IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Regret minimization or utility maximization: it depends on the attribute

Listed author(s):
  • Caspar G Chorus
  • John M Rose
  • David A Hensher

In this study we show how the coexistence of different decision rules can be accommodated in discrete choice models. Specifically, in this paper we present a generic hybrid model specification that allows for some attributes being processed using conventional linear-additive utility-maximization-based rules, while others are being processed using regret-minimization-based rules. We show that on two revealed and stated choice datasets particular specifications of hybrid models, containing both regret-based and utility-based attribute decision rules, outperform—in terms of model fit and out-of-sample predictive ability—choice models where all attributes are assumed to be processed by means of one and the same decision rule. However, in our data differences between models are very small. Implications, in terms of marginal willingness-to-pay measures (WtP), are derived for the different hybrid model specifications and applied in the context of the two datasets. It is found that in the context of our data hybrid WtP measures differ substantially from conventional utility-based WtP measures, and that the hybrid WtP specifications allow for a richer (choice-set-specific) interpretation of the trade-offs that people make. Keywords: random regret, random utility, hybrid choice models, willingness to pay

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: abstract
Download Restriction: Fulltext access restricted to subscribers, see for details

File URL:
File Function: main text
Download Restriction: Fulltext access restricted to subscribers, see for details

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Pion Ltd, London in its journal Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design.

Volume (Year): 40 (2013)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
Pages: 154-169

in new window

Handle: RePEc:pio:envirb:v:40:y:2013:i:1:p:154-169
Contact details of provider: Web page:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pio:envirb:v:40:y:2013:i:1:p:154-169. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Neil Hammond)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.