Abstract
Choice modelling represents the structured examination of individual decision-making among designed alternatives. Although most commonly used to examine individual choices – for example, among product alternatives where the features of the products vary – choice models can be utilized to examine any set of alternatives that can be decomposed into distinct parts, such as investments or market-entry alternatives. The most methodologically valid approach to choice modelling is discrete choice modelling, which has its basis in random utility theory (RUT) and relies on a number of simplifying assumptions to link its conceptual formulation to a specific empirical model.
This entry was originally published on Palgrave Connect under ISBN 978-1-137-49190-9. The content has not been changed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
References
Adamowicz, W., P. Boxall, M. Williams, and J. Louviere. 1998. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80: 64–75.
Auger, P., T.M. Devinney, J.J. Louviere, and P.F. Burke. 2008. Do social product features have value to consumers? International Journal of Research in Marketing 25: 183–191.
Brandley, M.A., and H. Gunn. 1990. Stated preference analysis of values of travel time in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Record 1285: 78–89.
Brazell, J., T. Devinney, and D. Midgley. 2005. Relating customer value to strategic competence: A discrete choice measurement approach. Research in Competence-Based Management 1: 15–45.
Buckley, P.J., T.M. Devinney, and J.J. Louviere. 2007. Do managers behave the way theory suggests? A choice-theoretic examination of foreign direct investment location decision-making. Journal of International Business Studies 38: 1069–1094.
Carson, R.T., J.J. Louviere, D.A. Anderson, P.B. Arabie, D.A. Hensher, R.M. Johnson, W.F. Kuhfeld, D. Steinberg, J. Swait, H. Timmermans, and J.B. Wiley. 1994. Experimental analysis of choice. Marketing Letters 5: 351–368.
Crouch, G.I., T.M. Devinney, J.J. Louviere, and T. Islam. 2009. Modelling consumer choice behaviour in space tourism. Tourism Management 30: 441–454.
DeSarbo, W.S., R. Grewal, and J. Wind. 2006. Who competes with whom? A demand-based perspective for identifying and representing asymmetric competition. Strategic Management Journal 27: 101–129.
Drasgow, F., O.S. Chernyshenko, and S. Stark. 2010. 75 years after Likert: Thurstone was right! Industrial & Organizational Psychology 3: 465–476.
Haider, W., and G.O. Ewing. 1990. A model of tourist choices of hypothetical Caribbean destination. Leisure Sciences 12: 33–47.
Hensher, D.A. 1989. Urban tollways and the valuation of travel time savings. Economic Record 66: 146–156.
Kamakura, W.A., and R.K. Srivastava. 1984. Predicting choice shares under conditions of brand interdependence. Journal of Marketing Research 21: 420–434.
Koelemeijer, K., and H. Oppewal. 1999. Assessing the effects of assortment and ambience: A choice experimental approach. Journal of Retailing 75: 319–345.
Louviere, J.J., T.C. Eagle, and S.H. Cohen. 2005. Conjoint analysis: Methods, myths and much more. CenSoC Working paper No. 05-001. Sydney.
Louviere, J.J., T.N. Flynn, and R.T. Carson. 2011. Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. Journal of Choice Modelling 3: 57–72.
Marschak, J. 1960. Binary choice constraints on random utility indications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
McFadden, D. 1973. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. New York: Academic.
Moore, W.L., J.J. Louviere, and R. Verma. 1999. Using conjoint analysis to help design product platforms. Journal of Product Innovation Management 16: 27–39.
Priem, R.L., B.A. Walters, and S. Li. 2011. Decisions, decisions! How judgment policy studies can integrate macro and micro domains in management research. Journal of Management 37: 553–580.
Propper, C. 1995. The disutility of time spent on the United Kingdom’s National Health Service waiting lists. Journal of Human Resources 30: 677–700.
Spector, P.E., and M.T. Brannick. 2010. If Thurstone was right, what happens when we factor analyze Likert scales? Industrial & Organizational Psychology 3: 502–503.
Street, D.J., and L. Burgess. 2007. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: Theory and methods. Hoboken: Wiley-Interscience.
Street, D.J., L. Burgess, and J.J. Louviere. 2005. Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing 22: 459–470.
Thurstone, L. 1927. A law of comparative judgement. Psychological Review 34: 273–286.
Wedel, M., and W.A. Kamakura. 2000. Market segmentation: Conceptual and methodological foundations. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this entry
Cite this entry
Devinney, T., Lin, N. (2016). Choice Modelling. In: Augier, M., Teece, D. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_573-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_573-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-94848-2
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Business and ManagementReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences