PL EN


Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2023 | nr 18 | 5--22
Tytuł artykułu

Modele wyboru konsumenta

Autorzy
Warianty tytułu
Consumer Choice Models
Języki publikacji
PL
Abstrakty
Eksperymenty i badania empiryczne w powtarzalny sposób wykazują niedostatki standardowego podejścia do modelowania wyborów konsumentów, opartego na teorii preferencji i optymalizacji międzyokresowej. W ekonometrycznych badaniach oraz alternatywnych metodach przedstawiania procesów decyzyjnych niemal zawsze zawarte jest założenie o istnieniu czynnika losowego wpływającego na ostateczny wybór. Niektóre formy takich zachowań są spójne z założeniem o optymalizacji użyteczności, ale mogą też mieć interpretację behawioralną. W tym artykule przedstawiono przegląd metod stosowanych do modelowania wyborów jednostek w celu przybliżenia tej tematyki. Ponieważ cała literatura jej dotycząca skupiała się na zastosowaniach różnych podejść do badań z użyciem danych empirycznych, stworzono ogólny szkielet modeli opartych na agentach konsumenckich podejmujących wiele decyzji. Stanowi to przyczynek do budowy wieloagentowych modeli zachowań konsumentów spójnych z praktyką badań ekonometrycznych. (abstrakt oryginalny)
EN
Experiments and empirical research consistently demonstrate the shortcomings of the standard approach to modelling consumer choices, based on the theory of preferences and intertemporal optimization. In econometric studies and alternative methods of presenting decision-making processes, there is almost always an assumption of the existence of a random factor affecting the final choice. Some forms of such behaviour are consistent with the assumption of utility maximization, but they can also have a behavioural interpretation. This article presents an overview of methods used to model individual choices in order to approximate this topic. Since the entire literature on the subject has focused on the application of various approaches to research using empirical data, a general framework of models based on consumer agents making multiple decisions has been developed. This contributes to the construction of multi-agent models of consumer behaviour consistent with the practice of econometric research. Key words: Consumer decisions; market modeling; product choice. (original abstract)
Rocznik
Numer
Strony
5--22
Opis fizyczny
Twórcy
  • Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie
Bibliografia
  • Andreoni, J., & Miller, J. (2002). Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism. Econometrica, 70(2), 737-753. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00302
  • Becker, F., Danaf, M., Song, X., Atasoy, B., & Ben-Akiva, M. (2018). Bayesian estimator for Logit Mixtures with inter- and intra-consumer heterogeneity. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 117, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2018.06.007
  • Behnood, A., Haghani, M., & Golafshani, E. M. (2022). Determinants of purchase likelihood for partially and fully automated vehicles: Insights from mixed logit model with heterogeneity in means and variances. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 159, 119-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.03.017
  • Birnbaum, M. H., & Schmidt, U. (2008). An experimental investigation of violations of transitivity in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 37(1), 77-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-008-9043-z
  • Daly, A., & Zachary, S. (1978). Improved Multiple Choice Models. In D. A. Hensher & M. Q. Dalvi (Eds.), Determinants of travel choice. Westmead: Saxon House.
  • Danaf, M., Atasoy, B., & Ben-Akiva, M. (2020). Logit mixture with inter and intra-consumer heterogeneity and flexible mixing distributions. Journal of Choice Modelling, 35, 100188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2019.100188
  • Debreu, G. (1960). Reviewed Work(s): Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis by R. Duncan Luce. American Economic Review, 50(1), 186-188
  • Diaye, M.-A., & Urdanivia, M. W. (2009). Violation of the transitivity axiom may explain why, in empirical studies, a significant number of subjects violate GARP. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(6), 586-592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2009.07.007
  • Fang, D., Nayga, R. M., Snell, H. A., West, G. H., & Bazzani, C. (2019). Evaluating USA's New Nutrition and Supplement Facts Label: Evidence from a Non-hypothetical Choice Experiment. Journal of Consumer Policy, 42(4), 545-562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-019- 09426-z
  • Fontana, M., Iori, M., & Nava, C. R. (2019). Switching behavior in the Italian electricity retail market: Logistic and mixed effect Bayesian estimations of consumer choice. Energy Policy, 129, 339-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.01.060
  • Giansoldati, M., Rotaris, L., Scorrano, M., & Danielis, R. (2020). Does electric car knowledge influence car choice? Evidence from a hybrid choice model. Research in Transportation Economics, 80, 100826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2020.100826
  • Grace, R. C. (1993). Violations of transitivity: Implications for a theory of contextual choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60(1), 185-201. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1993.60-185
  • Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2012). Paradoxes of Rational Choice Theory. In S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of Risk Theory (pp. 499-516). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_19
  • Guadalupe-Lanas, J., Cruz-Cárdenas, J., Artola-Jarrín, V., & Palacio-Fierro, A. (2020). Empirical evidence for intransitivity in consumer preferences. Heliyon, 6(3), e03459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03459
  • Gul, F., Natenzon, P., & Pesendorfer, W. (2014). Random Choice as Behavioral Optimization. Econometrica, 82(5), 1873-1912. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA10621
  • Hey, J. D., & Orme, C. (1994). Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data. Econometrica, 62(6), 1291. https://doi.org/10.2307/2951750
  • Hoffman, S. D., & Duncan, G. J. (1988). Multinomial and conditional logit discrete-choice models in demography. Demography, 25(3), 415-427. https://doi.org/10.2307/2061541
  • Krueger, R., Bierlaire, M., Daziano, R. A., Rashidi, T. H., & Bansal, P. (2021). Evaluating the predictive abilities of mixed logit models with unobserved inter- and intra-individual heterogeneity. Journal of Choice Modelling, 41, 100323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2021.100323
  • Loomes, G., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1991). Observing Violations of Transitivity by Experimental Methods. Econometrica, 59(2), 425. https://doi.org/10.2307/2938263
  • Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior. Wiley
  • Manzini, P., Mariotti, M., & Mittone, L. (2010). Choosing monetary sequences: Theory and experimental evidence. Theory and Decision, 69(3), 327-354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238- 010-9214-7
  • McFadden, D. (1978). Modeling the Choice of Residential Location. In S. K. Lundqvist, F. Snickars, & J. W. Weibull (Eds.), Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models (pp. 75-96). Amsterdam.
  • Nosrat, F., Cooper, W. L., & Wang, Z. (2021). Pricing for a product with network effects and mixed logit demand. Naval Research Logistics (NRL), 68(2), 159-182. https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.21943
  • Sarrias, M. (2020). Individual-specific posterior distributions from Mixed Logit models: Properties, limitations and diagnostic checks. Journal of Choice Modelling, 36, 100224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2020.100224
  • Sippel, R. (1997). An Experiment on the Pure Theory of Consumer's Behaviour. The Economic Journal, 107(444), 1431-1444. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.1997.tb00056.x
  • Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34(4), 273- 286. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070288
  • Train, K. (2003). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press.
  • Train, K. (2016). Mixed logit with a flexible mixing distribution. Journal of Choice Modelling, 19, 40-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2016.07.004
  • Williams, H. C. W. L. (1977). On the Formation of Travel Demand Models and Economic Evaluation Measures of User Benefit. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 9(3), 285-344. https://doi.org/10.1068/a090285
  • Zizzo, D. J., Stolarz-Fantino, S., Wen, J., & Fantino, E. (2000). A violation of the monotonicity axiom: Experimental evidence on the conjunction fallacy. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 41(3), 263-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(99)00076-1
Typ dokumentu
Bibliografia
Identyfikatory
Identyfikator YADDA
bwmeta1.element.ekon-element-000171570105

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Musisz być zalogowany aby pisać komentarze.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.