The behavioral literature provides ample evidence that consumer preferences are partly driven by the context provided by the set of alternatives. Three important context effects are the compromise, attraction, and similarity effects. Because these context effects affect choices in a systematic and predictable way, it should be possible to incorporate them in a choice model. However, the literature does not offer such a choice model. This study fills this gap by proposing a discrete-choice model that decomposes a product's utility into a context-free partworth utility and a context-dependent component capturing all three context effects. Model estimation results on choice-based conjoint data involving digital cameras provide convincing statistical evidence for context effects. The estimated context effects are consistent with the predictions from the behavioral literature, and accounting for context effects leads to better predictions both in and out of sample. To illustrate the benefit from incorporating context effects in a choice model, the authors discuss how firms could utilize the context sensitivity of consumers to design more profitable product lines.
BettmanJames R., LuceMary Frances, and JohnW. Payne (1998), “Constructive Consumer Choice Processes,”Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (December), 187–217.
2.
ChakravartiDipankar, and JohnG. Lynch (1983), “A Framework for Exploring Context Effects on Consumer Judgment and Choice,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, RichardP. Bagozzi, and AliceM. Tybout, eds. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research,289–97.
3.
DharRavi (1997a), “Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option,”Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (September), 215–31.
4.
DharRavi (1997b), “Context and Task Effects on Choice Deferral,”Marketing Letters, 8 (1), 119–30.
5.
DharRavi, MenonAnil, and MaachBryan (2004), “Toward Extending the Compromise Effect to Complex Buying Contexts,”Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (August), 258–61.
6.
DharRavi, StephenM. Nowlis, and StevenJ. Sherman (2000), “Trying Hard or Hardly Trying: An Analysis of Context Effects in Choice,”Journal of Consumer Psychology,9 (4), 189–200.
7.
DharRavi, and SimonsonItamar (2003), “The Effect of Forced Choice on Choice,”Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (May), 146–60.
8.
GewekeJohn (1991), “Efficient Simulation from the Multivariate Normal and Student-t Distributions Subject to Linear Constraints,” in Computer Science and Statistics: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Symposium on the Interface.Alexandra, VA: American Statistical Association.
9.
GeyskensInge, GielensKatrijn, and GijsbrechtsEls (2010), “Proliferating Private Label Portfolios: How Introducing Economy and Premium Private Labels Influences Brand Choice,”Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (October), 791–807.
10.
GilbrideTimothy J., and GregM. Allenby (2004), “A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Rules,”Marketing Science, 23 (3), 391–406.
11.
GoukensCaroline, DewitteSiegfried, and WarlopLuk (2009), “Me, Myself, and My Choices: The Influence of Private Self-Awareness on Choice,”Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (October), 682–92.
12.
HaaijerRinus, KamakuraWagner, and WedelMichel (2001), “The ‘No-Choice’ Alternative to Conjoint Choice Experiments,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 43 (1), 93–106.
13.
HaaijerRinus, WedelMichel, VriensMarco, and WansbeekTom (1998), “Utility Covariances and Context Effects in Conjoint MNP Models,”Marketing Science, 17 (3), 236–52.
14.
HajivassiliouVassilis, and McFaddenDaniel (1990), “The Method of Simulated Scores for the Estimation of LDV Models with an Application to External Debt Crises,” Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper 967, Yale University.
15.
HastieReid, and RobynM. Dawes (2001), Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgment and Decision-Making.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
16.
HedgcockWilliam, and AkshayR. Rao (2009), “Trade-Off Aversion as an Explanation for the Attraction Effect: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study,”Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (February), 1–13.
17.
HuberJoel, JohnW. Payne, and PutoChristopher (1982), “Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and Similarity Hypothesis,”Journal of Consumer Research,9 (June), 90–98.
18.
HuberJoel, and PutoChristopher (1983), “Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects,”Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (June), 31–44.
19.
HuberJoel, and ZwerinaKlaus (1996), “The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs,”Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August), 307–317.
20.
HutchinsonJ. Wesley, WagnerA. Kamakura, and JohnG. LynchJr. (2000), “Unobserved Heterogeneity as an Alternative Explanation for ‘Reversal’ Effects in Behavioral Research,”Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (December), 324–44.
21.
KamakuraWagner A., and RajendraA. Srivastava (1984), “Predicting Choice Shares Under Conditions of Brand Interdependence,”Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (November), 420–34.
22.
KeaneMichael (1990), “Four Essays in Empirical Macro and Labor Economics,” doctoral dissertation, Brown University.
KivetzRan, NetzerOded, and SrinivasanV (2004a), “Alternative Models for Capturing the Compromise Effect,”Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (August), 237–57.
25.
KivetzRan, NetzerOded, and SrinivasanV (2004b), “Extending Compromise Effect Models to Complex Buying Situations and Other Context Effects,”Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (August), 262–68.
26.
KohliRajeev, and SukumarR. (1990), “Heuristics for Product-Line Design Using Conjoint-Analysis,”Management Science, 36 (12), 1464–78.
KuhfeldWarren F., RandallD. Tobias, and GarratMark (1994), “Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications,”Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (November), 545–57.
LucasRobert E. (1976), “Econometric Policy Evaluation: A Critique,”Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 1, 19–46.
31.
LuceR. Duncan (1959), Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
32.
Macromedia, Inc. (2001), Authorware 6 [Software].San Francisco, CA: Macromedia, Inc.
33.
MarschakJacob (1960), “Binary Choice Constraints on Random Utility Indicators,” in Stanford Symposium on Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, ArrowKenneth, ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,
34.
McBrideRichard D., and ZufrydenFred (1988), “An Integer Programming Approach to the Optimal Product Line Selection Problem,”Marketing Science, 7 (2), 126–40.
MoorthyK. Sridhar (1988), “Product and Price Competition in a Duopoly,”Marketing Science, 7 (2), 141–68.
37.
NewtonMichael A., and AdrianE. Raftery (1994), “Approximate Bayesian Inference with the Weighted Likelihood Bootstrap,”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B—Statistical Methodology, 56 (1), 3–48.
38.
OrhunA. Yeşim (2009), “Optimal Product Line Design When Consumers Exhibit Choice-Set Dependent Preferences,”Marketing Science, 28 (5), 868–86.
39.
PayneJohn W. (1982), “Contingent Decision Behavior,”Psychological Bulletin, 92 (2), 382–402.
40.
PayneJohn W., JamesR. Bettman, and EricJ. Johnson (1992), “Behavioral Decision Research: A Constructive Processing Perspective,”Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 87–131.
41.
PrelecDrazen, WernerfeltBirger, and ZettelmeyerFlorian (1997), “The Role of Inference in Context Effects: Inferring What You Want from What Is Available,”Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (June), 118–25.
42.
RatneshwarSrinivasa, AllanD. Shocker, and DavidW. Stewart (1987), “Toward Understanding the Attraction Effect: The Implications of Product Stimulus Meaningfulness and Familiarity,”Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (March), 520–33.
43.
SenSankar (1998), “Knowledge, Information Mode, and the Attraction Effect,”Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (March), 64–77.
44.
SharpeKathryn M., StaelinRichard, and HuberJoel (2008), “Using Extremeness Aversion to Fight Obesity: Policy Implications of Context Dependent Demand,”Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (October), 406–422.
45.
SimonsonItamar (1989), “Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects,”Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (September), 158–74.
46.
SpiegelhalterDavid J., NicolaG. Best, BradleyP. Carlin, and van der LindeAngelika (2002), “Bayesian Measures of Model Complexity and Fit (with Discussion),”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B—Statistical Methodology, 64 (4), 583–616.
47.
SwaitJoffre, AdamowiczWiktor, HanemannMichael, DiederichAdele, KrosnickJon, LaytonDavid (2002), “Context Dependence and Aggregation in Disaggregate Choice Analysis,”Marketing Letters, 13 (3), 195–205.
48.
ThurstoneLouis Leon (1927), “A Law of Comparative Judgment,”Psychological Review, 34 (4), 272–86.
49.
TverskyAmos (1972), “Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice,”Psychological Review, 79 (4), 281–99.
50.
TverskyAmos, SattahShmuel, and SlovicPaul (1988), “Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice,”Psychological Review, 95 (3), 371–84.
51.
TverskyAmos, and ShafirEldar (1992), “Choice under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision,”Psychological Science, 6 (November), 358–361.
52.
TverskyAmos, and SimonsonItamar (1993), “Context-Dependent Preferences,”Management Science, 39 (10), 1179–89.
53.
VandenboschMark B., and CharlesB. Weinberg (1995), “Product and Price Competition in a Two-Dimensional Vertical Differentiation Model,”Marketing Science, 14 (2), 224–49.
54.
WedelMichel, VriensMarco, TammoH.A. Bijmolt, KrijnenWim, and PeterS.H. Leeflang (1998), “Assessing the Effects of Abstract Attributes and Brand Familiarity in Conjoint Choice Experiments,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15 (1), 71–78.
55.
WedellDouglas H. (1991), “Distinguishing Among Models of Contextually Induced Preference Reversals,”Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17 (4), 767–78.
56.
ZeithammerRobert, and LenkPeter (2006), “Bayesian Estimation of Covariance Matrices when Dimensions Are Absent,”Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 4 (3), 241–65.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
