Modeling Heterogeneity and State Dependence in Consumer Choice Behavior

By Michael P. Keane. 1997

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Panel Data Discrete Choice Models of Consumer Demand (2013, methodology): “Starting with Keane (1997) and Allenby and Lenk (1994), a number of papers have added AR(1) errors to the random effects structure.”
Potential demand for alternative fuel vehicles (2002, background): “Random utility models for ranking The systematic development of stochastic models for ranking started with Luce (1959), Block and Marschak (1960), and Luce and Suppes (1965). Specifically, they provide a powerful theoretical rationale for the structure of stochastic models for ranking which we shall”
State Dependence and Alternative Explanations for Consumer Inertia (2010, unknown): “A model with both state dependence and autocorrelated errors is considered in Keane (1997).”
Invited Paper - Learning Models: An Assessment of Progress, Challenges, and New Developments (2011, unknown): “To be concrete, both the extent and nature of any state dependence we find in discrete choice data will depend on the assumed functional forms for state dependence and heterogeneity (see, e.g., Keane (1997)).”
The Price Consideration Model of Brand Choice (2009, unknown): “Keane (1997b) and Erdem et al. (1999) discuss the extremely severe endogeneity problem – leading to extreme upward bias in price elasticities – created by use of price net of redeemed coupons as the price variable.”
The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity (2010, methodology): “As emphasized by Keane (1997b), this error can be motivated as consumer heterogeneity in tastes for unobserved (or intangible or 7 This previous work has examined complexity as a source of scale heterogeneity, defining complexity to be the amount of information subjects must process to make choices.”
A dynamic multinomial probit model for brand choice with different long‐run and short‐run effects of marketing‐mix variables (2000, methodology): “see also Keane (1997). Note again that the common factor MNP model (10) assumes that the short-run and long-run effects are the same and is therefore not suitable for this analysis.”
Power to Choose? An Analysis of Consumer Inertia in the Residential Electricity Market (2015, unknown): “state dependence problem noted in Keane [1997] and addressed by Miravete and Palacios-Huerta [2014], the above results suggest that the problem is not going to affect our main conclusions in our particular setting.”
Performance of Store Brands: A Cross-Country Analysis of Consumer Store-Brand Preferences, Perceptions, and Risk (2004, background): “Thus, the second comparison model is the well-known heterogeneous logit specification with state dependence (for a review, see Keane 1997).”
Do Switching Costs Make Markets Less Competitive? (2009, unknown): “1.55 1.11 23.51 No purchase (% trips) 45.73 Number of households 429.00 Number of trips per household 18.25 Number of purchases per household 9.90 –15 –10 –5 0 5 10 15 beta One-component model Five-component model .20 .10 .00 One-component model Five-component model –10 –5 0 5 beta .2 .0 Figure 2”
The Long-Term Effect of Marketing Strategy on Brand Sales (2010, background): “…a negative longterm impact of price promotions on base sales (Foekens, Leeflang, and Wittink 1999; Jedidi, Mela, and Gupta 1999), while other studies suggest the opposite effect because of the positive effects of state dependence (Keane 1997) and purchase reinforcement (Ailawadi et al. 2007).”