Skip to main content
Log in

Representing Heterogeneity in Consumer Response Models 1996 Choice Conference Participants

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We define sources of heterogeneity in consumer utility functions relatedto individual differences in response tendencies, drivers of utility, formof the consumer utility function, perceptions of attributes, statedependencies, and stochasticity. A variety of alternative modelingapproaches are reviewed that accommodate subsets of these various sourcesincluding clusterwise regression, latent structure models, compounddistributions, random coefficients models, etc. We conclude by defining anumber of promising research areas in this field.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allenby, G. M., and J. Ginter. (1996). On the identification of market segments, Working Paper, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G. M., and P. E. Rossi. (1996). Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity. Working Paper, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansari, A., A. Gupta, and M. Morrin. (1996). Bayesian approaches for modeling multi level data in management. Working Paper, Columbia University.

  • Bockenholt, U. (1993). A latent class regression approach for the analysis of recurrent choice data, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 46, 95–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyles, R. A. (1983). On the convergence of the E-M algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 45, 47–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chintagunta, P., D. Jain, and N. Vilcassim. (1991). Investigating heterogeneity in brand preferences in logit model for panel data, Journal of Marketing Research 28, 417–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., and D. Grisaffe. (1996). Combinatorial optimization approaches to normative market segmentation, 1996 ARTS Forum Presentation, June 1996.

  • DeSarbo, W. S., and V. Mahajan. (1984). Constrained classification: the use of a priori information in cluster analysis, Psychometrika 49, 187–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., R. Oliver, and A. Rangaswamy. (1989). A simulated annealing methodology for cluster wise linear regression, Psychometrika 54(4), 707–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., V. Ramaswamy, and S. Cohen. (1995). Marketing segmentation with choice-based conjoint analysis, Marketing Letters 6, 137–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempster, A. P., N. M. Laird, and R. B. Rubin. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM-algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 39, 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilks, W. R., S. Richardson, and D. J. Spiegelhalter. (1996). Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice. London: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonul, F., and K. Srinivasan. (1993a). Modeling multiple sources of heterogeneity in multinomial logit models: Methodological and managerial issues, Marketing Science 12, 213–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonul, F., and K. Srinivasan. (1993b). Consumer purchase behavior in a frequently bought product category: Estimation issues and managerial insights from a hazard function model with heterogeneity, Journal of the American Statistical Association 88, 1219–1227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S., and P. K. Chintagunta. (1992). On using demographic variables to determine segment membership in logit mixture models, Journal of Marketing Research 31, 128–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagerty, M. R. (1985). Improving the predictive power of conjoint analysis; the use of factor analysis and cluster analysis, Journal of Marketing Research 22, 168–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. J., and B. Singer. (1984). A method for minimizing the impact of distributional assumptions in econometric models for duration data, Econometrica 52 271–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jedidi, K., S. Jagpal, and W. S. DeSarbo. (1996). STEMM: A general finite mixture structural equation model, Journal of Classification (forthcoming).

  • Jedidi, K., H. Jagpal, and W. S. DeSarbo. (1996). Semi-Parametric Structural Equation Models for Response-Based Segmentation and Unobserved Heterogeneity, Marketing Science (forthcoming).

  • Jedidi, K., V. Ramaswamy, W. S. DeSarbo, and M. Wedel. (1996). On estimating finite mixtures of multivariate regression and simultaneous equation models, Structural Equation Modeling 3(3), 266–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, W. A. (1988). A least-squares procedure for benefit segmentation with conjoint experiments, Journal of Marketing Research 25, 157–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, W., B. D. Kim, and J. Lee. (1996). Modeling preference and structural heterogeneity in consumer choice, Marketing Science 15-2, 152–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, W. A., M. Wedel, and J. Agrawal. (1992). Concomitant variable latent class models for the external analysis of choice data, International Journal of Research in Marketing 11, 451–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krieger, A., and P. E. Green. (1996). Modifying cluster-based segments to enhance agreement with an exogenous response variable, Journal of Marketing Research 33, 351–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenk, P. J., and W. S. DeSarbo. (1996). Bayesian inference of finite mixture, random effects, generalized linear models, Working Paper, University of Michigan.

  • Lenk, P. J., W. S. DeSarbo, P. E. Green, and M. R. Young. (1996). Hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis: recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs, Marketing Science 15-2, 173–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilien, G. L., P. Kotler, and K. S. Moorthy. (1992). Marketing Models. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longford, N. T. (1993). Random Coefficient Models. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacReady, G. B., and C. M. Dayton. (1980). The nature and use of state mastery models. Applied Psychological Measurement 4, 493–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulsen, C. A. (1982). Latent Structure Analysis with Choice Modeling Applications. Aarhus: Aarhus School of Business Administration and Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramaswamy, V., E. W. Anderson, and W. S. DeSarbo. (1994). Cluster wise negative binomial regression for count data analysis. Management Science 40, 405–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramaswamy, V., R. Chatterjee, and S. Cohen. (1996). Joint segmentation on distinct interdependent bases with categorical data, Journal of Marketing Research 33, 337–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rust, R. T., D. Simester, R. J. Broadie, and V. Nilikant. (1995). Model Selection Criteria: An Investigation of Relative Accuracy, Posterior Probabilities, and Combination of Criteria, Management Science 41, 322–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Späth, H. (1979). Algorithm 39: Cluster wise linear regression. Computing 22, 367–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spath, H. (1985). Cluster Dissection and Analysis Theory, FORTRAN Programs, Examples. England: Ellis Horwood Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titterington, D. M., A. F. M. Smith, and U. E. Makov. (1985). Statistical Analysis of Finite Mixture Distributions. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vriens, M., M. Wedel, and T. Wilms. (1996). Metric conjoint segmentation methods: a Monte Carlo comparison, Journal of Marketing Research 33, 73–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M., and W. S. DeSarbo. (1994). A review of latent class regression models and their applications. In Richard P. Bagozzi (ed.), Advanced Methods for Marketing Research 353–388.

  • Wedel, M., and W. S. DeSarbo. (1995). A mixture likelihood approach for generalized linear models, Journal of Classification 12, 21–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M., and C. Kistemaker. (1989). Consumer benefit segmentation using cluster wise linear regression. International Journal of Research in Marketing 6, 45–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M., and J. E. M. Steenkamp. (1989). A fuzzy cluster wise regression approach to benefit segmentation, International Journal of Research in Marketing 6(4), 241–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M., and J. E. M. Steenkamp. (1991). A cluster wise regression method for simultaneous fuzzy market structures and benefit segmentation, Journal of Marketing Research 28, 385–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. F. J. (1983). On the convergence properties of the E-M algorithm. Annals of Statistics 11, 95–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeger, S. L., and M. R. Karim. (1991). Generalized linear models with random effect; a Gibbs sampling approach, Journal of the American Statistical Association 86(413), 79–86.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Desarbo, W., Ansari, A., Chintagunta, P. et al. Representing Heterogeneity in Consumer Response Models 1996 Choice Conference Participants. Marketing Letters 8, 335–348 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007916714911

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007916714911

Navigation