Despite the valuable contributions, our research is limited by several aspects which open avenues for further research. We test our hypotheses in four product categories and on the basis of reported behavior. This may decrease the external validity of our results as test persons might have had difficulties putting themselves into the fictitious OOS situation.
Although this data collection method has several advantages (e.g., minimization of white noise) and has been applied by previous OOS and context studies, further research has to generalize the results by examining more categories and in a real-world shopping situation.
This could be of particular interest in online shopping environments where demand is highly fluctuating (Rayport and Jaworski 2001) and stock-outs are ineluctable. As customers face smaller switching and information costs, they can be expected to exhibit different substitution patterns than in brick-and-mortar settings (Dadzie and Winston 2007). Moreover, our study only considers short-term OOS reactions. However, the assessment of permanent OOS-induced responses seems very interesting as damages to store and brand loyalty can only be recognized in the long-run and possibly after several OOS occasions. Since promotion proves to be an important driver of OOS responses, more research should be done to further analyze its influence. Finally, by combining research on context-dependent preferences and phantom alternatives, the study offers ample opportunities to further analyze prevailing context effects in situations of reduced choice set by varying the position of the unavailable product to test the potential effects on preference formation and choice decisions. Here, another interesting
direction to pursue would be the analysis of so-called N-phantoms (Gierl and Eleftheriadou 2005), which differ from the alternatives of the core choice set on a third dimension and might provoke distinct reaction and substitution patterns. One further issue worth investigating is how different reasons for the unavailability of the promoted product influence OOS reaction and the respective substitution behavior. Here, it would be imaginable to contrast OOS responses for stock-outs resulting from high and unforeseen demand with those that are the consequence of intended bait-and-switch techniques. Different psychological constructs like reactance (Brehm 1966) or an increase in attractiveness (Gea, Messinger, and Li 2009) could be used to further explain the findings.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
PREFERENCE BRANDS AS PHANTOM ALTERNATIVES (STUDY 1)
APPENDIX A1 CONTROL GROUP
APPENDIX A2 EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
APPENDIX B
EXPECTED CHOICE SHARES UNDER THE LUCE MODEL
)
EL(SS) - expected choice share of the similar substitute under the Luce Model in the second decision situation (P is out-of-stock),
O1(SS) - observed choice share of the similar substitute in the first decision situation, O1(DSn) - observed choice share of the dissimilar substitute n in the first decision
situation, n=(1,2),
O1(P) - observed choice share of the preference product in the first decision situation.
APPENDIX C
PROMOTION-INDUCED SHIFTS IN THE ATTRIBUTE SPACE (STUDY 2)
APPENDIX C1 SIMILAR SUBSTITUTE ON PROMOTION
APPENDIX C2 FAR SUBSTITUTE ON PROMOTION
APPENDIX C3 EXTREME SUBSTITUTE ON PROMOTION
REFERENCES
Antil, John H. (1984), "Conceptualization and Operationalization of Involvement,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, ed. Thomas C. Kinnear, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 203–09.
Bellizzi, Joseph A., Harry F. Kruckeberg, John R. Hamilton, and Warren S. Martin (1981),
"Consumer Perceptions of National, Private, and Generic Brands," Journal of Retailing, 57 (Winter), 56–70.
Bettman, James R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bhargava, Mukesh, John Kim, and Rajendra K. Srivastava (2000), “Explaining Context Effects on Choice Using a Model of Comparative Judgment,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9 (3), 167–77.
Blattberg, Robert C., Gary D. Eppen, and Joshua Lieberman (1981), “A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Price Deals for Consumer Nondurables,” Journal of Marketing, 45 (1), 116–29.
Blattberg, Robert C. and Abel P. Jeuland (1981), “A Micro-Modeling Approach to Determine the Advertising Sales Relationship,” Management Science, 27 (9), 988–1004.
Brehm, Jack W. (1966), A Theory of Psychological Reactance, New York: Academic Press.
Breugelmans, Els, Katia Campo, and Els Gijsbrechts (2006), “Opportunities for Active Stock-out Management in Online Stores: The Impact of the Stock-Stock-out Policy on Online Stock-Stock-out Reactions,” Journal of Retailing, 82 (3), 215–28.
Campo, Katia, Els Gijsbrechts, and Patricia Nisol (2000), “Towards Understanding Consumer Response to Stock-Outs,” Journal of Retailing, 76 (2), 219–42.
_______ (2003), “The Impact of Retailer Stockouts on Whether, How Much, and What to Buy,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20 (3), 273–86.
_______ (2004), “Dynamics in Consumer Response to Product Unavailability: Do Stock-out Reactions Signal Response to Permanent Assortment Reductions?” Journal of Business Research, 57 (8), 834–43.
Cohen, Joel B. and Kunal Basu (1987), “Alternative Models of Categorization: Toward a Contingent Processing Framework,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (4), 455–73.
Dadzie, Kofi Q. and Evelyn Winston (2007), "Consumer Response to Stock-out in the Online Supply Chain," International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 37 (1), 19–42.
Debreu, Gerard (1960), “Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis,” The American Economic Review, 50 (1), 186–88.
Dowling, Grahame R. and Richard Staelin (1994), “A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk-Handling Activity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 119–34.
Doyle, John R., David J. O‟Connor, Gareth M. Reynolds, and Paul A. Bottomley (1999),
“The Robustness of the Asymmetrically Dominated Effect: Buying Frames, Phantom Alternatives, and In-Store Purchases,” Psychology and Marketing, 16 (3), 225–43.
ECR Europe and Roland Berger (2003), ECR – Optimal Shelf Availability – Increasing Shopper Satisfaction at the Moment of Truth.
Emmelhainz, Margaret A., James R. Stock, and Larry W. Emmelhainz (1991), “Consumer Responses to Retail Stock-Outs,” Journal of Retailing, 67 (2), 138–47.
Farquhar, Peter H. and Anthony R. Pratkanis (1993), “Decision Structuring with Phantom Alternatives,” Management Science, 39 (10), 1214–26.
Fitzsimons, Gavan J. (2000), “Consumer Response to Stockouts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (2), 249–66.
Fox, Edward J. and Stephen J. Hoch (2005), “Cherry-Picking,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (1), 46–62.
Gea, Xin, Paul R.Messinger,and Jin Li (2009), “Influence of Soldout Products on Consumer Choice,” Journal of Retailing, 85 (9), 274–87.
Gierl, Heribert and Christina Eleftheriadou (2005), “Asymmetrisch überlegene Stockouts als Phantomprodukte,“ ZfbF - Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 57 (9), 475–502.
Gupta, Sunil (1988), “Impact of Sales Promotion on When, What, and How Much to Buy,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (4), 342–55.
Heath, Timothy B., Gangseog Ryu, Subimal Chatterjee, Michael S. McCarthy, David L.
Mothersbaugh, Sandra Milberg, and Gary J. Gaeth (2000), “Asymmetric Competition in Choice and the Leveraging of Competitive Disadvantages,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (3), 291–308.
Hedgcock, William, Akshay R. Rao, and Haipeng A. Chen (2009), “Could Ralph Nader‟s Entrance and Exit Have Helped Al Gore? The Impact of Decoy Dynamics on Consumer Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (3), 330–43.
Hegenbart, Thomas (2009), Kundenverhalten bei Nichtverfügbarkeit von Artikeln im Einzelhandel – Einflussfaktoren, Konsequenzen und Implikationen, Lohmar: JOSEF EUL VERLAG.
Highhouse, Scott (1996), “Context-Dependent Selection: The Effects of Decoy and Phantom Job Candidates,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65 (1), 68–76.
Houston, Michael J. and Michael L. Rothschild (1978), "A Paradigm for Research on Consumer Involvement," unpublished working paper No. 11-77-46, Graduate School of Business, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Hoyer, Wayne D. (1984), “An Examination of Consumer Decision Making for a Common Repeat Purchase Product,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (3), 822–29.
Huber, Joel, John W. Payne, and Christopher Puto (1982), “Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (1), 90–98.
Huber, Joel and Christopher Puto (1983), “Market Boundaries and Product Choice:
Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (1), 31–44.
Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica, 47 (2), 263–92.
Karakaya, Fahri (2000), “Market Exit and Barriers to Exit: Theory and Practice,” Psychology and Marketing, 17 (8), 651–68.
Luce, R. Duncan (1959), Individual Choice Behavior – A Theoretical Analysis, New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
McFadden, Daniel (1980), “Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice Among Products,”
The Journal of Business, 53 (3), 13–29.
Parducci, Allen (1965), “Category Judgment: A Range-Frequency Model,” Psychological Review, 72 (6), 407–18.
Payne, John W., James R. Bettman, and Eric J. Johnson (1992), “Behavioral Decision Research: A Constructive Processing Perspective,” Annual Review of Psychology, 43 (1), 87–131.
Peckham, James. O. (1963), “The consumer speaks,” Journal of Marketing, 27 (4), 21–26.
Pettibone, Jonathan C. and Douglas H. Wedell (2000), “Examining Models of Nondominated Decoy Effects across Judgment and Choice,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81 (2), 300–28.
_______ (2007), “Testing Alternative Explanations of Phantom Decoy Effects,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 323–41.
Pratkanis, Anthony R. and Peter H. Farquhar (1992), “A brief history of research on phantom alternatives: Evidence for seven empirical generalizations about phantoms,” Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13 (1), 103–22.
Rayport, Jeffrey F. and Bernard J. Jaworski (2001), e-Commerce, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin Marketspace.
Richardson, Paul S., Alan S. Dick, and Arun K. Jain (1994), “Extrinsic and Intrinsic Cue Effects on Perceptions of Store Brand Quality,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (4), 28–36.
Scarpi, Daniele (2008), “The impact of decoys and background information on consumers‟
preferences and decision making,” The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 18 (1), 1–15.
Sheng, Shibin, Andrew M. Parker, and Kent Nakamoto (2005), “Understanding the Mechanism and Determinants of Compromise Effects,” Psychology and Marketing, 22 (7), 591–609.
Shugan, Steven M. (1980), “The Cost of Thinking,” Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (2), 99–111.
Simonson, Itamar (1989), “Choice based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (2), 158–74.
Sloot, Laurens M., Peter C. Verhoef, and Philip H. Franses (2005), “The Impact of Brand Equity and the Hedonic Level of Products on Consumer Stock-outReactions,” Journal of Retailing, 81 (1), 15–34.
Tversky, Amos (1972), “Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice,” Psychological Review, 79 (4), 281–99.
_______ (1977), “Features of similarity,“ Psychological Review, 84 (4), 327–52.
Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman (1991), “Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106 (4), 1039–61.
Tversky, Amos, Shmuel Sattath, and Paul Slovic (1988), “Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice,” Psychological Review, 95 (3), 371-84.
Tversky, Amos and Itamar Simonson (1993), “Context-Dependent Preferences,” Management Science, 39 (10), 1179–89.
van Heerde, Harald J., Sachin Gupta, and Dick R. Wittink (2003), “Is 75% of the Sales Promotion Bump Due to Brand Switching? No, Only 33% Is,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (4), 481–91.
Verbeke, Willem, Paul Farris, and Roy Thurik (1998), “Consumer Response to the Preferred Brand Out-of-stock Situation,” European Journal of Marketing, 32 (11/12), 1008–28.
Wiebach, Nicole and Lutz Hildebrandt (2011), “Explaining Customers‟ Switching Patterns to Brand Delisting,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, forthcoming.
Zinn, Walter and Peter C. Liu (2001), “Consumer Response to Retail Stockouts,” Journal of Business Logistics, 22 (1), 49–71.
TABLES
TABLE 1
INITIAL CHOICE SETS
Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Experiment 3 Experiment 4
Detergent Orange juice Restaurant Hotel
(n = 451) (n = 793) (n = 878) (n = 1210)
Pricea Qualityb Pricec Qualityd Pricee Qualityf Priceg Qualityh
Brand A 6.69€ 90 1.28€ 80 24€ 8 120€ 8
Brand B 5.99€ 80 1.12€ 70 21€ 7 105€ 7
Brand C 3.49€ 50 0.80€ 50 12€ 4 60€ 4
Brand D 2.85€ 40 0.64€ 40 9€ 3 45€ 3
a Price for 18 loads, c price per liter, e price per meal including one drink, g price per night, including breakfast
b Quality was operationalized by quality points awarded by a product test foundation with regard to cleaning power, color protection and ecological ingredients (100-highest quality, 0-lowest quality).
d Quality was operationalized by quality points awarded by a product test foundation with regard to flavor, fruit juice content, sugar content, no harmful substances (100-highest quality, 0- lowest quality).
f Quality Ranking (10-highest quality, 0- lowest quality).
h Quality was operationalized by quality points awarded by an evaluation portal with regard to cleanliness, location and surrounding area, facilities, service and staff (10-highest quality, 0- lowest quality).
TABLE 2
INITIAL CHOICE (PREFERENCE PRODUCT, STUDY 1)
Experiment Group n Brand A
nominal (ratio)
Brand B nominal (ratio)
Brand C nominal (ratio)
Brand D nominal (ratio) Experiment 1
(detergent)
Control Group 224 18.3% (22.86) 36.6% (34.09) 37.9% (30.33) 7.1% (12.71) Experimental Group 227 15.0% (20.61) 40.5% (35.50) 36.1% (31,81) 8.4% (12.08) Experiment 2
(orange juice)
Control Group 336 52.4% (47.13) 33.6% (30.05) 10.7% (15.40) 3.3% (7.43) Experimental Group 457 49.5% (45.26) 33.5% (32.14) 13.3% (15.15) 3.7% (7.45) Experiment 3
(restaurant)
Control Group 455 13.2% (18.44) 40.0% (36.29) 39.8% (33.00) 7.0% (12.26) Experimental Group 423 12.8% (17.67) 43.5% (34.92) 36.6% (34.72) 7.1% (12.69) Experiment 4
(hotel)
Control Group 461 4.8% (9.41) 22.8% (23.35) 41.6% (35.51) 30.8% (31.73) Experimental Group 749 5.2% (9.31) 28.3% (27.03) 37.1% (34.32) 29.4% (29.33)
TABLE 3
1 figures in bold indicate that the effect is significant at p < .01and in the expected direction
TABLE 4
INITIAL CHOICE (PREFERENCE PRODUCT, STUDY 2)
Experiment Group n Brand A nominal (ratio)
Brand B nominal (ratio)
Brand C nominal (ratio)
Brand D nominal (ratio) Experiment 5
(detergent)
SS 438 13.7% (19.70) 37.2% (32.88) 40.0% (32.05) 9.1% (15.37) FS 260 11.5% (18.21) 37.3% (34.17) 39.2% (31.98) 11.9% (15.63) ES 262 15.3% (22.47) 37.0% (32.20) 38.5% (30.66) 9.2% (14.67)
Experiment 6 (hotel)
SS 235 3.8% (11.88 ) 31.9% (29.71) 40.0% (32.55) 24.3% (25.85) FS 230 3.5% (11.26) 36.1% (29.58) 34.3% (31.68) 26.1% (27.47) ES 190 7.4% (15.57) 30.5% (28.09) 33.7% (28.78) 28.4% (27.55)
TABLE 5
OBSERVED VERSUS EXPECTED CHOICE SHARES (SS, FS AND ES WITH ROTATING PROMOTION PRODUCT)
Experiment 1
a Similar substitute (SS) on promotion
b Far substitute (FS) on promotion
c Extreme substitute (ES) on promotion
nsnot significant
1 figures in bold indicate that the effect is significant at p < .01and in the expected direction
FIGURES
FIGURE 1
SIMILARITY EFFECT, ATTRACTION EFFECT AND COMPROMISE EFFECT
FIGURE 1.1 SIMILARITY EFFECT
FIGURE 1.2 ATTRACTION EFFECT
FIGURE 1.3 COMPROMISE EFFECT
FIGURE 2
NEGATIVE SIMILARITY EFFECT, ASYMMETRICALLY DOMINATING AND RELATIVELY SUPERIOR PHANTOM
FIGURE 2.1 NEGATIVE SIMILARITY EFFECT
FIGURE 2.2 ASYMMETRICALLY DOMINATING PHANTOM
FIGURE 2.3 RELATIVELY SUPERIOR PHANTOM
FIGURE 3
ASYMMETRICALLY DOMINATED AND RELATIVELY INFERIOR PHANTOM
FIGURE 3.1
RELATIVELY INFERIOR PHANTOM
FIGURE 3.2
ASYMMETRICALLY DOMINATED PHANTOM
FIGURE 4
ASYMMETRICALLY DOMINATED AND RELATIVELY INFERIOR DECOY
FIGURE 4.1
ASYMMETRICALLY DOMINATED DECOY
FIGURE 4.2
RELATIVELY INFERIOR DECOY
FIGURE 5
INITIAL ATTRIBUTE SPACE
001 "Localising temperature risk" by Wolfgang Karl Härdle, Brenda López Cabrera, Ostap Okhrin and Weining Wang, January 2011.
002 "A Confidence Corridor for Sparse Longitudinal Data Curves" by Shuzhuan Zheng, Lijian Yang and Wolfgang Karl Härdle, January 2011.
003 "Mean Volatility Regressions" by Lu Lin, Feng Li, Lixing Zhu and Wolfgang Karl Härdle, January 2011.
004 "A Confidence Corridor for Expectile Functions" by Esra Akdeniz Duran, Mengmeng Guo and Wolfgang Karl Härdle, January 2011.
005 "Local Quantile Regression" by Wolfgang Karl Härdle, Vladimir Spokoiny and Weining Wang, January 2011.
006 "Sticky Information and Determinacy" by Alexander Meyer-Gohde, January 2011.
007 "Mean-Variance Cointegration and the Expectations Hypothesis" by Till Strohsal and Enzo Weber, February 2011.
008 "Monetary Policy, Trend Inflation and Inflation Persistence" by Fang Yao, February 2011.
009 "Exclusion in the All-Pay Auction: An Experimental Investigation" by Dietmar Fehr and Julia Schmid, February 2011.
010 "Unwillingness to Pay for Privacy: A Field Experiment" by Alastair R.
Beresford, Dorothea Kübler and Sören Preibusch, February 2011.
011 "Human Capital Formation on Skill-Specific Labor Markets" by Runli Xie, February 2011.
012 "A strategic mediator who is biased into the same direction as the expert can improve information transmission" by Lydia Mechtenberg and Johannes Münster, March 2011.
013 "Spatial Risk Premium on Weather Derivatives and Hedging Weather Exposure in Electricity" by Wolfgang Karl Härdle and Maria Osipenko, March 2011.
014 "Difference based Ridge and Liu type Estimators in Semiparametric Regression Models" by Esra Akdeniz Duran, Wolfgang Karl Härdle and Maria Osipenko, March 2011.
015 "Short-Term Herding of Institutional Traders: New Evidence from the German Stock Market" by Stephanie Kremer and Dieter Nautz, March 2011.
016 "Oracally Efficient Two-Step Estimation of Generalized Additive Model"
by Rong Liu, Lijian Yang and Wolfgang Karl Härdle, March 2011.
017 "The Law of Attraction: Bilateral Search and Horizontal Heterogeneity"
by Dirk Hofmann and Salmai Qari, March 2011.
018 "Can crop yield risk be globally diversified?" by Xiaoliang Liu, Wei Xu and Martin Odening, March 2011.
019 "What Drives the Relationship Between Inflation and Price Dispersion?
Market Power vs. Price Rigidity" by Sascha Becker, March 2011.
020 "How Computational Statistics Became the Backbone of Modern Data Science" by James E. Gentle, Wolfgang Härdle and Yuichi Mori, May 2011.
021 "Customer Reactions in Out-of-Stock Situations – Do promotion-induced phantom positions alleviate the similarity substitution hypothesis?" by Jana Luisa Diels and Nicole Wiebach, May 2011.
For a complete list of Discussion Papers published by the SFB 649, please visit http://sfb649.wiwi.hu-berlin.de.
SFB 649, Spandauer Str. 1, D-10178 Berlin http://sfb649.wiwi.hu-berlin.de This research was supported by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft through the SFB 649 "Economic Risk".
022 "Extreme value models in a conditional duration intensity framework" by Rodrigo Herrera and Bernhard Schipp, May 2011.
023 "Forecasting Corporate Distress in the Asian and Pacific Region" by Russ Moro, Wolfgang Härdle, Saeideh Aliakbari and Linda Hoffmann, May 2011.
024 "Identifying the Effect of Temporal Work Flexibility on Parental Time with Children" by Juliane Scheffel, May 2011.
025 "How do Unusual Working Schedules Affect Social Life?" by Juliane Scheffel, May 2011.
026 "Compensation of Unusual Working Schedules" by Juliane Scheffel, May 2011.
027 "Estimation of the characteristics of a Lévy process observed at arbitrary frequency" by Johanna Kappus and Markus Reiß, May 2011.
028 "Asymptotic equivalence and sufficiency for volatility estimation under microstructure noise" by Markus Reiß, May 2011.
029 "Pointwise adaptive estimation for quantile regression" by Markus Reiß, Yves Rozenholc and Charles A. Cuenod, May 2011.
030 "Developing web-based tools for the teaching of statistics: Our Wikis and the German Wikipedia" by Sigbert Klinke, May 2011.
031 "What Explains the German Labor Market Miracle in the Great Recession?" by Michael C. Burda and Jennifer Hunt, June 2011.
032 "The information content of central bank interest rate projections:
Evidence from New Zealand" by Gunda-Alexandra Detmers and Dieter Nautz, June 2011.
033 "Asymptotics of Asynchronicity" by Markus Bibinger, June 2011.
034 "An estimator for the quadratic covariation of asynchronously observed Itô processes with noise: Asymptotic distribution theory" by Markus Bibinger, June 2011.
035 "The economics of TARGET2 balances" by Ulrich Bindseil and Philipp Johann König, June 2011.
036 "An Indicator for National Systems of Innovation - Methodology and Application to 17 Industrialized Countries" by Heike Belitz, Marius Clemens, Christian von Hirschhausen, Jens Schmidt-Ehmcke, Axel Werwatz and Petra Zloczysti, June 2011.
037 "Neurobiology of value integration: When value impacts valuation" by Soyoung Q. Park, Thorsten Kahnt, Jörg Rieskamp and Hauke R.
Heekeren, June 2011.
038 "The Neural Basis of Following Advice" by Guido Biele, Jörg Rieskamp, Lea K. Krugel and Hauke R. Heekeren, June 2011.
039 "The Persistence of "Bad" Precedents and the Need for Communication:
A Coordination Experiment" by Dietmar Fehr, June 2011.
040 "News-driven Business Cycles in SVARs" by Patrick Bunk, July 2011.
041 "The Basel III framework for liquidity standards and monetary policy implementation" by Ulrich Bindseil and Jeroen Lamoot, July 2011.
042 "Pollution permits, Strategic Trading and Dynamic Technology Adoption"
by Santiago Moreno-Bromberg and Luca Taschini, July 2011.
043 "CRRA Utility Maximization under Risk Constraints" by Santiago Moreno-Bromberg, Traian A. Pirvu and Anthony Réveillac, July 2011.
For a complete list of Discussion Papers published by the SFB 649, please visit http://sfb649.wiwi.hu-berlin.de.
SFB 649, Spandauer Str. 1, D-10178 Berlin http://sfb649.wiwi.hu-berlin.de This research was supported by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft through the SFB 649 "Economic Risk".
044 "Predicting Bid-Ask Spreads Using Long Memory Autoregressive Conditional Poisson Models" by Axel Groß-Klußmann and Nikolaus Hautsch, July 2011.
045 "Bayesian Networks and Sex-related Homicides" by Stephan Stahlschmidt, Helmut Tausendteufel and Wolfgang K. Härdle, July 2011.
046 “The Regulation of Interdependent Markets“, by Raffaele Fiocco and Carlo Scarpa, July 2011.
047 “Bargaining and Collusion in a Regulatory Model“, by Raffaele Fiocco and Mario Gilli, July 2011.
048 “Large Vector Auto Regressions“, by Song Song and Peter J. Bickel, August 2011.
049 “Monetary Policy, Determinacy, and the Natural Rate Hypothesis“, by Alexander Meyer-Gohde, August 2011.
050 “The impact of context and promotion on consumer responses and preferences in out-of-stock situations“, by Nicole Wiebach and Jana L.
Diels, August 2011.
For a complete list of Discussion Papers published by the SFB 649, please visit http://sfb649.wiwi.hu-berlin.de.
SFB 649, Spandauer Str. 1, D-10178 Berlin http://sfb649.wiwi.hu-berlin.de This research was supported by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft through the SFB 649 "Economic Risk".