrained parameter estimation in conjoint analysis, Marketing Letters, 9, 2, 173–181.
52.
MooreW.LouvièreJ. (2002), A comparison of several hierarchical Bayesian methods for conjoint and experimental choice analysis and choice models at different levels of aggregation, Marketing Letters, 9, 2, 195–208.
53.
MooreW. (2004), A cross-validity comparison of ratingbased and choice-based conjoint analysis models, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 3, 299–312.
54.
OrmeB. (2002), Perspectives on recent debate over conjoint analysis and modeling preferences with ACA, série papiers de recherche, Sawtooth Software, éd. WeissS., Evanston, IL, Sawtooth Software Inc.
55.
OrmeB. (2003), Which conjoint method should I use?, série papiers de recherche, Sawtooth Software, éd. WeissS., Evanston, IL, Sawtooth Software Inc.
56.
OrmeB.AlpertM.ChristensenE. (1997), Assessing the validity of conjoint analysis–continued, Sawtooth Conference, 13, éd. MetegranoM., Ketchum, ID, Sawtooth Software, 209–225.
57.
PrasB. (1978), Explaining consumer decision making through evaluation process models, Marketing, Neue Ergebnisse aus Forschung und Praxis, éd. TropitzhoferE., Munich, 145–161.
58.
RosenbergM.J. (1956), Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 3, 367–372.
59.
SaatyT. (2000), Models, methods, concepts and applications of the analytic hierarchy process, Boston, Kluwer.
60.
SattlerH.Hensel-BörnerS. (2000), A comparison of conjoint measurement with self-explicated approaches, Conjoint measurement: methods and applications, éds. GustafssonA.HerrmannA.HuberF., Berlin, Springer, 121–133.
61.
Sawtooth Software (1994), Manuel ACA System Version 4.0, Evanston, IL, Sawtooth Software Inc.
62.
Sawtooth Software (2003), The ACA/HB module for hierarchical Bayes estimation, série papiers de recherche, Sawtooth Software, éd. WeissS., Evanston, IL, Sawtooth Software Inc.
63.
SrinivasanV.ShockerA. (1973), Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences, Psychometrika, 38, 3, 337–396.
64.
SrinivasanV.WynerG. (1989), CASEMAP: Computer assisted self-explication of multi-attributed preferences, Handbook on new product development and testing, éds. HenryW.MenascoM.TakadaH., Lexington, MA: DC Heath, 91–112.
65.
HofstedeTer F.KimY.WedelM. (2002), Bayesian prediction in hybrid conjoint analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 2, 253–262.
66.
TumbuschJ.J. (1991), Validation of adaptive conjoint analysis versus standard concept testing, Sawtooth Conference, 7, éd. MetegranoM., Ketchum, ID, Sawtooth Software, 177–184.
67.
UrbanL.HauserJ. (1980), Design and marketing of new products, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.
68.
Van der LansI.WittinkD.HuberJ.VriensM. (1992), Within- and across-attribute constraints in ACA and full profile conjoint analysis, Sawtooth Conference, 8, éd. MetegranoM., Ketchum, ID, Sawtooth Software, 365–379.
69.
Van der LansI.HeiserL.W. (1992), Constrained part-worth estimation in conjoint analysis using the self-explicated utility model, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 9, 4, 325–344.
70.
WeinbergB. (1990), Roles for research and models in improving new product development, papier de recherche, Marketing Science Institute Report, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
71.
WittinkD.CattinP. (1989), Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update, Journal of Marketing, 53, 2, 91–96.
72.
WittinkD.VriensM.BurhenneW. (1992), Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: results and critical reflections, série papiers de recherche, Sawtooth Software, éd. WeissS., Evanston, IL, Sawtooth Software Inc.
