IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v29y2010i1p32-39.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

—Temporal Stochastic Inflation in Choice-Based Research

Author

Listed:
  • 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)

Abstract

We examine the specification and interpretation of discrete-choice models used in behavioral theory testing, with a focus on separating “coefficient scale” from “error scale,” particularly over time. Numerous issues raised in the thoughtful commentaries of Louviere and Swait [Louviere, J., J. Swait. 2010. Discussion of “Alleviating the constant stochastic variance assumption in decision research: Theory, measurement, and experimental test.” (1) 18–22] and Hutchinson, Zauberman, and Meyer (HZM) [Hutchinson, J. W., G. Zauberman, R. Meyer. 2010. On the interpretation of temporal inflation parameters in stochastic models of judgment and choice. (1) 23–31] are addressed, specifically the roles of response scaling, preference covariates, actual versus hypothetical consumption, “immediacy,” and heterogeneity, as well as key differences between the experimental setup in Salisbury and Feinberg [Salisbury, L. C., F. M. Feinberg. 2010. Alleviating the constant stochastic variance assumption in decision research: Theory, measurement, and experimental test. (1) 1–17] and those typifying intertemporal choice and construal level theory. We strongly concur with most of the general conclusions put forth by the commentary authors, but we also emphasize a central point made in our research that may have been lost: that the temporal inflation effects observed in our empirical analysis could be attributed to stochastic effects, deterministic influences, or an amalgam; appropriate inferences depend on the nature of one's data and stimuli. We also report on further analyses of our data, as well as a meta-analysis of HZM's Table 1 that is consistent with our original findings. Implications for, and dimensions relevant to, future research on temporal stochastic inflation and its role in choice-based research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Linda Court Salisbury & Fred M. Feinberg, 2010. "—Temporal Stochastic Inflation in Choice-Based Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 32-39, 01-02.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:29:y:2010:i:1:p:32-39
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1090.0530
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1090.0530
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.1090.0530?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. Rossi P. E & Gilula Z. & Allenby G. M, 2001. "Overcoming Scale Usage Heterogeneity: A Bayesian Hierarchical Approach," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 96, pages 20-31, March.
    2. J. Wesley Hutchinson & Gal Zauberman & Robert Meyer, 2010. "—On the Interpretation of Temporal Inflation Parameters in Stochastic Models of Judgment and Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 23-31, 01-02.
    3. Shane Frederick & George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue, 2002. "Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 351-401, June.
    4. Keane, Michael P, 1997. "Modeling Heterogeneity and State Dependence in Consumer Choice Behavior," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 15(3), pages 310-327, July.
    5. Kim, Jin Gyo & Menzefricke, Ulrich & Feinberg, Fred M., 2005. "Modeling Parametric Evolution in a Random Utility Framework," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 23, pages 282-294, July.
    6. 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.
    7. Mohamed Lachaab & Asim Ansari & Kamel Jedidi & Abdelwahed Trabelsi, 2006. "Modeling preference evolution in discrete choice models: A Bayesian state-space approach," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 57-81, March.
    8. Dilip Soman & George Ainslie & Shane Frederick & Xiuping Li & John Lynch & Page Moreau & Andrew Mitchell & Daniel Read & Alan Sawyer & Yaacov Trope & Klaus Wertenbroch & Gal Zauberman, 2005. "The Psychology of Intertemporal Discounting: Why are Distant Events Valued Differently from Proximal Ones?," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 347-360, December.
    9. Shugan, Steven M, 1980. "The Cost of Thinking," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 7(2), pages 99-111, Se.
    10. Garrett Sonnier & Andrew Ainslie & Thomas Otter, 2007. "Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 313-331, September.
    11. Louviere, Jordan J, 2001. "What If Consumer Experiments Impact Variances as Well as Means? Response Variability as a Behavioral Phenomenon," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(3), pages 506-511, December.
    12. Peter Lenk & Michel Wedel & Ulf Böckenholt, 2006. "Bayesian Estimation of Circumplex Models Subject to Prior Theory Constraints and Scale-Usage Bias," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 33-55, March.
    13. Linda Court Salisbury & Fred M. Feinberg, 2010. "Alleviating the Constant Stochastic Variance Assumption in Decision Research: Theory, Measurement, and Experimental Test," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 1-17, 01-02.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. J. Wesley Hutchinson & Gal Zauberman & Robert Meyer, 2010. "—On the Interpretation of Temporal Inflation Parameters in Stochastic Models of Judgment and Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 23-31, 01-02.
    3. 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.
    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. Bernhard Baumgartner & Daniel Guhl & Thomas Kneib & Winfried J. Steiner, 2018. "Flexible estimation of time-varying effects for frequently purchased retail goods: a modeling approach based on household panel data," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 40(4), pages 837-873, October.
    6. Vishal Narayan & Vithala R. Rao & Carolyne Saunders, 2011. "How Peer Influence Affects Attribute Preferences: A Bayesian Updating Mechanism," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 368-384, 03-04.
    7. Preston Greene, 2024. "Social bias, not time bias," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 23(1), pages 100-121, February.
    8. Martijn G. de Jong & Donald R. Lehmann & Oded Netzer, 2012. "State-Dependence Effects in Surveys," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 838-854, September.
    9. Stefanie Heinzle, 2012. "Disclosure of Energy Operating Cost Information: A Silver Bullet for Overcoming the Energy-Efficiency Gap?," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 43-64, March.
    10. John R. Hauser & Felix Eggers & Matthew Selove, 2019. "The Strategic Implications of Scale in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(6), pages 1059-1081, November.
    11. Lynd Bacon & Peter Lenk, 2012. "Augmenting discrete-choice data to identify common preference scales for inter-subject analyses," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 453-474, December.
    12. Takeo Hori & Koichi Futagami, 2019. "A Non‐unitary Discount Rate Model," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 86(341), pages 139-165, January.
    13. Harmsen - van Hout, M.J.W. & Dellaert, B.G.C. & Herings, P.J.J., 2008. "Behavorial effects in individual decisions of network formation," Research Memorandum 019, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    14. Dumas, Jean-Malik, 2016. "Essays in behavioral strategy," Other publications TiSEM a04c1b1b-eeed-48ad-894b-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Neuerburg, Christian & Koschate-Fischer, Nicole & Pescher, Christian, 2021. "Menu-Based Choice Models for Customization: On the Recoverability of Reservation Prices, Model Fit, and Predictive Validity," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-14.
    16. Agah R. Turan, 2019. "Intentional time inconsistency," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 41-64, February.
    17. Takahashi, Taiki & Hadzibeganovic, Tarik & Cannas, Sergio & Makino, Takaki & Fukui, Hiroki & Kitayama, Shinobu, 2009. "Cultural neuroeconomics of intertemporal choice," MPRA Paper 16814, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Ramkumar Janakiraman & Shantanu Dutta & Catarina Sismeiro & Philip Stern, 2008. "Physicians' Persistence and Its Implications for Their Response to Promotion of Prescription Drugs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(6), pages 1080-1093, June.
    19. Sahari, Anna, 2021. "Household heterogeneity in valuation of heating energy costs," Working Papers 141, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    20. Lew, Daniel K., 2018. "Discounting future payments in stated preference choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 150-164.

    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:ormksc:v:29:y:2010:i:1:p:32-39. 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.