In this year's Choice Academy, instructors discussed that when price is distributed negative lognormal we may not expect the price coefficient to be negative in our mixed logit models (rather the sign and size are related to the level of price sensitivity). For example, when I run my mixed logit model price is estimated to be positive (mean=0.49; sd=1.39). When I estimate the unconditional for price (following it's distributional assumptions) it is negative (−4.30). However, it seems uncommon in DCE papers to have a positive price coefficient reported. Following this, I have two questions about how to handle when an estimated price coefficient in a mixed logit model.
First: When reporting results from the estimation, should I report the price coefficient with standard error in the main table and the unconditional below? Or should I be reporting the unconditional?
Second: If we also run the same model in WTP space (e.g., b_price(a1*attribute1 + a2*attribute2 + ... )) , the positive coefficient outside of the paratheses seems to flip the expected signs of all attributes (distributed normal) inside the parentheses. Again here, is there a best practice for how to proceed with a positive price coefficient?
Thanks for all you do!
Important: Read this before posting to this forum
- This forum is for questions related to the use of Apollo. We will answer some general choice modelling questions too, where appropriate, and time permitting. We cannot answer questions about how to estimate choice models with other software packages.
- There is a very detailed manual for Apollo available at http://www.ApolloChoiceModelling.com/manual.html. This contains detailed descriptions of the various Apollo functions, and numerous examples are available at http://www.ApolloChoiceModelling.com/examples.html. In addition, help files are available for all functions, using e.g. ?apollo_mnl
- Before asking a question on the forum, users are kindly requested to follow these steps:
- Check that the same issue has not already been addressed in the forum - there is a search tool.
- Ensure that the correct syntax has been used. For any function, detailed instructions are available directly in Apollo, e.g. by using ?apollo_mnl for apollo_mnl
- Check the frequently asked questions section on the Apollo website, which discusses some common issues/failures. Please see http://www.apollochoicemodelling.com/faq.html
- Make sure that R is using the latest official release of Apollo.
- Users can check which version they are running by entering packageVersion("apollo").
- Then check what is the latest full release (not development version) at http://www.ApolloChoiceModelling.com/code.html.
- To update to the latest official version, just enter install.packages("apollo"). To update to a development version, download the appropriate binary file from http://www.ApolloChoiceModelling.com/code.html, and install the package from file
- If the above steps do not resolve the issue, then users should follow these steps when posting a question:
- provide full details on the issue, including the entire code and output, including any error messages
- posts will not immediately appear on the forum, but will be checked by a moderator first. We check the forum at least twice a week. It may thus take a couple of days for your post to appear and before we reply. There is no need to submit the post multiple times.
Positive Price Coefficient
-
stephanehess
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 24 Apr 2020, 16:29
Re: Positive Price Coefficient
Hi
your price coefficient is not positive. The parameters mu and sigma are for the mean and sd of the logarithm of the beta, i.e. the normal that’s inside the negative exponential
See e.g. https://people.math.ethz.ch/~stahel/log ... basics.htm
Stephane
your price coefficient is not positive. The parameters mu and sigma are for the mean and sd of the logarithm of the beta, i.e. the normal that’s inside the negative exponential
See e.g. https://people.math.ethz.ch/~stahel/log ... basics.htm
Stephane
Re: Positive Price Coefficient
Thanks for your response! Hoping you can clarify one point for me.
In my notes, I have written that when discussing the uncorrelated MMNL model in Apollo instructors said that "we don't necessarily expect the mean parameters to be negative because we are going to use a negative exponential around them. So a smaller - or negative - mean for the logarithm of the coefficient will simply mean that the actual coefficient will be smaller in absolute value."
Is it inappropriate to have a positive mu parameter for price?
In my notes, I have written that when discussing the uncorrelated MMNL model in Apollo instructors said that "we don't necessarily expect the mean parameters to be negative because we are going to use a negative exponential around them. So a smaller - or negative - mean for the logarithm of the coefficient will simply mean that the actual coefficient will be smaller in absolute value."
Is it inappropriate to have a positive mu parameter for price?
Last edited by MARIA on 04 Dec 2024, 15:39, edited 1 time in total.
-
stephanehess
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 24 Apr 2020, 16:29
Re: Positive Price Coefficient
Hi
the mean for the coefficient is negative as we have discussed. The fact that the mu inside your negative exponential is positive simply means that your coefficient has a median that is more negative than -1
Stephane
the mean for the coefficient is negative as we have discussed. The fact that the mu inside your negative exponential is positive simply means that your coefficient has a median that is more negative than -1
Stephane
Re: Positive Price Coefficient
Perfect. Thanks for the clarification.