REPLY TO: “ON THE SENSITIVITY OF BRAND‐CHOICE SIMULATIONS TO ATTRIBUTE IMPORTANCE WEIGHTS”

Paul E. Green, Wayne S. DeSarbo, Pradeep K. Kedia

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Our reply to Curry, Louviere, and Augustine's critique of our earlier paper focuses on differences in motivation between our research and theirs. Our interest in the problem relates to the possible incorporation of self‐explicated evaluations in conjoint data collection methods; subsequent to the appearance of our original paper, we have developed hybrid models that combine elements of self‐explicated (compositional) and conjoint (decompositional) data collection procedures. As far as we can surmise from their critique, Curry, Louviere, and Augustine are concerned with much broader strategic issues relating share of choices in the consumer population to changes in the shape of attribute weight distributions, shape of the Pareto tradeoff boundary, and so on.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)517-521
Number of pages5
JournalDecision Sciences
Volume12
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1981

Fingerprint

Data collection
Attribute importance
Simulation
Evaluation
Trade-offs
Pareto
Strategic issues
Hybrid model

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Business, Management and Accounting(all)
  • Strategy and Management
  • Information Systems and Management
  • Management of Technology and Innovation

Cite this

Green, Paul E. ; DeSarbo, Wayne S. ; Kedia, Pradeep K. / REPLY TO : “ON THE SENSITIVITY OF BRAND‐CHOICE SIMULATIONS TO ATTRIBUTE IMPORTANCE WEIGHTS”. In: Decision Sciences. 1981 ; Vol. 12, No. 3. pp. 517-521.
@article{a82a482e486048b584e18a7e9c4df652,
title = "REPLY TO: “ON THE SENSITIVITY OF BRAND‐CHOICE SIMULATIONS TO ATTRIBUTE IMPORTANCE WEIGHTS”",
abstract = "Our reply to Curry, Louviere, and Augustine's critique of our earlier paper focuses on differences in motivation between our research and theirs. Our interest in the problem relates to the possible incorporation of self‐explicated evaluations in conjoint data collection methods; subsequent to the appearance of our original paper, we have developed hybrid models that combine elements of self‐explicated (compositional) and conjoint (decompositional) data collection procedures. As far as we can surmise from their critique, Curry, Louviere, and Augustine are concerned with much broader strategic issues relating share of choices in the consumer population to changes in the shape of attribute weight distributions, shape of the Pareto tradeoff boundary, and so on.",
author = "Green, {Paul E.} and DeSarbo, {Wayne S.} and Kedia, {Pradeep K.}",
year = "1981",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1111/j.1540-5915.1981.tb00101.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "517--521",
journal = "Decision Sciences",
issn = "0011-7315",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

REPLY TO : “ON THE SENSITIVITY OF BRAND‐CHOICE SIMULATIONS TO ATTRIBUTE IMPORTANCE WEIGHTS”. / Green, Paul E.; DeSarbo, Wayne S.; Kedia, Pradeep K.

In: Decision Sciences, Vol. 12, No. 3, 07.1981, p. 517-521.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - REPLY TO

T2 - “ON THE SENSITIVITY OF BRAND‐CHOICE SIMULATIONS TO ATTRIBUTE IMPORTANCE WEIGHTS”

AU - Green, Paul E.

AU - DeSarbo, Wayne S.

AU - Kedia, Pradeep K.

PY - 1981/7

Y1 - 1981/7

N2 - Our reply to Curry, Louviere, and Augustine's critique of our earlier paper focuses on differences in motivation between our research and theirs. Our interest in the problem relates to the possible incorporation of self‐explicated evaluations in conjoint data collection methods; subsequent to the appearance of our original paper, we have developed hybrid models that combine elements of self‐explicated (compositional) and conjoint (decompositional) data collection procedures. As far as we can surmise from their critique, Curry, Louviere, and Augustine are concerned with much broader strategic issues relating share of choices in the consumer population to changes in the shape of attribute weight distributions, shape of the Pareto tradeoff boundary, and so on.

AB - Our reply to Curry, Louviere, and Augustine's critique of our earlier paper focuses on differences in motivation between our research and theirs. Our interest in the problem relates to the possible incorporation of self‐explicated evaluations in conjoint data collection methods; subsequent to the appearance of our original paper, we have developed hybrid models that combine elements of self‐explicated (compositional) and conjoint (decompositional) data collection procedures. As far as we can surmise from their critique, Curry, Louviere, and Augustine are concerned with much broader strategic issues relating share of choices in the consumer population to changes in the shape of attribute weight distributions, shape of the Pareto tradeoff boundary, and so on.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84989485265&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84989485265&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1981.tb00101.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1981.tb00101.x

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84989485265

VL - 12

SP - 517

EP - 521

JO - Decision Sciences

JF - Decision Sciences

SN - 0011-7315

IS - 3

ER -