Modern Marketing Research Concepts Methods, and Cases 2nd Edition by Fred M. Feinberg – Test Bank

Chapter 11: Multivariate Methods of Marketing Reseach II: Conjoint Analysis and Multidimensional Scaling

TRUE/FALSE

1. In interdependence methods, like conjoint and factor analyses, one or more variables are designated as being predicted by (dependent on) a set of independent variables.

ANS: F
The description is of dependence methods, which include conjoint analysis, but not factor analysis (an interdependence method).

PTS: 1 DIF: Moderate REF: pg 477

2. Conjoint analysis is a set of methods designed to understand and quantify trade-offs.

ANS: T
Conjoint analysis quantifies trade-offs made in consumers’ minds while evaluating products.

PTS: 1 DIF: Easy REF: pg 524

3. Conjoint allows researchers to determine how a product should be priced.

ANS: T
The nature of economic transactions means that everything is ultimately traded off against price, which is almost always an element of conjoint studies. One helpful feature of conjoint is that it quantifies how any attribute is traded off against price and, therefore, how each possible product should be priced.

PTS: 1 DIF: Moderate REF: pg 525

4. To determine the optimal levels of attributes for a product, researchers should use multidimensional scaling.

ANS: F
Determining the optimal levels of attributes for a product is a use of conjoint analysis.

PTS: 1 DIF: Easy REF: pg 525

5. An advantage of test markets is that products can be adjusted on the fly if targets are not being met.

ANS: F
In a test market, making changes to the product is difficult or impossible, whereas in a conjoint study, they can be adjusted on the fly if targets are not being met or the results indicate that the tested configurations need to be fixed.

PTS: 1 DIF: Moderate REF: pg 525

6. The overall goal of conjoint analysis is to measure the “part worths” or “importance utilities” using information provided by respondents, such as rankings, ratings, or choices.

ANS: T
Conjoint analysis attempts to measure trade-offs using a consumer’s evaluations.

PTS: 1 DIF: Easy REF: pg 528

NOTE: Refer to this output regarding customer preferences for light bulbs relative to brightness and bulb life to answer the following questions.

Buyer A Buyer B
2500 hrs 2000 hrs 1500 hrs 2500 hrs 2000 hrs 1500 hrs
1 2 4 100 watts 1 3 7
3 5 6 75 watts 2 5 8
7 8 9 60 watts 4 6 9

7. The preferences expressed in the output above are consistent and do not show the customers making any trade-offs between brightness and bulb life.

ANS: F
Buyer A generally prefers bulb life, but trades off some bulb life for brightness in ranking #3. Buyer B makes the opposite trade-off in ranking #3.

PTS: 1 DIF: Moderate REF: pg 526

8. The output above shows that Buyer A generally values brightness more than bulb life, whereas Buyer B generally has the opposite preference.

ANS: F
The output shows the reverse; Buyer A generally prefers longer bulb life, whereas Buyer B generally prefers a brighter bulb.

PTS: 1 DIF: Moderate REF: pg 527

9. The output above includes the relative importances of the attributes of brightness and bulb life and the relative importances of the various levels of these attributes.

ANS: F
The output above does not include the relative importances. These can be estimated by spanning each variable from 0 to 100 and assigning intermediate values for the rankings.

PTS: 1 DIF: Moderate REF: pg 528

10. The following set of part worths reproduces the rankings of Buyer A above:
100 watts: 100
75 watts: 60
60 watts: 50
2500 hours: 50
2000 hours: 25
15 hours: 0

ANS: T
This set of part worths results in the rankings of Buyer A above.

PTS: 1 DIF: Challenging REF: pg 528