Preference Learning and Demand Forecast

References

• Balli HO, Sørensen BE (2013) Interaction effects in econometrics. Empirical Econom. 45(1):583–603.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker GM, DeGroot MH, Marschak J (1964) Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behav. Sci. 9(3):226–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ben-Akiva M, McFadden D, Train K (2019) Foundations of stated preference elicitation: Consumer behavior and choice-based conjoint analysis. Foundations Trends Econometrics 10(1–2):1–144.Google Scholar
• Bettman JR, Johnson EJ, Payne JW (1990) A componential analysis of cognitive effort in choice. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 45(1):111–139.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer C, Hogarth R (1999) The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. J. Risk Uncertainty 19(1–3):7–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer C, Mobbs D (2017) Differences in behavior and brain activity during hypothetical and real choices. Trends Cognitive Sci. 21(1):46–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caplin A, Dean M (2015) Revealed preference, rational inattention, and costly information acquisition. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(7):2183–2203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chassang S, Miquel GPI, Snowberg E (2012) Selective trials: A principal-agent approach to randomized controlled experiments. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(4):1279–1309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cummings RG, Harrison GW, Rutström EE (1995) Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible? Amer. Econom. Rev. 85(1):260–266.Google Scholar
• Diamond PA, Hausman JA (1994) Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? J. Econom. Perspect. 8(4):45–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ding M (2007) An incentive-aligned mechanism for conjoint analysis. J. Marketing Res. 44(2):214–223.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ding M, Grewal R, Liechty J (2005) Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. J. Marketing Res. 42(1):67–82.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greene W (2010) Testing hypotheses about interaction terms in nonlinear models. Econom. Lett. 107(2):291–296.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guo L, Zhang J (2012) Consumer deliberation and product line design. Marketing Sci. 31(6):995–1007.Link, Google Scholar
• Hauser JR, Rao VR (2004) Conjoint analysis, related modeling, and applications. Wind Y, Green PE, eds. Marketing Research and Modeling: Progress and Prospects (Springer, Boston, MA), 141–168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hauser JR, Urban GL, Weinberg BD (1993) How consumers allocate their time when searching for information. J. Marketing Res. 30(4):452–466.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ, Vytlacil EJ (2007) Econometric evaluation of social programs, Part I: Causal models, structural models and econometric policy evaluation. Heckman JJ, Leamer EE, eds. Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 6B (North-Holland, Amsterdam), 4779–4874.Google Scholar
• Huang Y, Bronnenberg BJ (2018) Pennies for your thoughts: Costly product consideration and purchase quantity thresholds. Marketing Sci. 37(6):1009–1028.Link, Google Scholar
• Kaas KP, Ruprecht H (2006) Are the Vickrey auction and the BDM mechanism really incentive compatible? Empirical results and optimal bidding strategies in cases of uncertain willingness-to-pay. Schmalenbach Bus. Rev. 58(1):37–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleinberg R, Waggoner B, Weyl EG (2018) Descending price optimally coordinates search. Working paper, Microsoft Research New England, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Kuksov D, Villas-Boas JM (2010) When more alternatives lead to less choice. Marketing Sci. 29(3):507–524.Link, Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (2006) The Construction of Preference (Cambridge University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lucas R (1976) Econometric policy evaluation: A critique. Brunner K, Meltzer AH, eds. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy (Elsevier, New York), 19–46.Google Scholar
• Marschak J (1953) Economic measurement for policy and prediction. Hood WC, Koopmans TC, eds. Studies in Econometric Method (Wiley, New York), 1–26.Google Scholar
• Miller KM, Hofstetter R, Krohmer H, Zhang ZJ (2011) How should consumers’ willingness to pay be measured? An empirical comparison of state-of-the-art approaches. J. Marketing Res. 48(1):172–184.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method (Resources for the Future, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Olenski S (2017) How to launch your first proof of concept. Forbes (September 27), https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveolenski/2017/09/27/how-to-launch-your-first-proof-of-concept.Google Scholar
• Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1993) The Adaptive Decision Maker (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pett MA (1997) Nonparametric Statistics for Healthcare Research: Statistics for Small Samples and Unusual Distributions (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Rao VR (2014) Applied Conjoint Analysis (Springer-Verlag, Berlin).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberts JH, Urban GL (1988) Modeling multiattribute utility, risk, and belief dynamics for new consumer durable brand choice. Management Sci. 34(2):167–185.Link, Google Scholar
• Shugan SM (1980) The cost of thinking. J. Consumer Res. 7(2):99–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Silk AJ, Urban GL (1978) Pre-test-market evaluation of new packaged goods: A model and measurement methodology. J. Marketing Res. 15(2):171–191.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simester D (2017) Field experiments in marketing. Duflo E, Banerjee A, eds. Handbook of Economic Field Experiments. 1st ed. (North-Holland, Amsterdam).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonson I (2008) Will I like a “medium” pillow? Another look at constructed and inherent preferences. J. Consumer Psych. 18(3):155–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Toubia O, de Jong MG, Stieger D, Füller J (2012) Measuring consumer preferences using conjoint poker. Marketing Sci. 31(1):138–156.Link, Google Scholar
• Train KE (2009) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (Cambridge University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Urban GL, Katz GM (1983) Pre-test-market models: Validation and managerial implications. J. Marketing Res. 20(3):221–234.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Villas-Boas JM (2009) Product variety and endogenous pricing with evaluation costs. Management Sci. 55(8):1338–1346.Link, Google Scholar
• Wathieu L, Bertini M (2007) Price as a stimulus to think: The case for willful overpricing. Marketing Sci. 26(1):118–129.Link, Google Scholar
• Wernerfelt B (1994) Selling formats for search goods. Marketing Sci. 13(3):298–309.Link, Google Scholar
• Wertenbroch K, Skiera B (2002) Measuring consumers’ willingness to pay at the point of purchase. J. Marketing Res. 39(2):228–241.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilcox NT (1993) Lottery choice: Incentives, complexity and decision time. Econom. J. 103(421):1397–1417.Google Scholar
• Yang LC, Toubia O, de Jong MG (2015) A bounded rationality model of information search and choice in preference measurement. J. Marketing Res. 52(2):166–183.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yang LC, Toubia O, de Jong MG (2018) Attention, information processing, and choice in incentive-aligned choice experiments. J. Marketing Res. 55(6):783–800.Crossref, Google Scholar