IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/orspec/v39y2017i3d10.1007_s00291-017-0478-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The benefits of incorporating utility dependencies in finite mixture probit models

Author

Listed:
  • Friederike Paetz

    (Clausthal University of Technology)

  • Winfried J. Steiner

    (Clausthal University of Technology)

Abstract

We propose an application of a new finite mixture multinomial conditional probit (FM-MNCP) model that accommodates preference heterogeneity and explicitly accounts for utility dependencies between choice alternatives considering both local and background contrast effects. The latter is accomplished by using a one-factor structure for segment-specific covariance matrices allowing for nonzero off-diagonal covariance elements. We compare the model to a finite mixture multinomial independent probit (FM-MNIP) model that as well accommodates heterogeneity but assumes independence. That way, we address the potential benefits of a model that additionally accounts for dependencies over a model that accommodates heterogeneity only. Our model comparison is based on empirical data for smoothies and is assessed in terms of fit, holdout validation, and market share predictions. One of the main findings of our empirical study is that allowing for utility dependencies may counterbalance the effects of considering heterogeneity, and vice versa. Additional findings from a simulation study indicate that the FM-MNCP model outperforms the FM-MNIP model with respect to parameter recovery.

Suggested Citation

  • Friederike Paetz & Winfried J. Steiner, 2017. "The benefits of incorporating utility dependencies in finite mixture probit models," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 39(3), pages 793-819, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:orspec:v:39:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s00291-017-0478-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s00291-017-0478-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00291-017-0478-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00291-017-0478-y?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hausman, Jerry A & Wise, David A, 1978. "A Conditional Probit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(2), pages 403-426, March.
    2. Dansie, B. R., 1985. "Parameter estimability in the multinomial probit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 526-528, December.
    3. Huiping Xu & Bruce A. Craig, 2009. "A Probit Latent Class Model with General Correlation Structures for Evaluating Accuracy of Diagnostic Tests," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(4), pages 1145-1155, December.
    4. Bolduc, Denis & Fortin, Bernard & Fournier, Marc-Andre, 1996. "The Effect of Incentive Policies on the Practice Location of Doctors: A Multinomial Probit Analysis," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 14(4), pages 703-732, October.
    5. Swait, Joffre, 2003. "Flexible Covariance Structures for Categorical Dependent Variables through Finite Mixtures of Generalized Extreme Value Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 21(1), pages 80-87, January.
    6. Rinus Haaijer & Michel Wedel & Marco Vriens & Tom Wansbeek, 1998. "Utility Covariances and Context Effects in Conjoint MNP Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 236-252.
    7. Karniouchina, Ekaterina V. & Moore, William L. & van der Rhee, Bo & Verma, Rohit, 2009. "Issues in the use of ratings-based versus choice-based conjoint analysis in operations management research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 340-348, August.
    8. William H. Greene & David A. Hensher, 2013. "Revealing additional dimensions of preference heterogeneity in a latent class mixed multinomial logit model," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(14), pages 1897-1902, May.
    9. Bettina Grün & Friedrich Leisch, 2008. "Identifiability of Finite Mixtures of Multinomial Logit Models with Varying and Fixed Effects," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 25(2), pages 225-247, November.
    10. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, November.
    11. repec:cdl:uctcwp:qt1gf1t128 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Melvyn Weeks, 1997. "The Multinomial Probit Model Revisited: A Discussion of Parameter Estimability, Identification and Specification Testing," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(3), pages 297-320, September.
    13. Keane, Michael P, 1992. "A Note on Identification in the Multinomial Probit Model," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 10(2), pages 193-200, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Natter, Martin & Feurstein, Markus, 2002. "Real world performance of choice-based conjoint models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(2), pages 448-458, March.
    16. Michael Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "Comparing Alternative Models Of Heterogeneity In Consumer Choice Behavior," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 1018-1045, September.
    17. Yai, Tetsuo & Iwakura, Seiji & Morichi, Shigeru, 1997. "Multinomial probit with structured covariance for route choice behavior," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 195-207, June.
    18. Geraldine Fennell & Greg Allenby & Sha Yang & Yancy Edwards, 2003. "The Effectiveness of Demographic and Psychographic Variables for Explaining Brand and Product Category Use," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 223-244, June.
    19. Bunch, David S., 1991. "Estimability in the multinomial probit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-12, February.
    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. 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.
    2. Weber, Anett & Steiner, Winfried J., 2021. "Modeling price response from retail sales: An empirical comparison of models with different representations of heterogeneity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(3), pages 843-859.
    3. Daniel Guhl & Friederike Paetz & Udo Wagner & Michel Wedel, 2024. "Predicting and optimizing marketing performance in dynamic markets," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 46(1), pages 1-27, March.
    4. Narine Yegoryan & Daniel Guhl & Friederike Paetz, 2023. "When Zeros Count: Confounding in Preference Heterogeneity and Attribute Non-attendance," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 482, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    5. Nils Goeken & Peter Kurz & Winfried J. Steiner, 2024. "Multimodal preference heterogeneity in choice-based conjoint analysis: a simulation study," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 137-185, January.

    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. Tinessa, Fiore & Marzano, Vittorio & Papola, Andrea, 2020. "Mixing distributions of tastes with a Combination of Nested Logit (CoNL) kernel: Formulation and performance analysis," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1-23.
    2. Tinessa, Fiore, 2021. "Closed-form random utility models with mixture distributions of random utilities: Exploring finite mixtures of qGEV models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 262-288.
    3. Haaijer, Marinus E., 1996. "Predictions in conjoint choice experiments : the x-factor probit model," Research Report 96B22, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    4. Geweke, John & Keane, Michael P & Runkle, David, 1994. "Alternative Computational Approaches to Inference in the Multinomial Probit Model," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(4), pages 609-632, November.
    5. Daziano, Ricardo A., 2015. "Inference on mode preferences, vehicle purchases, and the energy paradox using a Bayesian structural choice model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-26.
    6. Ku, Yu-Cheng & Wu, John, 2018. "Measuring respondent uncertainty in discrete choice experiments via utility suppression," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 1-18.
    7. Rennings, Klaus & Ziegler, Andreas & Zwick, Thomas, 2001. "Employment changes in environmentally innovative firms," ZEW Discussion Papers 01-46, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Cohen, Michael, 2010. "A Structured Covariance Probit Demand Model," Research Reports 149970, University of Connecticut, Food Marketing Policy Center.
    9. Young, Gary & Valdez, Emiliano A. & Kohn, Robert, 2009. "Multivariate probit models for conditional claim-types," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 214-228, April.
    10. GRAMMIG, Joachim & HUJER, Reinhard & SCHEIDLER, Michael, 2001. "The econometrics of airline network management," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2001055, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    11. Victoria Prowse, 2012. "Modeling Employment Dynamics With State Dependence and Unobserved Heterogeneity," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(3), pages 411-431, April.
    12. Massimiliano Bratti, 2005. "Social Class and Undergraduate Degree Subject in the UK," UNIMI - Research Papers in Economics, Business, and Statistics unimi-1015, Universitá degli Studi di Milano.
    13. Rinus Haaijer & Michel Wedel & Marco Vriens & Tom Wansbeek, 1998. "Utility Covariances and Context Effects in Conjoint MNP Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 236-252.
    14. repec:dgr:rugsom:96b22 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Michael P. Keane, 2013. "Panel data discrete choice models of consumer demand," Economics Papers 2013-W08, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    16. Robert Zeithammer & Peter Lenk, 2006. "Bayesian estimation of multivariate-normal models when dimensions are absent," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 241-265, September.
    17. Hein, Maren & Goeken, Nils & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2022. "Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 630-651.
    18. Michael P. Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "The Structure of Consumer Taste Heterogeneity in Revealed vs. Stated Preference Data," Economics Papers 2013-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    19. Erik Meijer & Jan Rouwendal, 2006. "Measuring welfare effects in models with random coefficients," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 227-244, March.
    20. Paul Gertler & Roland Sturm & Bruce Davidson, 1994. "Information and the Demand for Supplemental Medicare Insurance," NBER Working Papers 4700, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Robert Donnelly & Francisco J.R. Ruiz & David Blei & Susan Athey, 2021. "Counterfactual inference for consumer choice across many product categories," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 369-407, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:orspec:v:39:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s00291-017-0478-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.