Measuring Consumer Preferences Using Conjoint Poker

References

• Baumgartner H., Steenkamp J.-B. E. M. Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. J. Marketing Res. (2001) 38(2):143–156Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bradlow E. T. Current issues and a wishlist for conjoint analysis. Appl. Stochastic Models Bus. Indust. (2005) 21(4–5):319–323Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bunch D. S., Louviere J. J., Anderson D. A comparison of experimental design strategies for multinomial logit models: The case of generic attributes. (1994) . Working paper, Graduate School of Management, University of California, Davis, DavisGoogle Scholar
• Chandon P., Hutchinson J. W., Bradlow E. T., Young S. H. Does in-store marketing work? Effects of the number and position of shelf facings on brand attention and evaluation at the point of purchase. J. Marketing (2009) 73(November):1–17Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Jong M. G., Pieters R., Fox J.-P. Reducing social desirability bias via item randomized response: An application to measure underreported desires. J. Marketing Res. (2010) 47(February):14–27Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ding M. An incentive-aligned mechanism for conjoint analysis. J. Marketing Res. (2007) 44(1):214–223Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ding M., Grewal R., Liechty J. Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. J. Marketing Res. (2005) 42(1):67–82Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ding M., Park Y.-H., Bradlow E. T. Barter markets for conjoint analysis. Management Sci. (2009) 55(6):1003–1017Link, Google Scholar
• Dong S., Ding M., Huber J. A simple mechanism to incentive align conjoint experiments. Internat. J. Res. Marketing (2010) 27(1):25–32Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green P. E., Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. J. Marketing (1990) 54(4):3–19Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber J., Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Marketing Res. (1996) 33(3):307–317Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson R. A perspective on adaptive CBC (what can we expect from respondents?). (2008) . Research paper, Sawtooth Software, Sequim, WA. http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/acbcperspective.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Kohli R., Sukumar R. Heuristics for product-line design using conjoint analysis. Management Sci. (1990) 36(12):1464–1478Link, Google Scholar
• Lenk P. J., DeSarbo W. S., Green P. E., Young M. R. Hierarchical bayes conjoint analysis: Recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs. Marketing Sci. (1996) 15(1):173–191Link, Google Scholar
• Liechty J. C., Fong D. K. H., DeSarbo W. Dynamic models with individual level heterogeneity: Applied to evolution during conjoint studies. Marketing Sci. (2005) 24(1):285–293Link, Google Scholar
• Mahajan V., Green P. E., Goldberg S. M. A conjoint model for measuring self- and cross-price/demand relationships. J. Marketing Res. (1982) 19(3):334–342Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFadden D., Zarembka P. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics (1974) (Academic Press, New York) 105–142Google Scholar
• Netzer O., Toubia O., Bradlow E. T., Dahan E., Evgeniou T., Feinberg F. M., Feit E. M., et al. Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement. Marketing Lett. (2008) 19(3–4):337–354Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newey W. K., McFadden D., Engle R. F., McFadden D. L. Large sample estimation and hypothesis testing. Handbook of Econometrics (1994) 4(Elsevier Science, Amsterdam) 2113–2247Google Scholar
• Park Y.-H., Ding M., Rao V. R. Eliciting preference for complex products: A Web-based upgrading method. J. Marketing Res. (2008) 45(5):562–574Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pieters R., Wedel M. Attention capture and transfer in advertising: Brand, pictorial, and text-size effects. J. Marketing (2004) 68(April):36–50Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rossi P. E., Allenby G. M. Bayesian statistics and marketing. Marketing Sci. (2003) 22(3):304–328Link, Google Scholar
• Sandor Z., Wedel M. Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers' prior beliefs. J. Marketing Res. (2001) 38(4):430–444Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sandor Z., Wedel M. Profile construction in experimental choice designs for mixed logit models. Marketing Sci. (2002) 21(4):455–475Link, Google Scholar
• Sandor Z., Wedel M. Heterogeneous conjoint choice designs. J. Marketing Res. (2005) 42(1):210–218Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starmer C., Sugden R. Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? An experimental investigation. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1991) 81(4):971–978Google Scholar
• Thaler R. H., Johnson E. J. Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choices. Management Sci. (1990) 36(6):643–660Link, Google Scholar
• Tourangeau R., Rips L. J., Rasinski K.The Psychology of Survey Response (2000) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van der Lans R., Wedel M., Pieters R. Defining eye-fixation sequences across individuals and tasks: The binocular-individual threshold (BIT) algorithm. Behav. Res. Methods (2011) 43(1):239–257Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wedel M., Pieters R. Eye fixations on advertisements and memory for brands: A model and findings. Marketing Sci. (2000) 19(4):297–312Link, Google Scholar
• Wittink D. R., Cattin P. Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update. J. Marketing Res. (1989) 53(3):91–96Crossref, Google Scholar