IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v111y1998i2p285-305.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Bayesian approach to the spatial representation of market structure from consumer choice data

Author

Listed:
  • DeSarbo, Wayne S.
  • Kim, Youngchan
  • Wedel, Michel
  • Fong, Duncan K. H.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • DeSarbo, Wayne S. & Kim, Youngchan & Wedel, Michel & Fong, Duncan K. H., 1998. "A Bayesian approach to the spatial representation of market structure from consumer choice data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 285-305, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:111:y:1998:i:2:p:285-305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(98)00150-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Heckman, James & Singer, Burton, 1984. "A Method for Minimizing the Impact of Distributional Assumptions in Econometric Models for Duration Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(2), pages 271-320, March.
    2. Wedel, Michel & DeSarbo, Wayne S, 1996. "An Exponential-Family Multidimensional Scaling Mixture Methodology," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 14(4), pages 447-459, October.
    3. I. Böckenholt & W. Gaul, 1986. "Analysis of choice behaviour via probabilistic ideal point and vector models," Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(4), pages 209-226.
    4. Manrai, Ajay K., 1995. "Mathematical models of brand choice behavior," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 1-17, April.
    5. Ulf Böckenholt & Ingo Böckenholt, 1991. "Constrained latent class analysis: Simultaneous classification and scaling of discrete choice data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 56(4), pages 699-716, December.
    6. Fong, Duncan K H & Bolton, Gary E, 1997. "Analyzing Ultimatum Bargaining: A Bayesian Approach to the Comparison of Two Potency Curves under Shape Constraints," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 15(3), pages 335-344, July.
    7. Wagner A. Kamakura, 1989. "The Estimation of Multinomial Probit Models: A New Calibration Algorithm," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 253-265, November.
    8. Kamel Jedidi & Wayne DeSarbo, 1991. "A stochastic multidimensional scaling procedure for the spatial representation of three-mode, three-way pick any/J data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 56(3), pages 471-494, September.
    9. Allenby, Greg M & Lenk, Peter J, 1995. "Reassessing Brand Loyalty, Price Sensitivity, and Merchandising Effects on Consumer Brand Choice," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(3), pages 281-289, July.
    10. McCulloch, Robert & Rossi, Peter E., 1994. "An exact likelihood analysis of the multinomial probit model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-2), pages 207-240.
    11. Wayne DeSarbo & Jaewun Cho, 1989. "A stochastic multidimensional scaling vector threshold model for the spatial representation of “pick any/n” data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 54(1), pages 105-129, March.
    12. Elrod, Terry & Keane, Michael, 1995. "A Factor-Analytic Probit Model for Representing the Market Structure in Panel Data," MPRA Paper 52434, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Lynch, John G, Jr & Chakravarti, Dipankar & Mitra, Anusree, 1991. "Contrast Effects in Consumer Judgments: Changes in Mental Representations or in the Anchoring of Rating Scales?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 18(3), pages 284-297, December.
    14. Peter J. Lenk & Wayne S. DeSarbo & Paul E. Green & Martin R. Young, 1996. "Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 173-191.
    15. Farley, John U & Katz, Jerrold & Lehmann, Donald R, 1978. "Impact of Different Comparison Sets on Evaluation of a New Subcompact Car Brand," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 138-142, Se.
    16. Ratneshwar, Srinivasan & Shocker, Allan D & Stewart, David W, 1987. "Toward Understanding the Attraction Effect: The Implications of Product Stimulus Meaningfulness and Familiarity," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(4), pages 520-533, March.
    17. Amos Tversky & Itamar Simonson, 1993. "Context-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1179-1189, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hans H. Bauer & Maik Hammerschmidt & Matthias Staat, 2004. "Analyzing Product Efficiency – A Customer-Oriented Approach," Microeconomics 0402008, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Joonwook Park & Priyali Rajagopal & Wayne DeSarbo, 2012. "A New Heterogeneous Multidimensional Unfolding Procedure," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 263-287, April.
    3. Matthias Staat & Hans H. Bauer & Maik Hammerschmidt, 2004. "Structuring Product-Markets: An Approach Based On Customer Value," Microeconomics 0401002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Leung, Pui Lam & Lau, Kin-nam, 2004. "Estimating the city-block two-dimensional scaling model with simulated annealing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(2), pages 518-524, October.
    5. Robert Kapłon, 2006. "A retrospective review of categorical data analysis – theory and marketing practice," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 16(1), pages 55-72.
    6. H. H. Bauer & M. Staat & M. Hammerschmidt, 2003. "Value Based Benchmarking and Market Partitioning," Microeconomics 0309004, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. DeSarbo, Wayne S. & Kim, Youngchan & Fong, Duncan, 1998. "A Bayesian multidimensional scaling procedure for the spatial analysis of revealed choice data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 79-108, November.
    2. Robert Zeithammer & Peter Lenk, 2006. "Bayesian estimation of multivariate-normal models when dimensions are absent," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 241-265, September.
    3. Elrod, Terry & Keane, Michael, 1995. "A Factor-Analytic Probit Model for Representing the Market Structure in Panel Data," MPRA Paper 52434, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. DeSarbo, Wayne S. & Selin Atalay, A. & Blanchard, Simon J., 2009. "A three-way clusterwise multidimensional unfolding procedure for the spatial representation of context dependent preferences," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 3217-3230, June.
    5. Baltas, George & Doyle, Peter, 2001. "Random utility models in marketing research: a survey," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 115-125, February.
    6. Wayne S. DeSarbo & Alexandru M. Degeratu & Michel Wedel & M. Kim Saxton, 2001. "The Spatial Representation of Market Information," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 426-441, June.
    7. Allenby, Greg M. & Rossi, Peter E., 1998. "Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 57-78, November.
    8. Peter E. Rossi & Greg M. Allenby, 2003. "Bayesian Statistics and Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 304-328, July.
    9. Rinus Haaijer & Michel Wedel & Marco Vriens & Tom Wansbeek, 1998. "Utility Covariances and Context Effects in Conjoint MNP Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 236-252.
    10. B. P. S. Murthi & Sumit Sarkar, 2003. "The Role of the Mangement Sciences in Research on Personalization," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 2-2-1025, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    11. Peter Lenk, 2014. "Bayesian estimation of random utility models," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 20, pages 457-497, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Wayne DeSarbo & Robert Madrigal, 2012. "Exploring the Demand Aspects of Sports Consumption and Fan Avidity," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 42(2), pages 199-212, April.
    13. Scholten, Marc, 2002. "Conflict-mediated choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 683-718, July.
    14. Haaijer, Marinus E., 1996. "Predictions in conjoint choice experiments : the x-factor probit model," Research Report 96B22, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    15. Jean-Pierre Florens & Anna Simoni, 2021. "Revisiting Identification Concepts in Bayesian Analysis," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 144, pages 1-38.
    16. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2007. "Discrete Choice Models With Multiple Unobserved Choice Characteristics," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 48(4), pages 1159-1192, November.
    17. Chunhua Wu & Koray Cosguner, 2020. "Profiting from the Decoy Effect: A Case Study of an Online Diamond Retailer," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(5), pages 974-995, September.
    18. B. P. S. Murthi & Sumit Sarkar, 2003. "The Role of the Management Sciences in Research on Personalization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(10), pages 1344-1362, October.
    19. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    20. Lynd Bacon & Peter Lenk, 2012. "Augmenting discrete-choice data to identify common preference scales for inter-subject analyses," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 453-474, December.

    More about this item

    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:eee:ejores:v:111:y:1998:i:2:p:285-305. 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.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.