The synthetic Gabor-Granger intent curve

Each line names a claim related to this exhibit, its source, and how it was checked.

• A UWH96-C1 The concern is stated preference inflating under hype: the authors worried that "respondents overstated their willingness to purchase an environmentally sound car" and built the design around it. It is one electric-vehicle case in which "the authors describe how one firm combines managerial judgment" with market measurement, not a general lawUrban, Weinberg & Hauser. (1996)
• A AKJL14-C1 The paper's actual claim is about FUZZINESS, not a survey-versus-choice-model comparison: "a high degree of fuzziness always exists in the data obtained from conjoint surveys" and "ignorance of the fuzziness would lead to the over-estimation of market demands"Aydin, Kwong, Ji & Law. (2014)
• B T05-OWN-C1 Gabor-Granger pricing research asks respondents to evaluate purchase intention across a sequence of stated price pointsAuthor framework; direct method source not held
• B T05-OWN-C2 A stated purchase-intent curve is not a market-price observation, transaction price, or revealed willingness to payAuthor boundary grounded in UWH96-C1 and AKJL14-C1
• B T05-OWN-C4 Price-point acceptance, purchase intention, and observed purchase are separate response objectsAuthor taxonomy
• B T05-OWN-C5 The method can compare stated acceptance across price points under its survey design, but cannot by itself estimate realized demand or causal elasticityAuthor negative boundary

Grades: A, verified against the printed page of the primary source · B, primary source, text layer only · C, authoritative secondary · D, reported.

This exhibit belongs to an essay: the numbers live here, the argument lives there.