Skip to main content
Log in

Learning About Computers: An Analysis of Information Search and Technology Choice

  • Published:
Quantitative Marketing and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We estimate a dynamic model of how consumers learn about and choose between different brands of personal computers (PCs). To estimate the model, we use a panel data set that contains the search and purchase behavior of a set of consumers who were in the market for a PC. The data includes the information sources visited each period, search durations, as well as measures of price expectations and stated attitudes toward the alternatives during the search process. Our model extends recent work on estimation of Bayesian learning models of consumer choice behavior in environments characterized by uncertainty by estimating a model of active learning—i.e., a model in which consumers make optimal sequential decisions about how much information to gather prior to making a purchase. Also, following the suggestion of Manski (2003), we use our data on price expectations to model consumers’ price expectation process, and, following the suggestion of McFadden (1989a), we incorporate the stated brand quality information into our likelihood function, rather than modeling only revealed preference data.

Our analysis sheds light on how consumer forward-looking price expectations and the process of learning about quality influence the consumer choice process. A key finding is that estimates of dynamic price elasticities of demand exceed estimates that ignore the expectations effect by roughly 50%. This occurs because our estimated expectations formation process implies that consumers expect mean reversion in price changes. This enhances the impact of a temporary price cut. Finally, while our work focuses specifically on the PC market, the modeling approach we develop here may be useful for studying a wide range of high-tech, high-involvement durable goods markets where active learning is important.

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

  • Ackerberg, D. (2003). “Advertising, Learning, and Consumer Choice in Experience Good Markets: A Structural Empirical Examination.” International Economic Review 44, 1007–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anand, B. and R. Shachar. (2002). “Risk Aversion and Apparently Persuasive Advertising.” Harvard Business School Working Paper Series, No. 02–099.

  • Beatty, S.E. and S.M. Smith. (1987). “External Search Effort: An Investigation across Several Product Categories.” Journal of Consumer Research 14, 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, E., C.K. Yim, and R.A. Briesch. (1995). “A High-Tech Product Market Share Model with Customer Expectations.” Marketing Science 14, 61–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, E., A.T. Coughlan, and S. Kalish. (1991). “New Technology Adoption in an Innovative Marketplace: Micro- and Macro-Level Decision Making Models.” International Journal of Forecasting 7, 257–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brucks, M. (1985). “The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Research 12, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ching, A. (2002). “Consumer Learning and Heterogeneity: Dynamics of Demand for Prescription Drugs After Patent Expiration.” Working Paper, Ohio State University.

  • Claxton, J.D., J.N. Fry, and B. Portis. (1974). “A Taxonomy of Prepurchase Information Gathering Patterns.” Journal of Consumer Research 1, 35–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, G.S. and S. Matthew. (2003). “Uncertainty and Learning in Pharmaceutical Demand: Anti-Ulcer Drugs.” Working Paper, University of Arizona.

  • Delevande, A. (2003). “Pill, Patch or Shot? Subjective Expectations and Birth Control Choice.” Working Paper, Northwestern University.

  • Eckstein, Z., D. Horsky, and Y. Raban. (1988). “An Empirical Dynamic Model of Brand Choice.” Working Paper No. 88, University of Rochester.

  • El-Gamal, M.A. and D.M. Grether. (1995). “Are People Bayesian? Uncovering Behavioral Strategies.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 90, 1137–1145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdem, T. and M.P. Keane. (1996). “Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: Capturing Dynamic Brand Choice Processes in Turbulent Consumer Goods Markets.” Marketing Science 15, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdem, T., S. Imai, and M.P. Keane. (2003). “Brand and Quantity Choice Dynamics under Price Uncertainty.” Quantitative Marketing and Economics 1, 5–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furse, D.H., G.N. Punj, and D.E. Stewart. (1984). “A Typology of Individual Search Strategies Among Purchases of New Automobiles,” Journal of Consumer Research 10, 417–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glazer, R. (1991). “Marketing in an Information-Intensive Environment: Strategic Implications of Knowledge as an Asset,” Journal of Marketing 55, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glazer, R. and A.M. Weiss. (1991). “Marketing in Turbulent Environments: Decision Processes and the Time-Value of Information,” Working Paper No. 1145, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.

  • Gönül, F. and K. Srinivasan. (1996). “Estimating the Impact of Consumer Expectations of Coupons on Purchase Behavior: A Dynamic Structural Model.” Marketing Science 15, 262–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. and M.P. Keane. (1999). “A Model of Health Plan Choice: Inferring Preferences and Perceptions from a Combination of Revealed Preference and Attitudinal Data.” Journal of Econometrics 89, 131–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, J.R., G.L. Urban, and B.D. Weinberg. (1993). “How Consumers Allocate Their Time when Searching for Information.” Journal of Marketing Research 30, 452–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendel, I. and A. Nevo. (2002). “Measuring the Implications of Sales and Consumer Stockpiling Behavior.” Working Paper, UC Berkeley.

  • Holak, S.L., D.R. Lehmann, and F. Sultan. (1987). “The Role of Expectations in the Adoption of Innovative Consumer Durables: Some Preliminary Evidence.” Journal of Retailing 63, 243–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keane, M.P. (1993). “Simulation Estimation for Panel Data Models with Limited Dependent Variables.” In G.S. Maddala, C.R. Rao, and H.D. Vinod (eds.), Handbook of Statistics, Elsevier Science Publishers.

  • Keane, M.P. and K. Wolpin. (1994). “Solution and Estimation of Dynamic Programming Models by Simulation.” Review of Economics and Statistics 76, 648–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiel, G.C. and R.A. Layton. (1981). “Dimensions of Consumer Information Seeking.” Journal of Consumer Research 8, 233–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishna, A. (1992). “The Normative Impact of Consumer Price Expectations.” Marketing Science 11, 359–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerman, S. and C. Manski. (1981). “On the Use of Simulated Frequencies to Approximate Choice Probabilities.” In C. Manski and D. McFadden (eds.), Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications, Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lochner, L. (2003). “Individual Perceptions of the Criminal Justice System.” Working Paper, University of Western Ontario.

  • Manski, C.F. (2003). “Inference on Expectations and Decisions.” Econometrica forthcoming.

  • McFadden, D. (1974). “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior.” In P. Zarembka (ed.), Frontiers of Econometrics, New York: Academic Press, pp. 105–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1989a). “The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research.” Marketing Science 5, 275–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1989b). “A Method of Simulated Moments for Estimation of Discrete Response Models without Numerical Integration.” Econometrica 57, 995–1026.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melnikov, O. (2000). “Demand for Differentiated Durable Products: The Case of the US Computer Printer market.” Working Paper, Yale University.

  • Meyer, R. and J. Assuncao. (1990). “The Optimality of Consumer Stockpiling Strategies.” Marketing Science 9, 18–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorthy, S., B.T. Ratchford, and D. Talukdar. (1997). “Consumer Information Search Revisited: Theory and Empirical Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research 23, 263–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moscarini, G. and L. Smith. (2001). “The Optimal Level of Experimentation.” Econometrica 69, 1629–1644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, J. and R.E. Staelin. (1973). “Information Sources of Durable Goods.” Journal of Advertising Research 13, 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pakes, A. (1987). “Patents at Options: Some Estimates of Value of Holding European Patent Stocks.” Econometrica 57, 1027–1058.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J.H. and G.L. Urban. (1988). “Modeling Multiattribute Utility, Risk, and Belief Dynamics for New Consumer Durable Brand Choice.” Management Science 34, 167–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, I. and P. Chintagunta. (2003). “A Micromodel of New Product Adoption with Heterogeneous and Forward-Looking Consumers: Application to the Digital Camera Category.” forthcoming in Quantitative Marketing and Economics.

  • Srinivasan, N. and B.T. Ratchford. (1991). “An Empirical Test of a Model of External Search for Automobiles.” Journal of Consumer Research 18, 233–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, A.M. and J.B. Heide. (1993). “The Nature of Organizational Search in High Technology Markets.” Journal of Marketing Research 30, 220–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westbrook, R.A. and C. Fornell. (1979). “Patterns of Information Source Usage Among Durable Goods Buyers.” Journal of Marketing Research 16, 303–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbany, J.E., P.R. Dickson, and W.L. Wilkie. (1989). “Buyers’ Uncertainty and Information Search.” Journal of Consumer Research 16, 208–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Klaauw, W. and K.I. Wolpin. (2003). “Social Security, Pensions and the Savings Behavior of Households.” Working Paper, University of North Carolina.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tülin Erdem.

Additional information

JEL Classification: C15, C33, C35, C42, C51, C52, D83, D84

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Erdem, T., Keane, M.P., Öncü, T.S. et al. Learning About Computers: An Analysis of Information Search and Technology Choice. Quant Market Econ 3, 207–247 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-005-0269-7

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-005-0269-7

Keywords

Navigation