Advertisement

Preferences Interdependence Among Family Members: Case III/APIM Approach

  • Adam SaganEmail author
Part of the Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization book series (STUDIES CLASS)

Abstract

The purpose of the paper is to identify the preference structures in the framework of actor-partner interdependence (APIM) model based on paired-comparison or ranking data (Thurstone Case III/V model). The households preferences of the income allocation between consumption, savings and investments are considered. Then, the preference structures among the families are identified on the basis of Thurstonian Case III preference model. Latent preferences are used to modeling the actor-partner interdependencies between the household members.

Keywords

Allocation Strategy Preference Model Latent Variable Model Latent Preference Future Consumption 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Apps, P. F., & Rees, R. (1993). Labor supply, household production and intra-family welfare distribution. Working Papers in Economics and Econometrics, Canberra, Australia: Australian National University, 248.Google Scholar
  2. Browning, M., & Chiappori, P. A. (1998). Efficient intrahousehold allocation: A characterisation and tests. Econometrica, 66(6), 1241–1278.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Chiappori, P. A. (1988). Rational household labor supply. Econometrica, 56(1), 63–90.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Commuri, S., & Gentry, J. W. (2005). Resource allocation in households with women as chief wage earners. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A.(2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2), 1001–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doss, Ch. (1996). Testing among models of intrahousehold resource allocation. World Development, 24(10), 1597–1609.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Kashy, D. A., & Donnellan, M. B. (2012). Conceptual and methodological issues in the analysis of data from dyads and groups. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 209–238). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  9. Lazear, E. P., & Michael, R. T., (1988). Allocation of income within the household. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lise, J., & Seitz, S. (2011). Consumption inequality and intra-household allocations. Review of Economic Studies, 78, 328–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. (1993). Separate spheres bargaining and the marriage market. Journal of Political Economy, 101(6), 988–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Manser, M., & Brown, M. (1980). Marriage and household decision-making: A bargaining approach. International Economic Review, 21(1), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2003). On Thurstone’s model for paired comparisons and ranking data. In H. Yanai, A. Okada, K. Shigematu, Y. Kano & J.J. Meulman (Eds.), New Developments in Psychometrics (pp. 519–526). Tokyo: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Böckenholt, U. (2005). Structural equation modeling of paired-comparison and ranking data. Psychological Methods, 10(3), 285–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mcelroy, M., & Horney, M. J. (1981). Nash-bargained household decisions: Toward a generalization of the theory of demand. International Economic Review, 22(2), 333–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Olsen, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2006). Structural equation modeling with interchangeable dyads. Psychological Methods, 11(2), 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rossi, P. E., Allenby, G., & McCulloch, R. (2005). Bayesian statistics and marketing. West Sussex: Wiley.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V., & Rothman, A. J. (2012). Bringing relationships into consumer decision-making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 329–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Temme, D., Paulssen, M. & Dannewald, T. (2008). Incorporating latent variables into discrete choice models. A Simultaneous Estimation Approach Using SEM Software, Business Research, 1(2), 220–237.Google Scholar
  20. Yang, S., & Allenby, G. M. (2003). Modeling interdependent consumer preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 282–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cracow University of EconomicsCracowPoland

Personalised recommendations