Skip to main content
Log in

Estimating choice models in data-sparse environments: Taking advantage of perceived similarity

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research suggests that choice models conditioned on correctly identified consideration sets outperform choice models conditioned on the awareness set (Hauser, 1978; Roberts and Lattin, 1991). However, in data-sparse environments, where purchase history information is not available or not relevant, choice models conditioned on the consideration set often yield nonunique or nonsignificant solutions. In these environments, we propose the use of similarity information to improve the performance of choice models. Support for this position is found in an empirical application involving automobiles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrews, Rick L., and T. C.Srinivasan. (1995). “Studying Consideration Effects in Empirical Choice Models Using Scanner Panel Data.” Journal of Marketing Research 32 (February), 30–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, Susan T., and Mark A.Pavelchak. (1986). “Category-Based vs. Piecemeal-Based Affective Responses: Developments in Schema-Triggered Affect.” In Richard M.Sorrentino and E. ToryHiggins (eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition (pp. 167–203). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, John R. (1978). “Testing the Accuracy, Usefulness, and Significance of Probabilistic Choice Models: An Information Theoretic Approach.” Operations Research 26, 406–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, John R., and Stephen P.Gaskin. (1984). “Application of the ‘Defender’ Consumer Model”. Marketing Science 3(4), 327–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, John R., and BirgerWernerfelt. (1990). “An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets.” Journal of Consumer Research 16 (March), 393–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Eric J., and Robert J.Meyer. (1984). “Compensatory Models of Non-Compensatory Choice Processes: The Effect of Varying Context.” Journal of Consumer Research 11 (June), 528–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Michael D. (1988). “Comparability and Hierarchical Processing in Multialternative Choice.” Journal of Consumer Research 15, (December), 303–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalwani, Manohar U., Robert J.Meyer, and DonaldMorrison. (1994). “Benchmarks for Discrete Choice Models.” Journal of Marketing Research 31 (February), 65–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, Wagner A., and Gary J.Russell. (1989). “A Probabilistic Choice Model for Market Segmentation and Elasticity Structure.” Journal of Marketing Research 26 (November), 379–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kardes, Frank R., Gurumurthy, Kalyanaram, Murali, Chandrashekaran, and Ronald J.Dornoff. (1993). “Brand Retrieval, Consideration Set Composition, Consumer Choice, and the Pioneering Advantage.” Journal of Consumer Research 20 (June), 62–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, Donald R., and YigangPan. (1994). “Context Effects, New Brand Entry, and Consideration Sets.” Journal of Marketing Research 31 (August), 364–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nedungadi, Prakash. (1990). “Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice Without Altering Brand Evaluations.” Journal of Consumer Research 17 (December), 245–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, John W., James R.Bettmann, and Eric J.Johnson. (1993). The Adaptive Decision Maker. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratneshwar, S., and Allan D.Shocker. (1991). “Substitution-in-Use and the Role of Usage Context in Product Category Structures.” Journal of Marketing Research 28 (August), 281–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, John H., and James M.Lattin. (1991). “Developing and Testing of a Model of Consideration Set Composition.” Journal of Marketing Research 28 (November), 429–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, Peter E., and Greg M.Allenby. (1993). “A Bayesian Approach to Estimating Household Parameters.” Journal of Marketing Research 30 (May), 171–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shocker, Allan D., MosheBen-Akiva, BrunoBoccara, and PrakashNedungadi. (1991). “Consideration Set Infleunces on Consumer Decision-Making and Choice: Issues, Models, and Suggestions.” Marketing Letters 2(3), 181–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silk, Alvin J., and Glen L.Urban. (1978). “Pre-Test-Market Evaluation of New Packaged Goods: A Model and Measurement Methodology.” Journal of Marketing Research 15 (May), 171–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, Itamar, Stephen, Nowlis, and Katherine, Lemon. (1993). “The Effect of Local Consideration Sets on Global Choice Between Lower Price and Higher Quality.” Marketing Science 12 (Fall), 357–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Edward E., and Douglas L.Medin. (1981). Categories and Concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sujan, Mita (1985). “Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments.” Journal of Consumer Research 12 (June), 16–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban, Glen L., John S.Hulland, and Bruce D.Weinberg. (1993). “Premarket Forecasting for New Consumer Durable Goods: Modelling Categorization, Elimination, and Consideration Phenomena.” Journal of Marketing 57 (April), 47–63.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hulland, J., Vandenbosch, M. Estimating choice models in data-sparse environments: Taking advantage of perceived similarity. Market Lett 7, 329–339 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00435540

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00435540

Key words

Navigation