Tricked by Truncation: Spurious Duration Dependence and Social Contagion in Hazard Models

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1100.0615

References

  • Andrews R. L., Currim I. S. An experimental investigation of scanner data preparation strategies for consumer choice models. Internat. J. Res. Marketing (2005) 22(3):319–331CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Aral S., Muchnik L., Sundararajan A. Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA (2009) 106(51):21544–21549CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bell D. R., Song S. Neighborhood effects and trial on the Internet: Evidence from online grocery retailing. Quant. Marketing Econom. (2007) 5(4):361–400CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bemmaor A. C., Lee Y. The impact of heterogeneity and ill-conditioning on diffusion model parameter estimates. Marketing Sci. (2002) 21(2):209–220LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Burt R. S. The Medical Innovation network data. (1986) . Technical Report 3, Center for the Social Sciences, Columbia University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  • Chamberlain G. Analysis of covariance with qualitative data. Rev. Econom. Stud. (1980) 47(1):225–238CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Choi J., Hui S. K., Bell D. R. Spatio-temporal analysis of imitation behavior across new buyers at an online grocery retailer. J. Marketing Res. (2010) 47(1):75–89CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Coleman J. S., Katz E., Menzel H.Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study (1966) (Bobbs-Merrill Company, Indianapolis) Google Scholar
  • Colombo R. A., Morrison D. G. A brand switching model with implications for marketing strategies. Marketing Sci. (1989) 8(1):89–99LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Deemer W. L., Votaw D. F. Estimation of parameters of truncated or censored exponential distributions. Ann. Math. Stat. (1955) 26(3):498–504CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Dekimpe M. G., Van de Gucht L. M., Hanssens D. M., Powers K. I. Long-run abstinence after narcotics abuse: What are the odds? Management Sci. (1998) 44(11):1478–1492LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Den Broeder G. G. On parameter estimation for truncated Pearson Type III distributions. Ann. Math. Stat. (1955) 26(4):659–663CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Erbring L., Young A. A. Individuals and social structure: Contextual effects as endogenous feedback. Sociol. Method. Res. (1979) 7(4):396–430CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Farewell V. T. The use of mixture models for the analysis of survival data with long-term survivors. Biometrics (1982) 38(4):1041–1046CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Farewell V. T. Mixture models in survival analysis: Are they worth the risk? Canadian J. Statist. (1986) 14(3):257–262CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Helsen K., Schmttlein D. C. Analyzing duration times in marketing: Evidence for the effectiveness of hazard rate models. Marketing Sci. (1993) 12(4):395–414LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Horsky D., Simon L. S. Advertising and the diffusion of new products. Marketing Sci. (1983) 2(1):1–17LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Iyengar R., Van den Bulte C., Valente T. W. Opinion leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing Sci. (2011) 30(2):195–212LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Jackson M. O.Social and Economic Networks (2008) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kalbfleisch J. D., Lawless J. F. Some useful statistical methods for truncated data. J. Quality Technol. (1992) 24(3):145–152CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Klein J. P., Moeschberger M. L.Survival Analysis: Techniques for Censored and Truncated Data (2003) 2nd ed.(Springer, New York) Google Scholar
  • Kuk A. Y. C., Chen C.-H. A mixture model combining logistic regression with proportional hazards regression. Biometrika (1992) 79(3):531–541CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lancaster T.The Econometric Analysis of Transition Data (1990) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Li C.-S., Taylor J. M. G., Sy J. P. Identifiability of cure models. Stat. Probab. Lett. (2001) 54(4):389–395CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Manchanda P., Xie Y., Youn N. The role of targeted communication and contagion in product adoption. Marketing Sci. (2008) 27(6):961–976LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Meeker W. Q. Limited failure population life test: Application to integrated circuit reliability. Technometrics (1987) 29(1):51–65CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Miley A. D. Stability of parameter estimates in the split population exponential distribution. Eval. Quart. (1978) 2(4):646–649CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Moe W. W., Fader P. S. Using advance purchase orders to forecast new product sales. Marketing Sci. (2002) 21(3):347–364LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Nam S., Manchanda P., Chintagunta P. K. The effect of signal quality and contiguous word of mouth on customer acquisition for a video-on-demand service. Marketing Sci. (2010) 29(4):690–700LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Prins R., Verhoef P. C., Franses P. H. The impact of adoption timing on new service usage and early disadoption. Internat. J. Res. Marketing (2009) 26(4):304–313CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Schmitt P., Skiera B., Van den Bulte C. Referral programs and customer value. J. Marketing (2011) 75(1):46–59CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Sinha R. K., Chandrashekaran M. A split hazard model for analyzing the diffusion of innovations. J. Marketing Res. (1992) 29(1):116–127CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Srinivasan R., Lilien G. L., Rangaswamy A. The emergence of dominant designs. J. Marketing (2006) 70(2):1–17CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tuma N. B., Hannan M. T., Schuessler K. Approaches to the censoring problem in analysis of event histories. Sociological Methodology (1979) 10(Jossey-Bass, San Francisco) 209–240CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Van den Bulte C., Lilien G. L. Bias and systematic change in the parameter estimates of macro-level diffusion models. Marketing Sci. (1997) 16(4):338–353LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Van den Bulte C., Lilien G. L. Medical Innovation revisited: Social contagion versus marketing effort. Amer. J. Sociol. (2001) 106(5):1409–1435CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Van den Bulte C., Stremersch S. Social contagion and income heterogeneity in new product diffusion: A meta-analytic test. Marketing Sci. (2004) 23(4):530–544LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Vaupel J. W., Yashin A. I. Heterogeneity's ruses: Some surprising effects of selection on population dynamics. Amer. Statistician (1985) 39(3):176–185Google Scholar
  • Zanutto E. L., Bradlow E. T. Data pruning in consumer choice models. Quant. Marketing Econom. (2006) 4(3):267–287CrossrefGoogle 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.