Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
Latent-Class Choice Segmentation/Evidence
Method evidence record

Latent-Class Choice Segmentation

Latent-class choice segmentation estimates consumer market segments and their preferences at the same time, by fitting a finite mixture of discrete-choice models to individual purchase or choice data. Wagner Kamakura and Gary Russell introduced the approach in their 1989 Journal of Marketing Research paper, which fit a probabilistic choice model whose latent segments differ in both brand preference and price sensitivity, yielding a unified picture of market structure and elasticities. Rather than clustering consumers first and modeling choice afterward, the method treats segment membership as an unobserved (latent) variable and recovers it jointly with the segment-level choice parameters by maximum likelihood. Each segment is a multinomial logit model with its own coefficient vector, and the mixing proportions describe how large each segment is. Michel Wedel and Wagner Kamakura's authoritative monograph later codified the finite-mixture framework as the methodological backbone of model-based market segmentation. The result links the pattern of brand switching to the magnitudes of own- and cross-price elasticities, giving managers a behaviorally grounded segmentation tied directly to demand response.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Source record

Citations copied verbatim from the method’s source record. No claim-level verification is inferred from them.

Latent-Class Choice Segmentation (Finite-Mixture Multinomial Logit Models)
Taxonomic method record · latent-structure / marketing-science
  • Kamakura, W. A., & Russell, G. J. (1989). A Probabilistic Choice Model for Market Segmentation and Elasticity Structure. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(4), 379-390. · DOI 10.1177/002224378902600401
  • Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W. A. (2000). Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations (2nd ed.). Springer (Kluwer Academic). · ISBN 9781461371045
Open full method

Curated claims

Claims persisted in the evidence ledger, each with its own assessment.

No curated claims yet

This view does not invent a claim assessment when the ledger has none.

Related methods

Generated from the method graph and shown as machine-suggested relations — no evidence claim is inferred.

See alsoHierarchical Bayes Choice Modelmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Used in the same domainPerceptual Mappingmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Used in the same domainTURF Analysismachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Evidence status

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Sources

2 recorded citations, copied from the method source record.

Actions

Open method page
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account