Models of Sequential Evaluation in Best-Worst Choice Tasks

References

• Bacon L, Lenk P (2012) Augmenting discrete-choice data to identify common preference scales for inter-subject analyses. Quant. Marketing Econom. 10(4):453–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beach LR (1993) Broadening the definition of decision making: The role of prechoice screening of options. Psych. Sci. 4(4):215–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beach LR, Potter RE (1992) The pre-choice screening of options. Acta Psychologica 81(2):115–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ben-Akiva M, Morikawa T, Shiroishi F (1992) Analysis of the reliability of reference ranking data. J. Bus. Res. 24(2):149–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bettman JR, Luce MF, Payne JW (1998) Constructive consumer choice processes. J. Consumer Res. 25(3):187–217.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Böckenholt U (2004) Comparative judgments as an alternative to ratings: Identifying the scale origin. Psych. Methods 9(4):453–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carlston DE (1980) The recall and use of traits and events in social inference processes. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 16(4):303–328.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chapman RG, Staelin R (1982) Exploiting rank ordered choice set data within the stochastic utility model. J. Marketing Res. 19(3):288–301.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coombs CH, Donnel ML, Kirk DB (1978) An experimental study of risk preference in lotteries. J. Experiment. Psych.: Human Perception Perform. 4(3):497–512.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiebig DG, Keane MP, Louviere J, Wasi N (2010) The generalized multinomial logit model: Accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Marketing Sci. 29(3):393–421.Link, Google Scholar
• Finn A, Louviere JJ (1992) Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: The case of food safety. J. Public Policy Marketing 11(2):12–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fitts PM, Deininger RL (1954) S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. J. Experiment. Psych. 48(6):483–492.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fitts PM, Seeger CM (1953) S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. J. Experiment. Psych. 46(3):199–210.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gumbel EJ (2004) Statistics of Extremes (Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, NY).Google Scholar
• Hajivassiliou V, McFadden D, Ruud P (1996) Simulation of multivariate normal rectangle probabilities and their derivatives theoretical and computational results. J. Econometrics 72(1–2): 85–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hintzman DL (1986) “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model. Psych. Rev. 93(4):411–428.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoch SJ, Ha Y-W (1986) Consumer learning: Advertising and the ambiguity of product experience. J. Consumer Res. 13(2):221–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Howard MW, Kahana MJ (2002) When does semantic similarity help episodic retrieval? J. Memory Language 46(1):85–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson NL, Kotz S (1995) Continuous Univariate Distributions, Vol. 2, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics (Wiley, Chichester, UK).Google Scholar
• Keane MP (1994) A computationally practical simulation estimator for panel data. Econometrica 62(1):95–116.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Louviere JJ (1991) Best-worst scaling: A model for the largest difference judgments. Working paper, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.Google Scholar
• Louviere JJ (2001) What if consumer experiments impact variances as well as means? J. Consumer Res. 28(3):506–511.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lyubomirsky S, Lee R (1999) Changes in attractiveness of elected, rejected, and precluded alternatives: A comparison of happy and unhappy individuals. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 76(6):998–1007.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Machin J (2006) Choosing by selecting or rejecting: The implications of decision strategy for consumer satisfaction. Dissertation, Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
• Manski CF (1977) The structure of random utility models. Theory Decision 8(3):229–254.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marley AAJ, Louviere J (2005) Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. J. Mathematical Psych. 49(6):464–480.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marley AAJ, Pihlens D (2012) Models of best-worst choice and ranking among multiattribute options (profiles). J. Math. Psych. 56(1):24–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meloy MG, Russo JE (2004) Binary choice under instructions to select versus reject. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 93:114–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newton MA, Raftery AE (1994) Approximate Bayesian inference with the weighted likelihood bootstrap. J. Royal Statist. Soc. Ser. B (Methodological) 56(1):3–48.Google Scholar
• Ordóñez LD, Benson L III, Beach LR (1999) Testing the compatibility test: How instructions, accountability, and anticipated regret affect prechoice screening of options. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 78(1):63–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rossi PE, Allenby GM, McCulloch RE (2005) Bayesian Statistics and Marketing, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics (Wiley, Chichester, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rossi PE, McCulloch RE, Allenby GM (1996) The value of purchase history data in target marketing. Marketing Sci. 15(4):321–340.Link, Google Scholar
• Sawtooth Software (2010) The MaxDiff/web system technical paper. Technical report, Sawtooth Software, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
• Sawtooth Software (2012) Report on conjoint analysis usage among Sawtooth Software customers, Sawtooth Software, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
• Shafir E (1993) Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory Cognition 21(4):546–556.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shafir E, Simonson I, Tvesky A (1993) Reason-based choice. Cognition 49(1–2):11–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slovic P (1995) The construction of preference. Amer. Psychologist 50(5):364–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Snyder M (1981) Seek and ye shall find: Testing hypotheses about other people. Heiman CP, Higgins ET, Zanna MP, eds. Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium on Personality and Social Psychology (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillside, NJ), 277–303.Google Scholar
• Snyder M, Swann WB (1978) Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 36(11):1202–1212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tanner MA, Wong WH (1987) The calculation of posterior distributions by data augmentation. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 82(398):528–540.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tulving E (1972) Episodic and semantic memory. Tulving E, Donaldson W, eds. Organization of Memory (Academic Press, New York), 381–402.Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Simonson I (1993) Context-dependent preferences. Management Sci. 39(10):1179–1189.Link, Google Scholar
• Wilk R (1997) A critique of desire: Distaste and dislike in consumer behavior. Consumption Markets Culture 1(2):175–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yang S, Allenby G (2000) A model for observation, structural, and household heterogeneity in panel data. Marketing Lett. 11(2):137–149.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yaniv I, Schul Y (2000) Acceptance and elimination procedures in choice: Noncomplementarity and the role of implied status quo. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 82(2):293–313.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yaniv I, Schul Y, Raphaelli-Hirsch R, Maoz I (2002) Inclusive and exclusive modes of thinking: Studies of prediction, preference, and social perception during parliamentary elections. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 38(4):352–367.Crossref, Google Scholar