Bias and systematic change in the parameter estimates of macro-level diffusion models

被引:112
|
作者
Van den Bulte, C
Lilien, GL
机构
[1] Univ Penn, Wharton Sch, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[2] Penn State Univ, Smeal Coll Business Adm, University Pk, PA 16802 USA
关键词
diffusion; estimation and other statistical techniques; forecasting;
D O I
10.1287/mksc.16.4.338
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Studies estimating the Bass model and other macro-level diffusion models with an unknown ceiling feature three curious empirical regularities: (i) the estimated ceiling is often close to the cumulative number of adopters in the last observation period, (ii) the estimated coefficient of social contagion or imitation tends to decrease as one adds later observations to the data set, and (iii) the estimated coefficient of social contagion or imitation tends to decrease systematically as the estimated ceiling increases. We analyze these patterns in detail, focusing on the Bass model and the nonlinear Least squares (NLS) estimation method, Using both empirical and simulated diffusion data, we show that NLS estimates of the Bass model coefficients are biased and that they change systematically as one extends the number of observations used in the estimation. We also identify the lack of richness in the data compared to the complexity of the model (known as ill-conditioning) as the cause of these estimation problems. In an empirical analysis of twelve innovations, we assess how tho model parameter estimates change as one adds later observations to the data set. Our analysis shows that, on average, a 10% increase in the observed cumulative market penetration is associated with, roughly, a 5% increase in estimated market size m, a 10% decrease in the estimated coefficient of imitation q, and a 15% increase the estimated coefficient of innovation p. A simulation study shows that the NLS parameter estimates of the Bass model change systematically as one adds later observations to the data set, even in the absence of model misspecification, We find about-the same effect sizes as in the empirical analysis. The simulation also shows that the estimates are biased and that the amount of bias is a function of (i) the amount of noise in the data, (ii) the number of data points, and (iii) the difference between the cumulative penetration in the last observation period and the true penetration ceiling (i.e., the extent of right censoring). All three conditions affect the level of ill-conditioning in the estimation, which, in turn, affects bias in NLS regression. In situations consistent with marketing applications, m can be underestimated by 20%, p underestimated by the same amount, and q overestimated by 30%. The existence of a downward bias in the estimate of tn and an upward bias in the estimate of q, and the fact that these biases become smaller as the number of data points increases and the censoring decreases, can explain why systematic changes in the parameter estimates are observed in many applications. A reduced bias, though, is not the only possible explanation for the systematic change in parameter estimates observed in empirical studies, Not accounting for the growth in the population, for the effect of economic and marketing variables, or for population heterogeneity is likely to result In increasing (m) over cap and decreasing (q) over cap as well. In an analysis of six innovations, however, we find that attempts to address possible model misspecification problems by making the model more flexible and adding free parameters result in larger rather than smaller systematic changes in the estimates. The bias and systematic change problems we identify are sufficiently large to make long-term predictive, prescriptive and descriptive applications of Bass-type models problematic. Hence, our results should be of interest to diffusion researchers as well as to users of diffusion models, including market forecasters and strategic market planners.
引用
收藏
页码:338 / 353
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Bias correction for parameter estimates of spatial point process models
    Baddeley, Adrian
    Turner, Rolf
    JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL COMPUTATION AND SIMULATION, 2014, 84 (08) : 1621 - 1643
  • [22] Spatial analysis of macro-level bicycle crashes using the class of conditional autoregressive models
    Saha, Dibakar
    Alluri, Priyanka
    Gan, Albert
    Wu, Wanyang
    ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION, 2018, 118 : 166 - 177
  • [24] Analyzing Macro-Level Ecological Change and Micro-Level Farmer Behavior in Manas River Basin, China
    Liao, Na
    Gu, Xinchen
    Wang, Yuejian
    Xu, Hailiang
    Fan, Zili
    LAND, 2020, 9 (08)
  • [25] Macro-Level Research on the Effect of Firearms Prevalence on Suicide Rates: A Systematic Review and New Evidence
    Kleck, Gary
    SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, 2019, 100 (03) : 936 - 950
  • [26] Water and agricultural policies in Iranian macro-level documents from the perspective of adaptation to climate change
    Heydari, Nader
    Morid, Saeed
    IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE, 2020, 69 (05) : 1012 - 1021
  • [27] Macro-level change and micro level effects: A twenty-year perspective on changing grocery shopping behaviour in Britain
    De Kervenoael, Ronan
    Hallsworth, Alan
    Clarke, Ian
    JOURNAL OF RETAILING AND CONSUMER SERVICES, 2006, 13 (06) : 381 - 392
  • [28] How do macro-level structural determinants affect inequalities in mental health? – a systematic review of the literature
    A. McAllister
    S. Fritzell
    M. Almroth
    L. Harber-Aschan
    S. Larsson
    B. Burström
    International Journal for Equity in Health, 17
  • [29] A systematic approach to macro-level safety assessment and contributing factors analysis considering traffic crashes and violations
    Wang, Xuesong
    Zhang, Xueyu
    Pei, Yingying
    ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION, 2024, 194
  • [30] How do macro-level structural determinants affect inequalities in mental health? - a systematic review of the literature
    McAllister, A.
    Fritzell, S.
    Almroth, M.
    Harber-Aschan, L.
    Larsson, S.
    Burstrom, B.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR EQUITY IN HEALTH, 2018, 17