AddelmanS. (1962) Symmetrical and asymmetrical fractional factorial plans. Technometrics4: 47–58.
2.
AndersonJ. C. (1987) The effect of type of representation on judgements of new product acceptance. Industrial Marketing and Purchasing2: 29–46.
3.
BoeckerF., & SchweiklH. (1988) Better preference prediction with individualized sets of relevant attributes. International Journal of Research in Marketing5: 15–24.
4.
De BontC.J.P.M.(1992) Consumer Evaluations of Early Products ConceptsDelft: Delft University Press.
5.
FoleyJ.D., Van DamA., FeinerS.K., & HughesJ.F.(1990). Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice. 2nd edn. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
6.
GoldbergS.M., GreenP.E., & WindY. (1984) Conjoint analysis of price premiums for hotel amenities. Journal of Business57: S111–S132.
7.
GreenP.E., & SrinivasanV. (1978) Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research5: 103–23.
8.
HagertyM. R. (1986) The cost of simplifying preference models. Marketing Science5: 298–319.
9.
HawkesB. (1988). The CADCAM Process.London: Pitman Publishing.
10.
HolbrookM.B., & MooreW.L. (1981) Feature interactions in consumer judgements of verbal vs. pictorial presentations. Journal of Consumer Research8: 103–13.
11.
HuberJ., WittinkD.R., FielderJ.A., & MillerR. (1993). The effectiveness of alternative preference elicitation procedures in predicting choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1): 105–14.
LoosschilderG.H., & OrttJ.R. (1994) The effect of the realism of product representations on the validity of consumer evaluations. Proceedings of the ESOMAR Congress. pp. 353–77.
14.
LouviereJ., SchroederH., LouviereC.H., & WoodworthG.G. (1987) Do the parameters of choice models depend on differences in stimulus presentation: Visual versus verbal presentation?Advances in Consumer Research, 14: 79–82.
15.
PageA.L., & RoesbaumH.F. (1987) Redesigning product lines with conjoint analysis: how Sunbeam does it. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4, June 120–37.
16.
PageA.L., & RosenbaumH.F.(1992) Developing an effective concept testing program for consumer durables. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9, December: 267–77.
17.
PaivioA. (1971). Imagery and Verbal Processes.New York: University of Illinois Press.
18.
PaivioA. (1978) A dual coding approach to perception and cognition. Modes of Perceiving and Processing Information. (eds. PickH.L., & SaltzmanE.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
ToveyM. (1989) Drawing and CAD in industrial design. Design Studies, 10(1): 24–39.
20.
VriensM., WedelM., & WilmsT.J. (1993) Segmentation methods for metric conjoint analysis: a Monte Carlo comparison. Working paper, Faculty of Economics, University of Groningen, the Netherlands.
21.
WedelM., VriensM., & DesarboW.(1991) A maximum likelihood methodology for segmentation in conjoint models. Research Memorandum nr. 446.Institute of Economic Research, Faculty of Economics, University of Groningen, the Netherlands.
22.
WittinkD.R., VriensM., & BurhenneW. (1994). Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: results and critical reflections. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11(1): 41–52.