Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Recent Progress on Endogeneity in Choice Modeling

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We describe recent progress in several areas related to endogeneity, including: choice set formation and attention to attributes; interactions among decision-makers; respondents' strategic behavior in answering stated preference choices; models of multiple discrete/continuous choice; distributions of willingness-to-pay; and methods for handling traditionally endogenous explanatory variables.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bartels, R., D. Fiebig, and A. van Soest. (2004). “Consumers and Experts: An Econometric Analysis of the Demand for Water Heaters,” Empirical Economics (forthcoming).

  • Basar, G. and C. Bhat. (2004). “A Parameterized Consideration Set Model for Airport Choice,” Transportation Research 38B, 889–904.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M. and B. Boccara. (1995). “Discrete Choice Models with Latent Choice Sets,” International Journal of Research in Marketing 12, 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, S. (1994). “Estimating Discrete Choice Models with Product Differentiation,” RAND Journal of Economics 25, 242–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, S., J. Levinsohn, and A. Pakes. (1995). “Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium,” Econometrica 63, 841–889.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhat, C. (2003). “Simulation Estimation of Mixed Discrete Choice Models using Randomized and Scrambled Halton Sequences,” Transportation Research 37B, 837–855.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhat, C. (2005). “A Multiple Discrete-Continuous Extreme Value Model: Formulation and Application to Discretionary Time-Use Decisions,” Transportation Research 39B, 679–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blundell, R. and J. Powell. (2001). “Endogeneity in Semiparametric Binary Response Models,” Working Paper, Economics, University College London.

  • Brownstone, D., T. Golob, and C. Kazimi. (2001). “Modeling Non-Ignorable Attrition and Measurement Error in Panel Surveys.” R.Groves, D. Dillman, J. Eltinge, and R. Little, (eds.), Ch. 25 in Survey Nonresponse New York: Wiley, pp. 373–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T. (1988). “A New Paradigm for Valuing Mon-Market Goods using Referendum Data,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15, 355–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T. and J. DeShazo. (2004). “Cognitive Resource Constraints, Task Complexity and Attention to Choice-Set Attributes and Alternatives in a Utility-Theoretic Discrete Choice Model,” presented at this symposium.

  • Cameron, T. and M. James. (1987). “Efficient Estimation Methods for Closed-Form Contingent Valuation Survey Data,” Review of Economics and Statistics 69, 269–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T., G. Poe, R. Either and W. Schulze. (2002). “Alternative Non-Market Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44(3), 391–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R., N. Flores, K. Martin, and J. Wright. (1996). “Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies,” Land Economics 72(1), 80–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R., T. Groves, J. List, and M. Machina. (2004). “Probabilistic Influence and Supplemental Benefits: A Field Test of the Two Key Assumptions Underlying Stated Preferences,” paper presented at NBER Public Economics Workshop, Palo Alto.

  • Carson, R., T. Groves, and M. Machina. (1999). “Incentive and Informational Properties of Preferences Questions,” Plenary Address, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Oslo Norway.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dai, J. (1998). “Calibration and Test of a Discrete Choice Model with Endogenous Choice Sets,” Geographical Analysis 30, 95–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dellaert, B., J. Brazell, and J. Louviere. (1999). “The Effect of Attribute Variation on Consumer Choice Consistency,” Marketing Letters 10, 139–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePalma, A., G. M. Myers, and Y. Y. Papageorgiou. (1994). “Rational Choice under an Imperfect Ability to Choose,” American Economic Review 84, 419–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeShazo, J. R. and G. Fermo. (2004). “Implications of Rationally-Adaptive Pre-choice Behavior for the Design and Estimation of Choice Models.” Working paper, UCLA.

  • DeShazo, J. R. and G. Fermo. (2002). “Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43(3), 360–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dube, J. P. (2004). “Multiple Discreteness and Product Differentiation: Demand for Carbonated Soft Drinks,” Marketing Science 23(1), 66–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabaix, X., D. Laibson, G. Moloche, and S. Weinberg. (2003). “The Allocation of Attention: Theory andEvidence,” discussion paper, MIT.

  • Gilboa, I., D. Schmeidler, and P. Wakker. (2002). “Utility in Case-Based Decision Theory,” Journal of Economic Theory 105, 483–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goett, A., K. Hudson and K. Train. (2000). “Consumers' Choice among Retail Energy Suppliers: The Willingness-to-Pay for Service Attributes,” The Energy Journal 21, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haab, T. and R. Hicks. (1997). “Accounting for Choice Set Endogeneity in Random Utility Models of Recreation Demand,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34, 127–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendel, I. (1999). “Estimating Multiple-Discrete Choice Models: An Application to Computerization Returns,” Review of Economic Studies 66, 423–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher, D. and S. Puckett. (2004). “Agent Interaction and Choice Revelation in the Establishment of Freight Distribution Contracts in Supply Chains,” presented at this symposium.

  • Hensher, D., N. Shore, and K. Train. (2004). “Households' Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes,” Environmental and Resource Economics (forthcoming).

  • Hicks, R. and I. Strand. (2000). “The Extent of Information: Its Relevance for Random Utility Models,” Land Economics 76, 374–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, J. (1991). “Modeling the Choice of Choice Set in Discrete-Choice Random-Utility Models,” Environment and Planning A 23, 1237–1246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, J. and J. Louviere. (1995). “What is the Role of Consideration Sets in Choice Modeling?” International Journal of Research in Marketing 12, 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iglesias-Parro, S., E. De La Fuente, and A. Ortega. (2002). “The Effect of Context Variables on Cognitive Effort in Multiattribute Binary Choice,” Theory and Decision 52, 101–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions under Risk,” Econometrica 47(2), 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., G. Allenby, and P. Rossi. (2002). “Modeling Consumer Demand for Variety,” Marketing Science 21, 229–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewbel, A. (2004). “Simple Estimators for Hard Problems: Endogeneity and Dependence in Binary Choice Related Models,” presented at this symposium.

  • Louviere, J. (2003), “Random Utility Theory-Based Stated Preference Elicitation Methods,” Working paper, Faculty of Business, University of Technology, Sydney.

  • Lupia, A. and M. McCubbins. (1998). The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manski, C. (2000), “Economic Analysis of Social Interactions,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 14(3), 115–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manski, C. (2004) “Measuring Expectations,” Econometrica 72(5), 1329–1376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matzkin, R. (2004). “Unobservable Instruments,”working paper, Economics, Northwestern University.

  • Peters, T., W. Adamowicz, and P. Boxall. (1995). “The Influence of Choice Set Considerations in Modelling the Benefits of Improved Water Quality,” Water Resources Research 613, 1781–1787.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnier, G. A. Ainslee, and T. Otter. (2003). “The Influence of Brand Image and Product Style on Consumer Brand Valuations,” working paper, UCLA.

  • Swait, J. (2001). “Choice Set Generation Within the Generalized Extreme Value Family of Discrete Choice Models,” Transportation Research Part B 35, 643–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swait, J. and M. Ben-Akiva. (1987). “Incorporating Random Constraints in Discrete Models of Choice Set Generation,” Transportation Research Part B 21, 91–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swait, J. and J. Louviere. (1993). “The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Use of Multinomial Logit Models,” Journal of Marketing Research 30(3), 305–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Train, K. (2003). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press.

  • Train, K. and M. Weeks. (2004). “Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to-Pay Space,” working paper, Economics, University of Cambridge.

  • Train, K. and C. Winston. (2004). “Vehicle Choice Behavior and the Declining Market Share of U.S. Automakers,” working paper, Economics, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Villas-Boas, J. and R. Winer. (1999). “Endogeneity in Brand Choice Models,” Management Science 45, 1324–1338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. (1995). “Flexibility in Consumer Purchasing for Uncertain Future Tastes,” Marketing Science 14, 148–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, H. and J. Ortuzar. (1982). “Behavioral Theories of Dispersion and the Mis-specification of Travel Demand Models,” Transportation Research Part B 16, 167–219.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Marketing and Centre for the Study of Choice, Faculty of Business, University of Technology, Sydney

    Jordan Louviere

  2. Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley

    Kenneth Train

  3. Department of Civil Engineering, MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts

    Moshe Ben-Akiva

  4. Department of Civil, Architectural & Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas

    Chandra Bhat

  5. Department of Economics, University of California, Irvine

    David Brownstone

  6. Department of Economics, University of Oregon, Oregon

    Trudy Ann Cameron

  7. Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego

    Richard T. Carson

  8. Department of Public Policy, School of Public Affairs, University of California, Los Angeles

    J. R. Deshazo

  9. School of Economics, Faculty of Commerce and Economics, University of New South Wales, New South Wales

    Denzil Fiebig

  10. Department of Economics, Stern School of Business, New York University, New York

    William Greene

  11. Director, Institute of Transport Studies, School of Business, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Sydney, Sydney

    David Hensher

  12. Department of Economics, University of Colorado, Colorado

    Donald Waldman

Authors
  1. Jordan Louviere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kenneth Train
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Moshe Ben-Akiva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chandra Bhat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David Brownstone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Trudy Ann Cameron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Richard T. Carson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. J. R. Deshazo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Denzil Fiebig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. William Greene
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. David Hensher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Donald Waldman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jordan Louviere.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Louviere, J., Train, K., Ben-Akiva, M. et al. Recent Progress on Endogeneity in Choice Modeling. Market Lett 16, 255–265 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-005-5890-4

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-005-5890-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation