Simultaneous or Sequential? Search Strategies in the U.S. Auto Insurance Industry

References

• Andrews R, Srinivasan T (1995) Studying consideration effects in empirical choice models using scanner panel data. J. Marketing Res. 32(1):30–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baye M, Morgan J, Scholten P (2006) Information, search, and price dispersion. Hendershott T, ed. Handbook on Economics and Information Systems (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 323–376.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benabou R (1993) Search market equilibrium, bilateral heterogeneity, and repeat purchases. J. Econom. Theory 60(1):140–158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bronnenberg B, Vanhonacker W (1996) Limited choice sets, local price response, and implied measures of price competition. J. Marketing Res. 33(2):163–173.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burdett K, Judd K (1983) Equilibrium price dispersion. Econometrica 51(4):955–970.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chade H, Smith L (2005) Simultaneous search. Working paper, Yale University, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
• Chade H, Smith L (2006) Simultaneous search. Econometrica 74(5):1293–1307.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen X, Hong H, Shum M (2007) Nonparametric likelihood ratio model selection tests between parametric likelihood and moment condition models. J. Econometrics 141(1):109–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Yao S (2016) Sequential search with refinement: Model and application with click-stream data. Management Sci. Forthcoming.Link, Google Scholar
• Chiang J, Chib S, Narasimhan C (1999) Markov chain Monte Carlo and models of consideration set and parameter heterogeneity. J. Econometrics 89(1–2):223–248.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dahlby B, West D (1986) Price dispersion in an automobile insurance market. J. Political Econom. 94(2):418–438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dayton C, Macready G (1988) Concomitant-variable latent-class models. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 83(401):173–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De los Santos B, Hortaçsu A, Wildenbeest M (2012) Testing models of consumer search using data on Web browsing and purchasing behavior. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(1):2455–2480.Google Scholar
• De los Santos B, Hortaçsu A, Wildenbeest M (2015) Search with learning. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• DeSarbo W, Jedidi K (1995) The spatial representation of heterogeneous consideration sets. Marketing Sci. 14(3):326–342.Link, Google Scholar
• DeSarbo W, Lehman D, Carpenter G, Sinha I (1996) A stochastic multidimensional unfolding approach for representing phased decision outcomes. Psychometrika 61(3):485–508.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gensch D, Soofi E (1995) Information-theoretic estimation of individual consideration set. Internat. J. Res. Marketing 12(1):25–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guadagni P, Little J (1983) A logit model of brand choice. Marketing Sci. 2(2):203–238.Link, Google Scholar
• Gumbel EJ (1961) Bivariate logistic distributions. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 56(294):335–349.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hajivassiliou V (2000) Some practical issues in maximum simulated likelihood. Mariano R, Schuermann T, Weeks M, eds. Simulation-Based Inference in Econometrics: Methods and Applications (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 71–99.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hauser J, Wernerfelt B (1990) An evaluation cost model of consideration sets. J. Consumer Res. 16(4):393–408.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hong H, Shum M (2006) Using price distributions to estimate search costs. RAND J. Econom. 37(2):257–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Honka E (2014) Quantifying search and switching costs in the U.S. auto insurance industry. RAND J. Econom. 45(4):847–884.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Honka E, Hortaçsu A, Vitorino M (2016) Advertising, consumer awareness, and choice: Evidence from the U.S. banking industry. Working paper, University of California Los Angeles.Google Scholar
• Janssen M, Moraga-Gonzalez J, Wildenbeest M (2005) Truly costly sequential search and oligopolistic pricing. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 23(5):451–466.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kamakura W, Russell G (1989) A probabilistic choice model for market segmentation and elasticity structure. J. Marketing Res. 26(4):379–390.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim J, Albuquerque P, Bronnenberg B (2010) Online demand under limited consumer search. Marketing Sci. 29(6):1001–1023.Link, Google Scholar
• Kircher P (2009) Efficiency of simultaneous search. J. Political Econom. 117(5):861–913.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lin H, Wildenbeest M (2015) Search and prices in the Medigap insurance market. Working paper, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
• Matsumoto B, Spence F (2014) Price beliefs and experience: Do consumers’ beliefs converge to empirical distributions with repeat purchases? Working paper, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
• McFadden D (1986) The choice theory approach to market research. Marketing Sci. 5(4):275–297.Link, Google Scholar
• McFadden D (1989) A method of simulated moments for estimation of discrete response models without numerical integration. Econometrica 57(5):995–1026.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mehta N, Rajiv S, Srinivasan K (2003) Price uncertainty and consumer search: A structural model of consideration set formation. Marketing Sci. 22(1):58–84.Link, Google Scholar
• Miller G (1956) The magic number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psych. Rev. 63(2):81–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mitra A, Lynch J (1996) Advertising effects on consumer welfare: Prices paid and liking for brands selected. Marketing Lett. 7(1):19–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moraga-Gonzalez J, Wildenbeest M (2008) Maximum likelihood estimation of search costs. Eur. Econom. Rev. 52(5):820–848.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morgan P, Manning R (1985) Optimal search. Econometrica 53(4):923–944.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Muir D, Seim K, Vitorino M (2013) Price obfuscation and consumer search: An empirical analysis. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
• Pires T (2015) Consideration sets in storable goods markets. Working paper, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
• Ratchford B (1980) The value of information for selected appliances. J. Marketing Res. 17(1):14–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reinganum J (1979) A simple model of equilibrium price dispersion. J. Political Econom. 87(4):851–858.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberts J, Lattin J (1991) Development and testing of a model of consideration set composition. J. Marketing Res. 28(4):429–440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberts J, Lattin J (1997) Consideration: Review of research and prospects for future insights. J. Marketing Res. 34(3):406–410.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothschild M (1974) Searching for the lowest price when the distribution of prices is unknown. J. Political Econom. 82(4):689–711.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seiler S (2013) The impact of search costs on consumer behavior: A dynamic approach. Quant. Marketing Econom. 11(2):155–203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shugan S (1980) The cost of thinking. J. Consumer Res. 7(2):99–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Siddarth S, Bucklin R, Morrison D (1995) Making the cut: Modeling and analyzing choice set restriction in scanner panel data. J. Marketing Res. 32(3):255–266.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stahl D (1989) Oligopolistic pricing with sequential consumer search. Amer. Econom. Rev. 79(2):700–712.Google Scholar
• Stigler G (1961) The economics of information. J. Political Econom. 69(3):213–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stiglitz J (1987) Competition and the number of firms in a market: Are duopolies more competitive than atomistic markets? J. Political Econom. 95(5):1041–1061.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weitzman M (1979) Optimal search for the best alternative. Econometrica 47(3):641–654.Crossref, Google Scholar