IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v25y1997i2p155-169.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A knowledge-based model of context-dependent attribute preferences for fast moving consumer goods

Author

Listed:
  • Moss, S.
  • Edmonds, B.

Abstract

Modelling techniques which integrate statistical and knowledge-based methods are shown in this paper to provide the basis for a richer discourse about the nature of markets than either statistical methods or verbal analyses alone. This result is demonstrated in relation to a model in which consumer preferences are dependent upon the activity for which purchases are made. This knowledge-base of the model incorporates qualitative judgements of domain experts. The model is then tested against EPOS data on the sales to test the consistency of these judgements. We then exhibit an application of this model to the UK market for certain alcoholic beverages. We show that the context-dependent model is at least as robust as models obtained by conventional statistical analysis. The context-dependent model needs far less data for effective parameterisation and contains more information that is directly useful to domain experts. However, the statistical model is less computationally intensive.

Suggested Citation

  • Moss, S. & Edmonds, B., 1997. "A knowledge-based model of context-dependent attribute preferences for fast moving consumer goods," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 155-169, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:25:y:1997:i:2:p:155-169
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(96)00061-8
    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. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    2. Dan Horsky & Paul Nelson, 1992. "New Brand Positioning and Pricing in an Oligopolistic Market," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 133-153.
    3. Huber, Joel & Payne, John W & Puto, Christopher, 1982. "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(1), pages 90-98, June.
    4. Huber, Joel & Puto, Christopher, 1983. "Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(1), pages 31-44, June.
    5. Belk, Russell W, 1975. "Situational Variables and Consumer Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 2(3), pages 157-164, December.
    6. Deaton, Angus S & Muellbauer, John, 1980. "An Almost Ideal Demand System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 312-326, June.
    7. 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. Scott Moss, 1998. "Critical Incident Management: an Empirically Derived Computational Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 1(4), pages 1-1.

    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. Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly & Richard Batley, 2018. "Revisiting consistency with random utility maximisation: theory and implications for practical work," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 181-204, March.
    2. Nasim Mousavi & Panagiotis Adamopoulos & Jesse Bockstedt, 2023. "The Decoy Effect and Recommendation Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1533-1553, December.
    3. Davies, Antony & Cline, Thomas W., 2005. "A consumer behavior approach to modeling monopolistic competition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 797-826, December.
    4. Fabio Galeotti & Maria Montero & Anders Poulsen, 2022. "The Attraction and Compromise Effects in Bargaining: Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2987-3007, April.
    5. Sanjay Dominik Jena & Andrea Lodi & Claudio Sole, 2021. "On the estimation of discrete choice models to capture irrational customer behaviors," Papers 2109.03882, arXiv.org.
    6. J-J Huang, 2009. "Revised behavioural models for riskless consumer choice," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(9), pages 1237-1243, September.
    7. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2016. "Reason-Based Choice And Context-Dependence: An Explanatory Framework," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 175-229, July.
    8. Paolo Crosetto & Alexia Gaudeul, 2011. "Do consumers prefer offers that are easy to compare? An experimental investigation," Jena Economics Research Papers 2011-044, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    9. Müller, Holger & Benjamin Kroll, Eike & Vogt, Bodo, 2010. "“Fact or artifact? Empirical evidence on the robustness of compromise effects in binding and non-binding choice contextsâ€," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 441-448.
    10. Gaudeul, Alexia & Crosetto, Paolo, 2019. "Fast then slow: A choice process explanation for the attraction effect," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 386, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    11. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2009. "How to extend a model of probabilistic choice from binary choices to choices among more than two alternatives," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 330-332, December.
    12. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2012. "Probabilistic subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 47-50.
    13. Jerome R. Busemeyer & Jörg Rieskamp, 2014. "Psychological research and theories on preferential choice," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 3, pages 49-72, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Kumar Padamwar, Pravesh & Kumar Kalakbandi, Vinay & Dawra, Jagrook, 2023. "Deliberation does not make the attraction effect disappear: The role of induced cognitive reflection," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    15. Heribert Gierl & Hans Höser, 2002. "Der Reihenfolgeeffekt auf Präferenzen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 3-18, February.
    16. Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.
    17. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-01249514 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Paolo Crosetto & Alexia Gaudeul, 2014. "Choosing whether to compete: Price and format competition with consumer confusion," Jena Economics Research Papers 2014-026, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    19. Heribert Gierl & Christina Eleftheriadou, 2005. "Asymmetrisch überlegene Stockouts als Phantomprodukte," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 57(6), pages 475-502, September.
    20. Paolo Crosetto & Alexia Gaudeul, 2017. "Choosing not to compete: Can firms maintain high prices by confusing consumers?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 897-922, December.
    21. William M. Hedgcock & Raghunath Singh Rao & Haipeng (Allan) Chen, 2016. "Choosing to Choose: The Effects of Decoys and Prior Choice on Deferral," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2952-2976, October.

    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:jomega:v:25:y:1997:i:2:p:155-169. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.