Marketing Letters

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 643–659 | Cite as

How collinearity affects mixture regression results

  • Jan-Michael Becker
  • Christian M. Ringle
  • Marko Sarstedt
  • Franziska Völckner


Mixture regression models are an important method for uncovering unobserved heterogeneity. A fundamental challenge in their application relates to the identification of the appropriate number of segments to retain from the data. Prior research has provided several simulation studies that compare the performance of different segment retention criteria. Although collinearity between the predictor variables is a common phenomenon in regression models, its effect on the performance of these criteria has not been analyzed thus far. We address this gap in research by examining the performance of segment retention criteria in mixture regression models characterized by systematically increased collinearity levels. The results have fundamental implications and provide guidance for using mixture regression models in empirical (marketing) studies.


Market segmentation Segment retention Mixture regression Collinearity 



The authors would like to thank Jörg Henseler (Radboud University Nijmegen) and Edward E. Rigdon (Georgia State University) for their comments on earlier versions of the paper.

Supplementary material

11002_2014_9299_MOESM1_ESM.docx (91 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 90.7 kb)


  1. Andrews, R. L., & Currim, I. S. (2003a). A comparison of segment retention criteria for finite mixture logit models. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(20), 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, R. L., & Currim, I. S. (2003b). Retention of latent segments in regression-based marketing models. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(4), 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews, R. L., Ainsle, A., & Currim, I. S. (2002a). An empirical comparison of logit choice models with discrete versus continuous representations of heterogeneity. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(4), 479–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrews, R. L., Ansari, A., & Currim, I. S. (2002b). Hierarchical Bayes versus finite mixture conjoint analysis models: a comparison of fit, prediction and partworth recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrews, R. L., Currim, I. S., Leeflang, P., & Lim, J. (2007). Estimating the SCAN*PRO model of store sales: HB, FM or just OLS? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(1), 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andrews, R. L., Brusco, M. J., Currim, I. S., & Davis, B. (2010). An empirical comparison of methods for clustering problems: are there benefits from having a statistical model? Review of Marketing Science, 8(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boone, D. S., & Roehm, M. (2002). Evaluating the appropriateness of market segmentation solutions using artificial neural networks and the membership clustering criterion. Marketing Letters, 13(4), 317–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bozdogan, H. (1994). Mixture-model cluster analysis using model selection criteria in a new information measure of complexity. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the First US/Japan Conference on Frontiers of Statistical Modelling: An Information Approach.Google Scholar
  9. Claeskens, G., & Hart, J. D. (2009). Goodness-of-fit tests in mixed models. Test, 18(2), 213–239.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Core Team, R. (2014). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  11. Cortiñas, M., Chocarro, R., & Villanueva, M. L. (2010). Understanding multi-channel banking customers. Journal of Business Research, 63(11), 1215–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeSarbo, W. S., & Cron, W. L. (1988). A maximum likelihood methodology for clusterwise linear regression. Journal of Classification, 5(2), 249–282.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeSarbo, W. S., Kamakura, W., & Wedel, M. (2004). Applications of multivariate latent variable models in marketing. In Y. Wind & P. E. Green (Eds.), Market Research and Modeling: Progress and Prospects. A Tribute to Paul E. Green (pp. 43–68). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. et al.Google Scholar
  14. DeSarbo, W. S., Benedetto, C. A., & Song, M. (2007). A heterogeneous resource based view for exploring relationships between firm performance and capabilities. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2(2), 103–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dubois, B., Czellar, S., & Laurent, G. (2005). Consumer segmentation based on attitudes toward luxury: empirical evidence from twenty countries. Marketing Letters, 16(2), 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grewal, R., Cote, J. A., & Baumgartner, H. (2004). Multicollinearity and measurement error in structural equation models: implications for theory testing. Marketing Science, 23(4), 519–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grewal, R., Chakravarty, A., Ding, M., & Liechty, J. (2008). Counting chickens before the eggs hatch: associating new product development portfolios with shareholder expectations in the pharmaceutical sector. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(3), 261–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grewal, R., Chandrashekaran, M., & Citrin, A. V. (2010). Customer satisfaction heterogeneity and shareholder value. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4), 612–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grewal, R., Chandrashekaran, M., Johnson, J. L., & Mallapragada, G. (2013). Environments, unobserved heterogeneity, and the effect of market orientation on outcomes for high-tech firms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 206–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grün, B., & Leisch, F. (2008). Flexmix 2: finite mixtures with concomitant variables and varying constant parameters. Journal of Statistical Software, 28(4), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hahn, C., Johnson, M. D., Herrmann, A., & Huber, F. (2002). Capturing customer heterogeneity using a finite mixture PLS approach. Schmalenbach Business Review, 54(3), 243–269.Google Scholar
  22. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Hawkins, D. S., Allen, D. M., & Stromberg, A. J. (2001). Determining the number of components in mixtures of linear models. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 38(1), 15–48.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hennig, C. (2000). Identifiability of models for clusterwise linear regression. Journal of Classification, 17(2), 273–296.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hubert, L., & Arabi, P. (1985). Comparing partitions. Journal of Classification, 2(1), 193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hutchinson, J. W., Kamakura, W. A., & Lynch, J. G. (2000). Unobserved heterogeneity as an alternative explanation for “reversal” effects in behavioral research. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 324–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jagpal, S., Jedidi, K., & Jamil, M. (2007). A multibrand concept-testing methodology for new product strategy. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(1), 34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jedidi, K., Jagpal, H. S., & DeSarbo, W. S. (1997). Finite-mixture structural equation models for response-based segmentation and unobserved heterogeneity. Marketing Science, 16(1), 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim, B.-D., Fong, D. K. H., & DeSarbo, W. S. (2012). Model-based segmentation featuring simultaneous segment-level variable selection. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(5), 725–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim, S., Blanchard, S. J., Desarbo, W. S., & Fong, D. K. H. (2013). Implementing managerial constraints in model-based segmentation: extensions of Kim, Fong, and DeSarbo (2012) with an application to heterogeneous perceptions of service quality. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(5), 664–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2012). Marketing management (14th ed.). Pearson: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  32. Mantrala, M. K., Naik, P. A., Sridhar, S., & Thorson, E. (2007). Uphill or downhill? Locating the firm on a profit function. Journal of Marketing, 71(2), 26–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marcoulides, G. A., Chin, W. W., & Saunders, C. (2012). When imprecise statistical statements become problematic: a response to Goodhue, Lewis, and Thompson. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 717–728.Google Scholar
  34. Mason, C. H., & Perreault, W. D. (1991). Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 268–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McLachlan, G. J., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York, NY: Wiley.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ofir, C., & Khuri, A. (1986). Multicollinearity in marketing models: diagnostics and remedial measures. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 3(3), 181–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sarstedt, M. (2008). Market segmentation with mixture regression models: understanding measures that guide model selection. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 16(3), 228–246.Google Scholar
  38. Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2010). Treating unobserved heterogeneity in PLS path modelling: a comparison of FIMIX-PLS with different data analysis strategies. Journal of Applied Statistics, 37(8), 1299–1318.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W. A. (2000). Market segmentation: conceptual and methodological foundations (2nd ed.). Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wedel, M., Kamakura, W., Arora, N., Bemmaor, A., Chiang, J., Elrod, T., et al. (1999). Discrete and continuous representations of unobserved heterogeneity in choice modeling. Marketing Letters, 10(3), 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan-Michael Becker
    • 1
  • Christian M. Ringle
    • 2
    • 4
  • Marko Sarstedt
    • 3
    • 4
  • Franziska Völckner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Marketing and Brand ManagementUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Human Resource Management and Organizations (HRMO)Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH)HamburgGermany
  3. 3.Institute of MarketingOtto-von-Guericke-University MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany
  4. 4.School of Business and LawUniversity of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations