What If Consumer Experiments Impact Variances as Well as Means? Response Variability as a Behavioral Phenomenon

145 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Small-sample properties of tests for heteroscedasticity in the conditional logit model (2006, background): “This assumption has been called into question in several recent papers (Hensher et al. 1999; Louviere, 2001; DeShazo and Fermo, 2002; Louviere et al., 2002).”
Segmenting consumers’ reasons for and against ethical consumption (2014, background): “Empirically, however, there is a strong correlation between what respondents’ state as important in choice experiments and models based on real market settings with many differences often attributable to variability in the measures (see, Louviere, 2001).”
What You Don’t Know Might Hurt You: Some Unresolved Issues in the Design and Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments (2006, background): “They also should acknowledge that error variances systematically vary with several factors (see, e.g., Louviere 2001a, b, 2004a, b), which also implies that there should be large differences between models estimated in utility space and willingnessto-pay (WTP) space (Train and Weeks 2005, forthcom”
Modeling the choices of individual decision-makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information (2008, background): “Louviere et al. (2000), Louviere (2001, 2004a,b) and Louviere and Eagle (2006) discuss these types of effects with respect to types of variance components one should expect to find in DCEs.”