Predicting Joint Choice Using Individual Data

References

• Aribarg A., Arora N., Bodur H. O. Understanding the role of preference revision and concession in group decisions. J. Marketing Res. (2002) 39(3):336–349Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora N. Estimating joint preference: A sub-sampling approach. Internat. J. Res. Marketing (2006) 23(4):409–418Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora N., Allenby G. M. Measuring the influence of individual preference structures in group decision making. J. Marketing Res. (1999) 36(4):476–487Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora N., Allenby G. M., Ginter J. L. A hierarchical Bayes model of primary and secondary demand. Marketing Sci. (1998) 17(1):29–44Link, Google Scholar
• Arrow K. J.Social Choice and Individual Values (1951) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) Google Scholar
• Bradlow E., Hu Y., Ho T.-H. A learning-based model for imputing missing levels in partial conjoint profiles. J. Marketing Res. (2004) 41(4):369–381Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brock H. W. The problem of “utility weights” in group preference aggregation. Oper. Res. (1980) 28(1):176–187Link, Google Scholar
• Chandrashekaran M., Walker B. A., Ward J. C., Reingen P. H. Modeling individual preference evolution and choice in a dynamic group setting. J. Marketing Res. (1996) 33(2):211–223Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chib S., Greenberg E. Understanding the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. Amer. Statist. (1995) 49(4):327–335Google Scholar
• Chorus C. G., Arentze T. A., Timmermans H. J. P. A random regret-minimization model of travel choice. Transportation Res. (2008) 42(1):1–18Crossref, Google Scholar
• Corfman K. P. Perceptions of relative influence: Formation and measurement. J. Marketing Res. (1991) 28(2):125–136Crossref, Google Scholar
• Corfman K. P., Lehmann D. R. Models of cooperative group decision-making and relative influence: An experimental investigation of famly purchase decisions. J. Consumer Res. (1987) 14(1):1–13Crossref, Google Scholar
• Curry D. J., Menasco M. B., Van Ark J. W. Multiattribute dyadic choice: Models and tests. J. Marketing Res. (1991) 28(3):259–267Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis H. L. Dimensions of marital roles in consumer decision making. J. Marketing Res. (1970) 7(2):168–177Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis J. H. Group decision and social interactions: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychol. Rev. (1973) 80(1):97–125Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dawes R. M., Corrigan B. Linear models in decision making. Psych. Bull. (1974) 81(2):95–106Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diamond P. A. Consumption externalities and imperfect corrective pricing. Bell J. Econom. (1973) 4(2):526–538Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eliashberg J., LaTour S. A., Rangaswarmi A., Stern L. W. Assessing the predictive accuracy of two utility-based theories in a marketing channel negotiation context. J. Marketing Res. (1986) 23(2):101–110Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gelman A., Rubin D. B. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences (with discussion). Statist. Sci. (1992) 7(4):457–472503511Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gelman A., Carlin J. B., Stern H. S., Rubin D. B.Bayesian Data Analysis (2004) 2nd ed.(Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL) Google Scholar
• Geser H. Pre-teen cell phone adoption: Consequences for later patterns of phone usage and involvement. Sociology in Switzerland: Sociology of the Mobile Phone online publication. (2006) (Soziologisches Institut der Universität Zürich, Zürich) . http://www.socio.ch/mobile/t_geser2.htmGoogle Scholar
• Gilbride T. J., Allenby G. M. Estimating heterogeneous EBA and economic screening rule choice models. Marketing Sci. (2006) 25(5):494–509Link, Google Scholar
• Gilbride T. J., Lenk P. J., Brazell J. D. Market share constraints and the loss function in choice-based conjoint analysis. Marketing Sci. (2008) 27(6):995–1011Link, Google Scholar
• Gilula Z., McCulloch R. E., Rossi P. E. A direct approach to data fusion. J. Marketing Res. (2006) 43(1):73–83Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green P. E., Krieger A. M. Models and heuristics for product line selection. Marketing Sci. (1985) 4(1):1–19Link, Google Scholar
• Gupta S., Kohli R. Designing products and services for consumer welfare: Theoretical and empirical issues. Marketing Sci. (1990) 9(3):230–246Link, Google Scholar
• Harsanyi J. C. Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparison of utility. J. Political Econom. (1955) 63(4):309–321Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harsanyi J. C. Can the maximin principle serve as a basis for morality? A critique of John Rawls's theory. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. (1975) 69(2):594–606Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harsanyi J. C. Bayesian decision theory and utilitarian ethics. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1978) 68(2):223–228Google Scholar
• Hauser J., Tellis G. J., Griffin A. Research on innovation: A review and agenda for Marketing Science. Marketing Sci. (2006) 25(6):687–717Link, Google Scholar
• Huber J., Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Marketing Res. (1996) 33(3):307–317Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber J., Wittink D. R., Fiedler J. A., Miller R. The effectiveness of alternative preference elicitation procedures in predicting choice. J. Marketing Res. (1993) 30(1):105–114Crossref, Google Scholar
• Inman J. J., Dyer J. S., Jia J. A generalized utility model of disappointment and regret effects on post-choice valuation. Marketing Sci. (1997) 16(2):97–111Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney R. L. A group preference axiomatization with cardinal utility. Management Sci. (1976) 23(2):140–145Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney R. L., Kirkwood C. W. Group decision making using cardinal social welfare functions. Management Sci. (1975) 22(4):430–437Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney R. L., Raiffa H.Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs (1993) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krishnamurthi L. Conjoint models of family decision making. Internat. J. Res. Marketing (1988) 5(3):185–198Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce R. D., Raiffa H.Games and Decisions (1957) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) Google Scholar
• Marschak J., Thrall R. M., Coombs C. H., Davis R. L. Towards an economic theory of organization and information. Decision Processes (1954) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) 187–220Google Scholar
• McFadden D. S., Zarembka P. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics (1974) (Academic Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Menasco M. B., Curry D. J. Utility and choice: An empirical study of wife/husband decision making. J. Consumer Res. (1989) 16(1):87–97Crossref, Google Scholar
• Myers D. G., Lamm H. The group polarization phenomenon. Psych. Bull. (1976) 83(4):602–627Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nash J. F. The bargaining problem. Econometrica (1950) 18(2):155–162Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nash J. F. Two person cooperative games. Econometrica (1953) 21(1):128–140Crossref, Google Scholar
• Neslin S. A., Greenhalgh L. Nash's theory of cooperative games as a predictor of the outcomes of buyer-seller negotiations: An experiment in media purchasing. J. Marketing Res. (1983) 20(4):368–379Crossref, Google Scholar
• Neslin S. A., Greenhalgh L. The ability of Nash's theory of cooperative games to predict the outcomes of buyer-seller negotiations: A dyad-level test. J. Management Sci. (1986) 32(4):480–498Link, Google Scholar
• Newton M. A., Raftery A. E. Approximate Bayesian inference with the weighted likelihood bootstrap. J. Royal Statist. Soc. (1994) 56(1):3–48Google Scholar
• Owen G.Game Theory (1969) (W.B.Saunders Company, Philadelphia) Google Scholar
• Peters H., Van Damme E. Characterizing the Nash and Raiffa bargaining solutions by disagreement point axioms. Math. Oper. Res. (1991) 16(3):447–461Link, Google Scholar
• Rao V. R., Steckel J. H. A polarization model for describing group preferences. J. Consumer Res. (1991) 18(1):108–118Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rawls J.A Theory of Justice (1971) (Bellknap Press of Harvard Univerisity, Cambridge, MA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rawls J. Some reasons for the maximin criterion. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1974) 64(2):141–146Google Scholar
• Robert C. P.The Bayesian Choice (2001) 2nd ed.(Springer, New York) Google Scholar
• Roberts J. H., Lattin J. M. Consideration: Review of research and prospects for future insights. J. Marketing Res. (1997) 34(2):406–410Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth A. E.Axiomatic Models of Bargaining (1979) (Springer-Verlag, Berlin) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sándor Z., Wedel M. Heterogeneous conjoint choice designs. J. Marketing Res. (2005) 42(2):210–218Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sen A. K.Collective Choice and Social Welfare (1970) (Holden-Day, San Francisco) Google Scholar
• Simonson I. The influence of anticipating regret and responsibility on purchase decisions. J. Consumer Res. (1992) 19(1):105–118Crossref, Google Scholar
• Small K. A., Rosen H. S. Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica (1981) 49(1):105–129Crossref, Google Scholar
• Srinivasan V., Park C. S. Surprising robustness of the self-explicated approach to customer preference structure measurement. J. Marketing Res. (1997) 34(2):286–291Crossref, Google Scholar
• Su C., Fern E. F., Ye K. A temporal dynamic model of spousal family purchase-decision behavior. J. Marketing Res. (2003) 40(3):268–281Crossref, Google Scholar
• Toubia O., Simester D. I., Hauser J. R., Dahan E. Fast polyhedral adaptive conjoint estimation. Marketing Sci. (2003) 22(3):273–303Link, Google Scholar
• Train K. E.Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (2003) (Cambridge University Press, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Neumann J., Morgenstern O.Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (1944) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) Google Scholar
• Yee M., Dahan E., Hauser J. R., Orlin J. Greedoid-based noncompensatory inference. Marketing Sci. (2006) 26(4):532–549Link, Google Scholar