IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transb/v107y2018icp18-40.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision field theory: Improvements to current methodology and comparisons with standard choice modelling techniques

Author

Listed:
  • Hancock, Thomas O.
  • Hess, Stephane
  • Choudhury, Charisma F.

Abstract

There is a growing interest in the travel behaviour modelling community in using alternative methods to capture the behavioural mechanisms that drive our transport choices. The traditional method has been Random Utility Maximisation (RUM) and recent interest has focussed on Random Regret Minimisation (RRM), but there are many other possibilities. Decision Field Theory (DFT), a dynamic model popular in mathematical psychology, has recently been put forward as a rival to RUM but has not yet been investigated in detail or compared against other competing models like RRM. This paper considers arguments in favour of using DFT, reviews how it has been used in transport literature so far and provides theoretical improvements to further the mechanisms behind DFT to better represent general decision making. In particular, we demonstrate how the probability of alternatives can be calculated after any number of timesteps in a DFT model. We then look at how to best operationalise DFT using simulated datasets, finding that it can cope with underlying preferences towards alternatives, can include socio-demographic variables and that it performs best when standard score normalisation is applied to the alternative attribute levels. We also present a detailed comparison of DFT and Multinomial Logit (MNL) models using stated preference route choice datasets and find that DFT achieves significantly better fit in estimation as well as forecasting. We also find that our theoretical improvement provides DFT with much greater flexibility and that there are numerous approaches that can be adopted to incorporate heterogeneity within a DFT model. In particular, random parameters vastly improve the model fit.

Suggested Citation

  • Hancock, Thomas O. & Hess, Stephane & Choudhury, Charisma F., 2018. "Decision field theory: Improvements to current methodology and comparisons with standard choice modelling techniques," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 18-40.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transb:v:107:y:2018:i:c:p:18-40
    DOI: 10.1016/j.trb.2017.11.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191261517303557
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.trb.2017.11.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guevara, C. Angelo & Fukushi, Mitsuyoshi, 2016. "Modeling the decoy effect with context-RUM Models: Diagrammatic analysis and empirical evidence from route choice SP and mode choice RP case studies," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 93(PA), pages 318-337.
    2. John D. Hey & Gianna Lotito & Anna Maffioletti, 2018. "The descriptive and predictive adequacy of theories of decision making under uncertainty/ambiguity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 8, pages 189-219, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    4. Uggeldahl, Kennet & Jacobsen, Catrine & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2016. "Choice certainty in Discrete Choice Experiments: Will eye tracking provide useful measures?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 35-48.
    5. Busemeyer, Jerome R. & Townsend, James T., 1992. "Fundamental derivations from decision field theory," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 255-282, June.
    6. Arne Henningsen & Ott Toomet, 2011. "maxLik: A package for maximum likelihood estimation in R," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 443-458, September.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:48-63 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Batley, Richard & Hess, Stephane, 2016. "Testing for regularity and stochastic transitivity using the structural parameter of nested logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 93(PA), pages 355-376.
    9. Chorus, Caspar G. & Arentze, Theo A. & Timmermans, Harry J.P., 2008. "A Random Regret-Minimization model of travel choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-18, January.
    10. Hess, Stephane & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2013. "A mixed random utility — Random regret model linking the choice of decision rule to latent character traits," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 27-38.
    11. Thomas Otter & Joe Johnson & Jörg Rieskamp & Greg Allenby & Jeff Brazell & Adele Diederich & J. Hutchinson & Steven MacEachern & Shiling Ruan & Jim Townsend, 2008. "Sequential sampling models of choice: Some recent advances," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 255-267, December.
    12. Frejinger, E. & Bierlaire, M., 2007. "Capturing correlation with subnetworks in route choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 363-378, March.
    13. Busemeyer, Jerome R. & Diederich, Adele, 2002. "Survey of decision field theory," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 345-370, July.
    14. Axhausen, Kay W. & Hess, Stephane & König, Arnd & Abay, Georg & Bates, John J. & Bierlaire, Michel, 2008. "Income and distance elasticities of values of travel time savings: New Swiss results," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 173-185, May.
    15. Dekker, Thijs, 2014. "Indifference based value of time measures for Random Regret Minimisation models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 10-20.
    16. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Guevara, Cristian Angelo & Chorus, Caspar G., 2015. "New insights on random regret minimization models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 91-109.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. David A. J. Meester & Stephane Hess & John Buckell & Thomas O. Hancock, 2023. "Can decision field theory enhance our understanding of health‐based choices? Evidence from risky health behaviors," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(8), pages 1710-1732, August.
    3. Hancock, Thomas O. & Hess, Stephane & Marley, A.A.J. & Choudhury, Charisma F., 2021. "An accumulation of preference: Two alternative dynamic models for understanding transport choices," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 250-282.
    4. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Collins, Andrew T., 2019. "New software tools for creating stated choice experimental designs efficient for regret minimisation and utility maximisation decision rules," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 104-123.
    5. Wang, Yongjie & Shen, Binchang & Wu, Hao & Wang, Chao & Su, Qian & Chen, Wenqiang, 2021. "Modeling illegal pedestrian crossing behaviors at unmarked mid-block roadway based on extended decision field theory," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 562(C).
    6. Szép, Teodóra & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Chorus, Caspar G., 2022. "Decision Field Theory: Equivalence with probit models and guidance for identifiability," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    7. Hancock, Thomas O. & Broekaert, Jan & Hess, Stephane & Choudhury, Charisma F., 2020. "Quantum probability: A new method for modelling travel behaviour," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 165-198.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hancock, Thomas O. & Broekaert, Jan & Hess, Stephane & Choudhury, Charisma F., 2020. "Quantum probability: A new method for modelling travel behaviour," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 165-198.
    2. Hancock, Thomas O. & Hess, Stephane & Marley, A.A.J. & Choudhury, Charisma F., 2021. "An accumulation of preference: Two alternative dynamic models for understanding transport choices," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 250-282.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid, 2019. "Laboratory experimentation and simulation of discrete direction choices: Investigating hypothetical bias, decision-rule effect and external validity based on aggregate prediction measures," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 134-157.
    4. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Chorus, Caspar G., 2018. "Does the decision rule matter for large-scale transport models?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 114(PB), pages 338-353.
    5. Szép, Teodóra & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Chorus, Caspar G., 2022. "Decision Field Theory: Equivalence with probit models and guidance for identifiability," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    6. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Rose, John M. & Chorus, Caspar G., 2018. "On the robustness of efficient experimental designs towards the underlying decision rule," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 50-64.
    7. Peng Jing & Mengxuan Zhao & Meiling He & Long Chen, 2018. "Travel Mode and Travel Route Choice Behavior Based on Random Regret Minimization: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-20, April.
    8. Geržinič, Nejc & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Cats, Oded & Lancsar, Emily & Chorus, Caspar, 2021. "Estimating decision rule differences between ‘best’ and ‘worst’ choices in a sequential best worst discrete choice experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    9. Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly & Richard Batley, 2018. "Revisiting consistency with random utility maximisation: theory and implications for practical work," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 181-204, March.
    10. Pan, Xiaofeng & Rasouli, Soora & Timmermans, Harry, 2019. "Modeling social influence using sequential stated adaptation experiments: A study of city trip itinerary choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 652-672.
    11. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid, 2018. "Hypothetical bias and decision-rule effect in modelling discrete directional choices," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 361-388.
    12. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Prato, Carlo G., 2016. "On the robustness of random regret minimization modelling outcomes towards omitted attributes," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 51-70.
    13. Gonzalez-Valdes, Felipe & Heydecker, Benjamin G. & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2022. "Quantifying behavioural difference in latent class models to assess empirical identifiability: Analytical development and application to multiple heuristics," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    14. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Guevara, Cristian Angelo & Chorus, Caspar G., 2015. "New insights on random regret minimization models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 91-109.
    15. John Buckell & Vrinda Vasavada & Sarah Wordsworth & Dean A. Regier & Matthew Quaife, 2022. "Utility maximization versus regret minimization in health choice behavior: Evidence from four datasets," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 363-381, February.
    16. Gonzalez-Valdes, Felipe & Raveau, Sebastián, 2018. "Identifying the presence of heterogeneous discrete choice heuristics at an individual level," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 28-40.
    17. Ziyue Zhu & 'Alvaro A. Guti'errez-Vargas & Martina Vandebroek, 2023. "Fitting mixed logit random regret minimization models using maximum simulated likelihood," Papers 2301.01091, arXiv.org.
    18. Mai, Tien & Bastin, Fabian & Frejinger, Emma, 2017. "On the similarities between random regret minimization and mother logit: The case of recursive route choice models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 21-33.
    19. Balbontin, Camila & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2019. "How to better represent preferences in choice models: The contributions to preference heterogeneity attributable to the presence of process heterogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 218-248.
    20. Guevara, C. Angelo & Fukushi, Mitsuyoshi, 2016. "Modeling the decoy effect with context-RUM Models: Diagrammatic analysis and empirical evidence from route choice SP and mode choice RP case studies," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 93(PA), pages 318-337.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transb:v:107:y:2018:i:c:p:18-40. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/548/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.