IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v7y1988i1p41-59.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Removing Heterogeneity Bias from Logit Model Estimation

Author

Listed:
  • J. Morgan Jones

    (University of North Carolina)

  • Jane T. Landwehr

    (New York University)

Abstract

This paper introduces a new estimation procedure for the logit model that is an extension of a conditional estimation procedure developed by Chamberlain (Chamberlain, G. 1978. On the use of panel data. Working paper, Harvard University, 1–52; Chamberlain, G. 1980. Analysis of covariance with qualitative data. 225–238.). The method eliminates heterogeneity bias which is present in the estimates produced by traditional estimation techniques. It improves the goodness of fit and explanatory power of these models, while incorporating purchase event feedback.

Suggested Citation

  • J. Morgan Jones & Jane T. Landwehr, 1988. "Removing Heterogeneity Bias from Logit Model Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 41-59.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:7:y:1988:i:1:p:41-59
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.7.1.41
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Abramson, Charles & Buchmueller, Thomas & Currim, Imran, 1998. "Models of health plan choice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 228-247, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Wicker, Pamela & Prinz, Joachim & von Hanau, Tassilo, 2012. "Estimating the value of national sporting success," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 200-210.
    4. Hilger, James & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2008. "The Impact of Water Quality on Southern California Beach Recreation: A Finite Mixture Model Approach," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt9v17r715, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    5. José M. Labeaga & Mercedes Martos-Partal, 2007. "A Proposal to Distinguish State Dependence and Unobserved Heterogeneity in Binary Brand Choice Models," Working Papers 2007-02, FEDEA.
    6. González-Benito, Óscar, 2004. "Random effects choice models: seeking latent predisposition segments in the context of retail store format selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 167-177, April.
    7. Ulimwengu, John & Sanyal, Prabuddha, 2011. "Joint estimation of farmers' stated willingness to pay for agricultural services:," IFPRI discussion papers 1070, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    8. Roy, Abhik, 1998. "An error components approach to segmentation and modelling brand choice dynamics," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 463-484, August.
    9. Patrali Chatterjee & Donna L. Hoffman & Thomas P. Novak, 2003. "Modeling the Clickstream: Implications for Web-Based Advertising Efforts," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 520-541, May.
    10. Chen, Bo & Saghaian, Sayed, 2017. "Does Consumers’ Preference for Organic Foods Affect Their Store Format Choices?," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252827, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    11. 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.
    12. Chintagunta, Pradeep & Kyriazidou, Ekaterini & Perktold, Josef, 2001. "Panel data analysis of household brand choices," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 103(1-2), pages 111-153, July.
    13. 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.
    14. Koster, Hans R.A. & van Ommeren, Jos & Rietveld, Piet, 2014. "Estimation of semiparametric sorting models: Explaining geographical concentration of business services," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 14-28.

    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:7:y:1988:i:1:p:41-59. 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). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.