IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/ucsdec/qt3kk0q2dj.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Statistical properties of consideration sets

Author

Listed:
  • Carson, RT
  • Louviere, JJ

Abstract

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. The concept of a consideration set has become a central concept in the study of consumer behavior. This paper shows that the common practice of estimating models using only the set of alternatives deemed to be in the set considered by a consumer will usually result in estimated parameters that are biased due to a sample selection effect. This effect is generic to many consideration set models and can be large in practice. To overcome this problem, models of an antecedent volition process that defines consideration will effectively need to incorporate the selection mechanism used for inclusion of choice alternatives in the consideration set.

Suggested Citation

  • Carson, RT & Louviere, JJ, 2015. "Statistical properties of consideration sets," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt3kk0q2dj, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:ucsdec:qt3kk0q2dj
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/3kk0q2dj.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. A. Stewart Fotheringham, 1988. "Note—Consumer Store Choice and Choice Set Definition," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 299-310.
    2. Ruud, Paul A., 1986. "Consistent estimation of limited dependent variable models despite misspecification of distribution," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 157-187, June.
    3. Cameron, Trudy Ann & James, Michelle D, 1987. "Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(2), pages 269-276, May.
    4. James J. Heckman, 1976. "The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 475-492, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Chung, Ching-Fan & Goldberger, Arthur S, 1984. "Proportional Projections in Limited Dependent Variable Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(2), pages 531-534, March.
    6. Jeremy T. Fox, 2007. "Semiparametric estimation of multinomial discrete-choice models using a subset of choices," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(4), pages 1002-1019, December.
    7. Blundell, Richard & Smith, Richard J., 1994. "Coherency and estimation in simultaneous models with censored or qualitative dependent variables," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-2), pages 355-373.
    8. Cardell, N. Scott, 1997. "Variance Components Structures for the Extreme-Value and Logistic Distributions with Application to Models of Heterogeneity," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 185-213, April.
    9. Nelson, Forrest D., 1977. "Censored regression models with unobserved, stochastic censoring thresholds," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 309-327, November.
    10. Dennis H. Gensch, 1987. "A Two-Stage Disaggregate Attribute Choice Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 223-239.
    11. Ioannatos, Petros E, 1995. "Censored Regression Estimation under Unobserved Heterogeneity: A Stochastic Parameter Approach," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(3), pages 327-335, July.
    12. Dagsvik, John K, 1994. "Discrete and Continuous Choice, Max-Stable Processes, and Independence from Irrelevant Attributes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(5), pages 1179-1205, September.
    13. Swait, Joffre, 2001. "Choice set generation within the generalized extreme value family of discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 643-666, August.
    14. Stephan Wachtel & Thomas Otter, 2013. "Successive Sample Selection and Its Relevance for Management Decisions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 170-185, September.
    15. Hauser, John R & Wernerfelt, Birger, 1990. "An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(4), pages 393-408, March.
    16. Michael Yee & Ely Dahan & John R. Hauser & James Orlin, 2007. "Greedoid-Based Noncompensatory Inference," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 532-549, 07-08.
    17. Wendy W. Moe & David A. Schweidel, 2012. "Online Product Opinions: Incidence, Evaluation, and Evolution," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 372-386, May.
    18. Cragg, John G, 1971. "Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(5), pages 829-844, September.
    19. Francis Vella, 1998. "Estimating Models with Sample Selection Bias: A Survey," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 33(1), pages 127-169.
    20. Lakshman Krishnamurthi & S. P. Raj, 1988. "A Model of Brand Choice and Purchase Quantity Price Sensitivities," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 1-20.
    21. Werner, Megan, 1999. "Allowing for Zeros in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent-Valuation Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 17(4), pages 479-486, October.
    22. Mullahy, John, 1986. "Specification and testing of some modified count data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 341-365, December.
    23. Andrew Ching & Tülin Erdem & Michael Keane, 2009. "The price consideration model of brand choice," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 393-420, April.
    24. Heckman, James J, 1990. "Varieties of Selection Bias," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 313-318, May.
    25. 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.
    26. 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.
    27. Hurd, Michael, 1979. "Estimation in truncated samples when there is heteroscedasticity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2-3), pages 247-258.
    28. Richard T. Carson & Yixiao Sun, 2007. "The Tobit model with a non-zero threshold," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 10(3), pages 488-502, November.
    29. Deaton,Angus & Muellbauer,John, 1980. "Economics and Consumer Behavior," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521296762, November.
    30. Lee, Lung-fei, 1995. "The Computation of Opportunity Costs in Polychotomous Choice Models with Selectivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 77(3), pages 423-435, August.
    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. Edenbrandt, Anna Kristina & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan & Lüken, Malte & Orquin, Jacob L., 2022. "Seen but not considered? Awareness and consideration in choice analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).

    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. Carson, Richard T. & Louviere, Jordan J., 2014. "Statistical properties of consideration sets," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 37-48.
    2. repec:cdl:ucsdec:qt9qt9g4p4 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. DeSarbo, Wayne S. & Choi, Jungwhan, 1998. "A latent structure double hurdle regression model for exploring heterogeneity in consumer search patterns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 423-455, November.
    4. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    5. Shoshana Neuman & Ronald Oaxaca, 2004. "Wage Decompositions with Selectivity-Corrected Wage Equations: A Methodological Note," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 2(1), pages 3-10, April.
    6. Lewbel, Arthur, 2007. "Endogenous selection or treatment model estimation," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 141(2), pages 777-806, December.
    7. Anocha Aribarg & Thomas Otter & Daniel Zantedeschi & Greg M. Allenby & Taylor Bentley & David J. Curry & Marc Dotson & Ty Henderson & Elisabeth Honka & Rajeev Kohli & Kamel Jedidi & Stephan Seiler & X, 2018. "Advancing Non-compensatory Choice Models in Marketing," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 5(1), pages 82-92, March.
    8. Sirchenko Andrei, 2012. "A model for ordinal responses with an application to policy interest rate," EERC Working Paper Series 12/13e, EERC Research Network, Russia and CIS.
    9. Pigini Claudia, 2015. "Bivariate Non-Normality in the Sample Selection Model," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 123-144, January.
    10. John Mullahy & Edward C. Norton, 2024. "Why Transform Y? The Pitfalls of Transformed Regressions with a Mass at Zero," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 86(2), pages 417-447, April.
    11. Evgeniy M. Ozhegov, 2014. "The Underwriting, Choice And Performance Of Government-Insured Mortgages In Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 31/FE/2014, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    12. 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.
    13. Hanas Cader & John Leatherman, 2011. "Small business survival and sample selection bias," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 155-165, September.
    14. Xulia González & Jordi Jaumandreu, "undated". "Threshold effects in product R&D decisions: theoretical framework and empirical analysis," Studies on the Spanish Economy 45, FEDEA.
    15. Johannes Reichl & Sylvia Frühwirth-Schnatter, 2012. "A censored random coefficients model for the detection of zero willingness to pay," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 259-281, June.
    16. Andrews, Rick L. & Manrai, Ajay K., 1998. "Feature-based elimination: Model and empirical comparison," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 248-267, December.
    17. Holloway, Garth J. & Barrett, Christopher B. & Ehui, Simeon K., 2002. "Bayes' Estimates Of The Double Hurdle Model In The Presence Of Fixed Costs," Working Papers 14741, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    18. Martin Huber, 2014. "Treatment Evaluation in the Presence of Sample Selection," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(8), pages 869-905, November.
    19. Edoardo Di Porto, 2009. "Audit, tax compliance and undeclared work: an empirical analysis," LABORatorio R. Revelli Working Papers Series 94, LABORatorio R. Revelli, Centre for Employment Studies.
    20. Fu, Shengfei & Florkowski, Wojciech J. & Nambiar, Padmanand Madhavan & Resurreccion, Anna V.A. & Chinnan, Manjeet S., 2013. "Household Consumption Characteristics of Cookies: The Case of Uganda," 2013 Annual Meeting, February 2-5, 2013, Orlando, Florida 142910, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    21. James J. Heckman, 2005. "Micro Data, Heterogeneity and the Evaluation of Public Policy Part 2," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 49(1), pages 16-44, March.

    More about this item

    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:cdl:ucsdec:qt3kk0q2dj. 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: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deucsus.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.