# The Joint identification of utility and discount functions from stated choice data: An application to durable goods adoption

- 814 Downloads
- 11 Citations

## Abstract

We present a survey design that generalizes static conjoint experiments to elicit inter-temporal adoption decisions for durable goods. We show that consumers’ utility and discount functions in a dynamic discrete choice model are jointly identified using data generated by this specific design. In contrast, based on revealed preference data, the utility and discount functions are generally not jointly identified even if consumers’ expectations are known. The separation of current-period preferences from discounting is necessary to forecast the diffusion of a durable good under alternative marketing strategies. We illustrate the approach using two surveys eliciting Blu-ray player adoption decisions. Both model-free evidence and the estimates based on a dynamic discrete choice model indicate that consumers make forward-looking adoption decisions. In both surveys the average discount rate is 43 percent, corresponding to a substantially higher degree of impatience than the rate implied by aggregate asset returns. The estimates also reveal a large degree of heterogeneity in the discount rates across consumers, but only little evidence for hyperbolic discounting.

## Keywords

Conjoint analysis Diffusion models Durable goods adoption Dynamic discrete choice models Identification of discount factors## JEL Classifications

C14 D9 D12 M31## References

- Abbring, J.H. (2010). Identification of dynamic discrete choice models.
*Annual Review of Economics*,*2*, 367–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Aguirregabiria, V., & Suzuki, J. (2012). Identification and Counterfactuals in Dynamic Models of Market Entry and Exit. manuscript.Google Scholar
- Arcidiacono, P., & Ellickson, P.B. (2011). Practical methods for estimation of dynamic discrete choice models.
*Annual Review of Economics*,*3*, 363–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bajari, P., Chernozhukov, V., Hong, H., Nekipelov, D. (2009). Nonparametric and Semiparametric Analysis of a Dynamic Discrete Game. manuscript.Google Scholar
- Bass, F.M. (1969). A new product growth model for consumer durables.
*Management Science*,*15*(5), 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bass, F.M., Gordon, K. , Ferguson, T.L., Githens, M.L. (2001). DIRECTV: forecasting diffusion of a new technology prior to product launch.
*Interfaces*,*31*(3 Part 2 of 2), S82–S93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Briesch, R.A., Chintagunta, P.K., Matzkin, R.L. (2010). Nonparametric discrete choice models with unobserved heterogeneity.
*Journal of Business & Economic Statistics*,*28*(2), 291–307.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bronnenberg, B.J., Dubé, J.-P., Mela, C.F., Albuquerque, P., Erdem, T., Gordon, B., Hanssens, D., Hitsch, G., Hong, H., Sun, B. (2008). Measuring long-run marketing effects and their implications for long-run marketing decisions.
*Marketing Letters*,*19*, 367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Chevalier, J., & Goolsbee, A. (2005). Are durable goods consumers forward looking? Evidence from college textbooks. NBER Working Paper 11421.Google Scholar
- Chung, D., Steenburgh, T., Sudhir, K. (2014). Do bonuses enhance sales productivity? A dynamic structural analysis of bonus-based compensation plans. Marketing Science (forthcoming).Google Scholar
- Cochrane, J.H. (2001). In
*Asset Pricing*. Princeton: NJ.Google Scholar - Dubé, J.-P., Hitsch, G.J., Rossi, P.E. (2009). Do switching costs make markets less competitive?.
*Journal of Marketing Research*,*46*, 435–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Fang, H., & Wang, Y. (2013). Estimating Dynamic Discrete Choice Models with Hyperbolic Discounting, with an Application to Mammography Decisions . manuscript.Google Scholar
- Fox, J.T., Kim, K.I., Ryan, S.P., Bajari, P. (2012). The random coefficients logit model is identified.
*Journal of Econometrics*,*166*, 204–212.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: a critical review.
*Journal of Economic Literature*,*40*(2), 351–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gowrisankaran, G., & Rysman, M. (2012). Dynamics of consumer demand for new durable goods.
*Journal of Political Economy*,*120*(6), 1173–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Green, P.E., Krieger, A.M., Wind, Y. (2001). Thirty years of conjoint analysis: reflections and prospects.
*Interfaces*,*31*(3), S56—S73.Google Scholar - Green, P.E., & Rao, V.R. (1971). Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data.
*Journal of Marketing Research*,*8*(3), 355–363.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - Green, P.E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice.
*Journal of Marketing*,*54*(4), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Horsky, D. (1990). A diffusion model incorporating product benefits, price, income and information.
*Marketing Science*,*9*(4), 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hotz, V.J., & Miller, R.A. (1993). Conditional choice probabilities and the estimation of dynamic models.
*Review of Economic Studies*,*60*(3), 497–529.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Huber, J. (1997). What We Have Learned from 20 Years of Conjoint Research: When to Use Self-Explicated, Graded Pairs, Full Profiles or Choice Experiments. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series.Google Scholar
- Magnac, T., & Thesmar, D. (2002). Identifying dynamic discrete decision processes.
*Econometrica*,*70*(2), 801–816.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Matzkin, R.L. (2007). Nonparametric Identification. In J. J. Heckman & E. E. Leamer (Eds.),
*Handbook of Econometrics*(Vol. 6B, chap. 73, pp. 5307–5368). Elsevier B.V.Google Scholar - Melnikov, O. (2013). Demand for differentiated durable products: the case of the U.S. computer printer market.
*Economic Inquiry*,*51*(2), 1277–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Miller, R.A. (1984). Job matching and occupational choice.
*Journal of Political Economy*,*92*(6), 1086–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Nair, H.S. (2007). Intertemporal price discrimination with forward-looking consumers: application to the US market for console video-games.
*Quantitative Marketing and Economics*,*5*, 239–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Newton, M.A., & Raftery, A.E. (1994). Approximate bayesian inference with the weighted likelihood bootstrap.
*Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B*,*56*(1), 3–48.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Norets, A., & Takahashi, S. (2013). On the surjectivity of the mapping between utilities and choice probabilities.
*Quantitative Economics*,*4*(1), 149–155.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Pakes, A. (1986). Patents as options: some estimates of the value of holding european patent stocks.
*Econometrica*,*54*(4), 755–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Pesendorfer, M., & Schmidt-Dengler, P. (2008). Asymptotic least squares estimators for dynamic games.
*Review of Economic Studies*,*75*, 901–928.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Phelps, E.S., & Pollak, R.A. (1968). On second-best national saving and game-equilibrium growth.
*Review of Economic Studies*,*35*(2), 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Rossi, P., Allenby, G., McCulloch, R. (2005). Bayesian statistics and marketing, Wiley.Google Scholar
- Rust, J. (1987). Optimal replacement of GMC bus engines: an empirical model of Harold Zurcher.
*Econometrica*,*55*(5), 999–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Rust, J. (1994). Structural estimation of Markov decision processes. In R. F. Engle & D. L. McFadden (Eds.),
*Handbook of Econometrics*(Vol. IV, pp. 3081–3143). North-Holland: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Song, I., & Chintagunta, P.K. (2003). A micromodel of new product adoption with heterogeneous and forward-looking consumers: application to the digital camera category.
*Quantitative Marketing and Economics*,*1*, 371–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Viscusi, W.K., Huber, J., Bell, J. (2008). Estimating discount rates for environmental quality from utility-based choice experiments.
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*,*37*, 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Yao, S., Mela, C.F., Chiang, J., Chen, Y. (2012). Determining consumers’ discount rates with field studies.
*Journal of Marketing Research*,*49*(6), 822–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar