IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article

Alleviating the Constant Stochastic Variance Assumption in Decision Research: Theory, Measurement, and Experimental Test

  • Linda Court Salisbury

    ()

    (Carroll School of Management, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts 02467)

  • Fred M. Feinberg

    ()

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

Registered author(s):

    Analysts often rely on methods that presume constant stochastic variance, even though its degree can differ markedly across experimental and field settings. This reliance can lead to misestimation of effect sizes or unjustified theoretical or behavioral inferences. Classic utility-based discrete-choice theory makes sharp, testable predictions about how observed choice patterns should change when stochastic variance differs across items, brands, or conditions. We derive and examine the implications of assuming constant stochastic variance for choices made under different conditions or at different times, in particular, whether substantive effects can arise purely as artifacts. These implications are tested via an experiment designed to isolate the effects of stochastic variation in choice behavior. Results strongly suggest that the stochastic component should be carefully modeled to differ across both available brands and temporal conditions, and that its variance may be relatively greater for choices made for the future. The experimental design controls for several alternative mechanisms (e.g., flexibility seeking), and a series of related models suggest that several econometrically detectable explanations like correlated error, state dependence, and variety seeking add no explanatory power. A series of simulations argues for appropriate flexibility in discrete-choice specification when attempting to detect temporal stochastic inflation effects.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1080.0464
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by INFORMS in its journal Marketing Science.

    Volume (Year): 29 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 1 (01-02)
    Pages: 1-17

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:29:y:2010:i:1:p:1-17
    Contact details of provider: Postal:
    7240 Parkway Drive, Suite 300, Hanover, MD 21076 USA

    Phone: +1-443-757-3500
    Fax: 443-757-3515
    Web page: http://www.informs.org/
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. 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.
    2. Wiktor Adamowicz & David Bunch & Trudy Cameron & Benedict Dellaert & Michael Hanneman & Michael Keane & Jordan Louviere & Robert Meyer & Thomas Steenburgh & Joffre Swait, 2008. "Behavioral frontiers in choice modeling," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 215-228, December.
    3. Rick L. Andrews & Andrew Ainslie & Imran S. Currim, 2008. "On the Recoverability of Choice Behaviors with Random Coefficients Choice Models in the Context of Limited Data and Unobserved Effects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 83-99, January.
    4. Engle, Robert F, 1982. "Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity with Estimates of the Variance of United Kingdom Inflation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 987-1007, July.
    5. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. " Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 215-31, September.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Peter P. Wakker & Rakesh Sarin, 1997. "Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 375-406.
    7. Loewenstein, George, 2001. " The Creative Destruction of Decision Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(3), pages 499-505, December.
    8. John W. Walsh, 1995. "Flexibility in Consumer Purchasing for Uncertain Future Tastes," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 148-165.
    9. P. B. Seetharaman, 2004. "Modeling Multiple Sources of State Dependence in Random Utility Models: A Distributed Lag Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 263-271, April.
    10. Read, Daniel & Antonides, Gerrit & van den Ouden, Laura & Trienekens, Harry, 2001. "Which Is Better: Simultaneous or Sequential Choice?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 54-70, January.
    11. Kivetz, Ran & Simonson, Itamar, 2002. " Self-Control for the Righteous: Toward a Theory of Precommitment to Indulgence," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 199-217, September.
    12. Louviere, Jordan J, 2001. " What If Consumer Experiments Impact Variances as Well as Means? Response Variability as a Behavioral Phenomenon," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(3), pages 506-11, December.
    13. Keren, Gideon & Roelofsma, Peter, 1995. "Immediacy and Certainty in Intertemporal Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 287-297, September.
    14. Bhat, Chandra R., 1995. "A heteroscedastic extreme value model of intercity travel mode choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 471-483, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:29:y:2010:i:1:p:1-17. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.