On the interpretation of temporal inflation parameters in stochastic models of judgment and choice

Marketing Science

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 23-31

  Hutchinson, J Wesley ^a   Zauberman, Gal ^a   Meyer, Robert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Behavioral decision theory; Behavioral economics; Choice modeling; Intertemporal choice; Measurement and inference; Psychological process models; Random utility models

Indexed keywords

EID: 76049083263     PISSN: 07322399     EISSN: 1526548X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1090.0511     Document Type: Note

References (49)

1. Ainslie, G., N. Haslam. 1992. Hyperbolic discounting. G. Lowenstein, J. Elster, eds. Choice Over Time. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 57-92.
2. Brenner, L. A. 2000. Should observed overconfidence be dismissed 1 as a statistical artifact? Critique of Erev, Wallsten, and Budescu (1994). Psych. Rev. 107(4) 943-946.
3. Busemeyer, J. R. 1985. Decision making under uncertainty: A comparison of simple scalability, fixed-sample and sequential-sampling models. J. Experiment. Psych.: Learn., Memory, Cognition 11(3) 538-564.
4. Busemeyer, J. R., J. T. Townsend. 1993. Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitire approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psych. Rev. 100(3) 432-459.
5. Erdem, T., M. P. Keane. 1996. Decision-making under uncertainty: Capturing dynamic brand choice processes in turbulent consumer goods markets. Marketing Sci. 15(1) 1-20.
6. Erdem, T., Y. Zhao, A. Valenzuela. 2004. Performance of store brands: A cross-country analysis of consumer store-brand preferences, perceptions, and risk. J. Marketing Res. 41(1) 86-100.
7. Erev, I., T. S. Wallsten, D. V. Budescu. 1994. Simultaneous over-and underconfidence: The role of error in judgment processes. Psych. Rev. 101(3) 519-527.
8. Frederick, S., G. F. Lowenstein, T. O'Donoghue. 2002. Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. J. Econom. Literature 40(2) 351-401.
9. Green, D. M., J. A. Swets. 1966. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
10. Huang, Y., J. W. Hutchinson. 2008. Counting every thought: Implicit measures of cognitive responses to advertising. J. Consumer Res. 35(1) 98-118.
11. Hunter, J. E., F. L. Schmidt. 2004. Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
12. Hutchinson, J. W., W. A. Kamakura, J. G. Lynch, Jr. 2000. Unobserved heterogeneity as an alternative explanation for reversal effects in behavioral research. J. Consumer Res. 27(3) 324-344.
13. Liberman, N., Y. Trope. 1998. The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 75(1) 5-18.
14. Lichtenstein, S., B. Fischhoff, L. D. Phillips. 1982. Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, A. Tversky, eds. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 306-334.
15. Louviere, J. J. 2001. What if consumer choice experiments impact variances as well as means? Response variability as a behavioral phenomenon. J. Consumer Res. 28(3) 506-511.
16. Louviere, J. J., R. J. Meyer. 2007. Formal choice models of informal choices: What choice modeling research can (and can't) learn from behavioral theory. N. K. Malhotra, ed. Review of Marketing Research, Vol. 4. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, 3-32.
17. Luce, R. D. 1959. Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
18. Luce, R. D. 1977. Thorstone's discriminal processes fifty years later. Psychometrika 42(4) 461-489.
19. Lynch, J. G., G. Zauberman. 2007. Construing consumer decision making. J. Consumer Psych. 17(2) 107-112.
20. Malkoc, S., G. Zauberman, C. Ulu. 2005. Consuming now or later? The interactive effect of timing and attribute alignability. Psych. Sci. 16(5) 411-417.
21. McFadden, D. F. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. P. Zarembka, ed. Frontiers of Econometrics. Academic Press, New York, 104-142.
22. McFadden, D. F. 2001. Economic choices. Amer. Econom. Rev. 91(3) 351-378.
23. Miller, G. A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psych. Rev. 63(March) 81-97.
24. Otter, T., G. M. Allenby, T. van Zandt. 2008a. An integrated model of discrete choice and response time. J. Marketing Res. 45(5) 593-607.
25. Otter, T., J. Johnson, J. Rieskamp, G. M. Allenby, J. D. Brazell, A. Diederich, J. W. Hutchinson, S. MacEachern, S. Ruan, J. Townsend. 2008b. Sequential sampling models of choice: Some recent advances. Marketing Lett. 19(3-4) 255-267.
26. Read, D., G. Lowenstein. 1995. Diversification bias: Explaining the discrepancy in variety seeking between combined and separated choices. J. Experiment. Psych.-Appl. 1(1) 34-49.
27. Salisbury, L. C., F. M. Feinberg. 2008. Future preference uncertainty and diversification: The role of temporal stochastic inflation. J. Consumer Res. 35(2) 349-359.
28. Salisbury, L. C., F. M. Feinberg. 2010. Alleviating the constant stochastic variance assumption in decision research: Theory, measurement, and experimental test. Marketing Sci. 29(1) 1-17.
29. Samuelson, P. A. 1937. A note on measurement of utility. Rev. Econom. Stud. 4(2) 155-161.
30. Seetharaman, P. B. 2004. Modeling multiple sources of state dependence in random utility models: A distributed lag approach. Marketing Sci. 23(2) 263-271.
31. Slovic, P., S. Lichtenstein. 1983. Preference reversals: A broader perspective. Amer. Econom. Rev. 73(4) 596-605.
32. Soman, D. 1998. The illusion of delayed incentives: Evaluating future effort-money transactions. J. Marketing Res. 35(4) 427-437.
33. Thaler, R. 1981. Some empirical evidence of dynamic inconsistency. Econom. Lett. 8(3) 201-207.
34. Thurstone, L. L. 1927a. A law of comparative judgments. Psych. Rev. 34273-286.
35. Thurstone, L. L. 1927b. Psychophysical analysis. Amer. J. Psych. 38 368-389.
36. Townsend, J. T., F. G. Ashby. 1983. The Stochastic Modeling of Elementary Psychological Processes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
37. Trope, Y., N. Liberman. 2000. Temporal construal and time- dependent changes in preference. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 79(6) 876-889.
38. Trope, Y., N. Liberman. 2003. Temporal construal. Psych. Rev. 110(3) 403-421.
39. Tversky, A. 1972a. Choice by elimination. J. Math. Psych. 9(November) 341-367.
40. Tversky, A. 1972b. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psych. Rev. 79(4) 281-299.
41. Tversky, A., S. Sattath, P. Slovic. 1988. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psych. Rev. 95(3) 371-384.
42. Wallsten, T. S., I. Erev, D. V. Budescu. 2000. The importance of theory: Response to Brenner (2000). Psych. Rev. 107(4) 947-949.
43. Wickens, T. D. 2002. Elementary Signal Detection Theory. Oxford University Press, New York.
44. Wixted, J. T. 2007. Dual-process theory and signal-detection theory of recognition memory. Psych. Rev. 114(1) 152-176.
45. Yonelinas, A. P., C. M. Parks. 2007. Receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) in recognition memory: A review. Psych. Bull. 133(5) 800-832.
46. Zauberman, G. 2003. The intertemporal dynamics of consumer lock-in. J. Consumer Res. 30(3) 405-419.
47. Zauberman, G., J. G. Lynch Jr. 2005. Resource slack and propensity to discount delayed investments of time versus money. J. Experiment. Psych.: General 134(1) 23-37.
48. Zhang, S., A. B. Markman. 2001. Processing product unique features: Alignability and involvement in preference construction. J. Consumer Psych. 11(1) 13-27.
49. Zhao, M., S. Hoeffler, G. Zauberman. 2007. Mental simulation and preference consistency over time: The role of process- versus outcome-focused thoughts. J. Marketing Res. 44(3) 379-388.