Abstract
It is well known that the range of attribute variation used in a conjoint design influences the inferred attribute importance. However, even if the range is held constant, the addition of intermediate levels can increase this importance. In this paper we show why the problem occurs for rankorder preferences. The results from an experimental study confirm the existence of a systematic influence due to the number of (intermediate) levels. Surprisingly, the problem is equally strong when rating scale preferences are collected. Several possible solutions are suggested.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Currim, Imran S., Charles B.Weinberg, and Dick R.Wittink. (1981). “The Design of Subscription Programs for a Performing Arts Series,” Journal of Consumer Research 8 (June), 67–75.
Green, Paul E. (1974). “On the Design of Choice Experiments Involving Multifactor Alternatives,” Journal of Consumer Research 1 (September), 61–68.
Green, Paul E. (1984). “Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review,” Journal of Marketing Research 21 (May), 155–169.
Green, Paul E., and Vithala R.Rao. (1971). “Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data,” Journal of Marketing Research 8 (August), 355–363.
Green, Paul E., and V.Srinivasan. (1978). “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook,” Journal of Consumer Research 5 (September), 103–123.
Johnson, Richard M. (1974). “Trade-Off Analysis of Consumer Values,” Journal of Marketing Research 11 (May), 121–127.
Johnson, Richard M. (1987). “Adaptive Conjoint Analysis,” Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings 253–265.
Reibstein, David, John E. G.Bateson, and WilliamBoulding. (1988). “Conjoint Analysis Reliability: Empirical Findings,” Marketing Science 7 (Summer), 271–286.
Srinivasan, V. (1988). “A Conjunctive-Compensatory Approach to the Self-Explication of Multiattributed Preferences,” Decision Sciences 19 (Spring), 295–305.
Wittink, Dick R., and PhillipeCattin. (1989). “Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update,” Journal of Marketing 53 (July), 91–96.
Wittink, Dick R., and LakshmanKrishnamurthi. (1981). “Rank Order Preferences and the Part-Worth Model.” In John W.Keon (ed.), Marketing: Measurement and Analysis, Providence, RI: The Institute of Management Sciences, 8–20.
Wittink, Dick R., Lakshman, Krishnamurthi, and Julia B.Nutter. (1982). “Comparing Derived Importance Weights Across Attributes,” Journal of Consumer Research 8 (March), 471–474.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wittink, D.R., Krishnamurthi, L. & Reibstein, D.J. The effect of differences in the number of attribute levels on conjoint results. Market Lett 1, 113–123 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00435295
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00435295