On the Recoverability of Choice Behaviors with Random Coefficients Choice Models in the Context of Limited Data and Unobserved Effects

References

• Abramson C., Andrews R. L., Currim I. S., Jones M. Parameter bias from unobserved effects in the multinomial logit model of consumer choice. J. Marketing Res. (2000) 37(4):410–426Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allenby G. M., Rossi P. E. Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity. J. Econometrics (1999) 89(1–2):57–78Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allenby G. M., Arora N., Ginter J. L. On the heterogeneity of demand. J. Marketing Res. (1998) 35(3):384–389Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andrews R. L., Manrai A. K. Simulation experiments in choice simplification: The effects of task and context on forecasting performance. J. Marketing Res. (1998) 35(2):198–209Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andrews R. L., Ainslie A., Currim I. S. An empirical comparison of logit choice models with discrete versus continuous representations of heterogeneity. J. Marketing Res. (2002a) 39(4):479–487Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andrews R. L., Ansari A., Currim I. S. Hierarchical Bayes versus finite mixture conjoint analysis models: A comparison of fit, prediction, and partworth recovery. J. Marketing Res. (2002b) 39(1):87–98Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chiang J., Chib S., Narasimhan C. Markov chain Monte Carlo and models of consideration set and parameter heterogeneity. J. Econometrics (1999) 89(1–2):223–248Crossref, Google Scholar
• Currim I. S., Meyer R. J., Le N. T. Disaggregate tree-structured modeling of consumer choice data. J. Marketing Res. (1988) 25(3):253–265Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeSarbo W. S., Ansari A., Chintagunta P., Himmelberg C., Jedidi K., Johnson R., Kamakura W., Lenk P., Srinivasan K., Wedel M. Representing heterogeneity in consumer choice models. Marketing Lett. (1997) 8(3):335–348Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilbride T. J., Allenby G. M. A choice model with conjunctive, disjunctive, and compensatory screening rules. Marketing Sci. (2004) 23(3):391–406Link, Google Scholar
• Gilbride T. J., Allenby G. M. Estimating heterogeneous EBA and economic screening rule choice models. Marketing Sci. (2006) 25(5):494–509Link, Google Scholar
• Guadagni P., Little J. D. C. A logit model of brand choice calibrated on scanner data. Marketing Sci. (1983) 2(3):203–238Link, Google Scholar
• Huber J., Train K. On the similarity of classical and Bayesian estimates of individual mean partworths. Marketing Lett. (2001) 12(3):259–269Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keane M. P. Modeling heterogeneity and state dependence in consumer choice behavior. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. (1997) 15(3):310–327Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mehta N., Rajiv S., Srinivasan K. Price uncertainty and consumer search: A structural model of consideration set formation. Marketing Sci. (2003) 22(1):58–84Link, Google Scholar
• Newton M. A., Raftery A. E. Approximate Bayesian inference by the weighted likelihood bootstrap. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B (1994) 56(1):3–48Google Scholar
• Rossi P. E., Allenby G. M. Bayesian statistics and marketing. Marketing Sci. (2003) 22(3):304–328Link, Google Scholar
• Seetharaman P. B. Probabilistic versus random utility models of state dependence: An empirical comparison. Internat. J. Res. Marketing (2003) 20(1):87–96Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seetharaman P. B. Modeling multiple sources of state dependence in random utility models: A distributed lag approach. Marketing Sci. (2004) 23(2):263–271Link, Google Scholar
• Seetharaman P. B., Ainslie A., Chintagunta P. Investigating household state dependence effects across categories. J. Marketing Res. (1999) 36(4):488–500Crossref, Google Scholar
• Swait J. A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cutoffs. Transportation Res. Part B (2001) 35(10):903–928Crossref, Google Scholar
• Train K. E.Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (2003) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wedel M., Kamakura W., Arora N., Bemmaor A., Chiang J., Elrod T., Johnson R., Lenk P., Neslin S., Poulsen C. S. Discrete and continuous representations of unobserved heterogeneity in choice modeling. Marketing Lett. (1999) 10(3):219–232Crossref, Google Scholar