Assessing Attribute Importance:

A Comparison of Six Methods

JAMES JACCARD
DAVID BRINBERG
LEE J. ACKERMAN*

Six methods of measuring attribute importance were evaluated for convergent va-
lidity. The methods were (1) an open-ended elicitation approach, (2) an information-
search approach based on Jacoby's behavioral process technology, (3) direct ratings
of importance, (4) conjoint measurement, (5) indices based on Jaccard's subjective
probability approach, and (6) a paired comparison approach. The convergent validity
of importance methods was investigated for two product classes: birth control and
cars. Results indicated relatively low levels of convergence among measures.

A major focus of consumer research has been the

development of methods for identifying product
attributes that are important in influencing product
preferences and choice. Several approaches have
evolved for this purpose within the disciplines of con-
sumer behavior and social psychology, such as conjoint
measurement techniques (e.g., Green and Wind 1973),
direct ratings of importance (e.g., Myers and Gutman
1974), methods based on subjective probability models
(e.g., Jaccard, Knox, and Brinberg 1979), information
display boards (lOB; e.g., Jacoby 1975, 1977), open-
ended elicitation techniques (e.g., Fishbein 1972), and
Thurstonian methods (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975), to
name a few.
There have been relatively few evaluations of the de-
gree of agreement between importance measures. If
there is relatively high convergence between methods,
then use of a given technique should be dictated pri-
marily by practical concerns. Such convergence would
favor the direct rating approach relative to the more
cumbersome conjoint and lOB methods. If the methods
are relatively uncorrelated, however, then this implies
that either one or more of the methods is suspect, or
that they are measuring different constructs. Of interest
would then be the determination of which approach is
most appropriate for identifying product attributes that
can influence product choice. The purpose of the pres-
ent research was to assess the convergence among com-
monly used indices of attribute importance and to eval-
*James Jaccard is Associate Professor, Department of Psychology,
David Brinberg is Associate Professor, Department of Marketing,
and Lee J. Ackerman is a graduate student in the Department of
Psychology, all at the State University of New York, Albany, NY
12222.
463
uate their psychometric properties in terms of validity
and reliability.
Importance is conceptualized in the present research
in terms of change; i.e., an attribute is said to be im-
portant if a change in the individual'S perception of
that product attribute leads to a change in the attitude
toward the product. This conceptualization is generally
consistent with Myers and Alpert's (1977) definition of
attribute importance. I There exist only a few studies
that have empirically compared methods for assessing
attribute importance in the consumer literature (e.g.,
Heeler, Okechuku, and Reid 1979; Myers and Alpert
1977; Myers and Chay 1979; Neslin 1981; Ryan and
Etzel 1976; Wiley, MacLachlan, and Moinpur 1977).
The design used by Heeler et al. (1979) is typical of
most research contrasting importance measures. It
compared attribute importance as assessed by the lOB
approach, a direct rating of attribute importance, and
conjoint measurement. Subjects in this experiment
completed only one of the three tasks. Mean scores were
obtained for each measure for each of 10 attributes,
and the within-attribute rank ordering of means was
compared for the three methods. The rank-order cor-
relations were of moderate magnitude (approximately
0.50) but of marginal statistical significance due to the
'Myers and Alpert imply that certain methods of assessment are
directly linked to the concepts ofattribute salience, importance, and
determinance. For example, they associate open-ended elicitation
approaches with salience, rating scale approaches with importance
and correlational approaches with determinance. In fact, there is no
one-to-one correspondence between methods and concepts. Corre-
lations can be spurious, and hence may reflect neither determinance
nor importance. Elicitation questions can be phrased so that they
reflect (in principle) importance or determinance (e.g., "name the
attributes that are important to you in making a choice," as opposed
to "name the attributes that characterize this product").
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH. Vol. 12. March 1986
464
small number of observations (n = 10). The vast ma-
jority of research comparing measures of attribute im-
portance has used a similar methodology, wherein sub-
jects complete only one measurement task and where
comparisons of methods are based on aggregate-level
analyses. This approach has limitations because incon-
sistency can exist between measures at the individual
level that are consistent at the aggregate level. A more
sensitive index of convergence would be to obtain mea-
sures on each of the methods for each individual and
then correlate measures across subjects (or alternatively,
within subjects, idiographically). In addition, research
has examined the relationship between only three or
fewer measures. Comprehensive comparisons of the
major methods in the consumer literature for assessing
attribute importance do not exist. The present research
explored the convergence of six major approaches at
both the aggregate and individual levels.
METHOD
Subjects
Subjects were 110 female undergraduate students in
introductory psychology classes at a large midwestern
university.
Products and Attributes
Two product decisions were studied: (I) the decision
of what type of car to purchase, and (2) the decision of
what type of birth control method to use. Based on pre-
vious research, nine attributes of each product were
identified for the focus of investigation. For the choice
of a car, these were: cost, warranty, 2 versus 4 door, gas
mileage, roominess, manufacturer, repair record, boy-
friend's approval/disapproval, and automatic versus
standard transmission. For the choice of birth control
method, the attributes were: the chances of major health
consequences, the chances of minor side effects, whether
the method requires a doctor's attention, convenience
of use, convenience in obtaining the method, boy-
friend's approval/disapproval, potential effects on sex-
ual pleasure, cost, and effectiveness in preventing preg-
nancy.
Procedure
All subjects completed tasks relevant to both products
using all six approaches. The order of the two products
was counterbalanced across subjects. Within a given
product, the free elicitation task was always adminis-
tered first in order to avoid biasing subjects with ex-
perimenter-generated attributes. The order of presen-
tation of the remaining five tasks was varied via a latin
square design. Analyses revealed no impact of order of
presentation on mean ratings of attributes or on the
relative ranking of means.
Each subject participated in an hour and one-half
session in which all tasks were self-administered. The
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
experimenter was present to answer questions and to
give a brief oral introduction to the study. Subjects were
asked to answer all questions carefully and honestly
and were warned of the redundancy of the questions.
Confidentiality of responses was assured. Each task was
introduced with a cover sheet describing the nature of
the task. Practice items concerning the choice of a cam-
era preceded the actual test questions in order to fa-
miliarize subjects with the scales and question formats
and to eliminate warm-up effects from the data.
Materials
Measures will be described in terms of the car prod-
ucts. Comparable measures were obtained for the birth
control products.
Elicitation Measure. Subjects were asked to consider
the characteristics that are important to them in eval-
uating a car to buy and to list the factors on a sheet of
paper. Responses were content-analyzed by two coders
to determine if any of the nine attributes were men-
tioned and in what order. High levels of agreement were
observed between coders (e.g., inter-coder agreement
for whether a given attribute was mentioned averaged
95 percent). In cases of disagreement, one ofthe authors
resolved the discrepancy. Several researchers have sug-
gested that the order of elicitation will also be sensitive
to attribute importance. Indirect support for this is pro-
vided by Fishbein's (e.g., Kaplan and Fishbein 1969)
research on belief salience and belief strength, Tversky
and Kahneman's (1973) research on the availability
heuristic, Szalay and Deese's (1978) associational re-
search, and Hullian learning theory. An importance in-
dex for a given attribute was defined for each individual
to incorporate order of elicitation. This involved divid-
ing the rank order of elicitation of the attribute (where
I = last elicited attribute through n = first elicited at-
tribute) by the number of attributes elicited by the sub..
ject. If a given attribute was not mentioned, the index
for that attribute was set to zero. Approximately 3 per-
cent of the elicited responses did not correspond to any
of the nine-attribute categories for the two product
classes.
Information-Search Measures. The information-
search tasks were based on Jacoby (1977), and were
presented on a micro-computer. Subjects were shown
a list of five hypothetical options (e.g., car A, car B, etc.)
and the list of nine attributes. Subjects indicated which
information they wanted to see and were asked to
choose that car from among the five that they would
be most likely to purchase. They were permitted to select
as much or as little information as they wanted, and
they controlled what information they saw along with
the order, duration, and number of times a piece of
information was accessed. However, only one piece of
information was presented at a time. Two indices of
importance were computed for each subject (Jacoby et
ASSESSING ATTRIBUTE IMPORTANCE
al. 1976). The first was based on the frequency of search
and was defined as the number oftimes that an attribute
dimension was searched divided by the total number
of values acquired by the individual. The second was
based on the order of search and was defined as 1-(S/
p)/T, where S = the sum of the rank orders of infor-
mation search on the attribute dimension in question,
p = the total number of values searched on the dimen-
sion, and T = the total number of values searched by
the subject. As an example, if an individual acquired
20 pieces ofinformation (T), the first and fifth of which
were on the price dimension, then the order index would
be 1-1 + 5)/2)/20 = 0.S5. The closer the number to
1, the more important the dimension. If a dimension
was not searched, the indices were set to zero. Ranks
for re-acquisition of values already searched were ex-
cluded from the calculations.
Importance Ratings. Subjects were asked to rate how
important each attribute would be in evaluating a car
on an II-point scale anchored by 0 (not at all important)
and 10 (very important).
Conjoint Measures. Subjects were presented with
cards, each of which described a car using information
about four ofthe attributes: cost, warranty, boyfriend's
approval/disapproval, and gas mileage. The attributes
were manipulated with two levels each, yielding 16 dif-
ferent stimuli via a 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 factorial design. Only
four attributes were manipulated to keep the number
of stimuli to a manageable number and to permit tests
of additivity (which require a full factorial design). Val-
ues were described as "good" or "bad" for purposes of
manipulating a factor (see Jaccard and Wood 1986 for
the rationale of this), except for the disapproval/ap-
proval factor. Subjects were asked to rank order the
cards from most preferred to least preferred. Tests of
additivity were performed (in no case was additivity
rejected), and importance estimates were derived from
utility estimates provided by MONANOV A.
Subjective Probability Measures. A popular subjec-
tive probability model that can be used to define at-
tribute importance is one based on Jaccard's extension
ofWyer's (1975) probabilistic model of the relationship
between beliefs (Danes et al. 19S0; Jaccard et al. 1979).
The importance index involves calculating the absolute
difference between two subjective conditional proba-
bilities. These were obtained for each attribute, using
an It-point scale with endpoints 0 (not at all willing to
consider it) to 11 (very willing to consider it). The P(lIA)
statements were of the format "Suppose that a particular
car was inexpensive. Would you be willing to consider
this as a car you might buy?" The P(lIA') conditional
had the following format: "Suppose that a particular
car was expensive. Would you still be willing to consider
this as a car you might buy?" The absolute difference
between these two conditional measures served as the
index of importance (see Jaccard et al. 1979 for the
465
logic of this measure). Technically, the response format
used does not represent a subjective probability. How-
ever, it captures the spirit of the approach in terms of
differential response to the presence or absence of an
attribute.
Thurstone Measure. Subjects were presented with
pairs of attributes and asked to indicate which of the
two would be more important to them in evaluating a
car. All possible pairs were presented and scale values
of importance were derived using traditional paired
comparison analysis (Edwards 1957, pp. 19-52). This
approach is only applicable at the aggregate level, be-
cause individual estimates are not possible.
RESULTS
Analysis of Individual Attributes
The six individual measures of importance were used
to generate a multitrait-multimethod matrix for each
topic area. This was, in principle, a nine trait (attribute)-
six method matrix of 54 measures. However, the con-
joint measures were only obtained on four attributes.
Thus, two different matrices could be specified: a four
attribute-six method matrix (in which the conjoint
measures were included) and a nine attribute-five
method matrix (in which the conjoint measures were
excluded). A separate path model, designed to estimate
reliabilities as well as contributions of true score vari-
ance and method variance (see Schmidt 1975) was fitted
to each matrix using LISREL (Joreskog 1970). In both
cases, a four attribute-six method/nine attribute-five
method model was rejected due to a poor fit (i.e., sta-
tistically significant and sizeable discrepancies between
reproduced correlations based on the model and ob-
served correlations). Several alternative models were
investigated using this approach, none of which proved
satisfactory. Inspection of the correlations revealed that
the measures were, for the most part, uncorrelated, sug-
gesting that the best fitting models would be those that
are statistically underidentified. As such, the confir-
matory factor analytic approach was abandoned and
more traditional analyses were performed.
For a given attribute, the six measures of importance
were correlated (in cases where the conjoint measure
was not obtained, only five measures were correlated).
Each correlation matrix was analyzed by means of a
principal components factor analysis and rotated to an
oblique (oblimax) criterion. The number of factors se-
lected for purposes of rotation was determined by a scree
test. Eighteen analyses were performed (nine for the
birth control attributes and nine for the car attributes).
Analyses tended to yield either three-factor or four-fac-
tor solutions. Factor correlations in each of the eighteen
analyses were generally low, ranging from -0.07 to 0.24
with an absolute average ofO.OS. In two of the analyses,
the conjoint measure tended to load on the same factor
466 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

as the probability measure and the direct rating mea- TABLE 1

sure. (A measure was said to "load" on a factor if the AVERAGE CORRELATION BETWEEN IMPORTANCE
structure coefficient was greater than 0.50.) In all other INDICES: BIRTH CONTROL
analyses, the conjoint measure loaded on a separate
factor (i.e., a factor with no other loadings greater than Fre- Paired
Indices E SP quency Order DR comparison
0.50). The elicitation index loaded on a separate factor
in all analyses. The probability index and the direct Elicitation (E) .30 .15 .19 .33 .23
rating index tended to load on the same factor in all Subjective
but three of the analyses. Frequency of search and order probability (SP) .08 .15 .15 .68 .33
of search from the behavioral process method always Frequency: lOB .12 .11 .82 .19 .19
Order: lOB .10 .13 .49 .58 .15
loaded on the same factor. 2 .11 .09 .22
Direct rating (DR) .07 .38
The average intercorrelation matrices between each Conjoint .11 .10 .12 .09 .10
of the six measures are presented in the lower off-di-
agonals of Tables 1 and 2 for the birth control and car NOTE: A_age correlations with conjoint measures are based on four attributes; others are

decisions, respectively. The data are generally in agree-
ment with the factor analysis, although the size of the
correlations between "common" indices (as identified
by the factor analysis) is not very impressive. The av-
erage correlation of the two lOB indices was 0.49, while
that for the probability measure and the direct rating
measure was 0.38. These represent rather low coeffi-
cients in the context of convergent validity.
Analyses of Aggregate Indices
Aggregate-level indices were also evaluated for con-
vergence in terms of the rank-order importance of dif-
ferent attributes. The aggregate-level measure for a given
index was defined as the mean importance score of the
attribute on that index (with the exception of the paired
comparison method, which is defined only on the ag-
gregate level). The convergence between aggregate level
indices was assessed in the following way. For a given
index, the attributes were rank ordered in terms of the
aggregate score. Kendall rank-order correlations were
computed for the ranks derived from one index with
the ranks derived from another index. The results are
reported in the upper off-diagonal elements of Tables
1 and 2. Although the correlations generally are larger
than the across-individual analyses, their magnitude is
not very impressive, given the small n.
Within-Subjects Analyses
Convergence between measures for each individual
was also assessed using procedures similar to the aggre-
gate level analysis, but where the rank orders were de-
termined on the basis of a given individual's scores.
Thus, a total of 110 5 X 5 rank-order correlation ma-
trices were computed, one for each subject. The cor-
relations were not impressive in magnitude and tended
to follow the same pattern as the aggregate-level anal-
ysis. There was a moderate degree of variability in the
'For brevity, tabular summaries of the factor analyses (and cor-
relations discussed later) are not presented. They can be obtained on
request from the first author.
based on nine attributes. Lower ofl-diagonal elements are from across-individual analysis.
Upper ofl-<liagonal elements are from aggregate-level analysis.
correlation matrices across subjects, but we observed
few instances of strong, consistent convergence between
the multiple measures.
DISCUSSION
The present research evaluated the convergence of
six approaches for assessing attribute importance. When
analyzed in terms of correlations across individuals,
there was relatively little convergence between methods.
The two behavioral process measures were moderately
correlated, as were the probability and direct rating
methods. The lOB measures use the same measurement
method (information acquisition in an lOB task), and
both the probability measure and the direct rating
method use rating scales. The correlations between these
indices thus may be inflated due to shared method vari-
ance. Overall, strong evidence for convergence was not
apparent in the data. This result raises questions about
consumer research that relies on a single measure for
inferring attribute importance. Each of the methods
considered either has a substantial theoretical base or
is widely used in applied research. The present results
suggest that conclusions made about attribute impor-
tance may be quite different depending on the method
used to assess importance. Clearly, further research is
needed on what the different indices are in fact mea-
suring.
In terms of attribute importance, it is possible that
one of the measures is valid relative to the other mea-
sures. Change studies can be designed in which two or
more of the approaches make different predictions
about the efficacy of changing a perception about a given
attribute relative to product evaluation. The "better"
measure would be that which best predicts the effects
of a perception change. Alternatively, one could con-
ceptualize importance as a multidimensional concept
in which each of the measures taps into different aspects
of importance. The relative lack of correlation between
indices results from the different measures tapping into
ASSESSING ATTRIBUTE IMPORTANCE
TABLE 2
AVERAGE CORRELATION BETWEEN IMPORTANCE
INDICES: CARS
Fre-
Indices E SP quency Order
Elicitation (E) .19 .15 .22
Subjective
probability (SP) .08 .28 .25
Frequency: lOB .12 .12 .78
Order: lOB .14 .11 .49
Direct rating (DR) .13 .37 .09 .13
Conjoint .09 .11 .10 .11
NOTE: Average correlations with conjoint measures are based on four attributes; others are
based on nine attributes. Lower off-<liagonal elements are from aa-oss-indivldual analysis.
Upper off-<liagonal elements are from aggregate-leval analysis.
different aspects of importance. For example, the elic-
itation index appears to measure, albeit imperfectly,
factors that people consciously consider in their eval-
uations. The other indices may, in contrast, indicate
whether a given consequence could be important in in-
fluencing an evaluation, were it to be made salient and
manipulated. This does not, however, account for the
lack of correlation between the latter indices. A mul-
tidimensional approach would require an elaboration
of the conceptual foundations of the dimensions un-
derlying attribute importance and how these map onto
product evaluation. Measures would then be evaluated
relative to the conceptual framework.
Several methodological points should be considered
in the context of the present data. First, the low levels
of convergence may primarily be the result of unreli-
ability of measures. We originally intended to assess
reliability using confirmatory factor analysis. However,
because all viable models were statistically underiden-
tified, this was not possible. We doubt that reliability
is a major problem for several reasons. First, the study
was conducted with college students who are relatively
bright and very capable of understanding the scales
used. If anything, this population would probably yield
more reliable measures than populations typically used
in consumer research. Second, we took considerable
care to motivate subjects and to eliminate factors such
as warm-up effects and failure to understand scale for-
mats. The items were pretested on a small sample of
subjects, respondents were given thorough instructions
about the tasks, the order of tasks was counterbalanced,
and each task was preceded by practice items. Finally,
every attempt was made to use the measures as they
have been used in traditional consumer research studies.
If lack of reliability is a problem, then it is a problem
that is probably characteristic of typical applications
that assess attribute importance.
Another methodological concern is that the present
research obtained multiple indices of importance from
the same subjects. It could be argued that fatigue and
467
boredom may have led subjects to cease taking the task
seriously toward the end of each topic, hence decreasing
convergence. Two points can be made in this regard.
First, it can just as easily be argued that subjects tried
Paired to be consistent across tasks and, if anything, that the
DR comparison current data overestimate convergence. Second, we
found little evidence for order effects when these were
.19 .28
specifically analyzed in the context of the counterbal-
.62 .68 anced design .
.22 .19 The present results are consistent with those reported
.25 .15 by Jaccard and Sheng (1983), who compared the con-
.58
.11
vergence of six importance indices. Jaccard and Sheng
included neither the conjoint task nor the pairwise
comparison task. Their focus was on attribute impor-
tance at the brand level, whereas the present research
focused on attribute importance at the product level.
Taken together, the results of both studies make it ev-
ident that the conceptual foundations of measures of
attribute importance require greater attention from
consumer researchers and that the measures must
emerge from a strong theoretical base.
[Received February 1985. Revised September 1985.]
REFERENCES
Danes, Jeffrey E., James G. Johnston, Phillipe Cattin, and
John E. Hunter (1980), "Evaluating Marketing Com-
munication Strategies: Attribute Importance versus
Transfer Discrepancy," Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 7, ed. Jerry C. Olson, Ann Arbor: MI: Association
for Consumer Research, 561-565.
Fishbein, Martin (1972), "Towards an Understanding of
Family Planning Behaviors," Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 2,219-227.
- - - and Icek Ajzen (1975), Beliefs, Attitudes, Intentions,
and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research,
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Green Paul E. and V. Srinivasan (1978), "Conjoint Analysis
in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of
Consumer Research, 5, 317-328.
- - - and Yoram Wind (1973), Multiattribute Decisions in
Marketing: A Measurement Approach, Hinsdale, IL:
Dryden.
Heeler, Roger M., Chike Okechuku, and Stan Reid (1979),
"Attribute Importance: Contrasting Measurements,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 16,60-63.
Jaccard, James and Diana Sheng (1983), "Assessing the Im-
portance of Information in Influencing Decisions: Im-
plications for Nonprofit Marketing Research," in Non-
profit Marketing: Conceptual and Empirical Research,
eds. F.K. Shuptrine and P.H. Reingen, American Mar-
keting Association.
- - - and Gregory N. Wood (1986), "An Idiothetic Analysis
of Behavioral Decision Making," in Perspectives on
Methodology in Consumer Research, eds. David Brinberg
and Richard J. Lutz, New York: Springer-Verlag.
- - - , Richard Knox, and David Brinberg (1979), "Predic-
tion of Behavior from Beliefs: An Extension and Test of
468
a Subjective Probability Model," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 37, 1239-1248.
Jacoby, Jacob (1975), "Perspectives on a Consumer Infor-
mation Processing Research Program," Communications
Research, 2, 203-215.
- - - (1977), "The Emerging Behavioral Process Technol-
ogy in Consumer Decision Making," in Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 4, ed. William D. Perreault,
Jr., Atlanta, GA: Association for Consumer Research,
263-265.
- - - , Robert W. Chestnut, Keith C. Weigel, and William
A. Fisher (1976), "Pre-purchase Information Acquisition:
Description of a Process Methodology, Research Para-
digm, and Pilot Investigation," in Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 3, ed. Beverlee B. Anderson, Ann Arbor,
MI: Association for Consumer Research, 306-314.
Joreskog, Karl G. (1970), "A General Method for Analysis
of Covariance Structures," Biometrika, 57, 239-251.
Kaplan, Kalman J. and Martin Fishbein (1969), "The Source
of Beliefs, Their Saliency, and Prediction of Attitude,"
Journal of Social Psychology, 78, 63-74.
Myers, James H. and Mark I. Alpert (1977), "Semantic Con-
fusion in Attitude Research: Salience vs. Importance vs.
Determinance," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.
4, ed. William D. Perreault, Jr., Altanta, GA: Association
for Consumer Research, 106-110.
- - - and Richard F. Chay (1979), "A Comparison of Two
Methods for Determining Optimum Level of Producer
Characteristics," in Advances in Consumer Research,
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Vol. 6, ed. William L. Wilkie, Ann Arbor, MI: Associ-
ation for Consumer Research, 259-262.
- - - and J. Gutman (1974), "Validating Multi-attribute
Attitude Models," American Marketing Association
Proceedings, 95-99.
Neslin, Scott A. (1981), "Linking Product Features to Per-
ceptions: Self-stated Versus Statistically Revealed Im-
portance Weights," Journal of Marketing Research, 18,
80-86.
Ryan, Michael and M.J. Etzel (1976), "The Nature of Salient
Outcomes and Referents in the Extended Model," in
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 3, ed. Beverlee B.
Anderson, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer
Research, 485-490.
Schmidt, Neal (1978), "Path Analysis of Multitrait-Multi-
method Matrices," Applied Psychological Measurements,
2,157-173.
Szalay, Lorand B. and James Deese (1978), Subjective Mean-
ing and Culture: An Assessment Through Word Associ-
ations, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman (1973), " Availability:
A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability,"
Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
Wiley, James B., Douglas L. MacLachlan, and Reza Moinpur
(1977), "Comparison of Stated and Inferred Parameter
Values in Additive Models: An Illustration of a Para-
digm," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4, ed.
William D. Perreault, Jr., Atlanta, GA: Association for
Consumer Research, 106-110.