Integrating Conjoint and Maximum Difference Scaling Data

References

• Adler SJ, Schöniger MK, Lichters M, Sarstedt M (2024) Forty years of context effect research in marketing: A bibliometric analysis. J. Bus. Econom. 94:437–466.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aguinis H, Villamor I, Ramani RS (2021) MTurk research: Review and recommendations. J. Management 47(4):823–837.Google Scholar
• Airoldi EM, Blei D, Erosheva EA, Fienberg SE (2014) Handbook of Mixed Membership Models and Their Applications (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allenby GM, Hardt N, Rossi PE (2019) Economic foundations of conjoint analysis. Dube JP, Rossi PE, eds. Handbook of the Economics of Marketing, vol. 1 (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 151–192.Google Scholar
• Balbontin C, Ortúzar JdD, Swait JD (2015) A joint best–Worst scaling and stated choice model considering observed and unobserved heterogeneity: An application to residential location choice. J. Choice Model. 16:1–14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bedi S, Reibstein D (2021) Damaged damages: Errors in patent and false advertising litigation. Ala. L. Rev. 73:385.Google Scholar
• Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI (2003) Latent Dirichlet allocation. J. Machine Learn. Res. 3:993–1022.Google Scholar
• Brazell JD, Diener CG, Karniouchina E, Moore WL, Séverin V, Uldry P-F (2006) The no-choice option and dual response choice designs. Marketing Lett. 17:255–268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chrzan K, Orme BK (2019) Applied MaxDiff: A Practitioner’s Guide to Best-Worst Scaling (Sawtooth Software, Provo, UT).Google Scholar
• David HA (1969) The Method of Paired Comparisons (Hafner, New York).Google Scholar
• Dyachenko T, Reczek RW, Allenby GM (2014) Models of sequential evaluation in best-worst choice tasks. Marketing Sci. 33(6):828–848.Link, Google Scholar
• Erosheva EA (2002) Grade of membership and latent structure models with application to disability survey data. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
• Finn A, Louviere JJ (1992) Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: The case of food safety. J. Public Policy Marketing 11(2):12–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flynn TN, Marley AA (2014) Best-worst scaling: Theory and methods. Handbook of Choice Modelling (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK), 178–201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flynn TN, J Peters T, Coast J (2013) Quantifying response shift or adaptation effects in quality of life by synthesising best-worst scaling and discrete choice data. J. Choice Model. 6:34–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galyardt A (2014) Interpreting mixed membership models: Implications of Erosheva’s representation theorem (Chapter 3). Handbook of Mixed Membership Models and Their Applications, Handbooks of Modern Statistical Methods (Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL), 39–65.Google Scholar
• Goodman JK, Paolacci G (2017) Crowdsourcing consumer research. J. Consumer Res. 44(1):196–210.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goodman JK, Cryder CE, Cheema A (2013) Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Behavioral Decision Making 26(3):213–224.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hensher DA, Bradley M (1993) Using stated response choice data to enrich revealed preference discrete choice models. Marketing Lett. 4:139–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hensher D, Louviere J, Swait J (1999) Combining sources of preference data. J. Econometrics 89(1–2):197–221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber J, Payne JW, Puto C (1982) Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J. Consumer Res. 9(1):90–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobs BJ, Donkers B, Fok D (2016) Model-based purchase predictions for large assortments. Marketing Sci. 35(3):389–404.Link, Google Scholar
• Kamakura WA, Russell GJ (1989) A probabilistic choice model for market segmentation and elasticity structure. J. Marketing Res. 26(4):379–390.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim H, Allenby GM (2022) Integrating textual information into models of choice and scaled response data. Marketing Sci. 41(4):815–830.Link, Google Scholar
• Kivetz R, Netzer O, Srinivasan V (2004) Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. J. Marketing Res. 41(3):237–257.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu J, Toubia O (2018) A semantic approach for estimating consumer content preferences from online search queries. Marketing Sci. 37(6):930–952.Link, Google Scholar
• Liu YM, Brazell JD, Allenby GM (2022) Non-linear pricing effects in conjoint analysis. Quant. Marketing Econom. 20(4):397–430.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Louviere JJ (1993) The best-worst or maximum difference measurement model: Applications to behavioral research in marketing. Amer. Marketing Assoc. Behav. Res. Conf., Phoenix, AZ.Google Scholar
• Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Marley AAJ (2015) Best-Worst Scaling: Theory, Methods and Applications (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Manski CF, McFadden D (1981) Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Marshall P, Bradlow ET (2002) A unified approach to conjoint analysis models. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 97(459):674–682.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Misra S (2005) Generalized reverse discrete choice models. Quant. Marketing Econom. 3:175–200.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Orme B (2003) Scaling multiple items: Monadic ratings vs. paired comparisons. Sawtooth Software Conf. Proc. (Sawtooth Software Inc., Provo, UT), 43–59.Google Scholar
• Orme BK (2013) Common scale hybrid discrete choice analysis: Fusing best-worst case 2 and 3. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series, Sawtooth Software, Provo, UT.Google Scholar
• Orme BK (2014) Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research, 3rd ed. (Sawtooth Software Inc., Provo, UT).Google Scholar
• Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155(2):945–959.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rossi PE, Allenby GM, McCulloch R (2005) Bayesian Statistics and Marketing (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schuster AL, Crossnohere NL, Campoamor NB, Hollin IL, Bridges JF (2024) The rise of best-worst scaling for prioritization: A transdisciplinary literature review. J. Choice Model. 50:100466.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonson I (1989) Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. J. Consumer Res. 16(2):158–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Song F, Hess S, Dekker T (2021) A joint model for stated choice and best-worst scaling data using latent attribute importance: Application to rail-air intermodality. Transportmetrica A Transport Sci. 17(4):411–438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Swait J, Louviere JJ, Williams M (1994) A sequential approach to exploiting the combined strengths of SP and RP data: Application to freight shipper choice. Transportation 21:135–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilson TD, Wheatley T, Meyers JM, Gilbert DT, Axsom D (2000) Focalism: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 78(5):821–836.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Woodbury MA, Clive J, Garson A Jr (1978) Mathematical typology: A grade of membership technique for obtaining disease definition. Comput. Biomed. Res. 11(3):277–298.Crossref, Google Scholar