On the Similarity of Classical and Bayesian Estimates of Individual Mean Partworths
An exciting development in modeling has been the ability to estimate reliable individual-level parameters for choice models. Individual partworths derived from these parameters have been very useful in segmentation, identifying extreme individuals, and in creating appropriate choice simulators. In marketing, hierarchical Bayes models have taken the lead in combining information about the aggregate distribution of tastes with the individual's choices to arrive at a conditional estimate of the individual's parameters. In economics, the same behavioral model has been derived from a classical rather than a Bayesian perspective. That is, instead of Gibbs sampling, the method of maximum simulated likelihood provides estimates of both the aggregate and the individual parameters. This paper explores the similarities and differences between classical and Bayesian methods and shows that they result in virtually equivalent conditional estimates of partworths for customers. Thus, the choice between Bayesian and classical estimation becomes one of implementation convenience and philosophical orientation, rather than pragmatic usefulness.
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.:
- 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.
- Peter J. Lenk & Wayne S. DeSarbo & Paul E. Green & Martin R. Young, 1996. "Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 173-191.
- Allenby, Greg M. & Rossi, Peter E., 1998. "Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 57-78, November.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpem:0012003. 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: (EconWPA)
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.