IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v53y2024ics175553452400040x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Too much, too little? A CBC approach accounting for screening from both sides

Author

Listed:
  • Wamhoff, Lisa
  • Baumgartner, Bernhard

Abstract

Consumers are often assumed to use a two-stage decision process, screening out products in the first step and choosing among the remaining alternatives in the second step. When analyzing data from discrete choice studies, a compensatory decision strategy is usually presumed. Gilbride and Allenby (2004) introduced a method to model a decision process in a choice-based conjoint analysis combining the compensatory assumption with the two-stage decision process. Respondents first screen out alternatives that do not meet minimum requirements for attributes, followed by a choice between the remaining alternatives using the compensatory rule.

Suggested Citation

  • Wamhoff, Lisa & Baumgartner, Bernhard, 2024. "Too much, too little? A CBC approach accounting for screening from both sides," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:53:y:2024:i:c:s175553452400040x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2024.100508
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175553452400040X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2024.100508?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lohse, Gerald L. & Johnson, Eric J., 1996. "A Comparison of Two Process Tracing Methods for Choice Tasks," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 28-43, October.
    2. Itamar Simonson & Ziv Carmon & Suzanne O'Curry, 1994. "Experimental Evidence on the Negative Effect of Product Features and Sales Promotions on Brand Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 23-40.
    3. Garrett Sonnier & Andrew Ainslie & Thomas Otter, 2007. "Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 313-331, September.
    4. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, November.
    6. Dong Soo Kim & Roger A. Bailey & Nino Hardt & Greg M. Allenby, 2017. "Benefit-Based Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 54-69, January.
    7. Rebecca W. Hamilton & Debora Viana Thompson, 2007. "Is There a Substitute for Direct Experience? Comparing Consumers' Preferences after Direct and Indirect Product Experiences," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(4), pages 546-555, June.
    8. Ku, Yu-Cheng & Wu, John, 2018. "Measuring respondent uncertainty in discrete choice experiments via utility suppression," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 1-18.
    9. Frank Huber & Andreas Herrmann & Anders Gustafsson, 2007. "On the Influence of the Evaluation Methods in Conjoint Design - Some Empirical Results," Springer Books, in: Anders Gustafsson & Andreas Herrmann & Frank Huber (ed.), Conjoint Measurement, edition 0, chapter 6, pages 93-112, Springer.
    10. Timothy J. Gilbride & Greg M. Allenby, 2006. "Estimating Heterogeneous EBA and Economic Screening Rule Choice Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 494-509, September.
    11. Adriane Hartmann & Henrik Sattler, 2004. "Wie robust sind Methoden zur Präferenzmessung?," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 3-22, February.
    12. Kim, Youngju & Hardt, Nino & Kim, Jaehwan & Allenby, Greg M., 2022. "Conjunctive screening in models of multiple discreteness," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1209-1234.
    13. Timothy J. Gilbride & Greg M. Allenby, 2004. "A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Rules," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 391-406, October.
    14. Kim, Hyo-Jeong & Mannino, Michael & Nieschwietz, Robert J., 2009. "Information technology acceptance in the internal audit profession: Impact of technology features and complexity," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 214-228.
    15. Erickson, Gary M & Johansson, Johny K, 1985. "The Role of Price in Multi-attribute Product Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 12(2), pages 195-199, September.
    16. Bremer, Lucas & Heitmann, Mark & Schreiner, Thomas F., 2017. "When and how to infer heuristic consideration set rules of consumers," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 516-535.
    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. Chen, Xuqi & Shen, Meng & Gao, Zhifeng, 2017. "Impact of Intra-respondent Variations in Attribute Attendance on Consumer Preference in Food Choice," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258509, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    3. Anocha Aribarg & Thomas Otter & Daniel Zantedeschi & Greg M. Allenby & Taylor Bentley & David J. Curry & Marc Dotson & Ty Henderson & Elisabeth Honka & Rajeev Kohli & Kamel Jedidi & Stephan Seiler & X, 2018. "Advancing Non-compensatory Choice Models in Marketing," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 5(1), pages 82-92, March.
    4. Christina Schamp & Mark Heitmann & Robin Katzenstein, 2019. "Consideration of ethical attributes along the consumer decision-making journey," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 328-348, March.
    5. Assele, Samson Yaekob & Meulders, Michel & Vandebroek, Martina, 2022. "The value of consideration data in a discrete choice experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    6. Michael Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "Comparing Alternative Models Of Heterogeneity In Consumer Choice Behavior," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 1018-1045, September.
    7. Jorge Araña & Carmelo León, 2009. "The Role of Environmental Management in Consumers Preferences for Corporate Social Responsibility," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 495-506, December.
    8. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2009. "Understanding the use of non-compensatory decision rules in discrete choice experiments: The role of emotions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2316-2326, June.
    9. Michel Wedel & Rik Pieters & Ralf Lans, 2023. "Modeling Eye Movements During Decision Making: A Review," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 697-729, June.
    10. Lu, Zhentong, 2022. "Estimating multinomial choice models with unobserved choice sets," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 226(2), pages 368-398.
    11. Srikanth Jagabathula & Paat Rusmevichientong, 2017. "Nonparametric Joint Assortment and Price Choice Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(9), pages 3128-3145, September.
    12. Bremer, Lucas & Heitmann, Mark & Schreiner, Thomas F., 2017. "When and how to infer heuristic consideration set rules of consumers," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 516-535.
    13. Hyowon Kim & Dong Soo Kim & Greg M. Allenby, 2020. "Benefit Formation and Enhancement," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 419-468, December.
    14. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    15. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    16. Vishal Narayan & Vithala R. Rao & Carolyne Saunders, 2011. "How Peer Influence Affects Attribute Preferences: A Bayesian Updating Mechanism," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 368-384, 03-04.
    17. Guang Li & Paat Rusmevichientong & Huseyin Topaloglu, 2015. "The d -Level Nested Logit Model: Assortment and Price Optimization Problems," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(2), pages 325-342, April.
    18. Gael M. Martin & David T. Frazier & Ruben Loaiza-Maya & Florian Huber & Gary Koop & John Maheu & Didier Nibbering & Anastasios Panagiotelis, 2023. "Bayesian Forecasting in the 21st Century: A Modern Review," Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Papers 1/23, Monash University, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics.
    19. Rick L. Andrews & Andrew Ainslie & Imran S. Currim, 2008. "On the Recoverability of Choice Behaviors with Random Coefficients Choice Models in the Context of Limited Data and Unobserved Effects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 83-99, January.
    20. Hensher, David A. & Ho, Chinh, 2015. "The role of perceived acceptability of alternatives in identifying and assessing choice set processing strategies in stated choice settings: The case of road pricing reform," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 225-237.

    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:eee:eejocm:v:53:y:2024:i:c:s175553452400040x. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    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.