When Random Assignment Is Not Enough: Accounting for Item Selectivity in Experimental Research

References

• Albuquerque P, Pavlidis P, Chatow U, Chen KY, Jamal Z (2012) Evaluating promotional activities in an online two-sided market of user-generated content. Marketing Sci. 31(3):406–432.Link, Google Scholar
• Anderson ET, Simester DI (2004) Long-run effects of promotion depth on new versus established customers: Three field studies. Marketing Sci. 23(1):4–20.Link, Google Scholar
• Andrews RL, Currim IS (2005) An experimental investigation of scanner data preparation strategies for consumer choice models. Internat. J. Res. Marketing 22(3):319–331.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andrews RL, Ainslie A, Currim IS (2008) On the recoverability of choice behaviors with random coefficients choice models in the context of limited data. Management Sci. 54(1):83–99.Link, Google Scholar
• Bradlow ET, Zaslavsky AM (1999) A hierarchical latent variable model for ordinal data from a customer satisfaction survey with “no answer” responses. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 94(445):43–52.Google Scholar
• Braun M, Moe WW (2013) Online display advertising: Modeling the effects of multiple creatives and individual impression histories. Marketing Sci. 32(5):753–767.Link, Google Scholar
• Broniarczyk SM (2008) Product assortment. Haugtvedt CP, Herr PM, Kardes FR, eds. Handbook of Consumer Psychology (Laurence Erlbaum Associates, New York), 755–779.Google Scholar
• Bronnenberg BJ, Dubé JP, Mela CF (2010) Do digital video recorders influence sales? J. Marketing Res. 47(6):998–1010.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bult JR, Wansbeek T (1995) Optimal selection for direct mail. Marketing Sci. 14(4):378–394.Link, Google Scholar
• Carmon Z, Wertenbroch K, Zeelenberg M (2003) Option attachment: When deliberating makes choosing feel like losing. J. Consumer Res. 30(1):15–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Danaher PJ (2002) Optimal pricing of new subscription services: Analysis of a market experiment. Marketing Sci. 21(2):119–138.Link, Google Scholar
• Diehl K, Poynor C (2010) Great expectations?! Assortment size, expectations and satisfaction. J. Marketing Res. 47(2):312–322.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Efron B, Hastie T, Johnstone I, Tibshirani R (2004) Least angle regression. Ann. Statist. 32(2):407–499.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Enders CK (2010) Applied Missing Data Analysis (Guilford Publications, New York).Google Scholar
• Gu Y, Botti S, Faro D (2013) Turning the page: The impact of choice closure on satisfaction. J. Consumer Res. 40(2):268–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47(1):153–161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ (1990) Varieties of selection bias. Amer. Econom. Rev. 80(2):313–318.Google Scholar
• Iyengar S, Lepper M (2000) When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? J. Personality Soc. Psych. 79(6):995–1006.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lambrecht A, Seim K, Tucker C (2011) Stuck in the adoption funnel: The effect of interruptions in the adoption process on usage. Marketing Sci. 30(2):355–367.Link, Google Scholar
• Litt A, Tormala ZL (2010) Fragile enhancement of attitudes and intentions following difficult decisions. J. Consumer Res. 37(4):584–598.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Little RJA, Rubin DB (2002) Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moe WW, Schweidel DA (2012) Online product opinions: Incidence, evaluation, and evolution. Marketing Sci. 31(3):372–386.Link, Google Scholar
• Peters S (2000) On the use of the RESET test in microeconometric models. Appl. Econom. Lett. 7(6):361–365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Petrin A, Train K (2010) A control function approach to endogeneity in consumer choice models. J. Marketing Res. 47(1):3–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pham MT, Chang HH (2010) Regulatory focus, regulatory fit, and the search and consideration of choice alternatives. J. Consumer Res. 37(4):626–640.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Puhani PA (2000) The Heckman correction for sample selection and its critique. J. Econom. Surveys 14(1):53–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ratner RK, Kahn BE, Kahneman D (1999) Choosing less-preferred experiences for the sake of variety. J. Consumer Res. 26(1):1–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Read D, Loewenstein G (1995) Diversification bias: Explaining the discrepancy in variety seeking between combined and separated choices. J. Exp. Psych.: Appl. 1(1):34–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rubin DB (2004) Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys, Vol. 81 (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Schafer JL, Graham JW (2002) Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psych. Methods 7(2):147–177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonson I (1990) The effect of purchase quantity and timing on variety-seeking behavior. J. Marketing Res. 27(2):150–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, van der Linde A (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J. Roy. Statist. Soc., Ser. B 64(4):583–639.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tobin J (1958) Estimation of relationships among limited dependent variables. Econometrica 26(1):24–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Trijp HC, Hoyer WD, Inman JJ (1996) Why switch? Product category-level explanations for true variety-seeking behavior. J. Marketing Res. 33(3):281–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wachtel S, Otter T (2013) Successive sample selection and its relevance for management decisions. Marketing Sci. 32(1):170–185.Link, Google Scholar
• Wainer H, Thissen D (1994) On examinee choice in educational testing. ETS Res. Report Ser. 64(1):159–195.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wainer H, Wang XB, Thissen D (1994) How well can we compare scores on test forms that are constructed by examinees choice? J. Educational Measurement 31(3):183–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang XB, Wainer H, Thissen D (1995) On the viability of some untestable assumptions in equating exams that allow examinee choice. App. Measurement Ed. 8(3):211–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Winship C, Mare RD (1992) Models for sample selection bias. Ann. Rev. Soc. 18:327–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yang S, Zhao Y, Dhar R (2010) Modeling the underreporting bias in panel survey data. Marketing Sci. 29(3):525–539.Link, Google Scholar
• Ying Y, Feinberg F, Wedel M (2006) Leveraging missing ratings to improve online recommendation systems. J. Marketing Res. 43(3):355–365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zanutto EL, Bradlow ET (2006) Data pruning in consumer choice models. Quant. Marketing Econom. 4(3):267–287.Crossref, Google Scholar