Robust Preference Measurement A Simulation Study of Erroneous and Ambiguous Judgement’s Impact on AHP and Conjoint Analysis

Sören W. Scholz, Martin Meißner and Ralf Wagner ()
Additional contact information
Sören W. Scholz: Bielefeld University
Martin Meißner: Bielefeld University

A chapter in Operations Research Proceedings 2005, 2006, pp 613-618 from Springer

Abstract: Summary Despite the recent methodological progress to unburden respondents in preference analysis the quality of consumers’ judgements is fundamental for marketing research results. Surprisingly, the impact of ambiguous and erroneous judgments given by the respondents is widely neglected in the marketing literature. In this paper we compare the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Conjoint Analysis with respect to the impact of random errors as well as ambiguities in preference statements by means of Monte Carlo simulation studies. Referring to Thurstone’s law of comparative judgements, we demonstrate the superior robustness of the Analytic Hierarchy Process in dealing with these kinds of perturbing effects.

Keywords: Analytic Hierarchy Process; Preference Statement; Conjoint Analysis; Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process; Comparative Judgment (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2006
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:oprchp:978-3-540-32539-0_96

Ordering information: This item can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/9783540325390

DOI: 10.1007/3-540-32539-5_96

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Operations Research Proceedings from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().