IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/r/inm/ormksc/v26y2007i3p380-399.html
   My bibliography  Save this item

Representation and Inference of Lexicographic Preference Models and Their Variants

Citations

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


Cited by:

  1. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2009. "Consumer choice and revealed bounded rationality," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 41(3), pages 379-392, December.
  2. Jeffrey E. Harris & Mariana Gerstenblüth & Patricia Triunfo, 2018. "Smokers’ Rational Lexicographic Preferences for Cigarette Package Warnings: A Discrete Choice Experiment with Eye Tracking," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 0218, Department of Economics - dECON.
  3. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
  4. Kazuhisa Takemura & Yuki Tamari & Takashi Ideno, 2023. "Avoiding the Worst Decisions: A Simulation and Experiment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, February.
  5. Volker Kuppelwieser & Fouad Ben Abdelaziz & Olfa Meddeb, 2020. "Unstable interactions in customers’ decision making: an experimental proof," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 479-499, November.
  6. Oded Netzer & Olivier Toubia & Eric Bradlow & Ely Dahan & Theodoros Evgeniou & Fred Feinberg & Eleanor Feit & Sam Hui & Joseph Johnson & John Liechty & James Orlin & Vithala Rao, 2008. "Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 337-354, December.
  7. Gerald C. Kane & Sam Ransbotham, 2016. "Content as Community Regulator: The Recursive Relationship Between Consumption and Contribution in Open Collaboration Communities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 1258-1274, October.
  8. Qing Liu & Neeraj Arora, 2011. "Efficient Choice Designs for a Consider-Then-Choose Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 321-338, 03-04.
  9. Uwe Dulleck & Franz Hackl & Bernhard Weiss & Rudolf Winter-Ebmer, 2008. "Buying Online: Sequential Decision Making by Shopbot Visitors," NCER Working Paper Series 31, National Centre for Econometric Research.
  10. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
  11. John Hauser, 2011. "A marketing science perspective on recognition-based heuristics (and the fast-and-frugal paradigm)," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(5), pages 396-408, July.
  12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:3:p:200-213 is not listed on IDEAS
  13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:5:p:396-408 is not listed on IDEAS
  14. Luan, Shenghua & Reb, Jochen, 2017. "Fast-and-frugal trees as noncompensatory models of performance-based personnel decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 29-42.
  15. Bräuning, Michael & Hüllermeier, Eyke & Keller, Tobias & Glaum, Martin, 2017. "Lexicographic preferences for predictive modeling of human decision making: A new machine learning method with an application in accounting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(1), pages 295-306.
  16. Heiman, Amir & Lowengart, Oded, 2011. "The effects of information about health hazards in food on consumers' choice process," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 140-147, May.
  17. Rajeev Kohli & Kamel Jedidi, 2015. "Error Theory for Elimination by Aspects," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 512-526, June.
  18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:5:p:403-419 is not listed on IDEAS
  19. Daria Dzyabura & John R. Hauser, 2011. "Active Machine Learning for Consideration Heuristics," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 801-819, September.
  20. 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.
  21. Allenby, Greg M., 2017. "Structural forecasts for marketing data," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 433-441.
  22. Andrea C. Hupman & Jay Simon, 2023. "The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, March.
  23. Wilfred Amaldoss & James R. Bettman & John W. Payne, 2008. "—Biased but Efficient: An Investigation of Coordination Facilitated by Asymmetric Dominance," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 903-921, 09-10.
  24. Anja Dieckmann & Katrin Dippold & Holger Dietrich, 2009. "Compensatory versus noncompensatory models for predicting consumer preferences," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(3), pages 200-213, April.
  25. Debasis Mishra & Kolagani Paramahamsa, 2018. "Selling to a naive agent with two rationales," Discussion Papers 18-03, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.
  26. Jorien Veldwijk & Stella Maria Marceta & Joffre Dan Swait & Stefan Adriaan Lipman & Esther Wilhelmina Bekker-Grob, 2023. "Taking the Shortcut: Simplifying Heuristics in Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(4), pages 301-315, July.
  27. Luís Cabral, 2012. "Lock in and switch: Asymmetric information and new product diffusion," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 375-392, September.
  28. Pathak, Parag A. & Shi, Peng, 2021. "How well do structural demand models work? Counterfactual predictions in school choice," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 161-195.
  29. He, Bo & Mirchandani, Prakash & Shen, Qichao & Yang, Guang, 2021. "How should local Brick-and-Mortar retailers offer delivery service in a pandemic World? Self-building Vs. O2O platform," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
  30. 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).
  31. Dulleck Uwe & Hackl Franz & Weiss Bernhard & Winter-Ebmer Rudolf, 2011. "Buying Online: An Analysis of Shopbot Visitors," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 12(4), pages 395-408, December.
  32. Peter Stüttgen & Peter Boatwright & Robert T. Monroe, 2012. "A Satisficing Choice Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 878-899, November.
  33. Song Lin & Juanjuan Zhang & John R. Hauser, 2015. "Learning from Experience, Simply," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 1-19, January.
  34. Pantelis P. Analytis & Amit Kothiyal & Konstantinos Katsikopoulos, 2014. "Multi-attribute utility models as cognitive search engines," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(5), pages 403-419, September.
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.