Abstract
There is now a very large literature on dynamic learning models in marketing. Learning dynamics can be broadly defined as encompassing any process whereby the prior history of a consumer or market affects current utility evaluations (e.g., social learning, search, correlated learning, information spillover, etc.). In the present chapter, we focus on discussing this rapidly growing literature that deals with this broader view of learning dynamics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Given habit persistence or learning, past purchase creates exposure to a product, which directly affects a consumer’s perceived utility of a product. In an inventory model, past purchase matters because it affects current inventory, but also, more subtly, because the prices at which past purchases are made affect the reference price of the product.
- 2.
In order to implement their model, Erdem and Keane (1996) used the approximate solution methods for dynamic programming models developed in Keane and Wolpin (1994). See Ching et al. (2013) for a complete explanation of the procedure. The simplifying assumptions in Eckstein et al. (1988) allowed them to use the Gittin’s index to find the solution of their model (see Appendix A of Ching et al. 2013).
- 3.
For instance, a diaper may hold all of a baby’s urine on some occasions but not on others (depending on how much milk the baby drank), so one use may not fully reveal its quality.
- 4.
Note that this is equivalent to say \(I_{it}\) consists of all past signals consumer i has received before he/she makes the purchase at time t, given the Bayesian learning framework.
- 5.
Still, heterogeneity in S it may persist over time, because: (i) both brands and consumers are finitely lived, (ii) as people gather more information the value of trial purchases diminishes, and so eventually learning about unfamiliar products will become slow; (iii) there is a flow of new brands and new consumers entering a market.
- 6.
Ching et al. (2013) explain how to extend the above basic framework to allow consumers to learn from multiple information sources (such as advertising, word-of-mouth and so on).
- 7.
In almost all cases no purchase is also an option. Erdem and Keane (1996) denote the no purchase option as j = 0, and simply set the expected utility of no purchase to \(E\left[ {U_{i0} |S_{it} } \right] = e_{i0t}\).
- 8.
card(.) is the cardinality of the set in question. It measures the number of elements in the set.
- 9.
- 10.
The models in these papers largely adopt the framework discussed so far, and hence we will not devote space to explicitly discussing their structure.
- 11.
The likelihood of their model involves multiple integrals because the explanatory variables include lagged latent dependent variables and serially correlated errors, but they show that the GHK simulator remains tractable for this generalized framework (see Keane 1994).
- 12.
Ching (2010b) allows for multiple generic firms. In addition, generic firms’ entry decisions are also endogenous. But since the focus of this chapter is learning, we abstract away the entry decisions when describing the model.
- 13.
It is the choice probability of choosing product j multiplied by the total number of potential patients in this market.
- 14.
Although this paper does not explicitly model a dynamic game, the dynamic demand model is very useful in evaluating the consequences of Marlboro’s strategic response to the competition of generic brands.
- 15.
The basic idea of this model is that players in a game vary in their depth of strategic thinking. A completely naïve player will choose actions by completely ignoring the presence of other players (level zero). A level one player believes that other players will not react to his choice, and his action is the best response with respect to this belief. A level two player believes that all other players are level one, and so on and so forth. This model captures bounded rationality, and can explain players’ behavior in games that cannot be rationalized by standard game theory.
- 16.
The efficiency ratio measures how well a drug converts reduced cholesterol levels to reduced heart disease risks.
- 17.
Note that the basic idea of search models is that consumers need to compare the expected gain from searching vs. the cost of search. In contrast, standard choice models with learning assume that consumers learn about an attribute by buying the product multiple times because information signals are noisy. These models also assume there are a fixed number of alternatives to choose from. In search models with an unknown price (or attribute) distribution, consumers learn about the parameters that characterize the distribution. For a normal distribution, that would be simply learning its mean and standard deviation. But, for a Dirichlet distribution, a consumer needs to use the whole history of price realizations and the initial parameters that characterize the prior to construct his posterior.
- 18.
This is in contrast to static models, where the current expected utilities, \(E[U(Q_{jt}^{E} ,P_{jt} )|I_{t} ]\), alone determines choice probabilities.
- 19.
In labor economics, researchers may argue that wages capture much of the current payoff. Or, researchers can control current payoffs in a lab experiment (e.g., Houser et al. 2004).
- 20.
Each sub-problem can be characterized as follows. A consumer either chooses a fixed reward in each period forever, or chooses brand j this period. If he/she chooses brand j this period, a noisy quality signal about brand j will be revealed, and then the consumer faces these two choices again next period. The reasons the index method provides significant computational gains are: (a) it reduces the size of the state space from N J to J × N, where N is the number of state points associated with each alternative, and (b) solving for the index strategy for J optimal stopping problems is much less costly compared with solving one J dimensional dynamic programming problem.
- 21.
- 22.
Another example is that the advent of internet retailing has made it possible to do comparison shopping from home, thus arguably reducing the costs of gathering information. An interesting hypothesis is that this change in the environment may have caused consumers to engage in more comparison shopping.
- 23.
One way to interpret our argument is that only structural models attempt to predict what decision rules consumers will adopt in a new environment (indeed, this is precisely what structural models are designed to do). But that doesn’t mean their predictions will necessarily be correct. It is important to keep in mind the point that a structural model is only invariant to all conceivable environmental changes if it is perfectly correctly specified—that is, if it is in fact the “true model.” As all models are ultimately false (as they are simplifications), a completely policy invariant model is an aspirational goal, not a reality. The best we can do in practice is to incrementally validate a structural model by showing that it predicts well across a range of policy environments. This may give us confidence in using the model to predict in a new environment. But we can never be certain that the new environment won’t be the one that reveals the flaw in the model! As a practical matter, the best we can hope for is to build structural models we are confident in using for certain types of policy predictions, but perhaps not for others (i.e., it is perfectly possible that a structural model can reliably predict responses to some types of policy changes but not others—just as we see with commonly used models in the physical sciences and engineering). See Keane (2010) for further discussion of these issues.
- 24.
Interestingly, higher-income borrowers learn twice as fast, and forget twice as slowly, as lower-income borrowers.
- 25.
An exception is Yang and Ching (2014) who develop and estimate a consumer life-cycle model to explain the adoption decision of a new technology.
- 26.
CEK’s work was originally motivated by the observation that brand choice conditional on category purchase is very sensitive to price, while the decision to make a purchase in a category is quite insenitive to price. CEK showed that these seemingly contradictory facts could be explained if consumers only occasionally look at (i.e., consider) a category.
- 27.
In the optimal solution consumers should consider a category in every period regardless of their inventory. Even if inventory is high, a low enough price would make it optimal to stock up even more.
References
Agarwal, Sumit, John C. Driscoll, Xavier Gabaix, and David Laibson. 2013. Learning in the credit market. Working paper.
Aguirregabiria, V., and P. Mira. 2007. Sequential estimation of dynamic discrete games. Econometrica 75 (1): 1–53.
Chan, T., J. Li, and L. Pierce. 2014. Learning from peers: Knowledge transfer and sales force productivity growth. Marketing Science 33 (4): 463–484.
Che, Hai, Tülin Erdem, and T. Sabri Öncü. 2015. Consumer learning and evolution of consumer brand preferences. Quantitative Marketing and Economics 13 (3): 173–202.
Chen, T., B. Sun, and V. Singh. 2009. An empirical investigation of the dynamic effect of marlboro’s permanent pricing shift. Marketing Science 28 (4): 740–758.
Ching, A.T. 2010a. Consumer learning and heterogeneity: dynamics of demand for prescription drugs after patent expiration. International Journal of Industrial Organization 28 (6): 619–638.
Ching, A.T. 2010b. A dynamic oligopoly structural model for the prescription drug market after patent expiration. International Economic Review 51 (4): 1175–1207.
Ching, A., T. Erdem, and M. Keane. 2009. The Price Consideration Model of Brand Choice. Journal of Applied Econometrics 24 (3): 393–420.
Ching, A.T., T. Erdem, and M. Keane. 2013. Learning Models: An Assessment of Progress, Challenges and New Developments. Marketing Science 32 (6): 913–938.
Ching, A.T., T. Erdem, and M. Keane. 2014a. A Simple method to Estimate the Roles of Learning, Inventories and Category Consideration in Consumer Choice. Journal of Choice Modelling 13: 60–72.
Ching, A.T., T. Erdem, and M. Keane. 2014b. How much do consumers know about the quality of products? Evidence from the diaper market. Working paper, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.
Ching, A.T., R. Clark, I. Horstmann, and H. Lim. 2016. The effects of publicity on demand: the case of anti-cholesterol drugs. Marketing Science 35 (1): 158–181.
Ching, A.T., and M. Ishihara. 2010. The effects of detailing on prescribing decisions under quality uncertainty. Quantitative Marketing and Economics 8 (2): 123–165.
Ching, A.T., and H. Lim 2016. A Structural analysis of correlated learning and late-mover advantages: The case of statins. Working paper, Rotman School of Management, U of Toronto.
Davis, L. 2004. The effect of health risk on housing values: evidence from a cancer cluster. American Economic Review 94 (5): 1693–1704.
De los Santos, B., A. Hortacsu, M. R. Wildenbeest. 2013. Search with learning. Working paper, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University.
Dzyabura, D., and J.R. Hauser. 2011. Active Machine Learning for Consideration Heuristics. Marketing Science 30 (5): 801–819.
Eckstein, Z., D. Horsky, and Y. Raban. 1988. An empirical dynamic model of brand choice. Working paper 88, University of Rochester.
Erdem, T. 1998. An empirical analysis of umbrella branding. Journal of Marketing Research 35 (3): 339–351.
Erdem, T., and M. Keane. 1996. Decision-making under uncertainty: capturing dynamic brand choice processes in turbulent consumer goods markets. Marketing Science 15 (1): 1–20.
Erdem, T., M. Keane, S. Oncu, and J. Strebel. 2005. Learning about computers: an analysis of information search and technology choice. Quantitative Marketing and Economics 3 (3): 207–246.
Erdem, T., M. Keane, and B. Sun. 2008. A dynamic model of brand choice when price and advertising signal product quality. Marketing Science 27 (6): 1111–1125.
Gabaix, X., and D. Laibson. 2000. A boundedly rational decision algorithm. American Economic Review 90 (2): 433–438.
Gallaghier, J. 2014. Learning about an infrequent event: evidence from flood insurance take-up in the United States. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 6 (3): 206–233.
Geweke, J., and M. Keane. 2000. Bayesian inference for dynamic discrete choice models without the need for dynamic programming. In Simulation based inference and econometrics: methods and applications, eds. Mariano, Schuermann and Weeks, 100–131. Cambridge University Press.
Geweke, J., and M. Keane. 2001. Computationally Intensive Methods for Integration in Econometrics. In Handbook of econometrics: vol. 5, Heckman, J.J., and E.E. Leamer eds., Elsevier Science B.V., 3463–3568.
Gittins, J., and D. Jones. 1974. A dynamic allocation index for the sequential design of experiments. In Progress in Statistics, ed. J. Gani, K. Sarkadi, and I. Vince, 241–266. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Godlonton, S., and R.L. Thornton. 2013. Learning from others’ HIV testing: updating beliefs and responding to risk. American Review Papers and Proceedings 103 (3): 439–444.
Guadagni, P.M., and John D.C. Little. 1983. A logit model of brand choice calibrated on scanner data. Marketing Science 2 (3): 203–238.
Hauser, J.R., G.L. Urban, G. Liberali, and M. Braun. 2009. Website Morphing. Marketing Science. 28 (2): 202–223.
Heckman, J.J. 1981. Statistical models for discrete choice panel data. In Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications, eds. Manski, C.F., and D. McFadden, 114–178. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hendrick, K., A. Sorensen, and T. Wiseman. 2012. Observational learning and demand for search goods. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 4 (1): 1–31.
Ho, T.-H., S.-E. Park, and X. Su. 2015. A bayesian level-k model in n-person games. Working paper.
Houser, D., M. Keane, and K. McCabe. 2004. Behavior in a dynamic decision problem: an analysis of experimental evidence using a bayesian type classification algorithm. Econometrica 72 (3): 781–822.
Howard, R.A. 1966. Information Value Theory. IEEE Transactions on System Science and Cybernetics 2 (1): 22–26.
Huang, G., H. Luo, and J. Xia. 2015. Invest in information or wing it? A model of dynamic pricing with seller learning. Working paper, Carnegie Mello University.
Hummel, P., and B. Knight. 2015. Sequential or simultaneous elections? A Welfare Analysis. International Economic Review 56 (3): 851–887.
Keane, M. 1994. A computationally practical simulation estimator for panel data. Econometrica 62 (1): 95–116.
Keane, M. 2010. Structural versus atheoretic approaches to econometrics. Journal of Econometrics 156 (1): 3–20.
Keane, M. 2015. Panel data discrete choice models of consumer demand. In Oxford handbook of panel data, ed. Baltagi, B., Chapter 18, pp. 548–582 Oxford University Press.
Keane, M., and S. Thorp. 2016. Complex decision making: the roles of cognitive limitations, cognitive decline and aging. In Handbook of the economics of population aging, Vol. 1B, J. Piggott, and A. Woodland, eds., Elsevier Science B.V., pp. 661-709.
Keane, M., and K. Wolpin. 1994. The solution and estimation of discrete choice dynamic programming models by simulation: monte carlo evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics 76 (4): 648–672.
Ketcham, J.D., C. Lucabell, E.J. Miravete, and M.C. Roebuck. 2012. Sinking, swimming, or learning to swim in medicare Part D. American Economic Review 102 (6): 2639–2673.
Ketcham, J.D., C. Lucabell, and C.A. Powers. 2015a. Paying attention or paying too much in medicare Part D. American Economic Review 105 (1): 204–233.
Ketcham, J.D., N.V. Kuminoff, and C.A. Powers. 2015b. Estimating the heterogeneous welfare effects of choice architecture: an application to the medicare prescription drug insurance market. Working paper, Arizona State University.
Knight, B., and N. Schiff. 2010. Momentum and social learning in presidential primaries. Journal of Political Economy 118 (6): 1110–1150.
Koulayev, S. 2013. Search with dirichlet priors: estimation and implications for consumer demand. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 31 (2): 226–239.
Larcom, S., F. Rauch, and T. Willems. 2015. The benefits of forced experimentation: striking evidence from the London underground network. Working paper, University of Oxford.
Lee, J.Y., and D.R. Bell. 2013. Neighborhood social capital and social learning for experience attributes of products. Marketing Science 32 (6): 960–976.
Lin, S., J. Zhang, and J.R. Hauser. 2015. Learning from experience, Simply. Marketing Science 34 (1): 1–19.
Liu, Y., and M. Ishihara. 2015. Causal impact of online reviews on durable goods adoption: the case of the U.S. Video-Game market. Working paper, Stern School of Business, NYU.
Liu, X., J.H. Kagel, and L.F. Lee. 2012. Learning from peers in signaling game experiments. Journal of Applied Econometrics 27: 1037–1058.
Lovett, M.J., and R. Staelin. 2016. The role of paid, earned, and owned media in building entertainment brands: reminding, informing, and enhancing enjoyment. Marketing Science 35 (1): 142–157.
Malmendier, U., and S. Nagel. 2011. Depression babies: do microeconomic experiences affect risk-taking? The Quarterly Journal of Economics 126 (1): 373–416.
Milgrom, P., and J. Roberts. 1982. Limit pricing and entry under incomplete information: an equilibrium analysis. Econometrica 50 (2): 443–459.
Newberry, P.W. 2016. An empirical study of observational learning. RAND Journal of Economics 47 (2): 394–432.
Roberts, J., and G. Urban. 1988. Modelling multiattribute utility, risk, and belief dynamics for new consumer durable brand choice. Management Science 34 (2): 167–185.
Roos, J.M.T., C.F. Mela, and R. Shachar. 2015. The effect of links and excerts on internet news consumption. Working paper, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University.
Rothschild, M. 1974. Searching for lowest price when the distributino of prices is unknown. Journal of Political Economy 82 (4): 689–711.
Sauer, Robert M. 2015. Does it pay for women to volunteer? International Economic Review 56 (2): 537–564.
Sudhir, K., and N. Yang. 2015. Exploiting the choice-consumption mismatch: A new approach to disentagle state dependence and heterogenity. Working paper.
Szymanowski, M., and E. Gijsbrechts. 2012. Consumption-based cross-brand learning: are private labels really private? Journal of Marketing Research. XLIX (April), 231–246.
Tehrani, Shervin S., and A.T. Ching. 2016. A heuristic approach to explore: value of perfect information. Working paper, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.
Wei, Y. 2015. Imitation versus innovation: product similarity network in the motion picture industry. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania.
Whittle, P. 1988. Restless bandits: activity allocation in a changing world. Journal of Applied Probability 25 (2): 287–298.
Wu, C., H. Che, T.Y. Chan, and X. Lu. 2015. The economic value of online reviews. Marketing Science 34 (5): 739–754.
Yang, B., and A.T. Ching. 2014. Dynamics of consumer adoption of financial innovation: the case of ATM cards. Management Science 60 (4): 903–922.
Yang, N. 2016. Learning in retail entry. Working paper, McGill University.
Zhang, J. 2010. The sound of silence: observational learning in the U.S. kidney market. Marketing Science 29 (2): 315–335.
Zhao, Y., S. Yang, V. Narayan, and Y. Zhao. 2013. Modeling consumer learning from online product reviews. Marketing Science 32 (1): 153–169.
Zou, D. 2014. Intertemporal pricing of new products: incentivizing consumer learning and inertia. Working paper, Booth School of Business, University of Chicago.
Acknowledgements
Keane’s work on this project has been supported by Australian Research Council grants FF0561843 and FL110100247. Ching’s work has been supported by SSHRC. But the views expressed are entirely our own. We thank two anonymous referees and Ralf van der Lans for their helpful comments. We also thank Shervin Shahrokhi Tehrani for providing excellent research assistance. The article was previously circulated under the title “Models for Marketing Dynamics and Learning: A Survey of Recent Developments.”
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ching, A.T., Erdem, T., Keane, M.P. (2017). Empirical Models of Learning Dynamics: A Survey of Recent Developments. In: Wierenga, B., van der Lans, R. (eds) Handbook of Marketing Decision Models. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 254. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56941-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56941-3_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56939-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56941-3
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)