IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity

  • Denzil G. Fiebig

    ()

    (School of Economics, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia)

  • Michael P. Keane

    ()

    (University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2007; and Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287)

  • Jordan Louviere

    ()

    (School of Marketing, Centre for the Study of Choice, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2007, Australia)

  • Nada Wasi

    ()

    (School of Finance and Economics, Centre for the Study of Choice, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2007, Australia)

The mixed or heterogeneous multinomial logit (MIXL) model has become popular in a number of fields, especially marketing, health economics, and industrial organization. In most applications of the model, the vector of consumer utility weights on product attributes is assumed to have a multivariate normal (MVN) distribution in the population. Thus, some consumers care more about some attributes than others, and the IIA property of multinomial logit (MNL) is avoided (i.e., segments of consumers will tend to switch among the subset of brands that possess their most valued attributes). The MIXL model is also appealing because it is relatively easy to estimate. Recently, however, some researchers have argued that the MVN is a poor choice for modelling taste heterogeneity. They argue that much of the heterogeneity in attribute weights is accounted for by a pure scale effect (i.e., across consumers, all attribute weights are scaled up or down in tandem). This implies that choice behaviour is simply more random for some consumers than others (i.e., holding attribute coefficients fixed, the scale of their error term is greater). This leads to a “scale heterogeneity” MNL model (S-MNL). Here, we develop a generalized multinomial logit model (G-MNL) that nests S-MNL and MIXL. By estimating the S-MNL, MIXL, and G-MNL models on 10 data sets, we provide evidence on their relative performance. We find that models that account for scale heterogeneity (i.e., G-MNL or S-MNL) are preferred to MIXL by the Bayes and consistent Akaike information criteria in all 10 data sets. Accounting for scale heterogeneity enables one to account for “extreme” consumers who exhibit nearly lexicographic preferences, as well as consumers who exhibit very “random” behaviour (in a sense we formalize below).

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.1090.0508
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by INFORMS in its journal Marketing Science.

Volume (Year): 29 (2010)
Issue (Month): 3 (05-06)
Pages: 393-421

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:29:y:2010:i:3:p:393-421
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. Robert Bartels & Denzil Fiebig & Arthur Soest, 2006. "Consumers and experts: an econometric analysis of the demand for water heaters," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 369-391, June.
  2. Hall, Jane & Fiebig, Denzil G. & King, Madeleine T. & Hossain, Ishrat & Louviere, Jordan J., 2006. "What influences participation in genetic carrier testing?: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 520-537, May.
  3. Keane, Michael P, 1994. "A Computationally Practical Simulation Estimator for Panel Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(1), pages 95-116, January.
  4. Fang, Hanming & Keane, Michael & Silverman, Dan, 2006. "Sources of Advantageous Selection: Evidence from the Medigap Insurance Market," Working Papers 17, Yale University, Department of Economics.
  5. Geweke, John & Keane, Michael, 2007. "Smoothly mixing regressions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 252-290, May.
  6. M. Keane & R. Moffitt, . "A structural model of multiple welfare program participation and labor supply," Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Papers 1080-96, University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty.
  7. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
  8. Elrod, Terry & Keane, Michael, 1995. "A Factor-Analytic Probit Model for Representing the Market Structure in Panel Data," MPRA Paper 52434, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  9. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
  10. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
  11. John F. Geweke & Michael P. Keane & David E. Runkle, 1994. "Statistical inference in the multinomial multiperiod probit model," Staff Report 177, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
  12. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
  13. Allenby, Greg M. & Rossi, Peter E., 1998. "Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 57-78, November.
  14. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
  15. Martin Burda & Matthew Harding & Jerry Hausman, 2008. "A Bayesian mixed logit-probit model for multinomial choice," CeMMAP working papers CWP23/08, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  16. Kenneth A. Small & Clifford Winston & Jia Yan, 2005. "Uncovering the Distribution of Motorists' Preferences for Travel Time and Reliability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 1367-1382, 07.
  17. Harris, Katherine M. & Keane, Michael P., 1998. "A model of health plan choice:: Inferring preferences and perceptions from a combination of revealed preference and attitudinal data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 131-157, November.
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:3:p:393-421. 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.