Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T17:58:27.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating Flexible Distributions of Ideal-Points with External Analysis of Preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Wagner A. Kamakura
Wagner A. Kamakura*
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University
*
Request for reprints should be sent to Wagner A. Kamakura, Vanderbilt University, 401 21st Avenue South, Nashville, Tennessee 37203.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ideal-points are widely used to model choices when preferences are single-peaked. Ideal-point choice models have been typically estimated at the individual-level, or have been based on the assumption that ideal-points are normally distributed over the population of choice makers. We propose two probabilistic ideal-point choice models for the external analysis of preferences that allow for more flexible multimodal distributions of ideal-points, thus acknowledging the existence of subpopulations with distinct preferences. The first model extends the ideal-point probit model for heterogeneous preferences to accommodate a mixture of multivariate normal distributions of ideal-points. The second model assumes that ideal-points are uniformly distributed within finite ranges of the attribute space, leading to a more simplistic formulation and a more flexible distribution. The two models are applied to simulated and actual choice data, and compared to the ideal-point probit model.

Keywords

choice modelsmultinomial probit
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , September 1991 , pp. 419 - 431
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This research was funded by the Dean's Fund for Faculty Research of the Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University.

References

Batsell, R. R. (1980). On the use of hidden surface routines in the analysis of marketing data. Journal of Marketing, 44, 102–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennet, R. S., Hays, W. L. (1960). Multidimensional unfolding: Determining the dimensionality of ranked preference data. Psychometrika, 25, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. D. (1972). Individual differences and multidimensional scaling. In Shepard, R. N., Romney, A. K., Nerlove, S. (Eds.), Multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications in social science. Volume I (pp. 105–155). New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D. (1980). Models and methods for multidimensional analysis of preferential choice (or other dominance) data. In Lantermann, E. D., Feger, H. (Eds.), Similarity and choice: Papers in honor of Clyde Coombs (pp. 234–289). Bern: Hans Huber.Google Scholar
Chapman, R. G., Staelin, R. (1982). Exploiting rank order choice sets data within the stochastic utility model. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 288–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, C. H. (1964). A theory of data, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Coombs, C. H., Avrunim, G. C. (1977). Single-Peaked preference functions and the theory of preference. Psychological Review, 84, 216–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, L. G., Nakanishi, M. (1983). Two logit models for external analysis of preferences. Psychometrika, 48, 607–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donthu, N. (1986). Flexible ideal point mapping and product positioning. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
De Soete, G. J., Carroll, J. D., DeSarbo, W. S. (1986). The wandering ideal-point model: A probabilistic multidimensional unfolding model for paired comparisons data. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 30, 28–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fornell, C., Rust, R. T. (1989). Incorporating prior theory in covariance structure analysis: A Bayesian approach. Psychometrika, 54, 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halff, H. M. (1976). Choice theories for differentially comparable alternatives. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 14, 244–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, W. L., Bennet, J. F. (1961). Multidimensional unfolding: Determining configuration for complete rank order preference data. Psychometrika, 26, 221–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, G. G., Griffiths, W. E., Hill, R. C., Lee, T. (1980). The theory and practice of econometrics, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kamakura, W. A., Srivastava, R. K. (1986). An ideal-point probabilistic choice model for heterogeneous preferences. Marketing Science, 5, 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLachlan, G. J., Basford, K. E. (1988). Mixture models: Inference and applications to clustering, New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Shocker, A. D., Srinivasan, V. (1974). A consumer based methodology for the identification of new product ideas. Management Science, 20, 921–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srinivasan, V., Shocker, A. D. (1973). Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences. Psychometrika, 38, 337–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., Russo, J. E. (1969). Substitutability and similarity in binary choices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 6, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar