An Empirical Comparison of Logit Choice Models with Discrete versus Continuous Representations of Heterogeneity

Currently, there is an important debate about the relative merits of models with discrete and continuous representations of consumer heterogeneity. In a recent JMR study, Andrews, Ansari, and Currim (2002; hereafter AAC) compared metric conjoint analysis models with discrete and continuous representations of heterogeneity and found no differences between the two models with respect to parameter recovery and prediction of ratings for holdout profiles. Models with continuous representations of heterogeneity fit the data better than models with discrete representations of heterogeneity. The goal of the current study is to compare the relative performance of logit choice models with discrete versus continuous representations of heterogeneity in terms of the accuracy of household-level parameters, fit, and forecasting accuracy. To accomplish this goal, the authors conduct an extensive simulation experiment with logit models in a scanner data context, using an experimental design based on AAC and other recent simulation studies. One of the main findings is that models with continuous and discrete representations of heterogeneity recover household-level parameter estimates and predict holdout choices about equally well except when the number of purchases per household is small, in which case the models with continuous representations perform very poorly. As in the AAC study, models with continuous representations of heterogeneity fit the data better.

[1]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[2]  G. Schwarz Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

[3]  J. Heckman,et al.  A Method for Minimizing the Impact of Distributional Assumptions in Econometric Models for Duration Data , 1984 .

[4]  Terry Elrod,et al.  Choice Map: Inferring a Product-Market Map from Panel Data , 1988 .

[5]  Gary J. Russell,et al.  A Probabilistic Choice Model for Market Segmentation and Elasticity Structure , 1989 .

[6]  Pradeep K. Chintagunta,et al.  Investigating Heterogeneity in Brand Preferences in Logit Models for Panel Data , 1991 .

[7]  Füsun F. Gönül,et al.  Modeling Multiple Sources of Heterogeneity in Multinomial Logit Models: Methodological and Managerial Issues , 1993 .

[8]  M. Newton Approximate Bayesian-inference With the Weighted Likelihood Bootstrap , 1994 .

[9]  Peter E. Rossi,et al.  An exact likelihood analysis of the multinomial probit model , 1994 .

[10]  M. P. Windham,et al.  Information-Based Validity Functionals for Mixture Analysis , 1994 .

[11]  Walter R. Gilks,et al.  Hypothesis testing and model selection , 1995 .

[12]  Adrian E. Raftery,et al.  Hypothesis Testing and Model Selection Via Posterior Simulation , 1995 .

[13]  Peter E. Rossi,et al.  The Value of Purchase History Data in Target Marketing , 1996 .

[14]  Tülin Erdem A Dynamic Analysis of Market Structure Based on Panel Data , 1996 .

[15]  P. Lenk,et al.  Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs , 1996 .

[16]  M. Wedel,et al.  Metric Conjoint Segmentation Methods: A Monte Carlo Comparison , 1996 .

[17]  Sylvia Richardson,et al.  Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice , 1997 .

[18]  K. Train,et al.  Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns , 1998 .

[19]  Peter E. Rossi,et al.  Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity , 1998 .

[20]  K. Train,et al.  Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households' Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level , 1998, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[21]  Michel Wedel,et al.  Discrete and Continuous Representations of Unobserved Heterogeneity in Choice Modeling , 1999 .

[22]  K. Train,et al.  On the Similarity of Classical and Bayesian Estimates of Individual Mean Partworths , 2000 .

[23]  Rick L. Andrews,et al.  Parameter Bias from Unobserved Effects in the Multinomial Logit Model of Consumer Choice , 2000 .

[24]  D. McFadden,et al.  MIXED MNL MODELS FOR DISCRETE RESPONSE , 2000 .

[25]  Rick L. Andrews,et al.  Hierarchical Bayes versus Finite Mixture Conjoint Analysis Models: A Comparison of Fit, Prediction, and Partworth Recovery , 2002 .

[26]  John R. Hauser,et al.  Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis , 2004 .

[27]  Rick L. Andrews,et al.  A Comparison of Segment Retention Criteria for Finite Mixture Logit Models , 2003 .