Ranking of choice cues for smartphones using the Best-Worst scaling method

被引:9
|
作者
Pinto, Luis [1 ]
Kaynak, Erdener [2 ]
Chow, Clement S. F. [1 ]
Zhang, Lida L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Macau, Taipa, Macau, Peoples R China
[2] Penn State Univ Harrisburg, Middletown, PA USA
关键词
Smartphone; Chinese context; Best-Worst scaling method; Buying decision process; Product attributes; Ranking of importance; CONSUMER PREFERENCES; WINE; SEGMENTS;
D O I
10.1108/APJML-01-2018-0004
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Purpose The number of studies on the use of choice cues in the purchase decision of a smartphone does not appear to be extensive, given the size and rate of growth of the market. Surprisingly, it appears that no study of this type in the Chinese context has been undertaken. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to fill the existing gap in the marketing literature in this area. Design/methodology/approach Best-Worst (BW) scaling method was used in the study. It is suggested that the method overcomes some of the biases commonly found in surveys where Likert-type scales are used, and it has superior discriminating power, because respondents are asked to rank the most and the least important factor from a group, and are thereby forced to make tradeoffs between factors. Findings Among the 13 choice cues, connectivity, price and memory capacity are found to be the most important, whereas recommendation from others, ease of handling and availability of apps are found to be the least important. Findings due to gender, income and age difference were also analyzed and discussed for orderly decision-making purpose
引用
收藏
页码:223 / 245
页数:23
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Priority ranking for the best-worst method
    Tu, Jiancheng
    Wu, Zhibin
    Pedrycz, Witold
    [J]. INFORMATION SCIENCES, 2023, 635 : 42 - 55
  • [2] Can We Move Beyond First-Choice DCEs Using Best-Worst Using Best-Worst, Best-Best or Ranking?
    Huls, Samare P. I.
    Lancsar, Emily
    Donkers, Bas
    Ride, Jemimah
    [J]. PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2021, 14 (06): : 866 - 866
  • [3] Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best-worst scaling and discrete choice experiments in a nonhypothetical context
    Yangui, Ahmed
    Akaichi, Faical
    Costa-Font, Montserrat
    Maria Gil, Jose
    [J]. AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2019, 63 (02) : 221 - 246
  • [4] Models of best-worst choice and ranking among multiattribute options (profiles)
    Marley, A. A. J.
    Pihlens, D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2012, 56 (01) : 24 - 34
  • [5] The heterogeneous best-worst choice method in market research
    Tavares, Susana
    Cardoso, Margarida
    Dias, Jose G.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MARKET RESEARCH, 2010, 52 (04) : 533 - 546
  • [6] Ranking journals: the Best-Worst scaling approach applied to the field of wine economics
    Outreville, Jean-Francois
    Agnoli, Lara
    Le Fur, Eric
    [J]. APPLIED ECONOMICS, 2022, 54 (15) : 1688 - 1699
  • [7] Best-Worst Scaling with many items
    Chrzan, Keith
    Peitz, Megan
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CHOICE MODELLING, 2019, 30 : 61 - 72
  • [8] The Balancing Role of Best and Worst in Best-Worst Method
    Rezaei, Jafar
    [J]. ADVANCES IN BEST-WORST METHOD, BWM2021, 2022, : 1 - 15
  • [9] Attribute Selection for a Discrete Choice Experiment Incorporating a Best-Worst Scaling Survey
    Webb, Edward J. D.
    Meads, David
    Lynch, Yvonne
    Judge, Simon
    Randall, Nicola
    Goldbart, Juliet
    Meredith, Stuart
    Moulam, Liz
    Hess, Stephane
    Murray, Janice
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2021, 24 (04) : 575 - 584
  • [10] Measuring values using best-worst scaling: The LOV example
    Lee, Julie Anne
    Soutar, Geoffrey N.
    Louviere, Jordan
    [J]. PSYCHOLOGY & MARKETING, 2007, 24 (12) : 1043 - 1058