Journal of Management Research

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Comparison of Full Profile Approach and Self-Explicated Approach of Conjoint Analysis


Affiliations
1 Department of Business Management Punjab Agriculture University Ludhiana, India
2 Standard Chartered Bank Ludhiana, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


This study empirically compares the full profile and self-explicated approach of conjoint analysis. Both the approaches were tested on the same set of respondents. Empirical evidence revealed that the effect of task presentation on importance ratings obtained through both the techniques were not the same rank correlation though positive, was not significant. Thus, there is no difference between attribute importance ranking by both the groups. However, differences in the overall rankings under full profile approach and self-explicated approach existed. Further, there is no difference between the part-worth values obtained through full profile and self-explicated approaches. In case of comparison of partworths, in seven attribute levels, the chi-square test was significant and in case of other seven attribute levels it was not found to be significant. As a result, we cannot conclude that these two techniques are similar or different, because as per this study, there is partial relation between the results.

Keywords

Toothpaste, Colgate, Close-up, Pepsodent, Conjoint Analysis, Full Profile Approach and Selfexplicated Approach
User
Notifications

  • Addelman, S. (1962), Orthogonal Main Effects Plans for Asymmetrical Factorial Experiments, Technometrics, 4(1): 21-46.

  • Green, P. E. and Rao. V. R. (1969), Non-metric Approaches to Multi Variate analysis in Marketing, working paper, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A. (Original not seen, cited by Green, P. E. and Srinivasan, V. (1978) Conjoint analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook, Journal of Consumer Research, 5(3): 103-122.

  • Green, P. E. and Srinivasan, V. (1978), Conjoint analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook, Journal of Consumer Research, 5(3): 103-122.

  • Green, P. E. and Rao, V. R. (1971), Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgemental Data, J. Marketing Research 8(3): 355-63.

  • Green, P.E. and Srinivasan, V. (1990), Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice, Journal of Marketing, 54(4): 3-19.

  • Huber, J. C., Wittink, D. R., Fielder, J. A. and Miller, J. C. (1991), An Empirical Comparison of Adaptive Conjoint Analysis and Full Profile Judgments, URL: http:// www.sawtoothsoftware.com//techabs.shtm.

  • Park, C. S. and Srinivasan, V. (1994), A Survey Based Method for Measuring and Understanding Brand Equity and its Extendability, Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2): 271-288.

  • Surana, M. (2002), An Empirical Comparison Between Full Profile Approach and Self- Explicated Approach of Conjoint analysis, MBA Research Project, Department of Business Management, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.


Abstract Views: 431

PDF Views: 1




  • Comparison of Full Profile Approach and Self-Explicated Approach of Conjoint Analysis

Abstract Views: 431  |  PDF Views: 1

Authors

Sandeep Kapur
Department of Business Management Punjab Agriculture University Ludhiana, India
Babita Kumar
Department of Business Management Punjab Agriculture University Ludhiana, India
Gagandeep Banga
Department of Business Management Punjab Agriculture University Ludhiana, India
Mahesh Surana
Standard Chartered Bank Ludhiana, India

Abstract


This study empirically compares the full profile and self-explicated approach of conjoint analysis. Both the approaches were tested on the same set of respondents. Empirical evidence revealed that the effect of task presentation on importance ratings obtained through both the techniques were not the same rank correlation though positive, was not significant. Thus, there is no difference between attribute importance ranking by both the groups. However, differences in the overall rankings under full profile approach and self-explicated approach existed. Further, there is no difference between the part-worth values obtained through full profile and self-explicated approaches. In case of comparison of partworths, in seven attribute levels, the chi-square test was significant and in case of other seven attribute levels it was not found to be significant. As a result, we cannot conclude that these two techniques are similar or different, because as per this study, there is partial relation between the results.

Keywords


Toothpaste, Colgate, Close-up, Pepsodent, Conjoint Analysis, Full Profile Approach and Selfexplicated Approach

References