View Item 

Show simple item record

Two Stochastic Multidimensional Choice Models for Marketing Research
dc.contributor.authorCarroll, J. Douglasen_US
dc.contributor.authorSoete, Geert Deen_US
dc.contributor.authorDeSarbo, Wayne S.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T19:35:01Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T19:35:01Z
dc.date.issued1990-03en_US
dc.identifier.citationCarroll, J. Douglas; Soete, Geert; DeSarbo, Wayne S. (1990). "Two Stochastic Multidimensional Choice Models for Marketing Research." Decision Sciences 21(1): 337-356. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/72720>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0011-7315en_US
dc.identifier.issn1540-5915en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/72720
dc.description.abstractTwo recently developed probabilistic multidimensional models for analyzing pairwise choice data are introduced, discussed in terms of their differential properties, and extended in several ways. The first one, the wandering vector model, was originally suggested by Carroll [12] and extended by De Soete and Carroll [30]. The second model, called the wandering ideal point model, is a more recently proposed [32] unfolding analog of the wandering vector model. A general maximum likelihood estimation method for fitting the various models described is mentioned, as well as a statistical test for assessing the goodness of fit. Finally, an application of the models is provided concerning consumer choice for some 14 brands of over-the-counter analgesics to illustrate how such models can be gainfully utilized for marketing decision making concerning product positioning.en_US
dc.format.extent1126889 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.rights1990 by the American Institute for Decision Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.otherConsumer Behavioren_US
dc.subject.otherMarketing Researchen_US
dc.subject.otherProduct Design and Performanceen_US
dc.titleTwo Stochastic Multidimensional Choice Models for Marketing Researchen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelComputer Scienceen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMathematicsen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumMarketing and Statistics Departments, Graduate School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherRoom 2C-247, AT&T Bell Laboratories, 600 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, NJ 07974en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Psychology, University of Ghent, Henri-Dunantlaan 2, Ghent, Belgium, B-9000en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72720/1/j.1540-5915.1990.tb00318.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1540-5915.1990.tb00318.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceDecision Sciencesen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAkaike, H. On entropy maximization principle. In P. R. Krishnaiah ( Ed. ), Applications of statistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBechtel, G. G. Folded and unfolded scaling from preferential paired comparisons. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1968, 5, 333 – 357.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBechtel, G. G. Multidimensional preference scaling. The Hague: Mouton, 1976.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBechtel, G. G., Tucker, L. R., & Chang, W. A scalar product model for the multidimensional scaling of choice. Psychometrika, 1971, 36, 369 – 388.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBecker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. Probabilities of choice among very similar objects. Behavioral Science, 1963, 8, 306 – 311.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBennett, J. F., & Hays, W. L. Multidimensional unfolding: Determining the dimensionality of ranked preference data. Psychometrika, 1964, 25, 27 – 43.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBentler, P. M., & Weeks, D. G. Restricted multidimensional scaling models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1978, 17, 138 – 151.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBloxom, B. Constrained multidimensional scaling in N spaces. Psychometrika, 1978, 43, 397 – 408.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBock, R. D., & Jones, L. V. The measurement and prediction of judgment and choice. San Francisco, CA: Holden-Day, 1968.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBox, B. E. P., Hunter, W. G., & Hunter, J. S. Statistics for experiments. New York: Wiley, 1978.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBradley, R. A., & Terry, M. E. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs I. The Method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 1952, 39, 324 – 345.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarroll, J. D. Models and methods for multidimensional analysis of preferential choice (or other dominance) data. In E.D. Lantermann & H. Feger ( Eds. ), Similarity and choice. Bern, Switzerland: Huber, 1980.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarroll, J. D., & DeSarbo, W. S. Two-way spatial models for modeling individual differences in preference. In E.C. Hirschman & M.B. Holbrook ( Eds. ), Advances in consumer research ( Vol. 12 ). Prov, UT: Association for Consumer Research, Brigham Young Graduate School of Management, 1975.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarroll, J. D., Pruzansky, S., & Kruskal, J. B. CANDELINC: A general approach to multidimensional analysis of many-way arrays with linear constraints on parameters. Psychometrika, 1979, 45, 3 – 24.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarroll, J. D., & Winsberg, S. Maximum likelihood procedures for metric and quasi-nonmetric fitting of an extended INDSCAL model assuming both common and specific dimension. Paper presented at the Multidimensional Data Analysis Workshop, Cambridge, England, June 1985.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChow, G. C. A comparison of information and posterior probability criteria for model selection. Journal of Econometrics, 1981, 16, 21 – 33.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCoombs, C. H. Psychological scaling without a unit of measurement. Psychological Review, 1950, 57, 148 – 158.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCoombs, C. H. A theory of data. New York: Wiley, 1964.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCoombs, C. H., Greenberg, M., & Zinnes, J. A double law of comparative judgment for the analysis of preferential choice and similarities data. Psychometrika, 1961, 26, 165 – 171.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCooper, L. G., & Nakanishi, M. Two logit models for external analysis of preference. Psychometrika, 1983, 48, 607 – 620.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDaganzo, C. Multinomial probit. New York: Academic Press, 1980.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDavid, H. A. The method of paired comparisons. New York: Hafner, 1963.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeSarbo, W. S., & Carroll, J. D. Three-way metric unfolding via alternating weighted least squares. Psychometrika, 1985, 50, 275 – 300.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeSarbo, W. S., Carroll, J. D., Lehmann, D. R., & O'Shaughnessy, J. Three-way multivariate conjoint analysis. Marketing Science, 1982, 1, 323 – 350.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeSarbo, W. S., de Soete, G., & Eliashberg, J. A new stochastic multidimensional unfolding model for the investigation of paired comparison consumer preference/choice data. Journal of Economic Psychology, 1987, 8, 357 – 384.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeSarbo, W. S., Oliver, R. L., & de Soete, G. A probabilistic multidimensional scaling vector model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1986, 10 ( 1 ), 79 – 98.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeSarbo, W. S., & Rao, V. R. GENFOLD2: A set of models and algorithms for the GENeral unFOLDing analysis of preference/dominance data. Journal of Classification, 1984, 1, 147 – 186.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeSarbo, W. S., & Rao, V. R. A constrained unfolding model for product positioning. Marketing Science, 1986, 5, 1 – 19.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencede Soete, G. On the relation between two generalized cases of Thurstone's law of comparative judgment. MathÉmatiques et Sciences Humaines, 1983, 81, 47 – 57.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencede Soete, G., & Carroll, J. D. A maximum likelihood method for fitting the wandering vector model. Psychometrika, 1983, 48, 553 – 566.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencede Soete, G., & Carroll, J. D. Probabilistic multidimensional choice models for representing paired comparisons data. In E. Diday, Y. Escofier, L. Lebart, J. Pages, Y. Schektman, & R. Tomassone ( Eds. ) Data analysis and informatics IV. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1986.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencede Soete, G., Carroll, J. D., & DeSarbo, W. S. The wandering ideal point model: A probabilistic multidimensional unfolding model for paired comparisons data. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1986, 30, 28 – 41.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEdgell, S. E., & Geisler, W. S. A set-theoretic, random utility model of choice behavior. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1980, 21, 265 – 278.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFechner, G. T. Elemente der psychophysik. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Hartel, 1860.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHalff, H. M. Choice theories for differentially comparable alternatives. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1976, 14, 244 – 246.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHeiser, W. J., & de Leeuw, J. Multidimensional mapping of preference data. MathÉmatiques et Sciences Humaines, 1981, 73, 39 – 96.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKrantz, D. H. Rational distance function for multidimensional scaling. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1967, 4, 226 – 245.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLuce, R. D. Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York: Wiley, 1959.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMarley, A. A. Multivariate stochastic processes compatible with ‘aspect’ models of similarity and choice. Psychometrika, 1981, 46, 421 – 428.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcFadden, D. Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In C. Manski & D. McFadden ( Eds. ), Structural analysis of discrete data. Cambridge: Massachussetts Institute of Technology Press, 1981.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcFadden, D. Econometric analysis of qualitative response models. In Z. Griliches and M. Intriligator ( Eds. ), Handbook of econometrics ( Vol. 2 ). Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1984.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcFadden, D. The choice theory approach to market research. Marketing Science, 1986, 5, 275 – 297.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRestle, F. Psychology of judgment and choice: A theoretical essay. New York: Wiley, 1961.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRumelhart, D. L., & Greeno, J. G. Similarity between stimuli: An experimental test of the Luce and Restle choice models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1971, 8, 370 – 381.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchÖnemann, P. H., & Wang, M. M. An individual difference model for the multidimensional analysis of preference data. Psychometrika, 1972, 37, 275 – 305.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchwarz, G. Estimating the dimensions of a model. Annals of Statistics, 1978, 6, 461 – 464.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSixtl, F. Probabilistic unfolding. Psychometrika, 1973, 38, 235 – 248.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSjÖberg, L. Uncertainty of comparative judgment and multidimensional structure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1975, 10, 207 – 218.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSjÖberg, L. Choice frequency and similarity. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1977, 18, 103 – 115.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSjÖberg, L. Similarity and correlation. In E.D. Lantermann & H. Feger ( Eds. ), Similarity and choice. Bern, Switzerland: Huber, 1980.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSjÖberg, L., & Cappoza, D. Preference and cognitive structure of italian political parties. Italian Journal of Psychology, 1975, 2, 391 – 402.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSlater, P. The analysis of personal preferences. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 1960, 13, 119 – 135.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStrauss, D. Choice by features: An extension of Luce's choice model to account for similarities. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1981, 22, 188 – 196.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTakane, Y. Maximum likelihood estimation in the generalized case of Thurstone's model of comparative judgment. Japanese Psychological Research, 1980, 22, 188 – 196.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceThurstone, L. L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 1927, 34, 273 – 286.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTorgerson, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley, 1958.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTucker, L. R. Intra-individual and inter-individual multidimensionality. In H. Gulliksen & S. Messick ( Eds. ), Psychological scaling: Theory and applications. New York: Wiley, 1960.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTversky, A. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 1972, 79, 281 – 299.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTversky, A., & Russo, J. E. Substitutability and similarity in binary choices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1969, 6, 1 – 12.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTversky, A., & Sattath, S. Preference trees. Psychological Review, 1979, 86, 542 – 573.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWang, M. M., SchÖnemann, P. H., & Rusk, J. G. A conjugate gradient algorithm for the multidimensional analysis of preference data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1975, 10, 45 – 99.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWinsberg, S., & Carroll, J. D. A metric and quasi-nonmetric method for fitting an extended Euclidean model postulating both common and specific dimensions. Psychometrika, in press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZinnes, J. L., & Griggs, R. A. Probabilistic, multidimensional unfolding analysis. Psychometrika, 1974, 39, 327 – 350.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
j.1540-5915.1990.tb00318.x.pdf
Size:
1.074MB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.