IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v29y2010i3p525-539.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling the Underreporting Bias in Panel Survey Data

Author

Listed:
  • Sha Yang

    (Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, New York 10012; and School of Economics and Management, Southwest Jiaotong University, 610031 Chengdu, China)

  • Yi Zhao

    (J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia 30302)

  • Ravi Dhar

    (Yale School of Management, New Haven, Connecticut 06520)

Abstract

Panel survey data have been gaining importance in marketing. However, one challenge of estimating econometric models based on panel survey data is how to account for underreporting; that is, respondents do not report behavioral incidences that actually occur. Underreporting is especially likely to occur in a panel survey because the data-recording mechanism is often tedious, complex, and effortful. The probability of underreporting is likely to vary across respondents and also over the duration of the survey period. In this paper, we propose a model to simultaneously study reported behavioral incidences and partially observed actual behavioral incidences. We propose a Bayesian approach for estimating the proposed model. We treat those unobserved actual behavioral incidences as latent variables, and the Gibbs sampler makes it convenient to impute the nonreported consumption incidences along with making inferences on other model parameters. Our proposed method has two advantages. First, it offers a model-based approach to remove the underreporting bias in panel survey data and therefore allows marketing researchers to make accurate inferences about consumers' actual behavior. Second, the method also offers a natural way to study factors that influence respondents' propensity to underreport. Because we treat those underreported behavioral incidences as nonmissing at random, this underreporting propensity varies across respondents and over time. This understanding can help marketing researchers design the right strategy to intervene and incentivize respondents to authentically report and hence improve the quality of survey data. The proposed model and estimation approach are tested on both synthetic data and actual panel survey data on consumer-reported beverage-drinking behavior. Our analysis suggests that underreporting can significantly mask respondents' true behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Sha Yang & Yi Zhao & Ravi Dhar, 2010. "Modeling the Underreporting Bias in Panel Survey Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 525-539, 05-06.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:29:y:2010:i:3:p:525-539
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1090.0536
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1090.0536
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.1090.0536?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. Peter M. Guadagni & John D. C. Little, 1983. "A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 203-238.
    2. 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.
    3. David C. Schmittlein & Albert C. Bemmaor & Donald G. Morrison, 1985. "Technical Note—Why Does the NBD Model Work? Robustness in Representing Product Purchases, Brand Purchases and Imperfectly Recorded Purchases," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(3), pages 255-266.
    4. Oded Netzer & James M. Lattin & V. Srinivasan, 2008. "A Hidden Markov Model of Customer Relationship Dynamics," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 185-204, 03-04.
    5. Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 1996. "Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: Capturing Dynamic Brand Choice Processes in Turbulent Consumer Goods Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20.
    6. Alan L. Montgomery & Shibo Li & Kannan Srinivasan & John C. Liechty, 2004. "Modeling Online Browsing and Path Analysis Using Clickstream Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 579-595, November.
    7. Ralf van der Lans & Gerrit van Bruggen & Jehoshua Eliashberg & Berend Wierenga, 2010. "A Viral Branching Model for Predicting the Spread of Electronic Word of Mouth," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 348-365, 03-04.
    8. Timothy Gilbride & Sha Yang & Greg Allenby, 2005. "Modeling Simultaneity in Survey Data," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 311-335, December.
    9. John C. Liechty & Duncan K. H. Fong & Wayne S. DeSarbo, 2005. "Dynamic Models Incorporating Individual Heterogeneity: Utility Evolution in Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 285-293, November.
    10. Toh, Rex S. & Hu, Michael Y., 1996. "Natural mortality and participation fatigue as potential biases in diary panels : Impact of some demographic factors and behavioral characteristics on systematic attrition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 129-138, February.
    11. Winkelmann, Rainer, 1996. "Markov Chain Monte Carlo Analysis of Underreported Count Data with an Application to Worker Absenteeism," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 575-587.
    12. Fisher, Robert J, 1993. "Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(2), pages 303-315, September.
    13. Menon, Geeta, 1993. "The Effects of Accessibility of Information in Memory on Judgments of Behavioral Frequency," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(3), pages 431-440, December.
    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. D’Haultfœuille, Xavier & Février, Philippe, 2015. "Identification of mixture models using support variations," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 70-82.
    2. Jarrod Haar & Stuart C. Carr & James Arrowsmith & Jane Parker & Darrin Hodgetts & Siautu Alefaio-Tugia, 2018. "Escape from Working Poverty: Steps toward Sustainable Livelihood," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    3. Ingenbleek, Paul T.M. & Tessema, Workneh Kassa & van Trijp, Hans C.M., 2013. "Conducting field research in subsistence markets, with an application to market orientation in the context of Ethiopian pastoralists," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 83-97.
    4. La Paix Puello, Lissy & Olde-Kalter, Marie-José & Geurs, Karst T., 2017. "Measurement of non-random attrition effects on mobility rates using trip diaries data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 51-64.
    5. Brougham, David & Haar, Jarrod, 2020. "Technological disruption and employment: The influence on job insecurity and turnover intentions: A multi-country study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    6. Kappe, Eelco & Stadler Blank, Ashley & DeSarbo, Wayne S., 2018. "A random coefficients mixture hidden Markov model for marketing research," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 415-431.
    7. Yi Qian & Hui Xie, 2011. "No Customer Left Behind: A Distribution-Free Bayesian Approach to Accounting for Missing Xs in Marketing Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 717-736, July.
    8. Ulf Böckenholt, 2014. "Modeling Motivated Misreports to Sensitive Survey Questions," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 515-537, July.

    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. Ricardo Montoya & Oded Netzer & Kamel Jedidi, 2010. "Dynamic Allocation of Pharmaceutical Detailing and Sampling for Long-Term Profitability," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 909-924, 09-10.
    2. Dan Horsky & Sanjog Misra & Paul Nelson, 2006. "Observed and Unobserved Preference Heterogeneity in Brand-Choice Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 322-335, 07-08.
    3. 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.
    4. Ehrenberg, Andrew S. C. & Uncles, Mark D. & Goodhardt, Gerald J., 2004. "Understanding brand performance measures: using Dirichlet benchmarks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(12), pages 1307-1325, December.
    5. Liye Ma & Baohong Sun & Sunder Kekre, 2015. "The Squeaky Wheel Gets the Grease—An Empirical Analysis of Customer Voice and Firm Intervention on Twitter," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(5), pages 627-645, September.
    6. Jonathan Z. Zhang & Chun-Wei Chang, 2021. "Consumer dynamics: theories, methods, and emerging directions," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 166-196, January.
    7. Amirali Kani & Wayne S. DeSarbo & Duncan K. H. Fong, 2018. "A Factorial Hidden Markov Model for the Analysis of Temporal Change in Choice Models," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 5(3), pages 162-177, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Noah Gans & George Knox & Rachel Croson, 2007. "Simple Models of Discrete Choice and Their Performance in Bandit Experiments," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 383-408, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Yanwen Wang & Chunhua Wu & Ting Zhu, 2019. "Mobile Hailing Technology and Taxi Driving Behaviors," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(5), pages 734-755, September.
    12. Francesca Bassi & Fulvia Pennoni & Luca Rossetto, 2020. "The Italian market of sparkling wines: Latent variable models for brand positioning, customer loyalty, and transitions across brands' preferences," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 542-567, October.
    13. Baxendale, Shane & Macdonald, Emma K. & Wilson, Hugh N., 2015. "The Impact of Different Touchpoints on Brand Consideration," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 235-253.
    14. 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.
    15. Kinshuk Jerath & Anuj Kumar & Serguei Netessine, 2015. "An Information Stock Model of Customer Behavior in Multichannel Customer Support Services," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 368-383, July.
    16. Kappe, Eelco & Stadler Blank, Ashley & DeSarbo, Wayne S., 2018. "A random coefficients mixture hidden Markov model for marketing research," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 415-431.
    17. Gui Liberali & Alina Ferecatu, 2022. "Morphing for Consumer Dynamics: Bandits Meet Hidden Markov Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(4), pages 769-794, July.
    18. Yan Huang & Param Vir Singh & Kannan Srinivasan, 2014. "Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas Under Consumer Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(9), pages 2138-2159, September.
    19. Peter Stüttgen & Peter Boatwright & Robert T. Monroe, 2012. "A Satisficing Choice Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 878-899, November.
    20. Song Lin & Juanjuan Zhang & John R. Hauser, 2015. "Learning from Experience, Simply," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 1-19, 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:ormksc:v:29:y:2010:i:3:p:525-539. 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.