IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transb/v40y2006i9p807-825.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A discrete choice model incorporating thresholds for perception in attribute values

Author

Listed:
  • Cantillo, Víctor
  • Heydecker, Benjamin
  • de Dios Ortúzar, Juan

Abstract

In this paper we formulate a discrete choice model that incorporates thresholds in the perception of changes in attribute values. The model considers multiple options and allows for changes in several attributes. We postulate that if thresholds exist they could be random, differ between individuals, and even be a function of socio-economic characteristics and choice conditions. Our formulation allows estimation of the parameters of the threshold probability distribution starting from information about choices. The model is applied to synthetic data and also to real data from a stated preference survey. We found that where perception thresholds exist in the population, the use of models without them leads to errors in estimation and prediction. Clearly, the effect is more relevant when the typical size of change in the attribute value is comparable with the threshold, and when the contribution of this attribute in the utility function is substantial. Finally, we discuss the implications of the threshold model for estimation of the benefits of transport investments, and show that where thresholds exist, models that do not represent them can overestimate benefits substantially.

Suggested Citation

  • Cantillo, Víctor & Heydecker, Benjamin & de Dios Ortúzar, Juan, 2006. "A discrete choice model incorporating thresholds for perception in attribute values," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 807-825, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transb:v:40:y:2006:i:9:p:807-825
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191-2615(05)00135-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Gaudry, Marc J. I. & Jara-Diaz, Sergio R. & Ortuzar, Juan de Dios, 1989. "Value of time sensitivity to model specification," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 151-158, April.
    2. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    3. Williams, H. C. W. L. & Ortuzar, J. D., 1982. "Behavioural theories of dispersion and the mis-specification of travel demand models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 167-219, June.
    4. K. S. Krishnan, 1977. "Incorporating Thresholds of Indifference in Probabilistic Choice Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(11), pages 1224-1233, July.
    5. Munizaga, Marcela A. & Heydecker, Benjamin G. & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2000. "Representation of heteroskedasticity in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 219-240, April.
    6. H C W L Williams, 1977. "On the Formation of Travel Demand Models and Economic Evaluation Measures of User Benefit," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 9(3), pages 285-344, March.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    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. P.B. Goodwin, 1977. "Habit and Hysteresis in Mode Choice," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 14(1), pages 95-98, February.
    10. Li, Chin-Shang & Hunt, Daniel, 2004. "Regression splines for threshold selection with application to a random-effects logistic dose-response model," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 1-9, May.
    11. Swait, Joffre, 2001. "A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cutoffs," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 903-928, November.
    12. Cantillo, Víctor & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2005. "A semi-compensatory discrete choice model with explicit attribute thresholds of perception," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 641-657, August.
    13. Timothy J. Gilbride & Greg M. Allenby, 2004. "A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Rules," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 391-406, October.
    14. Kitamura, Ryuichi, 1990. "Panel Analysis in Transportation Planning: An Overview," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt86v0f7zh, University of California Transportation Center.
    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. Cantillo, Víctor & Amaya, Johanna & Ortúzar, J. de D., 2010. "Thresholds and indifference in stated choice surveys," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 753-763, July.
    2. 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).
    3. Cantillo, Víctor & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2005. "A semi-compensatory discrete choice model with explicit attribute thresholds of perception," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 641-657, August.
    4. Cascetta, Ennio & Papola, Andrea, 2009. "Dominance among alternatives in random utility models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 170-179, February.
    5. Evangelinos, Christos & Tscharaktschiew, Stefan & Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio, 2018. "Pricing workplace parking via cash-out: Effects on modal choice and implications for transport policy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 369-380.
    6. Espino, Raquel & de Dios Ortúzar, Juan & Román, Concepción, 2007. "Understanding suburban travel demand: Flexible modelling with revealed and stated choice data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 899-912, December.
    7. Kaye-Blake, William & Abell, Walter L. & Zellman, Eva, 2009. "Respondents’ ignoring of attribute information in a choice modelling survey," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-18.
    8. Swait, Joffre, 2009. "Choice models based on mixed discrete/continuous PDFs," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 766-783, August.
    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:3:p:260-279 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Dubey, Subodh & Cats, Oded & Hoogendoorn, Serge & Bansal, Prateek, 2022. "A multinomial probit model with Choquet integral and attribute cut-offs," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 140-163.
    12. Peter Stüttgen & Peter Boatwright & Robert T. Monroe, 2012. "A Satisficing Choice Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 878-899, November.
    13. Evert Jan van de Kaa, 2017. "Establishing the relevance of non-compensatory choice algorithms from stated choice surveys – an exploration," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(3), pages 260-279, May.
    14. Marisol Castro & Francisco Martínez & Marcela Munizaga, 2013. "Estimation of a constrained multinomial logit model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 563-581, May.
    15. Hess, Stephane & Hensher, David A., 2010. "Using conditioning on observed choices to retrieve individual-specific attribute processing strategies," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 781-790, July.
    16. Masiero, Lorenzo & Hensher, David A., 2010. "Analyzing loss aversion and diminishing sensitivity in a freight transport stated choice experiment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 349-358, June.
    17. Assele, Samson Yaekob & Meulders, Michel & Vandebroek, Martina, 2022. "The value of consideration data in a discrete choice experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    18. Michael Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "Comparing Alternative Models Of Heterogeneity In Consumer Choice Behavior," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 1018-1045, September.
    19. Trine Kjær & Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Kristian Hart‐Hansen, 2006. "Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(11), pages 1217-1228, November.
    20. Rose, John M. & Hensher, David A. & Caussade, Sebastian & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Jou, Rong-Chang, 2009. "Identifying differences in willingness to pay due to dimensionality in stated choice experiments: a cross country analysis," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 21-29.
    21. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:40:y:2006:i:9:p:807-825. 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.