Email this article How perceived variety impacts on choice satisfaction: a two-step approach using the CUB class of models and best-subset variable selection
Abstract
In consumer research, marketing, public policy and other fields, individ- uals’ choice depends on the number of possible alternatives. In addition, according to the literature, the choice satisfaction is influenced not only by the number of options but also by the perceived variety. The aim of the present study is to apply a novel approach to model perceived variety, in or- der to better understand the perceptions of individuals about the variety of the possible choice options and to model the impact of perceived variety and individuals’ characteristics on the choice outcome satisfaction. We resort to the class of cub (Combination of Uniform and Binomial random variables) models for rating data that model the respondents’ decision process as a combination of two latent components, called feeling and uncertainty, that express, respectively, the level of agreement with the item being evaluated and the human indecision surrounding any discrete choice. The model ap- plied in this paper is an alternative to the most common models used in the studies of human judgments and decisions, whenever attitudes, perceptions and opinions are measured by means of questionnaires having questions with ordered response categories. The chosen approach is composed of two steps: (1) we construct measures of feeling and uncertainty of perceived variety by means of cub and (2) we investigate their impact (eventually together with personal characteristics) on choice satisfaction. The R FastCUB package is exploited to select the best set of covariates to include in the final model.
References
Agresti, A. (2013). Categorical Data Analysis. Wiley, New York, 3rd edition.
Arboretti, R. and Bordignon, P. (2016). Consumer preferences in food packaging: CUB models and conjoint analysis. British Food Journal, 118(3), 527–540.
Balirano, G. and Corduas, M. (2008). Detecting semiotically expressed humor in diasporic tv productions. Humor, 3, 227–251.
Brentari, E., Manisera, M., and Zuccolotto, P. (2018). Modelling preceived variety in a choice process with nonlinear CUB. In Capecchi, S., Di Iorio, F., and Simone, R., editors, Proceedings of the International Conference ASMOD2018, pages 69–76.
Federico II University Press. ISBN 978-88-6887-042-3.
Broniarczyk, S. M., Hoyer, W. D., and McAlister, L. (1998). Consumers’ perceptions of the assortment offered in a grocery category: The impact of item reduction. Journal of marketing research, XXXV, 166–176.
Capecchi, S. and Iannario, M. (2016). Gini heterogeneity index for detecting uncertainty in ordinal data surveys. Metron, 74, 223–232.
Capecchi, S. and Piccolo, D. (2014). Modelling the latent components of personal happiness. In Perna, C. and Sibillo, M., editors, Mathematical and Statistical Methods for Actuarial Sciences and Finance, pages 49–52. Springer.
Capecchi, S. and Piccolo, D. (2015). Dealing with heterogeneity/uncertainty in sample survey with ordinal data. In IFCS Proceedings, page 2015. University of Bologna.
Capecchi, S. and Simone, R. (2019). A proposal for a model-based composite indicator: experience on perceived discrimination in europe. Social Indicators Research, 141(1), 95–110. doi: 10.1007/S11205-018-1848-9.
Capecchi, S., Endrizzi, I., Gasperi, F., and Piccolo, D. (2016). A multi-product approach for detecting subjects and objects covariates in consumer preferences. British Food Journal, 118(3), 515–526.
Chernev, A., B¨ockenholt, U., and Goodman, J. (2015). Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 333–358.
Corduas, M., Iannario, M., and Piccolo, D. (2009). A class of statistical models for evaluating services and performances. In Monari, P., Bini, M., Piccolo, D., and Salmaso, L., editors, Statistical methods for the evaluation of educational services
and quality of products, pages 99–117. Springer.
Dara, I. and Miller, E. G. (2015). Competitive forces when choosing from assortments of varying size: How holistic thinking mitigates choice overload. In Diehl, K. and Yoon, C., editors, Advances in Consumer Research Volume 43, pages 502–503.
Association for Consumer Research.
D’Elia, A. and Piccolo, D. (2005). A mixture model for preference data analysis. Comput Stat Data An, 49, 917–934.
Di Nardo, E. and Simone, R. (2019). A model-based fuzzy analysis of questionnaire. Statistical Methods and Applications, 28(2), 187–215.
Fin, F., Iannario, M., Piccolo, D., and Simone, R. (2017). The effect of uncertainty on the assessment of individual performance: empirical evidence from professional soccer. Electronic Journal of Applied Statistical Analysis, 10(3), 677–692.
Gambacorta, R., Iannario, M., and Vallian, R. (2014). Design-based inference in a mixture model for ordinal variables for a two stage stratied design. Aust NZ J Stat, 56, 125–143.
Gottard, A., Iannario, M., and Piccolo, D. (2016). Varying uncertainty in cub models. Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, 10(2), 225–244.
Grant, A. M. and Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted u. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 61–76.
Grilli, L., Iannario, M., Piccolo, D., and Rampichini, C. (2013). Latent class CUB models. Adv Data Anal Classif, 8, 105–119.
Hafner, R. J., White, M. P., and Handley, S. J. (2018). The goldilocks placebo effect: Placebo effects are stronger when people select a treatment from an optimal number of choices. American Journal of Psychology, 131(2), 175–184.
Haynes Graeme, A. (2009). Testing the boundaries of the choice overload phenomenon: The effect of number of options and time pressure on decision difficulty and satisfaction. Psychology & Marketing, 26(3), 204–212. doi: 10.1002/mar.20269.
Iannario, M. (2009). Fitting measures for ordinal data models. Quad Stat, 11, 39–72
Iannario, M. (2010). On the identifiability of a mixture model for ordinal data. Metron, LXVIII, 87–94.
Iannario, M. (2012a). Modelling shelter choices in a class of mixture models for ordinal responses. Stat Method Appl, 20, 1–22.
Iannario, M. (2012b). Hierarchical CUB models for ordinal variables. Commun Stat-Theor M, 41, 3110–3125.
Iannario, M. (2012c). CUBE models for interpreting ordered categorical data with overdispersion. Quad Stat, 14, 137–140.
Iannario, M. (2014). Modelling uncertainty and overdispersion in ordinal data. Com- mun Stat-Theor M, 43, 771–786.
Iannario, M. (2015). Detecting latent components in ordinal data with overdispersion by means of a mixture distribution. Qual Quant, 49, 977–987.
Iannario, M. and Piccolo, D. (2010). A new statistical model for the analysis of customer satisfaction. Qual Technol Quantit Manag, 7, 149–168.
Iannario, M. and Piccolo, D. (2012). CUB models: Statistical methods and empirical evidence. In Kenett, R. S. and Salini, S., editors, Modern Analysis of Customer Surveys, pages 231–258. Wiley, New York.
Iannario, M. and Piccolo, D. (2015). A generalized framework for modelling ordinal data. Stat Method Appl, 25(4), 163 – 189.
Iannario, M. and Simone, R. (2017). Mixture models for rating data: the method of moments via Gr¨obner basis. Journal of Algebraic Statistics, 8(2), 1–28. ISSN 1309-3452. doi: 10.18409/jas.v8i2.60. URL
https://jalgstat.library.iit.edu/jalgstat/article/view/60.
Iannario, M., Manisera, M., Piccolo, D., and Zuccolotto, P. (2012). Sensory analysis in the food industry as a tool for marketing decisions. Adv Data Anal Classif, 6,
–321.
Iannario, M., Piccolo, D., and Simone, R. (2018a). Cub: A class of mixture models for ordinal data. R package version 1.1.3, available at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=CUB.
Iannario, M. and Piccolo, D. (2014). A theorem on cub models for rank data. Statistics & Probability Letters, 91, 27–31.
Iannario, M. and Piccolo, D. (2016). A comprehensive framework of regression models for ordinal data. Metron, 74(2), 233–252.
Iannario, M., Manisera, M., and Zuccolotto, P. (2017). Treatment of don’t know responses in the consumers’ perceptions about sustainability in the agri-food sector. Quality & Quantity, 51(2), 765–778.
Iannario, M., Manisera, M., Piccolo, D., and Zuccolotto, P. (2018b). Ordinal data models for no-opinion responses in attitude survey. Sociological Methods & Research, page.
Manisera, M. and Zuccolotto, P. (2013). Nonlinear CUB models: some stylized facts. QdS - J Methodol Appl Statist, 1–2.
Manisera, M. and Zuccolotto, P. (2014a). Modeling rating data with Nonlinear CUB models. Comput Stat Data An, 78, 100–118.
Manisera, M. and Zuccolotto, P. (2014b). Modeling “don’t know” responses in rating scales. Pattern Recogn Lett, 45, 226–234.
Manisera, M. and Zuccolotto, P. (2015a). On the identifiability of Nonlinear CUB models. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 140, 302–316.
Manisera, M. and Zuccolotto, P. (2015b). Visualizing multiple results from nonlinear CUB models with R grid viewports. Electronic Journal of Applied Statistical Analysis, 8(3), 360–373.
Manisera, M. and Zuccolotto, P. (2016). Treatment of don’t know responses in a mixture model for rating data. Metron, 74(1), 99–115.
Manisera, M. and Zuccolotto, P. (2019a). A mixture model for ordinal variables measured on semantic differential scales. Submitted.
Manisera, M. and Zuccolotto, P. (2019b). Discussion of ‘the class of CUB models: statistical foundations, inferential issues and empirical evidence’ by Domenico Piccolo and Rosaria Simone. Statistical Methods & Applications, pages 1–6.
Oberski, D. and Vermunt, J. (2015). The relationship between CUB and loglinear models with latent variables. EJASA, 8, 374–383.
Piccolo, D. (2003). On the moments of a mixture of uniform and shifted binomial random variables. Quad Stat, 5, 85–104.
Piccolo, D. (2006). Observed information matrix for MUB models. Quad Stat, 8, 33–78.
Piccolo, D. and D’Elia, A. (2008). A new approach for modelling consumers’ preferences. Food Qual Prefer, 19, 247–259.
Piccolo, D., Simone, R., and Iannario, M. (2018). Cumulative and CUB models for rating data: a comparative analysis. International Statistical Review. doi:
1111/insr.12282. DOI: 10.1111/insr.12282.
Piccolo, D. (2015). Inferential issues on CUBE models with covariates. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 44(23), 5023–5036.
Piccolo, D. and Simone, R. (2019). The class of CUB models: statistical foundations, inferential issues and empirical evidence. Statistical Methods & Applications, pages 1–47.
Pizzi, G. and Scarpi, D. (2016). The effect of shelf layout on satisfaction and perceived assortment size: An empirical assessment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 28, 67–77.
Reutskaja, E. and Hogarth, R. M. (2009). Satisfaction in choice as a function of the number of alternatives: When “goods satiate”. Psychology & Marketing, 26(3), 197–203.
Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., and Todd, P. M. (2010). Can there ever be too many options? a meta-analytic review of choice overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 409–425.
Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. Ecco New York.
Simone, R. and Iannario, M. (2018). Analysing sport data with clusters of opposite preferences. Statistical Modelling, 18(5-6), 505–524. doi: 10.1177/1471082X18798455.
Simone, R., Cappelli, C., and Iorio, F. D. (2019a). Modelling marginal ranking distributions: the uncertainty tree. Pattern Recognition Letters. ISSN 0167-8655. doi: 10.1016/j.patrec.2019.04.026. URL
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167865519301412.
Simone, R., Tutz, G., and Iannario, M. (2019b). Subjective heterogeneity in response attitude for multivariate ordinal outcomes. Econometrics and Statistics. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecosta.2019.04.002.
Simone, R. (2018). Louis’ identity and fast EM: the case of CUB mixture models for rating data. Under review.
Szrek, H. (2017). How the number of options and perceived variety influence choice satisfaction: An experiment with prescription drug plans. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(1), 42.
Tutz, G. (2012). Regression for categorical data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tutz, G., Schneider, M., Iannario, M., and Piccolo, D. (2017). Mixture models for ordinal responses to account for uncertainty of choice. Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, 11(2), 281–305.
Full Text: pdf
