IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwwpp/dp1681.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Inference of Consumer Consideration Sets

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Lu

Abstract

When consumers face a large number of alternatives, they tend to simplify the decision problem by reducing the number of available alternatives to a subset of relevant alternatives, i.e. a consideration set. Since consideration sets are typically unobserved, most studies in the demand literature have to assume a consideration model. If these consideration models are misspecified, the demand estimates can be biased. In this paper, we develop an approach to formally test any two competing models of consideration against one another in order to determine which model fits the data best. Our test follows the intuition of a menu approach and uses supplemental data on marginal cost-shifters to construct overidentifying restrictions. We show an application to German retailing of coffee and milk. We find that consideration sets are fundamentally different for coffee and milk, and relate our findings to differences in demand and supply conditions of the two product categories.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Lu, 2017. "Inference of Consumer Consideration Sets," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1681, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp1681
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.563921.de/dp1681.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michaela Draganska & Daniel Klapper & Sofia B. Villas-Boas, 2010. "A Larger Slice or a Larger Pie? An Empirical Investigation of Bargaining Power in the Distribution Channel," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 57-74, 01-02.
    2. Igal Hendel & Aviv Nevo, 2006. "Measuring the Implications of Sales and Consumer Inventory Behavior," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(6), pages 1637-1673, November.
    3. Igal Hendel & Aviv Nevo, 2006. "Sales and consumer inventory," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 543-561, September.
    4. Sofia Berto Villas-Boas, 2007. "Vertical Relationships between Manufacturers and Retailers: Inference with Limited Data," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 74(2), pages 625-652.
    5. Stephan Seiler, 2013. "The impact of search costs on consumer behavior: A dynamic approach," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 155-203, June.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    7. Kathleen Cleeren & Frank Verboven & Marnik G. Dekimpe & Katrijn Gielens, 2010. "Intra- and Interformat Competition Among Discounters and Supermarkets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 456-473, 05-06.
    8. Nitin Mehta & Surendra Rajiv & Kannan Srinivasan, 2003. "Price Uncertainty and Consumer Search: A Structural Model of Consideration Set Formation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 58-84, June.
    9. Elisabeth Honka, 2014. "Quantifying search and switching costs in the US auto insurance industry," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(4), pages 847-884, December.
    10. Gasmi, F & Laffont, J J & Vuong, Q, 1992. "Econometric Analysis of Collusive Behavior in a Soft-Drink Market," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(2), pages 277-311, Summer.
    11. Céline Bonnet & Zohra Bouamra-Mechemache, 2016. "Organic Label, Bargaining Power, and Profit-sharing in the French Fluid Milk Market," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(1), pages 113-133.
    12. Martin Gaynor & Carol Propper & Stephan Seiler, 2016. "Free to Choose? Reform, Choice, and Consideration Sets in the English National Health Service," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(11), pages 3521-3557, November.
    13. Hauser, John R & Wernerfelt, Birger, 1990. "An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(4), pages 393-408, March.
    14. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-333, March.
    15. Michelle Sovinsky Goeree, 2008. "Limited Information and Advertising in the U.S. Personal Computer Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(5), pages 1017-1074, September.
    16. Christopher T. Conlon & Julie Holland Mortimer, 2013. "Demand Estimation under Incomplete Product Availability," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(4), pages 1-30, November.
    17. Elisabeth Honka & Ali Hortaçsu & Maria Ana Vitorino, 2017. "Advertising, consumer awareness, and choice: evidence from the U.S. banking industry," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 48(3), pages 611-646, August.
    18. Babur De Los Santos & Ali Hortacsu & Matthijs R. Wildenbeest, 2012. "Testing Models of Consumer Search Using Data on Web Browsing and Purchasing Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2955-2980, October.
    19. Kadiyali, Vrinda & Vilcassim, Naufel J & Chintagunta, Pradeep K, 1996. "Empirical Analysis of Competitive Product Line Pricing Decisions: Lead, Follow, or Move Together?," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 69(4), pages 459-487, October.
    20. Howard Smith, 2004. "Supermarket Choice and Supermarket Competition in Market Equilibrium," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 71(1), pages 235-263.
    21. Stephan Seiler, 2013. "The impact of search costs on consumer behavior: A dynamic approach," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 155-203, June.
    22. Igal Hendel & Aviv Nevo, 2006. "Sales and Consumer Inventory," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 543-561, Autumn.
    23. Draganska, Michaela & Klapper, Daniel, 2010. "Choice Set Heterogeneity and the Role of Advertising: An Analysis with Micro and Macro Data," Research Papers 2063, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    24. Denzil G. Fiebig & Rosalie Viney & Stephanie Knox & Marion Haas & Deborah J. Street & Arne R. Hole & Edith Weisberg & Deborah Bateson, 2017. "Consideration Sets and Their Role in Modelling Doctor Recommendations About Contraceptives," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(1), pages 54-73, January.
    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. Soetevent, Adriaan R., 2021. "I’d Like to Move It! Consumption Rivalry in the EV Public Charging Market: Demand Estimation with Deterministic Choice Set Variation," EconStor Preprints 228520, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.

    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. Tiago Pires, 2016. "Costly search and consideration sets in storable goods markets," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 157-193, September.
    2. Helmers, Christian & Krishnan, Pramila & Patnam, Manasa, 2019. "Attention and saliency on the internet: Evidence from an online recommendation system," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 216-242.
    3. Lu, Zhentong, 2022. "Estimating multinomial choice models with unobserved choice sets," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 226(2), pages 368-398.
    4. Navid Mojir & K. Sudhir, 2014. "Price Search Across Time and Across Stores," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1942R, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Jul 2019.
    5. Navid Mojir & K. Sudhir, 2014. "A Model of Multi-pass Search: Price Search across Stores and Time," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1942R2, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Feb 2020.
    6. Timothy J. Richards & Jura Liaukonytė, 2023. "Switching cost and store choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(1), pages 195-218, January.
    7. Dubois, Pierre & Perrone, Helena, 2015. "Price Dispersion and Informational Frictions: Evidence from Supermarket Purchases," TSE Working Papers 15-606, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Sep 2017.
    8. Avery Haviv, 2022. "Consumer Search, Price Promotions, and Counter-Cyclic Pricing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(2), pages 294-314, March.
    9. Pires, Tiago, 2018. "Measuring the effects of search costs on equilibrium prices and profits," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 179-205.
    10. Mantian (Mandy) Hu & Chu (Ivy) Dang & Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 2019. "Search and Learning at a Daily Deals Website," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(4), pages 609-642, July.
    11. Andrés Elberg & Pedro M. Gardete & Rosario Macera & Carlos Noton, 2019. "Dynamic effects of price promotions: field evidence, consumer search, and supply-side implications," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 1-58, March.
    12. Timothy J. Richards & Gordon J. Klein & Celine Bonnet & Zohra Bouamra-Mechemache, 2020. "Strategic Obfuscation and Retail Pricing," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 57(4), pages 859-889, December.
    13. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Matthew Thirkettle, 2021. "Discrete Choice under Risk with Limited Consideration," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(6), pages 1972-2006, June.
    14. Anocha Aribarg & Thomas Otter & Daniel Zantedeschi & Greg M. Allenby & Taylor Bentley & David J. Curry & Marc Dotson & Ty Henderson & Elisabeth Honka & Rajeev Kohli & Kamel Jedidi & Stephan Seiler & X, 2018. "Advancing Non-compensatory Choice Models in Marketing," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 5(1), pages 82-92, March.
    15. Javier Donna & Andre Trindade & Pedro Pereira & Tiago Pires, 2018. "Measuring the Welfare of Intermediation in Vertical Markets," 2018 Meeting Papers 984, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    16. Matthew Backus & Christopher Conlon & Michael Sinkinson, 2021. "Common Ownership and Competition in the Ready-to-Eat Cereal Industry," NBER Working Papers 28350, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Timothy J. Richards & Stephen F. Hamilton & Koichi Yonezawa, 2017. "Variety and the Cost of Search in Supermarket Retailing," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 50(3), pages 263-285, May.
    18. Stephan Seiler, 2013. "The impact of search costs on consumer behavior: A dynamic approach," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 155-203, June.
    19. Pinna, Fabio & Seiler, Stephan, 2014. "Consumer search: evidence from path-tracking data," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60447, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Donna, Javier D. & Pereira, Pedro & Pires, Tiago & Trindade, Andre, 2018. "Measuring the Welfare of Intermediaries in Vertical Markets," MPRA Paper 90465, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Demand Estimation; Consideration Set; Retailing;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:diw:diwwpp:dp1681. 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.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.