IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aip/access/v2y2021i3p234-251.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer behavior clustering of food retail chains by machine learning algorithms

Author

Listed:
  • Olena LIASHENKO

    (Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine)

  • Tetyana KRAVETS

    (Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine)

  • Matvii PROKOPENKO

    (Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine)

Abstract

Analysis of the behavior of an economic agent is one of the central themes of microeconomics. Right now, with the comprehensive increase in the amount of data and the expansion of the computing capabilities of personal computers, there is a need to implement methods of behavioral economics in the study of human behavior. In the course of this study, a survey was created aimed at identification of patterns of behavior of the modern consumer according to his selection criteria stores and reactions to questions based on Behavioral Economics theorems. Clustering the obtained results were performed using machine learning algorithms, after which the Random Forest classification algorithm was trained. According to the results of Silhouette analysis, K-means clusters were selected as the main ones for further modeling. T-SNE algorithms, hierarchical and spectral analysis were used for additional visual representation. This study offers a tool for classifying customer preferences and analyzing current industry trends. A tool has been created to classify consumers of food retail chains in order to improve their "buyer's journey" and better understand their needs. The created tool for clustering and classification by machine learning methods can be used in business processes. To improve the result, it is necessary to choose a more representative sample, because used in this study consists of an average rationally thinking and knowledgeable individuals, which cannot be said of the average consumer not only among the older generation but also among the younger. Therefore, the next directions in the study may be to identify new ones behavioral trends in other industries; deepening understanding of food retail; use of geodata to improve analysis, etc. Potentially attractive the direction may be to add an assessment of the impact of network advertising on behavior consumers through semantics analysis and image recognition..

Suggested Citation

  • Olena LIASHENKO & Tetyana KRAVETS & Matvii PROKOPENKO, 2021. "Consumer behavior clustering of food retail chains by machine learning algorithms," Access Journal, Access Press Publishing House, vol. 2(3), pages 234-251, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:aip:access:v:2:y:2021:i:3:p:234-251
    DOI: 10.46656/access.2021.2.3(3)
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journal.access-bg.org/journalfiles/journal/issue-2-3-2021/consumer_behavior_clustering_of_food_retail_chains.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.46656/access.2021.2.3(3)?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. March, Christoph, 2019. "The behavioral economics of artificial intelligence: Lessons from experiments with computer players," BERG Working Paper Series 154, Bamberg University, Bamberg Economic Research Group.
    2. Johnson, Eric J. & Gächter, Simon & Herrmann, Andreas, 2006. "Exploring the Nature of Loss Aversion," IZA Discussion Papers 2015, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Emir Hrnjic & Nikodem Tomczak, 2019. "Machine learning and behavioral economics for personalized choice architecture," Papers 1907.02100, arXiv.org.
    5. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
    6. Machina, Mark J & Schmeidler, David, 1992. "A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 745-780, July.
    7. Stefano DellaVigna, 2018. "Structural Behavioral Economics," NBER Working Papers 24797, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xiaojing Kong, 2008. "Loss Aversion and Rent-Seeking: An Experimental Study," Discussion Papers 2008-13, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    2. Foster, Gigi & Frijters, Paul & Schaffner, Markus & Torgler, Benno, 2018. "Expectation formation in an evolving game of uncertainty: New experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 379-405.
    3. Yaron Azrieli & Christopher P. Chambers & Paul J. Healy, 2020. "Incentives in experiments with objective lotteries," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-29, March.
    4. Mark Schneider & Mikhael Shor, 2016. "The Common Ratio Effect in Choice, Pricing, and Happiness Tasks," Working papers 2016-29, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    5. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.
    6. Hajdu, Tamás & Hajdu, Gábor, 2011. "A hasznosság és a relatív jövedelem kapcsolatának vizsgálata magyar adatok segítségével [Examining the relation of utility and relative income using Hungarian data]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 56-73.
    7. Tsoukias, Alexis, 2008. "From decision theory to decision aiding methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(1), pages 138-161, May.
    8. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    9. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    10. Nolan Ritter & Julia Anna Bingler, 2021. "Do homo sapiens know their prices? Insights on dysfunctional price mechanisms from a large field experiment," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 21/348, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    11. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    12. Dan K. Hsu & Johan Wiklund & Richard D. Cotton, 2017. "Success, Failure, and Entrepreneurial Reentry: An Experimental Assessment of the Veracity of Self–Efficacy and Prospect Theory," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 41(1), pages 19-47, January.
    13. Wüstenhagen, Rolf & Menichetti, Emanuela, 2012. "Strategic choices for renewable energy investment: Conceptual framework and opportunities for further research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1-10.
    14. Barberis, Nicholas & Huang, Ming, 2009. "Preferences with frames: A new utility specification that allows for the framing of risks," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1555-1576, August.
    15. Gerard P. Hodgkinson & Barbara Burkhard & Nicolai J. Foss & Dietmar Grichnik & Riikka M. Sarala & Yi Tang & Marc Van Essen, 2023. "The Heuristics and Biases of Top Managers: Past, Present, and Future," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(5), pages 1033-1063, July.
    16. Daniel Serra, 2019. "La neuroéconomie en question : débats et controverses," CEE-M Working Papers halshs-02160911, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    17. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    18. Gul, Faruk & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 2015. "Hurwicz expected utility and subjective sources," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 465-488.
    19. Ravi Kanbur & Jukka Pirttilä & Matti Tuomala, 2008. "Moral Hazard, Income Taxation and Prospect Theory," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 110(2), pages 321-337, June.
    20. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    clustering; machine learning algorithms; food retail; behavioural economics; consumer behavior;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • C89 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Other
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aip:access:v:2:y:2021:i:3:p:234-251. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Mariana Petrova (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://access-bg.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.