IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v53y2007i2p340-354.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Capturing Flexible Heterogeneous Utility Curves: A Bayesian Spline Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Jin Gyo Kim

    (College of Business Administration, Seoul National University, Gwanak-Gu, Shillim 9 Dong, Seoul 151-742, Korea)

  • Ulrich Menzefricke

    (Joseph L. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, 105 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 3E6)

  • Fred M. Feinberg

    (Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, 701 Tappan Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109)

Abstract

Empirical evidence suggests that decision makers often weight successive additional units of a valued attribute or monetary endowment unequally, so that their utility functions are intrinsically nonlinear or irregularly shaped. Although the analyst may impose various functional specifications exogenously, this approach is ad hoc, tedious, and reliant on various metrics to decide which specification is "best." In this paper, we develop a method that yields individual-level, flexibly shaped utility functions for use in choice models. This flexibility at the individual level is accomplished through splines of the truncated power basis type in a general additive regression framework for latent utility. Because the number and location of spline knots are unknown, we use the birth-death process of Denison et al. (1998) and Green's (1995) reversible jump method. We further show how exogenous constraints suggested by theory, such as monotonicity of price response, can be accommodated. Our formulation is particularly suited to estimating reaction to pricing, where individual-level monotonicity is justified theoretically and empirically, but linearity is typically not. The method is illustrated in a conjoint application in which all covariates are splined simultaneously and in three panel data sets, each of which has a single price spline. Empirical results indicate that piecewise linear splines with a modest number of knots fit these data well, substantially better than heterogeneous linear and log-linear a priori specifications. In terms of price response specifically, we find that although aggregate market-level curves can be nearly linear or log-linear, individuals often deviate widely from either. Using splines, hold-out prediction improvement over the standard heterogeneous probit model ranges from 6% to 14% in the scanner applications and exceeds 20% in the conjoint study. Moreover, "optimal" profiles in conjoint and aggregate price response curves in the scanner applications can differ markedly under the standard and the spline-based models.

Suggested Citation

  • Jin Gyo Kim & Ulrich Menzefricke & Fred M. Feinberg, 2007. "Capturing Flexible Heterogeneous Utility Curves: A Bayesian Spline Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(2), pages 340-354, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:53:y:2007:i:2:p:340-354
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0616
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0616
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0616?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alan L. Montgomery & Eric T. Bradlow, 1999. "Why Analyst Overconfidence About the Functional Form of Demand Models Can Lead to Overpricing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 569-583.
    2. D. G. T. Denison & B. K. Mallick & A. F. M. Smith, 1998. "Automatic Bayesian curve fitting," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 60(2), pages 333-350.
    3. McCulloch, Robert E. & Polson, Nicholas G. & Rossi, Peter E., 2000. "A Bayesian analysis of the multinomial probit model with fully identified parameters," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 173-193, November.
    4. Gupta, Sunil & Cooper, Lee G, 1992. "The Discounting of Discounts and Promotion Thresholds," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 19(3), pages 401-411, December.
    5. Greg M. Allenby & Peter E. Rossi, 1991. "Quality Perceptions and Asymmetric Switching Between Brands," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 185-204.
    6. Lindstrom, Mary J., 2002. "Bayesian estimation of free-knot splines using reversible jumps," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 255-269, December.
    7. Wales, Terence J., 1977. "On the flexibility of flexible functional forms : An empirical approach," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 183-193, March.
    8. Thomas S. Shively & Greg M. Allenby & Robert Kohn, 2000. "A Nonparametric Approach to Identifying Latent Relationships in Hierarchical Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 149-162, November.
    9. George Wu & Richard Gonzalez, 1996. "Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(12), pages 1676-1690, December.
    10. Caves, Douglas W & Christensen, Laurits R, 1980. "Global Properties of Flexible Functional Forms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 422-432, June.
    11. Alan L. Montgomery, 1997. "Creating Micro-Marketing Pricing Strategies Using Supermarket Scanner Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 315-337.
    12. Bruce G. S. Hardie & Eric J. Johnson & Peter S. Fader, 1993. "Modeling Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence Effects on Brand Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 378-394.
    13. Briesch R.A. & Chintagunta P.K. & Matzkin R.L., 2002. "Semiparametric Estimation of Brand Choice Behavior," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 97, pages 973-982, December.
    14. David R. Bell & James M. Lattin, 2000. "Looking for Loss Aversion in Scanner Panel Data: The Confounding Effect of Price Response Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 185-200, May.
    15. 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.
    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. Guhl, Daniel & Baumgartner, Bernhard & Kneib, Thomas & Steiner, Winfried J., 2018. "Estimating time-varying parameters in brand choice models: A semiparametric approach," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 394-414.
    2. Michalek, Jeremy J. & Ebbes, Peter & Adigüzel, Feray & Feinberg, Fred M. & Papalambros, Panos Y., 2011. "Enhancing marketing with engineering: Optimal product line design for heterogeneous markets," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-12.
    3. Dong, Songting & Ding, Min & Huber, Joel, 2010. "A simple mechanism to incentive-align conjoint experiments," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 25-32.
    4. 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.
    5. Arun Gopalakrishnan & Eric T. Bradlow & Peter S. Fader, 2017. "A Cross-Cohort Changepoint Model for Customer-Base Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(2), pages 195-213, March.
    6. Dongnyok Shim & Seung Wan Kim & Jörn Altmann & Yong Tae Yoon & Jin Gyo Kim, 2018. "Key Features of Electric Vehicle Diffusion and Its Impact on the Korean Power Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    7. Joffre Swait & Fred Feinberg, 2014. "Deciding how to decide: an agenda for multi-stage choice modelling research in marketing," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 26, pages 649-660, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Ryan Dew & Asim Ansari, 2018. "Bayesian Nonparametric Customer Base Analysis with Model-Based Visualizations," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(2), pages 216-235, March.

    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. Peter E. Rossi & Greg M. Allenby, 2003. "Bayesian Statistics and Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 304-328, July.
    2. Necati Tereyağoğlu & Peter S. Fader & Senthil Veeraraghavan, 2018. "Multiattribute Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence: Evidence from the Performing Arts Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 421-436, January.
    3. Nobuhiko Terui & Wirawan Dony Dahana, 2006. "Research Note—Estimating Heterogeneous Price Thresholds," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 384-391, 07-08.
    4. Harald Hruschka, 2007. "Using a heterogeneous multinomial probit model with a neural net extension to model brand choice," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(2), pages 113-127.
    5. van Oest, Rutger, 2013. "Why are Consumers Less Loss Averse in Internal than External Reference Prices?," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 62-71.
    6. 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.
    7. Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Harikesh S. Nair, 2011. "Structural Workshop Paper --Discrete-Choice Models of Consumer Demand in Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 977-996, November.
    8. Rub'en Loaiza-Maya & Didier Nibbering, 2022. "Fast variational Bayes methods for multinomial probit models," Papers 2202.12495, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
    9. 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.
    10. Pradeep Chintagunta & Jean-Pierre Dubé & Vishal Singh, 2003. "Balancing Profitability and Customer Welfare in a Supermarket Chain," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 111-147, March.
    11. Raj Sethuraman & V. Srinivasan & Doyle Kim, 1999. "Asymmetric and Neighborhood Cross-Price Effects: Some Empirical Generalizations," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 23-41.
    12. Meloria Meschi & Carla Pace, 2012. "Accounting for Behavioral Biases for Non-biased Demand Estimations," Chapters, in: Michael A. Crew & Paul R. Kleindorfer (ed.), Multi-Modal Competition and the Future of Mail, chapter 24, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Cotterill, Ronald W & Putsis, William P, Jr & Dhar, Ravi, 2000. "Assessing the Competitive Interaction between Private Labels and National Brands," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73(1), pages 109-137, January.
    14. Toshiaki Iizuka & Hitoshi Shigeoka, 2020. "Asymmetric Demand Response when Prices Increase and Decrease: The Case of Child Healthcare," NBER Working Papers 28057, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Sivakumar, K., 2003. "Price-tier competition: Distinguishing between intertier competition and intratier competition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(12), pages 947-959, December.
    16. Joost M. E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2003. "The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1251-1263, September.
    17. Akbulut-Yuksel, Mevlude & Mocan, Naci & Tumen, Semih & Turan, Belgi, 2022. "The Crime Effect of Refugees," IZA Discussion Papers 15335, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Moon, Sangkil & Voss, Glenn, 2009. "How do price range shoppers differ from reference price point shoppers?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 31-38, January.
    19. Lila J. Truett & Dale B. Truett, 2008. "The South African Textile Industry: Challenges and Opportunities," Working Papers 0044, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    20. W. Wong & R. Chan, 2008. "Prospect and Markowitz stochastic dominance," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 105-129, January.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:53:y:2007:i:2:p:340-354. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.