The Potential of Conjoint Analysis for Communication Research

References

• Bansak, K., Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2018). The number of choice tasks and survey satisficing in conjoint experiments. Political Analysis, 26(1), 112–119. doi:10.1017/pan.2017.40
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradlow, E. T. (2005). Current issues and a ‘wish list’ for conjoint analysis. Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, 21, 319–323. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1526-4025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, S. H. (1997). Perfect union: CBC marries the best of conjoint and discrete choice models. Marketing Research, 9, 12–17.
   Google Scholar
• Eilders, C. (2006). News factors and news decisions. Theoretical and methodological advances in Germany. Communications, 31(1), 5–24. doi:10.1515/COMMUN.2006.002
   Google Scholar
• Green, P. E., Goldberg, S. M., & Montemayor, M. (1981). A hybrid utility estimation model for conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing, 45(1), 33–41. doi:10.1177/002224298104500104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M., & Wind, Y. (2001). Thirty years of conjoint analysis: Reflections and prospects. Interfaces, 31, 56–73. doi:10.1287/inte.2001.31.issue-3-supplement
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103–123. doi:10.1086/jcr.1978.5.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 3–19. doi:10.1177/002224299005400402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22, 1–30. doi:10.1093/pan/mpt024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartmann, T., & Klimmt, C. (2006). Gender and computer games: Exploring females’ dislikes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 910–931. doi:10.1111/jcmc.2006.11.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kessels, R., Goos, P., & Vandebroek, M. (2008). Optimal designs for conjoint experiments. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 52, 2369–2387. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2007.10.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knudsen, E., & Johannesson, M. P. (2018). Beyond the limits of survey experiments: How conjoint designs advance causal inference in political communication research. Political Communication, 1–13. doi:10.1080/10584609.2018.1493009
   Google Scholar
• Louviere, J., & Woodworth, G. (1983). Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 350–367. doi:10.2307/3151440
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce, R. D., & Tukey, J. W. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 1–27. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(64)90015-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarty, J. A., & Shrum, L. J. (2000). The measurement of personal values in survey research: A test of alternative rating procedures*. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 271–298.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, W. (2004). A cross-validity comparison of rating-based and choice-based conjoint analysis models. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 299–312. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2004.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z., & Mendelson, A. (2011). Toward a new(er) sociability: Uses, gratifications and social capital on Facebook. In S. Papathanassopoulos (Ed.), Media perspectives for the 21st century (pp. 212–230). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 3–37. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_02
   Google Scholar
• Sattler, H., & Hensel-Börner, S. (2007). A comparison of conjoint measurement with self-explicated approaches. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann, & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement. Methods and Applications (pp. 67–76). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Smock, A. D., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., & Wohn, D. Y. (2011). Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2322–2329. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srinivasan, V. (1988). A conjunctive-compensatory approach to the self-explication of multi attributed preferences. Decision Sciences, 19, 295–305. doi:10.1111/deci.1988.19.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Street, D. J., & Burgess, L. (2008). Some open combinatorial problems in the design of stated choice experiments. Discrete Mathematics, 308, 2781–2788. doi:10.1016/j.disc.2006.06.042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamborini, R., Weber, R., Bowman, N. D., Eden, A., & Skalski, P. (2013). ‘Violence is a many-splintered thing.’ The importance of realism, Justification, and graphicness in understanding perceptions of and preferences for violent films and video games. Projections, 7, 100–118. doi:10.3167/proj.2013.070108
   Google Scholar
• Train, K. E. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahnemann, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59, 251–278. doi:10.1086/jb.1986.59.issue-S4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wigley III, C. J., (2013). Dispelling three myths about likert scales in communication trait research. Communication Research Reports, 30, 366–372. doi:10.1080/08824096.2013.836937
   Google Scholar