Formal Choice Models of Informal Choices: What Choice Modeling Research Can (and Can't) Learn from Behavioral Theory

UTSePress Research/Manakin Repository

Search UTSePress Research

Advanced Search


My Account

Show simple item record Louviere, Jordan en_US Meyer, Robert en_US
dc.contributor.editor Malhotra NK en_US 2010-05-28T09:39:23Z 2010-05-28T09:39:23Z 2008 en_US
dc.identifier 2008000295 en_US
dc.identifier.citation Louviere Jordan and Meyer Robert 2008, 'Formal Choice Models of Informal Choices: What Choice Modeling Research Can (and Can't) Learn from Behavioral Theory', M.E.Sharpe Inc, New York, USA, pp. 3-32. en_US
dc.identifier.issn 978--7656-2092-7 en_US
dc.identifier.other B1 en_US
dc.description.abstract In this paper we illustrate the benefits of forging a better alliance among behavioral, economic, and statistical approaches to modeling consumer choice behavior. We focus on the problems that arise when building descriptive models of choice in evolving markets, where consumers are likely to have poorly developed preferences and be influenced by beliefs about future market changes. We illustrate how understanding the actual process that is driving preferences can provide analysts with both better a priori insights into the model structures that are likely to provide the best descriptive account of choices in such settings, as well as how stable these structures are likely to be over time. We show, for example, that analogical reasoning heuristics?a common strategy for making decisions under preference uncertainty?can produce choice patterns that resemble the output of complex nonlinear, nonadditive, multi-attribute utility rules. Likewise, because novice consumers are likely to display strong individual differences in the variance of unobserved components of utility, methods that fail to recognize such differences will tend to overstate the actual extent of taste heterogeneity that exists in a population. We also illustrate the benefits of a reverse dialogue, examining how economic theory can lead behavioral researchers to more parsimonious explanations for apparent anomalies in choice tasks where preferences are uncertain. We show, for example, that some ad hoc models that have been used to statistically describe the compromise effect in choice can be deduced from first principles of rational risky decision making. en_US
dc.language en_US
dc.publisher M.E. Sharpe en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon en_US
dc.title Formal Choice Models of Informal Choices: What Choice Modeling Research Can (and Can't) Learn from Behavioral Theory en_US
dc.parent Review of Marketing Research vol 4 en_US
dc.journal.volume 4 en_US
dc.journal.number en_US
dc.publocation New York, USA en_US
dc.identifier.startpage 3 en_US
dc.identifier.endpage 32 en_US BUS.School of Marketing en_US
dc.conference Verified OK en_US
dc.for 140302 en_US
dc.personcode 020132 en_US
dc.personcode 0000044663 en_US
dc.percentage 50 en_US Econometric and Statistical Methods en_US
dc.classification.type FOR-08 en_US
dc.edition 1 en_US
dc.custom en_US en_US
dc.location.activity en_US
dc.description.keywords en_US
dc.staffid en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record