Skip to main content
Log in

Bayesian estimation of multivariate-normal models when dimensions are absent

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

Abstract

Multivariate economic and business data frequently suffer from a missing data phenomenon that has not been sufficiently explored in the literature: both the independent and dependent variables for one or more dimensions are absent for some of the observational units. For example, in choice based conjoint studies, not all brands are available for consideration on every choice task. In this case, the analyst lacks information on both the response and predictor variables because the underlying stimuli, the excluded brands, are absent. This situation differs from the usual missing data problem where some of the independent variables or dependent variables are missing at random or by a known mechanism, and the “holes” in the data-set can be imputed from the joint distribution of the data. When dimensions are absent, data imputation may not be a well-poised question, especially in designed experiments. One consequence of absent dimensions is that the standard Bayesian analysis of the multi-dimensional covariances structure becomes difficult because of the absent dimensions. This paper proposes a simple error augmentation scheme that simplifies the analysis and facilitates the estimation of the full covariance structure. An application to a choice-based conjoint experiment illustrates the methodology and demonstrates that naive approaches to circumvent absent dimensions lead to substantially distorted and misleading inferences.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The IIA property occurs when the preference comparison of two alternatives does not depend on the other alternatives that are available. One implication of IIA is that the introduction of a new alternative reduces the choice probabilities of existing alternatives on a proportional basis, which is particularly unrealistic when subsets of alternatives are close substitutes. Taken to its natural conclusion if IIA were true, a company could drive competitors out of business merely by offering superficial variations of its products.

References

  • Albert, J. H., & Chib, S. (1993). Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88, 669–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G., & Lenk, P. (1994). Modeling household purchase behavior with logistic normal regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(428), 1218–1231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G., & Lenk, P. (1995). Reassessing brand loyalty, price sensitivity, and merchandizing effects on consumer brand choice. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 13(3), 281–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G., & Rossi, P. (1999). Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity. Journal of Econometrics, 89, 57–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradlow, E. T., Hu, Y., & Ho, T. H. (2004). A learning-based model for imputing missing levels in partial conjoint profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, November, (XLI), 369–381.

  • Chintagunta, P. K. (1992). Estimating a multinomial probit model of brand choice using the method of simulated moments. Marketing Science, 11, 386–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chintagunta, P. K. (2002). Investigating category pricing behavior at a retail chain. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(2), 141–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elrod, T., & Keane, M. P. (1995). A factor-analytic probit model for representing the market structure in panel data. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(1), Feb., 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, M., & Lenk, P. (1991). A utility theoretic examination of the probability ranking principle in information retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 703–714.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, M., & Lenk, P. (1992). When is the probability ranking principle sub–Optimal? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haaijer, R., Kamakura, W. A., & Wedel, M. (2000). The information content of response latencies in conjoint choice experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(3), 376–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haaijer, R., & Wedel, M. (2002). Conjoint choice experiments: General characteristics and alternative model specifications. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann, and F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement (pp. 317–360). Berlin: Springer.

  • Haaijer, R., Wedel M., Vriens, M., & Wansbeek, T. (1998). Utility covariances and context effects in conjoint MNP models. Haaijer, Wedel, Vriens, and Wasbeek, Marketing Science, 17(3), 236–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. A., & Wise, D. A. (1978). A conditional probit model for qualitative choice: Discrete decisions recognizing interdependence and heterogeneous preferences. Econometrica, 46, 403–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imai, K., & van Dyk, D. A. (2005). A bayesian analysis of the multinomial probit model using marginal data argumentation. Journal of Econometrics, 124, 311–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labaw, P. J. (1980). Advanced questionnaire design. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books.

  • Lenk, P., & DeSarbo, W. (2000). Bayesian inference for finite mixtures of generalized linear models with random effects. Psychometrika, 65(1), 93–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenk, P., DeSarbo, W., Green, P., & Young, M. (1996). Hierarchical bayes conjoint analysis: Recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs. Marketing Science, 15(2), 173–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data, Second Edition. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

  • McCulloch, R., & Rossi, P. (1994). An exalt likelihood analysis of the multinomial probit model. Journal of Econometrics, 64, 207–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCulloch, R., Polson, N. G., & Rossi, P. (2000). A bayesian analysis of the multinomial probit model with fully identified parameters. Journal of Econometrics, 99, 173–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P., McCulloch, R., & Allenby, G. (1996). On the value of household purchase information in target marketing. Marketing Science, 15, 321–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. D., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2001). Consumer decision-making at an internet shopbot: Brand still matters. Journal of Industrial Economics, 49(4), 541–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanner, M. A., & Wong, W. H. (1987). The calculation of posterior distributions by data augmentation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 82–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellner, A. (1971). An introduction to bayesian inference in econometrics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Zeithammer.

Additional information

JEL classifications C11 · C25 · D12 · M3

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zeithammer, R., Lenk, P. Bayesian estimation of multivariate-normal models when dimensions are absent. Quant Market Econ 4, 241–265 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-005-9006-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-005-9006-5

Keywords

Navigation