BatsellR.R., & PolkingJ.C. (1985) A new class of market share models.Marketing Science, 4, Summer, pp. 177–198.
2.
BrennerL., RottenstreichY., & SoodS. (1999) Comparison, grouping, and preference.Psychological Science, 10, May, pp. 225–229.
3.
DebreuG. (1960) A review of individual choice behavior: a theoretical analysis.American Economic Review, 50, December, pp. 186–188.
4.
DroletA. (2002) Inherent rule variability in consumer choice: changing rules for change's sake.Journal of Consumer Research, 29, December, pp. 293–305.
5.
GuadagniP., & LittleJ.D.C. (1983) A logit model of brand choice calibrated on scanner data.Marketing Science, 2, Summer, pp. 203–238.
6.
HuberJ., PayneJ.W., & PutoC. (1982) Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violation of regularity and similarity hypothesis.Journal of Consumer Research, 9, June, pp. 90–98.
7.
KahnB., MooreW.L., & GlazerR. (1987) Experiments in constrained choice.Journal of Consumer Research, 14, June, pp. 96–114.
8.
KivetzR., NetzerO., & SrinivasanV. (2004) Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect.Journal of Marketing Research, 41, August, pp. 237–257.
LuceR.D. (1959) Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
11.
McFaddenD. (1973) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior, in ZarembkaP. (ed.) Frontiers in Econometrics.New York: Academic Press, pp. 105–142.
12.
SilkA.J., & UrbanG. (1978) Pretest market evaluation of new packaged goods: a model and measurement methodology.Journal of Marketing Research, 15, May, pp. 171–191.
13.
SimonsonI. (1989) Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects.Journal of Consumer Research, 16, December, pp. 158–174.
14.
SimonsonI., & NowlisS.M. (2000) The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: unconventional choices based on reasons.Journal of Consumer Research, 27, June, pp. 49–68.
15.
TverskyA. (1972) Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice.Psychological Review, 79, 4, pp. 281–299.
