conceptualizing and measuring prospect wants ... · surement of attribute and benefit importance is...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Conceptualizing and Measuring Prospect Wants ... · surement of attribute and benefit importance is confounded with brand beliefs. More specifically, we find that the part-worth of](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022090606/605c1529ae8b60393f7ca18b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Cust. Need. and Solut. (2014) 1:23–39DOI 10.1007/s40547-013-0001-9
ORIGINAL PAPER
Conceptualizing and Measuring Prospect Wants:Understanding the Source of Brand Preference
Geraldine Fennell · Greg M. Allenby
Published online: 12 December 2013© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract Prospect wants originate upstream from themarketplace, in the context of everyday life and work.Researchers in marketing attempt to read wants by measur-ing and decomposing consumer preferences for marketplaceofferings. In this paper, we show that consumer prefer-ence for offerings reflects an interaction between motivatingconditions that prompt users to action, and capability ofa brand’s attributes to address the source of the motiva-tion. A hierarchical Bayes conjoint model is proposed formeasuring motivating wants that exist upstream from themarketplace and instrumental wants that are expressed asreactions to marketplace offerings. The model is illustratedwith data from a national survey of the concerns and inter-ests that prompt prospects to brush their teeth and theirpreference for toothpaste attributes .
Keywords Conjoint analysis · Motivation · Part-worth ·Hierarchical Bayes
1 Introduction
The concept of wants is central to the discipline of mar-keting and its role in guiding management to make goods
Electronic supplementary material The online version of thisarticle (doi:10.1007/s40547-013-0001-9) contains supplementarymaterial, which is available to authorized users.
G. Fennell · G. M. Allenby (�)Fisher College of Business, Ohio State University,Columbus, USAe-mail: [email protected]
G. Fennelle-mail: [email protected]
and services that people will want to buy. Wants are typ-ically associated with actual or hypothetical marketplaceofferings (e.g., wanting a brand of toothpaste, soda, a pet)and associated attributes (e.g., good breath freshening, cit-rus flavored, easy care). The importance of marketplace, orinstrumental, wants is measured with data that reflect con-sumer preferences for real and hypothetical offerings, oftenusing statistical models (e.g., conjoint analysis) that decom-pose the preference for an offering into utility part-worthsassociated with features and attributes.
Researchers in marketing have a long history of studyingwants and drivers of brand preference. Analysis has histor-ically focused on instruments used in achieving a desiredgoal and, more recently, the goal itself. While there iswide acceptance for a view of motivation as arising fromdisparity between an individual’s current state and theirimagined, desired state [1, 2], theory and research havefavored studying the latter state to the virtual neglect ofthe former state. For example, the analysis of benefits [19],goals [7, 16, 17, 20], and means-end chains [26] describesthe objects, attributes, or the activities that are instrumen-tal for achieving desired imagined states or the imaginedstates themselves. Such analysis does not investigate themotivating conditions that allocate and direct an individual’sresources in the first place, which describe the current stateof the individual. The individual is simply assumed to bemotivated toward the imagined state. While the distinctionbetween motivation and goals is recognized, the implicationof the distinction for understanding prospective user wantshas not been developed.
In this paper, we report an approach to measuring moti-vating wants that describes the current state of the individualand compare it to a traditional analysis of instrumentalwants associated with the imagined state of the individual.Our analysis separately examines both where one is coming
![Page 2: Conceptualizing and Measuring Prospect Wants ... · surement of attribute and benefit importance is confounded with brand beliefs. More specifically, we find that the part-worth of](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022090606/605c1529ae8b60393f7ca18b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
24 Cust. Need. and Solut. (2014) 1:23–39
from and where one is headed, providing insight into condi-tions for which a brand is preferred. When no variable thatdescribes the current (motivating) state is included, analysisof consumer preferences leaves much ambiguity regardingthe nature of the motivating conditions, which are the con-ditions that valued goods and services must address. Thereexists much literature in psychology and marketing on whatis being pursued, but not how the current state contributesor gives rise to the pursuit.
For example, consumers may report that they want to“look good” and “feel good” in relation to the goal of los-ing body weight. Such items are end points and do not statethe conditions that lead to wanting to “look good.” Is theperson overweight over all their body or just in particu-lar places? Which places? Does their shortness/height entertheir sense of not looking good? Do nonapparent musclesenter their concern? Do they have concerns about hang-ing skin, if they lose weight? Is their sense of not feelinggood due to their having failed to take care of their appear-ance? Do they feel bad because they cannot move easily dueto being overweight? Has their present condition happenedslowly or rapidly? Knowing where one is coming from pro-vides guidance to manufacturers for brand (re)formulationand the creation of media content that is often not availablefrom knowing only the imagined state.
As a secondary issue, we provide evidence that the mea-surement of attribute and benefit importance is confoundedwith brand beliefs. More specifically, we find that the part-worth of an attribute-level is low when the attribute-level isjudged to not describe the current array of brands. This isnot true, however, for the presence of the motivating con-ditions, which is shown to be unrelated to brand beliefs.Studying motivating conditions therefore provides a plat-form for assessing the extent to which the current rangeof brand offerings and their attributes are responsive to themotivating conditions present.
Finally, we demonstrate that motivating conditions canbe combined with information on desired attributes and ben-efits to yield improved predictions of brand preference. Ouranalysis extends the work of Yang et al. [30] who demon-strate the existence of diverse motivating conditions acrossindividuals within, as well as intraindividual variation inmotivations across, objectively specified environments.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows:In the next section, we lay out the conceptual differencesbetween motivating wants that describe the current stateof the individual and instrumental wants associated withthe attributes and benefits of marketplace offerings and theimagined state. By marketplace or instrumental wants, werefer to wants inferred from reactions to goods and servicesoffered at the retailer, the box office, or on the Internet.In Section 3, we describe a method of measuring motivat-ing wants, illustrating the method with an analysis of the
conditions present in the context for brushing one’s teeth.Data and parameter estimates from our measurement modelare described in Section 4, and in Section 5, we present find-ings from our motivational analysis, along with those from atraditional conjoint analysis of toothpaste. In Section 6, weoffer a conceptual discussion of the information containedin motivating wants and marketplace preferences.
2 Conceptualizing and Measuring Prospect Wants
Figure 1 displays an abbreviated model of action thatfocuses attention on key aspects of our analysis. Personaland environmental systems intersect to produce motivatingconditions that lead to desired benefits and attributes andeventually to marketplace action including brand choice.Motivating conditions allocate an individual’s resources toa domain of action and prompt them to adjust their relation-ship with the environment within that domain. For example,an individual may feel cold because of a drop in the ambienttemperature and become motivated to ease their discom-fort. The individual may look to remedies at hand (e.g.,close the window) and/or marketplace offerings (e.g., asweater) to improve their condition or, weighing resourcesrequired against discomfort, may decide that adjustmentis not cost-worthy, and action is not forthcoming. Finally,ex post and ex ante analysis is relative to the productoffering.
Our model of motivation and behavior is consistent withLewin’s [23] formulation of behavior that comprises per-son (P), environment (E), situation (S), and behavior (B).Person and environment jointly contribute to a situation asperceived (i.e., S = f(P,E)), and behavior is assumed to arisefrom within the situation (i.e., B = f(S)). Other authors (e.g.,[8, 11]) have used person–situation models of the form ofB = f(P,S), which describes variation in behavior but failsto provide access to how the person perceives the environ-ment; such a formulation results in ambiguity regarding thecurrent state of the individual.
For example, Dickson [11] identifies benefits and fea-tures of suntan lotion that arise from various person (e.g.,young children, teenagers, women, men)–situation (e.g.,beach/boating sunbathing, home-poolside sunbathing, sun-lamp sunbathing, snow skiing) settings. Situation bene-fits and features include items like “windburn protection,”“large pump dispenser,” “won’t stain wood/concrete,” and“antifreeze formula” that describe the imagined state andinstrumental attributes, but do not describe the current stateof the individual. Examples of motivating conditions thatdescribe the current state of the individual include itemssuch as “I’m concerned that my pale skin makes me lookunhealthy,” “If I don’t look tanned, I’ll feel out of it incompany with friends who’ve been on vacation,” and “The
![Page 3: Conceptualizing and Measuring Prospect Wants ... · surement of attribute and benefit importance is confounded with brand beliefs. More specifically, we find that the part-worth of](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022090606/605c1529ae8b60393f7ca18b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Cust. Need. and Solut. (2014) 1:23–39 25
Fig. 1 Model of action andbrand use
season changes, and it’s time to look tanned.” Such itemsdescribe the motivating features of the individual’s currentstate (i.e., where the individual is coming from), which spec-ify features of the desired state (i.e., where the individual isgoing to).
Person and environment are viewed as comprising mul-tiple systems, allowing for a small subset of each inter-secting to produce motivating conditions by instating adesired state, i.e., comparing the present with an imaginedstate, the individual is ready to allocate resources to bringabout the imagined state, expecting or hoping to improvetheir state of being. Viewed from left to right, the modeldisplayed in Fig. 1 represents a behavioral process thatallocates an individual’s resources to a substantive domain(e.g., feeling lonely) and desired state (e.g., reconnectingwith friends) and directs how the individual deploys thoseresources within that domain, favoring actions and objects(e.g., attending a picnic, making a phone call, writing a let-ter) likely to bring about an improved state of being. InFig. 1, motivating wants correspond to motivating condi-tions, and the instrumental wants they specify correspond todesired benefits and attributes. The terms ex ante and ex postsuperimposed in Fig. 1 refer respectively to two conceptsof demand. Ex-post represents a view of demand where theoffering is given; ex-ante is a view of demand based onconditions that pre-exist the offering [13].
Our model of behavior is intended to describe a singleoccasion of an activity. Motivation is operationalized as theconcerns and interests relevant to an activity, in contrast tothe term “motive,” which psychologists have used to referto a trait-like variable intended to apply across activity and
over time (e.g., achievement motive [25]). Moreover, it dif-
fers from approaches to studying goals (e.g., [6, 20, 29])
where interest focuses on identifying a range of goals, from
high levels of abstraction to specific features. Our model is
intended to help investigate concrete concerns and interests
that allocate human resources, not higher-order constructs
that are sometimes of focus of interest.
Consider, for example, the use of means-end theory
[26] to understand drivers of brand preference. The the-
ory assumes that people choose product offerings that can
be instrumental to achieving desired consequences. Using a
procedure of iteratively asking the respondent to state why
each answer is important, they obtain high-order interpreta-
tions of what people want. Regarding alcoholic beverages,
for example, Reynolds and Gutman report that respondents
reply with reasons such as “to socialize,” “avoid getting
drunk,” and “thirst quenching,” often arriving ultimately at a
value statement expressed at a high level of abstraction. The
focus is not on describing the present state in concrete terms.
For the respondent interested in not getting drunk, does he
have a medical condition where alcohol is problematic? Is
he a problem drinker or a designated driver on that occa-
sion? A producer bent on responding to the conditions that
prospect face requires greater guidance than that offered by
simply knowing that the goal is to “avoid getting drunk.” In
this paper, we describe a method for studying the concrete
wants of an individual’s present state and compare it to the
current approach of describing wants in terms of preference
for product attributes and benefits.
![Page 4: Conceptualizing and Measuring Prospect Wants ... · surement of attribute and benefit importance is confounded with brand beliefs. More specifically, we find that the part-worth of](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022090606/605c1529ae8b60393f7ca18b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
26 Cust. Need. and Solut. (2014) 1:23–39
2.1 Generating Candidate Items
We employ Fennell’s [14] motivational formulation to gen-erate items for study. This formulation comprises sevenqualitatively distinct classes as described in Table 1, i.e., fivesimple classes and two complex classes that involve mul-tiple conditions. The class structure is used as a guide forgenerating candidate items expressed as concerns and inter-ests and is not used to impose any structural relationshipamong the items in our analysis. It describes qualitativelydistinct kinds of motivating condition that may be present inthe context for an individual’s action. Compared to the usualpurely empirical approach, often guided only by the existingbrand array, the availability of such a set of classes facili-tates the researcher/analyst checking if current offerings areresponsive to the range of qualitatively distinct motivatingconditions. Also included in Table 1 are examples of con-cerns and interests for selected activities. Such examplesillustrate that the motivating classes provide the structure ofdifferent kinds of condition that may allocate resources inany domain of action.
The classes originate in the settings that researchers useto instigate behavior for the experimental study of learningin lower animals and are adapted for use in studying humanbehavior. The first three classes in Table 1 are about mov-ing away from an undesirable state of affairs that is presentfor the individual, whether currently experienced (class 1),imagined to occur at some future time (class 2), or broughtto focal attention only by default (class 3). For example,an individual may engage in oral hygiene activities becauseof concern about bad breath, dull teeth, or to deal with thecurrent conditions that lead to cavities (class 1); because ofconcerns about what their peers, or the actor, themselves,may think if they did not brush (class 2); or simply asrelatively mindless routine (class 3).
Where in the case of the first three classes, the individualmoves away from the source of the motivation, in the case ofthe next two classes, the individual moves toward the sourceof the motivation. Class 4 describes interests that involvemental exploration as, for example, in a hobbiest orientationto the focal activity. Class 5 deals with the pursuit of sensoryenjoyment. An example of a class 4 motivation for tooth-brushing would be interest in knowing about the science oforal hygiene, and an example of a class 5 motivation wouldbe enjoying sensory experiences from brushing.
The final two classes in Table 1 describe complex con-ditions in which the individual is motivated to act but isdeterred from doing so either because of expected harm—excessive cost in the broadest sense (class 6)—or expecteddissatisfaction (class 7). These two classes combine moti-vations to act that occur outside the marketplace, and theexpected outcome of using some version of the product. Anexample of a class 6 item written for toothbrushing would
be agreement with the statement that toothpastes taste toostrong or cost too much. An example of a class 7 item writ-ten for toothbrushing would be toothpastes are not strongenough to prevent cavities.
Candidate items are generated from focus group tran-scripts and the analysis of brand claims in broadcast com-mercials and product packages. Prior to conducting quali-tative research, the analyst is well advised to consider howthe various kinds of motivation may be manifested in thecontext for the focal activity. Only prospects, i.e., respon-dents who qualify as predisposed to buying/using the focalproduct category, are included in qualitative and quantitativephases.
• In the case of class 1, for example, with regard tothe focal activity, the analyst will generate examplesof grave, unpleasant circumstances, or unusual specialcases, whose occurrence is outside the actor’s control inthe short run. Among others, “grave” may refer to inten-sity, speed of onset, or frequency of some condition anindividual dislikes. It is useful to remember that, wherecommon usage invokes the verb, “prevent,” e.g., preventtooth decay, prevent engine wear-out, the motivatingelement that must be dealt with is, in fact, somethingthat is occurring at the present time, for example, sub-stances present in the mouth that are harmful to the teethand gums or wear and tear due to moving metal parts.Although many examples reflect conditions in the rele-vant environment as perceived, personal elements, suchas values that the individual believes are being thwarted,may also contribute examples.
• As regards class 2, at issue are examples of individu-als experiencing discomfort while anticipating how theywill judge themselves, or how they imagine others willjudge them, in the event that they fail to act appropri-ately. Examples comprise imagined censure or failureto gain praise from self or others. Reflecting on exam-ples of psychology’s major constructs, e.g., traits, roles,and self-concepts, as they may be experienced in regardto the focal activity, is a useful source of ideas.
• As regards class 3, at issue is the believed presenceof a state of affairs that requires only minimal mainte-nance for normal functioning. Deterioration is outsidethe actor’s control in the short run, who can do nomore than periodically make good whatever deficit hasoccurred.
• As regards class 4, at issue are examples where the actorbecomes aware that insufficient, too much contradic-tory, unexpected, incongruent information engages theircognitive skills until they resolve matters.
• As regards class 5, the actor believes that actual orimagined sensory pleasure is available, making themfeel deficient until they engage with the experience.
![Page 5: Conceptualizing and Measuring Prospect Wants ... · surement of attribute and benefit importance is confounded with brand beliefs. More specifically, we find that the part-worth of](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022090606/605c1529ae8b60393f7ca18b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Cust. Need. and Solut. (2014) 1:23–39 27
Tabl
e1
Mot
ivat
ions
for
sele
cted
activ
ities
Mot
ivat
iona
lFe
edin
gth
eca
tB
rush
ing
teet
hE
atin
ggr
apef
ruit
Atte
ndin
gliv
eth
eate
r
clas
sT
heca
t-fe
eder
may
be...
The
indi
vidu
alm
aybe
...E
atin
ggr
apef
ruite
may
be...
Ape
rson
may
be...
1.Pr
oble
mT
roub
led
byth
eca
t’ssl
uggi
shm
ovem
ents
,dry
Esc
apin
gfr
omth
eun
plea
sant
proc
ess
ofA
mea
nsof
over
com
ing
leth
argy
,thi
rst,
Seek
ing
rest
orat
ion
for
aw
eary
body
and
solv
ing
skin
,ove
rwei
ghtb
ody,
orla
ckof
appe
tite
bact
eria
inth
em
outh
crea
ting
bad
brea
thhu
nger
,or
nutr
ient
depl
etio
nov
erta
xed
min
d;re
lief
from
bore
dom
,
orda
mag
ing
teet
hor
from
the
uglin
ess
drud
gery
,ban
ality
,and
stul
tifyi
ng
ofte
eth
disc
olor
edor
stai
ned
from
rout
ine
orfr
omab
sorp
tion
with
the
smok
ing
ciga
rette
s/dr
inki
ngco
ffee
conc
erns
ofyo
ung
orai
ling
char
ges;
or
leav
ing
anen
viro
nmen
ttha
tis
oppr
essi
ve
ordi
stra
ctin
gor
lack
ing
inpr
ivac
y
2.Pr
oble
mC
ater
ing
toa
spoi
led
child
,nur
turi
nga
loya
lPr
even
ting
imag
ined
criti
cism
sfr
omO
fsy
mbo
licsi
gnif
ican
cean
dim
plic
ate
Con
side
ring
the
impl
icat
ions
ofat
tend
ing
prev
entio
nfr
iend
,or
tend
ing
anex
pens
ive
stat
ussy
mbo
lon
esel
f/si
gnif
ican
toth
ers
ongr
ound
sth
atre
spon
sibl
eha
bits
orbe
ing
good
toth
epe
rfor
man
cefo
rhi
sor
her
self
-
one
isla
zy,c
arel
ess
ofpe
rson
alhy
gien
e,on
esel
fco
ncep
tas
a(d
isce
rnin
g)cu
ltiva
tor
ofth
e
orla
ckin
gin
cons
ider
atio
ngo
odlif
e,a
gene
rous
prov
ider
/hos
t,or
a
thou
ghtf
ullo
ver/
spou
se/p
aren
t/chi
ld
3.R
outin
eM
indl
essl
ype
rfor
min
ga
rout
ine
chor
eM
aint
aini
nga
syst
emth
atne
eds
only
Be
perf
orm
edm
indl
essl
you
tof
pure
Eng
agin
gin
aro
utin
em
atte
r
mai
nten
ance
rout
ine
atte
ntio
nro
utin
ew
ithm
inim
alin
vest
men
tof
thou
ghta
nd
inte
rest
4.E
xplo
rato
ry“I
nto”
catn
utri
tion,
find
ing
inte
rest
inE
xplo
ring
anin
tere
stin
gqu
estio
nre
late
dB
ea
sour
ceof
intr
insi
cin
tere
stfo
ra
Intr
insi
cally
inte
rest
edin
thea
ter
asa
oppo
rtun
ityle
arni
ngev
erm
ore
and
mor
eab
outt
heto
brus
hing
tech
niqu
esgr
apef
ruit
buff
tow
hom
text
ure,
skin
stud
ento
fhu
man
cond
ition
orth
e
func
tions
ofva
riou
sin
gred
ient
sin
the
cat’s
diet
thic
knes
s,co
lor,
and
smel
lare
fille
daf
icio
nado
fasc
inat
edby
the
com
plex
ities
sign
ific
ance
and
fine
rpo
ints
ofth
eth
eate
rar
ts
5.Se
nsor
yE
mpa
thiz
ing
with
the
cat,
Les
liem
ayta
keE
njoy
ing
the
sens
ory
expe
rien
ces
Be
view
edas
aso
urce
ofpu
rese
nsor
yC
onsi
deri
ngth
eth
eate
ras
anop
port
unity
oppo
rtun
itypl
easu
rein
pres
entin
gan
arra
yof
dele
ctab
leas
soci
ated
with
bris
tleon
gum
s,ta
ste,
plea
sure
tofe
astt
hese
nses
mea
lsto
plea
seth
eca
t’spa
late
and
tingl
eof
dent
ifri
cean
dth
esi
ghto
f
glis
teni
ngpe
arly
teet
h
6.Pr
oduc
t-D
oing
any
ofth
epr
eced
ing
whi
lew
orri
edIn
addi
tion
toon
eor
mor
eof
the
Be
any
ofth
ese
and
also
enta
ilso
me
Perc
eive
das
enta
iling
som
etr
oubl
ing
caus
edab
outc
ost,
trou
ble,
was
te,s
mel
l,an
dot
her
prec
edin
gor
ient
atio
ns,w
orry
ing
abou
tel
emen
tof
unpl
easa
ntne
sssu
chas
disl
ike
elem
ents
,suc
has
expe
nse,
prob
lem
cons
ider
atio
nspo
ssib
leda
mag
eto
skin
from
wat
er,o
rof
pits
,bitt
erne
ss,s
wee
tnes
s,to
ughn
ess,
inco
nven
ienc
eor
poss
ibili
ties
for
soap
,or
abou
twas
ting
time
onpe
rson
alor
size
(“to
ola
rge
for
me”
)em
barr
assm
ento
rfo
rfe
elin
gm
ore
“out
of
care
it”th
anif
one
stay
edho
me
7.Fr
ustr
atio
n“M
akin
gdo
”w
ithfo
odde
liver
ysy
stem
sW
ithon
eor
mor
eof
the
prec
edin
gB
ea
sour
ceof
frus
trat
ion
inth
atth
eFi
ndin
gav
aila
ble
thea
ter
less
enjo
yabl
e
that
are
defi
cien
tin
som
ere
spec
tor
ient
atio
ns,f
rust
rate
dth
atno
pers
on’s
desi
res
are
notb
eing
satis
fied
than
one
wou
ldw
ish
satis
fact
ory
way
ofcl
eans
ing
the
face
is
avai
labl
e
![Page 6: Conceptualizing and Measuring Prospect Wants ... · surement of attribute and benefit importance is confounded with brand beliefs. More specifically, we find that the part-worth of](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022090606/605c1529ae8b60393f7ca18b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
28 Cust. Need. and Solut. (2014) 1:23–39
• As regards classes 6 and 7, the individual is alreadymotivated and realizes that taking the indicated actionwill be unduly costly in any of a variety of ways,e.g., time, effort, physical, or psychological side effects,money (class 6), or futile in that the available actionswill not be adequate to the present condition (class 7).
2.2 Measuring the Presence of Motivating Wants
Measuring the presence of an individual’s concerns andinterests that describe their current state is different frommeasuring the importance of the imagined state associatedwith owning and using attributes that are available in goodsand services. Many product attributes are defining, in thesense that all versions of a product must possess somelevel of the attribute. For example, all apartments have floorspace, all computers have CPUs, and all credit cards haveinterest rates. In contrast, not all apartments have balconies,so a balcony is not a defining attribute. It is not possibleto measure the importance of a defining attribute, only theimportance of changing the level of an attribute. As a result,measuring the importance of product features employs aninterval scale because the presence of defining attributesrules out the presence of a natural “zero” point.
In contrast, we view motivating conditions as being eitherpresent or not present. An individual may not be moti-vated by any particular want and can certainly have multiplesources of motivation. For example, an individual brushingtheir teeth can simultaneously be concerned about cavities,bad breath, and social impact. Therefore, a natural zeroexists when studying motivating conditions, and there doesnot exist the concept of a defining attribute. When measur-ing a motivating condition, the researcher must allow for itspossible absence.
The objects of analysis when studying motivating wantsare conditions that people experience in the context of anactivity. Writing the questionnaire and toothbrushing occa-sions are described in terms of the concerns and interestspresent, and the similarity of the description to the respon-dent’s own toothbrushing concerns and interests is used asa basis for inferring importances. In contrast, the objectsof analysis in a traditional conjoint study are attributes ofproduct offerings, and the importance of attributes and theirlevels is derived using preference data.
We use a conjoint-like technique for measuring moti-vating conditions. Hypothetical toothbrushing occasions aredescribed by the concerns and interests present, and thedependent variable is the similarity of the description tothe respondent’s own concerns and interests as reported.Respondents are instructed to reflect on a specific occasionof an activity (e.g., the last time you brushed your teeth) andindicate the perceived similarity of the descriptions to theirown motivations. Since the concerns and interests that lead
individuals to their actions are ratio-scaled, it is important toinclude a “null” description in which none of a set of moti-vating conditions is present. Figure 2 provides an exampleset of stimuli for toothbrushing.
Other aspects of the design of the stimuli and analysisof the responses are identical to traditional conjoint analy-sis [18]. The stimuli can be constructed using methods ofexperimental design, including the use of fractional facto-rial designs [4, 22]. The dependent variable can be choices,ranks or ratings, and likelihood specified as a linear or latentlinear model (see [24]). Moreover, respondent heterogeneitycan be incorporated into the analysis using continuous [5],finite mixture densities [21], and continuous mixture modelswith covariates [10, 27].
3 Method
We investigate differences between motivating and instru-mental wants by comparing the concerns and interests thatlead individuals to brush their teeth with the importance oftoothpaste attributes and benefits. Concerns and interestsfor toothbrushing were obtained from qualitative studiesthat included focus groups among prospects (see [28]) inwhich the moderator used the motivation classes to guidediscussion. Table 2 displays the 31 candidate concerns andinterests used in our analysis.
The attributes and benefits (a/b) of toothpaste are dis-played in Table 3. These items are matched to correspond tothe concerns and interest (c/i) items in Table 2. For example,the toothpaste benefit “helps remove stains” corresponds toconcern “my teeth stain easily”; “helps take away morningbreath” corresponds to the concern “I wake up with a badtaste/feeling in my mouth.”
Table 4 lists the toothbrushing c/i items in Table 2 nextto the corresponding toothpaste a/b items in Table 3. Thematch between the c/i and a/b items is intended to be close,with the difference only reflecting the change in the word-ing needed to move from the c/i object (i.e., motivatingconditions that hypothetical people experience) to the a/bobject (i.e., attributes of hypothetical product offerings) ofanalysis. By an oversight, we did not write an a/b corre-sponding to the c/i “toothpastes claim more than they candeliver.” Overall, 30 out of the 31 c/i items were matchedto a/b items.
The presence and importance of the c/i and a/b itemswas measured using a conjoint model based on rank data.For the c/i items, ten sets of stimuli (see Table 2) wereprovided to respondents with each set comprising fourtriplets. Ranks were obtained for each of the four tooth-brushing occasions described. Each triplet comprises threec/i items, and respondents indicated the agreement betweenthese statements and their own c/i’s during the last time
![Page 7: Conceptualizing and Measuring Prospect Wants ... · surement of attribute and benefit importance is confounded with brand beliefs. More specifically, we find that the part-worth of](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022090606/605c1529ae8b60393f7ca18b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Cust. Need. and Solut. (2014) 1:23–39 29
Fig. 2 Example stimuli formeasuring the importance ofmotivating conditions
QUESTION 1
Person BJ Person AW Person MC Person JDStains, bad
taste/feeling in my mouth and gums aren't
a problem for me
My teeth stain easily. I wake up with bad taste/ feeling in my
mouth.
I am concerned about the condition of my
gums.
Sensitive teeth, tartar, plaque and bad breath aren't a problem for
me.
I am predisposed to having sensitive teeth.
I am concerned about tartar and plaque
build-up on my teeth.
I am concerned about bad breath.
Regularly brushing my
my self image, or the impression I want to
create.
letting myself down if I
regularly.
I believe that people expect me to brush
regularly.
I believe that people expect me to brush
regularly.
they brushed their teeth. We varied the c/i items comprisingthe toothbrushing occasions across the ten sets of stimuli,
and dummy variable coding was used to parameterize thehypothetical occasions. The rank data were modeled using
Table 2 Concerns andinterests for toothbrushing Problem solving: Exploratory opportunity:
A1: My teeth stain easily. D1: I like to try different oral brushing
A2: I wake up with a bad taste/feeling techniques/routines just for a
in my mouth. change of pace.
A3: I am concerned about the condition D2: I’m interested in knowing about the
of my gums science of oral hygiene—including different
A4: I am predisposed to having kinds of brushes and toothpastes.
sensitive teeth.
A5: I am concerned about tartar and
plaque build-up on my teeth. Sensory opportunity:
A6: I am concerned about bad breath. E1: I like the tingle I feel in my mouth after
A7: My teeth are dull/not white enough. I brush.
A8: I am predisposed to having cavities. E2: I enjoy the fresh taste I get from brushing.
A9: I have trouble getting my kids to E3: I love to see my teeth gleam like pearls.
brush. E4: Bubbling action adds to the sensory
A10: I am concerned there are cavity pleasure of brushing.
prone places on my teeth.
A11: I am concerned about germs and Product-caused problems:
mouth infections. F1: Toothpastes are too strong tasting.
A12: I am concerned about not getting F2: Toothpastes scratch the enamel on
to hard to reach places. my teeth.
F3: Toothpastes irritate my mouth.
Problem prevention F3: Toothpastes irritate my mouth.
B1: I would feel I’m letting myself down F4: Toothpastes cost too much.
if I didn’t brush regularly F5: Toothpastes contain artificial ingredients.
B2: I believe that people expect me to F6: Toothpaste packaging can be harmful to
brush regularly. the environment.
Routine maintenance: Frustration:
C1: I don’t have problems, worries or G1: Toothpastes aren’t strong enough to
interests regarding my teeth. I just prevent cavities.
brush my teeth regularly. G2: Toothpaste breath-freshening doesn’t
C2: For me, brushing my teeth is just last long enough.
something I do with little thought or G3: Toothpastes claim more than they can
interest. deliver.
![Page 8: Conceptualizing and Measuring Prospect Wants ... · surement of attribute and benefit importance is confounded with brand beliefs. More specifically, we find that the part-worth of](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022090606/605c1529ae8b60393f7ca18b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
30 Cust. Need. and Solut. (2014) 1:23–39
Table 3 Attributes and benefits of toothpaste
Medical benefits: Price:
A1: Helps prevent cavities. F1: Regular price.a
A2: Delivers protection in hard to reach F2: 20 % less.
places.
A3: Helps remove tartar and plaque. Ingredients:
A4: Helps promote healthy gums. G1: 80 % natural / 20 % artificial ingredientsa
A5: Penetrates to strengthen your teeth G2: 100 % natural ingredients.
against cavities.
A6: Helps fight germs and infections Packaging:
in your mouth. H1: 80 % recyclable packaging.a
H2: 100 % recyclable packaging.
Taste:
B1: Mild tasting. Interests:
B2: Fresh tasting. I1: An interesting way to clean your teeth.
B3: Gives your mouth a tingle I2: Provides a change of pace.
B4: A taste kid’s love.
B5: Great bubbling action. Social:
J1: Shows others you care about your teeth.
Abrasiveness: J2: Help you feel good about yourself for
C1: Doesn’t irritate my mouth. brushing regularly.
C2: For sensitive teeth.
C3: Safe for tooth enamel (non- Maintenance:
scratching) K1: For everyday brushing.
K2: For routine maintenance.
Resulting appearance:
D1: Helps clean teeth.
D2: Helps remove stains.
D3: Whitens your teeth.
D4: Makes your teeth gleam like pearls.
Resulting breath:
E1: Fights bad breath.
E2: Freshens breath for 12 hours.
E3: Helps take away morning mouth.
aNull conditions
a logit model, in which the probability of observing a par-ticular rank ordering for the four triplets presented togetheris equal to:
Pr (U1j > U2j > U3j > U4j )h =3∏
i = 1
exp(zij′γh)
4∑k= i
exp(zkj′γh)
(1)
where U1j is assumed to be the triplet with highest rankin the j th stimulus set, U2j has the second highest rank,etc., zij is the dummy variable coding of the c/i’s for theith-ranked triplet in the j th set, and γh is the vector of c/iimportance weights for the respondent (h).
One triplet of c/i items in each set of four comprises items
describing the absence of the motivating conditions present
in the other three triplets (see Fig. 2, left column). As noted
earlier, the c/i items can each either be present or absent
on an occasion for the focal activity, and it is necessary to
measure the absence of a motivating condition as well as
its presence. We represent the hypothetical “null” condition
by a vector z with elements all equal to zero. This coding
scheme leads to estimates of the elements of γ which, if
positive, indicate the presence of the corresponding moti-
vating condition, and, if negative, correspond to the absence
of the condition. The magnitude of the coefficient indicates
![Page 9: Conceptualizing and Measuring Prospect Wants ... · surement of attribute and benefit importance is confounded with brand beliefs. More specifically, we find that the part-worth of](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022090606/605c1529ae8b60393f7ca18b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Cust. Need. and Solut. (2014) 1:23–39 31
Table 4 Concerns/interestsand matched attributes/benefits Concerns and interests Attributes and benefits
A1: My teeth stain easily. D2: Helps remove stains.
A2: I wake up with a bad taste/feeling in my mouth. E3: Helps take away morning breath.
A3: I am concerned about the condition of my gums A4: Helps promote healthy gums.
A4: I am predisposed to having sensitive teeth. C2: For sensitive teeth.
A5: I am concerned about tartar and plaque build- A3: Helps remove tartar and plaque.
up on my teeth.
A6: I am concerned about bad breath. E1: Fights bad breath.
A7: My teeth are dull/not white enough. D3: Whitens your teeth.
A8: I am predisposed to having cavities. A1: Helps prevent cavities.
A9: I have trouble getting my kids to brush. B4: A taste kid’s love.
A10: I am concerned there are cavity prone places A5: Penetrates to strengthen your teeth
on my teeth. against cavities.
A11: I am concerned about germs and mouth A6: Helps fight germs and infections
infections. in your mouth.
A12: I am concerned about not getting to hard to A2: Delivers protection in hard to reach places.
reach places.
B1: I would feel I’m letting myself down if I didn’t J2: Helps you feel good about yourself for
brush regularly. brushing regularly.
B2: I believe that people expect me to brush J1: Shows others you care about your teeth.
regularly.
C1: I don’t have problems, worries or interests K2: For routine maintenance.
regarding my teeth. I just brush my teeth regularly.
C2: For me, brushing my teeth is just K1: For everyday brushing.
something I do with little thought or interest.
D1: I like to try different oral brushing techniques/ I2: Provides a change of pace.
routines just for a change of pace
D2: I’m interested in knowing about the science of I1: An interesting way to clean teeth.
oral hygiene – including different kinds of brushes
and toothpastes.
E1: I like the tingle I feel in my mouth after I brush. B3: Gives your mouth a tingle.
E2: I enjoy the fresh taste I get from brushing. B2: Fresh tasting.
E3: I love to see my teeth gleam like pearls. D4: Makes your teeth gleam like pearls.
E4: Bubbling action adds to the sensory pleasure B5: Great bubbling action.
of brushing.
F1: Toothpastes are too strong tasting. B1: Mild tasting.
F2: Toothpastes scratch the enamel on my teeth. C3: Safe for tooth enamel (non-scratching).
F3: Toothpastes irritate my mouth. C1: Doesn’t irritate your mouth.
F4: Toothpastes cost too much. F2: 20 % less than regular price.
F5: Toothpastes contain artificial ingredients. G2: 100 % natural ingredients.
F6: Toothpaste packaging can be harmful to the H2: 100 % recyclable packaging.
environment.
G1: Toothpastes aren’t strong enough to prevent D1: Help clean teeth.
cavities.
G2: Toothpaste breath-freshening doesn’t last long E2: Freshens breath for 12 hours.
enough.
G3: Toothpastes claim more than they can deliver.
![Page 10: Conceptualizing and Measuring Prospect Wants ... · surement of attribute and benefit importance is confounded with brand beliefs. More specifically, we find that the part-worth of](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022090606/605c1529ae8b60393f7ca18b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
32 Cust. Need. and Solut. (2014) 1:23–39
likelihood of absence (−) or presence (+) of the item to therespondent.
The importance of the a/b items is measured in a simi-lar fashion. Hypothetical product offerings described by thea/b items were presented to the respondent, who was askedto provide a rank ordering of the objects in terms of theirpreference. Ten sets of stimuli were presented, with eachcomprising four hypothetical product offerings describedby three attribute-levels. Respondents were told that the a/bitems not listed in the description were the same for theofferings. The likelihood of the rank ordering for the fourtriplets in one of the sets is equal to:
Pr (V1m > V2m > V3m > V4m)h =3∏
i = 1
exp(xim′βh)
4∑j = i
exp(xjm′βh)
(2)
where V1m is assumed to be the utility of the hypotheticalproduct offering with the highest rank in the mth set, xi isthe dummy variable coding of the a/b’s for the ith rankedoffering in set m, and βh is the vector of a/b importanceweights (part-worths) for respondent h.
In contrast to the coding for the c/i analysis, we donot include a null alternative in each of the four tripletproduct offering sets. The null attribute-levels for the a/banalysis are indicated by footnote a in Table 3: F1 (reg-ular price); G1 (80 % natural/20 % artificial ingredients);and H1 (80 % recyclable packaging). We view the attributesof price, ingredients and packaging as defining, and theremaining attributes as optional for toothpaste. For example,toothpastes can exist that do not provide any medical bene-fit, or have any taste, or any breath-freshening properties. Itis possible to describe toothpaste without reference to theseattributes.
Despite the lack of a null offering in each of ten triplets,the model for estimating the a/b part-worths from the prod-uct rank data is statistically identified. The likelihood for anindividual’s ranks is defined across all ten triplets:
�(γh |Data) =10∏
j = 1
Pr (U1j > U2j > U3j > U4j )h
=10∏
j = 1
3∏
i = 1
exp(zij′γh)
4∑k= i
exp(zkj′γh)
(3)
�(βh |Data) =10∏
m= 1
Pr (V1m > V2m > V3m > V4m)h
=10∏
m= 1
3∏
i = 1
exp(xim′βh)
4∑j = i
exp(xjm′βh)
(4)
Therefore, the identifying restrictions for the model extendbeyond the specific a/b items present in any one of thetriplets. It is not possible to arbitrarily increase the value ofany or all of the elements of βh without changing the valueof the likelihood for the entire set of ranks.
Heterogeneity is incorporated into the model specifi-cation by assuming a random-effects distribution for theparameters:
θh = (γh′, βh
′)′ ∼ Normal(μ, �) (5)
Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods are used toestimate the model parameters. The chain was run for atotal of 50,000 iterations, with parameter estimates basedon the last 10,000 iterations. We investigate multiple startpoints and found the chain to converge to a common poste-rior distribution. The estimation algorithm is provided in theOnline Appendix.
4 Data and Parameter Estimates
Data were obtained from a nationally representative panelin mailed questionnaires administered by a leading market-ing research firm. 863 completed surveys were availablefor analysis. The data in the survey included ten sets ofstimuli each comprising four triplets of c/i descriptions oftoothbrushing occasions, and ten sets of stimuli each com-prising four triplets of a/b descriptions of toothpaste. Brandbelief ratings for Aquafresh, Colgate, Crest and Mentadentwere also obtained by asking respondents to rate each brandon each of the 30 a/b items using a five-point scale where“5” means “describes completely” and “1” means “does notdescribe at all.” For example, respondents were asked toindicate the degree to which attribute A1: “Helps preventcavities” describes each brand, and so on. Finally, actualbrand use information was obtained by asking respondentsto identify whether they usually buy a particular brand oftoothpaste, and if so, which brand. Estimates of the meanof the random-effect distribution are reported in Table 5.Estimates of the covariance matrix � are not reported butare available from the authors upon request. The fit of themodel described by Eqs. 3–5 is good, with an average in-sample hit probability of 0.60. We find that the responses tothe c/i and a/b items were of equal consistency as measuredby in-sample fit.
Estimates of the mean of the random-effects distribu-tion for the c/i items are different than those for the a/bitems. The most prevalent c/i item is B1 “I would feel I’mletting myself down if I didn’t brush regularly” with an aver-age importance of 3.211 and a posterior standard deviationof 0.132. The most important a/b item is B3 “Gives yourmouth a tingle” with an average importance of 1.658 and
![Page 11: Conceptualizing and Measuring Prospect Wants ... · surement of attribute and benefit importance is confounded with brand beliefs. More specifically, we find that the part-worth of](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022090606/605c1529ae8b60393f7ca18b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Cust. Need. and Solut. (2014) 1:23–39 33
Tabl
e5
Est
imat
esof
the
mea
n(μ
)of
the
rand
om-e
ffec
tsdi
stri
butio
n
Con
cern
san
din
tere
sts
Post
erio
rm
ean
Attr
ibut
esan
dbe
nefi
tsPo
ster
ior
mea
n
A1:
My
teet
hst
ain
easi
ly.
0.56
7A
1:H
elps
prev
entc
aviti
es.
−0.2
18A
2:I
wak
eup
with
aba
dta
ste/
feel
ing
inm
ym
outh
.1.
464
A2:
Del
iver
spr
otec
tion
inha
rdto
reac
hpl
aces
.−1
.025
A3:
Iam
conc
erne
dab
outt
heco
nditi
onof
my
gum
s1.
845
A3:
Hel
psre
mov
eta
rtar
and
plaq
ue.
−0.2
36
A4:
Iam
pred
ispo
sed
toha
ving
sens
itive
teet
h.−1
.105
A4:
Hel
pspr
omot
ehe
alth
ygu
ms.
−0.3
46
A5:
Iam
conc
erne
dab
outt
arta
ran
dpl
aque
build
-up
onm
yte
eth.
0.64
5A
5:Pe
netr
ates
tost
reng
then
your
teet
hag
ains
tcav
ities
.0.
504
A6:
Iam
conc
erne
dab
outb
adbr
eath
.0.
373
A6:
Hel
psfi
ghtg
erm
san
din
fect
ions
inyo
urm
outh
−0.8
30
A7:
My
teet
har
edu
ll/no
twhi
teen
ough
.0.
660
B1:
Mild
tast
ing.
1.05
3
A8:
Iam
pred
ispo
sed
toha
ving
cavi
ties.
−0.5
79B
2:Fr
esh
tast
ing.
1.15
8
A9:
Iha
vetr
oubl
ege
tting
my
kids
tobr
ush.
−1.0
20B
3:G
ives
your
mou
tha
tingl
e.1.
658
A10
:Iam
conc
erne
dth
ere
are
cavi
typr
one
plac
eson
my
teet
h.−0
.167
B4:
Ata
ste
kid’
slo
ve−0
.861
A11
:Iam
conc
erne
dab
outg
erm
san
dm
outh
infe
ctio
ns.
0.26
2B
5:G
reat
bubb
ling
actio
n.−0
.950
A12
:Iam
conc
erne
dab
outn
otge
tting
toha
rdto
reac
hpl
aces
.0.
003
C1:
Doe
sn’t
irri
tate
my
mou
th.
−0.6
91
B1:
Iw
ould
feel
I’m
letti
ngm
ysel
fdo
wn
ifI
didn
’tbr
ush
regu
larl
y.3.
211
C2:
For
sens
itive
teet
h.−1
.208
B2:
Ibe
lieve
that
peop
leex
pect
me
tobr
ush
regu
larl
y2.
105
C3:
Safe
for
toot
hen
amel
(non
-scr
atch
ing)
.0.
662
C1:
Ido
n’th
ave
prob
lem
s,w
orri
esor
inte
rest
sre
gard
ing
my
teet
h.1.
018
D1:
Hel
pscl
ean
teet
h.0.
300
Iju
stbr
ush
my
teet
hre
gula
rly.
C2:
For
me,
brus
hing
my
teet
his
just
som
ethi
ngI
dow
ith0.
962
D2:
Hel
psre
mov
est
ains
.−0
.941
little
thou
ghto
rin
tere
st.
D1:
Ilik
eto
try
diff
eren
ttee
thbr
ushi
ngte
chni
ques
/1.
158
D3:
Whi
tens
your
teet
h.0.
161
rout
ines
just
for
ach
ange
ofpa
ce.
D2:
I’m
inte
rest
edin
know
ing
abou
tthe
scie
nce
oror
al0.
920
D4:
Mak
esyo
urte
eth
glea
mlik
epe
arls
.−1
.339
hygi
ene—
incl
udin
gdi
ffer
entt
ypes
ofbr
ushe
san
dto
othp
aste
s
E1:
Ilik
eth
etin
gle
Ife
elin
my
mou
thaf
ter
Ibr
ush.
0.12
6E
1:Fi
ghts
bad
brea
th.
0.22
7
E2:
Ien
joy
the
fres
hta
ste
Ige
tfro
mbr
ushi
ng.
0.71
7E
2:Fr
eshe
nsbr
eath
for
12ho
urs.
0.88
6
E3:
Ilo
veto
see
my
teet
hgl
eam
like
pear
ls.
0.17
2E
3:H
elps
take
away
mor
ning
mou
th.
0.25
7
E4:
Bub
blin
gac
tion
adds
toth
ese
nsor
ypl
easu
reof
brus
hing
−0.4
87F2
:Pri
ce20
%le
ss0.
386
F1:T
ooth
past
esar
eto
ost
rong
tast
ing.
−0.6
47G
2:10
0%
natu
rali
ngre
dien
ts.
0.99
3
F2:T
ooth
past
essc
ratc
hth
een
amel
onm
yte
eth.
−0.7
17H
2:10
0%
recy
clab
lepa
ckag
ing.
0.81
1
F3:T
ooth
past
esir
rita
tem
ym
outh
.−0
.684
I1:A
nin
tere
stin
gw
ayto
clea
nyo
urte
eth.
−0.9
00
F4:T
ooth
past
esco
stto
om
uch.
−1.3
80I2
:Pro
vide
sa
chan
geof
pace
.−0
.493
F5:T
ooth
past
esco
ntai
nar
tific
iali
ngre
dien
ts.
−1.3
63J1
:Sho
ws
othe
rsyo
uca
reab
outy
our
teet
h.−0
.590
F6:T
ooth
past
epa
ckag
ing
can
beha
rmfu
lto
the
envi
ronm
ent.
−2.4
02J2
:Hel
psyo
ufe
elgo
odab
outy
ours
elf
for
brus
hing
regu
larl
y0.
670
G1:
Toot
hpas
tes
aren
’tst
rong
enou
ghto
prev
entc
aviti
es.
0.39
5K
1:Fo
rev
eryd
aybr
ushi
ng.
0.40
2
G2:
Toot
hpas
tebr
eath
-fre
shen
ing
does
n’tl
astl
ong
enou
gh0.
581
K2:
For
rout
ine
mai
nten
ance
.−0
.830
G3:
Toot
hpas
tes
clai
mm
ore
than
they
can
deliv
er.
0.37
1xx
x
Est
imat
esth
atar
em
ore
than
two
post
erio
rst
anda
rdde
viat
ions
from
zero
are
italic
ized
![Page 12: Conceptualizing and Measuring Prospect Wants ... · surement of attribute and benefit importance is confounded with brand beliefs. More specifically, we find that the part-worth of](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022090606/605c1529ae8b60393f7ca18b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
34 Cust. Need. and Solut. (2014) 1:23–39
a posterior standard deviation of 0.070. Thus, a differentview of wants emerges from studying c/i’s and a/b’s respec-tively. The two most present c/i items are B1 “I would feelI’m letting myself down if I didn’t brush regularly” and B2“I believe that people expect me to brush regularly.” Theranks of the corresponding a/b items are 7 and 20. The mostimportant a/b items deal with taste attributes: B3 ”Givesyour mouth a tingle,” B2 ”Fresh tasting,” and B1 ”Mildtasting.” The associated c/i ranks are 20, 9, and 24.
In the next section we explore the source of the differ-ences between the c/i and a/b analyses. Respondents appearto interpret statements such as “I believe that people expectme to brush regularly,” very differently from statementssuch as “Shows others you care about your teeth.” The twosets of items are clearly providing different implications forproduct policy, despite our having closely matched the a/band c/i items.
5 Findings
In this section we document three limitations of usingattribute preferences to measure prospective user wants.First, we find that attribute-level part-worth estimates (β)are confounded with the capabilities of current offerings,while the presence of the concerns and interests (γ ) areunrelated to these capabilities. Attribute preferences there-fore do not offer an independent assessment of marketdemand. Second, we find evidence of a complex relation-ship between (γ ) and the attribute-level part-worths (β).Hence, knowledge of attribute importance is not sufficientfor understanding motivating conditions. Finally, we showthat the concerns and interests (γ ) can be used in con-junction with the attribute-level part-worths (β) to improvebrand choice predictions. This indicates that the currentarray of attributes and levels do not completely respond tothe existing motivating wants of individuals, providing indi-cation of unmet demand in the marketplace. The analysisreported below employs the parameter estimates reportedabove, in conjunction with the analysis of data on brandbelief ratings and brand use that were collected during thesurvey.
5.1 The Confounding Influence of Current Capabilities
Figure 3 provides a plot of the average importance of the c/iitems versus the average brand belief ratings for Aquafresh,Colgate, Crest and Mentadent on each of the a/b items.The importance of the c/i items is measured in terms ofthe mean of the random-effects distribution of γ reportedon the left side of Table 6. For each of the 30 c/i itemsthat have a matched attribute and benefit (see Table 5),brand belief ratings, measured on the five-point “describes
completely”/“not at all” scale, were averaged over the fourbrands. This procedure results in the respondents’ averagebrand belief ratings of leading brands in the product cate-gory on items corresponding to the c/i items. Data labels(e.g., H2) refer to toothpaste attributes and benefits listed inTable 2.
Figure 3 contains three outliers defined as observationsthat are away from the bulk of the data. The three outlierscorrespond to extreme levels of the attributes: uses 100 %recyclable packaging and 100 % natural ingredients andfreshens breath for 12 h. For the remaining c/i items, thecorrelation between the average importance and the averagebrand rating is near zero (r = 0.02, p = 0.91).
Figure 4 provides a corresponding plot for the a/b items.The three outliers are more pronounced in this figure,clearly separated from the rest of the data. Respondentsplace a high value on the attribute-levels of the outliers,but feel that the leading brands are not well described bythe extreme levels of these attributes. The remaining pointsin the plot exhibit a fairly strong association (r = 0.52,p = 0.01) between the average brand belief rating and thea/b coefficients, suggesting that there may be a confound-ing influence between the importance of an attribute-leveland the ability of the currently available brands to offer cor-responding value. Data labels (e.g., H2) refer to toothpasteattributes and benefits listed in Table 3.
5.2 Motivational Ambiguity
The presence of a confounding influence of the currentbrands is just one reason that analysis based on c/i itemswould differ from analysis based on a/b items. Anotherreason is the presence of motivational ambiguity, whereconsumers may construe a particular attribute or benefitto be responsive to their c/i, which is unobserved to theresearcher. We argue that the relationship between the a/band c/i items is not as simple as the paired relationship dis-played in Table 4 due to cross-sectional heterogeneity. If therelationship were in fact paired uniformly among respon-dents, then the correlation structure of the β and γ itemswould be similar, with any associations among the β itemsalso present among the γ items.
Our estimate of the covariance matrix (reported in theonline appendix) has 380 of the 930 covariances betweenthe γ and β elements with posterior mass away from zero,indicating the likely presence of cross-sectional ambigu-ity where different respondents see different a/b items as aresponse to a particular c/i. We find, for example, that thecross-sectional association among the c/i items (B1, B2) and(E1, E2, E3) is uniformly positive, while the correspondingassociations in terms of the a/b items (J1, J2) and (B1, B2,B3) are both positive and negative. Despite the close matchbetween them as shown in Table 4, the presence of both
![Page 13: Conceptualizing and Measuring Prospect Wants ... · surement of attribute and benefit importance is confounded with brand beliefs. More specifically, we find that the part-worth of](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022090606/605c1529ae8b60393f7ca18b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Cust. Need. and Solut. (2014) 1:23–39 35
Fig. 3 Presence of C/I vs.average brand ratings
432
3
2
1
0
-1
Avg. Brand Rating
c/i C
oeffi
cien
t
K2 K1
J2
J1
I2I1
H2
G2 F2 E3
E2E1
D4
D3 D2
D1C3C2
C1B5
B4
B3
B2
B1
A6
A5
A4
A3
A2
A1
Contains 100 % natural ingredients
Freshens breath for 12 hours
Uses 100 %recyclable packaging
r = 0.02 for rest
positive and negative covariations among c/i and a/b items
indicates that prospects may mistakenly read into claimed
attributes of offerings (a/b) as a response to the conditions
they experience (c/i). Individuals who are concerned that “I
would feel I’m letting myself down if I didn’t brush regu-
larly” prefer the a/b “Gives your mouth a tingle” and may
construe a tingling sensation as being responsive to this
social concern [15].
5.3 Predictive Performance
The degree to which an analysis of attributes and benefits
fully reflects the range of motivating wants, or is located in
an optimal region of demand, can be partially assessed by
its predictive relationship to actual brand use. We caution,
however, in using brand predictions as the only standard
for assessing the information content of attributes and ben-
efits. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the movement from attribute
preferences to actual brand purchase involves a number of
constructs that are not studied in our analysis, including
consideration sets and shelf prices. While we view the pre-
diction of brand use as informative about the information
contained in a/b and c/i items, we note that our analysis is
limited to a subset of important variables.
We assess the predictive performance of the c/i and a/b
items by using them to weigh the brand belief ratings data
collected for the Aquafresh, Colgate, Crest, and Mentadent
brands to arrive at an overall score for each brand. The
brand with the highest score is predicted to be the brand that
the respondent will use, and this prediction is compared to
the actual brand used by the respondent as reported in the
questionnaire.
We employ a Bayesian approach to measuring predic-
tive performance using likelihood ratios. The predicted (P)
and true (T) choices for each brand are related using Bayes’theorem:
Pr(T = + |P = +)
Pr(T = − |P = +)= Pr(T = +)
Pr(T = −)× Pr(P = + |T = +)
Pr(P = + |T = −)
(6)
or
Posterior Odds = Prior Odds × Likelihood Ratio
where “+” indicates that the brand is actually chosen orpredicted to be chosen and “−” otherwise.
The “Prior Odds” is equal to the odds of brand prefer-ence without knowledge of the c/i or a/b information. Theposterior odds is the prediction of brand preference giveninformation from the c/i or a/b (or both), plus informationabout the prior odds. The likelihood ratio summarizes thepredictive information from the c/i and a/b about the truepreferences. When the likelihood ratio is greater than 1, theposterior odds are greater than the prior odds, and whenthe ratio is less than 1, the posterior odds are less than theprior odds. We would expect a LR > 1 when the predic-tion is + and a LR < 1 when the prediction is −. Thelikelihood ratios were computed for 578 of the 863 respon-dents. The 285 respondents not included in the predictiveanalysis either did not provide brand ratings informationor used a brand that was different from the four brands inour analysis.
Table 7 displays the likelihood ratios for each brand,using the a/b and c/i importances to weigh the brand ratingsto obtain an overall measure of brand value. As expected,the likelihood ratios are greater than 1 when the brand ispredicted to be the favorite brand and less than 1 when thebrand is predicted to not be the favorite brand. This indicatesthat the a/b and c/i importance measures have predictivevalidity. In addition, we find that the c/i’s lead to likelihoodratios that are more predictively accurate than the a/b’s, with
![Page 14: Conceptualizing and Measuring Prospect Wants ... · surement of attribute and benefit importance is confounded with brand beliefs. More specifically, we find that the part-worth of](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022090606/605c1529ae8b60393f7ca18b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
36 Cust. Need. and Solut. (2014) 1:23–39
Tabl
e6
Ran
ked
conc
erns
and
inte
rest
san
das
soci
ated
attr
ibut
ean
dbe
nefi
ts
c/iR
ank
Con
cern
and
Inte
rest
Item
sC
orre
spon
ding
Attr
ibut
ean
dB
enef
itIt
ems
a/b
Ran
k
1B
1:I
wou
ldfe
elI’
mle
tting
mys
elf
dow
nif
Idi
dn’t
brus
hre
gula
rly.
J2:H
elps
you
feel
good
abou
tyou
rsel
ffo
rbr
ushi
ngre
gula
rly
7
2B
2:I
belie
veth
atpe
ople
expe
ctm
eto
brus
hre
gula
rly
J1:S
how
sot
hers
you
care
abou
tyou
rte
eth.
20
3A
3:I
amco
ncer
ned
abou
tthe
cond
ition
ofm
ygu
ms
A4:
Hel
pspr
omot
ehe
alth
ygu
ms.
18
4A
2:I
wak
eup
with
aba
dta
ste/
feel
ing
inm
ym
outh
.E
3:H
elps
take
away
mor
ning
mou
th.
13
5D
1:I
like
totr
ydi
ffer
entt
eeth
brus
hing
tech
niqu
es/
I2:P
rovi
des
ach
ange
ofpa
ce.
19
rout
ines
just
for
ach
ange
ofpa
ce.
6C
1:I
don’
thav
epr
oble
ms,
wor
ries
orin
tere
sts
rega
rdin
gm
yte
eth
K2:
For
rout
ine
mai
nten
ance
.22
Iju
stbr
ush
my
teet
hre
gula
rly.
7C
2:Fo
rm
e,br
ushi
ngm
yte
eth
isju
stso
met
hing
Ido
with
K1:
For
ever
yday
brus
hing
.10
little
thou
ghto
rin
tere
st.
8D
2:I’
min
tere
sted
inkn
owin
gab
outt
hesc
ienc
eor
oral
I1:A
nin
tere
stin
gw
ayto
clea
nyo
urte
eth.
25
hygi
ene
–in
clud
ing
diff
eren
ttyp
esof
brus
hes
and
toot
hpas
tes
9E
2:I
enjo
yth
efr
esh
tast
eI
getf
rom
brus
hing
.B
2:Fr
esh
tast
ing.
2
10A
7:M
yte
eth
are
dull/
notw
hite
enou
gh.
D3:
Whi
tens
your
teet
h.15
11A
5:I
amco
ncer
ned
abou
ttar
tar
and
plaq
uebu
ild-u
pon
my
teet
h.A
3:H
elps
rem
ove
tart
aran
dpl
aque
.17
12G
2:To
othp
aste
brea
th-f
resh
enin
gdo
esn’
tlas
tlon
gen
ough
E2:
Fres
hens
brea
thfo
r12
hour
s.5
13A
1:M
yte
eth
stai
nea
sily
.D
2:H
elps
rem
ove
stai
ns.
26
14G
1:To
othp
aste
sar
en’t
stro
ngen
ough
topr
even
tcav
ities
.D
1:H
elps
clea
nte
eth.
12
15A
6:I
amco
ncer
ned
abou
tbad
brea
th.
E1:
Figh
tsba
dbr
eath
.14
16G
3:To
othp
aste
scl
aim
mor
eth
anth
eyca
nde
liver
.xx
x
17A
11:I
amco
ncer
ned
abou
tger
ms
and
mou
thin
fect
ions
.A
6:H
elps
figh
tger
ms
and
infe
ctio
nsin
your
mou
th23
18E
3:I
love
tose
em
yte
eth
glea
mlik
epe
arls
.D
4:M
akes
your
teet
hgl
eam
like
pear
ls.
30
19A
10:I
amco
ncer
ned
ther
ear
eca
vity
pron
epl
aces
onm
yte
eth.
A5:
Pene
trat
esto
stre
ngth
enyo
ute
eth
agai
nstc
aviti
es.
9
20E
1:I
like
the
tingl
eI
feel
inm
ym
outh
afte
rI
brus
h.B
3:G
ives
your
mou
tha
tingl
e.1
21A
12:I
amco
ncer
ned
abou
tnot
getti
ngto
hard
tore
ach
plac
es.
A2:
Del
iver
spr
otec
tion
inha
rdto
reac
hpl
aces
.28
22E
4:B
ubbl
ing
actio
nad
dsto
the
sens
ory
plea
sure
ofbr
ushi
ngB
5:G
reat
bubb
ling
actio
n.27
23A
8:I
ampr
edis
pose
dto
havi
ngca
vitie
s.A
1:H
elps
prev
entc
aviti
es.
16
24F1
:Too
thpa
stes
are
too
stro
ngta
stin
g.B
1:M
ildta
stin
g.3
25F3
:Too
thpa
stes
irri
tate
my
mou
th.
C1:
Doe
sn’t
irri
tate
my
mou
th.
21
26F2
:Too
thpa
stes
scra
tch
the
enam
elon
my
teet
h.C
3:Sa
fefo
rto
oth
enam
el(n
on-s
crat
chin
g).
8
27A
9:I
have
trou
ble
getti
ngm
yki
dsto
brus
h.B
4:A
tast
eki
d’s
love
24
28A
4:I
ampr
edis
pose
dto
havi
ngse
nsiti
vete
eth.
C2:
For
sens
itive
teet
h.25
29F5
:Too
thpa
stes
cont
ain
artif
icia
ling
redi
ents
.G
2:10
0%
natu
rali
ngre
dien
ts.
4
30F4
:Too
thpa
stes
cost
too
muc
h.F2
:Pri
ce20
%le
ss11
31F6
:Too
thpa
ste
pack
agin
gca
nbe
harm
fult
oth
een
viro
nmen
t.H
2:10
0%
recy
clab
lepa
ckag
ing.
6
![Page 15: Conceptualizing and Measuring Prospect Wants ... · surement of attribute and benefit importance is confounded with brand beliefs. More specifically, we find that the part-worth of](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022090606/605c1529ae8b60393f7ca18b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Cust. Need. and Solut. (2014) 1:23–39 37
Fig. 4 Importance of a/b vs.average brand ratings
432
2
1
0
-1
Avg. Brand Rating
a/b
Coe
ffici
ent
K2
K1J2
J1I2
I1
H2G2
F2E3
E2
E1
D4
D3
D2
D1
C3
C2
C1B5B4
B3
B2B1
A6
A5
A4 A3
A2
A1
Contains 100% natural ingredients
Freshens breath for 12 hours
Uses 100% recyclable packaging
r = 0.52 for rest
larger ratios when the prediction is positive and smallerratios (closer to zero) when the prediction is negative.
The bottom portion of Table 7 reports likelihood ratiosbased on both the c/i’s and the a/b’s. When the weightedratings are positive for both the c/i’s and a/b’s, the likelihoodratios are approximately equal to four, indicating that theprior odds are increased by a factor of 4 to yield posteriorodds that a brand is preferred by a respondent. The fact thatthe combined likelihood ratios are greater than either of theindividual likelihood ratios indicates that the c/i’s and a/b’sreflect different aspects of demand, with the c/i’s capturingmotivating conditions that are upstream and independent ofcurrent offerings.
Table 7 Likelihood ratios
Attribute/benefit Positive (+) Negative (−)
Aquafresh 1.86 0.74
Colgate 1.75 0.79
Crest 2.04 0.78
Mentadent 2.46 0.65
Concerns/interests Positive (+) Negative (−)
Aquafresh 2.25 0.69
Colgate 2.53 0.70
Crest 3.00 0.69
Mentadent 2.17 0.62
Both positive One positive Both negative
Both (+,+) (+,− or −,+) (−,−)
Aquafresh 3.87 1.29 0.58
Colgate 3.73 1.48 0.59
Crest 7.82 1.55 0.58
Mentadent 4.21 1.58 0.40
6 Discussion
Wants originate upstream from the marketplace, in the con-text of everyday life. Individuals find value in marketplaceofferings that are responsive to the concerns and intereststhat lead them to engage in the activities of their lives. Pref-erences for product attributes therefore result from peoplesearching for correspondence between upstream conditionsthat lead them to action and the capability of marketplaceofferings to deliver utility within the activity. In this paper,we introduce a method of augmenting the standard analysisbased on reactions to marketplace offerings by identifyingthe concerns and interests that specify valued attributes.
Research on wants in marketing has focused on the imag-ined state of an individual, either in terms of the end stateitself (e.g., goals, benefits) or instruments helpful in gettingthere (e.g., the part-worths of product attribute-levels). Inthis paper, we report on the research that includes measuresboth of the present and the desired state. The present stateis described in terms of concrete concerns and interests rel-evant for brand purchase; the desired state is described interms of the usual product benefits/attributes. The additionalmeasure differs from product benefits/attributes in a numberof respects:
1. It measures motivating features of the context in whichprospects engage in the activity for which the prod-uct benefits/attributes should be relevant. In otherwords, it describes the conditions to which productattributes/benefits should be responsive, if prospects areto value them.
2. In place of the purely empirical approach to generat-ing product attributes and benefits associated with theimagined state, our measure is derived from a set ofseven qualitatively distinct classes of motivating con-ditions. These classes cover a range of qualitatively
![Page 16: Conceptualizing and Measuring Prospect Wants ... · surement of attribute and benefit importance is confounded with brand beliefs. More specifically, we find that the part-worth of](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022090606/605c1529ae8b60393f7ca18b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
38 Cust. Need. and Solut. (2014) 1:23–39
diverse condition, whereas no such platform has beenavailable from which to judge the comprehensiveness orpossible redundancy of product attributes and benefits.
3. A generally accepted motivational formulation speaksof motivation as arising when, comparing a current statewith an imagined/desired state, an individual allocatesresources to trying to bring about the desired state. Inlight of such a formulation, wants up to now have beenstudied in ways that are relevant to the second of thesetwo states, i.e., the imagined/desired state. Conceptu-ally, our new measure operationalizes the motivatingfeatures of the current state, i.e., present features whoseabsence, or absent features whose presence, defines thedesired state.
The concerns and interests that lead individuals to thepursuits in their lives exist whether or not managementsrespond with appropriate goods and services. Concern aboutbad breath or dull teeth may not be satisfied within thecurrent array of toothpaste offerings, leaving the individ-ual wanting or deprived. The presence of a motivating wantwithout a corresponding marketplace offering (e.g., socialexpectations about toothbrushing and the absence of a tooth-paste that shows others you care about your teeth) can beregarded as unmet demand. A limitation of using market-place preferences as a guide to prospect wants is that thereis no guarantee that the analysis fully reflects the range ofmotivating wants among potential users.
If there is no guarantee that an analysis of marketplacepreference fully reflects the range of motivating conditions,then the analysis of marketplace offerings must consider itslocation in the demand space. However, the offerings usedin the analysis of preferences often arise from the array ofcurrently available goods and services, whose existence isnonsystematic. In a conjoint study, for example, hypotheti-cal offerings are constructed with feature combinations thatare typically within, or close to, the convex hull of existingofferings. The evolution of actual offerings builds incre-mentally on past actions and is dependent on current andfeasible technologies. Analysis based on product offeringsmay therefore be located in a portion of the demand spacethat is suboptimal for marketing’s role in guiding productpolicy.
The analysis of preference also leads to unclear directionfor product policy because of motivational ambiguity [12].Consider, for example, the reasons that consumers prefertoothpaste that “gives your mouth a tingle.” Preference fora sharp taste may be due to sensory enjoyment of the tingleor because consumers construe this attribute as responsiveto concerns about letting oneself down, the expectations ofothers, or the possibility of tartar and plaque buildup. Sim-ply knowing which features are preferred does not provideaccess to the nature of conditions that lead people to act and
find value in the offering. Such information is often criti-cal so that management can optimally generate and chooseamong options for brand formulation and communicationstrategy (see [3]).
Such limitations of using preferences to guide productpolicy are present because wants are conceptualized andmeasured in terms of an array of real or hypothetical offer-ings. We offer a conceptualization of wants in terms ofmotivating conditions that are independent of marketplaceofferings and develop a conjoint-based approach to measur-ing their importance. These motivating wants are the sourceof brand preference and can provide substantive guidancefor product formulation and communication efforts. Ouranalysis illustrates that attribute-level part-worths can becorrelated with brand belief ratings (Fig. 4), that there existsmotivational ambiguity in terms of the complex mappingamong c/i and a/b items, and that the c/i items can be usedto improve brand preference.
Both within marketing and economics, authors havesought improved methods of understanding the consumerand, specifically, of investigating what users want fromgoods and services. Research and analysis, however, ismainly focused on instrumental wants and marketplaceofferings. While recent work on extending the scope ofthese models has included a range of psychological vari-ables (e.g., [9]), it has not offered an explicit operational-ization of motivation. In this paper, an explicit opera-tionalization of motivation is offered, and its systematicrole in a model of action and brand use is demonstrated.Accordingly, in addition to the economist’s ex post viewof demand (e.g., instrumental wants expressed as reactionsto good/services), marketers can use our approach to studyan ex ante view of demand in which motivating wants areexpressed as concerns and interests in the context for theeveryday activities, for which goods/services are offeredand used.
Acknowledgments The authors thank Derek Rucker for the helpfulfeedback on the paper.
References
1. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav HumDecis Process 50(2):179–211
2. Ajzen I, Sheikh S (2013) Action versus inaction: anticipated affectin the theory of planned behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 43(1):155–162
3. Allenby G, Fennell G, Bemmaor A, Bhargava V, Christen F,Dawley J, Dickson P, Edwards Y, Garratt M, Ginter J et al (2002)Market segmentation research: beyond within and across groupdifferences. Mark Lett 13(3):233–243
4. Allenby GM, Ginter JL (1995) Using extremes to design productsand segment markets. J Mark Res 32:392–403
![Page 17: Conceptualizing and Measuring Prospect Wants ... · surement of attribute and benefit importance is confounded with brand beliefs. More specifically, we find that the part-worth of](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022090606/605c1529ae8b60393f7ca18b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Cust. Need. and Solut. (2014) 1:23–39 39
5. Allenby GM, Rossi PE (1998) Marketing models of consumerheterogeneity. J Econ 89(1):57–78
6. Arndt J (1976) Reflections on research in consumer behavior. AdvConsum Res 3:213–221
7. Bagozzi RP, Dholakia U (1999) Goal setting and goal striving inconsumer behavior. J Mark 63:19–32
8. Belk RW (1974) An exploratory assessment of situational effectsin buyer behavior. J Mark Res 11:156–163
9. Ben-Akiva M, McFadden D, Train K, Walker J, Bhat C, BierlaireM, Bolduc D, Boersch-Supan A, Brownstone D, Bunch DS et al(2002) Hybrid choice models: progress and challenges. Mark Lett13(3):163–175
10. Chandukala SR, Edwards YD, Allenby GM (2011) Identifyingunmet demand. Mark Sci 30(1):61–73
11. Dickson PR (1982) Person-situation: segmentation’s missing link.J Mark 46:56–64
12. Fennell G (1978) Consumers’ perceptions of the product usesituation. J Mark 42:38–47
13. Fennell G (1987) A radical agenda for marketing science: rep-resent the marketing concept. In: Dholakia N, Furat F, BaggozziR (eds) Philosophical and radical thought in marketing. D.C.Health, Lexington, pp 289–306
14. Fennell G (1997) Value and values: relevance to advertising. Val-ues, lifestyles, and psychographics. Earlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 83–110
15. Fennell G (2012) Marketing insights from a model of actionand empirical findings. In: Posavac S (ed) Cracking the code:leveraging consumer psychology to drive profits. M.E. Sharpe,Armonk
16. Fishbach A, Ferguson MJ (2007) The goal construct in socialpsychology. Soc Psychol Handb Basic Princ 2:490–515
17. Fishbach A, Henderson MD, Koo M (2011) Pursuing goals withothers: group identification and motivation resulting from thingsdone versus things left undone. J Exp Psychol Gen 140(3):520
18. Green PE, Srinivasan V (1990) Conjoint analysis in marketing:new developments with implications for research and practice. JMark 54(4):3–19
19. Haley RI (1968) Benefit segmentation: a decision-orientedresearch tool. J Mark 32:30–35
20. Huffman C, Ratneshwar S, Mick DG (2000) Consumer goalstructures and goal-determination processes: an integrativeframework. In: The why of consumption: contemporary perspec-tives on consumer motives, goals and desires. Routledge
21. Kamakura W, Russell G (1989) A probabilistic choice modelfor marketing segmentation and elasticity structure. J Mark Res23:89–100
22. Lenk P, DeSarbo W, Green PE, Young M (1996) Hierarchi-cal Bayes conjoint analysis: recovery of part-worth heterogeneityfrom reduced experimental designs. Mark Sci 15:173–191
23. Lewin K (1936) Principles of topological psychology. McGraw-Hill, New York
24. Marshall P, Bradlow ET (2002) A unified approach to conjointanalysis models. J Am Stat Assoc 97(459):674–682
25. McClelland DC, Atkinson JW, Clark RA, Lowell EL (1976) Theachievement motive. Irvington
26. Reynolds TJ, Gutman J (1988) Laddering theory, method, analy-sis, and interpretation. J Advert Res 28:11–31
27. Rossi PE, Allenby GM, McCulloch R (2005) Bayesian statisticsand marketing. Wiley, New York
28. Saegert J, Hoover RJ, Landeck M (1993) Using focus groupsto explore domains of action. In: Proceedings of the societyfor consumer psychology. American Psychological Association,Washington, pp 36–42
29. Wells WD (1993) Discovery-oriented consumer research. J Con-sum Res 19:489–504
30. Yang S, Allenby GM, Fennell G (2002) Modeling variation inbrand preference: the roles of objective environment and motivat-ing conditions. Mark Sci 21(1):14–31