AinslieA., & RossiP.E. (1998) Similarities in choice behavior across product categories.Marketing Science, 17, 2, pp. 91–106.
2.
AllenbyG.M., & GinterJ.L. (1995) Using extremes to design products and segment markets.Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 4, pp. 392–403.
3.
AllenbyG.M., & RossiP.E. (1999) Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity.Journal of Econometrics, 89, 1/2, pp. 57–78.
4.
AllenbyG.M., AroraN., & GinterJ.L. (1995) Incorporating prior knowledge into the analysis of conjoint studies.Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 2, pp. 152–162.
5.
AllenbyG.M., AroraN., & GinterJ.L. (1998) On the heterogeneity of demand.Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 3, pp. 384–389.
6.
AndrewsR.L., & CurrimI.S. (2003a) A comparison of segment retention criteria for finite mixture logit models.Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 2, pp. 235–243.
7.
AndrewsR.L., & CurrimI.S. (2003b) Retention of latent segments in regression-based marketing models.International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20, 4, pp. 315–321.
8.
AndrewsR.L., AinslieA., & CurrimI.S. (2002a) An empirical comparison of logit choice models with discrete versus continuous representations of heterogeneity.Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 4, pp. 479–487.
9.
AndrewsR.L., AnsariA., & CurrimI.S. (2002b) Hierarchical Bayes versus finite mixture conjoint analysis models: a comparison of fit, prediction, and partworth recovery.Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 1, pp. 87–98.
10.
BackhausK., WilkenR., VoethM., & SichtmannC. (2005) An empirical comparison of methods to measure willingness to pay by examining the hypothetical bias.International Journal of Market Research, 47, 5, pp. 534–562.
11.
BatsellR.R., & LouviereJ.J. (1991) Experimental analysis of choice.Marketing Letters, 2, 3, pp. 199–214.
12.
Ben-AkivaM., WalkerJ., BernardinoA.T., GopinathD.A., MorikawaT., & PolydoropoulouA. (1999) Integration of Choice and Latent Variable Models.Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
13.
BettmanJ.R., & ParkC.W. (1980) Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice process on consumer decision processes: a protocol analysis.Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 3, pp. 234–248.
14.
BunchD.S., & BatsellR.R. (1989) A Monte Carlo comparison of estimators for the multinomial logit model.Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 1, pp. 56–68.
15.
CarrollJ.D., & GreenP.E. (1995) Psychometric methods in marketing research: Part I, conjoint analysis.Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 4, pp. 385–391.
16.
ChakrabortyG., BallD., GaethG.J., & SunkyuJ. (2002) The ability of ratings and choice conjoint to predict market shares, a Monte Carlo simulation.Journal of Business Research, 55, 3, pp. 237–249.
17.
DeSarboW.S., WedelM., VriensM., & RamaswamyV. (1992) Latent class metric conjoint analysis.Marketing Letters, 3, 3, pp. 273–288.
18.
DharR. (1997) Consumer preference for a no-choice option.Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 2, pp. 215–231.
GilbrideT.L., & AllenbyG.M. (2004) A choice model with conjunctive, disjunctive, and compensatory screening rules.Marketing Science, 23, 3, pp. 391–406.
21.
GreenP.E., & SrinivasanV. (1978) Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook.Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 2, pp. 103–121.
22.
GreenP.E., & SrinivasanV. (1990) Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice.Journal of Marketing, 54, 4, pp. 3–19.
23.
HilligT. (2005) Verfahrensvarianten der Conjoint-Analyse zur Prognose von Kaufentscheidungen.Wiesbaden: Gabler.
24.
JedidiK., & ZhangZ.J. (2002) Augmenting conjoint analysis to estimate consumer reservation price.Management Science, 48, 10, pp. 1350–1368.
25.
LenkP.J., DeSarboW.S., GreenP.E., & YoungM.R. (1996) Hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis: recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs.Marketing Science, 15, 2, pp. 173–191.
26.
LiechtyJ.C., FongD.K.H., & DeSarboW. (2005) Dynamic models incorporating individual heterogeneity: utility evolution in conjoint analysis.Marketing Science, 24, 2, pp. 285–293.
27.
LouviereJ.J. (1988) Conjoint analysis modelling of stated preferences: a review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity.Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 22, 1, pp. 93–119.
28.
LouviereJ.J., & GaethG.J. (1988) A comparison of rating and choice responses in conjoint tasks. In: JohnsonR.M. (ed.) Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference of Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing, 2.Ketchum.
29.
LouviereJ.J., & WoodworthG.G. (1983) Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data.Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 11, pp. 350–367.
30.
LouviereJ.J., EagleT.C., & CohenS.H. (2005) Conjoint Analysis: Methods, Myths and Much More. CenSoC Working Paper No. 05-001.
31.
McFaddenD.L. (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: ZarembkaP. (ed.) Frontiers in Econometrics.New York: Academic Press, pp. 105–142.
32.
MooreW.L. (2004) A cross-validity comparison of rating-based and choice based conjoint analysis models.International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 3, pp. 299–312.
33.
MooreW.L., Gray-LeeJ., & LouviereJ.J. (1998) A cross-validity comparison of conjoint analysis and choice models at different levels of aggregation.Marketing Letters, 9, 2, pp. 195–207.
NatterM., FeursteinM., & KehlL. (1999) Forecasting scanner data by choice-based conjoint models. In: Proceedings of the 1999 Sawtooth Software Conference, available at http://indi.wu-wien.ac.at/~natter/sawtooth.pdf
36.
OtterT., TüchlerR., & Frühwirth-SchnatterS. (2004) Capturing consumer heterogeneity in metric conjoint analysis using Bayesian mixture models.International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 3, pp. 285–297.
37.
PayneJ.W. (1976) Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: an information search.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 2, pp. 366–387.
38.
RamaswamyV., & CohenS.H. (2003) Latent class models for conjoint analysis. In: GustafssonA., HerrmannA., & HuberF. (eds) Conjoint Measurement.Berlin: Springer, pp. 361–392.
39.
TeichertT. (2001a) Nutzenermittlung in wahlbasierter Conjoint-Analyse: Ein Vergleich von Latent-Class- und hierarchischem Bayes-Verfahren.Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 53, 12, pp. 798–822.
40.
TeichertT. (2001b) Nutzenschätzung in Conjoint-Analysen.Wiesbaden: Gabler.
41.
ThibautJ.W., & KelleyH.H. (1991) The Social Psychology of Groups.New Brunswick: John Wiley & Sons.
42.
VoethM. (1998) Limit conjoint-analysis - a modification of the traditional conjoint analysis. In: AnderssonP. (ed.) Proceedings of the 27th EMAC Conference ‘Marketing Research and Practice’, Marketing Research, 5, Stockholm, pp. 315–331.
43.
VriensM. (1995) Conjoint Analysis in Marketing.Groningen: SOM.
44.
VriensM., WedelM., & WilmsT. (1992) Segmentation Methods for Metric Conjoint Analysis: A Monte Carlo Comparison. Working Paper, University of Groningen, the Netherlands.
45.
VriensM., WedelM., & WilmsT. (1996) Metric conjoint segmentation methods: a Monte Carlo comparison.Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 1, pp. 73–85.
WittinkD.R., & CattinP. (1981) Alternative estimation methods for conjoint analysis: a Monte Carlo study.Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 1, pp. 101–106.
48.
WittinkD.R., & CattinP. (1989) Commercial use of conjoint analysis: an update.Journal of Marketing, 53, 3, pp. 91–96.
49.
WittinkD.R., VriensM., & BurhenneW. (1994) Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: results and critical reflections.International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 1, pp. 41–52.
50.
YeeM., DahanE., HauserJ.R., & OrlinJ. (2005) Greedoid-Based Non-compensatory Consideration-then-Choice Inference. MIT Working Paper.