IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/transp/v44y2017i2d10.1007_s11116-015-9642-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in probability weighting for individual travelers: a managed lane choice application

Author

Listed:
  • Chao Huang

    (C&M Associates)

  • Mark Burris

    (Texas A&M University)

  • W. Douglass Shaw

    (Texas A&M University)

Abstract

Using a 2012 stated preference survey based on a traveler’s most recent actual trip, this study predicts traveler choices between general purpose lanes and managed lanes for a freeway in Houston, Texas. The choice model incorporates probability weighting for risky travel times. The results indicate significant improvement in predicative power over a model that excludes weighting, confirming non-linearity in the probability weighting function. The maximum value of time (VOT) measures calculated in this study are lower than estimated in many previous route choice studies. This highlights the importance of incorporating individual weights for travel risks. Travelers’ underweighting of travel time risks would help explain the lower VOTs found in our study because respondents consider route choice decision-making as a gamble, but assign their own probabilities of occurrence to arriving at their destination on time, late, or early. We find that traveler groups are heterogeneous and the different weights developed for different groups of travelers can be used to better understand their probabilities. Segmentation analysis indicates that Age may serve to proxy the effects of more experience over time, or changing driving abilities, or changes in one’s sense of optimism or pessimism at different ages. Gender and Income also play a role in how the objective probabilities presented to respondents were translated into subjective probabilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Chao Huang & Mark Burris & W. Douglass Shaw, 2017. "Differences in probability weighting for individual travelers: a managed lane choice application," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 375-393, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:44:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11116-015-9642-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11116-015-9642-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11116-015-9642-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11116-015-9642-x?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. Erel Avineri, 2006. "The Effect of Reference Point on Stochastic Network Equilibrium," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(4), pages 409-420, November.
    2. Wayne S. DeSarbo & Kamel Jedidi & Indrajit Sinha, 2001. "Customer value analysis in a heterogeneous market," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(9), pages 845-857, September.
    3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    4. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A. & Rose, John, 2006. "Accounting for heterogeneity in the variance of unobserved effects in mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 75-92, January.
    5. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
    6. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    7. Guotao Hu & Aruna Sivakumar & John Polak, 2012. "Modelling travellers’ risky choice in a revealed preference context: a comparison of EUT and non-EUT approaches," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 825-841, July.
    8. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    10. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    11. Devarasetty, Prem Chand & Burris, Mark & Douglass Shaw, W., 2012. "The value of travel time and reliability-evidence from a stated preference survey and actual usage," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1227-1240.
    12. George Wu & Richard Gonzalez, 1996. "Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(12), pages 1676-1690, December.
    13. Sunil Patil & Mark Burris & W. Douglass Shaw & Sisinnio Concas, 2011. "Variation in the value of travel time savings and its impact on the benefits of managed lanes," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(6), pages 547-567, June.
    14. Connors, Richard D. & Sumalee, Agachai, 2009. "A network equilibrium model with travellers' perception of stochastic travel times," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 614-624, July.
    15. Hensher, David A. & Rose, John M., 2007. "Development of commuter and non-commuter mode choice models for the assessment of new public transport infrastructure projects: A case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 428-443, June.
    16. Train, Kenneth & Wilson, Wesley W., 2008. "Estimation on stated-preference experiments constructed from revealed-preference choices," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 191-203, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Li, Baibing & Hensher, David A., 2017. "Risky weighting in discrete choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 1-21.
    2. Dixit, Vinayak V. & Harb, Rami C. & Martínez-Correa, Jimmy & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2015. "Measuring risk aversion to guide transportation policy: Contexts, incentives, and respondents," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 15-34.
    3. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    4. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    5. Jou, Rong-Chang & Chen, Ke-Hong, 2013. "An application of cumulative prospect theory to freeway drivers’ route choice behaviours," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 123-131.
    6. Aleksandr Alekseev, 2022. "Give me a challenge or give me a raise," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 170-202, February.
    7. Arjan Verschoor & Ben D’Exelle, 2022. "Probability weighting for losses and for gains among smallholder farmers in Uganda," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 223-258, February.
    8. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    9. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    10. Kemel, Emmanuel & Paraschiv, Corina, 2013. "Prospect Theory for joint time and money consequences in risk and ambiguity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 81-95.
    11. Andrea C. Hupman & Jay Simon, 2023. "The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, March.
    12. Andreas Glöckner & Baiba Renerte & Ulrich Schmidt, 2020. "Violations of coalescing in parametric utility measurement," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(4), pages 471-501, November.
    13. Jinrui Pan & Craig S. Webb & Horst Zank, 2019. "Delayed probabilistic risk attitude: a parametric approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(2), pages 201-232, September.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:2:p:246-253 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Richard Peter & Marc A. Ragin, 2023. "Probability weighting and insurance demand in a unified framework," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 48(1), pages 63-109, March.
    16. Steven M. Shechter & David J. Hardisty, 2020. "Preferences for rank in competition: Is first-place seeking stronger than last-place aversion?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(2), pages 246-253, March.
    17. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán González, 2023. "You Will not Regret it: On the Practice of Randomized Incentives," Working Papers 2314, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    18. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    19. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    20. Kerim Keskin, 2016. "Inverse S-shaped probability weighting functions in first-price sealed-bid auctions," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 20(1), pages 57-67, March.
    21. Ariane Charpin, 2018. "Tests des modèles de décision en situation de risque. Le cas des parieurs hippiques en France," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 69(5), pages 779-803.

    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:kap:transp:v:44:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11116-015-9642-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.