IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v26y2018icp41-47.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Utility independence versus IIA property in independent probit models

Author

Listed:
  • Paetz, Friederike
  • Steiner, Winfried J.

Abstract

In the field of conjoint choice analysis consumer preferences are commonly estimated via multinomial logit (MNL) or multinomial probit (MNP/IP) models. The basic assumption of both the MNL model and the independent probit (IP) model is independence of utilities between alternatives, also referred to as IID assumption. Since the MNL model in addition exhibits the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA) property, it is often directly concluded that the IP model likewise exhibits the IIA property, thereby relating IID to IIA. However, this is not true considering Luce’s definition of the IIA property. The objective of this paper is twofold: First, we clarify that IID does not imply IIA in the specific context of the IP model. Second, we work out the sources for the non-proportional shifting of the ratio of choice shares that distinguishes the IP model from the MNL model. Accordingly, we first theoretically review the true property of the IP model and subsequently illustrate with a conjoint example that the IP model does not exhibit the IIA property. In addition, we provide a case-by-case analysis to explain the non-proportional shifting of choice shares in the substitution pattern of the IP model and work out the principles for that non-proportional shifting mechanism.

Suggested Citation

  • Paetz, Friederike & Steiner, Winfried J., 2018. "Utility independence versus IIA property in independent probit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 41-47.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:26:y:2018:i:c:p:41-47
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2017.06.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534516300732
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2017.06.001?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. Axel Borsch-Supan & Vassilis Hajivassiliou & Laurence J. Kotlikoff, 1992. "Health, Children, and Elderly Living Arrangements: A Multiperiod-Multinomial Probit Model with Unobserved Heterogeneity and Autocorrelated Errors," NBER Chapters, in: Topics in the Economics of Aging, pages 79-108, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. T.R.L. Fry & R.D. Brooks & Br. Comley & J. Zhang, 1993. "Economic Motivations for Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variable Models," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 69(2), pages 193-205, June.
    3. Hausman, Jerry A & Wise, David A, 1978. "A Conditional Probit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(2), pages 403-426, March.
    4. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    5. Bjorn, Paul A. & Vuong, Quang H., 1985. "A note on the independence of irrelevant alternatives in probabilistic choice models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 305-307.
    6. Purushottam Papatla & Lakshman Krishnamurthi, 1992. "A Probit Model of Choice Dynamics," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 189-206.
    7. Fry, T R L, et al, 1993. "Economic Motivations for Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variable Models," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 69(205), pages 193-205, June.
    8. 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.
    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. Galanis, Giorgos & Kollias, Iraklis & Leventidis, Ioanis & Lustenhouwer, Joep, 2022. "Generalizing Heuristic Switching Models," Working Papers 0715, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    2. Galanis, Giorgos & Kollias, Iraklis & Leventidis, Ioanis & Lustenhouwer, Joep, 2022. "Generalizing Heterogeneous Dynamic Heuristic Selection," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 73, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    3. Cohen, Jed J. & Azarova, Valeriya & Kollmann, Andrea & Reichl, Johannes, 2021. "Preferences for community renewable energy investments in Europe," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).

    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. 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.
    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. Sarah Brown & Lisa Farrell & Mark N. Harris & John G. Sessions, 2006. "Risk preference and employment contract type," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(4), pages 849-863, October.
    4. Bolduc, Denis & Kaci, Mustapha, 1993. "Estimation des modèles probit polytomiques : un survol des techniques," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 69(3), pages 161-191, septembre.
    5. Friederike Paetz & Winfried J. Steiner, 2017. "The benefits of incorporating utility dependencies in finite mixture probit models," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 39(3), pages 793-819, July.
    6. Erik Meijer & Jan Rouwendal, 2006. "Measuring welfare effects in models with random coefficients," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 227-244, March.
    7. repec:dgr:rugsom:00f25 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Bissoondoyal-Bheenick, Emawtee & Brooks, Robert & Yip, Angela Y.N., 2006. "Determinants of sovereign ratings: A comparison of case-based reasoning and ordered probit approaches," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 136-154, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Liesenfeld, Roman & Richard, Jean-François, 2010. "Efficient estimation of probit models with correlated errors," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 367-376, June.
    11. Fry, Tim R. L. & Harris, Mark N., 1996. "A Monte Carlo study of tests for the independence of irrelevant alternatives property," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 19-30, February.
    12. 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.
    13. Ulimwengu, John & Sanyal, Prabuddha, 2011. "Joint estimation of farmers' stated willingness to pay for agricultural services:," IFPRI discussion papers 1070, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    14. Vredin Johansson, Maria & Heldt, Tobias & Johansson, Per, 2006. "The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 507-525, July.
    15. Han-Shen Chen, 2020. "The Construction and Validation of a Sustainable Tourism Development Evaluation Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-20, October.
    16. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    17. Ichimura, Hidehiko & Thompson, T. Scott, 1998. "Maximum likelihood estimation of a binary choice model with random coefficients of unknown distribution," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 269-295, June.
    18. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    19. Erik Stam & Roy Thurik & Peter van der Zwan, 2010. "Entrepreneurial exit in real and imagined markets," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(4), pages 1109-1139, August.
    20. Toşa, Cristian & Sato, Hitomi & Morikawa, Takayuki & Miwa, Tomio, 2018. "Commuting behavior in emerging urban areas: Findings of a revealed-preferences and stated-intentions survey in Cluj-Napoca, Romania," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 78-93.
    21. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.

    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:26:y:2018:i:c:p:41-47. 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.