The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity

References

• Allenby G. M., Rossi P. Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity. J. Econometrics (1998) 89(1–2):57–78Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bartels R., Fiebig D. G., van Soest A. Consumers and experts: An econometric analysis of the demand for water heaters. Empirical Econom. (2006) 31(2):369–391Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ben-Akiva M., McFadden D., Abe M., Böckenholt U., Bolduc D., Gopinath D., Morikawa T., et al. Modelling methods for discrete choice analysis. Marketing Lett. (1997) 8(3):273–286Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burda M., Harding M., Hausman J. A Bayesian mixed logit-probit model for multinomial choice. J. Econometrics (2008) 147(2):232–246Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cameron T. A. A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J. Environ. Econom. Management (1988) 15(3):335–379Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cameron T. A., Poe G. L., Ethier R. G., Schulze W. D. Alternative non-market value-elicitation methods: Are the underlying preferences the same? J. Environ. Econom. Management (2002) 44(3):391–425Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeShazo J. R., Fermo G. Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: The effects of complexity on choice consistency. J. Environ. Econom. Management (2002) 44(1):123–143Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dubé J.-P., Chintagunta P., Petrin A., Bronnenberg B., Goettler R., Seetharaman P. B., Sudhir K., Thomadsen R., Zhao Y. Structural applications of the discrete choice model. Marketing Lett. (2002) 13(3):207–220Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elrod T., Keane M. P. A factor-analytic probit model for representing the market structure in panel data. J. Marketing Res. (1995) 32(1):1–16Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fang H., Keane M., Silverman D. Advantageous selection in the Medigap insurance market. J. Political Econom. (2006) 116(2):303–350Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferguson T. S. A Bayesian analysis of some nonparametric problems. Ann. Statist. (1973) 1(2):209–230Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiebig D. G., Hall J. P. Discrete choice experiments in the analysis of health policy. Productivity Commission Conf., November 2004: Quant. Tools for Microeconomic Policy Anal. (2005) Canberra, ACT, Australia:119–136Google Scholar
• Geweke J., Keane M., Hsiao C., Lahiri K., Lee L.-F., Pesaran M. H. Mixture of normals probit models. Analysis of Panels and Limited Dependent Variable Models (1999) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA) 49–78Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geweke J., Keane M., Heckman J. J., Leamer E. E. Computationally intensive methods for integration in econometrics. Handbook of Econometrics (2001) 5(Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam) 3463–3568Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geweke J., Keane M. Smoothly mixing regressions. J. Econometrics (2007) 138(1):291–311Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geweke J., Keane M., Runkle D. Alternative computational approaches to statistical inference in the multinomial probit model. Rev. Econom. Statist. (1994) 76(4):609–632Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geweke J. F., Keane M. P., Runkle D. E. Statistical inference in the multinomial multiperiod probit model. J. Econometrics (1997) 80(1):125–165Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall J. P., Fiebig D. G., King M. T., Hossain I., Louviere J. J. What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment. J. Health Econom. (2006) 25(3):520–537Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hanemann W. M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Amer. J. Agricultural Econom. (1984) 66(15):332–341Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harris K., Keane M. A model of health plan choice: Inferring preferences and perceptions from a combination of revealed preference and attitudinal data. J. Econometrics (1999) 89(1–2):131–157Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jiang W., Tanner M. Hierarchical mixtures-of-experts for exponential family regression models: Approximation and maximum likelihood estimation. Ann. Statist. (1999) 27(3):987–1011Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kamakura W. A., Russell G. J. A probabilistic choice model for market segmentation and elasticity structure. J. Marketing Res. (1989) 26(4):379–390Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keane M. P. A computationally practical simulation estimator for panel data. Econometrica (1994) 62(1):95–116Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keane M. P. Current issues in discrete choice modelling. Marketing Lett. (1997a) 8(3):307–322Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keane M. P. Modeling heterogeneity and state dependence in consumer choice behaviour. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. (1997b) 15(3):310–327Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keane M. The generalized logit model: Preliminary ideas on a research program. (2006) Presentation, Motorola-CenSoC Hong Kong MeetingOctober 22(Motorola, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong) Google Scholar
• Keane M., Moffitt R. A structural model of multiple welfare program participation and labor supply. Internat. Econom. Rev. (1998) 39(3):553–589Crossref, Google Scholar
• Louviere J. J., Eagle T. Confound it! That pesky little scale constant messes up our convenient assumptions! Proc. 2006 Sawtooth Software Conf. (2006) (Sawtooth Software, Sequem, WA) 211–228Google Scholar
• Louviere J. J., Meyer R. J., Malhotra N. K. Formal choice models of informal choices: What choice modeling research can (and can't) learn from behavioral theory. Review of Marketing Research (2007) (M. E. Sharpe, New York) 3–32Google Scholar
• Louviere J. J., Islam T., Wasi N., Street D. J., Burgess L. Designing discrete choice experiments: Do optimal designs come at a price? J. Consumer Res. (2008a) 35(2):360–375Crossref, Google Scholar
• Louviere J. J., Street D., Burgess L., Wasi N., Islam T., Marley A. A. J. Modelling the choices of individuals decision makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. J. Choice Model. (2008b) 1(1):128–163Crossref, Google Scholar
• Louviere J. J., Meyer R. J., Bunch D. S., Carson R., Dellaert B., Hanemann W. M., Hensher D., Irwin J. Combining sources of preference data for modelling complex decision processes. Marketing Lett. (1999) 10(3):205–217Crossref, Google Scholar
• Louviere J. J., Street D. J., Carson R. T., Ainslie A., DeShazo J. R., Cameron T. A., Hensher D., Kohn R., Marley T. Dissecting the random component of utility. Marketing Lett. (2002) 13(3):177–193Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFadden D., Zarembka P. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics (1974) (Academic Press, New York) 105–142Google Scholar
• McFadden D., Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econometrics (2000) 15(5):447–470Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rossi P., Allenby G., McCulloch R.Bayesian Statistics and Marketing (2005) (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Small K. A., Winston C., Yan J. Uncovering the distribution of motorists' preferences for travel time and reliability. Econometrica (2005) 73(4):1367–1382Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sonnier G., Ainslie A., Otter T. Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models. Quant. Marketing Econom. (2007) 5(3):313–331Crossref, Google Scholar
• Swait J., Adamowicz W. Incorporating the effect of choice environment and complexity into random utility models. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (2001) 86(2):141–167Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thurstone L. A law of comparative judgment. Psych. Rev. (1927) 34:273–286Crossref, Google Scholar
• Train K. E.Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (2003) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Train K. A recursive estimator for random coefficient models. (2007) . Working paper, University of California Berkeley, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
• Villani M., Kohn R., Giordani P. Nonparametric regression density estimation using smoothly varying normal mixtures. (2007) . Sveriges Riksbank Research Paper Series 211, StockholmCrossref, Google Scholar
• Wedel M., Kamakura W.Market Segmentation: Concepts and Methodological Foundations (1998) (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston) Google Scholar