Customer behavior and adoption · A five-way empirical comparison tested open-ended questions, choice-based conjoint, the Becker–DeGroot–Marschak incentive-compatible mechanism, incentive-aligned choice-based conjoint, and real purchase data; outcomes included price sensitivity, demand curves, and pricing decisions.
How Should Consumers’ Willingness to Pay be Measured? An Empirical Comparison of State-of-the-Art Approaches
Deborah J. John, Peter C. Boatwright, Shuba Srinivasan (2011). How Should Consumers’ Willingness to Pay be Measured? An Empirical Comparison of State-of-the-Art Approaches. Journal of Marketing Research. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.1.172
Plain-English take
BDM and incentive-aligned CBC passed statistical and decision-oriented tests. Incentive-aligned settings produced greater price sensitivity and more 'none' choices; non-incentive methods can nevertheless yield useful demand curves and pricing decisions.
How much weight to give this
2/5 Evidence needs cautious interpretation
The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.
A five-way empirical comparison tested open-ended questions, choice-based conjoint, the Becker–DeGroot–Marschak incentive-compatible mechanism, incentive-aligned choice-based conjoint, and real purchase data; outcomes included price sensitivity, demand curves, and pricing decisions.
Consumers evaluating a product under four elicitation approaches, benchmarked against real purchase data; the publisher abstract identifies the five-in-one design but does not show the accessible sample count.
Review the paper for comparison conditions and analysis.
Publisher record checked; detailed methods were not verified.
Double-blind? Blinding was not established from the publisher page.
Research question
What the authors investigated
What does how should consumers’ willingness to pay be measured? an empirical comparison of state-of-the-art approaches show about customer behavior or marketing outcomes?
Design
A five-way empirical comparison tested open-ended questions, choice-based conjoint, the Becker–DeGroot–Marschak incentive-compatible mechanism, incentive-aligned choice-based conjoint, and real purchase data; outcomes included price sensitivity, demand curves, and pricing decisions.
Sample and setting
Consumers evaluating a product under four elicitation approaches, benchmarked against real purchase data; the publisher abstract identifies the five-in-one design but does not show the accessible sample count.
Reported result
What the study found
BDM and incentive-aligned CBC passed statistical and decision-oriented tests. Incentive-aligned settings produced greater price sensitivity and more 'none' choices; non-incentive methods can nevertheless yield useful demand curves and pricing decisions.
This is a paraphrase of the source. Check the original paper for definitions, estimates, statistical uncertainty and analysis details.
Scope and transfer
Limitations to keep in view
The authors frame the comparison around a particular five-method benchmark and note hypothetical bias in open-ended and CBC methods. Inference: results should not be treated as proof that one elicitation method dominates for every product or purchase environment. Full-text methods and correction history were not independently checked.
Possible founder application
Use this study as a bounded example related to how should consumers’ willingness to pay be measured? an empirical comparison of state-of-the-art approaches; evaluate whether its customers, intervention and outcome match your own context.
Evidence access
Publisher page; full-text availability varies and was not established.
Study metadata and reported results were cross-checked against a direct publisher-page retrieval; detailed full-text methods were not reviewed.
If only an abstract or metadata was available, the profile is limited to claims supported there. A paper's paywall does not change its evidentiary status, but it limits what we can substantiate from accessible text.