Modeling the Underreporting Bias in Panel Survey Data

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1090.0536

References

  • Bailar B. A. The effects of rotation group bias on estimates from panel surveys. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (1975) 70(349):23–30CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Baumgartner H., Steenkamp J.-B. E. M. Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. J. Marketing Res. (2001) 38(2):143–156CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bollinger C. R., David M. H. Modeling discrete choice with response error: Food stamp participation. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (1997) 92:827–835CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bradlow E. T., Zaslavsky A. M. A hierarchical latent variable model for ordinal data from a customer satisfaction survey with “no answer” responses. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (1999) 94(445):43–52Google 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):369–381CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Che H., Sudhir K., Seetharaman P. B. Bounded rationality in pricing under state-dependent demand: Do firms look ahead? How far ahead? J. Marketing Res. (2007) 44(3):434–449CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • de Jong M. G., Pieters R., Fox J.-P. Reducing social desirability bias via item randomized response: An application to measure underreported desires. J. Marketing Res. (2010) 47(1):14–27CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • de Jong M. G., Steenkamp J. B. E. M., Fox J.-P., Baumgarter H. Using item response theory to measure extreme response style in marketing research: A global investigation. J. Marketing Res. (2008) 45(1):104–115CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Du R., Kamakura W. Household life cycles and lifestyles in the United States. J. Marketing Res. (2006) 43(1):121–132CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Erdem T., Keane M. P. Decision-making under uncertainty: Capturing dynamic choice processes in turbulent consumer goods markets. Marketing Sci. (1996) 15(1):1–20LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Fader P., Hardie B. A note on modeling underreported Poisson counts. J. Appl. Stat. (2000) 27(8):953–964CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fisher R. J. Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. J. Consumer Res. (1993) 20(2):303–315CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fuller W. A. Estimation in the presence of measurement error. Internat. Statist. Rev. (1995) 63(2):121–141CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ganster D. C., Hennessey H. W., Luthans F. Social desirability response effects: Three alternative models. Acad. Management J. (1983) 26(2):321–331CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Geweke J. Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to the calculation of posterior moments. Bayesian Statistics 4 (1992) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK) 169–193Google Scholar
  • Gilbride T., Yang S., Allenby G. M. Modeling simultaneity in survey data. Quant. Marketing Econom. (2005) 3(4):311–315CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Guadagni P. M., Little J. D. C. A logit model of brand choice calibrated on scanner data. Marketing Sci. (1983) 2(3):203–238LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Hawkins D. I., Coney K. A. Uninformed response error in survey research. J. Marketing Res. (1981) 18(3):370–374CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Jo M.-S., Nelson J., Kiecker P. A model for controlling social desirability bias by direct and indirect questioning. Marketing Lett. (1997) 8(4):429–437CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kitamura R., Bovy P. H. L. Analysis of attribution biases and trip reporting errors for panel data. Transportation Res. A (1987) 21A(4/5):287–302CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lee E., Hu M. Y., Toh R. S. Are consumer survey results distorted? Systematic impact of behavioral frequency and duration on survey response errors. J. Marketing Res. (2000) 37(1):125–133CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Liechty J. C., Fong D. K. H., DeSarbo W. S. Dynamic models incorporating individual heterogeneity: Utility evolution in conjoint analysis. Marketing Sci. (2005) 24(2):285–293LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Mandell L., Lundsten L. L. Some insights into the underreporting of financial data by sample survey respondents. J. Marketing Res. (1978) 15(May):294–299CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Menon G. The effects of accessibility of information in memory on judgments of behavioral frequencies. J. Consumer Res. (1993) 20(3):431–440CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Menon G. Are the parts better than the whole? The effects of decompositional questions on judgments of frequency behaviors. J. Marketing Res. (1997) 34(3):335–346CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Montgomery A. L., Li S., Srinivasan K., Liechty J. C. Modeling online browsing and path analysis using clickstream data. Marketing Sci. (2004) 23(4):579–595LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Montoya R., Netzer O., Jedidi K. Dynamic marketing mix allocation for long-term profitability. (2007) . Working paper, Columbia University, New YorkCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Netzer O., Lattin J. M., Srinivasan V. A hidden Markov model of customer relationship dynamics. Marketing Sci. (2008) 27(2):185–204LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Otter T., Frühwirth-Schnatter S., Tüchler R. Unobserved preference changes in conjoint analysis. (2003) . Working paper, Fisher College of Business, Ohio State University, ColumbusCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Rossi P. E., Gilula Z., Allenby G. M. Overcoming scale usage heterogeneity: A Bayesian hierarchical approach. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (2001) 96(1):20–31CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Schmittlein D. C., Bemmaor A. C., Morrison D. G. Why does the NBD model work? Robustness in representing product purchases, brand purchases and imperfectly recorded purchases. Marketing Sci. (1985) 4(3):255–266LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Seetharaman P. B., Ainslie A. K., Chintagunta P. K. Investigating household state dependence effects across categories. J. Marketing Res. (1999) 36(4):488–500CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Sudman S. On the accuracy of recording of consumer panels: Impact of some demographic factors and behavioral characteristics on systematic attrition. J. Marketing Res. (1964) 1(May):14–20CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ter Hofstede F., Steenkamp J.-B. E. M., Wedel M. International market segmentation based on consumer-product relations. J. Marketing Res. (1999) 36(February):1–17CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Toh R. S., Hu M. Y. Natural mortality and participation fatigue as potential biases in diary panels: Impact of some demographic factors and behavioral characteristics on systematic attrition. J. Bus. Res. (1996) 35(2):129–138CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Turner R. Inter-week variations in expenditure recorded during a two-week survey of family expenditure. Appl. Statist. (1961) 10(3):136–146CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • van der Lans R., van Bruggen G., Eliashberg J., Wierenga B. A viral branching model for predicting the spread of electronic word of mouth. Marketing Sci. (2010) 29(2):348–365LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Waksberg J., Neter J. Response errors in collection of expenditures data by household interviews: An experimental study. (1965) . Technical Paper 11, U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  • Winkelmann R. Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis of underreported counted data with an application to worker absenteeism. Empirical Econom. (1996) 21(4):575–587CrossrefGoogle Scholar
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.