Abstract
We review the discussion at a workshop whose goal was to achieve a better integration among behavioral, economic, and statistical approaches to choice modeling. The workshop explored how current approaches to the specification, estimation, and application of choice models might be improved to better capture the diversity of processes that are postulated to explain how consumers make choices. Some specific challenges include how to capture and parsimoniously describe heterogeneous mixes of heuristic choice rules, methods for building realistic models of choice, and nontraditional methods for estimating models. An agenda for important future work in these areas is also proposed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A good deal of the discussion in this Workshop concerned ideas which have not yet made their way into published papers. One of the most valuable aspects of this Workshop was the opportunity to hear some of the details of what our colleagues were just beginning to think about, rather than limiting the discussion to research which has already navigated the publication process. To afford some minimal protection to each individual’s proprietary rights to these ideas, we quote unpublished ideas and general expert intuition with attribution, wherever possible (even though this may go against the conventions observed in more standard journal articles).
Some progress has also been made recently in addressing this concern via EBA models (see Batsell et al. 2003).
This is true of conventional conditional logit-type models, although lexicographic and EBA-type models, of course, depart from this assumption.
The “Lucas critique” warns against the use of econometrically estimated models to evaluate policy proposals when the behavior of individuals is conditional on the proposed policy. This advice is based upon the argument that changes in the exogenous variables in a structural model can precipitate changes in the parameters of that model, a form of dependence that is assumed away in most econometric specifications.
References
Abe, M. (1995). A nonparametric density estimation method for brand choice using scanner data. Marketing Science, 14(3), 300–325.
Arentze, T. A., Dellaert, B. G. C., & Timmermans, H. J. P. (2008). Modeling and measuring individuals’ mental representations of complex spatio-temporal decision problems. Environment and Behavior, DOI 10.1177/0013916507309994.
Batley, R., & Daly, A. (2006). On the equivalence between elimination-by-aspects and generalised extreme value models of choice behaviour. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50(5), 456–467.
Batsell, R. R., Polking, J. C., Cramer, R. D., & Miller, C. M. (2003). Useful mathematical relationships embedded in Tversky’s elimination by aspects model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 47(5–6), 538–544.
Cameron, T. A., Poe, G. L., Ethier, R. G., & Schulze, W. D. (2002). Alternative non-market value-elicitation methods: Are the underlying preferences the same. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44(3), 391–425.
Ching, A., Keane, M., & Erdem, T. (2007). The price consideration model of brand choice. Journal of Applied Econometrics, (in press).
Dahan, E., & Hauser, J. R. (2002). The virtual customer. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, 332–353.
Debreu, G. (1960). Review of R. D. Luce individual choice behavior. American Economic Review, 50, 186–188.
Dellaert, B. G. C., Brazell, J., & Louviere, J. (1999). The effect of attribute variation on consumer choice consistency. Marketing Letters, 10(2), 139–147.
DeShazo, J. R., & Fermo, G. (2002). Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: The effects of complexity on choice consistency. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 43(3), 360–385.
Gabaix, X., Laibson, D., Moloche, G., & Weinberg, S. (2006). Costly information acquisition: Experimental analysis of a boundedly rational model. American Economic Review, 96, 1043–1068.
Gilbride, T. J., & Allenby, G. M. (2004). A choice model with conjunctive, disjunctive, and compensatory screening rules. Marketing Science, 23(3), 391–406.
Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1993). The voice of the customer. Marketing Science, 12(1), 1–27.
Houser, D., Keane, M., & McCabe, K. (2004). Behavior in a dynamic decision problem: An analysis of experimental evidence using a Bayesian type classification algorithm. Econometrica, 72(3), 781–822.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 995–1006.
Johnson, R., Swait, J., Adamowicz, W., & Zhang, J. (2007). Antecedents and preferences of choice set formation. Working paper, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
Kamakura, W. A., & Wedel, M. (2004). An empirical bayes procedure for improving individual-level estimates and predictions from finite mixtures of multinomial logit models. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 22, 121–125.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
Kivetz, R., Netzer, O., & Srinivassan, S. (2004). Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(3), 237–257.
Loewenstein, G. (2001). The creative destruction of decision research. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 499–505.
Louviere, J. J. (1988). Analyzing decision making: metric conjoint analysis. Sage University Paper Series Number 67. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Louviere, J., & Eagle, T. (2006). Confound it! That pesky little scale constant messes up our convenient assumptions. In: Sawtooth Software Proceedings, Sawtooth Software.
Louviere, J., Hensher, D., & Swait, J. (2000). Stated choice methods: Analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lucas, R. E. (1976). Econometric policy evaluation: A critique. In R. E. Lucas (Ed.), Studies in business-cycle theory (pp. 104–130). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Machina, M. (1982). Expected utility analysis without the independence axiom. Econometrica, 50, 277–323 (March).
Manski, C. F., & McFadden, D. (1981). Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In C. F. Manski & D. McFadden (Eds.). Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications (pp. 198–272). MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
McFadden, D. (1974a). The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, 3(4), 303–328.
McFadden, D. (1974b). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic.
McFadden, D. (1984). In econometric analysis of qualitative response models. In Z. Griliches & M. Intriligator (Eds.), Handbook of econometrics, vol. II (pp. 1396–1457). Amsterdam: North-Holland Elsevier.
Meyer, R. J. (1997). The effect of set composition on stopping behavior in a finite search among assortments. Marketing Letters, 8(1), 131–143.
Meyer, R., & Louviere, J. J. (2007). Formal choice models of informal choices: What choice modeling research can (and can’t) learn from behavioral theory. Research in Marketing, (in press).
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Schkade, D. A. (1999). Measuring constructed preferences: Towards a building code. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1–3), 243–270.
Prelec, D. (2004). A Bayesian truth serum for subjective data. Science, 306, 462–466.
Reynolds, T. J., & Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research, 28, 11–34.
Rossi, P. E., Allenby, G. M., & McCulloch, R. (2005). Bayesian statistics and marketing. Hoboken: Wiley.
Schwarz, N. (1999). Defensible preferences and the public: Commentary on “measuring constructed preferences towards a building code” by Payne, Bettman and Schkade. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1–3), 271–272.
Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1178–1197.
Steenburgh, T. J. (2007). The Invariant Proportion of Substitution (IPS) property of discrete-choice models. Marketing Science, (in press).
Swait, J. (2007). Advanced choice models. In B. Kanninen (Ed.), Valuing environmental amenities using stated choice studies (pp. 229–293). Dordrecht: Springer Chapter 9.
Swait, J., & Adamowicz, W. (2001). Choice environment, market complexity and consumer behavior: A theoretical and empirical approach for incorporating decision complexity in models of consumer choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 141–167.
Tan, F. B., & Hunter, G. M. (2002). The repertory grid technique: A method for the study of cognition in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 26(1), 39–57.
Ter Hofstede, F., Audenaert, A., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Wedel, M. (1998). An investigation into the association pattern technique as a quantitative approach to measuring means-end analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15(1), 37–50.
Ter Hofstede, F., Kim, Y., & Wedel, M. (2002). Bayesian prediction in hybrid conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(2), 253–261.
Train, K., & Weeks, M. (2005). Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. In A. Alberini & R. Scarpa (Eds.), Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics (pp. 1–16). Dordrecht: Springer Ch. 1.
Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79(4), 281–299.
Tversky, A., & Simonson, I. (1993). Context-dependent preferences. Management Science, 39(10), 1179–1189.
Wendel, S., & Dellaert, B. G. C. (2005). Situation variation in consumers’ media channel consideration. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(4), 575–584.
Zeger, S. (1991). Statistical reasoning in epidemiology. American Journal of Epidemiology, 134(10), 1062–1066.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Adamowicz, W., Bunch, D., Cameron, T.A. et al. Behavioral frontiers in choice modeling. Mark Lett 19, 215–228 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-008-9038-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-008-9038-1