Response latencies provide information about consumers' choice behavior in a conjoint choice experiment. The authors use filtered response latencies to scale the covariance matrix of a multinomial probit model and show that this leads to better model fit and holdout predictions, even if the response latencies in the holdout task are not used. The authors provide an empirical application along with a tentative explanation for the findings of the effect of response latencies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrewsRick L., and ManraiAjay K. (1998), “Simulation Experiments in Choice Simplification: The Effects of Task Context on Forecasting Performance,”Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (May), 198–209.
2.
BockenholtUlf, AlbertDietrich, AschenbrennerMichael, and SchmalhoferFranz (1991), “The Effects of Attractiveness, Dominance, and Attribute Differences on Information Acquisition in Multiattribute Binary Choice,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49 (2), 258–81.
3.
BusemeyerJerome R., and TownsendJames T. (1993), “Decision Field Theory: A Dynamic-Cognitive Approach to Decision Making in an Uncertain Environment,”Psychological Review, 100 (3), 432–59.
4.
De PalmaAndre, MyersG., and PapageorgiouY. (1994), “Rational Choice Under Imperfect Ability to Choose,”American Economic Review, 84 (June), 419–40.
5.
DharRavi (1997), “Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option,”Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (September), 215–31.
6.
ElrodTerry, and KeaneMichael P. (1995), “A Factor-Analytic Probit Model for Representing the Market Structures in Panel Data,”Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (1), 1–16.
7.
Espinoza-VarasBlas, and WatsonCharles S. (1994), “Effects of Decision Criterion on Response Latencies of Binary Decisions,”Perception and Psychophysics, 55 (2), 190–203.
8.
FazioRussell H. (1989) “On the Power and Functionality of Attitudes: The Role of Attitude Accessibility,” in Attitude Structure and Function, PratkanisAnthony R., BrecklerSteven J., and GreenwaldAnthony G., eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 153–79.
GewekeJohn, KeaneMichael P., and RunkleDavid (1994), “Alternative Computational Approaches to Inference in the Multinomial Probit Model,”Review of Economics and Statistics, 76 (4), 609–32.
11.
HaaijerRinus, WedelMichel, VriensMarco, and WansbeekTom (1998), “Utility Covariances and Context Effects in Conjoint MNP Models,”Marketing Science, 17 (3), 236–52.
12.
HajivassiliouVassilis A. (1993), “Simulation Estimation Methods for Limited Dependent Variable Models,” in Handbook of Statistics, Vol. 11, MaddalaG.S., RaoC.R., and VinodH.D., eds. Amsterdam: North Holland, 519–43.
13.
HausmanJerry A., and WiseDavid A. (1978), “A Conditional Probit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences,”Econometrica, 46 (2), 403–26.
14.
HavlenaWilliam J., and HolbrookMorris B. (1986), “The Varieties of Consumption Experience: Comparing Two Typologies of Emotion and Consumer Behavior,”Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (December), 394–404.
15.
HendrickClyde, MillsJudson, and KieslerCharles A. (1968), “Decision Time as a Function of the Number and Complexity of Equally Attractive Alternatives,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8 (3), 313–18.
16.
HolbrookMorris B., and HirshmanElizabeth C. (1982), “The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings and Fun,”Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 132–40.
17.
HuberJoel, and ZwerinaKlaus (1996), “The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs,”Journal of Marketing Research, 33 (3), 307–17.
18.
HutchinsonJ. Wesley, RamanKalyan, and MantralaMurali K. (1994), “Finding Choice Alternatives in Memory: Probability Models of Brand Name Recall,”Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (November), 441–61.
19.
JohnsonRichard M., and OrmeBryan K. (1996), “How Many Questions Should You Ask in Choice-Based Conjoint Studies?” technical paper, Sawtooth Software.
20.
LouviéreJordan J., and WoodworthG. (1983), “Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data,”Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (4), 350–67.
21.
PollayRichard W. (1970a), “The Structure of Executive Decisions and Decision Times,”Administrative Science Quarterly, 15 (4), 459–71.
22.
PollayRichard W. (1970b), “A Model of Decision Times in Difficult Decision Situations,”Psychological Review, 77 (4), 274–81.
23.
TakaneYoshio, and SergentJustine (1983), “Multidimensional Scaling Models for Reaction Times and Same-Different Judgments,”Psychometrika, 48 (3), 393–432.
24.
TudorR. Keith, and CarleySusan S. (1995), “Time to Choose,”Journal of Health Care Marketing, 15 (2), 48–53.
25.
TyebjeeTyzoon T. (1979), “Response Time, Conflict, and Involvement in Brand Choice,”Journal of Consumer Research, 6 (December), 295–304.
